Term Paper Instructions For Contemporary Sociological Theory

Term Paper Instructions Contemporary Sociological Theory Has Been In M

Contemporary sociological theory has been, in many respects, an extended argument with positivism; the idea held by most of the classical theorists that sociology should develop as a branch of science. In doing so, the primary emphasis has been on developing knowledge that is objective. But objective knowledge, say many postmodern thinkers, is dehumanizing knowledge. In addition, the subject object split that creates the idea of 'objective knowledge' is not possible and to act as though it is further obscures what is in fact relative and subjective. Treating people as objects ends in Auschwitz, that preeminent symbol of what objective, bureaucratic thinking can lead to.

Totalizing views of knowledge, as Lyotard says, "Have almost killed us." Clearly there are implications in a totalizing view of knowledge for ethics. Given the powerful arguments from Levinas with which we have closed this course, write a 2,000 word paper on the general topic "Levinasian Ethics and Social Theory: The Status of the Other." This paper should illustrate your familiarity with Levinas as illustrated in Ethics and Infinity as well as other sources you have used in your studies of his ideas. Students who do well on this paper understand Levinasian ethics and the "status of the other". But they understand more than that. They also understand that his is a powerful ethic with profound implications for social science.

By the ethical standard of Levinas most of the 18th century Enlightenment project to which contemporary sociological theory is heir is a dismal failure because in part it has treated people as objects, i.e., objective, positivistic science. For Levinas there is no greater threat to humanity. In addition, students are required to obtain a copy of the award-winning Stephen Spielberg film Schindler’s List and view it in association with your paper and the discussion threads. If you have already seen the film, see it again in the context of Levinasian ethics. Don’t shortchange yourself by failing to comply with this requirement!

Show in your paper how the social sciences went wrong from a Levinasian frame and what might be done to correct such ethical deficiencies. This work must be your own. Ideas not your own, paraphrases of the ideas of others, or quotes from other works must clearly be cited as such. For those of you not familiar with formatting and writing social science papers, I suggest you follow the APA or ASA formats for referencing and style and your paper will be in compliance. If you do not have a copy of the APA guidelines, any general manual used in writing for the social sciences will be helpful. Also, students in previous classes have found APA format guidelines online. ASA or MLA is acceptable, only be consistent when choosing a writing style. I pay attention to grammar and punctuation so be thorough and use proper English when writing your paper.

Paper For Above instruction

The relationship between sociological theory and ethics has undergone significant transformation, especially in the context of postmodern critique and the philosophy of Emmanuel Levinas. Traditional sociological frameworks, grounded in positivism, prioritized objective knowledge and scientific claims to universal validity, often at the expense of addressing human subjectivity and ethical responsibility. This paper explores Levinasian ethics and its implications for social theory, with an emphasis on the "status of the Other," and examines how sociological practices have strayed from ethically grounded humanism. It also considers the correctional pathways inspired by Levinas’s philosophy, as well as the moral lessons gleaned from Spielberg’s Schindler’s List, both as a cultural artifact and a moral touchstone.

Introduction

Classical sociological theory initially sought to establish sociology as a scientific discipline, emphasizing empirical rigor and objectivity (Comte, Durkheim). However, this emphasis often reduced human beings to objects within a system of positivistic law, neglecting the ethical dimension of human interconnectedness. Postmodern critiques, drawing on Lyotard and Foucault, challenged the totalizing narratives of knowledge, highlighting the fragility and situatedness of human subjectivity. Emmanuel Levinas's philosophy offers a radical reorientation away from objectification towards the primacy of ethical responsibility towards the Other.

Levinas and the Ethical Primacy of the Other

Levinas's concept of ethics, as articulated in Totality and Infinity and Ethics and Infinity, positions ethics as the first philosophy—a relation of infinite responsibility to the Other that precedes knowledge or ontology. For Levinas, the face-to-face encounter with the Other is a fundamental ethical event, calling for an infinite responsibility that cannot be reduced to mere scientific or positivist descriptions. This stance opposes the tendency of modern social sciences to treat individuals as data points or objects, thus risking dehumanization and moral insensitivity.

In Levinasian thought, the face of the Other embodies an ethical summons that demands an infinite responsibility, inherently unreciprocated but morally imperative. This dynamic challenges Enlightenment rationalism, which often approaches human beings as objects to be studied or manipulated. By centering the ethical relation as primary, Levinas advocates for a social order rooted in respect, responsibility, and acknowledgment of the Other’s inherent dignity.

