Several of the recent threads here on Sociologically have introduced me to many new sociologists but only by name. Perhaps we should adapt the form of the Introduce Yourself thread to a recommend a sociologist thread where we offer a little more detail and some reasons why we should read the work of particular academics.

G. Simmel. [Orig. pub. 1908] Specially the second chapter "Quantity in social groups" Please if You know some social scientists whose work tends in the same directions let me know.
(._.)

What is it about Simmel that you find interesting?

As you can see in my profile Simmel is a key author in my ongoing work. Specifically answering your question I must point his concept of life in an intimate connection with time. Nevertheless this analysis can be found in other essay: "Lebensanschauung" (1918) - I guess an apropiate translation can be "Intuition of Life" - his permanent analytical struggle with form/fluxus antinomy appears to me a fundamental issue of this late capitalism.
Well, I hope being at least introductive with this words.

Slightly off topic @HBotia: Don't know if you are familiar with him already, but you might find Merleau-Ponty's phenomenological writings on time inspiring (though probably pretty hard to read too - at least I did).

Simmel does look like an interesting choice. I might try and get hold of his theory of money.

James Baldwin - particularly 'The Fire Next Time'
bell hooks
Patricia Hill Collins - 'The Matrix of Domination'
W.E.B. Dubois
Frantz Fanon
Joe Feagin
Marylyn Frye- 'Oppression'
Eldrige Clever

Some of the best, and most profound writers I've read (so far). Transformative readings from outside of the typical white-heterosexual-patriarchal view most people are exposed to.

Sorry for my late reply. Yes, Merleau-Ponty is in the pending readings to achieve a field knowledge of time theory.
But tryng to be more explicit about this humble recomendation I must say why I have don it. Well, I won´t bore you all with the "he si a classical one". Instead i will remark Simmel´s preocupation with subjetive culture and subsequent impact in theory. For example Lukacs´ commodification concept wich is now a developing area of work in a wide range of issues.
And @Thadam: Are You pointing to what is called broadly Stand Point theories? Some specifical arguments that can be shared here?

Didn't know about Frye or Collins so thanks for the tip. Have you tried Stuart Hall or Paul Gilroy?

Broadly, yes stand point theory is the category each of these works could and probably would be placed in.

I suppose it depends on what area of sociology one is particularly interested in but in any academic area I am sure we are all aware that the majority of theory and work we are exposed to is that which comes from a hetero-patriarchal-white perspective. But when we are examining inequality, poverty, race, economics, history, feminism, religion..just to name a few, the best sources of information we are rarely exposed to come from oppressed subjugated groups. Or oppressed and Subjugated standpoints.

A person can read all they want about the oppression of minority groups from the large body of recognized work by white male heterosexual sociologists, theorists, philosophers etc. (who do often have valuable contributions, I don't want to belittle any writer's work because it is all relevant), but learning about the oppression of blackfolk from people who have the experiential subjugated knowledge will only give one a greater understanding of what it really is and means and be able to deconstruct how racial oppression shapes every day life, just as they would with the oppression of women and gays and lesbians by reading the work of people writing from their experiences as women, gays or lesbians.

So yes it is standpoint theory, but it is standpoint theory from the minds of people with the experience, not ones trying to theorize what it is like to be "in their shoes". Rather than just reading to understand the subject, and to have the knowledge we can read these works to transform the way we think.

I have not read Stuart Hall or Paul Gilroy but I will now, thanks.

I recommend you reading Popper, especially The Poverty of Historicism. Although Popper isn't a sociologists, he brilliantly argues why social scientists need to use abstract models, confront their theories with data, and develop coherent and falsifiable statements. These neo-kantian aspirations are in some ways similar to those of a Weber or a Simmel, a fact that often leads me to wonder, whether Popper actually read Weber and Simmel (but that is another discussion).

/Kristian

'Screened Out' by Jean Baudrillard.

@thecatsmeow

What's your reason for proposing it? Not that I mean to suggest that it shouldn't be recommended - I was just curious as to why you think it deserves a recommendation? I have only read the stuff where he presents the idea of the simulacra :-)

Lars

It's okay, Lars. I fully expect to be questioned / criticised on this site because I only studied a sociology minor at uni ;)

I'm a journalist and studied minors in sociology and mass communication as part of my degree. Baudrillard really hit home for me when I was reading his pieces in 'Screened Out' (a collection of his writings) on wars and the de-sensitised view society takes toward it due to the representation by film and the media of such events. He has a way of writing which brings to life sociological analysis in an interesting and comprehensible manner. He's easily understood and highly relevant - even now - where media and internet analysis is concerned.

I am, however, stretching my knowledge by reading writings by other sociologists, which is sometimes a little daunting. That said, I AM reading Bourdieu's 'Science de la science et reflexivite' in French, as I couldn't find it in Brisbane book shops in English and, while on holidays in Paris a few years ago, I bought it. It's taken me until now to get the courage to tackle it.

And still, although I'm crap at French, it's easier for me to grasp than, say, Foucault's 'The Order of Things', which remains on my bookshelf, a living example of a book that appeals widely to academics but not so much to the layman.

Baudrillard doesn't wank on, putting it frankly, the way some sociologists do. I don't think you should have to be a sociologist to understand what someone is saying; to me, that's just poor communication.

And yes, I expect a thrashing for that comment ;)...but I'm not an academic. I think it's possible to say something important and meaningful in a way that anybody who can read can understand.

@ Thecatmeows

In broad terms i agree with you. A lot of us could probably use a communications course, to present sociology in more popular terms. I think there is a big paradox when it comes to, for instance, the Frankfurt tradition. Guys like Honneth or Habermas has ambitions (spoken or unspoken) to emancipate and liberate the oppresed. To sort of become voices of the voiceless. The paradox here is that their books are some of the hardest books to read, even for young sociologist such as myself.

When all that is said i have some recommendations of my own.

The struggle for recognition - Axl Honneth: Because it presents a new and fundamentally different take on critical theory, thus developing theory in general. What it maybe lacks in empirical methodological elements, it certainly makes up for in theoretical and philosophical weight.

The New Spirit of Capitalism - Chiapello and Boltanski: One of the best and most rewarding reading experiences i have had in uni. The whole theory about the dialectics of critique and capitalism, and how they reenforce each other is pretty is pretty provocative, and it definitely helps to sharpen your thoughts.

On a final note. You have to excuse if i make grammar errors. But english is not my first language.

Christian -

Some good book about Durkheim?