Hello and Happy New Year from TSP! We were out last week, so we have a lot of great stuff to share. We have some new pieces from around the site to highlight, and we continue recognizing our Best Of and Most Popular posts from 2016. Also, in case you missed it, the latest issue of Contexts is available for free online until Jan. 20! So grab a warm beverage and start your year off right with some sweet sociology.

Discoveries:

“Fatalistic Suicide in a Tight-Knit Community,” by Sarah Catherine Billups. Durkheim thought fatalistic suicide was the least common type, but new research in ASR finds it to be quite common in small communities.

“Sex and Cardiovascular Risk in Old Age,” by Edgar Campos. A new study in JHSB explores the varied health risks and benefits of sexual activity and the ways they affect men and women differently.

TSP Specials:

*~!BEST OF 2016!~*
“The Whitelash Against Diversity,” by Jennifer Lee. Voted best Special Feature by the TSP grad board, in this piece Jennifer Lee highlights research that helps explain the significant “whitelash” among white Americans that resulted in a Trump presidency.

There’s Research on That!:

*~!BEST OF 2016!~*
“When ‘Nice Guys’ Rape,” by Amber Joy Powell. Feminist scholarship highlights the pervasiveness of rape culture and helps pinpoint how it reproduces notions that only “bad guys” commit “real rape.”

Clippings:

“How Post-Election Questions Burden People of Color,” by Caty Taborda-Whitt. In a candid conversation with Slate, Tressie McMillan Cottom describes the emotional labor that these post-election interactions demand from people of color.

“Life Expectancy and Inequality,” by Edgar Campos. The Huffington Post talks to Jarron Saint Onge about reports that life expectancy dropped in the United States for the first time in two decades.

*~!BEST OF 2016!~*
“Crossing an “Empathy Bridge” to Understand Trump Supporters,” by Elizabeth Tremmel. Arlie Russell Hochschild talks with Wisconsin Public Radio about her research with conservatives in Louisiana.

*~!MOST POPULAR 2016!~*
“The Noble Poverty in Kids’ Movies,” by Allison Nobles. In the most viewed Clipping of 2016, New York Magazine features research helmed by sociologist Jessi Streib on how Disney downplays social class.

Office Hours:

*~!BEST OF 2016!~*
“Jooyoung Lee on Blowin’ Up: Rap Dreams in South Central,” with Matthew Aguilar-Champeau. Our Best Of 2016 podcast episode features a conversation with professor Jooyoung Lee about his research and his many skills – from ethnography to dance.

From Our Partners:

Scholars Strategy Network:

“How Passers-by and Policymakers View Beggars in American Communities,” by Shai Dromi.

“Why Does Immigration Arouse Deep Feelings and Conflicts?” by John D. Skrentny.

Council on Contemporary Families:

“The Evidence is in: Progressive Policies Strengthen Families,” by Molly McNulty.

Contexts:

Fall 2016 Table of Contents

“Darker Skin, Harsher Sentence,” by Lucia Lykke.

“Viewpoints on Financial Foreclosures.”

1.  “Too Small to Help, Too Poor To Trust,” by Frederick F. Wherry, Kristin S. Seefeldt, and Anthony S. Alvarez.
2. “Can Ethnography Improve the Culture of Finance?” by Daniel Beunza.
3. “Financial Entertainment and the Public Sphere,” by Alex Preda.
4. “The End of the American Dream,” by Kevin Leicht.

And a Few from the Community Pages:

• Girl w/Pen explains how better journalism is good for women.
• Sociology Toolbox rounds up sociologists’ reflections on Trump’s election.
• Cyborgology reflects on the culture of work.
• Families As They Really Are talks marriage education and progressive family policies.

Last Week’s Roundup

Sign Up for Inbox Delivery of the Roundup

Our Latest Book

Even though such things are socially constructed and culturally specific … Happy Holidays from TSP! We are officially done with the fall semester here in Minneapolis, but we still have some great new pieces for you this week. We are also kicking off our annual round of *Best of 2016* posts, and this week we highlight our Best Discovery of 2016. See below and stay tuned for more!

There’s Research on That!:

“Oh By Golly, What is Poly?,” by Allison Nobles. The holidays are all the more difficult to navigate if you have more than one partner to consider, and we’ve rounded up some recent research that sheds light on the hows and whys of polyamory.

