SU Sociology 212 Classical Traditions in Sociological Theory: Summaries

Sociology 212 on Classical Traditions in Sociological Theory builds your ability to summarize foundational ways of explaining social life—how societies maintain order, how they change, and how power and meaning shape everyday experiences. In a strong exam response, you don’t only name theorists (e.g., Durkheim, Marx, Weber): you show how each tradition offers a distinctive core problem, a key concept set, and a typical method of analysis. This study guide focuses on what you most likely need to write in South African university assessments for Stellenbosch University (SU), with exam-ready summaries, contrasts, and practice structures you can reuse.

SU Sociology 212: Classical Traditions—Big Picture and How to Summarize Them

What “classical traditions” usually means in Sociology 212

In most SU sociology courses, “classical traditions” refers to the early, formative theorists who built the discipline—primarily in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries—and the three broad “pillars” that structure teaching and exams:

Durkheimian / social facts tradition
Marxian / conflict and historical materialism tradition
Weberian / interpretive sociology and verstehen tradition

Even when lecturers frame the course around “classical traditions,” you are expected to recognize that each tradition addresses a different sociological puzzle:

Durkheim: How is social order possible?
Marx: How does capitalism generate domination and change through conflict?
Weber: How do meanings, authority, and rationalization produce specific forms of social action and institutions?

A high-quality summary therefore does not read like a biography; it reads like an argument.

The SU exam skill: turning theory into “summary paragraphs with structure”

You often have to answer prompts like:

“Compare Durkheim and Weber on social order.”
“Explain how Marx’s theory of class helps us understand inequality.”
“Summarize Weber’s theory of rationalization and its consequences.”
“Critically discuss one classical tradition using an example from modern society.”

To score well, a reliable template is:

Theory Summary Template (use in almost any question):

Context / problem (What does the theorist try to explain?)
Core concepts (2–4 key terms, explained briefly)
Mechanism (How do these concepts produce the outcome?)
Method / standpoint (How would the sociologist study it?)
Consequences / predictions (What does the theory expect?)
Limitations / critique (What might be missing?)

You can write summaries faster and more consistently by keeping each answer grounded in this structure.

A quick comparative map (use for exam planning)

Tradition	Core question	Central concepts	Typical mechanism	Style of analysis
Durkheim	How does society achieve cohesion and order?	social facts, collective conscience, mechanical/organic solidarity, anomie	Shared moral rules and institutions bind people; disruptions produce deviance	Macro-level explanation with norms and institutions
Marx	How does capitalism produce exploitation and historical change?	mode of production, class, surplus value, ideology, alienation	Economic structures create class conflict; contradictions generate transformation	Materialist historical analysis with conflict focus
Weber	How do meanings and authority shape action and institutions?	social action, verstehen, authority (traditional/charismatic/legal-rational), bureaucracy, rationalization	Legitimate authority and rationalized systems structure action	Interpretive sociology + institutional analysis

This table is not the same as memorizing—its value is that it helps you decide which theorist matches which exam question.

SU Sociology 212: Durkheimian Traditions—Social Facts, Solidarity, and Anomie

Durkheim’s sociological project: explaining order beyond individual psychology

Émile Durkheim (often taught as one of the “founders” of sociology) is primarily concerned with the question: How is social order possible even though individuals have different interests and beliefs? His answer is that society has a reality that cannot be reduced to individuals. This is the starting point for his concept of social facts.

Social Facts: the key idea

A social fact is:

external to individuals (it exists “before” you and limits you),
coercive (it shapes behavior through sanctions),
general (it operates across a population).

In other words, society is not just a collection of private minds; it is a system of norms, institutions, laws, and collective patterns that constrain and enable action.

Durkheim’s method implication: if social facts are real, you must study them as real—through comparative analysis, measurement of rates (e.g., suicide rates in classic examples), and investigation of how norms shape behavior.

From solidarity to deviance: mechanical and organic solidarity

Durkheim’s account of social order frequently appears in two linked concepts: solidarity and deviance.

Mechanical solidarity

Mechanical solidarity characterizes “traditional” societies where people are similar in beliefs and activities. Social cohesion comes from a collective conscience—the shared moral outlook that makes individuals feel they belong to the same moral universe.

If people share strong collective beliefs:

norms are taken for granted,
boundaries between “us” and “them” are clear,
deviance is shocking because it violates shared moral expectations.

