From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Fri Oct 1 07:18:02 1993 sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 1 Oct 93 07:15:06 -0700 for slincoln@weber.ucsd.edu Fri, 1 Oct 93 07:12:23 -0700 for /usr/mail/admin-checkandsend.sh socgrad via Charon-4.0A-VROOM with IPX id 100.931001101046.320; To: socgrad@ucsd.edu From: S-ENDER@bss1.umd.edu Date: 1 Oct 93 10:10:39 EDT Subject: socgrad network: book survey What top two sociology related books (not texts) would you most recommend for undergraduates as must reading in the following courses? (provide full citation if possible): Introduction to Sociology 1. 2. Introduction to Contemporary Social Problems 1. 2. Introduction to Sociological Social Psychology 1. 2. If you were trapped on a deserted island, what one SOCIOLOGY book would you want most? reply directly to (anonimity guaranteed) or to the network....results will be compiled and distributed...thank you. morten ender From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Fri Oct 1 07:33:50 1993 sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 1 Oct 93 07:31:24 -0700 for slincoln@weber.ucsd.edu Fri, 1 Oct 93 07:28:29 -0700 for /usr/mail/admin-checkandsend.sh socgrad Date: Fri, 01 Oct 93 10:28 EDT From: "Kathryn Schmidt" To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: let me on! sub socgrad From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Fri Oct 1 09:48:30 1993 sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 1 Oct 93 09:45:35 -0700 for slincoln@weber.ucsd.edu Fri, 1 Oct 93 09:42:42 -0700 for /usr/mail/admin-checkandsend.sh socgrad Date: Fri, 01 Oct 93 11:41 EST To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU From: PATTYO%IRISHMVS.CC.ND.EDU@UICVM.UIC.EDU Subject: Inclusive syllabi Looking for more inclusive syllabi does not mean that one group is given priority over another. In my opinion, it is crucial to teach from an inclusive standpoint. But this does not mean that I devalue authors who are white and male. White males have written most of the theory upon which our discipline is based. The time has come, though to expand our (and especially our student's) experiences in the classroom to include authors other than white males. We also need to expand our knowledge to apply theory to groups other than white males. As our society grows more and more diverse, the experiences of thesse other groups become more and more crucial to understand. Let me just warn those who are trying to teach from this inclusive standpoint that the inclusiveness is not always accepted by your students. Students are generally used to learning about and from white males, and when something different occurs, some of these students are not very accepting. In a criminal justice class I taught last semester, I spent about 6 or 7 sessions (out of nearly 30 meetings) on women and crime or minorities and crime. I was criticized for not covering the "basics." This semester, I'm using a feminist reader (Thorne & Yalom) in my Marriage and the Family course. The book contains writings from lesbians, black women, white women, etc. So far, the students find it to be interesting, but can't see the "point" yet. Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that teaching from an inclusive syllabus or from an inclusive standpoint is necessary, but often difficult. I have many, many more examples. If anyone is intersted, I could elaborate, but I'm sure you know what I'm talking about. A question I have is why is it that when we try to include the writings and experiences of a diversity of people, that this implies to many people that we are discounting the experiences of the majority? Sincerely, Patty O'Donnell (a lurker in the past) University of Notre Dame pattyo@irishmvs.cc.nd.edu From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Fri Oct 1 11:27:37 1993 sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 1 Oct 93 11:25:27 -0700 for slincoln@weber.ucsd.edu Fri, 1 Oct 93 11:22:56 -0700 for /usr/mail/admin-checkandsend.sh socgrad via Charon-4.0A-VROOM with IPX id 100.931001142121.384; To: socgrad@ucsd.edu From: S-SCHUBERT@bss1.umd.edu Date: 1 Oct 93 14:21:10 EDT Subject: please help dear socgraders, does anyone know -- isbn, lc call number, etc. -- of an edited volume by (i think) sarah harasym entitled (i think) THE POST-COLONIAL CRITIQUE? someone told me about the book and i'm only guessing on the editor and title. i've been unable to find it in a number of online searches. thanks, dan schubert From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Fri Oct 1 14:25:56 1993 sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 1 Oct 93 14:22:49 -0700 for slincoln@weber.ucsd.edu Fri, 1 Oct 93 14:20:12 -0700 for /usr/mail/admin-checkandsend.sh socgrad Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1993 10:36:38 -1000 (HST) From: Andrew Ovenden Subject: Need help finding a reference To: SOCGRAD Aloha, Does anyone know of an article by a San Francisco State Univ. professor by the name of Karen H????. The title is something like "Foreign, Female and ???" or "Brown, Female and Foreign." The article is about Asian immigrant women working in the high-tech industry in Silicon Valley. If you've seen it or know of it, could you tell me where it was published. I'm writing a paper on women in the high tech industry in Asia, and I heard this author being interviewed on National Public Radio but I didn't catch her name. Thanks, Andrew Ovenden p.s. The temperature here yesterday was 90 degrees with 90 percent humidity. Damn air conditioner broke down. Elevators were shut off for repairs and I live on the 33rd floor. Another sh***y day in paradise. From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Fri Oct 1 19:15:09 1993 sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 1 Oct 93 19:12:29 -0700 for slincoln@weber.ucsd.edu Fri, 1 Oct 93 19:10:43 -0700 for /usr/mail/admin-checkandsend.sh socgrad Date: Fri, 01 Oct 1993 22:10:19 -0400 (EDT) From: Charles Wright Subject: book reviews To: socgrad@ucsd.edu Are there any good intro books? I've never seen one. But now for a deserted island--I'd like to have William Catton's OVERSHOOT: THE ECOLOGICAL BASIS FOR REVOLUTIONARY CHANGE. At least then I would be reminded that the world is going to hell anyway--that might keep me out of a state of despair. Peace From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Sat Oct 2 05:46:21 1993 sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun Sat, 2 Oct 93 07:53:51 -0700 for slincoln@weber.ucsd.edu Sat, 2 Oct 93 07:52:09 -0700 for /usr/mail/admin-checkandsend.sh socgrad Date: Sat, 02 Oct 93 10:52 EDT From: "Pamela M Paxton" To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: If you like Star Trek AND the Love Boat, here's why... got this from a friend and thought I pass it along for anyone who likes Star Trek... Pam Paxton UPAMMP@unc.oit.unc.edu >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Subject: Star Trek NG >For all you Star Trek New Generation & Love Boat fans out there, a little >humor. You all know who you are.... > > >Love Boat Enterprise >- --------- ---------- > >Bald Captain Bald Captain >Young Vicki is related to a Young Wesley is related to a > crewmember and works on the ship crewmember and works on the ship >Ship's doctor is a main character Ship's doctor is a main character >Julie the cruise director is sexy Troi the ships' counselor is sexy > but annoying but annoying >Actors stand in front of screen, Actors stand in front of screen, > upon which is projected background upon which is projected background > of open sea of open space >A dumping ground for second-rate A dumping ground for second-rate > washed-up guest stars washed-up guest stars >Going to strange new ports-of-call Going to strange new worlds >Cheesy opening song Cheesy opening song >Too many scenes of self-indulgent Too many scenes of self-indulgent > crap in the lounge crap in the holodeck >In late-night syndication In late-night syndication >Socially retarded character with Socially retarded character with > job description for name (Gopher) job description for name (Data) >Bad 2-hour pilot Bad 2-hour pilot >Love boat has lifeboats and Enterprise has shuttlecrafts and > flotation devices detaching saucer section >Scenes lined by ship shots Scenes lined by ship shots >One character inexplicably One character inexplicably > replaced, then returned (Julie) replaced, then returned (Crusher) >After-the-fact bed scenes with After-the-fact bed scenes with > pointless discussion pointless discussion >Captain straightens uniform when Captain straightens uniform when > disgusted/angry/nervous disgusted/angry/nervous >Final scene takes place on loading Final scene takes place on > dock; crew waves goodbye transporter; crew waves goodbye >Aaron Spelling rules with iron Gene Roddenberry rules with iron > fist, annoying die-hard fans fist, annoying die-hard fans >At conventions, everyone is dressed At conventions, everyone is dressed > like Dr. Adam Bricker like Mr. Spock >Issac the bartender has useless Captain Picard has useless > gesture, pointing slightly forward gesture, pointing slightly forward >Intercrew friction always resolved Intercrew friction always resolved > within allotted 1 hour time slot within allotted 1 hour time slot > > >:-) > > > > >------- End of Forwarded Message > > From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Sat Oct 2 06:30:42 1993 sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun Sat, 2 Oct 93 08:38:16 -0700 for slincoln@weber.ucsd.edu Sat, 2 Oct 93 08:36:22 -0700 for /usr/mail/admin-checkandsend.sh socgrad via Charon-4.0A-VROOM with IPX id 100.931002113448.384; To: socgrad@ucsd.edu From: S-ENDER@bss1.umd.edu Date: 2 Oct 93 11:34:37 EDT Subject: love trek - star boat connection! aren't both bartenders african-american - isaac and whoopi? :-( morten From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Sun Oct 3 09:48:09 1993 sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun Sun, 3 Oct 93 09:43:32 -0700 for slincoln@weber.ucsd.edu Sun, 3 Oct 93 09:41:36 -0700 for /usr/mail/admin-checkandsend.sh socgrad Date: Sun, 03 Oct 93 12:34:12 EDT From: Joya Misra Organization: Emory University - Atlanta, Georgia, USA Subject: CHAMBLISS ARTICLE To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU Hi guys, This is an ad for the possibility of chatting about the article by Dan Chambliss in a week or so. Included below is a cite to the article in question. I've been sending out copies to people left and right this last week, so I know that at least some of you have it in your hot little hands. At a get-together last week, one of the grad students in my department told the rest of us that this article CHANGED the way he sees the world. He said that his undergrad professor gave it to himwhen he was about to enter grad school,and it changed everything for him. His old prof reads it once a year to keep herself on track. So, listen, I love the article, my friend's life was changed by it, so by all means get to the library and search it out and read it, and then we'll have a very nice little chat about theory and sociology and what it all means. For those of you who weren't listening, the cite: Dan Chambliss, 1989, "The Mundanity of Excellence: An Ethnographic Report on Stratification and Olympic Swimmers," _Sociological Theory_, 7(1)70-86. I'd be happy to send a few more copies out to people who can't get their hands on it, but hurry. Joya SOCAK663@EMUVM1.BITNET OR SOCAK663@EMUVM1.CC.EMORY.EDU DEPT. OF SOCIOLOGY EMORY UNIVERSITY ATLANTA, GA 30322 From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Mon Oct 4 06:09:43 1993 sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 4 Oct 93 06:07:57 -0700 for alintz@weber.ucsd.edu Mon, 4 Oct 93 06:06:07 -0700 for /usr/mail/admin-checkandsend.sh socgrad via Charon-4.0A-VROOM with IPX id 100.931004090433.320; To: socgrad@ucsd.edu From: LEE@cati.umd.edu Date: 4 Oct 93 09:00:14 EDT Subject: Russia What do you think about the "free market" reformist dictatorship in Moscow? From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Mon Oct 4 06:32:30 1993 sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 4 Oct 93 06:30:55 -0700 for alintz@weber.ucsd.edu Mon, 4 Oct 93 06:29:02 -0700 for /usr/mail/admin-checkandsend.sh socgrad X-Nupop-Charset: English Date: Mon, 4 Oct 93 08:25:13 CST From: Dave.L.Brunsma.1@nd.edu Mmdf-Warning: Parse error in original version of preceding line at nd.edu To: socgrad@ucsd.edu Subject: RE: love trek - star boat connection! Morten! Your last comment totally made my day! (Whoopi and Isaac!) :-) Dave.L.Brunsma.1@nd.edu From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Mon Oct 4 11:25:22 1993 sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 4 Oct 93 11:22:07 -0700 for alintz@weber.ucsd.edu Mon, 4 Oct 93 11:15:46 -0700 for /usr/mail/admin-checkandsend.sh socgrad via Charon-4.0A-VROOM with IPX id 100.931004141233.576; To: socgrad@ucsd.edu From: S-SCHUBERT@bss1.umd.edu Date: 4 Oct 93 14:12:23 EDT Subject: its better to give than to receive dear socgradders, many thanks to those who provided the citation for THE POST- COLONIAL CRITIC. it'll give me something to read tonight so that i don't have to watch the damn redskins after murphy brown (i'm not sure of the racial heritage of the bartender on that show!). for my next request, i'd appreciate it if any crim justice types could offer me a few references on race and imprisonment in the u.s. book or article citations would be greatly appreciated. thanks, dan schubert From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Mon Oct 4 20:35:26 1993 sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 4 Oct 93 20:33:19 -0700 for