Announcing new books, published in the last year. We’re offering 30% off these and other recent SUP Sociology titles with discount code S22XASA-FM through our virtual exhibit ».
For the best shipping rates on orders outside of North America use the discount code S22XASA-FM at our international distributor, CAP.
Book Trailer for The Border Within » by Phi Hong Su
Announcing new books, published in the last year. We’re offering 30% off these and other recent SUP Sociology titles with discount code S21XASA-FM through our virtual exhibit ».
For the best shipping rates on orders outside of North America use the discount code S21XAOM-FM at our international distributor, CAP.
Marcela Maxfield, SUP's Sociology Acquisitions Editor, says hello to ASA and explains her areas of interest.
Continue reading "American Sociological Association Conference 2021" »
Nigerian beauty pageant contestants and the power of friendship
In December 2019 two different moments featuring Nigerian representatives at major beauty competitions drew considerable attention. At the 2019 edition of the Miss Universe competition held in Atlanta, Olutosin Araromi, who placed in the top 20, smiled broadly when Miss South Africa, Zozibini Tunzi was crowned the winner. Araromi gave an enthusiastic thumbs up sign, kissed the newly crowned Miss Universe on the cheek, and encouraged Tunzi to relish her coronation walk. Araromi, who was Tunzi’s roommate at the Miss Universe competition earned the media designation of being her personal “hype queen,” a riff off of the slang term “hype man” used in hip hop music for a backup performer who gets the audience energized and boosts the star’s stage presence. Less than a week later, at the Miss World competition held in London, Miss Nigeria’s Nyekachi Douglas, placed in the top 3, but lost to Miss Jamaica’s Toni-Ann Singh. Internet buzzed about her priceless reaction. Douglas danced, jumped for joy, and whooped animatedly, hugging a shell shocked Singh. Viewers commented on Douglas’ genuine support and kind-hearted reaction as embodying the epitome of a loyal friend.
Promoters and fans view beauty queens as cultural ambassadors. The relationships between beauty queens represent microcosms of diplomatic affairs.
Pageants are often dismissed by the general public as superficial yet they hold significance at the individual, national, and global levels. Araromi and Douglas’ viral moments generated Internet memes, social media commentary, and news coverage. A less charitable interpretation of these moments might conclude that the Nigerian beauty queens held ulterior motives of stealing the limelight. This understanding depends in part on common perceptions of Nigerians as playing an outsized role in Africa as the most populous country and at the forefront of cultural trends in fashion, literature, music, and film. There is a long-standing desire to translate this recognition onto the world stage through events like beauty pageants. Industry insiders view winning and hosting beauty competitions as avenues of promoting hospitality, entrepreneurship, and positive attributes of Nigeria by showcasing charming, attractive, and intelligent young women.
On the whole, responses commended how Araromi and Douglas’ joyous reactions highlighted solidarity, sisterhood, and support despite their personal defeat. These instances belie conventional understandings of beauty queens as catty, hyper-competitive, and self-absorbed. Indeed, in my own book, I write about how beauty contestants often stress the social connections, camaraderie, and life-long friendships that they gain from their participation in beauty competitions. Their involvement in these contests also provided opportunities to network outside of the pageant world. Effectively networking relied on their self-presentation as virtuous and formidable women concerned with the greater good of their communities. They are expected to use their platforms selflessly, to help vulnerable segments of the Nigerian populace through public speaking and charity work. Beauty queens leveraged these forms of civic labor into social capital to catapult their careers and ambitions to the next level. Participating in Nigerian beauty contests provides the chance to enter into the upper echelons of Nigerian society through hobnobbing with celebrities, lobbying politicians, and striking business deals with executives.
Ming Hsu Chen on American membership and exclusion.
This piece was previously posted on the Scholars Strategy Network.
For the last decade, U.S. federal immigration policy has focused on enforcement. Indeed, an anti-immigrant thrust undergirds many of the major domestic policies of the last thirty years – from the tough on crime initiatives of the 1980s, to the welfare and work reforms of the 1990s, to the anti-terrorism efforts following September 11, 2001. Most recently, powerful political forces have pushed ethno-nationalism as a strategy for protecting America during a public health crisis. Beyond so many tendencies to reject immigrants are the underappreciated roles immigration policy can play in integrating immigrants rather than excluding and deporting them.
