Source: Wikimedia

This week, Harvard University students are taking a stand against a controversial 2009 dissertation, “IQ and Immigration Policy,” which argues that Hispanics have lower IQs and develops contentious suggestions for U.S. immigration reform based on this assumption.  Jason Richwine, the author of the dissertation and currently a research contributor for The Heritage Foundation, ultimately recommends that U.S. immigration policy should be based on intelligence, excluding individuals with lower IQ scores and including individuals with higher scores. Though Richwine claims that he does not endorse ethnicity-based immigration reform, his use of IQs disaggregated by race and ethnicity raises questions about the intent of his work.

Over 1,200 Harvard University students have sent a petition to the University asking for an investigation into the approval of this dissertation. Though the students recognize that academic freedom is integral to any university system, they are troubled by the biological assumptions of racial superiority and inferiority that serve as the foundation for the IQ and immigration research. The students “…believe that putting forth claims of racial superiority based on inherent genetic advantage to be on par with those who have used pseudo-science throughout history to justify state-based hate.”

Harvard, on the other, seems to be standing behind the dissertation. David Ellwood, the dean of Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, publically stated that all dissertations are rigorously reviewed by competent and accomplished faculty members. Richwine wondered why students would think that they can determine the content of a dissertation, invoking his right to academic freedom.

The defense of this dissertation raises more questions than answers. First, I think it is important to think fully about the concept of “academic freedom.”  The 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, a set of principles which guide the U.S. university system, explains that teachers and researchers are entitled to have freedom over their classrooms and their research and should not be required to espouse any particular religious or political viewpoint. If this was the only sentiment of the 1940 statement, Richwine would have a sound case for academic freedom. But, this statement also reminds us that academic researchers speak from a position of authority and thus carry obligations when conducting research and reporting findings. In other words, with great power comes great responsibility. This means being responsible with our research questions. Why would Richwine ask a question about IQ differences across racial and ethnic groups? Haven’t we debunked research that claims superiority of the intellectual ability of some racial and ethnic groups over others? In addition to thinking about the assumptions behind our research questions, we should also contemplate how to use our research findings for social good. If there are IQ differences across racial and ethnic groups, why didn’t Richwine call for better education programs that would level out differences, rather than systematically exclude some groups from entrance into the United States?

In addition to questions about academic freedom, this case also brings to mind the responsibilities of the university’s institutional review board (IRB). All universities require that researchers, even those in the social sciences, take a course to ensure that we will not harm our research subjects. In addition to this course, our proposals are scrutinized for potential harm. Though social scientists often see the IRB as a hindrance (after hours of answering questions about medical harm and rewriting proposals in line with IRB standards, I have been known to hold this opinion, too), this dissertation reminds me of the importance of the review process and of the assessment of harm. Richwine’s findings have potential consequences, especially when race relations at the border are contentious and at times deadly. Richwine’s findings have the potential to fuel racist and ethnocentric thinking, provide justification for detentions at the border, and incite vigilantly justice against immigrants from Central and South America. While the harms are not inevitable, they are possible. Did the IRB consider these consequences when approving this research proposal?

These are the concerns and questions that come to my mind. What do you think about the students’ petition and their call for more investigation into this dissertation?

Suggested Readings -

For more on race and science:

Jackson, John P. and Nadine M. Weidman. 2005. Race, Racism, and Science: Social Impact and Interaction. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

For more on the history of immigration policies:

Luibheid, Eithne. 2002. Entry Denied: Controlling Sexuality at the Border. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

www.grassrootsfeminism.net

It was recently announced that the radical feminist magazine Spare Rib is to be re-launched in the UK, with an online presence as soon as next month and a print version available in the Autumn. Spare Rib first launched in 1972 out of the 1960s feminist movement and made a point of covering taboo and controversial issues such as domestic violence, lesbianism and birth control, amongst many others. This re-launch has been greeted by many (myself included) with a hearty cheer, and has raised many questions with it. If this launch is successful, does this suggest a mainstream acceptance for feminist thought? Perhaps it will make feminism more accessible to a generation of young women, something it sorely needs. Either way, the re-launch indicates two key phenomena: a rejection of women’s magazines, and the increased visibility, acceptance and impact of feminist writing.

There is a wealth of sociological and feminist research into the content of women’s magazines and the effect that they have on women’s sense of self, body image and sexuality. As Ros Gill notes, magazines such as Heat are based on obsession, both with celebrity and particularly with the derision and scrutiny of female celebrities’ bodies -such as calling them too fat, too thin, or in many ways ‘too human’; with the hyper-visibility of sweat marks, wrinkles and armpit hair, to name a few. Other analyses that compare women’s and men’s magazines highlight how they (re)produce a starkly gendered differences. So-called ‘lads mags’ discuss sexuality in a youthful, brazen and hedonistic sense focusing on women as sexual conquests and the importance of ‘getting a shag’ (see for example Ticknell et al 2005). In comparison, women’s magazines construct sexuality and women’s bodies as something to be worked at, attended to, self disciplined and present men as requiring a great deal of emotional labour and understanding. The same is not true of men’s magazines’ description of women. This reassertion and emphasis on gender differences (The “Mars and Venus” Paradigm) eroticises gender difference, and makes it very difficult to dismantle gendered inequalities, by focusing on the inevitability of the situation.

 This is the tip of the iceberg of a critique of women’s magazines, and it is not only put forward in academia – online blogs such as Vagenda provide an even more scathing and often very funny critique of these magazines. This and other sites such as Everyday Feminism and The F Word amongst others allow feminist writing and debate a space outside the academy. Initially this democratization of discussion was seen as unequivocally positive, although it has not been without its problems. Online feminism has, in some cases become internal and personal, with focus being placed on criticism of other feminist writers rather than supportive and positive debate, and has emphasized other aspects of class and racial privilege. The contributors for Spare Rib have not yet been announced, but the names attached are (so far) all white, middle-class journalists. This is not unusual in the magazine industry, but does not reflect the plethora of voices feminism purports to represent.

Another outcome of the increase of feminist writing, and the internal critique is that the movement has become fractured. Feminist discourses become so much a part of the cultural field, anti-feminist and feminist discourses have become entangled and conflated, particularly with regards to advertising, marketing and consumer culture. As argued in The Onion, a satirical online newspaper: “Women are now Empowered by Everything They Do”. Feminism is repackaged and re-sold back to women, and it is in some ways hard not to see Spare Rib falling in to this trap too.

The editor, Charlotte Raven, has promised Spare Rib will discuss “life, not lifestyle”, and she is both highly critical women’s magazines, and keen to provide another platform for feminist discussion.  She hasn’t however clarified what this will entail, and I confess, that when I tried to picture what a feminist mainstream women’s magazine might contain, it is difficult to picture. Whilst the idea and justification is there, the reality is harder to imagine. Can a magazine survive without the focus on commercialization and advertising, particularly in an age where the sale of the printed word is in massive decline? Will mainstream sponsorship want to be associated with a radical feminist publication? Most pertinently, is it possible to conceive of a magazine that represents ‘life’ (not lifestyle) without being gendered? Gender is everywhere, and nowhere more evidently than in our reading material. The Spare Rib utopia is at the moment just that, a utopia, and one that I really truly want to have faith in. Whether the magazine can avoid the pitfalls ahead remains to be seen.

Dr. Eddie Warrior Correctional Center
Source: Oklahoma Department of Corrections

In a post from last July, I wrote about Patricia Spottedcrow. In January of 2010, when she was 24-years-old, Spottedcrow was arrested for selling $31 worth of marijuana to a police informant at her residence in Kingfisher County, Oklahoma. Although she had no prior criminal record and the amount of marijuana sold was small, Spottedcrow was sentenced to 12 years in prison and assessed approximately $2,740 in fines. Following public outcry, the governor approved the Pardon and Parole Board’s recommendation for parole. Spottedcrow was released from prison in November of 2012.

With this earlier post, I used Spottedcrow’s case as an illustration of Oklahoma’s long history of being overly punitive, especially against women. The state with the largest female prison population per capita, Oklahoma incarcerates nearly twice as many women as the national average (134 per 100,000 female residents in Oklahoma vs. 69 per 100,000 female residents in the U.S.). Considering the relatively low recidivism rate of women released from prisons in Oklahoma as well as the state’s emphasis on fiscal conservatism and family values, I questioned why Oklahoma elects to incarcerate so many of its women. In an attempt to answer this question, I proposed that Chesney-Lind’s (2006) idea of “vengeful equality” could be at work in the state. Essentially, vengeful equality supports the notion that “bad” females deserve to be treated the same—if not worse—as “bad” males. By seeing the world through this mindset, I contended, it becomes easier to understand why states like Oklahoma have such a penchant for punishing law-breaking women.

When recently thinking back on Spottedcrow’s story and how Oklahoma treats its female offenders, I began to better appreciate the importance of the factors that lead to females offending in the first place. As many feminist criminologists have argued, one factor that prominently predicts crime involvement for females is having a history of maltreatment. Consider sexual abuse, for instance. Compared to men, women have been found to be much more likely to report being sexually abused at some point in their lives (Gaarder and Belknap 2002). For those females who experience sexual abuse early in life, research suggests that they are at risk for dealing with their experiences in ways that can bring about a host of new problems. For minor females without the skills and resources needed to cope with their traumas, they are in danger of running away from home and consequently being exposed to violence, delinquent peers, and drugs on the street (Chesney-Lind and Shelden 2004). If caught, run-away females further risk being returned to an abusive home or being placed in a juvenile detention facility. Adult female victims of sexual abuse have likewise been found to be more likely to be involved in deviant behaviors and to have higher levels of strain than those women who were not sexually abused as children (Mullen et al. 1996). As Agnew (2006) notes, exposure to chronic strain, negative emotionality, and low levels of constraint may even allow deviance to become a desired lifestyle. In fact, the feminist pathways perspective contends that there is a link between early abuse and offending later in life (Widom and Maxfield 2001).

As can probably be surmised, then, females involved in the criminal justice system often arrive after experiencing abuse. In a recent study, Sharp (forthcoming) looked at the frequency of adverse childhood experiences for women prisoners in Oklahoma. She found that while about 21% of women from the general population reported experiencing sexual abuse as a child, well over half (56.1%) of the women in Oklahoma prisons reported such abuse. Other forms of childhood abuse and childhood neglect provided similar findings. For emotional abuse, 11% of the general public reported experiencing it in childhood versus 64.5% for the sample of women prisoners; for physical abuse, 28% of the general public reported it compared to 49.8% of the prison population; for emotional abuse, it was 15% for the public and 69.4% for the inmates; and, lastly, for physical neglect, 10% of women in the general public reported experiencing it in childhood versus 46.5% for the sample of women prisoners. Consistent with the feminist pathways perspective, females who report being mistreated in childhood are seemingly far more likely to end up in prison.

