In a recent Sociology Compass article, Dr Elisabeth Kelan draws attention to common uses of the concept of ‘Generations’ and points out that despite being a useful and commonly used concept for Psychology, it has not been widely drawn upon in the Sociological literature. This is surprising, as she notes, because it is so often used in more mainstream writing, media and culture, particularly to describe the characteristics of certain demographics of people. In reference to Dr Kelan’s work, the concept of generation can provide insight into how organizations can best treat their employees, by using their generation as a lens to understand their motivations, preferences and behaviors. Knowing what generation someone is in can be extremely helpful for our understandings of how people behave in certain ways.


Source: SAGE

Source: SAGE


In working with survivors of human trafficking over the last few weeks, I have had the opportunity to have a number of very personal conversations with women who are in the process of becoming empowered and rebuilding their self-esteem.  One topic that continues to emerge in almost every discussion is being respectable.  As I have been reflecting on what it means to be respectable in the context of surviving gender violence, I recalled a remarkable text I read a number of years ago and the similarities in understanding respectability among people of different races, ethnicities, classes, and histories. more...

Source: author’s personal photo

Last month, Sociology Compass published a unique article by David D. Blouin on the relationship between humans and their pets.  In “Understanding the Relations between People and Their Pets,” Blouin reviews the recent literature on how and why people show affection for their furry friends. Blouin explains that the current frameworks for assessing human relationships with animals are either one of caring or one of cruelty: some people treat their animals like children, while others may neglect or even act cruelly towards their pets. Ultimately, the author explains that this dichotomy is false: one person’s care may be another person’s cruelty. For example, some may view feeding their pet table scraps, dressing them up in costumes, or even restricting their environment to inside a house as love, while others see these acts as torture. At the core of this argument is that ideas about care and cruelty are culturally contingent and can vary across social statuses. Groups situated differently by race, class, gender, nationality, etc are bound to have different ideas about the treatment of animals.

This article got me thinking about PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) and its campaign to give “backyard dogs” (dogs who live most or all of their lives outside) the shelter of dog houses and the warmth provided by hay and straw. Ideally, PETA would like all dog owners to keep their canines inside. However, when they cannot convince the pet owners that this is the right course of action, the next best thing is to provide the dogs with houses and warmth.

As a long time vegetarian, I subscribe to PETA’s email server, but I have to admit that I was conflicted when reading an email about this program back in December 2012. While I instantly related with the desire to make the dogs comfortable, I remember thinking about the classist assumptions behind PETA’s strategy. In order to assume that all dogs should remain inside, one must assume a space that is big enough to house not only people, but pets, too. What about people who do not have a large enough space for a dog? If people living on lower incomes do not have the space inside their home for a dog, would PETA say that they should not own that dog? My first reaction to this program was that there were some unexamined class privileges at work in this campaign.

Blouin’s article adds another layer of complexity to my initial concerns. What if some groups of people do not view the act of leaving their dogs outside as cruel? What if they are guided by their cultural ideas about how dogs ought to be treated? Why is it that PETA and its constituents should set the cultural norm for the treatment of dogs across space, place, and status? Should PETA make universal claims about the treatment of animals?

I do not have any good answers to these questions. While I find myself agreeing with PETA’s position on the treatment of dogs, I am reminded that this opinion is guided by my own race (white), class (middle class), citizenship (U.S.), gender (women) position. I am curious if others have thought about these issues and have come to any conclusions.

Suggested Readings:

Taylor, Nicola and Tania D. Signal. 2009. “Pet, Pest, Profit: Isolating Differences in Attitudes Towards the Treatment of Animals.” Anthrozoos: A Multidisciplinary Journal of the Interactions of People and Animals 22(2): 129-135.

Atkins-Sayre, Wendy. 2010. “Articulating Identity: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and the Animal/Human Divide.” Western Journal of Communication 74(3): 309-328.


The increasing centrality of the Internet in our daily lives has precipitated a spate of theorizing about how we – as humans and as a society – are changing (or not) due to the constant technological mediation of our most basic interactions and activities.  Let’s face it: This sort of theorizing is populated mostly by men of considerable privilege (with some very notable exceptions).  A cynic might hold that the problems concerning human techno-social interactions are relatively insignificant compared to more pressing issues of race, class, gender, age, etc.  One cannot but be sympathetic to such charges.

However, I would posit that a complicated set of processes are at work in causing many to view theory surrounding the Internet and its ever-expanding litany of technical terms (e.g., Web 2.0, prosumption, produsage, playbor, or sousveillance) as largely irrelevant to the salient social issues of our day: 1.) The theorists of the Web, tending to work from a position of privilege, perhaps, simply lack awareness of feminist and other situated discourses, thus failing to acknowledge their relevance.  2.) Privilege may also account for a willingness to be satisfied by grand theoretical projects that produce political objectives couched in inaccessible language, too impractical to be actionable, altogether irrelevant, or simply nonexistent.  3.) Disciplinary specialization is such that the theorists from Marxian, post-structuralist, and/or science and technology studies traditions who are studying similar phenomena may not be in dialogue with one another. more...

By rbobbitt

 Abortion remains a hotly contested subject within society, and with the election looming high, the pro-choice/pro-life divide continues to provide a means of voting allocations. A recent study by the Guttmacher Institute (see article below), a nonprofit reproductive health research organization, brings a new dynamic into the abortion debate. The Institutes comprehensive examination of abortion reveals that during the past thirty years, abortion rates have dropped among teenage whites and risen among women of color in their 20’s and 30’s. This raises a question about not only who seeks abortions, but why. Patricia Hill Collin’s notion of “matrix of domination” becomes useful here, as we see that abortion is never simply a decision of wanting to be a parent or not. Instead, class, race, global location, sexuality, and age all compound the issue and affect choice. In such uncertain economic times, the affects of class and income most be taken into account as to why abortions are sought out.

 Read More 


Husting on Protest