Search

While not focusing on any particular instances of terrorism, tyranny, or religious extremism, this paper examines these matters from an interactionist (Mead, 1934; Blumer, 1969; Strauss, 1993; Prus, 1996, 1997, 1999) viewpoint and indicates how these realms of human endeavor may be approached in more direct empirical (i.e., ethnographic) and instructive analytic terms. After (a) defining terrorism, tyranny, and religious extremism within the context of instances of collectively engaged activity, consideration is given to (b) three mystiques (deviant, psychological, power) that commonly obfuscate and distort analyses of human activity. The paper then (c) outlines a series of conceptual, methodological, and literary resources that would enable scholars to engage these and related subject matters in more direct research terms and develop more viable conceptualizations of instances of these collectively engaged activities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many sociologists believe that behavioral sociology is alien to traditional sociological thought, and some have questioned its legitimacy as a sociological perspective. This paper takes the position that behavioral sociology is very much in accord with basic tenets of sociology. The belief that it is not results from misunderstanding and confusion about the foundations and practice of behavioral sociology. Three key concerns about behavioral sociology are addressed: (1) the subject matter of behavioral sociology and its distinction from behavioral psychology; (2) the unexplained "givens" of behavioral sociology (the origins of existing reward systems), and (3) the concern that behaviorists view human behavior as mechanistic and unfeeling. The paper concludes that many differences between behavioral sociology and other sociological perspectives have been exaggerated, that behavioral sociology does exhibit most traditional characteristics of the discipline, and that the concern with the legitimacy of behavioral theory in sociology has obscured the one significant difference that does exist disagreement over the goals and conduct of a science of human behavior. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper is an exploratory examination of the role of signs perceived along nature trails in parks and wooded settings and the ways in which they shape the nature experience for individuals. Literature was examined to define what it means to experience nature, the values and meanings people place on nature, hikers' expectations, and tourism and park management practices. Sign objects, their underlying meanings, and the interpretation of signs along the trail were examined in the context of the existing theory based on semiotics, particularly the work of Peirce. Through a series of hikes, we found that signs contribute to the satisfaction, dissatisfaction, and meaning making in outdoor environments. Areas for further investigation are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In view of the revanchist ideology that often passes under the rubric of sociobiology, a perspective that insists on the learned nature of social behavior is welcome. Undoubtedly, a search for the causes and careers of human behavior is a legitimate enterprise in sociology, but in the context of Molm's paper, a different question must be raised regarding behaviorist sociology. The root criticism of behavioral sociology, it seems to me, is the one she attributes to symbolic interactionism. The view that human emit behavior, Molm contends, is not a mechanistic theory at all because operant behaviors are not automatically elicited by any prior stimulus, they simply occur not elicited by a stimulus. If something that is yet to happen is the cause of the behavior that is about to be emitted, then surely it is the anticipation of receiving the reinforcement that is causing the behavior. I am sure Molm is correct that the argument about behavioral sociology is really about behavioral sociology is really about the goals and aims of science.

Behavioral sociology has developed unique features which have caused controversy and confusion in the discipline. In this paper, we briefly describe the history of behavioral sociology, and show how its major forms have been applied to behavioral analysts in complex organizations, laboratory experimental analysis of social exchange and social process, and behavioral macrosociology and theoretical extensions We also briefly examine criticisms of behavioral sociology on grounds of tautology, reduction, the omission of internal states as relevant data, and behavior control. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]