This highly regarded anthology of primary readings in sociological theory covers the major theorists and schools from classic to contemporary, modernist, and postmodernist, in a chronological organization. Its comprehensive coverage and excellent introductions make this book appealing as a main text for professors who want to encourage students to read and interpret original sources, or as a supplement for those who use a traditional main text.
This book is terrible, both in its editing and its choice of articles. Most selections are overly lengthy to prove the point they are trying to. They only redeeming sections are on Conflict Theory and Max Weber.
I haven’t finished yet and may never, but man, intellectuals talk funny. Seriously, was it the desperate attempt to gain credibility as a field? What possible good could come from using such obscure verbosity to express oneself? One would think that simple expression would help the greater grouping of similarly interested people to further their field's development. Instead, they seem to want to be considered great by increasing the doubt in others that they probably just don't understand them well enough. Which eventually leads to nobody caring what any of them are trying to say, and perhaps correctly so, since what practically do they offer?
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.