culture

President Trump recently signed an executive order that removes the financial threat churches face when their leaders publicly support a political candidate. While many argue that the order is largely symbolic and too narrow to mean any real change, others think it went too far, and the order has sparked discussions about the proper place of religion in what many see as an increasingly secular country. Long-standing discussions among social scientists about the meaning and measurement of “secularization” help put Trump’s order in context and reveals the complexity of religion’s role in American society.

At its most general, secularization is defined as the process whereby the political and/or societal significance of religion and its institutions wane slowly and religion becomes differentiated from the secular public spheres of social and political life. But the way religiosity is measured in studies of secularization matters. For example, while many have pointed to a decline in church attendance, or behavior, in both the U.S. and Britain as indicators of secularization, others argue that this trend has not resulted in a loss of religious beliefs.

• Steve Bruce and Anthony Glendinning. 2010. “When Was Secularization? Dating the Decline of the British Churches and Locating its Cause.” The British Journal of Sociology 61(1): 107-126.
• David Voas and Mark Chaves. 2016. “Is the United States a Counterexample to the Secularization Thesis?” American Journal of Sociology 121(5): 1517-1556.
• Grace Davie. 2000. “Religion in Modern Britain: Changing Sociological Assumptions.” Sociology 34(1): 113-128.

Social scientists typically measure religiosity using the “3 Bs” approach — belief, belonging, and behavior. This approach accounts for the different ways that religious individuals hold religious beliefs, belong to and identify with specific religious belief systems and denominations, and enact those beliefs and belongings through behaviors like prayer, religious service attendance, and fasting. Individuals can combine the “3 Bs” in a multitude of ways, and while some “believe but don’t belong,” and others “belong but don’t believe,” an increasing number of individuals eschew religious beliefs, belongings, and behaviors entirely.

• Grace Davie. 1994. Religion in Britain Since 1945: Believing without Belonging. Blackwell Publishers.
• Ariela Keysar. 2014. “Shifts Along the American Religious-Secular Spectrum.” Secularism and Nonreligion 3(1):1-16.
• Mark Chaves. 2010. “Rain Dances in the Dry Season: Overcoming the Religious Congruence Fallacy.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 49(1): 1-14.

Similarly, scholars have identified multiple “levels” of secularization: religious decline, differentiation of secular and religious spheres, and the privatization of religion. While the traditional conceptualization of secularization assumes that each level is linked, some argue that each is a distinct process and that one does not necessarily lead to the other. Trump’s recent executive order is a step towards the deprivatization of religion in the U.S, where religious groups are stepping back into public life and engaging in political and social debates more than they have in the past. But this deprivatization can and is happening alongside trends of religious decline, as the U.S is also seeing increased religious disaffiliation among younger generations.  

• Jose Cassanova. 1994. Public Religions in the Modern World. University of Chicago Press.
• Philip Gorski and Ateş Altinordu. 2008. “After Secularization?” Annual Review of Sociology 34(1): 55-85.
• Michael Hout and Claude Fischer. 2014. “Explaining Why More Americans Have No Religious Preference: Political Backlash and Generational Succession, 1987-2012.” Sociological Science 1(9).

With a group of coal miners standing behind him, President Donald Trump signed an executive order in his first 100 days reversing Obama-era climate change policies and claimed that he would be bringing back coal and putting miners to work. With this move, Trump has tapped into the concerns of rural communities with economies dominated by resource extraction. Yet, can or will coal mining jobs come back, and will this lead to economic and social development in places like Appalachia?

The loss of mining jobs in the U.S. is largely due to increasing mechanization and other labor-cutting management practices –not the result of environmental protections. Thus, placing the blame on climate change policies is an unfounded, but typical, argument used to scapegoat environmentalists rather than industry or changes in the global economy.

• Jo-Anne Everingham. 2016. “Transformation of Rural Society and Environments by Extraction of Mineral and Energy Resources.” Pp. 272–84 in Routledge International Handbook of Rural Studies, edited by M. Shucksmith and D. L. Brown. New York, NY: Routledge.
• Todd L. Matthews. 2010. “The Enduring Conflict of ‘Jobs Versus the Environment’: Local Pollution Havens as an Integrative Empirical Measure of Economy Versus Environment.” Sociological Spectrum 31(1):59–85.

