inequality

Three people wearing stoles over their coats kneel with their eyes closed in front of Terminal 1 at MSP airport. Behind them, police officers in riot gear arrest two other protesters. Photo by Anastasia Dulle, 2026.

On the coldest day of the winter in Minnesota, I stood in a crowd of witnesses at the Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport and watched as about 100 clergy members got arrested while praying.

The clergy, who represented a variety of religious traditions, had gathered at the airport to block traffic in protest of the Department of Homeland Security’s siege of the Twin Cities during Operation Metro Surge. Specifically, they protested the use of MSP Airport for deportation flights, the detention of immigrants who worked at the airport, and the cooperation of airlines with ICE.

The clergy marched and sang together in a crowd before kneeling in a long line in front of the Terminal 1 Departures gates. Many spoke prayers out loud, their voices overlapping as the crowd of hundreds of onlookers cheered, raised signs, and called out protest chants. Some of the clergy joined in reciting the Lord’s Prayer together. Many of those praying held hands, while others held signs bearing the names of airport workers detained by ICE. Some knelt with their eyes closed, their lips moving silently as their breath froze against their scarves or the hoods of their coats. Ice clung to the beard of the man praying in front of me.

Police officers ultimately arrested the line of protesters one by one, leading them onto buses with their wrists zip-tied. By the time the last clergy members were arrested, they had been kneeling on the pavement and praying, in -20 F weather, for over two hours.

This protest was part of a wider “Day of Truth and Freedom,” a general strike and resistance against the ICE siege in Minnesota. Later that afternoon, over 50,000 people gathered to protest in downtown Minneapolis.

The clergy’s protest is just one example of the wide range of religious responses to ICE enforcement – and to crisis and political conflict more broadly. The variety of expressions of religion amid the Twin Cities ICE surge stands as a microcosm of the wider culture of American religion and politics in public life, which is multifaceted, fraught, and contested. One important element of these dynamics, illustrated in part by the airport protest, is progressive religious activism: the place of religion in movements for progressive social change.

Religion in Social Movements

Progressive activism and social movements seek to push society to become more politically, socially, or economically just. While many may think of religion as a conservative social force in the U.S. and around the world, there is also a long history of religious involvement in progressive social movements. In the 18th and 19th centuries, for example, members of different Christian denominations played major roles in movements to abolish slavery in Great Britain and the United States. Liberation theology emerged in Latin America in the 1960s and 1970s as a widely influential movement that grounded political action in an ethic of solidarity with the poor and most marginalized. During the same time, the Black Church in the United States was a crucial source of community organizing, mobilization, and moral authority in the Civil Rights Movement.

Interfaith Religious Activism

Religious involvement in progressive social movements is often interfaith in character, with different religious communities joining together to work towards common goals. In the 2010s, for example, the New Sanctuary Movement brought together different religious groups who sought to care for undocumented immigrants and work for progressive immigration policies. Today much of this social movement work occurs through organizations, some of which explicitly identify as interfaith and seek to mobilize across diverse religious communities. This includes many faith-based community organizations (FBCOs), groups that work to bridge differences between faith traditions by creating a unified moral voice around a common issue. Their work often entails portraying social issues in moral terms, connecting individual experiences to political concerns, and nurturing the belief that people have personal stakes in a given problem or goal.

The place of religion in U.S. politics and culture is evolving and contested. An increasing share of the population identifies as nonreligious, more people are turning to alternative forms of religion and spirituality, and conservative and extremist expressions of religion have grown more visible and powerful in U.S. politics. Today, as historically, progressive religious activism is part of this story, and continues to impact what it means to be religious – and political – in modern life.

————–

Anastasia Dulle (she/her) is a PhD student in the Department of Sociology at the University of Minnesota. Her research interests revolve around religion, culture, politics, and rhetorical/narrative studies.

A crowd of masked and armed ICE agents stand blocking an intersection in south Minneapolis. “ICE Agents in Minneapolis After Shooting (cropped)” by Chad Davis is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.