alintz@weber.ucsd.edu Mon, 4 Oct 93 20:31:33 -0700 for /usr/mail/admin-checkandsend.sh socgrad Date: Mon, 04 Oct 93 22:30 EST To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU From: XVNEAL%IRISHMVS.CC.ND.EDU@UICVM.UIC.EDU Subject: subscribe Hello out there.... I would appreciate it if you would include me on the board... I've heard alot about it and I would like to subscribe... Thanks Vince Neal From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Wed Oct 6 04:32:16 1993 sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 6 Oct 93 04:28:25 -0700 for fledgist@weber.UCSD.EDU Wed, 6 Oct 93 04:25:09 -0700 for /usr/mail/admin-checkandsend.sh socgrad Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1993 07:24:06 +0501 (EDT) From: James Cassell Subject: Survey Research Position (fwd) To: uncsocgs@gibbs.oit.unc.edu, Sociology Graduate Student Discussion ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 5 Oct 93 23:02:03 -0400 From: John Kennedy Subject: Survey Research Position POSITION ANNOUNCEMENT Assistant Director Center for Survey Research Indiana University The Center for Survey Research at Indiana University is currently seeking an Assistant Director. A new PhD (or ABD near completion) who is strong in survey methods and has training in both qualitative and quantitative research methods is desired. We would also seriously consider a candidate who has a master's degree and comprehensive leadership experience in a survey organization. In our search and hiring process, we are firmly committed (as is Indiana University) to affirmative action and equal opportunity employment. The CSR conducts over 50 research projects annually, split about equally between mail and telephone surveys. Most studies are funded through research grants or state and federal agencies. We have a 22-station CATI system. The Assistant Director will assume many of the day-to-day responsibilities of managing the Center. The CSR offers exciting, complex projects and has an intense commitment to quality. The ideal applicant will have his/her own research agenda, and we hope s/he will collaborate in our ongoing research projects. We have a comfortable open atmosphere that encourages teamwork and shared management. Indiana University is located in the wooded hills of southern Indiana. The beautiful Bloomington campus is a 45- minute drive from an international airport and a major metropolitan community. Bloomington is a modest-sized community with good schools and a variety of cultural, sports, and dining opportunities. If you know someone who might be interested in this position, please pass this letter along to him/her. Interested persons should send vitae with references by November 30 to John Kennedy, Center for Survey Research, 1022 East Third Street, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405; phone: (812) 855-2573; fax (812) 855-2818; email: kennedyj@ucs.indiana.edu. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * INTERNET: kennedy@isrmail.soc.indiana.edu * US MAIL: * * kennedyj@ucs.indiana.edu * 1022 E. Third Street * * BITNET: kennedyj@indiana * Center for Survey Research * * FAX: (812) 855-2818 * Indiana University * * VOICE: (812) 855-2573 * Bloomington, IN 47405 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Wed Oct 6 08:58:37 1993 sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 6 Oct 93 08:56:07 -0700 for fledgist@weber.UCSD.EDU Wed, 6 Oct 93 08:53:40 -0700 for /usr/mail/admin-checkandsend.sh socgrad Date: Wed, 06 Oct 93 10:09 EST From: PATTYO%IRISHMVS.CC.ND.EDU@UICVM.UIC.EDU To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: (Copy) Student-student contact I thought others on the socgrad list may be able to help with the following post received from another list. Patty O'Donnell ---------------------------- Text of forwarded message ----------------------- Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1993 13:52:57 -0500 From: "HAL D. QUIGLEY" Subject: Student-student contact I am organizing an intro sociology class that includes contact with like-minded students in other countries. Has this been done before? Any suggestions? Also, any referrals to instructors in other countries that you may think would be interested in being the other end? Please reply privately. Thanks. From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Wed Oct 6 11:55:43 1993 sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 6 Oct 93 11:51:49 -0700 for fledgist@weber.UCSD.EDU Wed, 6 Oct 93 11:48:38 -0700 for /usr/mail/admin-checkandsend.sh socgrad Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1993 14:43:20 -0400 (EDT) From: KARP@bcvax1.bc.edu To: socgrad@ucsd.edu sub socgrad David A. Karp From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Wed Oct 6 18:27:23 1993 sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 6 Oct 93 18:24:59 -0700 for fledgist@weber.UCSD.EDU Wed, 6 Oct 93 18:22:19 -0700 for /usr/mail/admin-checkandsend.sh socgrad Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1993 21:12:31 -0400 (EST) From: Daniel Ryan Subject: What are you wearing to the Chambliss discussion? To: socgrad Greetings, fellow s'g'ers -- So, is this Chambliss article discussion going to happen? I'm ready when you are. Any chance of adding a little frivolity to our intellectual seriousness? Potluck again? Or come in costume? Or bring a little imaginary gift for someone at the table? Or ...? Cheers, Dan danryan@minerva.cis.yale.edu From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Thu Oct 7 10:07:42 1993 sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 7 Oct 93 10:04:46 -0700 for fledgist@weber.UCSD.EDU Thu, 7 Oct 93 10:02:43 -0700 for /usr/mail/admin-checkandsend.sh socgrad Date: Thu, 7 Oct 93 13:01:46 EDT From: Greg_Nagy@MTS.cc.Wayne.edu To: socgrad@ucsd.edu Subject: Lost addresses and new account addresses... My student computer account was taken away from me on October 1st. There were about a half-dozen or so fellow students with whom I was communicating immediately prior to this bureaucratically generated problem (a story in and of itself). If you are one of those students, please note that this is my new e-mail address. Thanks! Greg N. From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Thu Oct 7 10:55:09 1993 sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 7 Oct 93 10:50:51 -0700 for fledgist@weber.UCSD.EDU Thu, 7 Oct 93 10:47:18 -0700 for /usr/mail/admin-checkandsend.sh socgrad Date: Thu, 07 Oct 93 13:47 EDT From: "Pamela M Paxton" To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: costumes considering that the month is October, I think wearing costumes to the discussion is appropriate by the way, have we set a definate day to begin the discussion? Monday maybe? Pam Paxton UPAMMP@unc.oit.unc.edu From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Thu Oct 7 15:02:53 1993 sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 7 Oct 93 14:56:26 -0700 for fledgist@weber.UCSD.EDU Thu, 7 Oct 93 14:49:25 -0700 for /usr/mail/admin-checkandsend.sh socgrad Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1993 16:49:22 -0500 From: "Patricia L. Pirkey" To: socgrad@ucsd.edu Subject: halloween hey all weary hard working graduate students out there. in honor of the upcoming holiday, we are hanging fluorescent skeletons from our office windows with banners claiming that our mothers warned about getting a degree in sociology. we haven't cleared with our dept. head, but it is easier to beg forgiveness than permission. what are you doing to get into the pagan spirit at your dept.? later..........pat From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Thu Oct 7 15:14:43 1993 sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 7 Oct 93 15:09:22 -0700 for fledgist@weber.UCSD.EDU Thu, 7 Oct 93 14:56:20 -0700 for /usr/mail/admin-checkandsend.sh socgrad Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1993 16:56:18 -0500 From: "Neil R. White" To: socgrad@ucsd.edu Subject: subscribe sign me up please. thanks neil. From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Thu Oct 7 15:26:20 1993 sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 7 Oct 93 15:20:50 -0700 for fledgist@weber.UCSD.EDU Thu, 7 Oct 93 14:53:57 -0700 for /usr/mail/admin-checkandsend.sh socgrad Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1993 14:54:27 -0700 From: mcasper@itsa.ucsf.EDU (Monica J. Casper) To: socgrad@ucsd.edu Subject: SKAT Section of ASA Calling all students interested in science, technology, medicine, and knowledge. As the new student rep. for the SKAT Council of ASA (that's Science, Knowledge and Technology section, for those of you who don't know), I'm writing to solicit ideas, suggestions, comments, etc. on how SKAT, and ASA more broadly, can be more responsive to student's needs and interests. I'm also open to complaints of all sizes regarding SKAT policies, practices, etc. Anyone with even the smallest kernel of an idea about networking, expanding student participation in the section, and so on, feel free to contact me. Also, I would be remiss in my duties as a SKAT Council Member if I didn't use this forum as an opportunity to invite non-SKAT members to join the section. It's an interesting bunch of people with diverse interests in the above topics. People interested in medical sociology, culture, information technology, environmental issues, and so on would undoubtedly find much of use in SKAT. Sessions at the meetings are usually quite lively and the section has become a hotpoint of debates around feminist science studies, cultural approaches to science and technology, and so on. If you'd like more information, give me a ring. Yours, Monica Casper UC San Francisco From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Thu Oct 7 19:48:46 1993 sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 7 Oct 93 19:45:32 -0700 for fledgist@weber.UCSD.EDU Thu, 7 Oct 93 19:41:40 -0700 for /usr/mail/admin-checkandsend.sh socgrad Date: Thu, 07 Oct 93 21:36:57 CDT From: KLOSKY@VM1.NoDak.EDU Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computer Network Subject: Dept. No Noes To: Socgrad list Well, Pat asks about things we do in our departments as graduate students. Last year a "work-study" student was playing X-mas music in the sociology office, and was informed by a faculty member that the celebration of christmas was not an inclusive behavior. Talk about political correctness.... So, this year I have put up "season" lights in the office to celebrate absolutely nothing at all. There is no cause for celebration that would include everyone in the world, so I think celebrating should be illegal. "Season" lights simply symbolically represent the passing of time. I have to admit that I moved to fast on this issue, but winter comes early, and I want to have a "good" excuse for having the lights up. SKEE - Univ. of North Dakota From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Fri Oct 8 05:36:11 1993 sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 8 Oct 93 05:31:48 -0700 for fledgist@weber.UCSD.EDU Fri, 8 Oct 93 05:20:40 -0700 for /usr/mail/admin-checkandsend.sh socgrad Date: Fri, 08 Oct 1993 08:22:57 -0400 (EDT) From: "Del Rounds, (803) 953-5072, 953-5066" Subject: PC behavior To: socgrad@ucsd.edu Interesting to note that SKEE is not permitted (or encouraged) to celebrate his religious beliefs--I thought this was America(?). For those of you ready to jump on my s@#$ what behaviors are inclusive of all? Eating? Sleeping? Going to the restroom? And, more importantly, are these activities worthy of celebrating? (And if we do celebrate them, how do we do it?) Help me understand this SKEE (and others)! Del. From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Fri Oct 8 10:44:17 1993 sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 8 Oct 93 10:31:23 -0700 for fledgist@weber.UCSD.EDU Fri, 8 Oct 93 10:13:46 -0700 for /usr/mail/admin-checkandsend.sh socgrad Date: Fri, 08 Oct 93 10:07:31 CDT From: KLOSKY@VM1.NoDak.EDU Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computer Network Subject: More from SKEE To: Socgrad list Del says there are things that ARE inclusive "eating? Sleeping? Using the restroom?" I have to say that this is politically incorrect. No all groups use a restroom, and to imply that they do excludes these groups. Lets use some reason people: If you can't display behavior that is not inclusive, than even writing to soc grad in english would be incorrect, because only those fimilar with the language could read it. Where is the line on PCness? By the way, this is only one example of a pattern, but I don't want to put myself at risk: I would not want this in the wrong hands, and SOCGRAD is a fairly public arena. I would like to know what you think though SKEE "I want to celebrate" Klosky From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Fri Oct 8 11:09:12 1993 sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 8 Oct 93 11:05:16 -0700 for fledgist@weber.UCSD.EDU Fri, 8 Oct 93 11:01:56 -0700 for /usr/mail/admin-checkandsend.sh socgrad via Charon-4.0A-VROOM with IPX id 100.931008140016.480; To: socgrad@ucsd.edu From: S-SCHUBERT@bss1.umd.edu Date: 8 Oct 93 14:00:16 EDT Subject: celebrations... dear socgradders, i dunno `bout ya'll, but i sometimes find in quite appropriate to celebrate after going to the restroom. hating fall in d.c., dan schubert From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Fri Oct 8 11:55:37 1993 sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 8 Oct 93 11:52:15 -0700 for fledgist@weber.UCSD.EDU Fri, 8 Oct 93 11:46:09 -0700 for /usr/mail/admin-checkandsend.sh socgrad Date: Fri, 08 Oct 1993 12:05:30 -0400 (EDT) From: Charles Wright Subject: comments To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU