Sociology Lens

By Dena T. Smith

In elections, we determine who to vote for via a number of factors: party affiliation, the economy, the character of the candidate, advertising, etc. It’s a complicated process. One key force in determining the outcome of elections is who is attributed responsibility for both the pitfalls and promise of a given state of the nation, state, city or even district.   The process of attribution, generally explored by social psychologists, and usually used to describe blame for negative events, plays a key role in our voting practices, especially where incumbents are concerned. For instance, the incumbent party is less likely to maintain dominance when the economy is bad because constituents are likely to blame said faction for economic woes. The heated races in Virginia, New Jersey and upstate New York taking place today will, in their aftermath, be prime examples of attributing blame to candidates based on the party that is nationally dominant. President Obama’s campaigning for Jon Corzine is no coincidence in a year where democrats desperately want to maintain their majority, but fear that people will attribute the blame for the still sluggish economy to the party itself. Democrats are likely also concerned that things like the lack of movement on health care and the increasing disappointment with how the war in Afghanistan is being handled may even cause some conservative democrats to vote against the party – to attribute the blame for these situations to the various Democratic Candidates running today, even though they have had nothing to do with these decisions. Finally, attribution, in this case, might work in the opposite direction; if democrats lose offices today, those losses will likely be attributed to failures of the Obama administration, thereby assigning blame to the President for a loss of faith in democratic leadership.  Conservatives are hoping that voters blame Democrats for such things as the high rate of unemployment and that this attribution will lead them to regain a little bit of the power lost in January.

(more…)

nmccoy1

This week, Republican Congressman Terry Franks invoked humanist philosophy to simultaneously defend pro-life (anti-abortion) and question President Obama’s humanity and citizenship.  It would be laughable logic if this trend were not so prevalent and effective.  Franks called Obama an “enemy of humanity” referring to Obama’s decision to support international aid to organizations that perform abortions.  This invocation of humanist arguments in every abortion debate is particularly interesting when it is juxtaposed against almost uniform rejection by Republicans of public insurance options and sex education in schools.  Franks in particular accuses Obama of not treating unborn babies as humans and therefore is himself less than human.  In the same breath that he attempts to color Obama as an inhumane monster, Franks also questions Obama’s citizenship status.  Is he making a connection between humanity and American citizenship?  Is it only “human” to protect unborn babies while supporting efforts to exclude thousands of children and pregnant women from access to healthcare?  Though politically problematic, the most distressing aspect of these kinds of accusations stem from the slippery links made between and among such issues.  Further, rather than engaging in political dialogue and debate regarding these issues, Franks (like many other politicians) critique not the positions and arguments but rather the very humanity of the person with whom he disagrees.

CNN article on Terry Franks

by NickieWild

Politics often guides the course of technological development. One of the most obvious places that this has occurred, and continues to occur, is the United States’ NASA program. With the US essentially still fighting two wars, the looming health care, Medicare, and Social Security crises, and the general poor state of the economy, many question the relevance of space exploration in the world today. In order to keep NASA going, scientists and administrators are increasingly switching NASA’s mission to one of scientific advancement rather than manned exploration.

The symbolism of unbridled Capitalism where the U.S. could afford many Apollo missions, the ability to “beat the Russians” in the space race, and all the other things that created an era of romanticism in the space flight are no longer important. It is easy to compare the change in mission of NASA to change in other areas where government funding and politics intersect. The current healthcare debate is one example. Recession and economic downturn are things that politicians can appeal to when they argue about the mission of healthcare. They can also argue that universal healthcare is a “romantic” notion that is not realistic. Framing the debate about healthcare around necessity, as NASA has done to stay alive, will be necessary if healthcare reform is to succeed.

Read More

This post has moved to http://williampaulbell.wordpress.com/2009/09/12/comparing-the-role-of-government-in-self-control-problems-from-behavioural-and-neoclassical-economic-perspectives/

<About>  <Portfolio>  <Academia>  <LinkedIn>  <Twitter>  <Blog>

Member of the World Economics Association – promoting ethics, openness, diversity of thought and democracy within the economics profession

by NickieWild

What makes social movement activity “authentic”? Recently in American politics, there has been a lot of discussion about “astroturfing”: protests at and disruptions of town hall meetings held by members of Congress that appear to be grassroots activity, but which are sponsored and organized by corporations and PACs (Political Action Committees). Two of the recent major players in this controversy are FreedomWorks, conservative anti-taxation PAC chaired by former U.S. Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey, and LarouchePac, organized by controversial fascist/anti-Semitic political figure Lyndon LaRouche. The former group is responsible for the many signs that popped up at town hall meetings of President Obama with a Hitler moustache.

