In this section, Justin Steil and Aditi Mehta share how discussions in 11.469 Urban Sociology in Theory and Practice differed from others at private universities.
Student discussions in this urban sociology course differed from others at private universities in two main ways: 1) A nuance in the classic sociological “structure versus agency” debate and 2) The different approaches to engaging assigned readings.
In our experience, students from elite universities tend to emphasize the importance of social structures, believing that larger economic, political, and social forces determine individual outcomes and actions. At MCI-Norfolk, this view was challenged by some of the BU students, who underscored the significance of personal responsibility and individual agency.
— Justin Steil and Aditi Mehta
In our experience, students from elite universities tend to emphasize the importance of social structures, believing that larger economic, political, and social forces determine individual outcomes and actions. At MCI-Norfolk, this view was challenged by some of the BU students, who underscored the significance of personal responsibility and individual agency. Some of the MIT students felt that in order to be advocates for social justice, the focus should be placed on acknowledging the oppressive power of larger socio-economic structures. This viewpoint was complicated when some BU students explained how they felt limited by the attribution of an individual’s actions simply to social structures. Several BU students felt that they were forced to wrestle more deeply than the MIT students with the actions they had taken and their consequences, and found more dignity in recognizing the significance of personal choice and agency, both for actions they had already taken and actions they hoped to be able to take in the future. Indeed, a focus on individual will was seen as providing more hope that one has control over one’s life in the future, especially when a solely structural perspective suggests the highly limited nature of choices available to some. This complicated tension was one that was revisited throughout the semester as the course sought to point out ways to analyze the interaction of both structure and agency in action.
The second main difference of teaching in this context arises from the unique diversity of students, beyond that generally found in private university classes. The wide-range of races, ages, socioeconomic statuses, and life experiences brought a richness to the interpretation of class readings. Whereas in courses at MIT, students often discuss the readings abstractly, at MCI-Norfolk more students related the readings to their personal lives and analyzed them through this micro lens. This may be because, placed in a room with so many people with such varying life experiences, it feels more relevant to share your point of view and explain its origins than in a class of people seen as more similar. The micro “personal stories” and macro “abstract analysis” were different and valuable ways of making sense of and engaging the same material.