SSBT 540: Theories of Groups, Organizations, Communities and Social Class
Instructor: Jeffrey Longhofer, Ph.D., LISW
Spring 2007
Office Phone: 368-0160 Mailing Address:
Office Location: MSASS #309 MSASS\CWRU
Email: Jeffrey.longhofer@case.edu 10900 Euclid Ave.
Class meets January 19, 20, 21; February 17, 18 ( CRN: 34446) Cleveland, Ohio 44106-7164
Course Description
This course provides a foundation of knowledge about the myriad ways organizations, communities, and social classes affect the individuals we encounter in our social work practice. It begins with discussions about the concept of culture, and then examines how the cultures of organizations, communities, and social classes contribute to everyday life. Emphasis is placed upon the myriad ways culture affects empowerment issues, ideas about economic justice, and how cultural analysis can improve advocacy. The readings, lecture, and discussion will focus upon at-risk populations and how the cultures of social service organizations complement or conflict with mainstream cultural values and beliefs. The first course in the socio-behavioral theory sequence focuses upon various cognitive, behavioral, and psychodynamic theories that explain normal human development over the life span. This second course deals with how culture develops and serves to influence human behavior in interpersonal, intra-group, and larger settings.
Course objectives\abilities
Students will demonstrate the following abilities:
- To develop an understanding of the concept culture as a theoretical lens for social work practice.
- To understand the techniques of ethnography and participant-observation and learn how to apply these to social work practice.
- To develop an understanding of the concepts group, organization, community, and social class and learn to apply these in social work practice.
- Explore the myriad ways in which groups, social welfare organizations, communities and social classes promote or deter people in maintaining or achieving optimal health and well being and learn to apply critical thinking skills to the cultural contexts that affect client well being.
- Assess small groups, social welfare organizations, communities and social classes in terms of their structures, functions, socialization and social control activities, and adaptation to change.
- Evaluate the responsiveness of groups, social welfare organizations, communities and social classes to cultural and lifestyle diversity, and how such responsiveness may result in racism, ethnocentrism, gender related inequalities, ageism, disabilities, and oppression due to sexual preferences.
- Understand ethical issues and social work values related to the interplay of individuals, groups, social welfare organizations, communities, and social classes and learn to apply culturally sensitive advocacy efforts.
- To develop and achieve a personalized learning objective that will integrate field-setting objectives with classroom objectives.
- To develop oral and written communication skills that demonstrate an ability to understand the cultural context.
- Through applying a cultural critique and analysis improve the ability to succeed in social work by applying cultural analysis to practice contexts.
Course Requirements and Methods of Evaluation
1. Reading Synopsis, 50 points. Due on the day the reading is assigned.
Synopsis: They should be a minimum of 1 typed, single-spaced page, to be handed in at the beginning of the seminar discussion they address (keep one copy for your use during the seminar). Late submissions will not be accepted. The purpose of the synopsis is to identify the central thesis or controlling ideas of the reading and to briefly examine the evidence and ideas used in the development of those ideas. In addition to summary, it is the purpose of the synopsis to evaluate. Even though you may not have the knowledge adequate to undertake a critical review, you can at least pose questions regarding the logic of the work, its merits and shortcomings. You can examine the evidence and the conclusions drawn from the evidence. You should use the following as a guideline for organizing the synopses: a) provide a general statement of the central thesis, idea, or object of inquiry; b) what concepts does the author use? What assumptions does the author make? Discuss the assumptions?; c) What kind of evidence does the author use to support the argument? Is the evidence convincing?; d) What conclusions are drawn? Are the conclusions consistent with the data and argument?; e) What kinds of causal connections or relationships have been posited? Do you agree? If so, why? If not, why not?
2. Final Paper (12-15 pages), 50 points. In this paper, you will apply concepts learned in this class to some aspect of your field or work sites. Due on April 26. It is your responsibility to honor deadlines. If you cannot meet a deadline, please contact me in advance to discuss an alternative plan.
3. If you are unable to attend a class, please call, or if time allows, e-mail me. Attendance is required and will be considered in the final evaluation.
4. This course is structured as a seminar. Please read the attached seminar discussion guidelines. You are expected to participate actively.
