This revision of a highly regarded book of readings in social theory has selections representing the essential elements of three periods The Classical Tradition, Contemporary Sociological Theory, and Post-Modernity. The text begins with a comprehensive general introduction as well as introductions to each of the chapters that provide bibliographical background and historical context. The chronological organization coordinates well with George Ritzer's or other primary texts in social theory. The text can also be used as a supplementary text in basic sociology courses.
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.