orgtheory.net

grab the nearest book and read, sucka

Brayden

Ah, blog memes.  They’re a great diversion on a snowy, slow day.  So without further ado, let me pick up the meme that Drek passed on.  I have to keep up with Bozzo’s after all.

Here’s the assignment:

  1. Go to the nearest book in your reach and turn to page 123.
  2. Go to the fifth sentence of the book.
  3. Copy the next three sentences, then tag someone else.

Okay, so reaching my hand out, the first book I touch is,  Dynamics of Contention by McAdam, Tarrow, and Tilly (which I pulled off my shelf yesterday to check a reference).  And here are the next three sentences:

What can we conclude from these three sets of observations?

First, that the same basic mobilization mechanisms – collective attribution of opportunity and threat, social appropriation, and brokerage – appeared in the two distinctly different episodes of contention suggests that they will turn out to be robust components of any process of mobilization and demobilization.  That speculation needs to be refined, replicated, and tested, but it suggests attending less to differences in the forms and outcomes of contention than to the dynamic mechanisms and processes that they seem to share in common.

I could probably write a few paragraphs about what I disagree with in these three sentences, but I won’t, as I expect you’re already bored.

Now can I tag my own co-bloggers?  Okay, you’re tagged.  And feel free to express yourself in the comments.

Written by brayden king

January 12, 2007 at 6:15 pm

2 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Here goes – from Goldman’s ‘Knowledge in a Social World’:

    “What resources or evidence might hearers have for estimating likelihoods. [Its referring to Bayesian reasoning and how one estimates the truth of testimony given e.g., in court]. Needless to say hearers are not always fortunate enough to have good evidence concerning these likelihoods. The question is whether they ever have such evidence, and what the evidence would be like. I assume that, with a fixed prior, the prospect of improving one’s degree of knowledge of the target proposition is better with close approximations to the likelihoods, or their ratios, than with poor approximations.”

    No time for comments or further tags – just needed a momentary excuse to put off what I was working on (preparing materials for accreditation – yawn).

    Like

    teppof

    January 12, 2007 at 7:08 pm

  2. From Anthony Gidddens’ Profiles and Critiques in Social Theory:

    Durkheim criticised socialist ideas, as he understood them, by arguing that the solutions they propose remain upon a solely economic level. He allowed that various types of economic regulation envisaged by socialists are necesary as part of a programme of social reform. But they cannot be sufficient, because the difficulties facing contemporary societies are not wholly, not even primarily economic.

    Hmm…that makes Durkheim sound a little like the Daniel Bell of The Cultural Contradictions (in particular chapter 4). Does that mean that Durkheim would have been a neocon had he been alive today? Maybe he would have a regular column in the New York Times too!

    Like

    Omar

    January 12, 2007 at 7:21 pm


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: