culture

Today’s edition of the Los Angeles Times reviews Australian sociologist Anthony Elliott’s new book, “Making the Cut: How Cosmetic Surgery Is Transforming Our Lives.” Elliott, chairman of the sociology department at Flinders University, seeks to “examine how cosmetic surgery is at once a driving force and a result of the new, international, techno-speedy, obsolescence-included economy — an almost perfect model of how capitalism not only meets consumer needs but creates them as well.”

LA Times reporter Mary McNamara writes,

“Quoting experts as disparate as Pamela Anderson and Sigmund Freud (surely this is a first), citing cultural events as diverse as reality television and various corporate scandals, Elliott makes the case that millions of people are getting cosmetic surgery not because they are narcissists but because they are afraid. Not just of losing a job to a younger colleague or a spouse to a younger competitor, but of losing the chance to engage in what has become the hottest hobby in America: reinvention.”

“Elliott argues that people, at least the old definition of people, i.e. creatures whose bodies go through a predictable set of changes called “aging,” are increasingly perceived as not only a drag on the new capitalism, with its enjoyment of downsizing and corporate shake-ups (the former CEO with the bags under his eyes is probably tired, the woman with the pooching belly might have children who require her at home some of the time), but also a sign of woefully limited imagination.”

“Elliott seems particularly disturbed by the young people who seem to view cosmetic surgery as an accessory, something to be purchased, used for a season and upgraded (the pages about surgical tourism are particularly hilarious, in a horrifying way).”

“For better or worse,” Elliott writes, “globalization has given rise to the 24/7 society, in which continual self-actualization and dramatic self-reinvention have become all the rage.”

A recent piece from the Week in Review by the New York Times included commentary on the upcoming elections and the racial divide. Times reporter Marcus Mabry writes, “whether Mr. Obama captures the White House in November will depend on how he is seen by white Americans. Indeed, some people argue that one of the reasons Mr. Obama was able to defeat Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton was that a large number of white voters saw him as ‘postracial.'”

Harvard sociologist Orlando Patterson was asked to comment.

“Orlando Patterson, a professor of sociology at Harvard, argues that the one arena where black grievance is acceptable is in music, particularly in hip-hop, where an estimated 70 percent of listeners are white. But the generation exposed to hip-hop, mostly under 40, are part of what Mr. Patterson calls a growing “ecumenical” American culture that is unselfconsciously multiracial.

This Obama Generation came of age in the post-civil-rights age when color, though still relevant, had less impact on what one read, listened to or watched. It was the common crucible of popular culture, he said, that forged a truly American identity, rather than the “salad bowl” analogy cherished by diversity advocates.

Mr. Obama’s campaign so de-emphasized race that for most of the 17-month nomination contest much of the news media became obsessed with the question of whether he was “black enough” to win black votes.

Most African-American Democrats were for Hillary Clinton early on, until voters in Iowa proved to them that whites would support a black candidate.”

Full story.

The latest issue of Esquire Magazine featured an article entitled “Why the F%$# Do People Talk on Cell Phones at the Movies?” and solicited commentary from sociologist Rich Ling.

“Response No. 1, by Rich Ling, sociologist and author of New Tech, New Ties: How Mobile Communication is Reshaping Social Cohesion: There’s a mismatch between people’s understanding of what’s going on around them and their need to be in touch with other people. When someone calls you or texts you, it’s a random positive reinforcement, a little gift. ‘Somebody’s noticing me and that makes me feel important.’ Being noticed by other people is a real narcotic. You have to weigh the importance of your social life with your involvement in the collective film-watching experience. We need a balance between appropriate use and tolerant expectations.”

Associated Press writer Jay Lindsay spoke with sociologist Peter Berger about a new study out of Boston University and the Institute on Culture, Religion and World Affairs aimed at understanding more about evangelical Christians in the United States.

The project was born out of a concern that intellectuals look down on evangelicals and that the evangelical community’s influence has been largely absent from sociological study, a significant concern given that nearly 75 million Americans identify as evangelicals.

The Associated Press reports:

“Educated people have the notion that evangelicals are ‘barefoot people of Tobacco Road who, I don’t know, sleep with their sisters or something,’ Berger says. It’s time that attitude changed, [Berger remarks]. ‘That was probably never correct, but it’s totally false now, and I think the image should be corrected,’ Berger says in a recent interview… ‘It’s not good if a prejudiced view of this community prevails in the elite circles of society,’ says Berger, a self-described liberal Lutheran. ‘It’s bad for democracy and it’s wrong.'”

The Minneapolis Star-Tribune reports on the findings from a study by Dr. Nicholas Christakis, a medical sociologist from Harvard Medical School.

Dr. Christakis’ findings…

“A smoker is more likely to kick the habit if a spouse, friend, co-worker or sibling did as well.”