Organic solidarity

As societies become more complex and individuals perform specialized roles, cohesion shifts to organic solidarity. People become different, but they become linked through interdependence—like organs in a body.

Here, cohesion is not based on similarity but on mutual dependence:

division of labor creates functional ties,
institutions coordinate roles,
moral integration becomes more complex and indirect.

Anomie: when the normative system breaks down

A central concept likely to appear in SU exam summaries is anomie—a state of normlessness or weakened regulation, where people lose guidance about what goals are legitimate and what means are acceptable.

In Durkheimian terms, anomie is not just individual confusion. It emerges when:

rapid social change undermines stable norms,
institutions fail to regulate desire and expectations,
people experience a mismatch between culturally promoted goals and available legitimate pathways.

Practical example you can use (general and exam-friendly)

Consider a context where economic or social change alters job availability faster than moral regulation systems adapt. People might still be socialized into strong expectations about success, respectability, and education, yet find legitimate routes blocked—leading to increased frustration, norm conflict, and deviance.

You don’t need to name a specific country in every Durkheim answer, but in South African university exams, it helps to gesture toward recognizable structural change: expanding youth expectations, uneven labor markets, and strain between ideals and opportunities.

Durkheim on deviance: why deviance can be functional

Durkheim is often misread as simply “anti-deviance.” A stronger summary is: deviance is socially meaningful.

Key points:

Deviance highlights what a society’s norms are.
When societies respond to deviance (punishment, public condemnation), they reaffirm collective boundaries.
Even when deviance is “bad,” the social reaction can strengthen cohesion by clarifying rules.

This is an exam-friendly line: deviance is not only disorder; it can be part of the social process through which order is maintained.

Critiques of Durkheimian traditions (write these as “limitations”)

SU examiners often reward critical engagement. Possible limitations to mention:

Overemphasis on consensus
Durkheim can appear to treat society as if cohesion is the default condition, underplaying how power and inequality shape norms.
Reduced attention to conflict and domination
While Durkheim acknowledges moral breakdown (anomie), critics argue he gives less systematic attention to structural conflict between groups.
Risk of treating social facts as too “external”
If norms are always coercive and objective, it can be harder to explain how people reinterpret norms or resist them creatively.

How to turn Durkheim into an exam-ready paragraph

Use this as a model you can adapt:

Durkheim’s sociology asks how social order is possible. He argues that society consists of social facts—norms and institutions that are external to individuals, coercive, and collectively patterned. Cohesion is expressed through solidarity, shifting from mechanical solidarity in more homogeneous settings to organic solidarity in complex societies where interdependence replaces similarity. When norms weaken due to rapid change, anomie emerges, increasing the likelihood of deviance. Importantly, Durkheim treats deviance as socially meaningful because society’s responses can reaffirm moral boundaries and strengthen collective regulation. However, critics claim Durkheim can underplay how inequality and domination influence norm formation and social reactions.

That paragraph gives you the structure examiners want: problem → concepts → mechanism → consequence → critique.

SU Sociology 212: Marxian Traditions—Capitalism, Class Conflict, and Historical Change

Marx’s core sociological problem: explaining inequality and transformation

Karl Marx’s tradition is frequently used in Sociology 212 to show how sociology can be critical and historical, not only descriptive. Marx’s main question can be phrased as: why does capitalism produce exploitation and recurring crises, and how can it change?

Where Durkheim emphasizes cohesion and Weber emphasizes meaning and authority, Marx emphasizes economic structures and conflict.

Mode of production and class: society organized around relations of production

Marx’s analysis typically begins with the concept of mode of production—how a society organizes:

the forces of production (technology, labor capacity),
the relations of production (who owns what and who performs which work).

From this, class analysis becomes possible. Two classic class positions in capitalist societies are:

those who own the means of production (often called the bourgeoisie),
those who sell their labor power (the proletariat).

A strong Marx summary should explain class not only as income differences but as relationship positions in production.

Exploitation and surplus: how value becomes surplus value (in conceptual terms)

Many exams will not require the full technical derivation of surplus value, but they do require the idea that:

workers create value through labor,
the system compensates workers in wages that do not fully return the value produced,
the difference becomes surplus (appropriated by owners).