Source: Sasha Wolff

So, what does this mean? To me, the most important implication is that female victims of childhood maltreatment are often unable to acquire the types of assistance that they need to cope with their traumas. When they do not receive the appropriate level of help, these victims are at risk for developing mental health problems and/or substance abuse addictions that may then increase their likelihood of future criminal offending. As such, it seems essential (1) to work towards eliminating childhood abuse and neglect and (2) to provide child victims of maltreatment the assistance and services they need to become successful survivors. In the midst of budget crunches and political fighting, however, reaching these goals can seem rather elusive. Considering such obstacles, what are some practical approaches that we can use to prevent childhood maltreatment and to help child victims of maltreatment? What do you think?

For Futher Reading:

Agnew, Robert. 2006. Pressured into Crime: An Overview of General Strain Theory. LosAngeles, CA: Roxbury.

Chesney-Lind, Meda. 2006. “Patriarchy, Crime, and Justice: Feminist Criminology in an Era of Backlash.” Feminist Criminology 1(1):6-26.

Chesney-Lind, Meda and Randall G. Shelden. 2004. Girls, Delinquency, and Juvenile Justice. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomas Learning.

Gaarder, Emily and Joanne Belknap. 2002. “Tenuous Borders: Girls Transferred to Adult Court.” Criminology 40(3):481-517.

Mullen, P. E., J. L. Martin, J. C. Anderson, S. E. Romans, and G. P. Herbison. 1996. “The Long-Term Impact of the Physical, Emotional, and Sexual Abuse of Children: A Community Study.” Child Abuse & Neglect 20(1):7-21.

Sharp, Susan F. (forthcoming) discusses the high female incarceration rate in Oklahoma.

Widom, Cathy Spatz and Michael G. Maxfield. 2001. An Update on the “Cycle of Violence.”U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.

Source: jezebel.com

An exciting new journal is slated for release next year—Routledge’s Porn Studies. The journal, the first of its kind, will focus explicitly on erotic and pornographic materials, as well as sex work generally. As its call for papers makes clear, it aims to include interdisciplinary, intersectional, and global analyses. Such a journal is a brave endeavor because the topic of pornography is an incredibly volatile one in academic and activist worlds. The journal is still a year away from publication and has already sparked angry responses, highlighting an ongoing problem in approaches to pornography that will be the focus of my post.

Since the late 1970s, critical engagements with pornography have been rather explosive. The late 70s and early 80s were dubbed, in feminist communities, the porn wars (or sex wars) (see Cornell, 2000 for examples of many feminist takes on pornography, both recent and historical). At this time, anti-porn, or radical, feminists suggested that pornography was a social problem that could only be stopped through censorship. Pornography was, according to feminists like Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon, violence against women—literally against the women who performed in it, and symbolically against all women in society because of the stereotypes and aggressive sexuality it promoted. In contrast, anti-censorship and pro-sex (or sex positive) feminists, highlighted the dangers of the radical position. The fact that pornography encouraged female sexuality meant that it could potentially be harnessed by feminists to fight against cultural norms of female sexual passivity and propriety. Moreover, the problems of censorship had to be considered and the feminists raised concerns that the sexual materials of minority communities (LGBT, S&M, etc.) would be the first, and perhaps only, materials to be criminalized. The heated debate became all-out war, which then transformed into a hateful stalemate between opposing groups. A kind of feminist civil war that was never resolved. Still is not resolved.

Through the past few decades, scholarship on pornography has continued, but rarely is there conversation between opposing viewpoints. The debate about Porn Studies makes this clear. The organization, Stop Porn Culture, an activist organization representing the modern instantiation of anti-pornography feminism, has put forward a petition opposing the publication. The petition claims that the journal’s board is biased in favor of pornography and the journal’s neutral title is misleading given this bias. (One blogger, not obviously affiliated with the organization, likens the bias to filling an advisory board for a dietetics journal with the CEOs of Pepsi, Kraft, and Pillsbury. This is a flawed analogy however, because the journal’s board is not comprised of pornographers and porn actors.) They believe anti-porn research will be rejected from the journal, thus silencing their political position. Yet the journal’s call for papers explicitly states that it is interested in publishing “observations, developments, debates or issues in porn studies, designed to encourage exchange and debate.” This is, in my opinion, the greatest opportunity the journal offers—in a climate of silence, mistrust, and anger, the editors are actively seeking out new ways to converse.

The primary goal of Stop Porn Culture, like the anti-pornography feminists during the porn wars, is eradication of pornography, especially violent pornography. But they also seek to expose the ways in which porn has seeped into the veins of our culture, its deep connections to other powerful industries, and the effect it has on gender and sexuality—all of these goals are at least implied in the works listed on the website. Providing these contextual insights is precisely the objective of the journal the organization is currently fighting. The fact that they cannot see the benefit of furthering our understanding of pornography, both in the U.S. and globally, is disturbing. There is still so much that we don’t know about pornography. For example, although we have a lot of anecdotal evidence about the women who act in pornography, few studies have set out to understand how industry women, on the whole, experience their work. We also don’t know nearly as much as we could about porn’s female viewership. Do they engage with pornography in ways that differ from male audiences? Do they watch the same types of pornography? And what are the actual effects when women watch porn? A lot of research during the porn wars focused on the outcomes when men watch explicit materials, but few have investigated how and why women watch porn, and what they feel when they do.

These types of questions—important questions—are well within the purview of Porn Studies and the expertise of its editorial board, most of whom are situated in media and film studies or cultural studies, and/or are trained in critical sexuality studies. And more than that, these questions are answerable only if we open up space for dialogue rather than silence. This new journal is precisely that opportunity.

**A quick thanks to Cheryl Llewellyn, another Sociology Lens blogger, and my SBU colleague. The ideas here are part of a larger project on feminism and pornography that she and I have been invested in for several years.

Further Reading

Attwood, Feona. 2011. The Paradigm Shift: Pornography Research, Sexualization and Extreme Images. Sociology Compass 5(1): 13-22.

Ciclitira, Karen. 2004. Pornography, Women and Feminism: Between Pleasure and Politics. Sexualities 7(3): 281–301.

Cornell, Drucilla (ed.) 2000. Feminism and Pornography. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

McKee, Alan, Katherine Albury, and Catharine Lumby. 2008. The Porn Report. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.

Source: Work of Liuluenhon

The concept of identity is one that holds great appeal; gripping the attention of both scholars and society. Nevertheless, the literature reveals little consensus as to what identity actually means. The term is expansive and the prevailing way to study it is to select out specific aspects of any individual such as their gender, nationality, race/ethnicity, job status, family role, sexuality, and so on. However, there have been dominant theoretical perspectives when considering identity. Additionally, it appears that current social arrangements have – once again – influenced our thinking. The purpose of this post is to outline two theoretical perspectives of identity and show how the rise of a late or postmodern society has influenced these lines of thought.

There can be little doubt that the study of identity has been addressed in various ways across several disciplines. Perhaps the most well-known treatment of identity comes from the field of psychology where identity represents a critical phase in the development of youth. Here, the construction of a reliable and steady identity is seen as one of the highest levels of achievement in adolescent development. This is because the time during adolescence is characterized by Sturm und Drang (storm and stress) in which youth experience both anti-social sentiments and emotional upheaval – provoking a sort of identity crisis.

Early sociological treatments of self and identity did not see individuals and society as separable entities. Instead, micro-sociologists offered a counterpoint to structural functionalism’s emphasis on large scale structures. Central to their perspective was the idea that people create meaning through their social interactions with others – a framework commonly referred to as symbolic interactionism.  Through this perspective, an individual’s identity is understood as a social product, the result of the social interactions and performances, and established within the confines of specific social contexts.

The conditions in which identities form have changed in recent years. Indeed, sociologists have increasingly taken note of new social configurations commonly referred to as late modernity or postmodernity. Perhaps the most defining trait of late modernity is a social world experiencing constant flux. As Ferrell and colleagues (2008: 59) note: “Late modernity’s pluralism can be understood as a kind of hyperpluralism, a swirling proximity of discordant values that confounds the global and local. The shock of the plural, the uncertainty of the hyperplural, derive from everyday exposure to an inordinate variety of cultural meanings, subcultural styles, and definitions of propriety and deviance. Here meanings overlap, values hybridize, and identities collapse onto each other – to the point that ‘normal’ is no longer a certainty, and the taken for granted world begins to blur”.

In essence, late modern societies are characterized as having a greater degree of complexity than in the preceding era marked by modern capitalism. By dismantling traditional forms of society, late/postmodernity has brought about re-culturalizing forces that have placed significance on consumerism, the creation of new lifestyles, and widespread narcissism.

A central feature of contemporary society, then, has been the gradual erosion of traditional bases from which settled identities may develop, including old scripts of work, religion, family, and community. Theorists often note that these unstable grounds providing the base for identity construction are central to the ontological insecurities experienced by many within late-modernity (Hayward, 2004; Young, 2007). Recent work has suggested that – due to the rapid social, cultural, and economic shifts brought about by advanced capitalism – identities have become forever dis-embedded.

Mounting literature has also highlighted the significance of a growing consumer culture to provide the means necessary for constructing an identity within contemporary society. In this regard, the body is objectified, subject to constant modification, and governable to the logic of commodities (Featherstone 2008). Distinct from previous eras, identity has become subject to the principles of aesthetics whereby products and status symbols are actively sought within a burgeoning consumer culture to invest in one’s image. Now, individuals invest in bodily appearances so as to establish, enhance, or maintain their self-identity (Giddens 1991).

Read: Best, A. 2011. Youth Identity Formation: Contemporary Identity Work. Sociology Compass 5(10): 908-922.

Read: Hayward, K. 2004. City Limits: Crime, Consumer Culture, and the Urban Experience. London: Glasshouse Press.

Read: Young, J. 2007. The Vertigo of Late Modernity. London: Sage.

whitematters.wordpress.co 

The CEO of Abercrombie and Fitch, Mike Jeffries, is up-front about his marketing and sales strategy: appeal to “cool” and “popular” kids to make the brand distinctive and desirable. While anybody can wear other brands, only those who fit an ideal body type can have the privilege of sporting Abercrombie and Fitch tees and jeans. How does Jeffries achieve this goal? The Abercrombie and Fitch advertisements use models who are “all American” (white and skinny), the stores employ similarly small and fit workers, and the largest size available for women is a size 10. Jeffries does have all of his bases covered: no one will mistake Abercrombie and Fitch as a brand that markets to the masses.

Not surprisingly, Jeffries has been widely criticized for these tactics. In an era of increasing eating disorders among people of all ages, and bullying of children and teenagers who do not fit the norm, such a marketing strategy has potentially serious consequences. By presenting a skinny and white body type as the ideal “cool” and “popular” person, Abercrombie and Fitch perpetuates a body image that is unrealistic for many men and women. While this brand is certainly not the only one to expound these ideals of beauty, it is probably fair to say, at least, that Abercrombie and Fitch capitalizes on the problem.