Compared to U.S. citizens, immigrants hold statuses far short of full membership in U.S. society. For many, membership is circumscribed by their legal status as noncitizens. There also social, economic, and political barriers to full membership, even for naturalized citizens. Many immigrants, including naturalized citizens, struggle with access to language instruction, face economic barriers in the workplace, and find themselves without a political voice or vote. Increasingly, many fear brushes with law enforcement or immigration authorities that may lead to detention or deportation.
U.S. immigration law, unfortunately, tends to draw boundaries and exclusions. Noncitizens sit outside the circle of membership, and in many areas the laws are not obligated to afford them the equality or fair treatment due to citizens. Rather than seeing immigrants as individuals who are, at present, partial members of the U.S. community, and in many instances moving toward possible full citizenship in the future, U.S. authorities tend to regard immigrants as the responsibility of someone else, somewhere else.
Continue reading "HOW THE U.S. CAN SUPPORT IMMIGRANTS EN ROUTE TO CITIZENSHIP " »
A Q&A with Nick Couldry and Ulises A. Mejias
Earlier this month, Stanford University Press hosted an online discussion between Nick Couldry and Ulises A. Mejias, authors of the recently released The Costs of Connection », and Safiya Umoja Noble, author of the bestselling Algorithms of Oppression. The Costs of Connection uncovers "data colonialism," and its designs for controlling our lives—our ways of knowing; our means of production; our political participation. Because attendees of the talk posed far more questions than could be answered in a short amount of time, we invited Nick and Ulises to continue the conversation here.
What do you think are the key/most concerning issues in the age of data colonisation and why?
At the core there are two issues. First, the capture of what in our book we call ‘the space of the subject,’ the basic protection from interference and monitoring that is essential to our integrity as individual selves. This affects all possible selves, even if detailed effects are, as we just said, deeply unequal. But then, second, there is data colonialism’s way of deepening and obscuring how inequality gets reproduced through automated algorithmic processing — the implications of this for social life in every country in the next decades will also be severe, all the more so, because much of that will be easy to hide from view.
Data colonialism might be free of violence, but only of the once applied in the former colonial times. I believe it is just a different time of physical violence, which is even more profitable. Digital platforms are clearly damaging brains, propelling sedentarism as well as social isolation. It is also pulling people into debt by promoting consumption in each website which in an more extreme way is pulling people into poverty, which in the long run shortens life expectation. Do you agree?
Absolutely. As we said in the webinar, the question of violence is complex. It would be wrong to even hint that the situation with data colonialism involves anything like the brutal and sustained physical violence that was at the core of historic colonialism. But for sure data colonialism is introducing a social order that relies on a lot of force and pressure. So if you are in a low-paid job, you won’t have the chance to negotiate whether or not you put on your phone the app that tells you where your next assignment is, even if it takes your data. When these sorts of pressures are overlaid with others (about debt, housing etc), then the net effect may well be physically violent. And then there’s the effect on people’s brains of their continued exposure to digital devices and the intense pressures this can bring, as noted in our last answer. Finally, there is the symbolic violence that lies at the core of how data colonialism categorises and orders everyday life. All of this is important to our reading of data colonialism, and justifies the statement, as you say, this is a time of a different type of violence, even if the apparent difference from the immediate brutality of historic colonialism must always be recognized.
Why the principal question we ask about Bernie Madoff is wrong.
In light of Bernie Madoff's recent request for compassionate release we are republishing this entry from 2017.
In May, HBO’s The Wizard of Lies brought in the largest premiere audience that the network has seen in four years. The film, an adaptation of Diana Henriques’ journalistic account of Bernie Madoff’s multi-billion-dollar Ponzi scheme, saw, 2.4 million viewers, the weekend of its release—a sizable audience, especially considering that actors Richard Dreyfuss and Blythe Danner headlined Madoff, a four-hour ABC miniseries on the same subject, only a year prior. Perhaps as a way to seize upon the renewed interest generated by the film, which cast Robert De Niro in the lead role as Bernie and Michelle Pfeiffer as Ruth Madoff, the New York Post ran a lengthy article, “The sad new life of exiled Ruth Madoff,” with paparazzi-style photos of Ruth, her preferred bagel shop, dry cleaners, local clothing shop, and other quotidian details about a no-longer-privileged existence. The UK’s Daily Mail published a similar story with photos of the “recluse” Ruth emerging from a local CVS. With a distinct note of schadenfreude, the piece indicated just how far down the social ladder she had fallen. With the ten-year anniversary of Bernie’s arrest approaching, public appetite for this story and curiosity about its principal characters remains robust.