In the chapter of the book FRONTIERS OF SOCIAL THOUGHT (edited by George Ritzer, Columbia, 1990) "The Decline of the Grand Narrative of Emancipatory Modernity: Crises or Renewal in Neo-Marxian Theory," Robert Antonio suggests that, "perhaps Marx's greatest achievement was his compelling argument that modernity's growing networks of interdependence (linking huge social circles) have sweeping significance for human suffering and welfare and therefore ought not to be ignored." Anybody buy that? Peace From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Fri Oct 8 12:38:56 1993 sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 8 Oct 93 12:36:16 -0700 for fledgist@weber.UCSD.EDU Fri, 8 Oct 93 12:34:25 -0700 for /usr/mail/admin-checkandsend.sh socgrad Date: Fri, 08 Oct 93 15:27:20 EST From: Steve Harvey To: socgrad@ucsd.edu In response to Dan's last jibe, and at the risk of contributing to too much of a bad thing (and being forever branded a tasteless boob), I have to say that I prefer to celebrate while i'm STILL IN the bathroom. In honor of the present conversation, I'll come to our Halloween fete dressed as a toilet plunger. See you there. Steve. harvey@uconnvm From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Fri Oct 8 12:55:30 1993 sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 8 Oct 93 12:52:01 -0700 for fledgist@weber.UCSD.EDU Fri, 8 Oct 93 12:44:38 -0700 for /usr/mail/admin-checkandsend.sh socgrad via Charon-4.0A-VROOM with IPX id 100.931008154303.384; To: socgrad@ucsd.edu From: CATHRINE@cati.umd.edu Date: 8 Oct 93 15:38:32 EDT Subject: National Council on Family Relations Attention Family Scholars on the East Coast, Mid-Atlantic States and Midwest! Just a reminder. NCFR is meeting in Baltimore November 10 to 15. Contact Cindy Winter [(612) 781-9331] for program information. She also has list of less expensive housing than the Hyatt's conference rate of $99.00 a night. Student/new professional section will sponsor several workshops on job hunting and transition from student to professional. Employment service available for those seeking positions. Andrew Billingsley of University of Maryland is one of several noted keynote speakers. All those students in Cleveland and Chicago, take advantage of those CHEAP airfares to Baltimore via Soutwest Airlines. $39.00 roundtrip??? With rates so low it's hard to justify not coming to the conference. In addition to the conference, come to see the birthplace/home of Babe Ruth, H. L. Menken, Barry Levinson, John Waters, and Ann Tyler. Have dinner in Fells Point, Little Italy, Federal Hill, or Inner Harbor. From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Fri Oct 8 13:36:29 1993 sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 8 Oct 93 13:34:26 -0700 for fledgist@weber.UCSD.EDU Fri, 8 Oct 93 13:31:59 -0700 for /usr/mail/admin-checkandsend.sh socgrad Date: Fri, 8 Oct 93 16:31:04 EDT From: Greg_Nagy@MTS.cc.Wayne.edu To: socgrad@ucsd.edu Subject: Bathroom celebrations Steve I hope your celebrations do not infringe upon the rights (or rites) of CONCENTRATION of others. There's nothing more annoying than some guy in the next stall yelling "yeesss!!!" I hate when that happens! Greg From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Fri Oct 8 16:35:13 1993 sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 8 Oct 93 16:31:37 -0700 for fledgist@weber.UCSD.EDU Fri, 8 Oct 93 16:29:47 -0700 for /usr/mail/admin-checkandsend.sh socgrad Subject: costumes To: socgrad@ucsd.edu Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1993 18:29:46 -0500 (CDT) From: "Elizabeth H. Schaefer" Hey Guys, I just finished the Chambliss article, and I can't wait for the discussion! I'll be coming as Marx; I've always wanted to dress in drag! See you there, Elizabeth Schaefer From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Sat Oct 9 07:42:25 1993 sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun Sat, 9 Oct 93 07:41:01 -0700 for fledgist@weber.UCSD.EDU Sat, 9 Oct 93 07:39:11 -0700 for /usr/mail/admin-checkandsend.sh socgrad via Charon-4.0A-VROOM with IPX id 100.931009103737.320; To: socgrad@ucsd.edu From: S-ENDER@bss1.umd.edu Date: 9 Oct 93 10:37:33 EDT Subject: bio-physiological needs to dan and steve, as long as you guys wash your hands, i'll celebrate til the cows come marching home... however, this network has been reduced and "plungered" to bio- physiological variables...was freud on to something or what? scrubbed and waiting for a towel in maryland, morten From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Sat Oct 9 09:28:48 1993 sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun Sat, 9 Oct 93 09:26:20 -0700 for fledgist@weber.UCSD.EDU Sat, 9 Oct 93 09:24:27 -0700 for /usr/mail/admin-checkandsend.sh socgrad Date: Sat, 09 Oct 1993 12:25:07 -0400 (EDT) From: "Del Rounds, (803) 953-5072, 953-5066" Subject: Pardon my use of the term "going to the restroom" To: socgrad@ucsd.edu Sorry. I really flubed that one. Thanks for pointing it out to me SKEE. You are right--not all go to the restroom. I was trying to avoid saying the unmentionable and was trying to use a kinder, gentler expression. Would "relieving oneself" be better? Don't all persons relieve themselves? I think everyone does--barring physical differences. Therefore, we should, maybe, celebrate these body functions! (I won't touch this--I know some others have already!) (I know that there are exceptions to what I've stated above--but, overall....) Del. From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Sat Oct 9 12:40:53 1993 sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun Sat, 9 Oct 93 12:38:46 -0700 for fledgist@weber.UCSD.EDU Sat, 9 Oct 93 12:36:38 -0700 for /usr/mail/admin-checkandsend.sh socgrad Date: Sat, 9 Oct 93 15:35:44 EDT From: Greg_Nagy@MTS.cc.Wayne.edu To: socgrad@ucsd.edu Subject: Chambliss What's to discuss.... the article is mundane!!! The man has no talent!!! Seriously, the Chambliss article makes several very good points. Of course, any extrapolation from the so-called distinct levels of swimming competition to the nebulous levels of the academe, entails a lot of faith on the part of the reader. His argument that movement between levels of competition or worlds, is predicated on several things. Foremost, is a coach with a keen eye (not in individualistic terms) for those changes in quality. However, it is wholly possible, that changes may arise in such a way that established frameworks -within worlds or even within adjacent worlds of inquiry- are not suitable for discovery. Thus, many -what would be revolutionary qualitative gestures- may go unnoticed. So, the sociology of knowledge problem is not wholly addressed. I think the most valuable contribution that Chambliss is making comes in the form of his negation of talent as an "inner quality". "Talent is no more than a projected reification of particular things done..." (page 80). When we regard talent as occurring prior to the performance "we transform particular actions that a human being does into an object possessed, held in trust for the day when it will be revealed for all to see." However, earlier on the same page it seems Chambliss uses the term "willingness" in a rather ambiguous light. (2nd paragraph) Is he suggesting that "willingness" is in-part a function of "differential advantages" of will, if not natural ability? Does it then become natural will? Greg N. From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Sat Oct 9 13:13:32 1993 sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun Sat, 9 Oct 93 13:11:34 -0700 for fledgist@weber.UCSD.EDU Sat, 9 Oct 93 13:09:20 -0700 for /usr/mail/admin-checkandsend.sh socgrad Date: Sat, 09 Oct 93 14:58:30 CDT From: KLOSKY@VM1.NoDak.EDU Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computer Network Subject: Thesis process To: Tricia Robinson , Socgrad list Was reading this afternoon, thought you might find this interesting... "The thesis proposal can also be transmitter. It happens when the student believes the thesis committee expects him or her to review the (read ALL) relevant literature and demonstrate conceptual closure of the research . problem. The proposal is sometimes resubmitted until the committee has judged it as having sufficient conceptual, theoretical, and methodological closure. Students eventually believe that the proposal must be a truly comprehensive statement, it must have closure. Of course, those who have completed proposals know that they cannot possibly approach closure, but to the unsuspecting student, particualrly the master's degree candidate, messages of closure ring loud and clear. Will these messages prevent the student from completing the degree or pursuing the doctorate after the M.A. is obtained?" -- Wolensky, Robert. 1981 "The Graduate Student's Double Bind: A Professional Socialization Problem in Sociology. Sociological Spectrum, 1:393-414. What do you think? Do grads get the message that they have to have closure while doing grad work? Or is grad work treated as the begining, not the end, of learning? SKEE - University of North Dakota (I'm still celebrating nothing) From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Sat Oct 9 14:15:58 1993 sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun Sat, 9 Oct 93 14:13:52 -0700 for fledgist@weber.UCSD.EDU Sat, 9 Oct 93 14:12:13 -0700 for /usr/mail/admin-checkandsend.sh socgrad by weber.ucsd.edu (8.6/UCSDGENERIC.4c) on ttyv3 Date: Sat, 9 Oct 1993 14:12:12 -0700 From: tperkins@weber.ucsd.edu (Tamara Perkins) To: socgrad@ucsd.edu Subject: something's missing But Greg, what were you WEARING?? From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Sat Oct 9 17:21:56 1993 sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun Sat, 9 Oct 93 17:20:21 -0700 for fledgist@weber.UCSD.EDU Sat, 9 Oct 93 17:18:15 -0700 for /usr/mail/admin-checkandsend.sh socgrad Date: Sat, 09 Oct 93 18:57:55 EDT From: Joya Misra Organization: Emory University - Atlanta, Georgia, USA Subject: Closure, pushing, etc. To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU Skee asks: >What do you think? Do grads get the message that they have to have >closure while doing grad work? Or is grad work treated as the begining, >not the end, of learning? I'm worried a little about the kinds of posts these questions might result in, because of the ways in which these questions seemed to be framed. I don't think it's a good idea to reduce graduate experiences so readily to one graduate experience. I also think that _no one_, even someone who already has her/hisPh.D., thinks in such a simplistic manner (grad work as the end of learning! I can't think of any academics who think that they would ever want _their_ learning to end, what to speak of other peoples' learning). Grad school is a time for students to stop taking in the messages they got from nursery school through college of listen, mimic, paraphrase, etc., and start learning instead how to _engage_ with others, put them- selves on the line, contribute to the debates in constructive ways. It's hard! But worth it. No one worth his/her salt thinks that the point to research is to attain some sort of closure on an issue, it's all about simply learning to engage with others. In my opinion. I worry,sometimes, at some of the relatively simplistic things that are said here on the net (including the things I say! including the things above!). So many of us try and paint things as "good" and "bad," or reduce complex phenomenon like political correctness to simply ridiculous instances. Sociology is complex. Academia is complex. When we talk about these things, we should maintain a sense of humor about ourselves, and our limitations. Including me (I realize I sound very preachy, excuse me). Well, I'm off to hang out at a sidewalk cafe and drink coffee. The weather here has been JUST perfect. Atlanta in the fall... Joya SOCAK663@EMUVM1.BITNET OR SOCAK663@EMUVM1.CC.EMORY.EDU DEPT. OF SOCIOLOGY EMORY UNIVERSITY ATLANTA, GA 30322 From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Sat Oct 9 20:40:19 1993 sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun Sat, 9 Oct 93 20:38:06 -0700 for fledgist@weber.UCSD.EDU Sat, 9 Oct 93 20:36:13 -0700 for /usr/mail/admin-checkandsend.sh socgrad Date: Sat, 09 Oct 93 22:28:37 CDT From: KLOSKY@VM1.NoDak.EDU Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computer Network Subject: SKEE's Response To: Socgrad list Okay, so I was trashed for every posting I've made in the last few days... Let me defend myself.... 