In 2025, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations sparked nationwide outrage in the United States when ICE agents began wearing face-concealing riot gear. The aggressive federal deployment of ICE agents in cities across the country have raised broad discussions about the excessive militarization of American policing, and masks and masking have been at the center of these controversies. More specifically, the visual of anonymous, militarized federal agents in masks making arrests on American streets raises a range of questions about power, accountability, and transparency – all of which are complicated by a long history of masking in protests and by recent practices of masking for health reasons during the COVID-19 pandemic. The research on these different meanings and uses of masks provide important context for understanding the controversies and broader social significance of masking among ICE agents.

Accountability and Transparency in Policing 

Context for the controversies surrounding ICE’s use of masks comes from research about transparency and accountability in American policing. “Masks,” in this context, encompass far more than the physical concealment of a person’s face: they also represent a profound struggle over power, visibility, and accountability in modern democracies. These observations evoke important questions regarding what might be called “asymmetrical visibility:” how the state can monitor citizens relentlessly while hiding its own mechanisms of control, eroding the fundamental principles of transparency and accountability of policing in democratic contexts.

  • Bovens, Mark. 2007. “Analysing and Assessing Accountability: A Conceptual Framework.” European Law Journal 13(4):447-68.
  • Friedman, Barry. 2017. Unwarranted: Policing Without Permission. Macmillan. 
  • Marx, Gary T. 1988. “Chapter 5: The Complexity of Virtue.” In Undercover: Police Surveillance in America. University of California Press. 

Anonymity as Resistance 

Masks have also long been a tool of collective political resistance against state power. By adopting masks, protesters create a “blank figure” that refuses categorization by the state’s gaze, carving out a liminal space where new political identities can be practiced and expressed freely. This deliberate anonymity decreases the state’s ability to isolate, identify, and punish individual dissenters, allowing citizens to create a unified front. The masked protest serves as a direct challenge to moral and legal structures, allowing marginalized bodies to occupy public spaces without surrendering their identities to state surveillance. 

The Policing of Masked Protest 

In response to protesters using masks, governments worldwide frequently pass severe anti-mask legislation to criminalize citizen anonymity – and, ironically, often deploy heavily armored, faceless riot police to enforce these laws. Empirical studies on protest policing show that aggressive, militarized responses to perceived threats frequently backfire and escalate violence. In contrast, experiments where officers deliberately unmask, wear plainclothes, and engage in open communication with protesters have proven far more effective at facilitating peaceful demonstrations and de-escalating tensions. 

A protester in a hoodie conceals their face with a bandana and sunglasses. “Masked protester at Global Climate Strike with ‘revolution’ written on his forehead” by Ivan Radic is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.

Masks as a Cultural Battleground during the COVID Era

The pandemic era brought these cultural, political, and policing dynamics into direct conflict. On the one hand, public health officials in many countries around the world began requiring masks to counter the rapid spread of the COVID-19 virus. But what began as a public health guideline quickly evolved into a cultural behavior intertwined with ideology, entitlement, and regional identity. Social media discourse, such as the “Karen” meme, highlights how the refusal to wear a mask was often gendered and functioned as an expression of hypermasculinity. As a result, the mask transcended its physical utility to become a highly charged political symbol.

Politics and Protest during the Pandemic 

For law enforcement, the pandemic introduced a dangerous exercise of biopower, where police officers aggressively enforced pandemic guidelines while actively refusing to wear masks themselves. This practice not only functioned as a public health hazard but also pathologized marginalized communities, asserting law enforcement’s exemption from the very rules they imposed on civilians. At the same time, for activists, the universal mandate of health masks provided an unexpected tactical advantage. The medical mask fundamentally disrupted traditional police surveillance and facial recognition technologies, allowing activists to use it as a tool for both biological survival and political resistance. 

The Shadows of State Power and Asymmetrical Visibility 

All of this brings us back to the larger issues of power, visibility, and resistance that have emerged with ICE’s use of masks and masking. While the state punishes citizens who cover their faces, law enforcement increasingly relies on physical and institutional masks to project coercive power while escaping from public supervision. The shift toward a militarized warrior policing model places officers in tactical balaclavas and riot helmets, hiding their individuality and insulating them from the communities they ostensibly serve. This has led to public attention shifting from concerns about violent protesters to the unaccountable violence of masked law enforcement. 

