Return-Path: sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 1 Apr 93 10:01:25 -0800 for /usr/lib/sendmail -oc -odq -oQ/var/spool/mqueue -oi -fsocgrad-relay socgrad-list Subject: More Coleman and mentors To: socgrad@ucsd.edu Date: Thu, 1 Apr 93 12:01:19 CST From: "Elizabeth H. Schaefer" Greetings from a cold Nebraskan! We have snow today, so my recipe is as follows: Herbal tea 1 herbal teabag of your choice 2 cups boiling water let stand and serve Anyway, back to Coleman...I'm not satisfied that we have all the information we need to really critique this proposal. I've been looking back over another Coleman article ("Constructed Social Organization" published in _Social Theory for a Changing Society_ 1991), which goes deeper into the main concepts used in the recent article. It is a managable length, and I would suggest that we read it if we really want to understand the central concepts, especially "social capital." My greatest weakness is history, yet I am ready to accept JC's proposed shift from primordial to constructed institutions. I'm also really getting into his suggestion that primordial organization will still be primary "wherever there is sufficient closure and continuity to provide the social capital that sustains it" (pg 12). This disclosure said to me that JC might really be on to a dynamic which may actually describe something. As for his conclusion, I suspect we are all being a bit reactionary. In the article I mentioned above Coleman remarks regarding the implications for social theory: "The implications for social theory of the view of the world I have expressed here are extensive. The view implies that social theory must concern itself with the problems of constructed social organization, not merely with the problems that have occupied it throughout its short existence..." He continues with a list of what theory should "not merely" be, which does not imply that it should "only" become a theory of constructed organization. I would suggest that he is insightfully motivating those sociologists so disposed to take up the task of social policy. I remain cautious as to who's values might become a part of the future educational systems JC describes in "Rational Reconstruction...", but that goes back to my original posting on the topic. I've been long-winded enough. So, in conclusion, I suggest that we read the aforementioned article and chime in with Dan (nice to have you back!) that we should probably look at the fourth part of _Foundations of Social Theory_. I'm also up for some discussion of mentoring. Warmth to you all! Elizabeth University of Nebraska eschaefe@unomah.edu