The Socjournal A new media journal of sociology and societyDr. Mike Sosteric believes that it’s time to bring sociology out of the ivory tower — and he is doing so through a new media journal called The Socjournal, which is attracting a million hits [editor’s correction, that’s close to five million hits in January 2012) a month.
Sosteric is an assistant professor of sociology in Athabasca University’s Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences. A couple years ago, he became frustrated with traditional modes of academic communication such as scholarly journals and academic conferences.
“I felt it just created bulkheads between professors and the real world,” he said. “This is a particular problem in sociology where there are no journals designed to raise awareness of sociological research and discussions.”
Sosteric wanted to do something that would create a broader awareness of sociology and its contribution to society as a whole. He also wanted to invigorate the sociology program at AU.
The Socjournal, founded in 2010, functions “by providing content interesting to students, in a language students can understand, in ways students can relate to, in forms easily accessible to them,” he says.
With a million hits a month, The Socjournal is proving extremely popular. The readership is made up mostly of students but also includes some professors. In addition to those in humanities and social sciences, there are also readers from fields such as the natural sciences, agriculture, law, business and the military.
Content includes articles contributed by students and faculty members from both AU and other institutions. Sosteric also posts student papers from his advanced sociology courses that he thinks might be of interest to Socjournal readers.
“I turn down a lot of material written by academics,” he says, “because it is in traditional form (e.g., scholarly paper, etc.). We are not a peer-reviewed journal, and some academics have a hard time seeing past the publication blinders they wear.”
Since The Socjournal first appeared, registration in AU’s Sociology 287: Introduction to Sociology I has increased by 30 per cent, Sosteric says. While he acknowledges that other factors are contributing to the increase, he says, “I suspect a large part of the increase is a result of the efforts I’ve taken with The Socjournal to point potential students toward our sociology program.”
Good bye sosteric. you obviously do not have an open mind. Sociology has a grand tradition, of sociologists who have fought for a better way, and to make it appealing to students. Have you looked lately, people want math and science, not sociology, or the christian way. robert
I didn’t say we didn’t publish Sociologists, I said we didn’t publish papers in a “scholarly” format. We turn those down because they don’t fit our format. If you look around you’ll see we’ve published several papers by sociologists over the few years we’ve been running. If they fit our format, if they follow our publication guidelines, and if they say something interesting, we publish them. We are no different than any other publication in this regard and frankly Robert we are much more open than the traditional scholarly press which you seem to be defending. An innovative idea is much more likely to get published here than in any other sociological outlet on this planet.
Oh and for your records, I’m not Christian.
Sometimes in life we get ahead of ourselves. You say i defend mainstream sociology, and the journals it produces. My harsh comments are unfortunate, but why did you pull my comments involving MaCiver. He has done more to change sociology then anyone. Yes he may be from the ivory tower, but he looks sociology square in the eye. I did not mean to insult you about your religion. On all counts I am sorry and will continue to read the journal. robert
no worries Robert. and you can’t insult me about my religion. like you I’m pretty much dissatisfied with religions as currently manifested. I’m just working on a Sociology of Religion course. I might post the draft of the first unit for that course here. I’d be interested in your comments when I do post that.
Dr. Sosteric. Sociology should be for the people. Not just some people who want communicate in code. I have always felt that. The world has changed and things are not the same, as they used to be. When I was a kid the rabbinical community told me lies about my future in the world. So i changed, and decided to be a person without a religious identity. I am sorry for being rough on you, because I am always rough on myself. No matter what I say, you are still important to me, along with the journal. I always maintained you were a great professor. And i still do no matter what. Sometimes we hit a bump in the road, and everything gets mixed up. robert
ya but that doesn’t make all spirituality bad (though I believe a lot of it is). I personally think Robert that full healing only comes when we fully understand both the nature of the physical body, and the nature of consciousness. Without that all we (and by we I mean psychologists) are a bunch of blindfolded clowns stabbing around in the dark, periodically getting lucky, but most of the time simply offering crap advice and blaming the clients for our failure. It’s pathetic when you think about it, and even more pathetic when combined the misplaced arrogance of modern psychology.