Researchers have long argued that economies based solely around mining are prone to booms and busts, lacking resiliency and often becoming dependent on one industry. Contrary to common assumptions, research has found that mining does not always lead to economic growth and well-being. Thus, even if coal mines stay open, this does not necessarily mean wider economic prosperity and well-being. In Appalachia, for example, the counties with coal mines actually have some of the highest rates of poverty and unemployment compared to surrounding counties without active mines.

• William R. Freudenburg. 1992. “Addictive Economies: Extractive Industries and Vulnerable Localities in a Changing World Economy.” Rural Sociology 57(3):305–32.
• William R. Freudenburg and Lisa J. Wilson. 2002. “Mining the Data: Analyzing the Economic Implications of Mining for Nonmetropolitan Regions.” Sociological Inquiry 72(4):549–75.
• Robert Todd Perdue and Gregory Pavela. 2012. “Addictive Economies and Coal Dependency Methods of Extraction and Socioeconomic Outcomes in West Virginia, 1997-2009.” Organization & Environment 25(4):368–84.
• Linda Lobao, Minyu Zhou, Mark Partridge, and Michael Betz. 2016. “Poverty, Place, and Coal Employment across Appalachia and the United States in a New Economic Era.” Rural Sociology.

Nevertheless, the rhetoric of saving coal resonates with strong cultural connections to mining and people’s identities of coming from multiple generations of miners and living in a coal community. The identity of being a miner is interconnected with masculine ideals of hard work and providing for family, and mining companies have played off of these sentiments. Mining companies, particularly in Appalachia, have actively worked to create community support through public relations and other cultural and political tactics. These corporate strategies, such as sponsoring high school football tournaments and billboard ads, have helped to place the blame on outsiders and environmentalists, while providing a cover for the environmentally destructive and cost-cutting industry practices.

• Rebecca R. Scott. 2010. Removing Mountains: Extracting Nature and Identity in the Appalachian Coalfields. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
• Jessica Smith Rolston. 2014. Mining Coal and Undermining Gender: Rhythms of Work and Family in the American West. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
• Tamara L. Mix and Kristin G. Waldo. 2014. “Know(ing) Your Power: Risk Society, Astroturf Campaigns, and the Battle over the Red Rock Coal-Fired Plant.” The Sociological Quarterly 56(1):125–51.
• Shannon Elizabeth Bell and Richard York. 2010. “Community Economic Identity: The Coal Industry and Ideology Construction in West Virginia.” Rural Sociology 75(1):111–43.

“I will build a great, great wall on our southern border, and I will make Mexico pay for that wall. Mark my words.” These were the words that President Donald Trump said when he first announced his candidacy. Since his inauguration, Trump has continued to talk about his intentions of building the wall, with many companies allegedly bidding for the contract, despite its many obstacles. Many leaders in Latin America have publicly stated that building the wall would not only change the relationship with Mexico, but it would change relationships with the rest of Latin America as well. Trump’s wall would create a physical barrier between the US and Mexico, but it would also intensify what social scientists call symbolic boundaries.

The border acts as the physical manifestation of and “us versus them” mentality by reinforcing differences between groups, which often limits positive contact between groups and can lead to negative stereotypes. For example, physical borders create symbolic boundaries that reinforce national identities by marking the geographic territory where one nationality resides. This often creates tensions by giving further attention to perceived group differences. In the case of Trump’s wall, part of the underlying purpose is to intensify the symbolic boundary between Anglo-Americans in the industrialized world and the Hispanic inhabitants of a developing nation.

• Donald N. Levine. 1996. “Sociology and the Nation-State in an Era of Shifting Boundaries.” Sociological Inquiry 66(3): 253-266.
• Michele Lamont and Virag Molnar. 2002. “The Study of Boundaries in the Social Sciences.” Annual Reviews of Sociology 28: 167-195.

Symbolic boundaries use specific cultural distinctions in order to distinguish one group from another, often along racial, ethnic, and religious lines. In the United States for example, Christians believe having religion creates a morality that is the basis for civic society. Atheists, who have no religion, are believed to lack that morality. This has resulted in atheists being unfairly cast as the symbolic representation of anti-American values. Like the physical wall Trump keeps threatening, these same types of symbolic boundaries work to keep many immigrants, refugees, and other religious minorities from being fully accepted in the U.S.