Institutionally, police departments meticulously manage their visibility, using public relations strategies to hide systemic failures behind curated heroic narratives. Furthermore, modern law enforcement increasingly rely on the “invisible masks” of undercover infiltration and big data, which compromise citizen privacy while keeping their own activities in the mist. Efforts to reveal this institutional secrecy, such as implementing body-worn cameras, have reached inconsistent results. While the public initially supported the technology, police departments often manipulate data retention policies, ensuring that broader systemic patterns of police behavior remain permanently masked from accountability.

————–

Tianhe Chen is a second-year PhD student in the Department of Sociology at the University of Minnesota. He has long been interested in how market-oriented social transformations and differentiations are deeply intertwined with people’s everyday struggles and self-identities, especially in how people understand their lives and make expression in an unstable society. He is also interested in topics like body/embodiment, language (semiotics), memory, silence, shame, self-destruction, and resistance.

Studio Setting by Brett Sayles is licensed under CC BY 2.0 in pexels.

What does it mean to be authentic? Authenticity is frequently used to describe people or things that are believed to be genuine, sincere, consistent, or original. We evaluate both things (like music, television, or food) and people (ourselves and others) on their authenticity, often assuming that some are inherently real or beyond artifice, while others are more artificial or contrived. However, sociologists and social scientists recognize the notion of authenticity itself as a powerful social construct: we collectively decide that people and things are (or are not) authentic. We evaluate people in terms of their personal and social authenticity.

Personal Authenticity

Personal authenticity involves being “true” to one’s self. But…what is the true self? Sociologists and scholars have challenged the idea that we have a true self, arguing that we all play a variety of social roles (student, friend, employee, etc.) in different situations. As we take on these roles, some individuals believe their actions are real and genuine and others feel that they are just putting on an act. It is this subjective understanding of the true self that matters for personal authenticity, even if it is socially constructed or conditioned. When people feel that they are being true to themselves, they experience authenticity as an emotional response.

A desire to feel authenticity is a powerful motive for behavior. Sometimes we act with the specific goal of expressing our true self.  For example, some get tattoos and body art to express their authentic selves.

However, societal pressures, from social norms to economic needs, may influence us to embrace behaviors that feel inauthentic. In the context of economic exchange, many roles require emotional labor (or, the management of feelings to create a certain emotional display). For example, flight attendants are expected to be friendly and helpful to the travelers–even if the travelers are rude or unruly. For workers, engaging in emotional labor can feel like acting or maintaining an illusion, leading to feelings of inauthenticity and a sense of emotional numbness.

Social Authenticity

Individuals are a part of many different groups (unions, trivia teams, fandoms, religious groups, etc.) and social categories (age, race, class, and gender/sexuality) and social authenticity is the idea of truly belonging to that group or category. Group members define certain characteristics as authentic and evaluate the authenticity of others based on those criteria. Authenticity can serve as a way to draw boundaries around groups, establishing who is in and who is out. For example, members of local punk scenes may display their authenticity through personal appearance, knowledge of punk music, and extensive vinyl collections—setting them apart from “posers.” Outsiders–or, individuals who fail to meet the authenticity criteria established by a group–may be viewed as appropriating the culture of a group to which they don’t belong.

Of course, group members may disagree on what it means to be an authentic member. When the authenticity of a group member is questioned, they may respond by challenging the validity of the authenticity standards used to judge them.

The Role of Race, Class, and Gender

Being perceived as an authentic member of a social group can yield rewards, from the tangible reward of admission to a university to simply achieving group belonging. However, marginalized groups often face bias or unattainable expectations of what an authentic member of their group should be like. These expectations can be produced within groups or perpetuated externally, through institutions like schools or the media. For instance, socially constructed notions of an authentic Asian American student or Black woman can exclude those who may not conform to these expectations, while also reaffirming sweeping generalizations about these groups.

The relationship between perceived authenticity and social acceptance is especially vital in professional life. For instance, people of color in White-dominated professions face unique pressure to prove themselves as “authentic” because whiteness is an implicit expectation of a good leader. Similarly, evaluations of people’s merit based on class and gender are embedded with assumptions about who can be authentic in their position. People with marginalized identities in certain professions or organizations are not only expected to fulfill their duties- but must also juggle personal and social authenticity based on ambiguous standards. 