The Failures of Enlightenment and Social Science

The Enlightenment's ambitious project aimed to attain universal reason and progress but often resulted in the objectification of individuals, exemplified in totalitarian regimes, colonialism, and genocides such as Auschwitz. Sociologists influenced by positivist paradigms inadvertently contributed to this process by emphasizing objective analysis at the expense of ethical engagement (Adorno, Horkheimer). Levinas criticizes this approach, claiming that treating people as objects in a scientific framework erodes moral responsibility. The holocaust stands as an ultimate testament to the destructive potential of ignoring the ethical face-to-face responsibility—where the Other is reduced to an object or target.

Applying Levinasian Ethics to Social Theory

To correct the ethical deficiencies within social sciences, scholars must prioritize the primacy of the ethical relation in their frameworks. This involves reconceptualizing social action as rooted in the recognition of the Other’s face and inherent dignity, rather than merely seeking social order or scientific knowledge. Social policies and research strategies should incorporate ethical reflexivity, emphasizing empathy and responsibility. Such an approach challenges reductive models of social behavior and advocates for a more humane, ethically sensitive practice.

Furthermore, Levinas’s critique encourages a shift away from totalizing narratives that claim to explain social phenomena comprehensively but overlook individual ethical agency. Instead, a Levinasian social science would focus on the micro-interactions that sustain moral responsibility, emphasizing ethical encounters over abstract laws.

The Moral Insights from Schindler’s List

The film Schindler’s List, in its portrayal of Oskar Schindler’s moral awakening amidst the Holocaust, vividly embodies Levinasian ethics. The face of the Jewish victims—embodying the Other—calls Schindler to responsibility, highlighting the moral obligation that transcends utilitarian calculations. The film demonstrates that recognizing the Other’s face compels action rooted in moral duty, aligning with Levinas’s notion that ethics precedes and underpins all social relations.

Viewing the film through a Levinasian lens underscores the failure of institutions and social structures to uphold this face-to-face responsibility, emphasizing that true social progress requires a commitment to “the other” beyond mere institutional or utilitarian gains.

Paths Toward Ethical Reconciliation in Social Science

To address the ethical failures revealed by Levinas, social sciences need to integrate normative considerations into their empirical pursuits. This involves fostering critical reflexivity—questioning the ethical implications of research and policy—and cultivating a moral imagination that recognizes the dignity of every individual. Institutional reforms should encourage researchers and practitioners to prioritize empathy, care, and responsibility, echoing Levinas’s call for an ethics of the Other.

Educational curricula within sociology and related disciplines must incorporate Levinasian philosophy, emphasizing the importance of ethics in understanding social phenomena. Engaging with concrete moral dilemmas, such as those depicted in Schindler’s List, can serve as powerful pedagogical tools to foster ethical sensitivity and moral responsibility.

Conclusion

Levinas’s philosophy offers a profound critique of the tendencies within modern social sciences to depersonalize and objectify human beings. By emphasizing the primacy of ethical responsibility towards the Other, levinasian ethics challenges scholars and practitioners to rethink the foundational values of their disciplines. Incorporating Levinasian principles can lead to more humane and morally responsible social theory and practice, fostering a social order rooted in respect, care, and responsible acknowledgement of human dignity. The moral lessons of Schindler’s List serve as a stark reminder that genuine social progress depends on our capacity to recognize and respond to the face of the Other with moral seriousness, reaffirming that ethics and responsibility must underpin social science.

References

• Emmanuel Levinas. (1969). Totality and Infinity: An Essay on Exteriority. Northwestern University Press.
• Emmanuel Levinas. (1982). Ethics and Infinity: Conversations with Philippe Nemo. Purdue University Press.
• Adorno, T. W., & Horkheimer, M. (1947). Dialectic of Enlightenment. Stanford University Press.
• Lyoart, J-F. (1984). The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. University of Minnesota Press.
• Foucault, M. (1972). The Birth of the Clinic. Routledge.
• C.S. Lewis. (1943). The Abolition of Man. Oxford University Press.
• Nussbaum, M. C. (1990). Love’s Knowledge: Essays on Philosophy and Literature. Oxford University Press.
• Hannah Arendt. (1958). The Human Condition. University of Chicago Press.
• Shoah (1985). Directed by Claude Lanzmann.
• Spielberg, S. (1993). Schindler's List. Universal Pictures.