• Christopher A. Bail. 2008. “The Configuration of Symbolic Boundaries against Immigrants in Europe.” American Sociological Review 73(1): 37-59.
• Penny Edgell, Joseph Gerteis, and Douglas Hartmann. 2006. “Atheists As “Other”: Moral Boundaries and Cultural Membership in American Society.” American Sociological Review 71(2): 211-234.

According to a recent survey, Americans are having less sex — about nine fewer times per year in the early 2010s compared to the 1990s. In fact, millennials are one of the groups who have sex the least often. If you’re wondering, those born in the 1930s were having sex the most. For anyone who has heard about young people engaging in “hookup culture,” this probably comes as a surprise. But, so what? Why should we care how often people are having sex or who their sexual partners are?

Studying sexual practice can reveal underlying norms and expectations, especially related to gender. For instance, a 2016 study linked egalitarian heterosexual relationships, where the couples share gendered household chores, to greater sexual frequency. In another study, researchers found that the number of women who report ever having had sex with both men and women or just women (and identifying as bisexual or gay) has increased; however, the same study reported same-sex encounters have not increased for men. The researchers speculate that this could be a result of differing norms for men and women where it is more acceptable for women to deviate from heterosexual gender norms.

• Paula England, Emma Mishel, and Mónica Caudillo. 2016. “Increases in Sex with Same-Sex Partners and Bisexual Identity Across Cohorts of Women (but Not Men).” Sociological Science 3: 951–70.
• Daniel L. Carlson et al. 2016. “The Gendered Division of Housework and Couples’ Sexual Relationships: A Reexamination.” Journal of Marriage and Family 78(4). 

Studying sexual behavior can reveal how identities are formed, as well. In recent years, research has explored why some people engage in same gender sex but still identify as straight. For some white men, sex with other men does not threaten their heterosexuality, but rather bolsters their masculinity and serves to reaffirm their identities as straight men. On the other hand, some women who had children with men felt that fact foreclosed their possibilities of claiming LGBTQ identities.

• Jane Ward. 2015. Not Gay: Sex Between Straight White Men. New York University Press.
• Jamie Budnick. 2016. “‘Straight Girls Kissing?’: Understanding Same-Gender Sexuality beyond the Elite College Campus.” Gender & Society, 30(5): 745–768. 

Inequalities also appear in sexual relationships. A sexual standard still exists for women in hookups, where men’s pleasure is central. While both men and women agree that women should be entitled to sexual pleasure in relationships, they do not agree that this is the case for casual hookups. Racial stereotypes also follow individuals into the bedroom. For instance, racially ambiguous individuals are often considered “exotic” by romantic interests. For some, women especially, this means they are viewed as more sexually exciting or only considered as hook ups. For some men, this means they are excluded from hook ups because they are considered “babymakers.”

• Elizabeth A. Armstrong, Paula England, and Alison Fogarty. 2012. “Accounting for Women’s Orgasm and Sexual Enjoyment in College Hookups and Relationships.” American Sociological Review 77(3): 435–462. 
• Chandra Waring. 2013. “‘They See Me as Exotic … That Intrigues Them’: Gender, Sexuality and the Racially Ambiguous Body.” Race, Gender & Class 20(3/4): 299–317.

Spring is here, and for many that means it’s time for a spring break! However, taking time off work can be a big deal, and taking a break can affect earnings and productivity. Research shows that vacation and leave time are largely shaped by a countries social and political context, but taking time off work can have serious consequences no matter where you live, especially for women.

To start, vacations take place in the context of larger structures of gender inequality and work/family policies. Mothers’ time in and out of work is shaped by institutional and cultural contexts, including paid-leave policies, state support for childcare, and cultural expectations around maternal employment. When women are supported by well-paid leave, affordable childcare, and a cultural expectation that mothers work, women with children ultimately work more weekly hours than those living in countries without these factors. Even so, time off is not without penalty. Country-specific policies also help predict the penalty women face for taking a break from employment to care for children. For instance, in a comparison between Germany, Sweden, and the U.S. — countries with distinct leave policies — researchers found that long leaves meant career penalties for all women. Unsurprisingly, in the U.S., a country known for lagging behind in parental leave, even short periods of time spent away from work can hurt womens’ careers.

