Customer Reviews for

Debugging the Link Between Social Theory and Social Insects

Average Rating 5
( 3 )
Rating Distribution

5 Star

(3)

4 Star

(0)

3 Star

(0)

2 Star

(0)

1 Star

(0)

Your Rating:

Your Name: Create a Pen Name or

Barnes & Noble.com Review Rules

Our reader reviews allow you to share your comments on titles you liked, or didn't, with others. By submitting an online review, you are representing to Barnes & Noble.com that all information contained in your review is original and accurate in all respects, and that the submission of such content by you and the posting of such content by Barnes & Noble.com does not and will not violate the rights of any third party. Please follow the rules below to help ensure that your review can be posted.

Reviews by Our Customers Under the Age of 13

We highly value and respect everyone's opinion concerning the titles we offer. However, we cannot allow persons under the age of 13 to have accounts at BN.com or to post customer reviews. Please see our Terms of Use for more details.

What to exclude from your review:

Please do not write about reviews, commentary, or information posted on the product page. If you see any errors in the information on the product page, please send us an email.

Reviews should not contain any of the following:

  • - HTML tags, profanity, obscenities, vulgarities, or comments that defame anyone
  • - Time-sensitive information such as tour dates, signings, lectures, etc.
  • - Single-word reviews. Other people will read your review to discover why you liked or didn't like the title. Be descriptive.
  • - Comments focusing on the author or that may ruin the ending for others
  • - Phone numbers, addresses, URLs
  • - Pricing and availability information or alternative ordering information
  • - Advertisements or commercial solicitation

Reminder:

  • - By submitting a review, you grant to Barnes & Noble.com and its sublicensees the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable right and license to use the review in accordance with the Barnes & Noble.com Terms of Use.
  • - Barnes & Noble.com reserves the right not to post any review -- particularly those that do not follow the terms and conditions of these Rules. Barnes & Noble.com also reserves the right to remove any review at any time without notice.
  • - See Terms of Use for other conditions and disclaimers.
Search for Products You'd Like to Recommend

Recommend other products that relate to your review. Just search for them below and share!

Create a Pen Name

Your Pen Name is your unique identity on BN.com. It will appear on the reviews you write and other website activities. Your Pen Name cannot be edited, changed or deleted once submitted.

 
Your Pen Name can be any combination of alphanumeric characters (plus - and _), and must be at least two characters long.

Continue Anonymously
Sort by: Showing all of 3 Customer Reviews
Page 1 of 1
  • Posted April 24, 2009

    This one is a keeper !

    The book was a joy to read. It speaks clearly of the ways in which people's subjective meanings become "knowledge" - or, as Berger and Luckmann put it, "subjective meanings becoming objective facticities." The book is especially keen on illustrating the flawed logic in the legitimation process of knowledge - in particular, the circular logic in what Rodgers call the "legimitating loop," which involves the reification of the social theories with the scientific theories that are themselves the products of the very social theories they are validating. As an illustration, the book takes a critical examination of the production process of the enotomological knowledge. Rodgers approaches the study from the post-Kuhnian perspective in which she is explicitly aware of the value-laden structural forces that affect the shaping of the "scientific" knowledge and from which she is able to practice "strong objectivity" in her analysis. She takes on multiple standpoints (not technically the standpoints of insects but assumed as are) in examining a single phenomenon (i.e., the insect's organizational behavior) by analyzing several different discourses about the phenomenon - each taken from different standpoint in terms of the underlying assumptions about human societies. Specifically, she adopts the standpoints that are consistent with the feminist, socialist, and post-colonial perspectives. Her critical discourse analysis successfully counters the existing dominant discourses on the insect behavior and their associated social theories. This book is highly recommended for all those who are interested in social constructionivism and the ways in which ideas are reified.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Posted April 23, 2009

    I Also Recommend:

    A wonderful addition to critical sociology

    Throughout the last two centuries analogies have developed, comparing insect and human social organization. These analogies of people as insects and insects as people naturalize hierarchal human social structures. Using a theoretical framework to deconstruct generally accepted ideas of society, In Debugging the Link between Social Theory and Social Insects, Diane M. Rogers employs post-Kuhnian, feminist, and postcolonial science study. She aims to provide an understanding employing cross-cultural and historical evidence to "de-naturalize," a term coined by Fairclough (1995). Coming into this reading with Sandra Harding's (1991) standpoint theory fresh in my mind, Rodgers speaks to a questioning of generally accepted classificationary language applicable to a Western worldview. To critique social insect symbolism is to question the biological implications we give to the way humans move and relate in the Western world. Insect classification in regards to social sciences has naturalized race, class, and gender hierarchies in the social world. Rodgers states that, "understanding the past constructions, how they were socially constructed, and the worldviews of standpoints they reflect is important for attempting to analyze current co-constructions." While new theory attempts to debunk old science and biosocial classifications, new paradigms are infiltrated with historical hierarchal analogies. The implications for future fusion with technological advancements of social insect and human analogy threaten to cement old assumptions of race, class, and gender. Rodgers calls for a shift in critical thinking and a "de-bugging" of the social co-construction. The more specialized the division of labor, the higher the insects sit on the hierarchy. Termites are regarded as the "perfect model" because of their highly specialized division of labor. As in human societies, highly specialized individuals within the larger society are seemed to be the most valuable, hierarchally speaking. However, termites were not always distinct, as they were often mistaken for species of ants and preference for one group often depends on the researcher's access and ease of observation. That being said, it is clear that the research defines his own terms, placing perfect implications on what works best for him. Rodgers points out that general laws of social organization are "framed as objective science, yet they were proposed and supported by social actors within a social context," or standpoint). The context of the researcher politically and systematically influences the intersection while legitimizing disempowering terminology paraded as truth (especially with the biological implication adding to an "unquestionable" nature of the arguments). As Kuhn (1962) pointed out in the The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, science is often regarded as exempt from social, cultural, and political influences. However, it is important to remember that external influences infiltrate scientific paradigms. Once naturalized, ideas of social hierarchy are dangerously embedded in the discourse and practices of society. Rodgers, citing Sandra Harding (1991), claims that social construction is manifested as relativism within all knowledge. She calls for a stronger standard of objectivity, recognizing that while the researcher is socially influenced in their science, it is then the researcher's responsibility to critically assess his own claims......

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted April 24, 2009

    No text was provided for this review.

Sort by: Showing all of 3 Customer Reviews
Page 1 of 1