social

solitary cigaretteThe Chronicle of Higher Education reports this morning on an ongoing debate as to the validity of a 2006 study which concluded that Americans have become significantly more socially isolated over the last 25 years. 

David Glenn reports, “In the summer of 2006, several major news outletsgave prominent coverage to a sociological study with a grim message: Americans’ social isolation had increased radically since the 1980s. Whereas in 1985 Americans reported that, on average, they had 2.94 friends or family members with whom they could discuss important matters, by 2004 that number had dropped to 2.08. A quarter of Americans had no close confidants at all. Those findings were …[even] startling to the study’s authors, who are sociologists at Cornell University, Duke University, and the University of Arizona, [J. Miller McPherson, Lynn Smith-Lovin, and Matthew E. Brashears].”

UC Berkeley sociologist and social networks scholar Claude Fisher has some concerns:

The [previous] study’s portrait of collapsing social networks, Mr. Fischer writes, is at odds with other recent findings by social scientists. What’s more, he says, some of the 2006 paper’s data seem internally inconsistent or simply implausible. For example, among people who reported belonging to four or more organizations—presumably a highly sociable bunch—14.9 percent reported having no confidants. And what about married people? Surely they discuss important matters with their spouses, if no one else. In 1985 only 6.6 percent of married respondents reported having no confidants, but in 2004, 22.2 percent did so.

Fisher claims that such errors could be due to errors during data collection or coding. Now the original study’s authors have responded…

 

Ms. Smith-Lovin said that she and her co-authors are proposing an experiment for a future administration of the General Social Survey—perhaps in 2010—in which the social-network questions would be offered at different points during the survey, to see whether such “context effects” actually make a difference. She and her colleagues have also re-interviewed many of the people who responded to the 2004 survey, but she said that they are not yet ready to discuss those findings. Even if some of those people have no intimate friends, they can apparently count on having a long conversation with a social scientist every two years or so.

The Telegraph (UK) reports today about a trend in universities in England to prohibit the use of certain words deemed offensive. Among them is the term ‘Old Masters,’ often used to refer to great painters, many of whom were men. Instead, the UK sociologists who developed the list suggest that this term discriminates against women and should be replaced with ‘classic artists.’ 

Telegraph reporter Martin Beckford writes:

The list of banned words was written by the British Sociological Association, whose members include dozens of professors, lecturers and researchers. The list of allegedly racist words includes immigrants, developing nations and black, while so-called “disablist” terms include patient, the elderly and special needs. It comes after one council outlawed the allegedly sexist phrase “man on the street”, and another banned staff from saying “brainstorm” in case it offended people with epilepsy.

Call in the sociologist!

…The list of “sensitive” language is said by critics to amount to unwarranted censorship and wrongly assume that people are offended by words that have been in use for years. Prof Frank Furedi, a sociologist at the University of Kent, said he was shocked when he saw the extent of the list and how readily academics had accepted it.

“I was genuinely taken aback when I discovered that the term ‘Chinese Whisper’ was offensive because of its apparently racist connotations. I was moved to despair when I found out that one of my favourite words, ‘civilised’, ought not be used by a culturally sensitive author because of its alleged racist implications.”

Prof Furedi said that censorship is about the “policing of moral behaviour” by an army of campaign groups, teachers and media organisations who are on a “crusade” to ban certain words and promote their own politically correct alternatives. He said people should see the efforts to ban certain words as the “coercive regulation” of everyday language and the “closing down of discussions” rather than positive attempts to protect vulnerable groups from offense.

Read the full story. 

This morning the Guardian (UK) reported on the battle over Proposition 8 in California. Proposition 8, also known as the ‘California Marriage Protection Act,’ is a proposed amendment to California’s state Constitution which will only recognize heterosexual unions, eliminating the right of same-sex couples to marry. The Guardian article describes this battle as emblematic of a larger cultural divide in the United States. 

The Guardian reports:

Conservative and evangelical groups were freshly mobilised by the California supreme court’s decision in May to overrule voters’ approval of a ban on same-sex marriages in 2000.

But the movement has its roots in the culture wars of the 1980s and 1990s, says University of California-Berkeley sociology professor Michael Hout.

“They got as far as they could on abortion and have embraced marriage laws as the next step in their agenda,” said Hout, co-author of The Truth About Conservative Christians: What They Think and What They Believe. “Their main agenda remains the reversal of Roe v Wade, but they’re trying to gain new allies who look askance at gay marriage.”

Not that it’s a purely Machiavellian manoeuvre. Proponents of bans on same-sex marriage are “truly concerned that the state should not be licensing immoral behaviour”, Hout said.