5. Academic Integrity: "Plagiarism is defined as the submission of work done by another with the intent that it be viewed and evaluated as one's own. Thus copying on an examination, turning in a term paper or homework assignment done by someone else, intentionally using or presenting false data and making extensive use of sources without acknowledging them are all interpreted as acts of plagiarism."
6. I am available to talk with you about your ideas, concepts that we cover in class, and your projects.
Course Schedule
Thursday, January 18
Readings:
Philippe Bourgois, In Search of Respect: Selling Crack in El Barrio Introduction, 1-19.
James Garbarino, Lost Boys, Why Our Sons Turn Violent and How We Can Save Them, Chapter 1, The Epidemic of Youth Violence, Pages, 1-29.
Thursday, January 25
Readings:
Philippe Bourgois, In Search of Respect, Violating Apartheid in the United States, Pages 19-48.
James Garbarino, Lost Boys, Why Our Sons Turn Violent and How We Can Save Them, Chapter 2, Rejected and Neglected, Ashamed and Depressed, Pages, 33-62.
Thursday, February 1
Reading:
Philippe Bourgois, In Search of Respect, A Street History of El Barrio, Pages 48-77.
Thursday, February 8
Reading:
James Garbarino, Lost Boys, Why Our Sons Turn Violent and How We Can Save Them, Chapter 3, How Early Vulnerability Becomes Bad Behavior, Pages 63-94.
Thursday, February 15
Reading:
Philippe Bourgois, In Search of Respect: Selling Crack in El Barrio, Chapter 3, Crackhouse Management: Addiction, Discipline, and Dignity Pages, 77-114.
Thursday, February 22
Reading:
James Garbarino, Lost Boys, Why Our Sons Turn Violent and How We Can Save Them, Chapter 4, Discovering the Dark Side, Pages, 94-120.
Thursday, March 1
Reading:
Philippe Bourgois, In Search of Respect: Selling Crack in El Barrio, Chapter 4, “Goin’ Legit”: Disrespect and Resistance at Work. Pages 114-174.
Thursday, March 8
Reading:
James Garbarino, Lost Boys, Why Our Sons Turn Violent and How We Can Save Them, Chapter 5, A Boy’s Code of Honor: Frustrated Justice and Fractured Morality, Pages, 120-149.
Thursday, March 22
Reading:
Philippe Bourgois, In Search of Respect: Selling Crack in El Barrio, Chapter 5, Learning to be a Better Criminal, Pages, 174-213.
Thursday, March 29
Reading:
James Garbarino, Lost Boys, Why Our Sons Turn Violent and How We Can Save Them, Chapter 6, The Power of Spiritual, Psychological, and Social Anchors, Pages 149-178.
Thursday, April 5
Reading:
Philippe Bourgois, In Search of Respect: Selling Crack in El Barrio, Chapter 6, Redrawing the Gender Line on the Street, Pages 213-259.
Thursday, April 12
Readings:
Philippe Bourgois, In Search of Respect: Selling Crack in El Barrio, Chapter 7, Families and Children in Pain, Pages, 259-287.
James Garbarino, Lost Boys, Why Our Sons Turn Violent and How We Can Save Them, Chapter 7, Saving Violent Boys Isn’t Easy, Pages 178-207.
Thursday, April 19
Reading:
Philippe Bourgois, In Search of Respect: Selling Crack in El Barrio, Chapter 8, Vulnerable Fathers, Pages 287-318.
Thursday, April 26
Readings:
James Garbarino, Lost Boys, Why Our Sons Turn Violent and How We Can Save Them, Chapter 8, Reclaiming Lost Boys, Pages 207-239.
Philippe Bourgois, In Search of Respect: Selling Crack in El Barrio, Chapter 9 and Epilogue, Pages 318-352.
Seminar Discussion Guidelines
TGOC
MSASS Winter 2007
Jeff Longhofer
The following guidelines, developed by Erik Olin Wright for his seminars at the University of Wisconsin, are intended to facilitate seminar discussions. Some of them may sound obvious, but from past experience it is still important to make them explicit.