Whether or not Madoff fits the criteria of a sociopath (or a psychopath) has produced numerous conjectures.
Understanding the world of institutional review boards.
Stanford University Press is proud to present a Q&A with Regulating Human Research» author Sarah Babb
What made you want to write about the history and the evolving role of IRBs?
I was the Graduate Director in the Boston College sociology department. Sometime around 2006, I began hearing from many students encountering problems “getting through IRB.” In an attempt to tackle this problem, I volunteered to serve on our IRB at Boston College. There I discovered that federal regulations were a great deal more flexible than our local Boston College IRB policies--for example, federal rules could allow most social research to be carried out without informed consent forms. As a faculty board member, I tried to get the BC IRB to adopt more flexible policies, but was unsuccessful.
I suppose you could say that this project was born out of my frustration with that experience. But once I started learning more about the IRB world, I began to see that there was something much bigger going on, and that this bigger thing was also happening in other areas of American regulation. So my book attempts to capture this.
What was the research process like?
As a qualitative researcher, I tried as much as I could to immerse myself in the IRB world. I became an avid reader of a trade journal for IRB administrators. This helped me understand the issues (which are surprisingly complex), and also gave me the names of contacts to start interviewing. It also allowed me to ask better, more targeted questions, and to connect more effectively with my informants (I ended up talking to about 50 of them). I also started attending the annual meeting of the IRB professionals’ association. This immersion made me sympathize with the dilemmas of these professionals, and I have tried to bring this out in the book.
As I carried out my research, I added my trade journal articles, interview transcripts, and other sources into a file in the qualitative data analysis program Atlas.ti, and coded them for themes. This process allowed me to be guided by what my data were telling me, and brought me to my final research question and arguments.
For scholars of regulation, I think the book speaks to the weirdness of the way we regulate in the United States. Instead of having strong federal bureaucracy, our system spins off thousands of locally financed compliance bureaucracies.
How Americans shifted from civic optimism to political polarization.
In 1963 the seminal political scientists Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba coined the term “civic culture” to describe the exceptional nature of American democracy. Compared to Western Europe, American democracy had features that were unusual. The following were essential features of this political culture: citizen optimism, confidence in government, generalized trust of other citizens, consensus between the parties on the policies of post war reconstruction of Europe, and civil discourse between political combatants. American citizens also exhibited different behavior: they were more engaged in their communities via volunteer activities, they exhibited less suspicion of others’ motives, and they were more involved in political discourse within their families and in the community. Women were also more engaged in familial political discussions. Voting rates were higher and “we’re all in it together” was a common sentiment.
In today’s U.S. political system polarization, distrust, lack of confidence in major institutions, and contentiousness have taken hold. Robert Putnam1 described this phenomenon as “Bowling Alone,” a narrative in which citizens withdraw from communities into the private life of family and work. Earlier Morris Janowitz (1978; 1983) had pointed to declining civic consciousness, symbolized by the rejection of the ‘citizen-soldier’ model of citizenship, as a major social change. The decision to end the draft in 1973 and turn to an all-volunteer army signaled the death of this concept. In this view citizen rights then became a more compelling issue than citizen responsibilities. In both explanations the result is declining civic consciousness and patriotism.
Seymour Lipset2 in 1996 offered an alternative to these perspectives. He focused on the return to normalcy that post- war policies and the reconstruction of Europe produced in the U.S. The result was a resurgence of classic American cultural narratives. American individualism revived from its slumbers in the ‘50s when elites emphasized collective action and social mobilization to combat Russian aggression; to reconstruct Europe; and to avoid nuclear annihilation. A more activist model of citizenship emerged. A revival of populism energized Americans, particularly younger generations, which gave rise to the turbulent ‘60s.
For Americans with disabilities home care is a right.