Discoveries:

“The ‘Facebook Effect’ on Religiosity,” by Jacqui Frost. New research in Sociological Perspectives finds that young adults who use social media are more likely to be “syncretists” who pick and choose various beliefs and practices from multiple religions, rather than adhering strictly to one traditional doctrine.

*~!BEST OF 2016!~*
“Extending the “Crime Scene” into the Community, by Ryan Larson. Voted the Best Discovery of 2016 by the TSP Grad Board, this piece summarizes recent research in Sociological Science that finds communities of color are more likely to experience stop and frisk activity after a violent crime.

Clippings:

“The Persistence of Sexual Double Standards,” by Allison Nobles. Broadly draws on research from Rachel Allison and Barbara Risman to explain how women are still more likely than men to be judged negatively for past sexual decisions.

From Our Partners:

Scholars Strategy Network:

“Why Politically Active Billionaires Threaten the Health of Democracy,” by Darrell M. West.

Council on Contemporary Families:

3 Questions with Pallavi Banerjee: Immigration/Politics/Talk, by Eunice Owusu.

Contexts:

“Rule Without Referees,” by Philip Vlahakis.

“Sociology Teach-in on Trump at UC-Merced,” by Zulema Valdez.

And a Few from the Community Pages:

• Sociological Images asks if a cat can make a community.
• Girl w/Pen talks black women in TV.
• Cyborgology lists the things they did like about 2016.

Last Week’s Roundup

Sign Up for Inbox Delivery of the Roundup

Our Latest Book

Happy Friday everyone! We hope you are staying warm and getting close to wrapping up your fall semesters. We have some great new pieces this week, including a new podcast episode with Vanesa Ribas and a new special feature by Penny Edgell. As we head into the break, in addition to posting new pieces every week as usual, we will be highlighting our “Best Of 2016” nominees from around the site, so keep an eye out for great stuff you may have missed throughout the year.

TSP Special Features:

“Seeing the White in Christian America,” by Penny Edgell. In this new special feature, Edgell explains how race, over and above religion, drove white evangelicals to vote for Trump. She argues that blanket statements about “evangelicals” that ignore differences between white and non-white Christians can work to perpetuate a culture of white privilege that systematically denies that whites, too, have racial identities and interests.

Office Hours:

“Vanesa Ribas on Immigration to the New South,” with Erik Kojola. In our most recent podcast, we talk with Ribas about her new book that examines race and labor dynamics in a meat packing plant in rural North Carolina.

There’s Research on That!:

“Who (Dis)Trusts Science?,” by Caty Taborda-Whitt. Research shows that trust in science is much more closely linked to political and religious commitments than educational attainment.

Discoveries:

“Stigma by Association: Adult Children and Parental Incarceration,” by Amber Joy Powell. Are adult children able to create a prosocial identity outside of their parents’ felony status? New research in Deviant Behavior says yes.

Clippings:

“Supermarkets and Stratification,” by Caity Curry. The Rivard Report highlights research from Heather O’Connell, Jenifer Bratter, and Lester King that finds a “tri-racial system of social stratification” in terms of access to supermarkets in Houston, TX.

From Our Partners:

Scholars Strategy Network:

“The Harm Done by Media Coverage of Political Disputes about Public Health Measures,” Erika Fowler and Sarah Gollust.

Council on Contemporary Families:

“Revisit: Remember the Ladies Men,” by Virginia Rutter.

Contexts:

“Faculty Unions, Don’t Fold Your Winning Hand!” by Syed Ali.

And a Few from the Community Pages:

• Sociological Images talks class v.s. education among Trump supporters.
• Cyborgology warns against the dangers of an ahistorical view of science.

Last Week’s Roundup

Sign Up for Inbox Delivery of the Roundup

Our Latest Book

The fall semester is winding down, but we here at TSP are still working hard to bring you the latest in sociological research and writing. See below for this week’s new content, including pieces on the pitfalls of polling, the prevalence of academic gossip, and the decline of diners.

There’s Research on That!:

“Polling, Sampling, and Social Conditioning,” by Neeraj Rajasekar. Social scientists are all too aware of the problems and pitfalls that are inherent in polling and survey research. We highlight some common issues that may help explain why predictions for the 2016 election were so different from the results.