Much of the criticism targets the tactics aimed at women. The female models are too skinny and, because of the exclusionary sizing techniques, a woman of average weight from the U.S. could not fit into the clothes. These critiques follow a long tradition of feminist and academic works that expose the social constructions of beauty for women and their problematic effects. In this sociology lens post, though, I want to focus on the body image standards set for men and the potential consequences.

is the ideal “cool” and “popular” man represented by Abercrombie and Fitch? A quick google image search of Abercrombie and Fitch ads show that he is white, lean, and muscular. Ironically, he wears no shirt, not even one with the Abercrombie and Fitch logo. He is popular with women, displaying his heterosexual prowess. In other words, the brand relies on racialized and sexualized images of masculinity to market their products.

While much of the body image literature historically focuses on women, scholars now recognize that men are also held to unrealistic body standards. Diagnoses of eating disorders are becoming more prevalent in the male population. Men turn to exercise dependence to achieve a muscular body type. In other words, research shows that men, too, feel bad about their bodies, in part because of media representations of the ideal man.

Companies like Abercrombie and Fitch rely on the insecurities that result from racist, sexist, and heterosexist cultural images of beauty. Ideally, companies will stop invoking these standards and let their products speak for themselves without employing exclusionary tactics. Until then, let’s avoid Abercrombie and Fitch.

Suggested Readings:

Vacarro, Christian Alexander. 2011. “Male Bodies in Manhood Acts: The Role of Body-Talk and Embodied Practices in Signifying Culturally Dominant Notions of Manhood.” Sociology Compass 5(1): 65-76.

Vokey, Megan, Bruce Tefft, and Chris Tysiaczny. 2013. “An Analysis of Hyper-Masculinity in Magazine Advertisements.” Sex Roles 68(9-10): 562-576.

When examining the presence of punitive security measures in school, a growing body of evidence finds that they may disproportionately be placed in schools serving a large percent of racial/ethnic minorities. Additionally, evidence suggests that minority and economically disadvantaged students are more likely to receive harsh punishments within school in comparison to their counterparts – leading to what has been termed the “school to prison pipeline”. Kupchik (2010) more broadly illustrates that the trend of school criminalization has been widely felt, that school across the nation – no matter their student population – have all adopted similar harsh, exclusive security strategies.

To further understand the unequal application of school security, scholars have recently examined how minority and poor youth are perceived within the school environment. This literature reveals that these youth are subject to negative perceptions held by school staff. Specifically, minority and poor youth are often (mis)perceived as troublemakers, disruptive, disrespectful, and a challenge to authority. Whether because of race- and class-based stereotypes, their perceived racial threat, or that their posturing, speech, style, and manners do not reflect White middle class norms, evidence suggest that school staff are more prone to punish these youth given the rise of harsh security based practices.

Scholars have also found that schools with harsher disciplinary practices experience lower levels of school performance. More specifically, exclusive based strategies are negatively related to higher dropout rates. Research also finds that the use of criminal justice tactics in schools has the ability to decrease student attendance, SAT taking, and student engagement. In that same vein, mounting evidence shows that such tactics have the ability to create a undesirable school climate and negatively impact the quality of education. Additionally, there is no clear evidence that the criminalization of school discipline is more effective at preventing school violence than prior practices. For example, literature examining the impact of school resource officers on student’s views and attitudes towards offending, found no significant impact. In fact, studies suggest that harsh disciplinary practices may increase student misconduct.

Aside from evaluative efforts, the literature reveals that the rise of school criminalization has placed emphasis on rule compliance above all else. Despite school staff wanting to help resolve student issues, they have become bound to rules that view misconduct through the prism of crime control. Consequentially, counseling based initiatives often fall behind harsh punishments which do little to address underlying problems. Although originally thought to curb violence in schools, he and others conclude that criminal justice based practices in school open the door for harsher punishments that are potentially more damaging to youth and school.

Although the current practices comprising the criminalization of school discipline echo larger rationales of crime control, perhaps it is time to step back and take a critical look at their impact on youth (and larger society). Though tighter security practices were established to curb school crime and keep our youth safe, mounting evidence suggests that the practices associated with modern school discipline have begun targeting youth instead.

Read: Hirschfield, P. and Celinska, K. 2011. Beyond Fear: Sociological Perspectives on the Criminalization of School Discpline. Sociologu Compass, 5(1): 1-12

Read: Kupchik, A. and Ellis, N. 2007. School Discpline and Security: Fair for all Students? Youth and Society, 39(4): 549-574

Source: http://www.neurosci.ucla.edu

Last Wednesday, Cheryl posted an interesting analysis of the nature vs. nurture debate that has plagued the social and biological sciences since their emergence. More and more research, from both disciplinary areas, is accumulating to overturn this simplistic dichotomy. Rather than thinking of ourselves as purely determined by our body chemistry and structure OR by our social environment, it is useful to think of ourselves as what Donna Haraway terms “material-semiotic” entities—that is, as unique combinations of natural and cultural elements. This way of theorizing the relationship between nature and culture—or rather, the mutual and continuing construction of nature and culture—is given to us by critical science studies scholars. By thinking, as Haraway does, in terms of “naturecultures,” we escape the nature/nurture divide, merging the two inseparably. What we call “nature” and “culture”/“nurture” are actually mutually constituted.

Lisa Wade’s recent Sociology Compass article, and Cheryl’s post, both focus on the implications of emerging research on gender inequality, but it is clearly applicable to other forms of inequality as well. In this brief discussion, I’d like to turn our focus to the topic of racism. How can thinking of ourselves as material-semiotic entities push us to challenge racial inequality in fruitful ways? Well, sociologists have long argued that race is not natural, but a social construct. It is merely a set of categories applied to skin tone variation that is best explained by geography (the fact that groups of people evolved in different environments, and developed different amounts of skin pigmentation), not inherent differences in intelligence, behavior, or moral capabilities. If race is a social construct, then so is racism, or our fear of “racial others.”

As it turns out, it is a little more complicated than that. A fascinating piece of neuroscience research is of interest here. Eva Telzer, Kathryn Humphreys, Mor Shapiro, and Nim Tottenham, researchers from the University of Illinois and UCLA conducted fMRI brain scans on a group of young people (both white and black) to study how their brains responded to images of racial others. In particular, they looked at the amygdala, the brain structure that appears to be related to emotion and threat detection, and thus, with racial fears. The scans have been used in this type of research before, but have usually been conducted with adults so they have had little to say about the development of racism. What the researchers found is illuminating. Children do not seem to evidence any brain activity in the amygdala when shown images of African Americans. Adolescents (by about age 14), on the other hand, do. This suggests that children learn racism from their environment, but it takes a while before it “sets in.” But it does set in. Fear of black faces, this research suggests, becomes second nature; it sort of cements itself into the workings of the brain. This is a scary notion because, to promote antiracist politics, we must not only work against people’s preconceived ideas, but also their unconscious brain processes.

But the story doesn’t stop there. The researchers offer another interesting finding. The amygdala effect is less in more diverse environments; adolescents with a highly diverse peer group, showed almost no effect. It is possible that the heterogeneity of one’s peer group may mitigate racism. That is to say, perhaps people who are raised in more racially and ethnically diverse environments learn racial acceptance rather than fear. The researchers are careful not to argue any type of causation here. Just as a more diverse environment might lead to a less active amygdala response, there is another possibility—those with a lower amygdala effect (a less “racist brain,” if you will) may seek out more diverse peer groups. (Since 14 year olds have little control over their environments—the diversity of their schools or neighborhoods, though, I am inclined to believe the former.) Either way, this phenomenon is best understood as the result of material-semiotic processes—our nature is discursively produced, but is not just “made up,” because it, in turn, influences the way we interact, our culture.

We need to push this research further to see how we might influence brain development in ways that align with social justice. As Cheryl suggested in her post, we can use toys and games to train girls’ brains to give them an equal edge in STEM fields and this neuroscience study suggests that promoting heterogeneous schools and integrated neighborhoods might promote some of the goals of antiracist politics. But what else can we do? If we embrace what critical science studies tells us, the possibilities seem to open up dramatically. It may be more complicated to think of naturecultures, but it may also be worth it.

Further reading

Haraway, Donna. 1992. The Promises of Monsters: A Regenerative Politics for Inappropriate/d Others. In Cultural Studies, edited by Lawrence Grossberg, Cary Nelson, Paula A. Treichler. New York: Routledge. Pg 295-337.

Kubota, Jennifer T., Mahzarin R. Banaji and Elizabeth A. Phelps. 2012. The Neuroscience of Race. Nature Neuroscience 15: 940-948.

Lende, Daniel H. and Greg Downey. 2012. The Encultured Brain: An Introduction to Neuroanthropology. The MIT Press.

Pickersgill, Martyn and Ira Van Keulen (eds.). 2012. Sociological Reflections on the Neurosciences (Advances in Medical Socioloy). Emerald Publishing Group.

Pitts-Taylor, Victoria. 2010. The Plastic Brain: Neoliberalism and the Neuronal Self. Health: An Interdisciplinary Journal for the Social Study of Health, Illness and Medicine 14(6): 635-652. (In this article, Pitts-Taylor offers a cautionary tale about how cultural discourses have described brain plasticity, the brain’s ability to change)

Perhaps the most common explanation for contemporary school discipline and security is fear. This explanation interprets the criminalization of school discipline as a socio-political response to anxieties concerning school crime and broader insecurities (Hirschfield & Celinscka 2011). This line of thought reflects others theorizing the rise of crime control practices more broadly. Social theorists comment that individuals’ fear has become a generalized concern, reconfiguring social institutions and contemporary governance. Consequently, crime control practices and policies have made predicting, identifying, and effectively managing behaviors which threaten the rational order a central objective.

Such practices certainly apply to wider sentiments regarding youth. On the one hand, youth are to be protected; they are seen as a vulnerable population that symbolize a sort of innocence. On the other hand, youth represent an unruly population requiring constant monitoring.  Insecurities, when coupled with fears about youth vulnerability, have moved schools to take a proactive stance toward preventing violent acts from occurring within schools. As a result, administrators and policy makers have adopted punitive disciplinary practices and various visible security measures. Initially, these efforts were established to curb societal fears of school crime. However, scholars critical of this trend suggests that these practices have begun targeting youth instead.

Another explanation draws on critical functionalism’s “social reproduction theory”, suggesting that schools perpetuate social and economic inequalities by equipping different classes of youth with skills aligned with their expected position in the labor force. Recent literature suggests that schools ensure social and economic compliance from youth by shifting disciplinary power from the school to the criminal justice system.  For example, Kupchik and Monahan (2006) consider how school criminalization prepares youth for post-industrial employment. Drug testing students normalizes urine screens on the job, educational monitoring systems mimic highly scrutinized work environments, and zero-tolerance reflects a fleeting power among laborers.  It is clear that disciplinary practices within schools socialize youth into modern configurations.