1. The lights story was included to open the discussion on PC. Sorry, I should have realized that to discuss such an issue was, in itself, not PC. 2. The questions that I asked after the quote I submitted were put too simply. I'll try again, one last time: Do grads (socgrads) think that the message they receive in grad school is one of "closure" on the issue of knowledge in a subfield (namely during comps), or is it one of "Shapeless complexity"? Is that academic enough? SKEE "I'm sorry" Klosky From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Sat Oct 9 21:44:39 1993 sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun Sat, 9 Oct 93 21:43:02 -0700 for fledgist@weber.UCSD.EDU Sat, 9 Oct 93 21:41:13 -0700 for /usr/mail/admin-checkandsend.sh socgrad Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1993 00:36:13 -0400 (EST) From: Daniel Ryan Subject: Comments in response to SKEE on PC To: socgrad people > 1. The lights story was included to open the discussion on PC. Sorry, > I should have realized that to discuss such an issue was, in itself, not > PC. Now, let's not back off too quickly from this one. Even if a bit hot to handle, it's a topic not best avoided. In my deviance class last semester I spent a lot of time in lectures trying to make the point that when one engages in public debate about a contentious issue there are at least two things to keep in mind: 1. Even though all parties may use a single word (e.g., PC) they may not be refering to the same "real world phenomenon." This is especially true when, like "PC" the word or phrase has become a household word. (A classic case of a word that is easier to use than to define, but that is another question.) We spent a good bit of time identifying the different things that one might be picking out as referent when one talks about PC. We came up with three "ideal types" in this case. 2. The second thing is to try to get a clear sense of what "real" battles are being waged with the issue at hand as a sort of surrogate. With regard to PC, this helps to find a stance that can be critical of unthinking orthodoxies without falling into, say, a "liberals are taking over the academy" fallacy. If, as sociologists, we've lost the ability to have reasoned discussions about things like this then I fear for the future of the republic! Cheers, Dan From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Sun Oct 10 11:07:11 1993 sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun Sun, 10 Oct 93 10:52:57 -0700 for fledgist@weber.UCSD.EDU Sun, 10 Oct 93 09:43:43 -0700 for /usr/mail/admin-checkandsend.sh socgrad Date: Sun, 10 Oct 93 12:32:32 EDT From: Joya Misra Organization: Emory University - Atlanta, Georgia, USA Subject: PC-NESS To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU Hey, Skee and everyone else! I wasn't saying we shouldn't talk about political correctness,and in fact I found the original post on putting up lights interesting and hoped it would provide for a nuanced discussion of the issue. But instead, we didn't really get engaged in it - everything that was said about it, while valuable, did not really scratch the surface of the issue. I was,I guess, slightly disappointed that we did not go into it in more depth (although that's my fault as well, I certainly didn't post anything even cursory about it). I apologize if I wasn't clear in what I was trying to say. I don't want to stifle the directions in which this list might go, just push all of us to engage each other in meaningful ways. Sorry. joya From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Sun Oct 10 11:20:17 1993 sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun Sun, 10 Oct 93 11:14:22 -0700 for fledgist@weber.UCSD.EDU Sun, 10 Oct 93 09:52:58 -0700 for /usr/mail/admin-checkandsend.sh socgrad Date: Sun, 10 Oct 93 12:49:40 EDT From: Greg_Nagy@MTS.cc.Wayne.edu To: socgrad@ucsd.edu Subject: SKEE Joya, SKEE is only asking: "Do grads get the message that they have to have closure while doing grad work? Or is grad work treated as the begining, [sic] not the end, of learning?" His (and Wolensky's) questions are not a condemnation of the profession, nor are they an invitation to same, but rather a depiction of very real and common problems. In referring to a very bright student who appears to be stuck seeking closure, Chambliss says the following: "...He never accepted that a dissertation is a mundane piece of work, nothing more than some words which one person writes and a few other people read. He hasn't learned that the real exams, the true tests (such as the dissertation requirement) in graduate school are really designed to discover whether at some point one is willing just to turn the damn thing in." Part of the problem SKEE is referring to and asking about, may stem from the use of the term closure. Even when it is qualified such as "sufficient closure", it may offer more trouble than its worth. Instead, the emphasis ought to be, as Chambliss argues, on doing the little things. Thus, it becomes of paramount importance that one recognizes "the mundanity of excellence". Admittedly, the pursuit of knowledge is a difficult (if not impossible) endeavor. Any intelligent consideration of what is the right (or at least the best) way to proceed at every single step of inquiry, will and should make a bright person uncomfortable and relatively uncertain. Moreover, any self- important ass who states that s/he has all the answers -the panchreston of all panchrestons- is very likely a fool's fool. If, as Hegel argues, every thought evokes -or is at least accompanied by- every thought contradistinquished from it, ad infinitum, then the most attentive of us may -at that moment of performance-be destined to simply stare at a blank piece of paper or computer monitor and drool profusely. I think Joya is right in saying "it's all about simply learning to engage with others". However, I feel uncomfortable with the term 'all'. But that's just me, I have a tendency to fixate, rather than engage. Again, Chambliss states that its about doing the little things. Joya states that we need some humility in the process. We also need to learn to feel comfortable just throwing the stuff out there... Just throwing some stuff out there... hope it's engaging... Greg N. P.S. I went to the party dressed as a nerd, but no one showed up!!! From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Sun Oct 10 11:29:07 1993 sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun Sun, 10 Oct 93 11:24:24 -0700 for fledgist@weber.UCSD.EDU Sun, 10 Oct 93 10:45:18 -0700 for /usr/mail/admin-checkandsend.sh socgrad via Charon-4.0A-VROOM with IPX id 100.931010134337.352; To: socgrad@ucsd.edu From: S-ENDER@bss1.umd.edu Date: 10 Oct 93 13:43:26 EDT Subject: closure if knowledge had closure, we wouldn't need a reference section! morten From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Sun Oct 10 11:40:38 1993 sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun Sun, 10 Oct 93 11:37:22 -0700 for fledgist@weber.UCSD.EDU Sun, 10 Oct 93 11:33:30 -0700 for /usr/mail/admin-checkandsend.sh socgrad Date: Sun, 10 Oct 93 13:17:13 CDT From: KLOSKY@VM1.NoDak.EDU Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computer Network Subject: PC To: Socgrad list Okay, so I'll get to the heart of the matter without saying "the liberals are taking over the university." At what point, if ever, does political correctness become TOO sensitive? I AM in support of most "liberal" issues, but I beleive there is an extreme that invalidates the moderate. For example, there was a student at a university (I don't remember which) that thought the international symbols for the restrooms were inappropriate because she didn't wear skirts. To me, and my way of thinking, this is an extreme. I can see the LOGIC of this argument, and extrapilate further. I even support the underlying issue here (labeling of people), but ideologies are slow to change, and being so radical makes it easy for those who are conservative to label the whole group based on "ridicuous" extremes. But, I have simply put in a new example, not discussed "The real issue" to any extent. The reason might be that I am not sure I have an answer to my own question: Where is the line between moderate and radical? Before anyone jumps in saying there is no "line" but the area is gray, I realize that. The question is more specificly than: At what point does a behavior become labeled "extreme"? I hope I have at least smoothed some feathers that might have been ruffled, and clarified that I DO NOT WATCH RUSH, or read his books. SKEE From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Sun Oct 10 14:06:44 1993 sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun Sun, 10 Oct 93 14:04:42 -0700 for fledgist@weber.UCSD.EDU Sun, 10 Oct 93 14:03:01 -0700 for /usr/mail/admin-checkandsend.sh socgrad Subject: closure To: socgrad@ucsd.edu Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1993 16:02:59 -0500 (CDT) From: "Elizabeth H. Schaefer" Hey guys, I appreciate Skee's question regarding closure, because I feel this pressure daily. It is likely a pressure I apply to myself, but it is there. In my own grad school experience, I feel like every paper has to be publishable. There doesn't seem to be time to just learn; one must always be adding to the information. I like what you said, Joya, about engaging with others. That is what it's all about (to me). But there is an incredible pressure to have everything worked out just right before presenting it to others. Publication is mystified, in a way. It's the way to know you've "made it." I'd like to think of this venue as a place for "tossing ideas out." I don't feel like my dissertation will be the pinacle of my learning; hopefully, that's where the fun will begin! Yet, the pressure that one's dissertation be a brilliant analysis is a present reality in my world. Any helpful ways of getting away from this pressure would be appreciated! By the way, do I have to put my mustache on already? I thought the costume party started tomorrow! Peace, Elizabeth From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Sun Oct 10 14:13:22 1993 sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun Sun, 10 Oct 93 14:10:47 -0700 for fledgist@weber.UCSD.EDU Sun, 10 Oct 93 14:09:10 -0700 for /usr/mail/admin-checkandsend.sh socgrad by weber.ucsd.edu (8.6/UCSDGENERIC.4c) on ttyv4 Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1993 14:09:09 -0700 From: lmiller@weber.ucsd.edu (Laura Miller) To: socgrad@ucsd.edu Subject: PC I think the whole way the "PC" debate is posed tends to miss what's really going on. And this isn't only because I resent how the term has been "stolen" from the left who used to use it as an in joke. First of all, the USE of the epithet PC is indeed often with purpose of conjuring up images of radical feminists, multiculturalists, and other leftists taking over the academy (though I know that's not how it was being used in the posts here). And as anyone knows who's talked to those on the job market, or trying to get tenure at most universities, leftists (at least in the social sciences, it might be different for say, literature) have a harder time than non-leftists getting and keeping jobs. Secondly, I don't think the real problem that might exist with people trashing one another over certain statements (verbal and otherwise) is so much about extremism in the sense that Skee (I think it was Skee) meant. But rather, there seems to be a clash between "extreme" liberalism that calls for all individual action (especially in this case speech) to be protected above everything else, and a commitment to explicitly defining social values without much discrimination between "major" values and "minor" ones. Am I making sense? I've yet to really figure out this issue. Laura Miller lmiller@ucsd.edu From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Sun Oct 10 18:33:48 1993 sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun Sun, 10 Oct 93 18:32:24 -0700 for fledgist@weber.UCSD.EDU Sun, 10 Oct 93 18:29:58 -0700 for /usr/mail/admin-checkandsend.sh socgrad Date: Sun, 10 Oct 93 20:59:16 EDT From: "Marlen R. Hancock" Organization: Emory University - Atlanta, Georgia, USA Subject: PC-NESS To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU To add a little to the discussion of PC--I would offer a qualitative rather than quantitative criterion for determining excess. When the PC complaint offered is expressed as coming from the desire to protect (undefined) others from the offense presented by the objectionable behavior it has gone too far. When the PC complaint is offered as an "I" statement (as in I am an _________ and I find Christmas music offensive and do not believe I should have to endure it in my work environment) or when offered as general information about a specific other (as in X% of our colleagues are __________; since they do not celebrate Christmas and since they do not celebrate _________ at work we need to limit our Christmas decorations to our private areas or leave them at home) then the PC complaint is probably appropriate and justified. If not that, it has at least been stated in a format which fosters debate and discussion rather than censure. I'm not sure that I've added significantly to the discussion, but perhaps my focus on the concrete concepts will further a more general or theoretical response. Cheers! Marni Hancock GO BRAVES!!!!!!! From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Sun Oct 10 20:40:49 1993 sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun Sun, 10 Oct 93 20:37:46 -0700 for fledgist@weber.UCSD.EDU Sun, 10 Oct 93 20:36:46 -0700 for /usr/mail/admin-checkandsend.sh socgrad Date: Sun, 10 Oct 93 23:36:36 EDT From: Greg_Nagy@MTS.cc.Wayne.edu To: socgrad@ucsd.edu Subject: Excuse me but your standing on my dogma... "...A classic case of a word that is easier to use than to define..." (Dan) That is the question!! X: Oh golly, you shouldn't have said that... Y: Why? X: Oh well... that's not PC Y: Oh O.K., I'M SORRY it won't happen again... (only because of wonting it will) Or, Corpulent Kid: Those liberals are stultifying the American mind with all that PC garbage!!! Audience: PC bad!! CK good!! yeaaaa!!! No perspective at any point of the ideological spectrum is immune to the dangers of "unthinking orthodoxies". Hell the liberals could be taking over the academy!!!! BLASPHEMER!! BLASPHEMER!! If you find any of this to be not PC, I am not sorry... Greg N. From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Sun Oct 10 21:45:13 1993 sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun Sun, 10 Oct 93 21:37:04 -0700 for fledgist@weber.UCSD.EDU Sun, 10 Oct 93 21:29:04 -0700 for /usr/mail/admin-checkandsend.sh socgrad Date: Mon, 11 Oct 93 00:28:54 EDT From: Greg_Nagy@MTS.cc.Wayne.edu To: socgrad@ucsd.edu Subject: It's party time... Chambliss