Comments on: Let 50 Flowers Bloom, Redux

By: monte

monte — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 00:54:28 +0000

Hi Jennifer,
Thanks for your thoughtful and well-reasoned comments. However, I would argue that your interpretation is excessively functionalist. I think if you gave more consideration to how this issue might look from an symbolic interactionism and conflict perspective you might enlarge the range of your sociological eye.

Let me rephrase my point with a quote from another article I wrote on this subject;

“Just because these ideas and behaviors are ubiquitous within sociology’s dominant institutions, it does not make them “The Good, The True, and The Beautiful.” Conventional wisdom may hold that scholarly productivity is what confers prestige upon departments and individual sociologists. However, Val Burris (2004) argues persuasively that when it comes to prestige ranking, social capital often trumps intellectual capital. In other words, academic status is really as much about whom you know as what you know. Our silence in these matters is a silence of complicity; whenever “we go along to get along,” we are conceding legitimacy to the taken-for-granted beliefs of the higher circles of the American Sociological Association.”
Best,
Monte

By: Jennifer VanVliet

Jennifer VanVliet — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 18:23:58 +0000

This article discussed the social inequality within the sociology profession, resulting from the greater impact by the people working at large research institutions because of their elite status, compared to the less familiar sociologists outside of the research institution. Therefore, status distinctions – or “status stratifications” – are established, in which ranks are made based on where your profession in sociology lies. Rather than have many flowers bloom, there needs to be a few distinct ones as the extraordinary group that put the remaining flowers in their place relative to their powerful status (the author relates sociologists to flowers in the article). After reading this article, the sovereignty claimed by a small group of people within a large institution seems to be a pattern of society. Authoritative groups keep society under control: parents keep the household calm; the federal system is governed by a group composed of senators, state representatives, the Supreme Court, and the president and vice president; teachers conduct order within the classroom; the management team regulates the businesses, etc. Specifically for the sociological profession, it is beneficial to have the powerful group of researchers in place because it is a title for other sociologists to work towards, similar to businessmen working for that promotion, or students working through college in hopes of becoming the teacher someday. If all fifty flowers were to bloom at once, how could we distinguish the great ones – how could we appreciate the progress of sociology if we considered all the publications equally? I argue that society needs a ruler, metaphorically – or a ranking system implemented by varying degrees of powerful groups – in order to keep people striving for greatness, and people maintaining their greatness. This social structure efficiently progresses the society forward; having role models, goals, inspiration, motivation all stem from the powerful group that have set the bar high.

Furthermore, from my sociology class, I have found it very interesting how accepting and willing we are to maintain the characteristics of groups. To have a sense of entitlement and place within the society is how we value ourselves as a member of society. Social inequality unites the distinct groups with pride and loyalty. For example, workers become a part of unions to secure themselves from the executive boards. Social inequality results in the society as an organism having both an arm and a leg: two distinct functions from two distinct groups of people, as Durkheim depicted. From one of my class readings, entitled “A Shortcut to the American Dream,” Vietnamese immigrants flocked to gangs in order to sustain their identity. Although Vietnamese gangs have a low social status compared to other groups within Orange County, the Vietnamese members feel satisfied as members of this group because of the unity.

In conclusion, the divisions of society – the “social stratifications” – initiate goals to improve professional statuses; this structure fuels competition. By having a group to compare oneself to, other groups can define their own relative place and have pride within that part of society. Social stratifications establish roles and distinct functions, thereby forming a garden with many unique types blooming at different types and in different ways, as opposed to all fifty flowers blooming at once. Society needs order, which can be maintained by the authoritative groups, while other groups progress society by fulfilling their own unique roles.

By: monte

monte — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 18:34:07 +0000

Hi Daniel,
I think status stratification is universal to all scholarly fields. However, anthropologists, sociologists, and political scientists must be held to a higher standard of self-reflexivity. The study of power hierarchies is their bread and butter–of all the fish in the academic sea, they should be the ones most aware of the water that envelops their professional presuppositions and social practices.
Monte

By: monte

monte — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 18:15:58 +0000

Hi Elise,
I too am sorry we did not connect. I will definitely track you down in Atlanta.
The most recent study of note is:
Burris, Val. 2004. “The Academic Caste System: Prestige Hierarchies in PhD Exchange Networks.” American Sociological Review 69:239-264.
Burris argues persuasively that when it comes to prestige ranking, social capital trumps intellectual capital. In other words, academic status is really more about who you know than what you know.
Stay in touch and let me know how your project is going.
Best,
Monte
P.S. There is nothing wrong with using Stanford for impression management; I use the Red Wing Correctional Facility for the same purpose. Just remember, who and what we are need not be defined by where we were once incarcerated. Dennis Wrong’s classic “The Over-Socialized Conception of Man” probably applies equally to both prisons and prestigious research universities!

By: elise

elise — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 15:25:09 +0000

Dear Prof. Bute,

First, let me begin by saying that I am sad we didn’t cross path at ASA. We will have to make sure that this will happen next time around.

Second, I wonder… what would an empirical sociological study of the phenomenon you are describing here look like? And what if we compared it to other fields? I am now curious to see whether there have been such studies done before…
Could we study votes? Now that we vote online, it could be interesting.
Could we study the ghettoisation of certain forms of scholarship?
Could we study university status and paper placement (poster, roundtable, session, etc.?)
And what about the issue of quality of the scholarship?

Hope you are well,

Sincerely,

Elise

PS. This year as three years ago when we met, my Stanford tag opened doors…

By: Daniel Kreutzer

Daniel Kreutzer — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 19:50:08 +0000

Interesting to see how things work in sociology. The walls I’ve been coming up against in my own research have led to me to think upon what it means to be an insider, and how, even within the discipline, insider is a relative term. Just because you’re “inside” doesn’t mean you have full access to the “elites”. Anthropologists find it important to look at what people do and why they do it, but that interest is confined to the “Other”. They certainly don’t want that lens turned back upon themselves. Just as doctors make the worst patients, anthropologists make the worst research subjects.