“Religion, Politics, and Media in Africa and America,” by j. Siguru Wahutu and Evan Stewart. Comparisons between the two countries reveal similarities in the role of religion and politics in the media across the globe.

Discoveries:

“Academic Gossip and its Unintended Consequences,” by Caty Taborda. New research finds that scientists use gossip to informally police one another and warn newcomers about untrustworthy colleagues.

Clippings:

“The Diner Decline,” by Elizabeth Tremmel. The New York Times uses research by Ray Oldenburg to explain how we lose more than comfort food when we phase out diners in our neighborhoods.

“Trump, the NRA, and the Mobilization of Fear,” by Chelsea Carlson. Scott Melzer talks to The Trace about how Trump and the NRA use the social movement strategy of fear mobilization to garner support.

“Motherhood Penalty Costs More for High Earning Women,” by Allison Nobles. Bloomberg talks to Paula England about new research that shows how the motherhood penalty may be worse for women who make more money.

From Our Partners:

Scholars Strategy Network:

“How the Reproductive Justice Movement Benefits Latinas,” by Rocio Garcia.

Council on Contemporary Families:

“From the Folks Who Brought You the Weekend – What Unions Do for Women,” by Ruth Milkman.

And a Few from the Community Pages:

• Feminist Reflections reflects on straight men’s marriageability across the class divide.
• Sociological Images talks hate crimes after the election and feminist edits to princess stories.
• Girl w/Pen critiques calls to embrace meaningless changes in representations of female beauty.

Last Week’s Roundup

Sign Up for Inbox Delivery of the Roundup

Our Latest Book

Hello and happy Friday all! Since we did not do a regular Roundup last week, we have a lot to catch you up on, so we’ll get right to it –

There’s Research on That!:

“Who Are Fair Trade Deals Good For?,” by Erik Kojola. NAFTA and its merits have been a major topic in this year’s election. But who benefits from these kinds of trade deals and who doesn’t? We have research on that.

“Sick Days and Toughing it Out,” by Elizabeth Tremmel. Wondering whether or not you should call into work because of your cold? Your decision is likely influenced by your social surroundings.

“Juries and Racial Bias,” by Caity Curry.  The recent Peña-Rodriguez v. Colorado case got us thinking about the racial make-up of juries and its implications for sentencing.

“Minorities in Television,” by Amber Joy Powell and Neeraj Rajasekar. While the increase in minority characters has been a major stride for equal on-air representation, sociological research suggests other problems and pitfalls remain.

Office Hours:

“Douglas Hartmann on Midnight Basketball,” with Matthew Aguilar-Champeau. In our latest podcast episode, co-host Matthew chats with Doug about his new book and the 1990s crime initiative that still influences sports, race, and social policy today.

Discoveries:

“Fighting Sports Arena Funding,” by Edgar Campos. New research in the Sociology of Sport Journal investigates why opposition to the public funding of large sports arenas often fails.

Clippings:

“Escaping Reality with Virtual Love,” by Neeraj Rajasekar. Masahiro Yamada talks to The Guardian about the constraints of dating and relationships in Japan and why Japanese youth are turning to virtual love as a result.

“The Resiliency of the Death Penalty in the United States,” by Caity Curry. Public Radio International asks Susan Sharp about the continued support for the death penalty in the U.S.

“NFL Suspensions: From Fines to the Sidelines,” by Edgar Campos. TSP’s Doug Hartmann is featured in a recent New York Times article about effective punishments in the NFL.

From Our Partners:

Scholars Strategy Network:

“How Rights Movements Can Deal with Backlashes against Supreme Court Decisions,” by Alexander Lovell.

“Why Laws Targeting Non-Citizen Immigrants Affect Citizen Family Members and Associates, Too,” by Jane Lilly López.

Council on Contemporary Families:

“Revisit: Sexual Assault on Campus,” by Elizabeth Armstrong and Jamie Budnick.

“Gender Inequalities in Dual-Earner, College Educated Couples and the Transition to Parenthood,” by Jill Yavorsky, Claire Kamp Dush, and Sarah Schoppe-Sullivan.