Qualitative changes bring success between levels... Changing worlds is a major step toward excellence... Approximation of Excellence entails, "...articles and books that are widely read and talked about." Just a thought... How about politically campaigning for certain scholars as contributing to the reification of the hierarchy of academic credibility. Greg N. From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Mon Oct 11 08:18:02 1993 sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 11 Oct 93 08:15:50 -0700 for fledgist@weber.UCSD.EDU Mon, 11 Oct 93 08:14:18 -0700 for /usr/mail/admin-checkandsend.sh socgrad Date: Mon, 11 Oct 93 10:54:44 EDT From: Joya Misra Organization: Emory University - Atlanta, Georgia, USA Subject: CLOSURE To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU Wow! What great things are happening on the net. I must admit, I'm not dressed for the party yet - I just got back from a bike ride and I'm sweaty and sloppy, BUT I will get into the Chambliss and want to encourage everyone to dive in! I was trained, in my program, that every paper you spend time on (read: more than a weekend) should eventually be presented somewhere and sent to a journal (preferably AJS or ASR). And, in fact, this very push helped show me the way to achieve closure. I mean, if you attend conferences you notice that most of the presentations are (to put it mildly) rough, not very well-developed, if you read journals, you find holes in the papers. This made me feel like, "Hey, you don't have to be any more on top of these things than these bozos!" Maybe one of my BEST experience was in the mentor relationships I had with two of the most productive people in my department. I watched them STRUGGLE with every paper, revise and revise and revise. Some people don't believe me when I say that some of my papers have gone through 30 rounds of revisions. But they have! My best papers have taken me three to four years of HARD work to get them into journals. But you know what, the same goes for my mentors! Of course, now that I am struggling with my dissertation, I find myself beginning at the beginning and worried all over again that I need to produce something better than everything else on the subject. I keep trying to remind myself that all I can HOPE to do is engage people who are writing on the subject. I need to remind myself to be humble. So, I don't know exactly what the trick is, other than to be aware that everyone is struggling with these things, professors and students alike, that the point isn't to produce the "answer" but to try and engage others who are interested in your questions. Thanks for listening...sorry for the repetition... Joya From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Mon Oct 11 08:40:55 1993 sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 11 Oct 93 08:34:45 -0700 for fledgist@weber.UCSD.EDU Mon, 11 Oct 93 08:29:54 -0700 for /usr/mail/admin-checkandsend.sh socgrad Date: Mon, 11 Oct 93 11:14:44 EDT From: Joya Misra Organization: Emory University - Atlanta, Georgia, USA Subject: PC To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU And now...a word about the whole PC thing. Marni suggests that as soon as we start not saying or doing something based on the presumption that it MIGHT offend someone, we've gone too far. But as a teacher, I worry so much about these possible offenses. I worry about making students so uncomfortable that they simply shut down, stop trying to engage their classmates and me in discussions. As a teacher I really struggle with this issue. Because, here I am an Asian-American woman, who spent many many years being frustrated in the classroom, hearing racist and sexist things, feeling excluded because of my identity & beliefs. I feel it's necessary to be very empathetic to my students, both conservative and liberal, promote a learning environment where they feel like their opinions and ideas are valued, and they are not excluded. But learning is uncomfortable! Learning is hard! Students have to be pushed to really question their beliefs and this may make them really uncomfortable in my classroom. How can I do this - push them hard! - and also make them feel accepted and included and valued? I try and find ways to include my students, even while I challenge them. The discussions in my classes are quite heated and varied. But I am concerned. I worry that one day pushing my students hard will translate into creating a "hostile environment" for them. And I don't want to do that. What do you guys think? Joya From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Mon Oct 11 10:01:30 1993 sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 11 Oct 93 09:58:49 -0700 for fledgist@weber.UCSD.EDU Mon, 11 Oct 93 09:56:46 -0700 for /usr/mail/admin-checkandsend.sh socgrad Date: Mon, 11 Oct 93 12:56:32 EDT From: Greg_Nagy@MTS.cc.Wayne.edu To: socgrad@ucsd.edu Subject: PC and Marni I thought it was interesting that Marni finished her PC statement with "GO BRAVES!!!!!!" Is she baiting us????? Or does she truly believe that such behavior and language is non-objectionable? Just wondering... Greg From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Mon Oct 11 10:41:41 1993 sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 11 Oct 93 10:38:45 -0700 for fledgist@weber.UCSD.EDU Mon, 11 Oct 93 10:36:53 -0700 for /usr/mail/admin-checkandsend.sh socgrad via Charon-4.0A-VROOM with IPX id 100.931011133514.256; To: socgrad@ucsd.edu From: S-SCHUBERT@bss1.umd.edu Date: 11 Oct 93 13:33:58 EDT Subject: wonderings... socgradders, given the subtext of these loooooooooooooooooooooooong discussions on chambliss, shouldn't we really be concerned with clothesure? through being cool, d.c. dan From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Mon Oct 11 11:45:09 1993 sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 11 Oct 93 11:42:23 -0700 for fledgist@weber.UCSD.EDU Mon, 11 Oct 93 11:40:11 -0700 for /usr/mail/admin-checkandsend.sh socgrad Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1993 13:40:08 -0500 From: "Patricia L. Pirkey" To: socgrad@ucsd.edu Subject: the original question just a thought.......? maybe the true test of political correctness is the response issued by those receiving the message. the original question i threw out last friday (in a light-hearted fashion) was dealing with how festive was your dept. when it came to halloween. the responses, although interesting, dealt with questionable but obviously rigid toilet training practices and the issue of being PC or not. ergo, obviously my question was either not PC or simply not interesting enough to engage everyone in some light-hearted banter. you be the judge........later......pat From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Mon Oct 11 11:52:03 1993 sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 11 Oct 93 11:48:36 -0700 for fledgist@weber.UCSD.EDU Mon, 11 Oct 93 11:46:08 -0700 for /usr/mail/admin-checkandsend.sh socgrad Date: Mon, 11 Oct 93 13:48:08 EST From: Steve Harvey To: socgrad@ucsd.edu Hi guys. Okay, let's see. PC and closure. PC is indeed a term that was coopted by the right to discredit the left, but even from the beginning there was a kernal of truth in the critique embedded in that pejorative. I think the whole dynamic is in some ways a function of being the weaker contestant (the defini- tion of "weaker" in this context will i hope become clear shortly) in a struggle to win the minds and hearts of the next generation. The whole deeply embedded ideological thrust or "Western Civilization" doesn't have to "try too hard": It's ubiquitous, in the way we produce knowledge, in the way we produce and distribute goods and services, in the ways in which we order our very existence. Don't get me wrong: I'm very ambivalent on this issue, and I don't consider this Western Hegemonic Package to which I'm referring to be particular ly evil or particularly good. I agree with BOTH the critiques with which we are all familiar (in general) AND many of the neoclassical assumptions and concepts which have been too easily discarded (by the left). Truth is more subtle than we in practice admit (though I know that many of us, in our hearts, know better ). That's because we would get bogged down in the outrageous complexity and subtlety and paradoxicalness of the phenomena we are trying to explain if we didn't engage in quite a bit of oversimplification. But we should be willing to allow ourselves the subtlest possible metaphysical underpinnings, even while we utilize a much cruder working conceptual apparatus. But I digress! (as usual). The point is that the playing field of public discourse, which is ostensibly neutral, is in fact biased to begin with. So the left understandably seethes in frustration that "free speech" ends up meaning the "voluntary" reproduction of the prevalent ideology, and in its frustration fights hard to gain ground against that process. It is the marginalized nature of their position which compells them to sometimes overzealously promote it. Various forms of "PC" -of group-think, of dogma, of orthodoxy- have existed in all times and places, because reality is socially constructed, and power influences its construction. So the left has a relatively strong foothold in academe, and tries hard to promote its own group-think in that environment, as a challenge to the more deeply embedded group think of the society in which it is embedded. Having said all that, I have to say that I'm strongly opposed to any effort to counter the constriction of the human mind and spirit (e.g., cultural hegemony) with the constriction of the human mind and spirit (e.g., political correctness). I oppose mandating (though I strongly support suggesting) that students use gender-free language and pc terminology: We canno t _impose_ moral conscousness, we can only nurture it. And we become what we oppose when we try to do other wise ("the ends justify the means"). Furthermore while the left performs a vital service as a too-often-squelched moral voice, -that is, while it raises many of the "right" questions- it either refrains from offering answers at all, or offers really naive and dysfunctional answers. The main reason for this is that the left tends to reduce the world to sets of zero-sum struggles for power, rather than understanding it as sets of variable- sum strategic interactions (simultaneously conflictual and cooperative, with varying emphases), where power plays itself out through cumulative strategic advantage ("the rich get richer"). The implications of this latter view are far different from the implications of the former.... Okay, you've all indulged me long enough! I just felt like chiming in; it seemed like such a lively exchange! I guess I didn't really have much to say, though. Anyway, see you at the Halloween party. steve. harvey@uconnvm From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Mon Oct 11 12:01:17 1993 sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 11 Oct 93 11:58:21 -0700 for fledgist@weber.UCSD.EDU Mon, 11 Oct 93 11:54:02 -0700 for /usr/mail/admin-checkandsend.sh socgrad Date: Mon, 11 Oct 93 14:53 EDT From: "Pamela M Paxton" To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: all of the above for the longest time we talk about nothing and then its three things at once... here is my two cents Chambliss: was it only me or did anybody else feel that Robert Fulgrum (author of All I really need to know I Learned in Kindergarden) actually wrote this? It was pretty inspiring for your run of the mill Soc theory article not that Im knocking it...It was actually quite a relief to read something in those terms - not to mention that it made some very interesting points (which, I believe, were mostly covered by Greg in a quick list) is it PC to compare a social theorist to Robert Fulgrum? is it PC to make fun of PCism? :) and yes, weve already covered the PCs of smiley faces (last year) and determined that although bad in taste, do not usually offended anyone which brings me to... PCism: I want to ground the discussion for a minute by bringing up a current case. A professor at U of Michigan has been accussed of racism and sexism in his graduate student class (anyone heard about this?) This professor claims to just want to challenge his class by asking them to defend their statements with statistics. People have said that he makes the class uncomfortable with his challenges and there have been examples of sexism and racism in his speech. The department originally stopped him from teaching the course and then let him teach it as long as their was another professor teaching another section so students could choose. This professor has been at Michigan for a long time and in some ways I think you could say his career is threatened. I guess the student bringing the charges against him was not in his class and has never met him. She says that she just heard things from friends. What do we do with this situation? I need to admit my bias here in that I took a class from this man while I was an undergraduate and although he is quite gruff and might say -thats a stupid idea- I do not believe he would do so on the basis of gender or race. (One of my areas of interest is gender so you can consider me suitably -sensitive- to these things) Also, the examples of his sexism that I have heard (so far - I may not be operating under full information) seem to be extremely weak. At the same time, do we believe the victem? can the victem be too sensitve? should the victem be the ultimate judge of an offense act? should questions of sensitivity pertain only to particular situations ie. rape, sexual harassment, racial slurs? I apologize if you feel those questions were