A young woman sitting on her couch with her laptop, drinking coffee alone.  Image by Vlada Karpovich from Pexels is licensed under Pexels license.

Stories of young people self-isolating frequent national headlines, with The Atlantic, NPR, Fox, The New York Times and others shedding light on this growing pattern. Loneliness, an inherent source of human anxiety, has been tied to many negative health impacts and societal level ripple effects. But, understanding this trend thoroughly is important to start addressing it – and that’s where social science comes in.

Loneliness

30-something year old, single man living in his parents basement, watching television or playing video games. Or the female equivalent, a single woman generously pampering her pet(s) and posting it online for the world to see. However, while young people are spending more time at home, researchers have also found that they are also more likely to eat out at restaurants, exercise at the gym, and volunteer. In other words, we think young people are lonely — in a traditional sense.

So why do some young adults appear to withdraw from social life? One key factor is the stigma surrounding unemployment, traditional employment, and not enrolling in higher education, which has been linked to social withdrawal. Many individuals fear being judged for their job or student status, leading them to disengage from social interactions. Additionally, lower income levels can amplify feelings of inadequacy compared to their peers. Another major contributor is poor physical and mental health, which can create a cycle: declining health leads to isolation, and in turn, isolation worsens overall well-being.

And of course…technology. Some research has called out how excessive reliance on technology for connection has reduced face-to-face connections, weakening relationships and increasing feelings of loneliness. However, technology can also expand social networks by enabling connections across distances, providing support and interaction that might not be physically possible otherwise. Yet, online communities can devolve into arenas for cyberbullying and harassment, leading to significant psychological distress and even radicalization. Nonetheless, online forums are not going anywhere and must be considered in discussion.

Addressing Loneliness

This pattern of apparent, increased loneliness began decades again, first beginning to build momentum in the 1970s. Robert Putnam’s Bowling Alone was an early warning bell of how the erosion of civic engagement, social networks, and the increase of technology are contributing to a world where it’s not easy to make and maintain face-to-face connections. This, in turn, has led to a now audible historical echo of an increase in individualism and lack of civic engagement now in the 2020s.

Research on clinical interventions for extreme loneliness, such as intensive socialization programs for young people, has largely shown these efforts to be ineffective—underscoring the need for broader, societal improvements. Experts argue that investing in social infrastructure—such as schools, libraries, museums, and sports facilities—can create shared spaces that encourage natural, meaningful interactions. Additionally, technology policies should be designed to enhance (rather than replace) in-person engagement, address concerns over excessive screen time, online toxicity, and the decline of face-to-face relationships.

However, while some view this shift as inherently negative, some see it as a reflection of changing preferences, where physical solitude and selective socialization are embraced rather than feared. From this perspective, the rise of personal digital communication, remote work, and independent lifestyles can be seen as expanding social choice rather than simply signaling social decline.

We see the side of a person, a police radio and handcuffs lopped onto a belt. They are wearing a blue shirt and blue pants. Image used via CC0.

Complaint Process
In recent years, many initiatives have worked to systematically track and analyze data on police complaints in jurisdictions such as Chicago. However, obtaining accurate data on police is notoriously difficult, because the primary mechanism for oversight is often “internal affairs” – the police themselves.  In other words, if someone wanted to voice their grievance they are often required to make the complaint to the very organization that harmed them – an obvious conflict of interest.

When complaints are made, very few are “sustained” or deemed valid by colleagues of the police officer. Social scientists have found that between 2% – 28% of complaints are actually sustained, which might well be an overestimate. Moreover, complaints by Black citizens are even less likely to be sustained.

Bad Apples?

Is the solution as simple as removing “bad apples” with numerous police complaints from the police force? As is common when society faces a difficult problem, we tend to gravitate towards easy solutions – such as scapegoating. Research suggests that a small portion of officers (4% – 12%) were responsible for a relatively large share (20% – 41%) of filed complaints. Yet the majority of complaints are spread throughout the department. In other words, there are not just a few bad apples spoiling the bunch – but the tree itself may be bearing rotten fruit

Systemic Change

In recent decades, police departments have adopted initiatives, such as civilian review boards, which foster greater inclusion of the community into addressing complaints. However, these initiatives have mixed results and have been criticized for their exclusion of racially marginalized community members.