1. READINGS. At least for the first part of each seminar session the discussions should revolve around the weeks readings rather than simply the topic. There is a strong tendency in seminars, particularly among articulate graduate students, to turn every seminar into a general “bull session” in which participation need not be informed by the reading material in the course. The injunction to discuss the readings does not mean, of course, that other material is excluded from the discussion, but it does mean that the issues raised and problems analyzed should focus on around the actual texts assigned for the week.
2. LISTEN. In a good seminar, interventions by different participants are linked one to another. A given point is followed up and the discussion therefore has some continuity. In many seminar discussions, however, each intervention is unconnected to what has been said before. Participants are more concerned with figuring out what brilliant comment they can make rather than listening to each other and reflecting on what is actually being said. In general, therefore, participants should add to what has just been said rather than launch a new train of thought, unless a particular line of discussion has reached some sort of closure.
3. TYPES OF INTERVENTIONS. Not every seminar intervention has to be an earthshattering comment or brilliant insight. One of the reasons why some students feel intimidated in seminars is that it seems that the stakes are so high, that the only legitimate comment is one that reveals complete mastery of the material. There are several general rules about comments that should facilitate broader participation:
overblown speeches. Sometimes these speeches may make some substantively interesting
points, but frequently they meander without focus or direction. It is important to keep
interventions short and to the point. One can always add elaborations if they are needed. This is not an absolute prohibition on long statements, but it does suggest that longer statements are generally too long.
5. EQUITY. While acknowledging that different personalities and different prior exposures to the material will necessarily lead to different levels of active participation in the seminar discussion, it should be our collective self-conscious goal to have as equitable participation as possible. This means that the chair of the discussion has the right to curtail the speeches by people who have dominated the discussion, if this seems necessary.
6. SPONTANEITY vs. ORDER. One of the traps of trying to have guidelines, rules, etc. in a discussion is that it can squelch the spontaneous flow of debate and interchange in a seminar. Sustained debate, sharpening of differences, etc., is desirable and it is important that the chair not prevent such debate from developing.
7. ARGUMENTS, COMPETITIVENESS, CONSENSUS. A perennial problem in seminars revolves around styles of discussion. Feminists have often criticized discussions dominated by men as being aggressive, argumentative, competitive (although there are always plenty of men who find such styles of interaction intimidating). Some people, on the other hand, have at times been critical of what they see as the “feminist” model of discussion: searching for consensus and common positions rather highlighting differences, too much emphasis on process and not enough on content, and so on. Whether or not one regards such differences in approaches to discussion as gender-based, the differences are real and they cause problems in seminars. My own view is
the following: I think that it is important in seminar discussions to try to sharpen differences, to understand where the real disagreements lie, and to accomplish this is it generally necessary that participants “argue” with each other, in the sense of voicing disagreements and not always seeking consensus. On the other hand, there is no reason why argument, even heated argument, need by marked by aggressiveness, competitiveness, put-downs and the other tricks in the repertoire of male verbal domination. What I hope we can pursue is “cooperative conflict”: theoretical advance comes out of conflict, but hopefully our conflicts can avoid being antagonistic.
8.CHAIRING DISCUSSIONS. In order for the discussions to have the kind of continuity, equity and dynamics mentioned above, it is necessary that the discussion be lead by a “strong chair.” That is, the chair has to have the capacity to tell someone to hold off on a point if it seems unrelated to what is being discussed, to tell someone to cut a comment short if an intervention is rambling on and on, and so on. The difficulty, of course, is that such a chair may become heavyhanded and authoritarian, and therefore it is important that seminar participants take responsibility of letting the chair know when too much monitoring is going on.
9. PREPARATION FOR SEMINAR DISCUSSIONS. Good seminars depend to a great extent on the seriousness of preparation by students.
The following generally helps:
11. SELF-CRITICISM. The success of a seminar is a collective responsibility of all
participants. Professors cannot waive magic wands to promote intellectually productive
settings. It is essential, therefore, that we treat the process of the seminar itself as something under our collective control, as something which can be challenged and transformed. Issues of competitiveness, male domination, elitism, bullshit, diffuseness, and other sins should be dealt with through open discussion. We will therefore have periodic self-criticism discussions(not “trash the professor” sessions, but self-evaluation discussions, hopefully) to try to improve the process of the seminar itself.