I am confused. I am not sure how developing a sociology of religion course, and being religious goes hand in hand. I would think a deeply religious person would not be an ideal person to design a soci of religion course. In order to have a wonderful sociology of religion course we must be able to examine religion in a sociological perspective which may include, and should include, both the negatives and positives of religion. I have taken sociology of religion 3 times at two institutions and I have yet to take a sociology of religion course. They have been religion classes. “this is what Christians believe”, “this is what Muslims believe” etc.
This is a really cool idea. I am going to continue to read this, and perhaps even submit something to the journal.
on the contrary, I think a sociologist who is religious is the best person in the world to analyze religion. As long as they remain empirical, grounded, logical, and honest, they can make a contribution. You’ll see. I’ll post the course commentary for my Sociology of Religion course here when it becomes available, and then if you want to take a real sociology of religion course, take that course. Also you may want to check out this book written by a sociologists and remarkably movel and unique, if I do say so myself, in the world of academically lead spiritual movements.
Perhaps you are right but that was not my experience. The one at my school was developed by a devote Christian and is no more then a religon course. “this is what Christians believe” “this is what muslims believe” ect. I’d love to take one that really is sociology of religon, so hurry up will you, I graduate next year
I have taken sociology of religion courses and let me say these classes lack the proper feeling, content, and empathy required to put it together. Criminologists teach criminology, and these people may even be criminals. Manic-depressives teach sociolology, and know what it takes to teach social problems. I did it for many years, and even brought manic-depression into the class room, with a dean standing at the back of the room, evaluatiing my teaching abilities. I am a manic-depressive and a sociology person who believes that sociology can rise to any occassion, if as Dr. Sosteric says, experience and sociological know how enter the mix. Let me say this, because this comment is getting a little wobbly. The late Dr. Peter McHugh was no scientist, but he wrote on the sociology of science. I think if you will allow me to sya, that the Frankfurt school of sociology (which started in Germany) may have a good deal to contribute to this disscussion. I think Dr. Sosteric knows that his course touches upon the real human nature of what a sociology of religion course shoul be. You see I told you this comment might be wobbly. I will straighten that out. In the meantime Panotrinic, have some faith in what a great scholar like Dr. Sosteric can do with this course. Roberty
Robert,
1. your comment makes no sense
2. When did I ever make a comment on Dr. Sosteric’s ability to design a sociology of religion course? what I said was that I wonder if it is possible for someone who is very religious to design a course. I have never taken a course with him, nor do I know him. What I said was in my experience devotedly religious people make bad sociology of religion course designers because they can not separate themselves. It is a different kind of bias than a criminologist designing a crime course. the difference is when a criminologist is bias the course ends up having an angle ie- Marxist perspective of crime. However, this course I took not only favoured Christianity there was no theory content. It would have even been ok if they had examined religion from a Marxist and Durkheim perspective and then favoured the functionalism perspective. But this is not what happened at all.
First of all sociology is mostly a discipline where critique and exploration of human life, either collectively or individually (as in social psychology) is part of a large discipline based on many social scientific areas and opinions. I said my comment was wobbly for a reason. Many sociologists, not including myself, try to be objective and present social life as it is, and not in a revisionist context like you would like to have it. You comment that you do not know Dr. Sosteric. Well to straighten out your wobbly opinion of sociology, maybe you should take Dr. Sosteric in a readings course before you leave school. Objectivity in building specific courses like sociology, social psychology are very difficult, because sometimes a whole department of sociology, has a say in how the courses are developed, even though the professor in question is doing the designing, as you put it. That is why I use the word wobble, because I am trying to figure out what you are saying. Have you read Durkheim’s “Elementary forms of Religion” Marx as you mentioned him, gave up his jewish religion for reasons of forwarding his theories of society. From comments that make no sense, there is an important discourse that evolves. And Dr. Sosteric is excellent in developing this evolutionary discussion. Robert
When did I ever make a comment on Dr. Sosteric’s ability to design a sociology of religion course?
you didn’t, but you should. I agree with you, the sociology of religion stuff that I’ve seen is either embedded in the “faith” of the sociologist, or a cowardly moves to create distance. The text I’m using to develop the course for example is a great text, but the author clearly has some religious tendencies. Do these tendencies impact the objectivity of the text? The only answer to that is, yes they do (but in very subtle and hard-to-detect ways) But then, sociologists without religious tendencies, atheists for example, are no better. Their atheism also clouds their judgment and actually, of the two types of failures, I prefer the first because the second is nothing but intellectual cowardice IMHO. I know you’ll probably only get an intimation of what I’m talking about here, so if you want to learn more you’ll have to take the course, or at least read the commentary I’ll post here when the course becomes available. Then we can continue this on a more equal footing.