Beyond civilian review boards, cities such as Baltimore, Los Angeles, New Orleans, New York, and Denver have taken action to hold spaces for direct, face-to-face dialogue between complainants and police. Both traditional and restorative justice models of mediation have led to greater satisfaction, in-tune with the spirit of “community-policing” and fostering healing. 

As is the case with controlling crime more generally, this research shows that the problem is not as simple as identifying and tossing out a few bad apples – and that police, policy makers, and the community must look to system-level change rather than placing the entirety of blame on individual scapegoats.

Image: a young white boy faces the camera, held in the arms of a person whose face we cannot see. Image license CC0.

The impact of COVID-19 on parents and children has forced us to reconsider how the U.S. approaches traditional welfare supports. A major change that parents saw in July 2021 under the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) was the increase in value of their child tax credit (CTC) and a monthly payout of half that child CTC – with $300 paid for each child under 6 years and $250 paid for each child 6-17 years each month. Furthermore, the threshold for receiving the CTC was considerably raised – temporarily lifting millions of children above the poverty line. ‘Incrementally revolutionary’ for social welfare in the U.S., the extension and expansion of the CTC hads the potential to strengthen the social safety net and have a broad social impact.  Now that expansions to the CTC have rolled back, what do we know about CTC and how a more permanent expansion could support families?

Passed into law with bipartisan support in 1997, the CTC originally served as a tax break to middle class taxpayers. In 2001 and then 2008 the CTC was then made refundable and more accessible to lower income families.  Since the passage of the ARPA in 2021, the CTC is now more accessible and relatively generous than many other forms of welfare.

In measuring the social impact of the CTC, researchers have published ample evidence of this worthwhile investment. A nation-wide study found that when parents received the CTC their children were less likely to be physically injured and had less behavioral problems. Because children living in poverty are up to nine times more likely to fall victim to maltreatment and suffer from poor overall health, the CTC provides additional economic stability to lower-income parents. 

International programs similar to the CTC have found that increased payments were associated with lower levels of ADHD, physical aggression, maternal depression, and better emotional/anxiety scores among children. Experts in the U.S. have predicted that an increased investment in the CTC would have similar individual and social health impacts, remove millions of impoverished children out of poverty, and save billions of dollars in future. 

Today, with COVID-19 spurring conversations and the realization that U.S. welfare is in need of an update, policy makers have a “charcuterie board” of welfare reform choices.  Of the more savory variety there are work-oriented programs which would moderately decrease poverty and decrease unemployment.  Then there are some sweeter options that would dramatically reduce poverty, but increase unemployment. Arraying these options, a nationwide, interdisciplinary committee of experts have made four recommendations based on changes in unemployment and child poverty.  Regardless of different policy member’s palate preferences, increasing the CTC would both decrease poverty among families by over 9% and decrease unemployment by over half a million jobs – a sweet and savory option. 

On December 15th, 2021, the monthly CTC payments directed to parents expired.  In other words, parents in dire straits are no longer receiving necessary financial support.  Congressional debate on the Build Back Better bill (BBB), which could extend the CTC, provide universal pre-K education, national paid leave for caregiving or illness, and other social investments, has languished. However, for a brief period, we saw evidence of the power of expansion of welfare provisions like the CTC.

A mother holds an infant in front of a set of curtains. The room is dark but there is light and the shadows of trees beyond the curtains. Image via pixabay, Pixabay License.

The new Netflix show, Maid, based on the best-selling memoir by Stephanie Land, chronicles a mother’s journey out of domestic violence and towards safety. The story offers an intimate portrait of the many barriers facing impoverished mothers, including the never-ending obstacles in securing government assistance.

Sociological research has consistently found that the welfare system inadequately serves the poor. From red tape to contradictory policies, accessing government assistance is notoriously difficult to navigate. Further, welfare is highly stigmatized in the United States with shame and coercion baked into its process. 