And a Few from the Community Pages:

• Girl w/Pen talks the normalization of sexual assault.
• Cyborgology explores the normalization of dissent and the rise of fake news stories.
• Families As They Really Are attempts secular listening at a prayer meeting.
• Sociological Images weighs the symbolic values of the safety pen and asks what would happen if America defined itself as a nation of renters.

Last Week’s Roundup

Sign Up for Inbox Delivery of the Roundup

Our Latest Book

Hello everyone! We are taking a break from our regular Roundup this week, but we do have a few things to share with you, including some nerdy social science jokes and cute animal pictures (you’re welcome). We’ll be back with a full report next Friday, but do stop by the site if you are in need of some reading and/or listening material over the weekend.

For many of us, this weekend will be full of conversations with friends and family we don’t see often. Given the heightened tensions surrounding the U.S. presidential election, there are a few posts around TSP this week that offer suggestions for constructively engaging with friends and family who have different political views. Below are some highlights —

There’s Research on That!:

“Table Talk for Thanksgiving,” by the TSP Grad Board.

“Research shows that family dinner does not actually increase well-being in and of itself – it only works if the meal-time discussion is used to actually engage with those at the table and learn about their day-to-day lives. In other words, ‘polite’ conversation may not be the best way to bring everyone together.”

Contexts:

“The Case for Seeing Your Trump-voting Family this Holiday Season,” by Brittany Dernberger.

“There’s a lot of power in being in relationship with others. Taking off our ‘expert’ academic hats, getting outside of our intellectual and likeminded echo chambers, and really listening and sharing with people we love who have divergent viewpoints can be illuminating.”

Last Week’s Roundup

Sign Up for Inbox Delivery of the Roundup

Our Latest Book

Hello and happy Friday all. Like many of you and others, we are continuing to grapple with the U.S. election, and a number of pieces around the site this week are reflections on what got us here and projections about what it might mean for social policy, social justice, and social science.

The Editors’ Desk:

“The 2016 Election and the Vocation of Social Science,” by TSP co-editor Chris Uggen. Chris anticipates some of the obstacles that social science research will face in the near future, and urges social scientists to work with, not against, one another to overcome them.

“Sociologist-on-sociologist violence will get us nowhere … The Society Pages believes that sociology needs a ‘big tent’ to prosper – one embracing both our pure science wing and our social activist wing. Because we don’t have a lot of weight to throw around, we’d likely be further diminished if we ‘cleave it in twain.’ So I’m going to continue to love all y’all – even when y’all disagree.”

Special Features:

“The Whitelash Against Diversity,” by Jennifer Lee. In this timely special feature, Lee highlights research that helps explain the significant “whitelash” among white Americans that resulted in a Trump presidency.

There’s Research on That!:

“The Meaning of Menstruation,” by Allison Nobles. Recent innovations in birth control are being used as a way to improve the quality of life for those of us who get periods, but these medical developments affect the social meaning of menstruation.

“UFC 205 and the Social Phenomenon of Major Sporting Events,” by Edgar Campos. Just in time for UFC 205, we highlight research on MMA fighting and why people love major sporting events.

Discoveries:

“Neighborhood Associations Need Time to Reduce Crime,” by Ryan Larson. New research in Criminology complicates the relationship between the presence of neighborhood associations and crime rates.

Clippings:

“Paternity Leave in Japan,” by Neeraj Rajasekar. Eunmi Mun talks to the Seeker about work and gender norms in Japan.

From Our Partners:

Contexts:

Editors Syed Ali and Philip Cohen offer their thoughts on what a Trump presidency means for sociologists in “Trumped.”

Scholars Strategy Network:

“Can Pro-Choice and Pro-Life Activists Recognize the Socioeconomic Realities of Abortion?” by Hannah Phillips.

And a Few from the Community Pages:

• Families As They Really Are talks mass incarceration as family policy and women’s economic empowerment.
• Sociology Toolbox explores the trust gap and US climate change policy.
• Cyborgology reflects on the lineage of Trump memes and the limits of being reasonable.
• Sociological Images explains how the AT&T/Time Warner merger reproduces racial inequality.