As for my sociology of religion course, I think given the epic failure of sociologists to study religion in a satisfactory fashion, it is perfectly reasonable to question my approach. But since my approach isn’t “out there” yet, you’ll just have to keep those questions on the back burner for now! although here is a teaser for you. I define a “religion” as
m
I think you misunderstand. I was not questioning your approach because, as you point out, there is no approach to question yet. My original comment was more out of curiosity as I would love to take a real sociology of religion course but have yet to find anything decent between the two universities in my city. And after spending $1200 on soci of religion classes I hesitate to do it again. I also agree with you that there is bias in any course, this is unavoidable.
I understand that people will have bias when developing a course. In the case of the soci of religion courses I have taken it would have just been nice if they could have even picked a bias theoretical perspective.ie- all religion serves a function within society. At least this would give the class something to talk about :).
In any case, I will keep an eye out for the course, hopefully it is ready before I go off to grad school! In the meantime I had my eye on a different course of yours (which is what brought me to this website in the first place). Thanks for engaging
ps: that definition intrigues me. I will have to think about this…
I agree with both Dr. Sosteric and the student. However what is missing besides what has been said, is that there must be a healthy discourse in the course, so that all points of view are represented. I do not care how the founding father of the course puts it together, what i do care about is that each and every student, has a voice and express there feelings on the topic. Religion has been hotly debated in the United States, and in some cases become vital to the political process. I have been waiting for Dr. Sosterics course plans, and hope students ideas and viewpoints are fairly represented. As I said to the student, the debate about religion and sociology can be very traumatic, because of all of the topics that contribute to the course. Let us have a healthy DISCOURSE, CRITIQUE, and some input into the courses makeup. Robert
think you misunderstand. I was not questioning your approach because, as you point out, there is no approach to question yet
No, I get that. that is why when you said
“When did I ever make a comment…”
I said
“You didn’t, but you should.”
At the point I said “you should” I wasn’t just addressing you, but whomever happens to stumble upon this Socratic dialogue. At that point I’m addressing more substantive issues like a) the need to question sociologists who write about religion, and b) the failure of sociologists who write about religion to deal with it adequately.
I’ll try and get the course submitted in a couple weeks, after which probably eight weeks for it to come online.
m
excellent. see if you can find any problems with it.
My comment is dedicated to the freedom that students should have, when the take a course such as a sociology of religion course. I am really more interested in the underlying implications, that the student wishes to say. That is will there be all viewpoints represented in such a course. Will critique and discourse be allowed. Will freedom of a persons academic and life experience be represented? We will never know until the course is presented by Dr. Sosteric. Where does ideology fit into the mix.? In any evolutionary sociological enterprise there is wobbles thaqt need to be worked out. For example a particular comment does not make sense. I agree with the student. Robert
ya very traumatic. a lot of strong opinions. that’s why the definition we come up with has to be agreed to first, and has to be problem free. otherwise your doomed from the start.
My comment is dedicated to the freedom that students should have, when the take a course such as a sociology of religion course. I am really more interested in the underlying implications, that the student wishes to say. That is will there be all viewpoints represented in such a course. Will critique and discourse be allowed. Will freedom of a persons academic and life experience be represented? We will never know until the course is presented by Dr. Sosteric. Where does ideology fit into the mix.? In any evolutionary sociological enterprise there is wobbles thaqt need to be worked out. For example a particular comment does not make sense. I agree with the student. Robert
One of the biggest things that I see when it comes to the study of religion is fear. And overcoming fear is one of the biggest obstacle you have to overcome before you can calm down enough to undertake a study of this nature. It is hard to do because the fears are different depending on your background, and they are very deep, and terrifying, and debilitating even in some cases. Fear of indoctrination. Fear of cults. Fear of being thought primitive and unwise for suggesting religion is something more than a reflection of society. Fear of being ostracized. Fear of ridicule. Fear of mind control. Fear of the devil if you go the wrong way. Fear of damnation. Fear of what your boss will do. Fear of what your parents will do. Fear of what God will do. Fear of the unknown. Fear of just about everything, really.
