hi guys, sorry for the silence, been away on holiday - a month off doing nothing :-), back to reality now. well, i need your help on something- theories.

has any of you every applied theories on human behaviour (sociology) to something that is not human? how did you justify this in your thesis. am planning to say that 'these theories are based on the study of individuals. they could however be applied to abcd. do i need to justify this?????

Hi Jojo - sounds very interesting.
Do you mean inanimate objects? I know there is a book called the social life of things by Arjun Appadurai but I think that is coming more from a cultural commodities p.o.v.

Also I think Bruno Latour -but tell us more.

Here's the Latour ref:

Latour, B (1992) Where are the missing masses ? The sociology of a few mundane artifacts? in Clarke D, Doel M, A & Housiaux K 2003 The Consumption Reader Routledge

Its quite a quirky extract about the ideological nature of objects, where he discusses his car and seat belt.

hi, thanks for that. i'll check that out and see if i can get my head round what you mean.

yap - inanimate things like say a car industry. how do i justify applying theories based on human behaviour to the behaviour of an industry?

Industry is based on humans and human interaction to a certain extent i.e. humans run (and other humans regulate) industry. Human perceptions of how industry should function would be surely be a factor?

thanks Sixkitten! You're a Godsend! If English wasn't my third language, I wouldn have to struggle so hard to struggle to say the simplest things. thanks a mil .

Any other thoughts??

Pea, i haven yet checked out that book. i should pass by the lib on my way to the gym.

English is your third language?! You come across on these boards as being better at English than most English people!

thanks for the compliment i00t2000. .

i still find myself doing the occassional translating from a to b to c on the odd occassion.

my education has been in English, tho i don't speak it at home. so maybe that's why i might come across as being one who's first language is English.

hey pea, i've read that article. i'll be telling you what i think of it in a bit. never knew sociology was that interesting.

Hi Jojo glad you found it interesting, even if it's not that useful. Latour is a bit leftfield ( polite way of saying at times quite loony), but I agree really interesting.

Its not entierely my area but I think he is fascinating. He is a key note speaker this year at the B.S.A. conference along with Giddens.

actually, it is useful - in the sense that it says that understanding the sociology of things is just as important as understanding the sociology of humans - so i suppose i could find more articles along those lines; three things tho, industries, humans and the law.

the article mentions morality and the law - within the context of the seatbelt - i suppose the difficulty i have with it is towards the end where it says that sociologists are seeking inflexible laws that will make human act in a more moral way. true to some extent looking at the purpose of law, from a legal perspective, but quite controversial, unless ofcourse its criminal law, and even if it were, still a bit controversial - it's aim is not to coerce human beings to act in a particular way - or am i in denial???? .

i see. i'll check out that conference and find a few papers by the presenters, then see if i'll attend. sounds very technological tho. will see. .