Democratic presidential candidate, Pete Buttigieg, recently unveiled a plan about how Americans with disabilities will fit into his “Medicare for all who want it.” This is a big deal. While healthcare reform is on everyone’s mind, candidates have been silent about how their plans will specifically address long-term community-based care for non-elderly people with disabilities. Millions of Americans currently depend on Medicaid funds in order to realize their civil right to live free from confining and isolating residential facilities.
Medicaid (not Medicare) is the largest payer of in-home care in the US but that doesn’t mean people with disabilities are entitled to it. As a result, cuts to Medicaid almost always lead to cuts to optional community-based care, not nursing home care which states are legally required to provide.
Millions of Americans currently depend on Medicaid funds in order to realize their civil right to live free from confining and isolating residential facilities.
For years following the early 1980’s implementation of a waiver system meant to channel money from nursing homes to home care, both Democrats and Republicans recognized this institutional problem. Despite numerous (often bipartisan) attempts to reform the bias favoring nursing home care, little real change has come about.
The 1990s began with a great deal of promise as the ADA was supposed to clarify and extend disability rights, although it wasn’t immediately clear how the ADA alone could limit needless institutionalization without actual reforms to Social Security and Medicaid. Bill Clinton’s focus on healthcare reform signalled new political opportunities to legislators and activists. By then, growing inpatient and disillusioned with the political process, activists took to the streets demanding that long-term community-based care be part of the healthcare reform conversation – an eerily familiar cry as the disability community today is left wondering where they fit into proposed Democratic plans.
Lynn Chancer, author of After the Rise and Stall of American Feminism, on American feminism and moving the gender revolution forward
Feminist consciousness has grown so rapidly in the last decade that it is hard to keep up with the fast pace of unfolding developments in popular culture, academic writing, law and feminist-influenced blogging. More and more people are willing to embrace the term ‘feminism’ as representative of a multi-faceted and multi-dimensional movement. Feminism is experiencing a cultural renaissance even amidst concurrent backlash. In terms of progress, perhaps no example is clearer than what happened in American politics before and immediately following the mid-term elections of November 2018, when a record number of women were elected to the now Democratically- controlled US House of Representatives. Media coverage of their January 2019 swearing in referred to the ‘year of the woman1,’ and projected a new era of greater participation and gender-related political consciousness as dawning.
In some ways, new energies have indeed been activated. Perhaps never before has the desire for an American President who is a woman been stronger: hopes for this historical ‘first’ were raised but not fulfilled by Hillary Clinton, who won the popular vote though not the Electoral College. Eagerness for women to enter politics has also been catalyzed by a sense of threat that hovers, somewhat ominously, over the security of feminist gains made over the last half century since the second wave. There is good reason to fear that reproductive options encompassing abortion rights could be turned back if President Donald Trump is able to appoint more conservative justices to the Supreme Court who are committed to overturning 1973’s iconic Roe v. Wade.
Continue reading "Feminist Revival and the Year of the Woman" »
Parenting anxieties abound for Asian immigrants at the intersection of cultural transformation and persistent inequality.
Immigrant parents embrace the American dream that their children can achieve a brighter future in the promised land. Asian immigrants, however, feel increasingly anxious about the fierce competition of college admission shadowed by the dubious existence of “Asian quota.” Recently, a dozen rejected Asian American applicants sued Harvard for discrimination against Asian Americans by penalizing their higher achievement as a group. According to court documents, Harvard consistently rated Asian applicants lower than other races on traits like likability and kindness. The debates around the lawsuit reveal widely shared stereotypes that associate Asian families with tiger parenting and exam-obsessed culture.
My new book, Raising Global Families: Parenting, Immigration, and Class in Taiwan and the US, dispels the myth of tiger mom by revealing divergent childrearing practices among ethnic Chinese families across the social class spectrum and geographic locations. I interviewed over a hundred parents in Taiwan and the US, including middle-class and working-class Taiwanese, and middle-class and working-class Chinese immigrants in the Boston Area. This unique research illuminates that ethnic culture is neither static nor uniform but rather is constantly shifting across borders. Each group of parents faced context-specific predicaments and employed class-specific strategies to cope with uncertainties and insecurities in the changing society and globalized world.
Continue reading "Raising Global Families across the Pacific" »
Immigrants and native-born citizens equally benefit or suffer from a nation's policies.