So when writing, you can state:

exploitation is systemic,
it is not simply an individual moral failure,
it flows from structural relations in production.

Ideology: how domination can appear legitimate

A key Marxian concept is ideology—systems of beliefs and narratives that help stabilize social order by shaping what people see as normal, fair, or inevitable.

Marxian ideology does not mean “people are stupid.” It means:

certain ideas align with the interests of dominant classes,
institutions and media reproduce these ideas,
individuals may internalize ideologies that limit their ability to perceive exploitation.

Alienation: why capitalism can produce psychological and social distance

Although alienation can be taught differently depending on syllabus emphasis, a robust summary is:

Workers may feel separated from the product of their labor (they do not control what they produce).
They may feel separated from the process of work (work is controlled externally).
They may feel separated from others (competition, hierarchical control).
They may feel separated from their human potential (labor becomes repetitive or dehumanizing).

In exams, alienation is a bridge between structural analysis (how capitalism organizes production) and lived experience (how people feel and perceive themselves).

Historical change: contradictions and crisis logic (how Marx expects capitalism to evolve)

Marx’s tradition is not only about describing exploitation; it’s about explaining historical tendencies:

Capitalists compete and seek profit.
They introduce cost-cutting strategies and labor-saving technologies.
This can create tension between:
- increasing productivity,
- the ability of workers to consume goods,
- the stability of employment and incomes.

These tensions can contribute to crises, instability, and class struggle.

You can summarize Marx’s “crisis logic” in accessible language: capitalism contains contradictions that can intensify conflict and propel transformation.

Marx and class struggle: from “theory” to social movements and politics

In exam answers, Marxian theory is often expected to connect to real-world politics:

labor unions,
strikes,
protest movements,
debates over labor rights,
struggles over land, housing, and public services.

Even if you do not cite a specific movement, you should mention the general mechanism:

class positions create interests,
interests can become organized into political action,
action can reshape institutions.

In South African settings, instructors often encourage students to connect theoretical arguments to local histories of inequality and labor exploitation, without reducing theory to mere local detail.

Critiques of Marxian traditions (and how to respond)

A strong Sociology 212 exam response usually includes a critical angle. Common critiques:

Economic determinism
Critics argue Marx can overstate the power of economics and understate culture, identity, or agency.
Reductionism of class
Some argue other axes of inequality—race, gender, ethnicity—cannot be fully explained through class alone.
Predictive uncertainty
Marx’s more revolutionary expectations have not played out in identical historical forms in every place and time, leading critics to question the inevitability or timing of revolution.

Counter-response you can write (without claiming “Marx was right in every case”)

You can respond by reframing Marx:

Marx is not necessarily claiming only economics matters.
His framework can be extended: the economic structure can shape political opportunity and the material conditions under which culture and identity develop.
Marxian analysis can incorporate intersectional insights by treating capitalism as one axis among others that interacts with race and gender systems.

How to turn Marx into an exam-ready paragraph

Marx’s classical tradition explains society by focusing on capitalist relations of production. Social classes are defined by their positions in production, especially the relation between those who own the means of production and those who sell labor power. Exploitation is structural: workers create value through labor, but wages do not fully return the value produced, so surplus is appropriated by owners. Marx also analyzes how ideology can make domination appear legitimate and how capitalism can generate alienation by separating workers from products, processes, and human potential. Historically, capitalism develops through contradictions that can intensify crises and sharpen class conflict, pushing societies toward transformation. Critics often argue that Marx risks economic reductionism or determinism, yet Marxian frameworks can still be used to explain how material structures shape political possibilities and the conditions under which identities and conflicts emerge.

SU Sociology 212: Weberian Traditions—Social Action, Meaning, Authority, and Rationalization

Weber’s key question: how interpretive sociology explains social order

Max Weber’s contribution often anchors the third “pillar” in classical theory. His question can be phrased as: how do we understand social action and how does meaning shape institutions and authority?

Where Durkheim emphasizes social facts and Marx emphasizes economic relations, Weber emphasizes that sociology must interpret the meanings that actors attach to their actions.

Social action and verstehen: making meaning central to explanation

Weber’s notion of sociology as interpretive work rests on social action—action oriented toward others based on subjective meaning.

To study social action, Weber introduces verstehen (understanding):

the analyst aims to grasp the meaning underlying action,
explanations connect meanings to outcomes without reducing meanings to psychology alone.

