Hopefully, we all have a teacher or two who stirs fond memories. For me, one of the first to spring to mind is Loren J. Samons II, a professor of classical studies at my alma mater, Boston University. Prof. Samons is notable for many reasons (one of his brilliant strokes was to refer to the class, collectively, as “scholars”—a convention that set the tone for each lecture in just one word), but this week, I found an old syllabus. I wondered why I’d kept it—I took several classes from Prof. Samons in my time at BU, but it still seemed an odd document to cling to, some 12 years after graduation. And then I read. Nestled within many wise words for young students learning to learn, write, engage with literature, and find their way through sources both ancient and modern, was this gem: more...
A shedload of sociologists descends on New York next week for a big annual meeting. As we scuffle for jobs and book deals or steel ourselves for presentations, the vibe can be a bit tense in the hotel lobbies. It isn’t easy to present new ideas to an audience that prides itself on the critical analysis of new ideas.
But there’s a small move you can make to improve said vibe, whether you’re a professional academic or a civilian reader who just enjoys sociological writing. Has anyone’s work inspired or influenced you? Did a writer turn a particularly memorable phrase in an article or post on TSP or elsewhere? If so, let them know about it! Send a quick note or strike up a conversation with someone whose work you’ve enjoyed and tell them so.
A good compliment is an amazing restorative – enough to sustain many of us through professional or personal rough patches. But there’s a strong professional bias against giving and receiving compliments, as sociologists take a jaundiced view of the practice. A 2012 study is titled “apple-polishers, butt-kissers, and suck-ups” and most research on compliments points to class, race, and (especially) gender disparities in ingratiation. But there’s also a grain of truth in Oscar Wilde’s admonition in Lady Windermere’s Fan: it is a great mistake to give up paying compliments, “for when we give up saying what is charming, we give up thinking what is charming.”
Compliments can be an unexpected delight — people noticing your name tag or sending an email out of the blue (especially when you’re not chairing a hiring committee). And the more obscure and left-field the compliment, the better. Kind words about a newsletter piece, a talk for a community organization, or a small contribution to a book that sold 5 copies are especially appreciated. Looking over the past year, did you find something charming or true in one piece you read? Or, perhaps, in a piece of a piece you read? If so, the author would like to hear about it.
If you’re so inclined, here are a few general characteristics and specific examples of good compliments, as distinct from simple schmoozing. The first is the most important; if you’re not feeling it, the recipient won’t either. And do try to avoid backhanded compliments (saying something positive, and then bringing the nasty).
1. Genuine
Good: “I was struggling with the method until I read your description in that AJR article – it was so clear! I can’t tell you how much that helped me.”
Less good: “I saw your new article in AJR. It must be nice to be friends with the editors!” [tip: resist all temptation to follow-up a compliment with an “it must be nice to…” or “I wish I had…”].
2. Personal
Good: “As an ethnographer, I rarely find quantitative research that taps into what I’m doing. But you really seem to ‘get’ the processes I’m seeing in the schools.”
Less Good: “Your work has decent face validity.”
3. Acknowledge Effort
Good: “Please tell me it took you all day to write that last paragraph – you completely nailed that civic reintegration idea.”
Less Good: “I’ve seen your blog. I wish I had so much extra time on my hands!”
4. Specific
Good: “I really liked your health disparities review piece, especially how you pulled in public health stuff – it was great for my prelim.”
Less Good: “I’ve read a lot of your articles” [As an old friend once said, “that’s how I know they’re lying – there aren’t that many of my articles to read!”]
5. Memorable
Good: “Smashing network diagrams!”
Less Good: “Nice slides.”
Don’t be surprised if the recipient of your compliment doesn’t know how to respond (usually, a simple “thanks” will do). We’ve been socialized to expect ulterior motives or to think our work isn’t worthy of kind words. But don’t worry about embarrassing those you compliment. As Erving Goffman pointed out, when a person blushes upon receiving a compliment, she may lose her reputation for poise but confirm a more important reputation for modesty.