Last Week’s Roundup

Sign Up for Inbox Delivery of the Roundup

Our Latest Book

Our readers and our writers (as well as our friends and partners) have been asking what the election of Donald Trump and Republican legislative majorities might mean for social science and social scientists. The sky is (probably) not falling and new opportunities will (almost surely) arise, but there are some significant challenges ahead for many of us who think of ourselves as social researchers – regardless of our own party affiliation. I am thinking here about the institutions that affect our research, teaching, and learning, rather than our individual or collective views or concerns as citizens or political actors. Most pointedly, the new regime has signaled that they will offer less material and symbolic support for sociology, for science, for criticism, and for higher education. Nobody can predict what will happen at this point and it may be too early, dumb, or offensive to raise practical professional questions from a position of unusual privilege, but I will follow Doug Hartmann in offering some personal reflections and semi-educated guesses based on the recent past.

Your work. There is no sugarcoating it: the conditions of work for most social scientists are unlikely to get any easier in the next few years. But our field has proven remarkably resilient. How many scholars believe their research, teaching, outreach, and engagement work suddenly became less important with this November’s election? Like obstetricians or immigration lawyers, our life’s work may simultaneously become more challenging and more meaningful in coming years. Consider the topics listed atop our main page at TSP: gender, race, inequality, crime, culture, health, and politics. Ya think the election won’t bring new urgency to work in any of these areas, or new research questions to investigate? To paraphrase Etta James, the blues is our business and business is good. That said, federal research funding streams may slow to a trickle. I anticipate a pivot toward foundations, community partners, and universities that are already stretched thin. I spoke with a foundation representative today who seemed keenly aware of this potential vacuum — and sincerely interested in learning where their investments might do the most good. Of course, most social scientists will continue to do good work without major grants or fellowships and there will likely be new grant solicitations in narrowly-defined target areas. But at this point I would rather scale back my projects (and those of my students) than delay them in anticipation of a large infusion of federal social science research dollars.

Your institution. I know it isn’t the first issue on your mind, but life could also get more complicated for the people who sign your paychecks. Boo freaking hoo, right? Well, imagine being a public university president in a state transitioning from an education-friendly governor (and/or legislature) to a new regime less committed to higher education (or, perhaps, one that is explicitly anti-intellectual). Top administrators and their staff in government relations must now reframe their appeals – simply to hold onto the 20 percent (or whatever – your mileage may vary) they (we) currently receive. If experience is any guide, they will offer both a vigorous defense of liberal arts education and renewed claims about “ROI” (return on investment) and your university’s role in workforce development. Such talk strains relations with faculty and students but does not (necessarily) mean that your leaders have sold out or turned their back on “core mission.” It may be one among many strategies to bring the resources needed to sustain that mission. Yes, they can and must “fight the good fight” and they might be better served leading a march on the state capitol, but their messaging, their invitation lists, and even their hires will respond in some way to the new power dynamics. Hold your leaders and institutions accountable, but remember that they are probably not your principal enemy and do what you can to help them advocate for the social sciences.

Your peers. Though our positions and power vary greatly, many of us share at least a loosely-connected professional identity. This election has been especially divisive within sociology, pitting sister against sister in heated debates, whether over Bernie versus Hillary or the best path forward under Trump. But sociologist-on-sociologist violence will get us nowhere. As one election post-mortem noted, it simply isn’t tactical for groups to insist on moral purity or 100 percent consensus. And our professional life already exaggerates differences imperceptible to civilians, whether we’re arguing the nuances of Foucauldian theory or the relative merits of Poisson vs. negative binomial regression. The Society Pages believes that sociology needs a “big tent” to prosper – one embracing both our pure science wing and our social activist wing. Because we don’t have a lot of weight to throw around, we’d likely be further diminished if we “cleave it in twain.” So I’m going to continue to love all y’all – even when y’all disagree. Of course, smart people of good will disagree on what to do next. Some advocate resistance, protests, and letter-writing campaigns. Others “stay in their lanes,” only taking policy positions when they have direct and empirically verifiable expert knowledge on a subject. And, yes, others will work directly with the new regime – often on the same sorts of policy questions they are pursuing with the current regime. I was more frequently summoned to Washington under the Obama and Clinton administrations than during the Bush administration(s), but the latter also took up issues that mattered to me (such as prisoner reentry). I saw how social scientists can make a tangible difference under blue, red, and purplish regimes. Maybe this time it’s different and more nefarious, but on balance I would almost always prefer to have good social scientists in the room when decisions affecting society are made.