In exam answers, a useful way to phrase it is:

Sociology should not only ask what happens, but also why it makes sense to actors in their social world.

Types of social action: why the “intent” matters

Weber often categorizes social action into types. A summary you can use:

Instrumentally rational action (means-end calculation)
Value-rational action (acting based on belief in a value, even at cost)
Affective action (emotions drive action)
Traditional action (habit and custom drive action)

This breakdown helps you show nuance in exam answers: the same behavior can be motivated differently, leading to different interpretations and institutional consequences.

Authority and legitimacy: how order is maintained without coercion alone

Weber’s account of social order relies heavily on authority and legitimacy—the idea that domination often persists because people believe it is justified.

Weber’s classic typology includes:

traditional authority (based on custom),
charismatic authority (based on personal devotion to a leader),
legal-rational authority (based on rules, law, and bureaucratic procedures).

This matters because it shows that social order is not only “coercive” but can be sustained through belief in legitimacy.

Example scenario you can use in essays (generic but concrete)

Imagine a school or workplace:

In a context of traditional authority, rules are followed because “that’s how it has always been.”
In a charismatic context, people follow a leader whose vision inspires loyalty, even if formal procedures are weak.
In legal-rational contexts, procedures guide action: staff comply because policy and law define legitimate behavior.

You can adapt this logic to many institutional settings in SA: government departments, universities, unions, community leadership, and so on.

Bureaucracy and rationalization: the “iron cage” idea

Weber’s analysis of bureaucracy is one of the most quoted parts of his tradition. Bureaucracy can be described through features such as:

specialization of roles,
rules and procedures,
hierarchical organization,
documentation and record-keeping,
predictability and calculability.

The key sociological argument is that rationalization expands the scope of formal calculation:

institutions become efficient,
but they can also trap individuals in impersonal systems—often called the “iron cage.”

In exam summaries, you can connect rationalization to:

reduced flexibility in decision-making,
routinized life and work,
the displacement of moral and emotional considerations by procedure.

Rationalization and modernity: multiple spheres, different logics

Weber’s “modernity” is not one single story of progress. Rationalization happens in different spheres:

economy (profit and calculation),
politics (administration and law),
religion (forms of belief and practices),
law (formal rational legality).

This gives you a sophisticated comparative angle: modernity may create both opportunities (predictability, merit-based procedures in ideal terms) and constraints (bureaucratic rigidity).

Critiques of Weberian traditions (and productive tensions)

Key critiques include:

Interpretation can become detached from structure
If social meaning is central, critics worry that Weber may not fully explain structural domination.
Risk of under-theorizing inequality mechanisms
Compared to Marx, Weber can look less focused on exploitation.
Methodological emphasis on meaning may ignore material constraints
Actors’ meanings often depend on resources, opportunities, and power—so critics argue meaning must be studied alongside these constraints.

Balanced response you can write

You can argue that Weber and Marx complement each other:

Marx can explain why material constraints and exploitation shape options for action,
Weber can explain how legitimate authority and rationalized rules structure what people consider “reasonable” or “appropriate.”

This kind of integrative argument can earn marks because it demonstrates theoretical literacy rather than one-sided memorization.

How to turn Weber into an exam-ready paragraph

Weber’s classical tradition builds sociology around social action and the interpretive task of verstehen. Social action is meaningful action oriented toward others, and sociology must therefore explain not only behavior but the subjective meanings that guide it. Weber also explains social order through legitimacy: domination persists when it is accepted as justified, taking different forms such as traditional, charismatic, and legal-rational authority. Modern social life is shaped by rationalization, particularly the expansion of bureaucratic organization with rules, hierarchy, and formal procedure. This can increase efficiency and predictability, but it may also trap individuals in an “iron cage” of impersonal rational systems. Critics argue that focusing on meaning and legitimacy can underemphasize material exploitation and structural domination; nevertheless, Weber’s approach is valuable because it clarifies how authority and rational rules shape the everyday possibilities and interpretations of action.

SU Sociology 212: Synthesizing Classical Traditions—Comparisons, Applications, and Exam-Writing Strategies

Why synthesis matters: exam questions rarely reward “three separate essays”

Many Sociology 212 questions ask you to do more than summarize one theorist. Even when the prompt seems straightforward, it often expects comparison or critical evaluation. Examples of question styles:

“Using Durkheim, Marx, and Weber, explain how a society maintains order.”
“What would each tradition say about inequality in education?”
“Critically assess whether society is best understood through consensus, conflict, or meaning.”