“In their interpretation of the Bible, they see a prohibition on homosexual activity. Gay marriage condones a lifestyle that’s ruled out by their reading of the scripture.”

Read the full story.

New York Times Op-Ed columnist David Brooks recently wrote about individualism and decision-making in a piece entitled ‘The Social Animal.’ In his analysis, Brooks discusses scholarly work that reveals the interconnectedness which informs our decision-making processes, even broadly highlighting the work of sociologists. Brooks’ piece is centered around political decision-making and the potential for both parties to learn from this knowledge about the influences on our individual behavior.

Brooks writes:

Geneticists have shown that our behavior is influenced by our ancestors and the exigencies of the past. Behavioral economists have shown the limits of the classical economic model, which assumes that individuals are efficient, rational, utility-maximizing creatures.

Psychologists have shown that we are organized by our attachments. Sociologists have shown the power of social networks to affect individual behavior.

What emerges is not a picture of self-creating individuals gloriously free from one another, but of autonomous creatures deeply interconnected with one another. Recent Republican Party doctrine has emphasized the power of the individual, but underestimates the importance of connections, relationships, institutions and social filaments that organize personal choices and make individuals what they are.

This may seem like an airy-fairy thing. But it is the main impediment to Republican modernization. Over the past few weeks, Republicans have talked a lot about change, modernization and reform. Despite the talk, many of the old policy pillars are the same. We’re living in an age of fast-changing economic, information and social networks, but Republicans are still impeded by Goldwater’s mental guard-rails.

Read more.

VecchiettiReuters UK reports on new research out of the University of Chicago, which concluded that getting old does not mean an end to sex. Survey data from elderly Americans indicates that more than 60% of the men and nearly 50% of the women have been sexually active in the past year.

Reuters reports:

 

More than three-quarters of American men aged 75 to 85 and half of women that age are still interested in sex, a survey of the elderly by University of Chicago researchers found.

“It’s not age per se; that when you get to 80 it’s all over with,” said sociologist Edward Laumann, who led the study of 3,000 American men and women aged 57 to 85 who lived at home, not in nursing homes.

“It’s driven by more proximate factors such as if you become obese, or you’re smoking too much, or you contract diabetes. Medications can depress sexual interest. The aging process itself is not a major factor driving these results,” he said in a telephone interview.

 

Read more.

IMG_3886The Wall Street Journal reports on how high school proms have now ‘landed’ in England, to the dismay of many. The article describes how middle-class kids in England are ‘moved by American tv’ and push for their own proms, which often end up being over the top and ‘gaudy,’ according to the authors

The article draws upon the expertise of sociologist Amy Best.

“Proms in the U.S. began in the 1930s, the invention of teachers trying to help young people make the transition to adulthood, says Amy Best, a sociologist and expert on youth culture at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va. The dances largely fell out of fashion in the 1960s but came back in the 1980s and remain popular, she says.”

The trend…

“Proms began crossing over to the United Kingdom several years ago and keep growing in popularity. Ricky Turrell, a photographer in southeast England, has 54 proms booked this year. Proms are practically a daily occurrence somewhere or other in England from May 1 till well into July.”

“Tom Kendall, 16, says American TV shows such as ‘The O.C.’ and MTV’s ‘My Super Sweet 16’ provide a ‘fairy tale’ view of dances and parties that British teens like. ‘The O.C.,’ a Fox show now in reruns on Britain’s E4 channel, chronicles the life of affluent teens in Orange County, Calif. ‘My Super Sweet 16’ airs nearly every day in Britain, showing teens preparing for lavish birthday parties.”

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.”

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…

 A recent article from Alex Williams for the New York Times investigated the ways in which young employees in their 20s and 30s discuss their salaries. Williams claims that there is an “etiquette to sharing the information” when young professionals brag about their salaries.

The Times reports:

“For instance, most young people don’t tell their cubicle mates, according to a 2007 study for Money magazine by the sociologist Jeanne Fleming and the writer Leonard Schwarz. Still, young workers seem somewhat less likely to adhere to this convention than older ones. The study found that 90 percent of those over 35 who were surveyed agreed with the statement ‘you should never let your co-workers know how much you make,’ while 84 percent of subjects under 35 agreed.”

“But between friends almost anything is fair game. Beth Kobliner, the author of the best-selling ‘Get a Financial Life: Personal Finance in Your Twenties and Thirties,’ said she had noticed that many young people now ‘have no idea what their boomer parents earn, but know every intimate detail about their close friends’ salaries, 401(k)s and debt loads.’”