Yourself. Social scientists extrapolate. That’s what we do. And when we lack good information, we tend to extrapolate based on worst-case scenarios. So, many of us will end 2016 with great apprehension not just about 2017 but about the longer-term trajectories of our careers, our students’ careers, and our disciplines. That said, even the most pessimistic observer should recognize that the social sciences are too strong to ignore and too tough to die. Put differently, it is a good time for many of us to reflect on our privilege and to direct our efforts toward aiding people and groups who are far more vulnerable or marginalized. And if you’d like to support the social sciences in ways that go beyond your own research and teaching, commit yourself to deploying your expertise in ways that directly confront the howling fantods you might be feeling. For me, that means doing all I can to protect the integrity and transparency of basic social indicators and U.S. government statistics – and to redouble our efforts at The Society Pages to bring social science research to broader visibility and influence.

Hey everyone. Most of us are still reeling from the election results, so we are introducing our Roundup this week with a few lines from co-editor Doug Hartmann’s reflection the morning after —

“It is important not to try to grapple with this individually and on our own but to do so openly and collectively and even across the usual political lines if possible. This is about taking care of each other and ourselves. It is about healing and reflection. It is about moving forward and preparing for next steps.”

The Editors’ Desk:

“Mornings After in America.” Doug’s reflection on the U.S. presidential election results reminds us, and himself, that we have been through this before and that social change is a long and hard process.

“Beyonce, the Dixie Chicks, and Country Brilliance.” The Atlantic offered great sociological insights into Beyonce’s visit to the Country Music Awards.

There’s Research on That!:

“Marvel, Masculinity, and Racial Diversity in Comic Books,” by Matthew Aguilar-Champeau.  Netflix’s Luke Cage is the most recent manifestation of the long and sometimes troubled history of racial diversity in comic books.

“Consuming the Pain of the “Other” Through Media Images,” by j. Siguru Wahutu. “Images of pain and suffering are less about an increase in ‘bad’ things happening and more about how  we understand the consumption of pain, suffering, and death of victims that are ‘Other’.”

Discoveries:

“Criminal Justice Reform Limited to Nonviolent Offenses,” by Caity Curry. New research in The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science finds that policy and discourse surrounding criminal justice reform is limited to nonviolent offenders and economic benefits rather than the broader human costs of incarceration. 

From Our Partners:

Scholars Strategy Network:

“Why Beards and Mustaches are Rare for Modern American Politicians,” by Rebekah Herrick.

Council on Contemporary Families:

Women Have Made the Difference for Family Economic Security,” by Molly McNulty.

Contexts:

“Feminist Fight Club, for Grad Students?” by Angie O’Brien and Rose Malinowski Weingartner.

And a Few from the Community Pages:

• Sociological Images talks the radical fact of the female vote.
• Sociological Toolbox shows that the U.S. is way behind the rest of the world re: female leaders.
• Cyborgology outlines the politics of affinity among the disappointed left.

Last Week’s Roundup

Sign Up for Inbox Delivery of the Roundup

Our Latest Book

I was in the 8th grade, in 1980, when Ronald Reagan got elected. As much as my white, southern Missouri friends idolized him, I was terrified. For reasons I only vaguely perceived at the time, I thought he was going to plunge us into war, into a global nuclear holocaust. I felt like he was mean to those who were already marginalized and downtrodden (not words I actually would have used then). His upbeat, moralistic new “morning in America” schtick rubbed me the wrong way. Also Reagan just didn’t seem smart enough to warrant such a post. Believing that a president was supposed to be the best and brightest among us, I preferred the cerebral, deeply spiritual, cautious-to-a-fault incumbent, Jimmy Carter.

Carter wasn’t popular in my class, in my family, in my town, or my state. I was only one of two kids in my class who supported Carter in our little, pre-election caucus—the other was an awkward, unpopular kid who had just recently moved to our town and school. I wasn’t entirely surprised. I went to a Missouri Synod Lutheran grade school, my friends (outside of sports) were exclusively white, and my hometown (Cape Girardeau) also happens to be the place that produced Rush Limbaugh. If anything, I may have been most surprised with myself for breaking with all of the folks I knew so well and thought I had so much in common with.

