Readers of Contexts will know that one of Chris and my favorite political pundits and cultural commentators is David Brooks of the New York Times. It’s not because we agree with all of his politics and opinions, but  because he is one of the few national media members who regularly reads and consistently draws upon social scientific research. On this point, take a look at his March 17 column “Social Science Palooza II.” I found at least two things interesting about the seven different pieces he profiles. The first is that four of the studies come from psychology. The other is that two of the pieces are based upon work in the domain of sports–one about how fans impact officials (which helps account for the “home field advantage”), the other about the social dynamics that propel swimmers in the last legs of relay races to swim beyond their usual personal limits. Good stuff–and a handy reminder that I want to give Brooks’s new book The Social Animal a read.

So I finally had a chance to watch the Facebook-inspired, Academy Award-winning film “The Social Network.” I found it very entertaining–Jessie Eisenberg was captivating as Mark Zuckerberg and who among us regular folks doesn’t enjoy seeing some in-fighting among Ivy League elites? That said, I was also surprised and kind of disappointed not to learn more about the social desires and dynamics that Facebook is really tapping into and driven by–I mean, in addition to sex, dating, and scoring drugs. I see the irony of a bunch socially-challenged Harvard misfits producing the most successful social networking medium in the world today. But I think there is–or at least should be–more to the story than that, more to say about why people want and need to connect with one another, why this particular technology has proven so successful and valuable for doing so, and what broader lessons these fundamentally social questions have for the future of technology of/in society. In real life, as I wrote in a post a few weeks ago, Zuckerberg talks a ton about the power and promise of all things social without really filling in the details and the backstory. I guess I had thought the film might help elaboarate that just a bit. Maybe when sociologists make their move into Hollywood, we can do the remake.

Late last week, esteemed La Salle sociologist Charles A. Gallagher put pen to paper (well, fingers to keys, more likely) with an op-ed in the Philadelphia Inquirer titled “Living in Fictional Land of Color-Blind America: False View of Equality Blinds Us to Remaining Issues.” We encourage you all to read Chip’s piece, and to check him out in CNN’s piece from the following day. Kudos to a sociologist in the limelight!

Our colleague, Monte Bute at Metro State University in St. Paul, is many things to us: respected sociologist, friend and supporter, blogger (https://thesocietypages.org/monte/), former Contexts’ board member, and valued opinion. He’s also a true class act, and it looks like a lot of people agree.

Today we’re delighted to point you all to Minnesota Public Radio’s wonderful piece about Monte’s approach to life, death, and bringing both into the classroom. Please do check it out at http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/02/23/dying-professor-death/

And, for a little more backstage knowledge on the backstage sociologist, here’s the text of Monte’s “about” page on TheSocietyPages.org:

Last week it was announced that, after many years of (our) waiting and hoping, former Minnesota Twins pitcher Bert Blyleven had been voted into the Major League Baseball Hall of Fame. In yesterday’s local paper, Blyleven was asked about the speech he planned to make when he is officially inducted in Cooperstown, NY on July 24.

Here’s what he said:
“A Hall of Fame speech is not talking about yourself; it’s talking about the people who helped you get where you’re at right now. There are so many great people who helped me.”

We loved the response, and it is not just because Bert is a Minnesotan or because we are trying to get him to circle us on television broadcasts next season. (Blyleven does color commentary for Twins games and is known for circling fans in the crowd with his telestrator.) We loved the quote because it is so thoroughly sociological, recognizing that all of Blyleven’s accomplishments are not fully his own and in fact the result of lots of cooperation and assistance from others along the way.

NYU sociologist Dalton Conley talked about this recognition that we all stand on the shoulders of others when he did a special video chat with our intro undergrads here last spring—but he added a twist. Conley talked about how he always asks his own intro students how they had come to their academic success and being enrolled at his/their prestigious institution. His white students, Conley told us, typically talk about how hard they had worked in high school and throughout their lives; students of color, in contrast, usually tell him about all the people who had helped them along the way. Hall-of-famers in the making? Circle them, Bert!

Sociologists love all things “social,” and we use the word all the time in Contexts. We’ve used it in titles—“the good, the bad, and the social” (Fall 2010), “all politics is social” (on our cover Fall 2008), and, of course, “understanding people in their social worlds” (Contexts’ tagline). Another place the term pops up regularly these days is in media, news, and communication technologies—all of which we now call, almost without thought, “social media.”