• Irene Boekmann, Joya Misra, and Michelle Budig. 2015. “Cultural and Institutional Factors Shaping Mothers’ Employment and Working Hours in Postindustrial Countries.” Social Forces 93(4): 1301-1333.
• Silke Aisenbrey, Marie Evertsson, and Daniela Grunow. 2009. “Is There a Career Penalty for Mothers’ Time Out? A Comparison of Germany, Sweden and the United States.” Social Forces 88(2): 573-605.

When women take vacation days, they tend to take more than men, but this doesn’t mean that women are lounging on the beach or in the ski lodge while the men toil in the office.  Part of the reason for the gender difference is men use fewer vacation days because of anxieties about job security and supervisory responsibilities. Comparisons between nurses’ unions (mostly women) and firefighters’ unions (mostly men) shows that women prioritize negotiating scheduling, including vacation time, while men emphasize the importance of fairness in access to overtime among co-workers. Women who have unused vacation days tend to be more worried about the success of their families, but research shows that family concerns don’t necessarily lead women to take more vacation days.

• David J. Maume. 2006. “Gender Differences in Taking Vacation Time.” Work and Occupations, 33(2), 161-190.
• Jillian Crocker, & Dan Clawson. 2012. “Buying Time: Gendered Patterns in Union Contracts.” Social Problems, 59(4), 459-480.

In response to the Trump administration’s crackdown on undocumented immigrants, cities and universities all across the United States have declared themselves “sanctuaries” from the threat of deportation. One aspect of this has been a revival of the sanctuary church movement. Over 800 churches nationwide have declared themselves sanctuaries for undocumented immigrants who fear deportation since Trump took office. While it is technically illegal to harbor undocumented immigrants, immigration enforcement officials have typically avoided raiding “sensitive locations” like churches and hospitals to avoid disrupting institutions that provide social services. Social science shows that protecting sensitive locations like churches is key to providing essential social services to marginalized populations. 

This is not the first instance of religious institutions attempting to shield undocumented immigrants from deportation on moral grounds in the United States. In the 1980s, thousands of refugees fled political violence in Central America, many to the border states of Arizona and Texas. In response, hundreds of religious congregations declared themselves to be sanctuaries for Central American refugees. With the exception of a notable trial in Arizona in 1986 in which several activists were convicted for violating immigration law, most congregations suffered minimal, if any, legal reprisal for their efforts during this period.

• Christian Smith. 1996. Resisting Reagan: The U.S. Central American Peace Movement. University of Chicago Press.
• Gregory L. Wiltfang and Doug McAdam. 1991. “The Costs and Risks of Social Activism: A Study of Sanctuary Movement Activism.” Social Forces 69(4): 987-1010.

Churches are unique from other types of sensitive locations like schools and hospitals because of their long history of offering sanctuary to people in need, a history that goes back to the 1600s. It was not until the late 20th century that states began intervening and requiring churches to hand over people they were protecting. In the U.S. today, churches are a critical resource for low-income, minority, and immigrant communities, especially in small towns and rural areas. They often serve as primary distribution sites for a number of rural social services including food aid, shelter, clothing, basic healthcare, and English language and employment tutoring.

• Philip Marfleet. 2011. “Understanding ‘Sanctuary’: Faith and Traditions of Asylum.” Journal of Refugee Studies 24(3): 440-455.
• Mark Chaves and William Tsitsos. 2001. “Congregations and Social Services: What They Do, How They Do It, and With Whom.” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 30(4).
• Stephanie C. Boddie. 2002. “Fruitful Partnerships in a Rural African American Community: Important Lessons for Faith-Based Initiatives.” The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 38(3).

Research studying the long-term effects of ICE raids on hospitals and clinics shows that immigrants stop seeking medical services when they no longer feel safe from law enforcement. If sanctuary churches are no longer recognized as safe from ICE raids, there is some concern that the same problem will make it difficult for churches to reach immigrants in rural places.

• Mark Berk and Claudia Schur. 2001. “The Effect of Fear on Access to Care Among Undocumented Latino Immigrants.” Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health 3(3).
• Karen Hacker et al. 2011. “The Impact of Immigration and Customs Enforcement on Immigrant Health: Perceptions of Immigrants in Everett, Massachusetts, USA.” Social Science Medicine 73(4).

It remains to be seen whether the Trump administration will stay out of churches, but social science shows that raiding these spaces could affect all immigrants, especially those in rural areas. And it may very well ignite an intense reaction from the churches and communities trying to keep people safe. 