A final explanation links the criminalization of school discipline to broader anxieties of crime embedded in contemporary social and political structures. Recent theorizing, much like Garland’s (2001) work, attempts to understand the rise of a “culture of control” alongside large scale social, cultural, and political shifts. This framework is also noticeable in Johnathan Simon’s (2007) seminal text Governing Through Crime. His work notes that politicians and legislators exploited people’s escalating awareness and bourgeoning fear of crime as new mechanisms of coercion and control. More specifically, crime allowed politicians to frame citizens as (possible) victims to garner support for new – oftentimes more punitive – legislation. Within the context of education, violence in schools, or the potential of violence, overwhelmed fearful schools and paved an avenue for further governance handed out by the criminal justice system.

Read: Kupchik, A. 2010. Homeroom Security: School Discpline in an Age of Fear. NYU Press.

Hirschfield, P. and Celinska, K. 2011. Beyond FEar: Sociological Perspectives on the Criminalization of School Discpline. Sociologu Compass, 5(1): 1-12

source: http://wmuv.org/

There is much discussion in Sociology currently about the impact of technology on people’s lives; in particular on their relationships and sexuality. One specific phenomenon that emerged with the increase of smart phones and personal technology is the issue of ‘sexting’; the sharing or exchange of sexual messages or images. Cases such as those of Hope Witsell or Jessica Logan, both of whom committed suicide after nude pictures they had sent to boyfriends were publicly circulated, have received a great deal of media attention. These and numerous other accounts portray the impact of these technologies solely in a negative light (Drouin and Landgraff 2012) and emphasize the danger young people are putting themselves in when participating in this behavior. Whilst it is of course important to highlight these problems, the rhetoric is so often starkly gendered, re-emphasising a double standard and failing to engage with notions of pleasure or agency in young peoples sexuality. It also tends to place great importance on the role technology plays, without looking at the way other social pressures are played out in these behaviours.

In order to engage with these issues, research on sexting has focused on understanding how technology interacts with young peoples’ lives and relationships. Two recent research reports, one in the UK for NSPCC and another in Australia, used interviews and focus groups with young people to gain a better grasp on their experiences. The findings are in some ways deeply alarming. The young people openly discuss issues of bullying, sexual harassment, sexual pressures, objectification and coercion. These occurrences are intensified by the prolonged degrees of contact that technology creates, “facilitating the visual objectification of bodies via the creation, exchange, collection, ranking and display of images” (NSPCC 2012). The technology, whilst not creating the problems single handedly, takes age-old concerns, such as female objectification, and places them in the hands of young people.

What these studies highlight is that it is impossible to examine sexting without placing them in context. Concerns about young peoples’ sexual behavior have been highlighted by a great deal of research over the years. The Women’s Risk and Aids Project (WRAP), despite being conducted in the 1990s well before the age of ubiquitous technology, had findings similar to those discussed above. The authors of the WRAP study argued that young people operate with a ‘male‐in‐the‐head’.  That is, when discussing or engaging in sexual activities, young men and women prioritize male sexuality over female. This concept of a sexual ‘double standard’ is now widely recognized, and is present in much research into (hetero)sexuality. Worse, in more recent research has shown evidence of a sexual double-bind, where young women are expected to be  ‘up-for-it’ and display a ‘heterosexy’ femininity. One of the girls in the sexting study describes it precisely: they must not be “slags” [too sexually promiscuous] or “drags” [boring or frigid] (Gill 2008). This is also manifest in the way shame is gendered.  In the context of sexting, boys are praised and revered for being able to get these images from their peers. Girls however are vilified, both by their peers in a slut-shaming bulling, and by the media. Boys are expected to brag, girls are not.

This double standard and the ‘slut-shaming’ culture are also evident in recent debates around rape culture, such as the media portrayal and twitter reactions to the Steubenville rape case. In the sexting studies girls and boys alike felt that girls who were ‘stupid’ enough to send pictures that became circulated were to blame for the fall out, rather than the person who circulated it.  This is deeply problematic, and is symptomatic of much wider issues around the policing of young women’s sexual behavior. The message of blame is clear: getting drunk, or being ‘stupid’ enough to send a naked picture of yourself, means you cannot expect sympathy if bad things happen as a result.

I am part of the generation that first grew up with these forms of technology. I, like a recent writer on the feminist blog Vagenda, have fond memories of how relationships were enacted in an online space. At the time, much like the teenagers in these studies, it did not occur to us that this behaviour might be risky or illegal. More importantly however, there was no sense that it was the technology itself that was causing this risk.  Teenagers’ exploration of their own sexuality, body and desires is a crucial part of growing up, and it is a minefield of issues. However, one of the most common sources of risk in young peoples sexual activities stems from a lack of available language for young people to assert their sexuality and pleasure, making discussing sex reliant on medical or pornographic language (Holland et al 1999). Sexting can be an important and relatively safe way for young people to exploring their sexual wants and desires. The negative portrayal and over-policing of these activities makes them even more silent, vilifying those who participate and failing to question what pleasure might be gained or what significance it might have for these young people. It is important that a wider discussion of pleasure and agency does not get lost when seeking to protect young people from harm, or further vilify young women’s sexual behaviour.

Further Reading

Albury, K. & Crawford, K. (2013) Young People and Sexting in Australia: ethics, representation and the law

Bond, E. (2010) ‘The Mobile Phone = The Bike Shed?’ New Media & Society, 13 (4) 587-604

Turkle, S. (2011) Alone Together, Basic Books.

Janet Holland, Caroline Ramazanoglu, Sue Sharpe and Rachel Thomson (1998) The Male in the Head: Young People, Heterosexuality and Power London: Tufnell Press

Ringrose, J., Gill, R., Livingstone S., Harvey, L. (2012) A Qualitative Study of Children, Young People and ‘Sexting’, Report prepared for the NSPCC.

Source: www.cie.uci.edu

In the most recent issue of Sociology Compass, Lisa Wade contributed an article, “The New Science of Sex Difference,” about the relationship between biology and social identities and inequalities. The debate about socialization usually boils down to two seemingly opposed positions: nature versus nurture. Historically, biologists, and other fans of the life sciences, contended that natural forces in the body, like hormones, genes, and brains, determine the development of an individual. On the other hand, sociologists refute the claim that human behavior and identity can be reduced to biological phenomena; instead, our social environment, and how we are nurtured within that environment, constrain and enable our actions, life outcomes, and sense of self.

Yet, Wade cautions against this false dichotomy. Many biologists and sociologists now recognize the importance of social structures and experiences on the actual fabric of the body. That is, the issue should not be nature versus nature, but instead both nature and nurture. Wade points to numerous scientific and sociological studies that begin to bridge the gap between two previously polarized sides: these scholars show how our hormones, our brains, and even our genes are structured, and at times restructured, by our social experiences and encounters.

Wade’s ultimate (and important) point is that this type of interdisciplinary work has the potential to undermine inequalities. Though biology historically has been mobilized to justify social inequality (craniometry, for example, was used as “evidence” of the superiority of the white, and male, brain), we might think about adopting a sociological and biological approach to level the playing field. If biology can be mobilized to create inequality, perhaps it can be used to undermine it. This brings me back to my last sociology lens post on women and STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) careers.

Two weeks ago, I posted about the barriers for women entering STEM fields. Relying on the American Association of University Women’s report about the hard transition into STEM majors for female college students, I promoted programs targeted at high school-aged young women that would get them interested in this type of career. But, Wade’s article has prompted me to think about other types of interventions that might involve both biological and social components.

For example, that same AAUW report found some differences in cognitive abilities, particularly spatial skills, between boys/men and girls/women. While it would be easy to chalk these differences up to innate ability, the AAUW researchers instead posit socialization and gendered toys as some of the reasons for the cognitive differences. Boys are encouraged to play with LEGOs and other toys that develop spatial abilities from a young age. As they age, boys are more likely to feel confident when using these spatial skills; girls, on the other hand, feel discouraged. This translates into very real differences in career choice.

Taking this finding and Wade’s article seriously, I think we need to develop interventions that target the cognitive skills (for example, see this innovative LEGO-spinoff, Goldie Blocks, that combines reading and building). In order to encourage women to enter STEM fields, we need to arm them with the cognitive skills necessary for interest and success in a STEM field. Here, we see the potential of using both sociology and biology to solve a social problem and undermine a social inequality.

Wade’s article is a reminder and a caution to sociologists: we should not discount what biology has to offer, but instead embrace the intersections of our disciplines. I will take away from Wade’s article a more critical perspective on my work, and I hope others do, too.

Suggested Reading:

Keller, Evelyn Fox and Helen E. Longino. 1996. Feminism and Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

In regards to the strong points of the book, there were certainly many ideas that stood out. Firstly, it seems important that this reading takes a unique approach to discussing transsexuality. That is, rather than simply writing about the nitty-gritty of sex reassignment surgery or supplying the reader with an autobiography, Serano writes a book that takes a hard look at the discrimination faced by MtF (male to female) individuals as well as our society’s preference for masculinity over femininity. By taking such a perspective, she is able to challenge traditional sexism (i.e., the belief that maleness and masculinity are superior to femaleness and femininity) as well as oppositional sexism (i.e., the belief that female and male are rigid, mutually exclusive categories). Secondly, it was essential for Serano to address the stereotypes of transsexuals, especially those stereotypes propagated by the media. The media plays a huge role in how the cissexual public (i.e., those whose sex and gender are aligned) sees trans people, and so it was crucial for her to talk about and dismiss many of the ideas put forth by misguided TV shows and films. Thirdly, I found it helpful that Serano made the connection between the resentment felt toward trans women and the existence of traditional and oppositional sexism in our society. If even self-proclaimed feminists can be viewed as being misogynistic based on how they treat trans women, then this suggests that we have only scratched the surface on achieving gender parity. Lastly, I liked that the author concluded her book by discussing one final topic: gender entitlement. Regarding gender entitlement as being the next roadblock to achieving gender and sexual freedom, Serano (2007:362) concludes her book be arguing that we need to challenge gender entitlement if we are to “take the next step toward a world where all people can choose their gender and sexualities at will, rather than feeling coerced by others.”

Despite these strong points, however, there were a few issues that I had with the book. Most noticeably, it was a lengthy read that sometimes seemed repetitive. Secondly, the author occasionally came of as very (if not understandably) angry. As an example, she strongly berated feminists, especially those who she viewed as espousing transphobic views.  To her credit, though, Serano still seems to retain hope that feminism will come to fully realize that trans women are an ally in the fight against gender inequality.  Lastly, she could sometimes be very dramatic.  As an example, Serano (2007:273) writes the following: “When I was a child, I was sexually assaulted, but not by any particular person. It was my culture that had his way with me. And when he was through, he carved his name in my side so that I’d always have something to remember him by.” While I understand that Serano must feel great pain about her experiences with an intolerant society, I worry that such statements may be so unrestrained that they may discourage the reader from critically evaluating Serano’s bigger point.