Liberal-leaning political talk show commentators have worked to expose this activity as not grassroots, but coordinated by enemies of the President’s agenda. These critics regard this as not “real” social movement activity. Another interesting development is the usage of stock photos to represent “real” people. FACES of Coal is a pro-coal mining corporate sponsored-group which bought pictures from istockphoto.com to represent its “real” people who are pro-coal. Another example is the usage of a stock photo, purchased from the above site, that appeared on a fake profile on FaceBook of an attractive, young, blonde, Caucasian girl named “Erin Perkins,” in an attempt to promote the agendas of the Republican party and Ron Paul.

Critics of astroturfing (such as MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, in the above clip) argue that the corporations and PACs that sponsor these actions are trying to make up for the fact that the people do not of their own accord support their positions, hence the contrast between the “grassroots” movements and the fake “astroturf.” But as corporations are increasingly given more autonomy, and as de-regulation has increased corporate power, the colonization of social movements by business is a natural development in itself.

Read More

Resources and Social Movement Mobilization by Bob Edwards and John D. McCarthy

This post has moved to http://williampaulbell.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/the-g8-protests-and-the-logically-inconsistent-foundations-of-neoclassical-economics/

<About>  <Portfolio>  <Academia>  <LinkedIn>  <Twitter>  <Blog>

Member of the World Economics Association – promoting ethics, openness, diversity of thought and democracy within the economics profession

By Dena T. Smith

Since his inauguration, President Obama has used just about every forum possible to stress the need for health care reform. We’ve heard the pragmatic arguments: in the current system, we spend too much money on treatment rather than focusing on preventative care or that all the power is in the hands of private interests inflates costs. And we’ve also heard plenty of opposition to government intervention from the right. Two Tuesdays ago, I wrote about the need for the president and health care reformers to frame changes to the system in a way that people would feel motivated to create and/or support reform. I discussed what role altruism could have in this process (click here to go to the post). To re-cap, in the framework of classic theories of altruistic behavior, if people are to support an overhaul of the American health care system (as a helping behavior), they have to feel compelled to act and that the costs of the act would need to be minimal compared to the benefits of change. In other words, wanting to help combined with a bit of self-interest are the necessary cocktail.  In the last few weeks, especially given the failure of the pragmatic (generally economic) approaches in convincing both congress and the public to change the system, the President and his team of health care reformers have locked in on emotions more intensely than ever before. One way in which they hope to activate people’s emotional responses is by swaying religious leaders to publicly emphasize the values of their respective faiths that might potentially push congregants to support government intervention in and alterations to the health care system.

(more…)

(more…)

by NickieWild

Is racist language still acceptable in the United States? As with most things in social science, the answer depends on the situation and people involved. Recently, the television program on the CBS network “Big Brother” self-censored an episode where two contestants used a derogatory term to describe fellow contestants who were of Mexican descent, as well as making anti-gay remarks. Compare this incident with former Georgia Senator and Governor Zell Miller’s statement that President Obama should be prevented from making trips abroad by fixing him in place using “Gorilla Glue.” Quoting Miller:

“Our globe-trotting president needs to stop and take a break and quit gallivanting all around. I think (chief of staff) Rahm Emanuel ought to get some Gorilla Glue and put it in that chair in the Oval Office and say ‘Sit here awhile.’”

This is a real product, but the racial overtones are hard to ignore. Some have questioned Miller’s use of this terminology (instead of using the more traditional reference to “Krazy Glue”). Clearly, racial slurs, whether overt or covert, are still used frequently. But they seem to be much more likely to get negative attention than ever before. Sociologist Eileen O’Brien explores this issue and writes on why people choose to adopt “antiracist” stances.

Read More

From Antiracism to Antiracisms by Eileen O’Brien