JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.. American Sociological Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Teaching Sociology. Sociology as a discipline has much to offer and much to gain from participation in the writing-across-the-curriculum (WAC) movement. Student writing is a concrete event that can be analyzed sociologically. Attention to writing as a social event and to writing as discovery can increase the relevance of sociology as perceived by students. In this paper I suggest a modified version of the sociological journal, in which students write in every class as well as outside class. Following WAC principles, this modification minimizes the amount of grading required and allows students to discover the sociological perspective as they apply it to many of their own experiences.

No abstract

The empiricist/symbolic realist debate in the sociology of religion, as well as the broader objectivist/subjectivist controversy in social science, suffers from the mystique of the extreme. Emphasis has been placed on the two approaches as opposing alternatives, an either-or choice. This paper suggests that the mystique of the extreme prohibits perception of the necessary, dialectical complementarity of the two approaches. Neither alone can succeed in understanding religion scientifically. Research efforts must bring together the two perspectives by using what social anthropologists refer to as the emic and etic levels of analysis.

No abstract

The empiricist/symbolic realist debate in the sociology of religion, as well as the broader objectivist/subjectivist controversy in social science, suffers from the mystique of the extreme. Emphasis has been placed on the two approaches as opposing alternatives, an either‐or choice. This paper suggests that the mystique of the extreme prohibits perception of the necessary, dialectical complementarity of the two approaches. Neither alone can succeed in understanding religion scientifically. Research efforts must bring together the two perspectives by using what social anthropologists refer to as the emic and etic levels of analysis.