Customer Reviews

Sociology in Our Times

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

This book not only seems to be written for highschool students, it's also prone to extreme bouts of oversimplification and pandering to the "oppressed minority" crowd.

Oversimplification: upon reaching the topic of psychology, they manage to sum Freud up in one paragraph. Not only that, it's a paragraph that feels like it was cribbed from the back of a cereal box. Not only that, what they give is a stereotype of his "id/ego/superego" idea - nothing more. No, for example, Civilization and its Discontents, or Totem and Taboo - I guess they have nothing to do with Sociological theory in any way. Not only that, they then sum up one other important thinker in another paragraph, and then ignore all the rest of psychology that's ever happened.

Pandering: I actually wanted to start a drinking game for each time they mention "race/ethnicity, gender, and class". But then, at chapter 5, they drop "race" and just use "ethnicity, gender and class". This phrase really comes up on every page. I guess the idea is that people experience the world differently according to their race/ethnicity, gender, and class? Wow! I wonder why? No - you don't get an answer to that, all you get is "race/ethnicity, gender and class" over and over again.

This book is pathetic and I strongly urge academics to NOT choose it for a first-year text! There's so much better writing out there that goes into more detail while still being readable. This book is best suited for highschool students, and even then if you only want them to kill time instead of actually learning anything.

I have taught sociology for over 30 years and for the last ten have been forced to use the evolving editions of this text. The best I can say for it is that it's not a lot worse than most textbooks--which are essentially written by committees and marketing departments--and unfortunately probably does represent the field accurately.

The core problem with his book though, and the field, is that its latent master value is equality, modified by a little self-serving credentialism. Anytime anyone is found to be unequal, the implicit cry is "Injustice!" Well, not so fast. There are plenty of instances in which inequalities are unjust, but no doubt plenty that are just. It doesn't seem to dawn on this author that equality is not the sole criterion of justice. Of course, ever so subtly the text implies that some inequalities are just. You never get the sense that she feels that she shouldn't get paid more than the average person or that the publisher of this text shouldn't wildly overprice it. I guess it's OK for liberal elites to do better than the rest, though besides them I suppose people ought to be equal.

This equality silliness is especially pronounced in the author's feminism. She is constantly changing the subject to women. For instance, she gives two short paragraphs on the Enlightenment (which is actually kind of important) though--Guess what?--one paragraph is about "women in the Enlightenment." Well, you can ask about women in the Enlightenment if you want to--but then you could ask about slaves too (which she doesn't). Students who have never heard of the Enlightenment come away from from her discussion assuming that the biggest issue at that time was whether women's opinions were heard. Sorry, that wasn't the biggest issue, and the text basically distorts history to say it was. Worse, later when she runs through the issues of group conformity, she shifts without explanation to the issue of obedience to authority, and then omits versions of those experiments that linked them to group conformity. (I suspect she was copying from the Maciones text, which included the relevant versions of the experiments, but didn't bother with them because she didn't follow the developing argument.) Anyway, after thoroughly mangling the presentation, she then lands on an experiment that "proves" men will sexual harass women if the conditions are conducive to it. For all I know, this was a decent experiment and the findings sound, but it is obvious to me that she is in such a rush to get to the sexual harassment study that she overlooked other studies that logically led to it.

There are other examples, but the author is always in such a rush to make her feminist points that she frequently screws up other things along the way. My guess though is that sociology doesn't attract the "best and the brightest" (a documented fact) and is increasingly attracting so many women that the field has darn near become a wing of Women's Studies.

I also do not like many of the chapter examples she uses. The example in the first chapter about credit cards is not well done, and a lot of students end up thinking that sociology and economics are roughly the same thing. It's just a weak example, poorly presented.

And, she never gives any evidence of intellectual ability--or of having done her homework. Despite way too many pages, she can never seem to develop a point to its culmination. C. Wright Mills is half-presented in the first chapter, and when she discusses cultural relativism she concludes that it is fine as long as it doesn't violate human rights--giving no hint that human rights are themselves contested. Oh, and in that discussion she wrongly uses Marvin Harris' work as an illustration of cultural relativism, when in fact it is an argument for cultural materialism. Later, she contrasts Kenneth Jackson's history of suburbs with someone else's, but gets Jackson wrong. It is probably the nature of the beast that textbook authors can't read most of the sources they cite, but this woman has a remarkable ability to be wrong about the works she discusses as well as a surprising knack to miss any important idea that might be in them. This text is a quintessential example of how you really can't simplify material without changing it.