obvious and took up space. Sorry if this got long but I wanted to take us away from Christmas carols for a second and discuss some serious real world consequences for violations (whether we agree that they are real or not) of PC ideals (codes? suggestions? I dont know the right word here). Closure: Well, I think Ive said about enough for now :) (theres that @&#^$! smiley face again!) Pam Paxton UPAMMP@unc.oit.unc.edu From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Mon Oct 11 12:41:50 1993 sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 11 Oct 93 12:38:54 -0700 for fledgist@weber.UCSD.EDU Mon, 11 Oct 93 12:36:39 -0700 for /usr/mail/admin-checkandsend.sh socgrad Date: Mon, 11 Oct 93 14:28:21 CDT From: C580002@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu To: socgrad@ucsd.edu Subject: Mr. Harvey in response to your note on pc and the left/right.....it is true that knowledge and reality are socially constructed....power, as a dynamic process, is a part of that social construction....it is also true that public discourse is biased....which raises my question???? is not the right just as "overzealous" in framing their arguments and deconstructing the left? historically, we have seen this with the klan, mccarthy/communistic red "scare", etc etc.....the left does provide a "vital service", and that is to keep the scales from tipping too far in one direction by overzealous right wingers....the left does not, i think, reduce the power struggle to zero-sum....this in itself is categorizing and labeling left thinkers ....if everyone walked in the middle of the road, there would never be room to turn around...as for halloween, pc, etc.....i love to dress up but remember (and respect) that for several of my friends, it is a religious holiday.....deej From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Mon Oct 11 13:33:20 1993 sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 11 Oct 93 13:31:13 -0700 for fledgist@weber.UCSD.EDU Mon, 11 Oct 93 13:25:33 -0700 for /usr/mail/admin-checkandsend.sh socgrad Date: Mon, 11 Oct 93 16:25:22 EDT From: Greg_Nagy@MTS.cc.Wayne.edu To: socgrad@ucsd.edu Subject: Pam and Chambliss Pam says something to the effect of: Is it just me or does [Chambliss] remind us of Fulcrum? The Chambliss article is so well written that it is clear. That may seem problematic to those of us who have come to believe the myth that in order for some piece of work to be academically valuable, it must be abstruse. Moreover, as I was reading Chambliss I thought that it would be a great piece of work to give to my students. Not because it is simple, but because it is valuable. Yes, he makes some points that may appear theoretically redundant, but he also presents a unique and compelling empirical (if I may be allowed to use the "e" word here) argument. I found it to be refreshing. As scholars, our task is not to simply mentally masturbate about these things (though it has its place). But rather, we should concentrate on how can we make our concepts appear more real. For the vast majority of my students, "talent" is innate. They truly believe it!! However, this is not to say that the Chambliss article has only pedagogical utility. In fact, many of the self-importanted asses in sociology believe in the myth of talent!! Of course, since I have dabbled in those other worlds, I know just how full of s#@t they can be!! Maybe I am reading in some subtext, because I have become cyber-cognizant of the world from which Pam is from. Quantoid Elitists!!! I am not issuing an ad hominem attack, but rather, considering the possible explanations for any devaluation of Chambliss's work. Hell, for that matter I like number crunching. It has its place... But, Chambliss makes a very good argument for the place of qualitative characteristics of stratification. I will say, in closing, that stating that Chambliss reminds us of Fulcrum and just leaving it at that, truly borders on an ad hominem attack. Rather, it would be more interesting to hear why someone thought Chambliss was trivial or non- sophisticated. Sorry this was so long... Greg P.S. Pam did raise some very interesting questions about U-M. From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Mon Oct 11 18:00:52 1993 sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 11 Oct 93 17:58:41 -0700 for fledgist@weber.UCSD.EDU Mon, 11 Oct 93 17:55:53 -0700 for /usr/mail/admin-checkandsend.sh socgrad Date: Mon, 11 Oct 93 20:55 EDT From: "Pamela M Paxton" To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: Chambliss and Fulgrum To answer Dan Ryan's question (I don't that nifty way to show the original message - which may be a blessing in disguise) The similarity as I saw it was a style and message kind-of thing Maybe I'm the only one but part of my reaction to the piece was to think about running out and doing 'all the little things' thats what I meant by inspiring Robert Fulgrum writes in a similar manner. He would see something (like a swim meet) and end up telling you to make that hard phone call. Thus, Greg, I have to say that either I am very poor at getting my ideas across or you totally misread what I had to say about Chambliss (I fully admit that it could be the former - being an quantoid egoist I may not write very well) by the way, where did you get that idea? Was it from posts of mine last year? Or my post about Star Trek? I honestly did not mean the comment as a trash on Chambliss I think it would be great if more articles were as interesting as The Mundanity... actually, the comment was pretty lighthearted - of all the things in the message, I'm surprised that that's whats gotten the attention... just goes to show - you have to watch what you say... :) Pam Paxton UPAMMP@unc.oit.unc.edu From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Mon Oct 11 19:19:09 1993 sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 11 Oct 93 19:16:02 -0700 for fledgist@weber.UCSD.EDU Mon, 11 Oct 93 19:13:30 -0700 for /usr/mail/admin-checkandsend.sh socgrad VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with RFC822 id 8503; Mon, Date: 11 Oct 1993 20:50:20 CDT From: To: Subject: a lurker becomes active (temporarily?) A few thoughts. Please forgive me if I do not cite previous posts. I am not sure that I accurately remember the name of the poster. PC: I found it interesting that a poster would emphasize the fact that s/he did NOT listen to or read Rush Limbaugh. Would the ideas of this poster be of any less value based on leisure activity? (And I don't listen to or read Larry King). PC seems to be a way of segregating people and ideas. But this segregation seems to be fairly arbitrary. For instance, what offends Montel Williams and David Dinkins may not offend Ted Danson, Whoopi Goldberg, and many others. Unless an act is deemed illegal (such as violent crimes, etc.) the enforcement of any standard of conduct is arbitrary. Any consequences of this enforcement is also, therefore, arbitrary. I was also interested to read that being "leftist" is detrimental to a job search. I had become convinced that being "conservative" was more of a hindrance. Especially since, as another poster stated, many in academia are of a "leftist" slant. Chambliss: Interesting article. Refreshing to read an article that is written using real words. Since the article is theoretical in nature, how far can we generalize the theory? The application to academia is interesting. But can we apply the policies implied by the article to social stratification and class? The article seems to recommend that for a swimmer to reach a new level, the swimmer must do the little things the way that the swimmers at the next level do them. Can I therefore say that for those in the lower classes to be socially mobile, they must do "the little things" the same way that the people in the upper classes do them? How about the policy that all welfare payments be discontinued and that more emphasis be put on working, "family values," etc.? Somehow I don't think that policy recommendation would sit well with most policy makers. So how far can we go with this? Dave From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Mon Oct 11 19:56:31 1993 sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 11 Oct 93 19:52:54 -0700 for fledgist@weber.UCSD.EDU Mon, 11 Oct 93 19:50:59 -0700 for /usr/mail/admin-checkandsend.sh socgrad Subject: Re: a lurker becomes active (temporarily?) To: SSQLHUNT%UIUCVMD.bitnet@vm42.cso.uiuc.edu Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1993 21:50:43 -0500 (CDT) From: "Laura L. Fertwagner" > > A few thoughts. Please forgive me if I do not cite previous posts. I am not > sure that I accurately remember the name of the poster. > > PC: I found it interesting that a poster would emphasize the fact that s/he > did NOT listen to or read Rush Limbaugh. Would the ideas of this poster > be of any less value based on leisure activity? (And I don't listen to or > read Larry King). > > PC seems to be a way of segregating people and ideas. But this > segregation seems to be fairly arbitrary. For instance, what offends > Montel Williams and David Dinkins may not offend Ted Danson, Whoopi > Goldberg, and many others. Unless an act is deemed illegal (such as > violent crimes, etc.) the enforcement of any standard of conduct is > arbitrary. Any consequences of this enforcement is also, therefore, > arbitrary. > > > > > > > > Amen! Anyone happen to watch "Murphy Brown" this evening? Same point different context... Sure "Murphy Brown" isn't exactly academia, but if they get the point, shouldn't we??? Laura From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Mon Oct 11 21:55:05 1993 sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 11 Oct 93 21:53:26 -0700 for fledgist@weber.UCSD.EDU Mon, 11 Oct 93 21:51:11 -0700 for /usr/mail/admin-checkandsend.sh socgrad Subject: Chambliss To: socgrad@ucsd.edu Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1993 23:51:10 -0500 (CDT) From: "Elizabeth H. Schaefer" Okay, socgraders: I have my mustache on, and I'm ready to talk Chambliss. I also brought along some veggi soup to share for those who aren't in costume. To Dave: I thought your questions regarding generalization were on the money. I wouldn't want to see a world filled with clones, everyone doing "little things" to get ahead. Yet, I wonder if there isn't something use- ful in what Chambliss said about goals. Sometimes, people get stuck where they are, because they are looking so far ahead. This goes with academia and with upper mobility. Our concept of economic success is set out in the media in such a way that it becomes easier to regret our lack of it than to make small moves toward lesser goals. How one could pull this into a proposal for policy revision for the underclass is a complex issue, one upon which I am not able to comment. Chambliss' article is nice and neat. It does generalize well to academia, but it is more difficult to place its relevance on a larger scale. We didn't get to see what these swimmers compromised to reach their goals. We were given one part of their lives, their occupation so to speak, in which they were successful. Theoretically, there seems to be solid grounds for Chambliss' discussion of "talent" and for qualitative vs. quantitative differences. However, beyond that the application seems limited. I find the article useful in a "self-help" sort of way. Sappy, but true! It was well written, thought provoking, and practical. I say, chalk one up to the ethnographer! And, to Laura (my friend): I can't believe you have time to watch tv! Excellence to all! Elizabeth From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Tue Oct 12 06:13:38 1993 sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 12 Oct 93 06:12:01 -0700 for fledgist@weber.UCSD.EDU Tue, 12 Oct 93 06:09:48 -0700 for /usr/mail/admin-checkandsend.sh socgrad X-Nupop-Charset: English Date: Tue, 12 Oct 93 08:05:51 CST From: Dave.L.Brunsma.1@nd.edu Mmdf-Warning: Parse error in original version of preceding line at nd.edu To: socgrad@ucsd.edu Subject: Oh No Its - Perot! Hey all... I have a presentation coming up. I was wondering if anybody can remember any of Ross Perot's great cliches, anecdotes, sappy one-liners, you know what I mean. Any ones which anyone can remember let me know. David.L.Brunsma.1@nd.edu From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Tue Oct 12 06:34:43 1993 sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 12 Oct 93 06:32:23 -0700 for fledgist@weber.UCSD.EDU Tue, 12 Oct 93 06:30:33 -0700 for /usr/mail/admin-checkandsend.sh socgrad Date: Tue, 12 Oct 93 09:20:18 EST From: Steve Harvey To: socgrad@ucsd.edu Hi, fellow ghouls! (Okay, so maybe I'm a bit early for the Halloween spirit, but we pagans have to make hay while the moon shines!) One quick comment on Dave's posting: Why are laws less arbitrary than norms (or, to avoid "framing effects" in the way the question is worded, why are norms less legitimate expressions of social control than laws?)