A recent interview with Financial Times (FT.com), Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg illustrates. FT reports that, “In sweeping terms and with no sense of irony,” Zuckerberg will tell anyone who’ll listen:

Our goal is to make everything social.

The Internet wunderkind goes on: “If you look five years out, every industry is going to be rethought in a social way. You can remake whole industries. That’s the big thing.”

The reporter summarized their interview, writing, “Zuckerberg uses the word ‘social’ a lot, and it’s not always obvious what he means. He is not simply talking about telling your friends what you had for breakfast with a status update. To Zuckerberg, a more social world is one where nearly everything—from the web to the TV to the restaurants you choose to eat at—is informed by your stated preferences and your friends’ preferences, and equipped with technology that lets you communicate and share content with people you know. What Zuckerberg is talking about is a new way of organising and navigating information.”

From an academic standpoint, it’s easy to be critical—”social” seems to be reduced to individual choices or friendship circles, and ideas about networking and communication are so easily put into service for big business. And then there are all the complexities of what it means to socialize on an individual basis through technological means that can, themselves, be isolating.

That said, for sociologists who often complain about the lack of an informed, sociological perspective in mainstream media and public discourse, this pervasive attention to the social should be seen as an opportunity. Not just in terms of how we use social media (though obviously we are trying to do that here at TSP), but in terms of expanding conceptions of “the social” and perhaps even bringing a more socially-oriented—dare we say, sociologically-oriented?—perspective into mainstream media and public discourse. Probably won’t hurt in the classroom, either.

What makes a social science blogger or blog post unique? Too often, not enough. Social scientists who only offer up their personal opinions about the daily news end up being just another voice in the crowded echo chamber. What we need are social science bloggers who can insert real knowledge and the unique perspective of their disciplines, data, and insight into the mix.

Chris Kelty makes this point (and others) in his recent post about blogging in anthropology. Kelty also offers some great tips on how social scientific bloggers can make more meaningful, substantive contributions. We especially like Kelty’s suggestion to blog about a journal article you’ve read recently:

“Think,” he writes, “how pleased you would be if someone blogged about your research… This exercise hones two valuable skills: a) the ability to communicate what an article says and why it is important better than the article does itself and b) the ability to do so in a language and tone that flatters the author, provokes your audience to [consider social science] thought, and doesn’t take you longer than a couple of hours.”

Does this sound a little like our citings posts? Hopefully so.

Seeing a piece called “The Offensive Movie Cliche that won’t Die” on Salon.com today made me think of the academic treatment given to the subject of the “magical black man” by sociologist Matthew W. Hughey. Hughey’s August 2009 Social Problems article on the subject was discovered in the Spring 2010 issue of Contexts. You can read and discuss the discovery here, or read Hughey’s fascinating original article here.

While we’ve been scrambling to get the semester off to a good start, our colleague and recent Contexts contributor Donald Tomaskovic-Devey’s gone and written a great piece–a sort of One Thing I Know about Banks on the Huffington Post. Check it out, and we’ll be back soon!

In our role as the editors of Contexts magazine, we come across a lot of great — some might say excellent — writing. So this year, with the blessing of Contexts’ founding editor, we established the Claude S. Fischer Awards for Excellence in Contexts to recognize some of the most accessible and engaging pieces from the magazine. The nominees were hand-picked by the Minnesota graduate student board, and the winners were selected by Contexts’ editorial board, comprised of esteemed sociologists from around the world.

At Contexts’ editorial board’s annual meeting this past Monday, we had the pleasure of announcing the inaugural winners of “The Claudes.” Please join us in heaping praise on these authors, who have done so much to help bring sociological insights to the wider world, and in recalling some of the great Contexts content from 2008 and 2009.

And the winners are…

Best Feature:
“Rethinking Crime and Immigration,” by Robert J. Sampson. Winter 2008.

Best Photo Essay: It’s a tie!
“Smoke Damage,” by Michael Schwalbe. Spring 2008.
“Looking for a Way Home,” by Jennifer Whitney. Summer 2008.

Best Culture Review:
“Peeing in Public,” by Harvey Molotch. Spring 2008.

Best Book Review:
“The Most Dangerous Crime Rankings,” by Richard Rosenfeld and Janet L. Lauritsen. Winter 2008.

Best “One Thing I Know”:
“Immigration’s Complexities, Assimilation’s Discontents,” by Rubén G. Rumbaut. Winter 2008.