Since sociology and sports are two of my greatest passions, it should come as no surprise that an article in the current issue of Time magazine that had the words “quarterback sociology” in the title caught my eye.
The article was about Colin Kaepernick of the San Francisco 49er’s. Kaepernick, for those who don’t know, burst onto the NFL scene last fall when came off the bench as a rookie to lead the Bay area team on a surprising playoff run. With his swashbuckling style of play, a provocative personal backstory (Kaepernick is a mixed race adoptee, raised in a white family), and a unique new-millenium look, Kaepernick has quickly become one of the league’s most popular players–as evidenced by the fact that his is already the best selling jersey in the league.
I usually don’t find such profiles particularly interesting or revealing since they are often more an exercise in image making and celebrity gossip than anything else. But this one is worth a read. In a wide-ranging, stimulating interview Kaepernick talks confidently about race, athletic stereotypes, adoption, and body art. For example, Kaepernick suggests that those who describe him as a freak athlete may be subtly diminishing his work ethic and intelligence as has happened to so many African American athletes–and especially quarterbacks (remember Rush Limbaugh’s criticisms of Donovan McNabb?)–before him . Challenging those who have criticized his body art as self-indulgent or disrespectful, Kaepernick describes tattoos as a way of expressing oneself in a profoundly American individualist fashion. He also speaks at length about the experience of adoption into a white family, his relationship with his birth mother, and the complexities of his own mixed-race identity and experience.
Athletes are often far more interesting and insightful than we give them credit for or allow them to be. And if we are willing to get past our outdated dumb-jock stereotypes, we’d also realize that they’ve got things to say about society as well as sports. Kaepernick, after all, is not just not talking about the sociology of quarterbacks; he is a quarterback talking sociology.
Under the title “Know Thyself, America,” Washington Post columnist George Will wrote a piece a little over a week ago that advocated for the continued support of the American Community Survey (ACS), an ongoing, long-form supplement to the decennial U.S. Census.
This shouldn’t seem like a particularly significant or controversial issue, but for those who fear the intrusion of government into any and all aspects of social life, it apparently is. more...
There’s no mistaking it: this week’s talk focused on the acquittal of George Zimmerman, the Floridian who killed teenager Trayvon Martin in February 2012. Below, you can find some of the week’s pieces about Martin, Zimmerman, and privilege here on The Society Pages, as well as a few other topics we hit on.
In the meantime, I’ve gotten two other suggestions of palate cleansing items to bring to your attention: more...
“The Home Stretch (Or: Introducing Our Third Book),” by Doug Hartmann. In which Doug details some of the coming content for Color Lines and Racial Angles, TSP’s third reader from W.W. Norton (the first two volumes are due out by the end of the year).
“The People’s Art,” by Letta Page. If a society is enriched by its art, is it impoverished by keeping that art in museums?
“A Gender Gap and the German Model,” by John Ziegler. An emerging education gap shows women outstripping men in the race for diplomas in the U.S. Does Germany offer a solution?
“‘Spiritual’ Scofflaws,” by Evan Stewart. What happens when there’s neither an angel nor a devil on your shoulder.
“A New South Africa?” by Erin Hoekstra. In post-Apartheid South Africa, Somali refugees are everyone’s target.
The latest mock-up of the cover for our third TSP volume.
If you are a parent with kids in summer sports, like myself, you may recognize the feeling: the last regular season games are wrapping up, the playoffs are about to begin, and, oh-so-tantalizingly, then comes the freedom of a completed season and, hopefully, some well-earned rest and relaxation. That home stretch feeling is kind of the phase we are in here at The Society Pages with our new race volume, the latest installment in the series we are partnering on with W.W. Norton & Co.