Now, a lot of my criticisms would apply to other texts, and probably no text is ever really good. This is an inherent problem with textbooks. However, having used perhaps a dozen different textbooks over the years, I would have to say that this ranks toward the bottom. I haven't followed the textbook field, so don't know the popular choices now, but the Maciones text that I believe cornered the market prior to this one was better.

Let me add that I say all this as a sociologist, a liberal, and a feminist. I probably agree with the author's opinions 90% of the time, and must reluctantly agree that this text probably accurately reflects the sorry state of the discipline. However, the text just does a poor job at teaching about ideas, issues, and facts in a thought-provoking way. It's really a politically correct waste of time and money for anyone with a head on their shoulders.

I found the material dry and boring. The book tries to provide examples so much that it goes on and on about it.

There are many introductory sociology books out there, this one is a little below average. Kendall's full size, adult strength introduction to sociology book is better, this version isn't just "the essentials," it's pretty obviously dumbed-down, in my opinion too much so for college students. Too many important terms have been excluded, important theories and research have been oversimplified, truncated, pared-down, or omitted, unless it is coupled with both a reader (of important excerpts) and an additional book (some good example of sociology), this textbook is inadequate for college freshmen. I think it's a good choice, however, for a high school, or other pre-college course.

Used book needed for school. Decent price and in decent condition. Saved over 100 dollars vice buying it used from the book store on campus

I must agree with other reviewers - this is not a very good text for teaching or learning Sociology. It only served to reinforce the stereotype that Sociology is not a rigorous discipline, let alone a science - and that is not true at all.

Each chapter has a "recurring theme" which is used to tie together the various disparate subjects. That would be great, except for two things: firstly, an effective example is one that isn't contrived or stretched, and secondly, it should not be necessary in the first place to "tie together" the chapter with such things. A chapter's contents ought to all relate implicitly - it ought to make logical sense why certain material was included. I understand that the "let's tell a story first and then relate all the material to it as we go along" idea is sort of trendy now, but I have seen a number of textbooks where that worked, and this certainly isn't one of them.

In other grievances, the material is just lacking in general. I am not an expert on Sociology, and I am aware this is not necessarily a fair comparison - but when I read, say, my Psycology textbooks, I am actually drawn in and interested. I want to keep reading. Though I am but a student, I can tell that the book is going fairly in-depth to the subject matter - I'm not just getting superficial "factoids" or an overview. In contrast, this textbook is pretty boring, and I am left with nagging questions about almost all of the subjects covered. Why are they important? Where is the research? Some of these things seem like common sense, sure, but other surprises are just given at face value with no explanation. It also seemed like a disproportionate amount of time was spent parading about the names and biographies of famous sociologists. That is all well and good, but I wanted to learn about Sociology, not sociologists...

Finally, I am aware that the average college freshman has a reading level of about eighth grade...but I do not appreciate my textbooks "talking down" to me. I guess that would have to be my biggest issue: it reads like a high school or even middle school textbook, definitely not college-level like I expect and deserve. I absolutely despise textbooks which are stuffed with "activity corners" or whatever they call them - those attention-grabbing, colorful distractions which take up half a page to show how the material at hand is applicable to some totally irrelevant subject. Supposedly these boxes are made to show to students how the subject is relevant to their daily lives, but they honestly get in the way of learning, and this text in particular is chock-full of them. It was a rare instance where I could read two full pages of unabridged, unadultered text with no annoying photograph, info box, or other "fluff" getting in the way.

The only reason I have not returned this book is because at the end of the day, if I just read it as a novel - for entertainment! - it is vaguely interesting. Much like a taboloid or Newsweek Magazine, I suppose.

The book arrived in great condition a little over a week after I ordered it. I am very satisfied with this seller.

seller was excellent - product was as described, priced well for college student's financial constraints, and SHIPPED VERY QUICKLY which was the most important factor since the book was ordered after the first class. thanks!

This is THE most blathering & dry textbook that I've had yet. The preface says "I have sought to make it accessible and engaging for students and instructors alike", HA! Mark: missed. Not only is it loaded with run-on sentences, it smacks of David Foster Wallace hero-worship as far as word-choice. I typically regard myself as a fast reader, even when reading for critical analysis, but I find myself rereading paragraph after paragraph (and run-on sentences posing as paragraphs) over and over. Here's hoping for a spring '10 semester, free of Diana Kendall.

I never received the book, couldn't get in contact with the seller and when the seller got in contact back with me, I requested the book be sent overnight, but never got a response.