Source: Fotolia

As is probably evident, I had mixed feelings about this book. I liked that Serano took the topic of transsexuality somewhere that it rarely gets to go and that she challenged us to be more accepting of people who stand on the margins of society, but I also had issues with some of the directions that Serano chose to take. Still, this is but a cursory evaluation of Serano’s work, and I’m certain that there are many different opinions on the positive and negative aspects of Whipping Girl. In your opinion, what are the best parts of the book? What would you change, if anything? What has Serano’s work done to our understanding of transsexuality? What do you think?

For Further Reading:

Serano, Julia. 2007. Whipping Girl: A Transsexual Woman on Sexism and the Scapegoating of Femininity. Berkeley, CA: Seal Press.

King Leonidas, left, and Xerxes, right (source: http://screenrant.com/330-prequel-movie-xerxes-sandy-109614/)

In a recent post, I discussed a longstanding trend in American (and Western) media of using racial Others to embody evil.  From adult action films to children’s animated features, we can find examples of villains whose malevolent nature is clear from the racial/ethnic stereotypes used to characterize them. But racial stereotypes are not the only stereotypes used to denote wickedness; we can also find many examples of non-normative sexualities and gender performances associated with evil. Importantly, this sexual Otherness is often developed alongside and in relation to racial/ethnic Otherness.

The intersectional nature of race, gender, and sexuality is fundamental here. Many scholars have documented the connection between racial and sexual Otherness. As Edward Said explains is his exposition of Orientalism (the discursive tool through which Europe and the West has understood the Middle East), the Orient is characterized by its sexual peculiarity. Anything goes, it seems, in the Oriental world of excess; this “sexual excess” is best captured, in the European or American mind, by the image of the harem (see, for example, Said, 1975: 57, 102-103; also Alloula, 2000). Joane Nagel (2003) presents wide ranging historical examples outside the Orient (from the era of direct European imperialism to slavery to modern times) that demonstrate this point. As Nagel explains, “The sexual ideologies of many groups define members of other classes and ethnicities as sexually different from, usually inferior to their own normal and proper ways of being sexual. These class or ethnic ‘Others’ might be seen to be oversexed, undersexed, perverted, or dangerous” (9). Nagel’s overarching point is that “ethnosexual boundaries” (the lines we draw demarcating ethnic/sexual insiders and outsiders) are central to definitions of nation, citizenship, family etc. These sexual ideologies and stereotypes make their way into media representations just like the racial stereotypes I discussed in the prior post. And when ethnosexual Others appear, it is often as villains.

An example may help illustrate my point: Zack Snyder’s 300 (2006). For those unfamiliar with the film, it is a fantastical reimagining of the ancient battle of Thermopylae, where the Spartans, numbering only 300, attempt to defend against imperial conquest by the Persians. In the film, the Spartans are paragons of bravery, heroic to the core. Gerard Butler plays the lead, King Leonidas, followed by a small army of chiseled muscle-men sporting speedos and spears. From their beards to their pecs, the Spartans are the epitome of heterosexual masculinity. As heroes, they are pure—they are committed to right over any bodily or worldly desires, even sexual desires as they abandon their wives for the cause and reject offers of concubinal pleasures. They are devoted to freedom and nation and willing to sacrifice everything for liberty.

In stark contrast stand the Persians, the epitome of Oriental excess and evil, embodied most clearly by their leader, Xerxes. Played by Rodrigo Santoro, Xerxes (also in a speedo) is highly effeminized: his skin is dark, hairless, and pierced; he wears eyeliner and gold makeup and is decadently decorated in gold jewelry. Though surrounded by a harem of belly dancing women, and making sexually violent threats towards the Spartan women, Xerxes exudes stereotypical homosexuality in mannerism and style. He stands much larger than Leonidas, but given his styling and sexual ambiguity, this makes him more scary than manly. His army, a dark-skinned horde that includes literal monsters, is also of questionable sexuality (and masculinity)—the fact that 300 Spartan men stand strong against the 100,000+ army evidence of the failure of Persian masculinity. (For further analysis of this film and others like it, see Pierce, 2011 and Es, 2011, especially pg 15-23.)

As in my discussion of racial Others in film, these ethnosexual Others reinforce existing societal ideologies. They reinforce a gender and sexual order that places (white) normatively masculine, heterosexual men at the top; second, they maintain our mistrust of the GLBT (in the case of Xerxes, especially the G and T) communities. By using sexual Others to denote evil and immorality, audiences are reminded of the centrality and rightness of heterosexuality and normative masculinity. With 300, a triumphant tale of a battle for democracy (to which we trace our democratic origins), we are also given instruction about the relationship of ethnosexual Others to the nation—they are clearly a threat. In Nagel’s words, “The link between war and manhood and the notion of our men as virile and their men as degenerate (and our women as pure and their women as sluts) illustrates often hidden, but powerful sexualized assumptions about the nation, its citizens, its defenders, and its enemies. Good citizenship relies on appropriate sexual behavior and proper gender performance” (2003: 30).

Is it possible to create entertainment forms that don’t rely on these easy stereotypes? How can we push Hollywood and other media outlets to imagine new characters, both good and evil? And, at a higher level, how can we engage in cultural critique of the ethnosexual ideologies that govern nation, citizenship, and basic structures of belonging?

Further Reading

Alloula, Malek. 2000. The Colonial Harem: Images of a Suberoticism. In Feminism & Pornography, edited by Drucilla Cornell. New York: Oxford University Press. pg 381-403.

Es, Murat. 2011. Frank Miller’s 300: Civilizations Exclusivism and Spatialized Politics of Spectatorship. Aether: The Journal of Media Geography VIII(B): 6-30.

Ferber, Abby L. and Michael S. Kimmel. 2008. The Gendered Face of Terrorism. Sociology Compass 2(3): 870-887.

Nagel, Joane. 2003. Race, Ethnicity, and Sexuality: Intimate Intersections, Forbidden Frontiers. New York: Oxford University Press.

Pierce, Jerry B. 2011. “To do or die manfully”: Performing Heteronormativity in Recent Epic Films. In Of Muscles and Men: Essays on the Sword and Sandal Film, edited by Michael G. Cornelius. pg 40-57.

Source: greenbookblog.org

Big Data refers to the enormous amount of information now possessed by companies, that we offer up in our day-to-day lives. In Google searches, Facebook wall posts, or any purchase we are contributing to the vast amount of data, and allowing companies to make predictions about how we will behave. The use of patterning, statistical analysis and algorithms give these companies a perceived ability to ‘predict the future’; ranging from suggesting future purchases to tracking the flu virus through Internet searches. Cheerleaders of this phenomenon (for example Mayer-Schonberger and Cukier 2013) see it is an extremely useful tool that will revolutionise our lives, unequivocally for the better. An opposing view comes from Evgeny Morozov (amongst others) who criticises ‘technological solutionism’ (Morozov 2013) arguing that these benefits are over-stated, and blind us to imbedded structural issues that cannot be solved by ‘more’ data. Whilst there is not space in this blog post to explore these views in full, the debate raises a consideration for Sociology: are there methodological issues with using Big Data, and what are the implications for the social sciences?

Historically, much technological development has been accompanied by claims that it will help make the working day shorter, more compact, and more mobile. Techno-utopianism has become second nature, and we praise technological research and development and the ways in which it makes our lives ‘easier’. The oft cited (and perhaps over-used) “work/life balance” is supposedly improved by workers being able to access the office from anywhere, and at any time. However, ‘mobile’ working creates in many cases a way to track when and where work is done. This creates a panopticon of surveillance, which, it has been argued, often does not alleviate problems of overwork, instead re-producing a culture of presenteeism in a disembodied form (Gregg 2011).

Google is one step beyond this, using the principles of Big Data throughout their business. A recent online article claims that Google has ‘reinvented HR’ with their internal use of Big Data. They quantify a huge range of people-related concepts, such as ‘retention likelihood’, ‘happiness’,  ‘productivity’, ‘diversity’, ‘performance value’, ‘health’ and ‘talent’ (Sullivan 2013). For one study, “Project Oxygen”, they sought to discover what made up an effective manager. By gathering data across more than a hundred variables they established a ranked list of desirable traits, the most significant being that managers’ technical expertise is less important than being approachable and accessible. A simple, and rather obvious critique of this is that it is not nearly as new a finding as Google seems to think – the importance of approachability rather than skill with regards to management was argued for example by Kanter in 1977, and countless studies since. Google then goes on to assert the importance of research like this, boasting that rather than dictating to their company they are able to back up their decisions with data (see Sullivan 2013). This seems however to conflate the use of the word ‘data’ with ‘evidence’ or even ‘logical reasoning’, something that one would naturally expect from any business decision. Companies should be able to justify their decisions with reasons or ‘evidence’ otherwise what exactly are they basing them on?

What this seems to be then, is an over quantification of a ‘problem’ and its ‘solution’. Coming from a qualitative background I am admittedly sceptical and concerned with the quantification of what are clearly qualitative issues. Equally problematic is assuming that research on an enormous scale is bound to find something that has not been revealed previously, or has only been argued ‘without data’ as if that made it ‘bad’ research. In a recent article Chris Anderson claims that the Big Data means that we can do away with the need for hypothesis and theory. He states; “Correlation is enough…we can analyze the data without hypotheses about what it might show…statistical algorithms [can] find patterns where science cannot.” This raisies significant problems, as it places a great deal of power in the design of the algorithm without being aware of the potential pitfalls. As pointed out in a recent piece in the New York Times, the problem with the use of large data sets is that when it ‘fails’ to deliver what the researcher wants it is often the data that is blamed, rather than the model, algorithm or human manipulating it: “You didn’t have enough data, there was too much noise, you measured the wrong things. The list of excuses can be long.”

Social research by its nature relies on two things – data (whether that be qualitative or quantitative) and the person collecting and manipulating it. Consequently the validity of any study will depend on these two factors. This makes the research fallible, and a great deal of time in research methods training is given over to being aware of the weaknesses in any methodology. This reflexivity and self-critique does not seem to apply to Big Data however. Perhaps then the problem with Big Data is that we treat it as something new, without applying the same scrutiny. We must ask ourselves how Sociology can engage with its usage; and ensure we are not enamored by the sheer volume of data to the point of forgetting to be critical of the study design or the conclusions drawn.

 References

Cukier, K., & Mayer-Schonberger, V. (2013) Big Data: A Revolution That Will Transform How We Live, Work and Think. John Murray.

Gregg, M. (2011) Work’s Intimacy, Cambridge: Polity Press

Kanter, R. (1977) Men and Women of the Corporation.

Sullivan, J. (2013) “How Google Is Using People Analytics to Completely Reinvent HR” , TLNT.com, February 26^th 2013. 

Marcus, g. (2013) “Steamrolled by Big Data”, The New Yorker, April 3, 2013.

Morozov, E. (2013). To Save Everything, Click Here: The Folly of Technological Solutionism. PublicAffairs.