Fear, fear, fear. There’s so much fucking fear out there it’s hard not to get freaked out some times.
“Get over the fear, humanity,” that’s what I say.
“Fear, fear, fear. There’s so much fucking fear out there it’s hard not to get freaked out some times”
I actually find that the biggest problem is that everyone is so afraid of being wrong, and so concerned with being right, that they can’t seem to take their heads out of their asses in order to have the conversations to begin with.
you got that right. when I started teaching years ago I noticed it pretty quickly in students too afraid to put up their hands up and ask a question because they were afraid that they’d be laughed at by their peers, or thought stupid by me. I know why people do that. Thank the abusive K12 school system and its hyper-competitive crapola that rewards “winners” and punishes “loosers.” I don’t care who you are, that K12 experience is damaging because it makes you afraid to be wrong for fear of being seen as a “F” That damage is obvious in undergraduates, and graduate students, and even professors who spend so much time looking to see what others have said about a topic because that’s the safe way (I call that citation fetishism) that they can’t have a single original thought of their own.
I think it might be time to set up some discussion forums on this system
Ah the K12 system. Where to start with that mess? You know what I got from school? Almost nothing. My teachers told me I was too dumb for post secondary because my grades were so low. Why were they low? Because the K12 system doesn’t teach: spelling, grammar, punctuation, or proper study habits. English is just Shakespeare crap (and who the hell cares about that shit at 16- I don’t even care about it now), and the French revolution. To top it off if you ever answered a question wrong you’d be picked on. And I don’t necessarily mean by your peers.
The k12 system needs a serious overhaul. Thank god I had an awesome English prof in my first year who taught me grammar and spelling. My sentence structured is still kinda fucked, but it’s a lot better then it was. And now I know what a comma splice is. I was 23 before I even knew what a comma was for.
I now have a 3.67 GPA… That enish teacher that told me i was Too dumb can suck on that. Hmmm, k I have some issues with K12.
That typo I made is awesome! Lol
It has been brought to my attention that I have an American view of freedom. So all those years I lived in Canada did nothing to add to my concept of freedom. So let me say this. Let me widen the debate on the creation of a course called sociology of religion. So far we have dealt with the individual perspective. That is the micro perspective, which PanopticNic will deal with in graduate school. Why hasn’t Dr. Sosteric given us a little summary of his plans for his sociology of religion course? Maybe he is trying to deal with the macro issues of society, culture, and other important factors, found in the social structure. So maybe this course of his, could also be a statement of individual freedoms in both Canada and the United States. Robert
In no way will I be focusing on the Micro issues in graduate school that will have to be left to others. I am going to be looking at sexual assault on a Macro level. At least that is the plan. Though, lately I have become more interested in law and policy. I just read all 151 pages of Canada’s omnibus bill. Fascinating read, even if it does make you want to put your head through a wall.
I think a good sociology of religion course would be macro based and not micro (individual) based. I am not taking a sociology of religion course to consider what one person thinks about religion, or about one religion in particular. I am taking a sociology of religion course to examine the societal impact religion has. How does religion guide a society’s moral, and ethical beliefs? Does it impact law? And is this a good thing or a bad thing? what does sociological theory have to say about it? The USA would be a good case study to look at for this. For example, the contraceptive debate going on in the United States right now is a perfect example of laws being constructed based on religious beliefs.
that’s not my focus. my focus is actually on understanding the nature of religion. and when you understand that you see it is the other way around. It is not religion that has an impact on society, it is society/the individual that has an impact on religion! Religion, like all other institutions, doesn’t exist sui generis. The needs it is setup to meet do, we all have a need for answers to the big questions, but the institution itself emerges as the result of the actions of the humans that create it. It is therefore always and forever embedded in the beliefs, values, politics, and economies of the people that make it up.
So, put that in your pipe and smoke it!