With the recent discovery of numerous Earth-like planets orbiting the same star, Elon Musk’s promise to send citizens to the moon, and increased politicization surrounding the science of climate change, many Americans are looking to the stars for potential solutions and possible new homes. And the nascent NewSpace movement — made up of entrepreneurs and advocates looking to commercialize outer space — promises to push space exploration forward at a rapid pace. While it certainly requires rocket science to get to space, social science is beginning to weigh in on what it might mean for social life.

The privatization and commodification of public spaces is now moving beyond Earth as governments struggle over control of the atmosphere and outer space. And as new entrepreneurial space companies seek to privatize the sky and profit from new resources and new planets, some worry that existing structures of class and racial inequality will be repeated or even intensified with space colonization. Others, like anthropologist David Valentine, see potential for progressive re-imaginings.

• Ian G. R. Shaw. 2017. “The Great War of Enclosure: Securing the Skies.” Antipode. Online.
• Jason Beery. 2016. “Unearthing Global Natures: Outer Space and Scalar Politics.” Political Geography 55: 92–101.
• Daniel Sage. 2008. “Framing Space: A Popular Geopolitics of American Manifest Destiny in Outer Space.” Geopolitics 13(1): 27–53.
• David Valentine. 2012. “Exit Strategy: Profit, Cosmology, and the Future of Humans in Space.” Anthropological Quarterly 85(4): 1045–1067.

Sociologists highlight how inequalities shape the way people are experiencing this increasing “humanization of the universe.” Wealthy elites relate to the universe as an object to dominate, funding new “space tourism” programs and hoping to extend the workings of capitalism to the Moon and beyond. Less wealthy and marginalized communities, however, experience the universe as a dominating and mystifying force, and many feel that space colonization will only make them more powerless.

• Peter Dickens and James S. Ormrod. 2007. “Outer Space and Internal Nature: Towards a Sociology of the Universe.” Sociology 41(4).

Since women and people of color are still less likely to pursue careers in science or technology, they are less likely to have a voice in these new projects. But this is not the only thing keeping them from the conversation. For example, women have historically had a difficult time qualifying for space travel. Fears about menstruation, pregnancy, and hormones in outer space have significantly hindered research into how women’s bodies are affected by space travel. The result is that women’s bodies are constructed as problematic and essentialized in opposition to male bodies, keeping many women from successfully joining space missions.

• Yu Xie, Michael Fang, and Kimberlee Shauman. 2015. “STEM Education.” Annual Review of Sociology 41: 331-357.
• Monica J. Casper and Lisa Jean Moore. 1995. “Inscribing Bodies, Inscribing the Future: Gender, Sex, and Reproduction in Outer Space.” Sociological Perspectives 38(2): 311-333.

President Nicolas Maduro of Venezuela is doing what many learn at a young age not to do — being a copycat.  Since Hugo Chavez seceded power, Venezuela’s current president lacks Chavez’s beloved “Chavismo.”  Maduro’s own brand of charisma and populist reform has not connected with the people as he expected, which has led him to use more extreme political measures in the hopes of garnering respect. This has led to unrest in Venezuela, highlighting the instability of charismatic-based politics.

As Max Weber famously described in his theories of social and economic organization, charismatic leaders are often able to create a unique bond with their citizens. But if that charisma fades, it can create instability. This is also evident when there is a transfer of power from a beloved charismatic leader to a new leader. 

• Marshall Ganz. 2000. “Resources and Resourcefulness: Strategic Capacity in the Unionization of California Agriculture, 1959-1966.” American Journal of Sociology 105(4): 1003-1062.

Research finds that charismatic leaders are often good at mobilizing people to join social movements, but that the charismatic bond is often short-lived and unable to be transferred to other individuals. When charisma fails to motivate support, leaders often turn to more conventional measures to reach their political goals, which can lead to disenchantment and unrest among the citizenry.

• Dan Slater. 2009. “Revolutions, Crackdown, and Quiescence: Communal Elites and Democratic Mobilization in Southeast Asia.” American Journal of Sociology 115(1): 203-254.
• Kurt Schock. 2005. Unarmed Insurrections: People Power Movements in Nondemocracies.   Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Uber has been having a bad time. From reports that venture capital has been propping up a flawed business model, to evidence of racial bias in pickups, rate cuts during a New York taxi strike leading to the #DeleteUber movement, and recent accounts of sexual harassment alongside conflicts with drivers, the romance of Silicon Valley innovation and “disruption” in the company is on the decline. But while this may seem like a fall from grace, research shows these problems are tragically normal. They often plague a wide range of companies because of their organizational structures, and tech start-ups are no exception.