Source: girlscouts.org

Last fall, like any good teacher of the sociology of gender, I introduced my class to the patterns of gender bias in STEM fields (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics). My students were not shocked by the observation that few women enter these fields in college. In fact, one of my students raised her hand and explained the bias first hand. She was a computer science major, enrolled in a computer science course held in the same lecture hall in the time block before our class. She would see the composition of the classroom change as one course ended and the other began: mostly men would leave the computer science class, and then relatively equal numbers of men and women entered the sociology of gender class. My class discussed many ways to eliminate the gender bias in STEM fields, including high school level interventions to enable girls to excel in these majors. This is why I was so excited to open the New York Times this week and read an article about Girls Who Code, an organization that teaches computer code to high school girls in order to prepare them for a college major in computer science.

In order to give context to the significance of such an organization, here is a general background about gender and STEM fields. Historically, STEM fields have been dominated by men. The training for boys to enter these fields started early in their educations. Young boys were encouraged to excel in mathematics and science in grade and high school, meaning boys often outperformed girls in the classroom, as well as on standardized tests. As boys entered college, they were filtered into STEM fields in order to enter science and math-oriented careers. From a young age, boys were taught that they had a home in math and science; their education prepared them for such a career.

Fast forward to today. Educational and government professionals, feminists, and other activists have made substantial efforts to eliminate the bias in the education of girls and boys. In order to level the playing field in the subjects of math and science, a number of educational efforts targeted girls in order to get them excited about these fields and to ensure that they received a similar education to boys. On a national level, government initiatives, like the White House Girls in Stem events, promote girls’ intellectual achievement in math and science. On a more local and individual level, teachers and educators encourage girls to excel in these subjects. In many ways, these national and local efforts have paid off. Over time, the gap between girls’ and boys’ performances in math and science has narrowed. In fact, the American Association of University Women’s 2010 report suggests that girls take more math and science credits and receive higher grade point averages in these classes than boys.

Yet, despite the substantial gains in girls’ performance in math and science in grade and high school, men still dominate STEM college majors and careers. Girls and boys will perform similarly in earlier education settings, but once entering college, girls are less likely to choose a STEM field as their area of specialization. In other words, these efforts don’t eliminate the bias at higher levels of education.

This is why I am so excited about the organization, Girls Who Code. The organization, founded by Reshma Saujani, teaches high school girls how to code in order to give them an advantage when entering computer science classrooms in college. Saugani started the organization after she noted that few women were present in computer science classrooms. Girls Who Code and other organizations like it have helped many young women excel in computer science, changing the face of the field.

Has anyone heard of similar organizations aimed at intervening in this pivotal time between high school and college when the gender gap in STEM fields widens? I am excited to learn about these efforts.

Suggested Readings:

American Association of University Women. 2010. Why So Few: Women in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics.

McDaniel, Anne. 2012. “Women’s Advantage in Higher Education: Towards and Understanding of a Global Phenomenon.” Sociology Compass 6(7): 581-595.

Source: Wset10

In recent years, there has been a push for research to focus on prisoner reintegration. In response, researchers have begun investigating a number of important topics such as how to use theory to inform policy and practice, how to determine which prison programs work best to aid in reintegration, how to minimize the impact children face from having an incarcerated parent, how to acknowledge the important link that exists between sentencing and release, and how to take a holistic yet individualized approach when it comes to prisoner reentry. In this post, I will briefly summarize five recent research articles that deal with prisoner reintegration before briefly discussing which directions appear to be especially promising.

To begin, Bazemore and Stinchcomb (2004) take a community-based approach. More specifically, they contend that reentry often requires a commitment on the part of communities to weaken barriers, to develop pro-social identities of released people, and to provide them with informal social support. The authors suggest that the community can ease the reintegration process by embracing restorative justice principles, promoting civic community service, and allowing voting enfranchisement and democratic participation. As for Petersilia (2004), she is highly concerned with the programs that prisoners are offered. Although there is a paucity of valid research on reintegration, she suggests that we focus on those programs that appear to be most successful. She notes that such programs tend to be community-based, intensive, mostly concerned with high-risk offenders, embracive of cognitive-behavioral treatment techniques, and dedicated to matching therapists and programs to specific individuals. Travis (2005) challenges the criminal justice system to consider the impact of incarceration on parent-child relationships, childhood development, and families. Considering the challenges faced by children with incarcerated parents, he contends that we must offer multiple services and programs to help children, their families, and prisoners cope with their experiences. In another article, Travis (2007) applauds the recent efforts to improve the reentry process. While he is pleased with the progress that is being made, he also reminds us to consider the important yet often ignored linkage between sentencing and reentry. Lastly, Visher and Travis (2003) point out the influence of pre-prison circumstances, individual, family, and community influences, and state policies on the transition from prison to the community. According to these researchers, a holistic approach that is capable of considering the situations of specific individuals is needed to truly improve the reintegration process.

Each of these articles makes important contributions. Firstly, it seems so incredibly vital to realize the significance of the community on release. Even for those who receive community supervision post-release, this is not enough to ensure a successful transition. Not all communities are made alike, and only by adopting the suggestions espoused by scholars such as Bazemore and Stinchcomb can communities become more hospitable and therapeutic to those leaving the prison system. Secondly, several authors, especially Petersilia, have noted that there is a lack of research on prison programs. In order to learn what works and how to improve programs, we must be concerned with their evaluation. Calls for such research have certainly contributed to the current emphasis placed on evidence-based programming. Thirdly, it is crucial that—like with the community—we consider how the family is affected by incarceration and what can be done to alleviate the damage that it necessarily endures. Too often the challenges faced by the children of prisoners are ignored; it’s not their fault that their parents are sent behind bars, and so we need to be sensitive to their needs, especially since doing so will decrease the probability of these children following in their parents’ footsteps. Lastly, it is good that Visher and Travis push for us to take a holistic look on the factors the precede imprisonment and the factors that help to determine success post-release. Since all of these elements work together to determine who goes to prison and who stays out of prison, it seems foolish to not consider them collectively.

Source: Federal Bureau of Prisons

In all five of these articles, the authors are very much concerned with how we can increase the probability of a successful transition from prison to the community. That is, beyond merely looking at recidivism statistics, how can we help people leaving prison to become successful members of society? Obviously, this is a challenging question that has been a major topic of discussion in recent years. There is no simple answer, but it seems likely that these authors are all on the right track. I would, however, suggest that we go a step further. Like Travis, I believe that the factors that contribute to future imprisonment start to arise in childhood. So, while it is great to offer programs to people both during and after prison, it seems that we should really be concentrating our efforts on children long before they become involved in the criminal justice system. Helping to teach parents how to parent, offering free educational and daycare services to all children, and improving financial assistance to poor families would seem to be helpful endeavors. Really focusing on improving the life chances and life qualities of those kids with incarcerated parents may be especially fruitful. After all, if an ounce of prevention is really worth a pound of cure in the medical sense, then it would seem that doing so when it comes to preventing future social problems would make a lot of sense, too.

For Further Reading:

Bazemore, Gordon and Jeanne Stinchcomb. 2004. “A Civic Engagement Model of Reentry: Involving Community Through Service and Restorative Justice.” Federal Probation 68(2):14-24.

Petersilia, Joan. 2004. “What Works in Prisoner Reentry?: Reviewing and Questioning the Evidence.” Federal Probation 68(2):4-8.

Travis, Jeremy. 2005. “Families and Children.” Federal Probation 69(1):31-42.

—. 2007. “Reflections on the Reentry Movement.” Federal Sentencing Reporter 20(2):84-87.

Visher, Christy A., and Jeremy Travis. 2003. “Transitions from Prison to Community: Understanding Individual Pathways.” Annual Review of Sociology 29:89-113.

Click here to view the embedded video.

I’m no mind-reader and won’t speculate whether the producers intended any connection between Pres. Obama and the devil. I’ve raised this little controversy for another purpose, to demonstrate a long-standing film tradition of racializing villains. From spy flicks and action blockbusters to children’s animated movies and faith-based media, evil is often embodied by dark-skinned characters. Think about it—who are the bad guys in James Bond movies? What stands out about the animated character, Jafar, in Disney’s Aladdin? And what can we say about the Devil in the History Channel’s The Bible, especially compared to the heroic characters? They are all highly racialized depictions of racial/ethnic Others. They draw on nasty stereotypes designed to make us fearful. They are shown as morally corrupt and physically unattractive. Jafar, for example, conforms to ethnic stereotypes much more than Aladdin or Jasmine, both of whom could easily pass (in white westerners’ imaginations) as well-tanned Americans if not for their desert setting.

Source: fanpop.com

Edward Said famously wrote about this representational tactic in his book Orientalism (you can watch a documentary about Orientalism, featuring Said, called On Orientalism, on YouTube). Said explains that Orientalism is a patterned way of representing Arabs and Muslims as a unified cultural group (despite the fact that the terms aren’t synonymous, that Muslims live in many places outside the Arab world, and that “Arab” is used to describe individuals from many different backgrounds), less civilized than white Europeans or Americans, and capable of terrible things; in other words, Orientalism is a discourse that presents Arabs/Muslims as a dangerous threat. Not limited to specific media, Orientalism surrounds us and, from an early age, inculcates us with a particular way of understanding the Arab world. It gives us a specific language that governs how we conceive of Arab people and naturalizes our stereotypes. The Arab is a terrorist; the Arab is patriarchal—these terrible generalizations make sense and seem real in an Orientalist framework.

Source: fanpop.com

We need not limit ourselves to thinking just about the Arab/Muslim in the Western imaginary. Similar respresentational tropes govern depictions of blacks and Africans as well, though they have a different history (still rooted in imperialism, but also, in the U.S., a history of slavery and ongoing racial inequality structured around a black-white dichotomy). In a fascinating article, Carmen Lugo-Lugo and Mary Bloodsworth-Lugo (2008) demonstrate how racialization (and heteronormativity) functions even in animated films. Understanding that the animals in these films function anthropomorphically to teach children about the world around them, the authors argue that racialized characters reinforce the racial stereotypes that children are beginning to learn. For example, in the film Shark Tale, “Children learn that our culture is strictly raced and racialized, since even fish can be Black or White” (Lugo-Lugo and Bloodsworth-Lugo, 2008: 5). The black fish look different, live in segregated parts of the reef, and are recognizable through racialized markers like voice/accent, mannerisms, and jewelry (5). Reading the article, I thought back to one of my favorite animated films growing up—The Lion King. In this film, Scar is our racialized villain (along with his pack of hyenas). The most obvious racial marker is his darkened mane which stands in stark contrast to the lighter locks of Mustafa and adult Simba. We learn very early that darkness is not to be trusted, it is evil, murderous, and must be conquered (by civilized, benevolent, blondish lions, of course).  While it might seem silly to focus on movies when racism functions in so many other parts of our lives, media is of vital importance. The power to tell stories about Others, Said would remind us, is not an innocent power—it is the foundation of colonialism and racism everywhere that these emerge, it is the basis for political and economic domination. The stories we tell have both symbolic and material consequences. But the power of our stories can also be transformative in other ways—imagine if we told different stories, or allowed Others to tell their stories. What kind of world might we imagine, and thereby create?