The volume will be called Color Lines and Racial Angles, and it will feature about a baker’s dozen of the best pieces on race and diversity that have been developed on our site thus far. You may recall, for example, Jennifer Lee’s piece on “stereotype promise” or Wendy Roth’s article exploring the creation of a “Latino” race. There have been roundtables with distinguished scholars discussing the media and Trayvon Martin in the weeks immediately following his death and the history and future of American immigration, and a few weeks ago we ran a provocative little treatment of the social origins of the term “white trash” by Matt Wray. And waiting patiently in the pipeline are pieces on Native American mascots, diversity discourse, and environmental racism, as well as an interview exchange with Michelle Alexander, author of the prominent and controversial crime and punishment tome The New Jim Crow.
Along with TSP tie-ins that bring readers back to our Community Pages to further explore the topics in the volume, as well as discussion questions and group activities for reading groups and classrooms, these pieces will form the core of the new book—and they’ll remain freely available on our website. But you’ll have to be patient, of course! Over the next week or so, we’ll be doing final revisions and editing, tweaking the introduction, pulling all of the files together for delivery to our editors and designers at Norton. We hope to have the finished product ready in time for 2014 teaching (the first two volumes, The Social Side of Politics and Crime and the Punished, are expected to publish before the end of 2013). In the meantime, you can revisit our already-published pieces and look forward to some spectacular ones on the way. Here’s to summer reading!
For real. It’s the end of June. What happened? Here in Minnesota, it’s a blur of downed trees and hot, muggy days. And yet, the hits keep comin’. Here’s what TSP was doing (when the power was on). more...
You know, come to think of it, I’m sure I’ve used that title before somewhere on the site. But you know what? I haven’t used it enough. So there.
Hrm. After skipping last week, I’ve got a lot to round up, so let’s just go with that. In the meantime, know that we’ve been putting the finishing touches on the second of our TSP readers with W.W. Norton & Co., Crime and the Punished, which is now slated for a fall release. If you look closely in the picture at right, you can see three of our cover images coming into focus (they’re not finalized, but they’re looking sharp).
Social facts have been the focus of several conversations around TSP “world headquarters” recently as we’ve begun to formulate our plan for next year. It is our continuing mission to best represent and explain the value and contribution of sociology to public discourse and the understanding of society. One of sociology’s most important contributions is basic: we report empirical information about how people live and how the world they live in is organized. Often these facts are kind of demographic or quantitative—poverty and income rates, for example, or the number of people having kids, that sort of thing. But sometimes the facts we collect and contribute are of a more cultural or subjective nature, about how folks think about various things, how they understand the worlds that they live in, what they value or aspire to.
All of this took on new salience over the weekend when I read this little post from our old friend Jeff Weintraub. Weintraub, a specialist in social and political theory, recommends a recent column on conspiracy theories from Andrew Sullivan–who insists that there is important insight to be gained from taking even the most ludicrous conspiracy talk seriously–as well as several recent contributions to the scholarly literature on conspiracy theories, urban legends, and the like. Coming from the state that elected Jesse Ventura governor once upon a time, this seems like a literature worth delving into. But what really caught my attention was simply how Weintraub framed his post:
Mass delusions, including paranoid conspiracy theories and other widely shared myths, may be factually and logically absurd, but it’s important to remember that they’re also social facts worth noticing and trying to understand—and if enough people believe them, they can sometimes be quite important and consequential social facts.
Absolutely. We may disagree as to the truth value of these theories and claims, but we can’t dismiss those who hold them. And beliefs, even crazy ones—perhaps especially crazy ones—reveal important things about how people think. They can also have powerful consequences if and when believers act upon them. And so all beliefs are “facts” about the social worlds we live in. We must take those beliefs and those believers seriously if we are to understand social worlds and the people that compose them. Conspiracy theories as social facts–just another one of those great, social oxymorons that make it so much fun to be a sociologist.
Subscribe to the Weekly Roundup!
Click to subscribe to our Weekly Roundup. This lively weekly rundown of what's new on TSP will be delivered right to your inbox.
Still Wise Words
Under the title “
Verdict? What Verdict?