In another instance of anti-immigrant rhetoric, John Kelly, President Trump’s chief of staff, stated that while not all immigrants are criminals, many immigrants have a hard time assimilating into American society:
[T]he vast majority of the people that move illegally into the United States are not bad people. They're not criminals. They're not MS-13. ... But they're also not people that would easily assimilate into the United States, into our modern society. They're overwhelmingly rural people. In the countries they come from, fourth-, fifth-, sixth-grade educations are kind of the norm. They don't speak English; obviously that's a big thing. ... They don't integrate well; they don't have skills. They're not bad people. They're coming here for a reason. And I sympathize with the reason. But the laws are the laws. ... The big point is they elected to come illegally into the United States, and this is a technique that no one hopes will be used extensively or for very long (NPR, May 10, 2018).
These types of statements have been commonplace since the 1990’s anti-immigrant ideological campaigns and policies such as California’s Proposition 187, barring undocumented immigrants from receiving social services and rights. There are also historical precedents for these types of arguments being directed to German, Swedish, Jewish, Irish, and Italian immigrants. Today as well as in the past, these arguments are less about facts and more about xenophobia and racial superiority complexes.
DACA beneficiaries stand on unstable ground as March 5th deadline passes without action.
On September 5th, 2017, the Trump administration announced the rescission of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and set a date of March 5th, 2018 to begin phasing out the program. DACA, implemented under President Obama as an action of prosecutorial discretion in 2012, offers protection from deportation and work permits to approximately 700,000 young immigrants, often referred to as the DREAMers, who were brought to the United States as children. No new applicants were accepted after the September 5th announcement, and beneficiaries began to lose their protections as Congress failed to reach a bipartisan agreement offering a legislative replacement for DACA. However, in January and February of 2018, two separate federal courts in San Francisco and Brooklyn blocked the termination of the program, allowing beneficiaries to renew their protected status under DACA.
Despite widespread public support for DACA beneficiaries across the political spectrum, a legislative fix seems unlikely in the immediate future.
The protections provided by the court decisions offer beneficiaries some breathing room, but they are hardly a long-term solution. When the Supreme Court declined the Trump administration's request to take up the case directly from the lower courts, it ensured that the March 5th expiration date would not mark the definitive end of the policy, but it also foreshadowed a continuing battle over the ultimate fate of DACA. In the meantime, beneficiaries remain in a state of uncertainty as to what their futures may hold: a career and a sense of membership or civic disenfranchisement and the threat of deportation. Depending on where they reside, moreover, beneficiaries already have access to dramatically different opportunities.
Social genomics holds great promise but may run the risk of naturalizing human difference.
Since the mapping of the genome in 2000, scientists have sought to uncover what makes us tick by putting our genes under the microscope. Trait after trait has been subjected to genomic testing, and the fruits of that research have been splashed across headlines: “‘Gangsta Gene’ Identified in US Teens,” trumpeted one article in the New Scientist; “Happiness is in your DNA,” heralded The Economist. This avalanche of research has emerged from a new form of science, what I call “sociogenomics,” which melds genetic and social science approaches to understand the gene-environment interactions that make up various phenomena in our lives. Sociogenomics is practiced by lots of different scientists, geneticists, sociologists, economists, and behaviorists, but a new field that is driving its innovation is that of social genomics.
An avalanche of research has emerged from a new form of science, what I call “sociogenomics,” which melds genetic and social science approaches.
Social genomics focuses on social behavior and outcomes, things like making it through school and going to the polls to vote. Social genomics is not just interdisciplinary. It is transdisciplinary. It goes beyond adding natural and social science methods to blending them and coming up with new ones. It holds great potential for transforming science in important ways, because it has the power to pull together the best practices of all its disciplinary home bases. As the old adage goes, it is greater than the sum of its parts.
About the Blog
The SUP blog showcases new books and Press news in addition to serving as a forum for our authors—past and present—to expound on issues related to their scholarship. Views expressed by guest contributors to the blog do not necessarily represent those of Stanford University or Stanford University Press, and all guest contributions are denoted by a byline and an author bio.
Republishing Guidelines
If you would like to republish an article from the Stanford University Press blog, please contact us at blog@www.sup.org. We can secure permission to republish from our authors and provide text and other files for easy republication.
If you wish to republish an article, we ask that you credit the Stanford University Press blog as the original publisher of the material and provide a link to the source post somewhere alongside the republished content.
.jpg){kind=link}