Further Reading

Hughey, Matthew W. 2012. Racializing Redemption, Reproducing Racism: The Odyssey of Magical Negroes and White Saviors. Sociology Compass 6(9): 751-767.

Lugo-Lugo, Carmen and Mary K. Bloodsworth-Lugo. 2008. “Look Out New World, Here We Come”?: Race, Racialization, and Sexuality in Four Children’s Animated Films by Disney, Pixar, and DreamWorks. Cultural Studies—Critical Methodologies.

Saeed, Amir. 2007. Media, Racism and Islamophobia: The Representation of Islam and Muslims in the Media. Sociology Compass 1(2): 443-462.

Said, Edward. 1979. Orientalism. New York: Vintage Books.

Said, Edward. 1994. Culture and Imperialism. New York: Vintage Books.

Fagan (2008), while examining the proliferation of transfer regimes, notes that the juvenile court has long had the ability to transfer young offenders to the criminal court. He highlights that decisions to evoke such policy were made on an individual basis by a judge taking into consideration background factors, rehabilitative amenability, and public safety concerns. As Kupchik (2006) states, the primary goal of the early juvenile court grew from a parens patriae ethic where the State adopted the role of a surrogate parent to re-socialize youth toward a proper and moral lifestyle. Only those cases seen as unresponsive to treatment and deemed “incorrigible” were removed from the juvenile justice system and denied the protections it afforded.

As alluded to above, the number of adolescents prosecuted in criminal court and incarcerated in adult correctional facilities has steadily increased over the last three decades. Scholars including Fagan (2008) highlight that, since the 1970s, practically all states have either passed new legislation or modified its existing laws to promote the transfer of youth offenders to the criminal court. During this time, the legitimacy of the juvenile court was threatened on a number of fronts. First, given individualized case assessments by juvenile judges, there were disparities from one case to another. Second, the court was attacked for being racially biased against minorities. Third, judges were criticized for ignoring the need for public safety by not considering the severity of the committed crime. Finally, the rising crime rates of the time represented the juvenile courts’ inability to control youth offenders (Feld, 1999). These attacks helped spawn new legislation regarding transfer policies and crime control that were distinctly at odds with the earlier progressive principles of rehabilitation and social welfare (Kupchik, 2006).

Recent theorizing, much like Garland’s (2001) work, attempts to understand contemporary crime control within large scale social, cultural, and political shifts. Garland (2001) argues that “penal welfarism” that characterized the state during the early to mid-1990s has been dismantled as it failed to secure the public from the risks connected with crime. In its place has risen a new crime control initiative that has ushered a bourgeoning “culture of control.” Related to the emergence of punitive transfer laws, Simon (2007) uncovers how politicians gather support for legislation in a new era of social governance. He proposes that, after the 1960s, the collective trust in the state to provide security and social welfare died with rising crime rates, the collapse of the progressive agenda, and fall of the New Deal political order. In order to alleviate this crisis of legitimacy, politicians and legislators exploited people’s escalating awareness and bourgeoning fear of crime as new mechanisms of coercion and control. More specifically, crime allowed politicians to frame citizens as (possible) victims to garner support for new – oftentimes more punitive – legislation. In essence, individuals become governed through crime under an increasingly penal system.

This idea becomes more evident as proponents of transfer policies situate the need for public safety and proportional punishment over the culpability of youth. In comparison to the old welfare/progressive model where youth culpability was diminished and legal recourse was given without public and political criticism, the rise of a penal model of justice made youth both responsible and accountable for their criminal acts (Fagan, 1999). The decline of rehabilitative ideal of progressive thought made room for legislative reforms that redrew the boundary between juvenile and criminal justice.

Read: Moore & Padavic. 2011. Risk Assessment Tools and Racial/Ethnic Disparities in the Juvenile Justice System. Sociology Compass

Read: Harvey. 2011. Juvenile Courts and Competency to Stand Trial. Sociology Compass

Whilst this success shouldn’t be belittled, there remain problems with the media’s portrayal of these senior women as well as the criticism of their decisions and practices that outpaces those directed at their male counterparts. The hyper-visibility of these women and the attention surrounding their success have created high (feminist) expectations and heavy criticism when they fall short. This raises the question: Why do we assume that as successful and powerful women, they stand for gender equality? Why do we imbue these women with role model status, and how helpful is it to do so?

Having broken through the “glass ceiling”, Mayer and Sandberg now exist on a “glass cliff” (Ryan and Haslam 2005): a precarious place where they are hyper-visible and constantly scrutinised. In some cases this criticism is of their ability as women to do “men’s jobs”, but feminists reprimand them too. Whilst being held up as feminist icons, they are simultaneously knocked for a lack of commitment to gender diversity, or for being ‘bad’ role models, and are somehow expected to be representative of all women.

Mayer in particular has come under scrutiny for ‘banning’ her employees at Yahoo from working from home. This is seen to particularly disadvantage parents (read: women) and make the work/life balance impossible for her (female) employees. What is striking about the debate in media and public discussion is the surprise and outrage that Mayer “as a woman”, could implement this policy. Despite Mayer being first and foremost a CEO of a Silicon Valley company, she is expected to make her business decisions according to what would best suit her (female) employees, simply because she is a woman. Why is it assumed that successful women should be concerned about gender equality, rather than getting the most from their employees? Additionally, given that women’s success in organisations is often dependent on their becoming more like their male counterparts (Wajcman 1999) and that at the top of organisations there is much less difference in management style between men and women (Rutherford 2002), why do we expect senior women to behave “as women”? 

Female role models are very influential on women’s career development and their importance cannot be overstated. Women are underrepresented in positions of power and senior roles, and a lack of good role models is often cited as a barrier to their success (see for example Catalyst and Opportunity Now 2000). This leads to a ‘chicken and egg’ dilemma as more women are needed to be role models, but they don’t get there because of the lack of visible senior women. Yet the problem with this argument is that it assumes women in senior positions will always be ‘good’ role models, and that they have an obligation to be so. In a recent study by Kelan (2012) into the experiences of young professional women, many felt that female role models presented to them were ‘not right for them’ due to their having different experiences and priorities. Sealy and Singh (2009) argue that women choose their role models ‘affectively’; according to their emotional connections, and the need to feel an affinity with the role model for the relationship to be beneficial. Whilst women like Mayer and Sandberg may offer an example of success and give hope for other women, in reality their path to success is not one that will always be open to women of different economic, social and/or ethnic backgrounds. However, we also have to question why we place extra (feminist) expectations upon successful women, and assume that they should and will be perfect role models, in addition to their day job.

References and further reading

Belkin, L. “Marissa Mayer’s Work-From-Home Ban Is The Exact Opposite Of What CEOs Should Be Doing”, The Huffington Post, 23^rd February 2013.

Catalyst and Opportunity Now (2000) Breaking the Barriers: Women in Senior Management in the UK. London: Business in the Community.

Kelan. E. (2012) Rising Stars, Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan.

Purcell, D., MacArthur, K. R. and Samblanet, S. (2010), Gender and the Glass Ceiling at Work. Sociology Compass, 4: 705–717

Rutherford, S. (2002). Any difference? An analysis of gender and divisional management styles in a large airline. Gender, Work & Organization, 8(3), 326-345.

Ryan, M. K. and S. A. Haslam (2005). “The glass cliff: Evidence that women are over‐represented in precarious leadership positions.” British Journal of Management 16(2): 81-90.

Sealy, R. And Singh, V. (2010) ‘The importance of role models and demographic context for senior women’s work identity development’, International Journal of Management Reviews, 12 (3), 284-300.

Wajcman, J. (1998). Managing like a man: Women and men in corporate management. Polity Press in association with Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

Source: http://emanaliahmed91.blogspot.com

Sheryl Sandberg’s book, Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead, has created quite the buzz in the media, drawing accolades and criticism from widespread analysts, academics, feminists, business people, journalists, etc. Sandberg, the COO of Facebook, contends that the norms of femininity prevent women from gaining success in the workplace. While insufficient work and family policies are obstacles for women, one major, often overlooked, barrier is the rigid boundaries of masculinity and femininity, which hinder men’s participation in family and relationships and women’s drive in the workplace. Sandberg encourages women to “lean in” to their own success, to work hard and to defy the norms that hold them back.

While some praise Sandberg’s strong business sense and work ethic, others criticize her claim that women are their own biggest obstacles to success in the workplace. As a sociologist and a feminist, I am skeptical about her assertion that women hinder their own progress. In addition to a cultural shift in ideas about women’s leadership and business skills, we need stronger work and family policies. However, I am intrigued by her claim that cultural norms about masculinity and femininity are a major part of individual work and family issues. This seems like an obvious claim, yet a hard problem to solve. How do we change cultural ideas about what men and women can and should achieve in the workplace and in the home?

Sandberg has provided an outlet to start this change with the website, leanin.org. The website encourages women to join “circles,” or close-knit, supportive groups in which women can share the trials and tribulations of the workplace and give each other tips on how to gain more success. The website includes instructions for how to set up and to facilitate a circle. The goal is to get women to engage with each other in order to build successful careers and to manage their work and family tensions; women working together can produce social and cultural change.

While the circles project may not be the only answer to women’s work and family issues, I think they are a good endeavor. The idea of circles strikes me a very feminist initiative. Feminism grew out of women working together, starting from their experiences to produce greater gender equality. The circles project continues this tradition, creating the opportunity for real women to benefit as they navigate the tough terrain of work and family.

Yet, I am concerned that the focus of this circle initiative is to make women better workers. Gender equality requires more than simply allowing women to rise to the level of men in the workplace; it also means valuing work that has traditionally been coded as “feminine” (housework, childcare, etc). While this does not seem outside of Sandberg’s vision (in her book, she stresses the need for a strong partner), the circles initiative could easily slip into this framework. Still, it will be interesting to see the effects of women engaging with one another through the leanin.org forum.

Suggested Readings:

Wharton, Amy S. 2012. “Work and Family in the 21^st Century: Four Research Domains.” Sociology Compass 6(3): 219-235.

Correll, Shelley J., Stephen Benard and In Paik. 2007. “Getting a Job: Is There a Motherhood Penalty?” American Journal of Sociology 112 (5): 1297-1339.

Source: Gordon Incorporated

Over the past 400 years, the Western criminal justice system (CJS) has greatly evolved. Like virtually all social institutions, its evolution has been highly impacted by the wider social environment. Along with the arrival of new technologies, philosophies, and aspirations, the Western CJS has altered its policies and practices. One very important change that has taken place over the past few centuries has been the birth of the modern prison system. Strongly inspired by factors related to capitalism, the prison system has continuously oscillated between focusing on incapacitation, deterrence, rehabilitation, and retribution. Beyond economic reasons, part of this fluctuation has taken place because of the West’s increasing desire to punish offenders mentally as opposed to physically as well as its vacillating theories regarding the true “nature of man.” In response to such ideas, it is important to consider exactly where and how the modern prison was born as well as what factors contributed to its creation.