This is where synthesis becomes a high-scoring skill: you should show you understand the logic of each tradition and can apply it to the same phenomenon from different angles.

A comparison framework you can reuse: order, conflict, meaning

Use a three-lens framework:

Order lens (Durkheim)
- How do norms, institutions, and collective conscience regulate life?
- What happens when normative guidance weakens (anomie)?
Conflict lens (Marx)
- What economic structures create inequality?
- How do class relations and ideology stabilize domination?
- What tensions drive change?
Meaning/authority lens (Weber)
- How do actors interpret actions and legitimacy claims?
- How do bureaucratic rules rationalize behavior?
- How does authority persist or fail?

When you structure an essay around these lenses, you avoid random theorist dumping and create analytical coherence.

Application example 1: inequality in education (Durkheim vs Marx vs Weber)

Education is a classic sociology topic for exams because it combines norms, power, and meaning.

Durkheimian view (norms, solidarity, and regulation)

From a Durkheimian standpoint, education can be described as a major institution that transmits collective values and strengthens social cohesion—especially in societies where integration depends on shared norms. If education systems expand but fail to provide equal access to legitimate pathways, the mismatch can resemble anomie-like strain: learners experience unclear rules about success, and deviance or disengagement can rise.

What to emphasize in an exam answer:

education as moral regulation,
cohesion and legitimacy of expectations,
norm breakdown and its social consequences.

Marxian view (class reproduction and material constraint)

A Marxian analysis would focus on how education connects to labor markets and how it can reproduce inequality through differential access to resources, credentials, and pathways to employment. Ideology also matters: educational merit narratives can make unequal outcomes appear “fair” when structural conditions differ.

What to emphasize:

relations between education and capitalism,
class stratification in access and outcomes,
ideology that legitimates inequality.

Weberian view (authority, credentials, and rationalized systems)

Weber would likely focus on:

how educational authority becomes legal-rational (rules, accreditation, bureaucratic grading),
how credentials become socially meaningful for hiring and status,
how rationalization produces predictable but sometimes impersonal procedures.

What to emphasize:

legitimacy of credential systems,
how bureaucracies shape life chances,
meanings attached to qualifications and career pathways.

Synthesis move:
In one essay you can argue: education is simultaneously a site of moral regulation (Durkheim), a mechanism tied to class relations and credential value (Marx), and a bureaucratic-rational institution that organizes action through legitimacy and rule-based procedures (Weber).

Application example 2: social protest and public disorder (collective conscience, class conflict, legitimacy)

Protest movements are another exam-friendly application because they test each tradition’s assumptions about order and change.

Durkheimian lens: deviance, moral boundaries, and anomie

Durkheim would interpret protest partly as deviance from established norms, but would also ask what the protest reveals about the society’s moral boundaries. If the protests emerge during periods of rapid change or weakened regulation, an anomie-like condition could help explain why people feel norms no longer guide them toward legitimate outcomes.

Marxian lens: class conflict and ideology

A Marxian approach would stress:

who benefits from existing institutions,
which class interests are threatened,
how ideology legitimates current arrangements,
how protest can represent collective struggle over material conditions.

Weberian lens: legitimacy, authority type, and rationalization

Weber would focus on:

whether protest challenges traditional, charismatic, or legal-rational authority,
how leaders justify claims,
how bureaucratic systems respond (and whether people accept those responses as legitimate).

Synthesis move:
You can argue that protest is both a disruption of norms (Durkheim), a conflict over structural interests (Marx), and a struggle over legitimacy and authoritative rule systems (Weber).

Application example 3: religion and secular institutions (meaning vs solidarity vs economics)

Religion appears in classical theory because it connects to meaning, authority, and social integration.

Durkheim: religion as social glue

Durkheim often treats religion as a powerful source of collective energy and cohesion. Through shared rituals, communities reaffirm solidarity and reinforce the collective conscience. Even in secular contexts, similar functions can be performed by civic rituals, national holidays, or institutional ceremonies.

Marx: religion as ideology (and the material roots of belief)

Marxian accounts often interpret religion as an ideological system that can comfort people while disguising the structural causes of suffering. In this tradition, you explain religious belief by connecting it to material conditions and the interests served by particular ideas.