The study concluded that smokers tend to quit in groups, and that those individuals who don’t stop smoking inevitably find themselves excluded from their social circles. Dr. Christakis commented that smoking behavior depends not only on the people you know, but the people who they know as well. Read on…

The Wall Street Journal reports on a new series of studies about the trend towards young adults moving back home to live with their parents.

WSJ discusses findings highlighted by sociologist Katherine Newman…

“More upper- and middle-income parents, including many who felt pressed for time when their children were growing up, aren’t ready to be ‘finished with them’ by their 20s, says Katherine Newman, a Princeton University sociology professor and one of the project’s 20 researchers. Also, as more students attend college at older ages, parents are coming to regard the 20s as a time of self-discovery.”

And co-investigators…

“Researchers on the project set out to document economic factors driving the trend, but found it’s bigger than the financial causes usually blamed for it. To be sure, rising housing and commuting costs play a role, Dr. Yelowitz found. But neither those factors nor job-market changes fully explain the 25-year trend. The biggest increase in young adults living with parents came in the 1980s, when the labor market generally improved, he found. And rising real housing costs explain only about 15% of the drop in independent living among young adults, which started years before the sharpest run-up in housing.”

Full story.

Well-know sociologist Sudhir Venkatesh of Columbia University has written for Slate Magazine on Grand Theft Auto 4. Venkatesh’s article “Unjustifiable Carnage, Easy Alliances, and Lots of Self-Doubt: What Grand Theft Auto IV Gets Right About Gangland and Illegal Economies” draws connections between ‘Liberty City,’ the setting of the game, and Chicago’s South Side.

Venkatesh writes,

“If you are a fan of the new Grand Theft Auto video game, I have just the neighborhood for you. The setting of GTA IV, Liberty City, is an amped-up version of the New York metro area. If you want a slice of the real thing, however, I’d recommend Chicago’s South Side. The last time I visited Chicago, I stopped by 59^th Street, near Washington Park (and only a few short blocks from the picturesque University of Chicago). Two of the local gangs were fighting each other in full view for control of a prime sales spot, a hotel. For a monthly fee, the proprietor had promised to allow one gang to turn the place into a bordello—drugs, prostitution, stolen merchandise. For the gangs, winning meant more than simply getting rid of their enemy. Neither controlled the area surrounding the hotel. Anyone bringing drugs (or women, or guns, etc.) to the hotel would have to run the gantlet formed by other enemy gangs, who would be at the ready to shoot down the transporter.”

Check out this fascinating blog post from Jeff Weintraub about MSNBC commentator Chris Matthews’ comments about contrasting sociologists with Americans.

Weintraub writes,

“Tonight, Matthews suddenly decided that even mentioning class and race in connection with elections is for ‘sociologists,’ not ‘Americans.’ Using phrases like ‘blue-collar’ is ‘elitist talk.’ And simply by talking about ‘white working-class voters,’ Hillary Clinton is almost ‘like the Al Sharpton of white people.'”

Check out the full story with video link.

MercuryNews.com reports on a new study out of Stanford University which suggests that the older a man is when he marries, especially after age 40, the more likely it is that his bride will be significantly younger, regardless of whether or not the man is wealthy.

Co-investigators Paula England and Elizabeth McClintock have found that “men in their 40s tend to marry women who average seven years younger, men in their 50s are marrying brides who average 11 years younger, and men in their 60s are marrying women who are 13 years younger. ” 

England and McClintock suggest that this may be due to changes in family structure after the 1960s, but attribute this trend largely to what they call “a double-standard of aging” — where “the male idea of beauty is found in women in their early twenties and remains fixed as men age.”

Science Daily reports on a new study from Christine Whelan at the University of Iowa which suggests that men whose mothers earned a college degree and worked outside the home seem to have an effect on how they choose their wives.

Whelan’s study, which focuses on high-achieving men (defined as those who are in the top 10% of earnings for their age as well as those with a graduate degrees), are likely to marry a woman whose education mimics their mothers’. Of these high achieving men in the study, almost 80% of them whose mothers had college degrees married women with college degrees.

In addition, of those men whose mothers had graduate degrees, 62% of high-achieving men married other graduate degree holders, and 27% got hitched to women with college degrees.

Science Daily reports:

“‘Successful men in their 20s and 30s today are the sons of a pioneering generation of high-achieving career women. Their mothers serve as role models for how a woman can be nurturing and successful at the same time,’ said Whelan, a visiting assistant professor of sociology in the UI College of Liberal Arts and Sciences. ‘One man I interviewed put it like this: “If your mother is a success, you don’t have any ideas of success and family that exclude a woman from working.” This Mother’s Day, I think we should thank those moms for leading the way toward gender equality for a younger generation.'”