Classic research shows that when a founder also acts as the CEO, it can cause trouble for a company. While they may have a knack for developing innovative products or services, founders don’t always have the management skills to run a large, successful business as a complex organization.

• Josef Brüderl, Peter Preisendörfer, and Rolf Ziegler. 1992. “Survival Chances of Newly Founded Business Organizations.“ American Sociological Review 57(2): 227-242.

While teams of entrepreneurs can start a businesses together, they often choose who will ultimately run the company. This process is not neutral. Gender inequality in business leadership can emerge from these decisions because friends and family members in these teams often take gendered assumptions for granted.

• Tiantan Yang and Howard E. Aldrich. 2014. “Who’s the Boss? Explaining Gender Inequality in Entrepreneurial Teams.” American Sociological Review 79(2): 303-327.

Racial and gender discrimination in hiring and promotions plagues a wide range of organizations, especially because opportunities for promotion tend to favor homogeneous social networks. These problems also plague organizations and could indicate other organizational troubles, as firms that engage in hiring discrimination are more likely to go out of business.     

• Trond Petersen and Ishak Saporta. 2004. “The Opportunity Structure for Discrimination.” American Journal of Sociology 109(4): 852-901.
• James R. Elliott and Ryan A. Smith. 2004. “Race, Gender, and Workplace Power.” American Sociological Review 69(3): 365-386.
• Devah Pager. 2016. “Are Firms That Discriminate More Likely to Go Out of Business?” Sociological Science 3: 849-859.

In the wake of the 2016 presidential election turmoil, some groups have turned to storytelling to demonstrate solidarity and to show support for what they see as important issues. In the not-so-secret Facebook group Pantsuit Nation, for instance, members share stories of themselves and others standing up against racism and sexism. Sociologists recognize the power of storytelling in many contexts, especially in building movements for social change by shifting opinions or establishing solidarity, but they also point to some important barriers that come with using stories to change social policy.

Narratives are commonly used to establish a common group identity. For example, public officials might tell stories about a certain group of “dangerous” immigrants, thus establishing solidarity between people in the categories of “citizens,” in opposition to immigrants constructed as “enemies.” Public narratives such as these often follow a recognizable formula with actors who engage in typical behaviors, and plot lines that lead to a predictable moral conclusion.

• Donileen R. Loeske. 2007. “The Study of Identity as Cultural, Institutional, Organizational, and Personal Narratives: Theoretical and Empirical Integrations.” The Sociological Quarterly 48(4): 661-688.  

Without people to listen, stories do not go very far. Thus, in order to make progress toward social change, social movement groups must find a way to speak to a broad public audience. Many groups try to gain public attention through protest, in an attempt to attract media coverage. However, news coverage of protests tends to neutralize or undermine their movement’s main issues, and sometimes ignores them altogether. Likewise, much of the news coverage tends to emphasize individual responsibility, rather than systemic explanations for the group’s grievances (i.e. racism).

• Jackie Smith et al. 2001. “From Protest to Agenda Building: Description Bias in Media Coverage of Protest Events in Washington, D.C.” Social Forces 79(4): 1397-1423.

But what makes a story effective in the public domain? Against common belief, sociologists have found that the ambiguity of personal stories makes them particularly effective for public deliberation. Stories that can be interpreted in multiple ways allow others to offer new ideas or compromises without seeming divisive. Conversely, personal stories that work well in value-oriented discussions, like remembering victims of 9/11, are not as effective in policy-oriented settings where reason-based arguments typically prove more effective. This is important because often it is the people with the most privilege (i.e., white, male, native-English speakers) who create these types of narratives, while stories told by people in less powerful social positions often have little traction in the policy realm.

• Francesca Polletta and John Lee. 2006. “Is Telling Stories Good for Democracy? Rhetoric in Public Deliberation after 9/11.” American Sociological Review 71(5): 699-723.

In short, stories are not just about the meaning people convey through or derive from them — they have a social organization of their own, and require certain conditions to be taken seriously.