In most graduate schools Panoptinic, you will find to your surprise, that the micro, macro debate is part of your standard theory course. Maybe theory after 1920. Now a course with Dr. Sosteric allows one the freedom to explore issues, that are not necessarily required. Canadian universities are no different then American ones in the theory presentations required in a graduate program. My education is Canadian, and most textbooks used are American, such as George C. Ritzer, Goffman, Mead and others. Now why is this so? I like your plan, but you must realize that traditional training, requires a certain amount of exploration on the micro side. If I am wrong, please correct me. Good job Panoptinic. Robert. Dr. Sosteric. Why don’t you e-mail a little bit of your course. Maybe the sociological idea.
So which way is this debate going? Panoptinic says that the whole issue is not left to a micro interpretation. Robert believes that there are many interpretations found in social psychology. So can we separate the individual from important social institutions, social structures and all the rest?
The micro/macro debate may very well be part of theory courses I have no doubt. But that does not mean my project must focuse on micro or macro. I’ve also taken 4 theory courses including two in advanced theory it is nothing new to me. I would be surprised if micro/macro were not a part of grad school classes. But it doesn’t mean I need to use one or the other, or both.
As for the impact on religion and society I must disagree with you. Religion impacts society in all kinds of ways. Particularly it interferes with women’s rights. Ie- the contraceptive and abortion debates in the US.
The micro/macro both play a role. Kinda like the nurture/nature debate. You can’t take the individual out of the institution, and we for sure can’t take the institution ours of the individual. In fact, I would say that the institution plays a significant role in shaping beliefs. I think it’s just one giant loop.
Chicken and egg thing maybe?
I took a nature of religion class about a year ago. It was amazing. That was more a soci class! Ironically it was not in the soci dept.
As for the impact on religion and society I must disagree with you. Religion impacts society in all kinds of ways. Particularly it interferes with women’s rights. Ie- the contraceptive and abortion debates in the US.
Nope, religion impacts nothing. nothing happens in the social world outside of human agency! Human agents interfere with women’s right and human agents often opportunistically exploit religious to justify their interference.
same things with institutions. Institutions don’t shape behaviour, humans shape behaviour. institutions are just the regularized outcome of meaningful human action.
although, maybe I’m wrong. can you point to the actual processes whereby religion impacts society. how does religion interfere with women’s right?
Macro being big, micro being small. Soicieties do not exist without individuals. Ask Parsons. I believe if I am correct he tried to do it. Social structural analysis is popular in any sociology course. Such as Merton, Sosteric and others who take on the whole sociological apple. This whole idea of developing a course named the sociology of religion, is a complex mixture of individuals and social structure, and social institutions. What about the immediate family, the smallest unit of society. Is a sociology of religion course, structural functional, or involving symbolic interaction. Robert
I would tend to agree with you Dr. Sosteric. If you believe that religion is not an actual thing and that it is just a concept that people use to find comfort, or whatever, and you are not contributing good or evil to it. Then yes it is a product of human agency just like shriners, or the rotary. It is a hierarchical organized community of people and used in the same fashion as an organization like shriners. Religion is neither good nor evil, it just tends to be used for evil or good. It is an excuse for people to do what they already want to do. Perpetuate patriarchy, and sometimes help the poor.
The way religion tends to be used is as a tool to oppress, and other groups of people. Particularly women. Ultimately, religion is run by men in power, in order to gather more power. Religion is designed to create an oligarchy outside the state, and why does it do that? Because it is the nature of patriarchy, which is an element within organized religion. It is there because organized religion is used as a tool by people in power to maintain power. So yeah, I would agree religion itself does not do those things. However, again the way it has been used and continues to be used and continues to be used contributes to patriarchy and othering of outside groups, particularly women.
Examples that come to mind about how religion has been used to control women’s reproductive rights:
1. female circumcision
2. contraceptive debates
3. Abortion
But, again it depends on how you define religion. Religion is merely the tool, or excuse, used in the above examples to control women’s reproductive rights around the world.
If you are looking to have a discussion in your course on how people have used religion as a tool, and how this has effected their socialization, that would be fascinating.
Ultimately, I blame society.