Weber: religion and rationalization (internal logic of beliefs)

Weber is distinctive because he does not only treat religion as “false consciousness.” He examines how religious ideas can influence economic behavior, authority legitimacy, and rationalized life patterns. The emphasis is on how meaning and belief systems shape action.

Synthesis move:
To show mastery, present the differences clearly:

Durkheim: religion integrates society.
Marx: religion can stabilize domination ideologically.
Weber: religious meanings shape how actors rationalize life and work.

Practical exam-writing guidance: what to include and what to avoid

What to include (high-value exam features)

Define the key terms as you use them (social facts, anomie, ideology, social action, legitimacy, rationalization).
Explain the mechanism—how do the concepts produce outcomes?
Link to a sociological phenomenon—education, work, protests, bureaucracy, deviance, inequality.
Include critique—one limitation per theorist is often enough, but it must be relevant.
Use comparative language—“Durkheim explains order through… whereas Marx emphasizes…” “Weber adds…”

What to avoid (common pitfalls)

Biography-only responses without theoretical argument.
Using concepts without definitions (“anomie is deviance”)—vague statements lose marks.
Contradictory comparisons (e.g., claiming Durkheim is conflict-focused) without explanation.
Forcing theories onto reality without showing how each theory’s assumptions fit the question.

Model answer structures (copyable skeletons)

Model structure for “Compare Durkheim and Weber on social order”

Intro: frame “order” and mention that Durkheim and Weber disagree on what must be explained.
Durkheim paragraph: social facts, collective conscience, solidarity; anomie as breakdown; deviance as boundary maintenance.
Weber paragraph: social action, meaning, legitimacy; authority types; bureaucratic rationalization.
Comparison sentence(s):
- Durkheim: cohesion via shared norms/institutions.
- Weber: cohesion via legitimacy and interpretive alignment of action.
Critical synthesis: show strengths and limitations; optionally integrate Marx as a third lens briefly.

Model structure for “Explain Marx’s account of inequality and change”

Intro: why capitalism generates inequality; Marx’s focus on relations of production.
Core concepts: class positions, exploitation/surplus (conceptual level), ideology, alienation.
Mechanism: contradictions, crisis logic, class struggle.
Application: education or work; show how material constraints and ideology shape outcomes.
Critique: determinism, reductionism; response about interactions and extending Marxian analysis.

A compact “memory sheet” of classical concepts (for quick revision)

Durkheim
- social facts (external, coercive, general)
- collective conscience
- mechanical solidarity / organic solidarity
- anomie (norm breakdown)
- deviance as socially meaningful (boundary reinforcement)
Marx
- mode of production (forces + relations)
- class positions (owners vs labor power sellers)
- exploitation and surplus (conceptual)
- ideology (legitimating narratives)
- alienation (separation from product/process/human potential)
- contradictions, crisis tendencies, transformation through struggle
Weber
- social action (meaning oriented toward others)
- verstehen (interpretive understanding)
- authority and legitimacy (traditional/charismatic/legal-rational)
- bureaucracy (rules, hierarchy, documentation)
- rationalization and “iron cage”

How to use these summaries in SU-style study routines

To prepare efficiently without losing depth:

For each theorist, write 1 structured summary of ~10–14 lines using the template (problem → concepts → mechanism → consequences → critique).
Then write 2 short comparisons:
- Durkheim vs Weber on order
- Marx vs Weber on power and meaning
Finally, practice one application paragraph using one phenomenon (education, protests, work/bureaucracy).

The cycle keeps your knowledge active and exam-ready.

Concluding synthesis: what “classical traditions” teach you as a sociologist

The enduring value of Sociology 212’s classical traditions is that they train three different sociological instincts:

Durkheim teaches you to treat norms and institutions as real forces shaping cohesion and breakdown.
Marx teaches you to treat inequality and historical change as rooted in economic structures and struggles.
Weber teaches you to treat meanings and legitimacy as central to how authority and rational systems actually operate.

In exams, the highest marks generally go to answers that do not merely “state theories,” but show how theories explain: what they assume about society, what they predict about behavior, and what they help you notice in real social life.

End of study guide for SU Sociology 212 Classical Traditions in Sociological Theory: Summaries.