 This is a study guide for Chapter 4 of Sociology for Optimists by Mary Holm, published in 2015, the chapter is called Goodness. Please note that these study guides are meant to plane out some important concepts of interest to introductory students. These are not designed to be thorough or provide an in-depth discussion. Material will be skipped or barely discussed while other concepts will be given more emphasis than the chapter may have given them. Also note that the purpose of this book is to look at ways in which sociology can provide a basis for optimism. So discussions of pessimism and optimism will be central to this guide. Sociologists have traditionally discussed morality, what is right and wrong, as a matter of values. Mark saw morality as coming from each class's relations to the means of production, thus creating a system of values that favors the ownership class over the working class. While he does not suggest that greed is a value that motivates the market, he does show that capitalism creates and encourages greed in both classes. He does not consider this a favorable or sustainable outcome. Holmes does not cover this in her chapter, but Weber's concept of their stay-in includes striving for what he called value-free study of humans. Weber set aside values in the sense that he believed that the sociologist has to take people as they are without judging them. Durkheim directly ties social order and moral order. In order for society to function, it must have a sense of what is right and wrong within the system. Those who do wrong may not necessarily be dysfunctional. Holmes points out that Durkheim understood crime as being part of the social structure, functioning as an example and deterrent to others to support the social order. These differing views on values leads us to an interesting question. How can we define morality using sociology? Holmes explores three possibilities. Perhaps goodness comes from individual sacrifice for others. Durkheim studied altruism as a way the social order functions, with sacrifice being bad for an individual but good for the overall system. Goodness might simply be following a code provided by a group to which an individual belongs. Certainly, the power of group dynamics impacts what individuals decide are good or bad. Perhaps goodness changes with circumstances and can only be found when reflecting upon those circumstances than acting on the basis of that reflection. Several sociologists and psychologists have examined ways in which people interact, reflect upon those interactions, and then change their behavior. Examining our values, behaviors, and beliefs in light of what we believe other people see is a fundamental component to human interaction. We are forever anticipating others in our exchanges. Holmes expands upon this fundamental component by examining Carol Gilligan's classic work on moral development, which was developed in response to Colbert's work. Her project was to point out the masculine dominance in Colbert's work. So she took women as the object of her study, rather than men or the more neutral humans. Gilligan asserts that what is good or moral is always created within the context of social processes. No individual develops a sense of right or wrong in a vacuum. Thus, cultural biases affect moral reasoning. We cannot escape it or have some higher order of morality over it. Therefore, because of the social context of patriarchal societies, such as Western societies like our own, what is a good woman is often different than what is a good man. If this is so, then we must acknowledge that there will be different definitions on the basis of class, race, age, et cetera. This makes morality situational and undermines a deterministic model of moral development based upon stages and specific outcomes, which is what Colberg is suggesting in his model. So goodness is found in our interactions as human beings. But this has further implications for understanding a good life or even a good society. We interact as physical beings, what Holmes calls embodiment. Such physical interactions inevitably include caring. One possible understanding of a good life is a life of caring for others. This is a strong basis for optimism because it suggests that a good society emerges from people caring for each other. If goodness is interactional, it is also born of people comparing their actions, practices, and feelings to other people. This can be good news or bad news, but it certainly puts sociology in the frame for helping us to understand how humans can live a good life and create a good society. So where is the optimism? Well, Holmes has a deeper understanding of reflexivity than we need to get into for this course. We will be ignoring some of her concluding remarks. She asserts that people tend to disagree about what is moral, but sociologists have addressed morality as either a matter of social codes or a source of bias when studying humans. Sociology does have the meaning to offer insights into a good life and a good society. There are three concepts that help sociologists provide these insights that she only applies in her discussion, culture. Sociologists study culture and culture provides the context to what people value and what they believe is good and bad. Sociology can study and understand how these values change over time and how place and history give context to beliefs and actions that are described as bad or good. Sociologists study human interaction on a micro level as a matter of impression management. Holmes discusses that sociologists are often pessimistic about values and morality because they see those values as being based upon materialistic fulfillment, matters of consumption and individualization. Holmes calls for a deeper understanding of interactional reflection by examining emotional and relational components. Individuals anticipate the other in an interaction. They may manage the impression they want to make on the other. Understanding human interaction in this way is an excellent way sociologists can study these emotional and relational components. Sociologists also study the mechanisms of stigmatization. If good and bad come from cultures and dominant cultures will try to impose their values upon support culture. Members of stigmatized groups are often described as quote unquote immoral. This is not based on the choices and actions of individuals. Rather it is based simply on the membership of a stigmatized group. This makes impression management difficult for stigmatized individuals. Sociologists have the ability to mark stigmatization and to demonstrate the detrimental effects on human relations that stigmatization has. And in this way it offers an optimistic path.