Due to gendered expectations of parenting, mothers face increased scrutiny about their children’s well being. In particular, mothers of low socioeconomic status are often harshly judged for their parenting without consideration of the structural inequities they face. Mothers seeking assistance from the welfare system are often judged because of cultural stereotypes about motherhood, poverty, and government assistance.  

The U.S. welfare system has been a contentious subject for decades with public perceptions of poverty influencing the social safety net. The derogatory infamous image of the “welfare queen” – an allegedly lazy or irresponsible woman who exploits government programs – demonstrates how racist images of poverty and motherhood directly impacted policy making. This body of work takes a historical perspective on welfare and motherhood to consider how gender and racial stereotypes influence public policies. 

Much research directly contradicts the welfare queen trope, showing instead how impoverished families have fallen through the cracks of the welfare system. This work  highlights the astounding income inequality in the contemporary United States and the resourcefulness and resiliency of impoverished families and individuals and their struggle to survive on little-to-no resources. 

Video imagery courtesy of canva, canva free media usage.

Originally posted on March 16, 2017

The United States and the United Nations have had a closely intertwined relationship since the organization’s founding in 1945. The UN deals with a broad range of issues around the globe, and its widespread influence is often controversial. However, the influence of the United Nation continues to be instrumental in promoting crucial human rights causes, and the reach of its aid is arguably beyond compare. Despite its numerous shortcomings, the UN plays a crucial role in promoting human rights norms across the globe.

Throughout the 1990s in particular, the United Nations took on a central role in the global justice process. It organized and funded international courts following episodes of mass violence, such as the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, and it made indictments for egregious crimes possible for the first time (including the crime of genocide).  Sociologists find that the existence of these courts have a global impact in providing justice, and the trials seem to have a positive effect in reducing human rights violations in the long run.
The judicial process alone cannot adequately address global human rights issues — humanitarianism and diplomacy also play key roles. The United Nation arguably plays the most dominant global role in these initiatives, with monumental campaigns addressing topics like hunger, refugee needs, and climate change. The UN has been criticized for showcasing Western ideals and not taking into account cultural contexts, such as early endeavors to reduce female genital cutting. However, the UN has made improvements and when programs are approached as an opportunity for partnership and not dominance, the outcomes can be quite positive. For example, the agency has taken great strides in promoting gender equality and access to education.
Image: A black woman sits on the floor, leaning against a sofa, in a low-lit room. Her head is in her hands, obscuring her face. Courtesy of pixabay, Pixabay License.

We recently featured new research documenting a broad-based increase in mental health treatment-seeking in the United States. Access to such care remains unequal, however, presenting  real and persistent challenges to those in need. Sociologists, and other social scientists, offer important information about these inequalities and the barriers to equitable mental health care.

Over the past few decades there has been growing concern that people are being “overtreated” for mental health issues given increasing rates of mental health treatment and diagnosis in the population. Nevertheless, there are still many people with mental health conditions who are being “undertreated.” Specifically, there are large gaps between the number of people who have a diagnosable disorder and the number of people who actually receive treatment, particularly for serious mental health issues such as schizophrenia or substance abuse disorder.
Research in the sociology of mental health has often focused on the stigma around seeking or receiving mental health care, particularly for marginalized racial or ethnic groups. In fact, white men may be the most likely to have negative perceptions of care when compared to other demographic groups, as Ojeda and Bergstresser report. As the stigma related to mental illness decreases overall, additional research is needed to examine how, why, and for whom this stigma persists.
Access to mental health care is also limited by mental health practitioners and the mental health care system. In a recent experimental audit study, Heather Kugelmass found that patients with less education and black patients were less likely to receive a response when they sought help from a mental health care provider. In addition, Lincoln and colleagues found that patients with lower levels of literacy found it more challenging to navigate the mental health care system, struggling to fill out paperwork and make health-care decisions along with their care provider. Both the structure of mental health care, and the actions of mental health care providers, can create inequality for patients even after they have decided to seek care.

As we’ve recently emphasized, more people are accessing mental health care now than ever before. As the stigma around care decreases, and more people are seeking care, it is particularly important to ensure equitable access. By shedding light on how factors like disability, class, and race affect mental health care, social scientists can ultimately play a role in addressing inequities and alleviating mental distress.