The birth of the modern prison is traced by Foucault ([1975]1995) in his examination of discipline and punishment in the West. In this analysis, Foucault notes the strong influence of a location’s general environment on its criminal justice system. He explains, for instance, that industrial interests paired with Enlightenment-era ideas led to the creation of the French penal code of 1810. While some of the original goals of this instrumental code were to have punishment become less arbitrary and to act as a form of deterrence against law breaking, he notes that prison soon became a preferred method for dealing with a variety of offenses. In Foucault’s opinion, this coercive, corporal, solitary form of punishment was chosen over a more representative, signifying, and collective form of punishment because the former was much more amenable to elites than was the latter. That is, those with influence could directly benefit from the imprisonment of those with less power. And, in fact, members of the elite have become so effective at promoting incarceration that Foucault eventually came to see prisons as being immovable, natural-seeming fortresses that can only be changed, never removed.

Foucault’s ideas are certainly not lost on Shelden (2008). Like Foucault, Shelden is very much aware of the impact of a society’s economic structure on how it handles criminal justice. For him, capitalism has encouraged the growth of the prison population because of its financial incentives and its ability to contain the excess population, especially the “dangerous classes,” through state-sponsored social control. To support this contention, Shelden argues that prisons did not exist in the West before capitalism; rather, jails were merely used to temporarily house offenders. By the early days of capitalism, however, things began to change as offenders were increasingly likely to be imprisoned and forced to work in institutions such as workhouses. While some reformers called foul, little was done to separate the prison system from the influence of capitalism. Although mentally taxing and work-focused approaches like the Pennsylvania and Auburn systems were discarded, the reformatories that were adopted during the first half of the 19th century weren’t much better. Convict labor and convict leasing just became new ways to profit from prisoners. Even as the prison system moved away from reformatories, the role of prisons as warehouses for unneeded (and especially non-white) workers remained. In fact, the recent arrival of the crime control industry—particularly the advent of private prisons—encourages Shelden to contend that the CJS is now unabashedly cashing in on crime. Ultimately, the role of capitalism on the CJS leads Shelden (2008:304) to conclude that “literally thousands of businesses make huge profits off the misery of others. The blood of millions of victims drips from the rafters of Wall Street and all who profit.”

Source: 2bgr8

In sum, and as Foucault and Shelden both contend, it appears that capitalism has been instrumental on the Western criminal justice system. That is, the influence of those with power and moneyed interests has greatly impacted how we approach corrections. The crime control industry is but a clear example of the merging between punishment and profit. If anything, then, the development of the Western CJS over the past four centuries shows itself to be a testament to the power held by capitalism and capitalist elites in Western society. But, if this is true, what does this mean for the supposed fairness of our criminal justice system? Does capitalism really play the most important role? What other factors may matter? What do you think?

For Further Reading

Foucault, Michel. [1975]1995. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Vintage Books (2nd edition).

Shelden, Randall G. 2008. Controlling the Dangerous Classes: A Critical Introduction to the History of the Criminal Justice System. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

A photo of my best friend and me

A recent article in Marie Claire magazine caught my eye. The title asks, “Are girlfriends the new husbands?” As the article explains, young adult women are increasingly turning to best friends for the kind of support that one might expect only from a romantic partner. As they choose to remain single later into life, women’s best friends become intimate partners (though not sexual ones). Cohabitation, “family” vacations, even some type of co-parenting between best friends is becoming more common. I should note, the article doesn’t discuss race, sexuality, class or any of the other intersecting social categories that affect women’s lives, so we cannot make sweeping generalizations, but among an abstract category of 20- to 30-something year old women, the nature of friendship appears to be changing. And I’d like to argue that this change is a good one.

The author, Whitney Joiner, seems mostly optimistic about women’s friendships, sharing several women’s stories of the value and joys of having a BFF (best friend forever). But she goes on to suggest two downsides: first, that friends have no binding commitment and when times get tough, they can easily “call it quits”; second, these ‘besties’ may use their relationship with one another to avoid the dating scene. I don’t have much to say on the first point, except the exceedingly high divorce rates in the US suggest that it is pretty easy to “call it quits” in a marriage. The second is where I have qualms.

Joiner relies on a fairly common cultural assumption, namely, that family and marriage are more significant relationships than friendship. At the heart of this assumption are problematic heterosexist beliefs about men’s and women’s “natures” and the necessity of childbearing (especially for women). These beliefs militate against cross-sex friendships, for example, because we assume that men and women must, deep down, want to sleep with each other. They militate against strong and intimate friendships between men because of these friendships carry the stigma of homosexuality. And they militate against women’s friendships because women are supposed to compete with one another to secure a male mate, and fulfill their “biological destiny” of birthing a child (in the confines of marriage, of course). I want to be clear that these are cultural assumptions, not facts—men who are friends are not necessarily gay, women need not compete with another for male attention even when they are heterosexual, and men and women can clearly be friends without jumping into bed. But the cultural norms infiltrate our thinking and how others perceive us, so they do affect our behavior.

So when women engage in these deep friendships, they are challenging some of the fundamental ideas undergirding heterosexism. Is there something wrong with women pursuing friendships instead of pursuing husbands? I don’t think so. In fact, I think just the opposite. I think that intimate friendships between women are a practical enactment of feminism—when we allow ourselves to embrace and celebrate the women in our lives, we challenge the heterosexist structures that tend to keep us apart (see Lisa Wade and Caroline Heldman speak on this here; also bell hooks (2002), ch. 14). We refuse to conform to society’s expectations at each other’s expense. We resist the homophobia and heterosexism implicit in other’s judgments of our friendships (that we are secretly lesbians, that we are spinsters who cannot find a man, and so on). We recreate the very notion of family in these relationships. And we are still free to pursue any other kind of relationship we desire—be it a traditional, married relationship, other friendships, even motherhood. But, if we don’t want to get married or don’t want to have children, why should we deny ourselves a support structure, an intimate with whom we can share our triumphs and tribulations? These friendships, it seems, enable women to decide when or if they want what society expects, without giving up the psychological, emotional, and physiological benefits of having a life partner.

So, are girlfriends the new husbands? Well, if I were to evaluate my own life, the answer would be a resounding yes. I’ve lived together with my BFF for six years; we share our finances, our chores, our families, and a deep love for one another—we are each other’s “lady husbands.” We are friends, sisters, partners, intimates. I can attest to the fact the many people are skeptical of our relationship, even intimidated by it, and definitely make assumptions about our sexualities because of it. The fact that they are intimidated, I think, indicates the true feminist potential of friendships like ours: they threaten the social structures that maintain heterosexual/male privilege, and they may provide a foundation for organized resistance to those structures.

I’d love to see more sociological investigation of intimate friendships. Previous research has indicated that men’s friendships are somewhat different from women’s. Do we see similar forms of intimacy occurring among men, and why (or why not)? Joiner’s article says nothing about the race or sexuality of the women in her article (though they seem to come from middle-class, professional backgrounds), and my friendship experience is rooted in my own social position as white, hetero-appearing, American-born and middle-class. How do intersecting categories (race, sexuality, citizenship status, class, etc.) affect the form and content of friendships, and how might intimacy within and across these social categories encourage new types of resistance? To what extent do intimate friendships lead to actual engagement with feminisms or other social movements? Previous research (see an example here, but take the biological determinism with a grain of salt) shows the psychological and physiological benefits of friendship, so do intimate friendships enable healthier relationships with others or even greater gains in self-esteem?

Further Reading

Boyle, Karen and Susan Berridge. 2012. I Love You, Man: Gendered Narratives of Friendship in Contemporary Hollywood Comedies. Feminist Media Studies.

Chasin, CJ DeLuzio, and H. Lorraine Radtke. 2012. “Friend Moments”: A Discursive Study of Friendship. Qualitative Research in Psychology.

Felmlee, Diane, Elizabeth Sweet, and H. Colleen Sinclair. 2012. Gender Rules: Same- and Cross-Gender Friendship Norms. Sex Roles 66: 518-529.

hooks, bell. 2002. Communion: The Female Search for Love. New York: Harper Collins Publishers, Inc.

On boys’ (and men’s) friendships: Way, Niobe. 2011. Deep Secrets: Boys’ Friendships and the Crisis of Connection. Harvard University.

However, the same boundaries that construct a reality for individuals, groups, and cultures, also establish points of conflict. Consequently, the social world endures ongoing transformations as it encounters friction and opposition between sources of authority. Individuals, much like culture, “struggle over what significant symbols mean and who has the authority to project public definitions” (O’Brian, 2008). Whilst boundaries help individuals define their social environment and navigate its complex terrain, they often create areas of contested space in which contradictions and power play out.

There can be little doubt that there exists a gross inequality that limits some from actively engaging in the construction of meaning. This process is oftentimes dominated by those harboring social, cultural, economic, and political hegemony. O’Brian notes that “most persons are aware of the hegemonic position, and its legitimacy is usually taken for granted” (2008: 431). This position resides at the “center”, is considered “normal”, and is highly sought within society. Hegemonic practices, however, sustain domination and inequality as individuals carry out expected social scripts – thus, reifying current realities. This form of social organization often maintains itself through the continued use of power over those lacking both social position and authority. As a result, oppression is constructed and played out though interactions of societal groups: namely, those oppressing and those being oppressed. This relationship, often termed interactional mirrors, solidifies the hegemonic position as it is re-affirmed by both positions.

In this sense, social power and position are unavoidable features that can impress profound effects on one’s self-development. Consider O’Brian’s (2008: 441) stance:

All of us struggle to make sense of ourselves (and the world), to find ways of self-expression, and to be heard and understood. The self undergoes constant revision as it encounters friction, contradiction, and conflict among the various boundaries that give the self-meaning.

However, the ability to find self-expression is not afforded equally to all. When individuals harbor characteristics that align closely with the default or hegemonic position, then their status is considered to be normal. On the other hand, those that are distinct from the expected norm are considered to have marked, or deviant, statuses. Harboring a marked status, to be in opposition to the dominant order creates a contested boundary between how others view them and how they want to be viewed. Similarly, one that takes a “subjective” more dominant role acts upon those having an “objective” less central role. These statuses – whether governing or oppressed – influence one’s perception, interactional structures, and their self-construction.

Those occupying unmarked or hegemonic positions have a high degree of interactional freedom – referring to the argument that these positions harbor a good deal of privileged and entitlement. In addition, they are given more space to project definitions and construct identities than those of marked or marginal statuses.  As a result, subsidiary populations tend to have a greater sense of social awareness. That is, stigmatized and marginal populations cannot – as hegemonic groups do – take positions for granted; rather, they are more aware of distinguishing boundaries and contradictions with the social system.

Suggested Readings:

Dean, J.J. (2011) The Cultural Construction of Heterosexual Identities. Sociology Compass 5(8): 679-687.

Nayak, A. (2007) Critical Whiteness Studies. Sociology Compass 1(2): 737-755.

Click here to view the embedded video.