The depth of the divide I encountered also surprised me. I remember how my classmates—my friends, again, kids who I had grown up with and I thought were just like me—mocked and ridiculed Carter, the Sunday School teacher and military man, even as they celebrated Reagan who had come to fame as a Hollywood actor. How did that work? I’m not just talking about the silly mustaches and devil horns they drew on the Carter campaign literature my sorry ally and I passed around the room. They were deeply scornful of Carter, convinced that he was bringing ruin upon our country. They thought I was crazy for supporting him, and used strange lines I’d later realize came out of familiar anti-communist lingo to say so. They were as serious about this as I was about my own private fears. They really seemed to think Carter was somehow evil and anti-American. It was so puzzling to me. Looking back, I realize it wasn’t just Reagan that I found so upsetting but the cultural chasm that I was beginning to see. I mean, my friends were terrified about political and social and economic things as well, but their fears were almost diametrically opposed to mine. In fact, you could probably say that my whole career has been predicated on trying to understand such differences and divisions, especially on the racial front.

I didn’t share any of this with anyone really back in 1980. In fact, I don’t remember doing any other politicking for Carter after the debacle of the class caucus. Politics, in my family at least, was better left to others, almost embarrassing to acknowledge openly. Politics, in other words, was personal–but strictly personal, completely private. But I remember feeling scared, perplexed, demoralized. Even sick, physically sick.

Of course today what I’m thinking most about is that I encountered a lot of those same, familiar feelings and fears last night and waking up again this morning. I should be careful here. Trump is no Reagan. His rhetoric has been far more extreme, and as my friend and colleague Chris Uggen says, he’s “unmoored” personally and politically in ways that make this even more anomic and we really have no idea what he will actually do. All of this just adds to the anxiety. And it is not just me. That’s probably my first thought and most important point. Many of my closest friends and family in Minnesota and around the country are experiencing such thoughts and fears, many even more deeply and profoundly than I.

I think it is important to share that with each other today, to not try to grapple with this individually and on our own but to do so openly and collectively and even across the usual political lines if possible. This is about taking care of each other and ourselves. It is about healing and reflection. It is about moving forward and preparing for next steps. And while things today may still be too raw for real, thoughtful processing and planning, that is also what we probably need to at least prepare ourselves to do.

So here’s what I’m trying to remember today, in light of the past, and will try to build upon in the coming weeks and months.

–I’m trying to remember that we’ve been through this—at least a version of this—before.

–I’m trying to remember that the world didn’t end in my childhood, that social change is hard, and that political processes play out over decades and generations.

–I’m trying to remember that America has been a very divided, polarized society for a long time, and all recent elections have been very close.

–I’m trying also to remember that good things sometimes come out of bad ones. As my colleague Michael Goldman observed, “some of the most progressive changes we see today came from collective action once Reagan…was elected.”

–I’m trying to remember that part of my job is to go back and read and think and try to understand what has happened, why it is happening, and how we might respond.

–And I’m also remembering that my attempt to understand both my own feelings and reactions from the 1980s as well as those of folks all around me at the time (perhaps especially those of folks around me) helped propel me to study and think and engage the way I did in high school, to choose the college I went to, and to enter into the field and career I have spent my entire life working in. Sociology is a noble calling, and we need it now more than ever.

–I’m trying to remember that the nation is vast, containing multitudes.

–I’m trying to remember that as dejected and demoralized and downright despondent as I and some of my closest family and friends may be, I’ve got other friends and lots of family who felt that way when things turned out differently in other election cycles.

–I’m trying to remember those Americans most likely to be most hurt by the politics of 2016 (and that it is probably not my closest family and friends nor me or any of my colleagues).

–I’m trying to remember that it’s not just feelings, politics, and rhetoric we need to attention to, it is social conditions and actual programs and policies.

–I’m trying to remember not only that have we been through this before, but that our institutions have proved strong and resilient.

–I’m trying to remember that this nation can be good.

And, for what it is worth, I also know that the sun did come up today, even if it was accompanied by the first hard frost of the season here in the Twin Cities.