Sociology is one of the few areas of academia where a healthy debate leads to new courses being created that can be beneficial to an incoming student. Graduate school should be a place where the student explores the past, along with experiences that are new and vibrant. If you scour a number of university sociology departments, you will find the same old routine. Theory, methods, and the same old tired electives, that are dominated by mostly dead sociologists. How many times can Erving Goffmans’ work be re-invented. There seems to be not much innovation in these department offerings. Durkheim, Marx, and other traditional sociological theoretical models are presented every year, without any real changes. I quit my doctorate, in part, because of the same old routine. Macro, Micro and are you a symbolic interactionist, or some other popular school. When i say I follow the work of Robert M. MacIver, a pioneer in sociology in his own right in the forties, the standard response is who? Let us as sociology persons stand up for change and innovation in new sociology courses. Robert
Well I don’t think religion is as separate from “the state” as we’d like to think. Think of “secret” organizations like Freemasons, or Skull and Bones, or the Shriners. These are often men with a lot of economic or political power, and these organizations are religious in nature. Links between religious belief and capitalism have been well document by David Noble (see The Religion of Technology). So the separation you are referring to is illusion, at best.
Can I ask you what you mean by “how you define religion.” I don’t think that matters. if the definition of religion is right it will include the fact that it is used “opportunistically” by people (with power or no). I know lots of powerless people who use religion to justify/excuse lots of their questionable behaviors.
Are you thinking that religion is “something more” than mere human invention?
I completely agree with you. religion is not separate from the state. That is what I am saying. The separation of church and state is an illusion and does interfere with people’s rights. That is, that religious belief effects what the state implements.
I think that religion is 100% a human invention, that is that religion used as a tool to justify patriarchy and control. (not to say it is not used for good. Lots of people do good things because their religion tells them to). I guess I am a bit caught in the middle. religion is a human invention, but it is a human invention that, in most cases, has been around for thousands of years. As a result most people just blindly follow whatever it is that they have been taught, or whatever it is that they think their religion wants them to believe. Therefore, I am undecided about whether it is solely just a human invention, or if it is a human invention that has become more.
Does that make sense? It’s Friday now. So my brain is fried.
Many American politicians run on religious issues that make them more presentable to the American public. I agree with anyone who says that the church as an important social institution, drives political dialogue in the United States. The philosophy of the separation of church and state is always debated in this country. People hang on to religious orientations, to get them through terrible situations. So gentlemen, what is the difference between religiosity and faith? Do we stop thinking because it is Friday?
1. I go from 9am-10pm of later monday through Friday so yeah my brain shuts down at 5 on Fridays
2. I am a girl.
I am sorry for my insensitivity. Working hard is what instructors like to see.
I didn’t find you insensitive. I just meant that my life is sociology m-f every waking hour do i tend to shit my brain down at 5 on Fridays and do nothing all weekend (unless I have a due date on the Monday, or an exam).
If anything, I find it fascinating you thought I was a man
Well everyone makes mistakes. Your dedication to sociology is admirable, because the field needs people like you.
My dedication over the last number of years has been the family dynamics of manic-depressives, and their immediate family. I am retired now, and just try to do things that are fun, like writing papers in sociology, developing an understanding of social barriers for this cohort of people. may you succeed in the field of sociology, and not be disillusioned by what you may find. Sincerely Robert
Do we stop thinking because it is Friday?
Those of us devoted to family do. Kids are home, weather’s warm…
I think it could go either way. The nuembr of academic journals is increasing, not decreasing, as is the need to publish for people who occupy professorial positions outside traditional research universities. In order for journals to go away, I think you’d need two things to happen: major works of scholarship to need start appearing in other forms (and by major I mean work that influences other scholars, rather than just those in the authors’ own networks as of yet I’ve seen this happen with online journals like First Monday or open access journals like CJC but I can’t think of a work of scholarship in any of the fields where I read that has yet achieved influence outside of a journal or book framework; I’m sure it will happen at some point) AND you’d need senior faculty who control the criteria for tenure, promotion and merit to start valuing alternative venues for publication (again, hasn’t happened at research schools but probably will at some point). The only exception I can think of right now is work of facilitation or compilation THAT kind of digital humanities is getting recognition and having influence: RCCS, the eserver, Voice of the Shuttle, etc.