? Steve "sitting-in-the-pumpkin-patch-waiting-for-the-great-pumpkin" Harvey harvey@uconnvm From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Tue Oct 12 11:36:51 1993 sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 12 Oct 93 11:32:02 -0700 for fledgist@weber.UCSD.EDU Tue, 12 Oct 93 11:24:38 -0700 for /usr/mail/admin-checkandsend.sh socgrad Subject: Re: a lurker becomes active (temporarily?) To: dscott@kean.ucs.mun.ca Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1993 13:24:33 -0500 (CDT) From: "Laura L. Fertwagner" > > I'm always amazed at the degrees of attention Americans give to show business > personalities. In spite of the obvious superficiality and marketing > techniques these individuals demonstrate, you still try to link them with > academic concerns. I've even seen claims on this network that the motion > picture is part of American culture -- boy, what a culture you must possess. > > If the motion picture is not a part of American culture, what is? How, exactly, do you define culture? As sociologists, anything that has an impact on society (I believe "motion pictures" do so) is worthy of our attention. As I see it, insular thinking that completely discounts a portion of our CULTURE is invalid. By the way, are you even remotely aware of what the show ("Murphy Brown") was about last evening? Or are you attacking my point without even _understanding_ what I said?? FYI (no pun intended), the point of the show was that we tend to get a little carried away with being politically correct. Basically, the theme of the show was that we may have crossed the line from the ridiculous into the sublime. Judging by _some_ of what I've read on socgrad lately, the writers of "Murphy Brown" just might have a point. Whether or not you want to consider television a part of American culture is your business; I can't see how you couldn't. (and would love to hear your rationale) Before I am misunderstood, I agree that the personas and marketing techniques of the motion picture industry could be labelled superficial. However, their effects on our society are anything but. Denying that they are a part of our culture, is another issue. Laura P.S. To Beth: I DON'T have time to watch TV; it happened to be on while I was grading a test. OH, the life of leisure!!! Peace... From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Tue Oct 12 12:36:31 1993 sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 12 Oct 93 12:20:02 -0700 for fledgist@weber.UCSD.EDU Tue, 12 Oct 93 12:11:31 -0700 for /usr/mail/admin-checkandsend.sh socgrad VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with RFC822 id 3643; Tue, Date: 12 Oct 1993 13:21:19 CDT From: To: Subject: Response to Steve's Question From: Steve Harvey To: socgrad@ucsd.edu Hi, fellow ghouls! (Okay, so maybe I'm a bit early for the Halloween spirit, but we pagans have to make hay while the moon shines!) One quick comment on Dave's posting: Why are laws less arbitrary than norms (or, to avoid "framing effects" in the way the question is worded, why are norms less legitimate expressions of social control than laws?)? Steve "sitting-in-the-pumpkin-patch-waiting-for-the-great-pumpkin" Harvey harvey@uconnvm Dave: Laws themselves are not necessarily more arbitrary than norms, but in most cases the enforcement of laws is less arbitrary than the enforcement of norms. The danger enters in when the enforcement of norms begins to resemble the enforcement of laws. For example, a sportscaster losing his/her job because of insensitive comments. From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Tue Oct 12 14:28:34 1993 sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 12 Oct 93 14:21:07 -0700 for fledgist@weber.UCSD.EDU Tue, 12 Oct 93 14:15:01 -0700 for /usr/mail/admin-checkandsend.sh socgrad Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1993 17:10:19 -0400 (EDT) From: Mauricio Cardenas Subject: Latin American labor To: socgrad@ucsd.edu Anybody interested in Latin American union labor issues ? I am currently doing research on the Colombian union movement response to contemporary industrial restructuring and economic liberalization policies. I'd be glad to share findings and views with other Latinamericanists. Mauricio Cardenas Research Associate Center for Latin American Studies University of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh, PA 15260 (412)648-7392 Fax: (412)648-2199 E-mail: macarden+@pitt.edu From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Tue Oct 12 18:23:45 1993 sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 12 Oct 93 18:19:39 -0700 for fledgist@weber.UCSD.EDU Tue, 12 Oct 93 18:14:53 -0700 for /usr/mail/admin-checkandsend.sh socgrad Date: Tue, 12 Oct 93 20:29:20 EST From: Steve Harvey Subject: response to dave's response to steve's response to dave's response ... To: socgrad@ucsd.edu Okay, admittedly, the subject heading suggests that this might more appropriate ly appear off-list, in a message directly to Dave. But, since I think it's an interesting little issue, and hope to draw others in, I'm keeping the discus- sion in the public forum. Dave answered my question about what makes norms more arbitrary than laws (or what makes laws more legitimate than norms) by suggest- ing that there is something odious about norms being enforced like laws. But WHAT IS a law, if not simply a norm enforced like a law? This is not to suggest that there is never anything odious about "a norm being enforced like a law," that is, in the existence and enforcement of a given law. Certainly, it is not by some benign collective will that laws are formed. It is a political process, and reflects outcomes of ongoing conflictual/cooperative interaction among un- equally empowered actors. Similarly, norms emerge in response to "regulatory interests," which reflect the conflictual/cooperative interaction of unequally empowered actors. And ALL norms are enforced, with varying intensity; not just the kind that Dave considers odious. Norms (like laws) are not merely oppressiv e intrusions on our individual liberties, nor merely vehicles for the exploita- tion of some groups by others; they are also the means of collective action for mutual benefit. And the informal sanctions by which norms are enforced are no less real than the formal sanctions by which laws are enforced. The reason why I'm belaboring the point is to demonstrate that there is nothing "clean" about the way in which we establish the rules of our coexistence. And arguing that, "if only norms were never enforced as though they were laws, all would be well" misses the real dynamics underwriting instances of "overcontrol." The "problem" is subtler than that, less easily separated from the "solution" than we usually admit, and almost impossible to surgically remove. Steve "still-waiting-for-the-great-pumpkin" Harvey harvey@uconnvm From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Wed Oct 13 09:36:14 1993 sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 13 Oct 93 09:22:48 -0700 for fledgist@weber.UCSD.EDU Wed, 13 Oct 93 09:18:58 -0700 for /usr/mail/admin-checkandsend.sh socgrad Date: Wed, 13 Oct 93 10:24:43 CDT From: C580002@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu To: socgrad@ucsd.edu Subject: laws and norms i agree with steve but would like to underscore a few points.... norms are enforced both formally and informally and one could argue that they wouldn't be expected norms if there were not sanctions. the making of laws does indeed mean political process, but the process does not stop at that point.....laws are "enforced" by varying degrees in different communities (ie prostitution laws). another example is the rockefeller law that **was** passed in new york some years back....rock (as governor) pushed the law that required mandatory life sentences for persons convicted of drug crimes.....the police didn't like the law because a "criminal" could get less time for killing a cop than being busted for drugs (and what is the obvious solution if you are desparate and looking at 15 years for killing a cop vs. life with no parole for cocaine traffic?)....the judges didn't like the law because it clogged up an already messy court system. ....prosecutors and defense attornies alike didn't like the law because there was nothing to plea bargain with...subsequently, the law was not "enforced".....laws are policy statements and as such are written, but their codification into community life is a different matter altogether....laws are negotiated and then re-negotiated once passed.....deej at mizzou From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Wed Oct 13 11:59:53 1993 sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 13 Oct 93 11:57:06 -0700 for fledgist@weber.UCSD.EDU Wed, 13 Oct 93 11:50:35 -0700 for /usr/mail/admin-checkandsend.sh socgrad Date: Wed, 13 Oct 93 14:50 EDT From: "Pamela M Paxton" To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: nobel prize did anyone note that one of the winners of the nobel prize in economics has written a book with the thesis that the United States became a great industrial power not through major things such as the development of railroads but through a great number of LITTLE THINGS all adding together... DISCLAIMER: This note should not be regarded in any way as a deep review of the Chambliss article. It is simply an interesting tidbit of information. additionally, I do not wish to waste more space on socgrad discussing my post about Fulgrum. I do hope, however, that no one will believe that I am a sociologist who in any way believes that that there is no benefit to qualititative research. That information about my 'character' is coming from an individual who has never met me nor read any of my work. Pam Paxton 'equal-opportunity methodologist' UPAMMP@unc.oit.unc.edu From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Wed Oct 13 19:15:43 1993 sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 13 Oct 93 19:10:48 -0700 for fledgist@weber.UCSD.EDU Wed, 13 Oct 93 19:05:30 -0700 for /usr/mail/admin-checkandsend.sh socgrad Date: Wed, 13 Oct 93 21:47:08 EDT From: DANRYAN@YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU Organization: Yale University Subject: What makes MofE so good, anyway? To: socgrad@ucsd.edu Greetings, Pals -- Sorry I've been so quiet so far on this discussion -- it's been one of those weeks.... Seems to me like we've heard lots of positive evaluations, so I'd like to make a request -- in the spirit of the article, actually. Here goes. OK, so you liked the article, you thought it was well done, that we might like to see more like it, or it's great to see such a ... for a change. Well, what, in very concrete terms was good about it? My challenge to each of us is to take a look at the paper and to clearly articulate something that he does in the that makes it good. I'm looking not for something like "it's well written," but rather, something like "each paragraph really has a topic sentence that makes a statement" or "the paper passes the "so what?" test, that is to say..." The point is that the things you cite have to be things that one can do. Why do I make such a request? I wonder to myself what sorts of concrete things I might do when I'm writing a paper that will help me to produce "excellent" papers. Make sense? If so, let's here what you notice about this paper that makes it good. You can reply privately if you want and I'll post a list of observations. Whacky as always, Dan From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Wed Oct 13 19:29:46 1993 sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 13 Oct 93 19:26:39 -0700 for fledgist@weber.UCSD.EDU Wed, 13 Oct 93 19:24:41 -0700 for /usr/mail/admin-checkandsend.sh socgrad Date: Wed, 13 Oct 93 22:16:09 EDT From: DANRYAN@YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU Organization: Yale University Subject: What's good about your department? To: socgrad@ucsd.edu Hi again -- I'm running a little brainstorming session next week as a first step in putting together a whitepaper on things we might do to make ours one of the best places to get a PhD in sociology. Meanwhile, I need your help. Are there things that you or they do in your department that make it a good place to learn to be a sociologist? Maybe it's the way you're "forced" to have research opportunities from the beginning, or maybe it's how you have this weekly departmental seminar, or maybe it's the Friday afternoon coffee hours, or perhaps it's the fact that everyone gets equal funding, or that everyone takes the same courses first year, or maybe there are no required courses, or.... My goal here is to compile a list of "best practices" -- so that we can jump start our imaginations and overcome the limitation that this for most of us the only department we've ever been in. Thanks in advance for your ideas. Dan From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Wed Oct 13 23:31:20 1993 sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 13 Oct 93 23:29:23 -0700 for fledgist@weber.UCSD.EDU Wed, 13 Oct 93 23:28:19 -0700 for /usr/mail/admin-checkandsend.sh socgrad From: Melissa R Herman Subject: Dan's "best request" To: socgrad@ucsd.edu (socgrad network) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1993 23:28:14 -0700 (PDT) I don't think there is a set of "best" practices or ways of doing things. If there were a best way, it would be best for all of us and we would have discovered it long ago. However, I'm interested in contributing one of the things I like about my department: Currently, everyone who is accepted is funded for his/her first year and most likely in subsequent years. Furthermore, everyone is funded at the same level (dollar amount). I think this is important becasue it eliminates the invidious initial distinctions between the "superbrains" and the "other poor slobs" who have to pay their own way. In many cases these distinctions become covertly clear in time, but at least we start with a semblance of equality. -- Melissa Herman manoki@leland.stanford.edu Department of Sociology Stanford University From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Wed Oct 13 23:58:40 1993 sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 13 Oct 93 23:57:05 -0700 for fledgist@weber.UCSD.EDU Wed, 13 Oct 93 23:55:51 -0700 for /usr/mail/admin-checkandsend.sh socgrad To: socgrad@ucsd.edu Subject: UNLV Soc Dept Date: Wed, 13 Oct 93 23:55:48 -0700 From: neese@nevada.edu q Dan and colleagues - Thoughts from a first year grad student/teaching assistant: Many of our Soc MA and Ph.D. students are in the same classes this semester; Advanced data analysis, Theory, etc. We were able to have one long Sunday study group and study for two exams. I was a positive learning experience. We tossed about ideas, discussed concepts deeper than we would have ordinarily, felt comfortable asking "stupid question, etc. We have a nice core of first year grad students who have been mercifully taken under the wings of the "old pros". They've done everything from help us run SPSS-X programs to get us drunk. My point is that a sense of community and camaraderie (much like socgrad gives us) is nice as a newcomer to the grad school life. Hope this has been helpful. In honor of the upcoming (non?) holiday, in conjunction with my birthday the day before, I will be attending in -- what else -- my birthday suit! Denise P.S. To Steve Harvey: the Great Pumpkin has been trying to reach you, get in totouch. From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Thu Oct 14 07:35:06 1993 sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 14 Oct 93 07:26:26 -0700 for fledgist@weber.UCSD.EDU Thu, 14 Oct 93 07:17:02 -0700 for /usr/mail/admin-checkandsend.sh socgrad From: dchambli@itsmail1.hamilton.edu (Daniel Chambliss) Subject: Mundanity comments To: socgrad@ucsd.edu Date: Thu, 14 Oct 93 10:13:43 EDT Hello grad students, Forgive my intrusion, but I was told recently that some of you were discussing an article I wrote a couple of years ago on "The Mundanity of Excellence," so I thought I'd look in an perhaps comment.The article has gotten around some, and has been used in courses at a good number of departments, including Washington, Columbia, Yale, Wisconsin, Northwestern, etc etc, so maybe there's some good to speaking directly to grad students' questions about it. First, if you'd like a copy of it that includes a "comment" and "Reply" that were also published in Soc. Theory, just tell me and I'll send it. Second, some reactions: 1) Lots of folks see the "little things are crucial" business as the central message. It is, but the little things must be qualitatively better. Attention to detail only helps if you're working on the right details, not silly stuff. Just being obsessive about commas won't help your writing, e.g. 2) Elizabeth Schaefer asks good questions, e.g., what is compromised in achieving excellence? What do great athletes give up, in other words, to become great? I think the answer is, Les than we imagine. There are big gains, in ways that most folks don't perceive, in thier social lives, their phsyical energy level, even their intellectual activities. They give up the "regular teenage life," but for many teens that includes boring school programs, lots of television, and continuous worrying about where the next date will come from. World-class athletes don't deal with a lot of those problems. Our usual assumption is that their are great sacrifices to being excellenct; I disagree, although we could argue this more. She also suggests that the application is limited. Maybe, but I don't see how. Even in the "hard" case of social stratification (i.e.,. occupation, income, etc.) the cultural distinctions between classes are, if described carefully, a complex of "doable" activities; nothing special there. First teachers are crucial... 3) Final thought: yes, it's important to break longterm projects into rewardable, shorterm goals. That's key. No one ever wrote a book, folks; they wrote three pages one day, three pages the next day... etc... Thanks for the attention. Let me know if you have other thoughts. yours, Dan Chambliss From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Thu Oct 14 10:13:46 1993 sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 14 Oct 93 10:10:41 -0700 for fledgist@weber.UCSD.EDU Thu, 14 Oct 93 10:08:50 -0700 for /usr/mail/admin-checkandsend.sh socgrad Subject: Chambliss To: socgrad@ucsd.edu Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1993 12:08:48 -0500 (CDT) From: "Elizabeth H. Schaefer" To Mr. Chambliss and fellow Socgrads: I'm so glad you decided to jump into this coversation. Your presence should serve to push our debate/discussion to a new level. In the particular case of swimmers, I believe the level of compromise is likely small. The question I was trying to raise deals with the complexity of the implications of your article. Specifically, one post made the quantum leap to stratification. I don't think I have to say what a complex topic this is. I believe we could use your analysis to search for the qualitative differences between classes, however we are obligated to also deal with life-chances, etc. You have addressed the importance of capital, location, supportive parents in the section on talent almost as if to disarm the reader. Perhaps an expansion on the place of these ingredients would provide the tools for a broader application of your concepts. You mentioned the importance of teachers. I was thinking, as I was leaping into the implications for public policy, that we might look at social workers to see what kind of goals they set for their clients. Herein, we might be able to lessen the sense of anomie felt by the underclass. Can you expand on other types of "teachers" who might play important qualitative roles. Another topic which stifled me dealt with motivation and commitment. You demystify "talent", but one must practice these qualitative techniques regularly in order to reach/remain in a higher level. Why are these people motivated? Why are they committed? I look forward to your comments, but that's all for now. Best Wishes, Elizabeth From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Thu Oct 14 12:35:25 1993 sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 14 Oct 93 12:32:41 -0700 for fledgist@weber.UCSD.EDU Thu, 14 Oct 93 12:29:26 -0700 for /usr/mail/admin-checkandsend.sh socgrad via Charon-4.0A-VROOM with IPX id 100.931014152747.672; To: socgrad@ucsd.edu From: S-ENDER@bss1.umd.edu Date: 14 Oct 93 15:27:45 EDT Subject: teaching portfolio on the subject of departmental white-papers and what makes departments strong: does anyone have some ideas on what should go into a teaching portfolio (besides university designed evaluations)? i know certified teachers have teaching placement files...what do they include? i would appreciate some feedback? morten ender From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Fri Oct 15 21:35:26 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 15 Oct 1993 21:33:11 -0700 for socgrad-list Fri, 15 Oct 1993 21:32:28 -0700 for From: LEE@cati.umd.edu via Charon-4.0A-VROOM with IPX id 100.931016003041.416; To: socgrad@ucsd.edu Date: 16 Oct 93 00:26:17 EDT Subject: politically correct bullshit Laura Miller said a lot. A dear friend of mine, educated as a social worker and a lawyer, who has long hung around with various groups of feminists tells the story that the "PC" label was co-oped by radical statists and Rush Limbaugh types only after they saw that some in the enemy group was taking themselves too seriously with their own jokes. However, I take the stance that if this was so, or however it happened, the "PC" label became a convenient and effective verbal missle to fire into the cultural atmosphere as a weapon of the status quo business/mainstream political community to quell the dangerous democratic rousings of anybody who might challenge the power structure in the grand ole US of America. The most important use of this epithet was meant not for the "left" crowd but for the mainstream who might have affinities with these ideas/sentiments. The "PC" label was always meant primarily to cow these mid-steam politically aware. PC really means what is appropriate in the realm of global realpolitik, that is economically and geopolitically correct in the world of "reality". Who wants to be idealistic anyway?...Even if that means caring about other people over and above nationality, class, relative exposure to pesticides, gender, sexual preference, eating habits, dress code, and (non-)religious avocation. So on and on. Don't buck the system or it'll buck you----that's the PC message. It's a message of intimidation. Read Noam Chomsky for further elaboration. Cheers, Lee From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Sat Oct 16 20:39:16 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Sat, 16 Oct 1993 20:37:13 -0700 for socgrad-list Sat, 16 Oct 1993 20:36:33 -0700 for by weber.ucsd.edu (8.6.2/UCSDGENERIC.4c) on ttyv4 Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1993 20:36:31 -0700 From: lmiller@weber.UCSD.EDU (Laura Miller) To: socgrad@ucsd.edu Subject: gopher class NAVIGATING THE INTERNET: LET'S GO GOPHERIN' Richard J. Smith and Jim Gerland "Navigating the Internet: Let's go Gopherin'" is a two or three week, electronic mail, distance education course that will introduce the new and intermediate user of the Internet to the popular navigating tool--Gopher. The Internet Gopher, developed by the University of Minnesota, is a navigating tool that incorporates basic Internet services into one easy-to-use program. File transfer and remote login are simplified by Gopher; Gopher knows the remote machines' Internet addresses, thus relieving the user of the tedious chore of remembering and entering the sometimes encryptic Internet addressing schemes. This course will last for two or three weeks and will cover the basic connections to a Gopher, look at selected Gopher sites, create Gopher "bookmarks", and search "Gopherspace" with the help of the powerful program--Veronica. Information on different types of Gopher clients that are available and their primary differences will be explained, and installation and maintenance of a Gopher client and server will conclude the course. The course will consist of e-mail instructions and illustrations that can be read and followed, or participants can save the information to read at their own pace and location. Dates: October 18, 1993 through the beginning of November. Costs: Free To register for "Navigating the Internet: Let's go Gopherin'" sign up to the list gophern by sending an e-mail message to the listserv: listserv@ubvm.cc.buffalo.edu In the body of the e-mail message enter: subscribe gophern Yourfirstname Yourlastname This will automatically register you for the course. (Note the missing "i and g" in gophering) This course is intended for new, novice or intermediate Internet users. You should be able to read and use your e-mail. Those on Internet services who do not have full Internet access may not receive all the benefits of the course. Also note that there will probably be more than 100 e-mail messages of varying lengths. Please consider your disk space and any e-mail costs before registering for the course. Richard J. Smith smithr@clp2.clpgh.org The Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh Jim Gerland gerland@ubvm.cc.buffalo.edu State University of New York at Buffalo Academic Services, Computing and Information Technology Manager, Network User Support Services From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Sun Oct 17 07:29:17 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Sun, 17 Oct 1993 07:28:25 -0700 for socgrad-list Sun, 17 Oct 1993 07:27:41 -0700 for Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1993 10:27:36 -0400 To: socgrad@ucsd.edu From: pmj1@cornell.edu (Pamela Jull) unsubscribe. From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Sun Oct 17 08:37:05 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Sun, 17 Oct 1993 08:34:40 -0700 for socgrad-list Sun, 17 Oct 1993 08:34:01 -0700 for Date: Sun, 17 Oct 93 11:18:32 EDT From: Dan Organization: Yale University Subject: Neurons and Sociology (medium long post) To: socgrad@ucsd.edu Dear Fellow Socgradders -- Things being so unnaturally quiet, I thought I'd make some small talk. Weather is lousy here....oh, and I heard an interesting talk titled "Philosophy, Psychiatry and Neuroscience: Three Approaches to the Mind" yesterday at the Society for Philosophy and Psychiatry by Ed Hundert of Harvard Med School. Intelligence and Neurophysiology. Made the interesting point that current trend is to transcend the argument between whether world out here structures the world in there or vice versa, and to move toward looking at the way in which there is a dialectic of sorts between how things contribute to thoughts and thoughts to things. [Not that the whole lecture can be reduced to this, but a subtext in the whole thing was the "break down disciplinary boundaries" message.] Here's a picture of the whole thing: What contributes Psychology to what Philosophy Cognitive Emotional Neuroscience ==================================================================== thoughts->things Kant *assimilation Freud Neuroanatomy** things->thoughts Hegel *accomdation Object Neuroplasticity*** Relations *Piaget **What parts of the brain control what... ***Some of brain's wiring is in response to the world. It's an admittedly oversimplification of lots of ideas, but it gives an idea of one way to see all these different approaches to mind as complementary rather than competing. He finished by trying to push on in a surprising direction -- sociology (though he didn't, of course, call it that), suggesting that we are "starting" to understand that 1) thoughts contribute to things in another way, namely, by making them happen (e.g., objects all around us are artifacts of things that someone once thought about (didn't some guy in the 19th century make a similar point?). 2) The "things" in the world are not just the products of individuals, but often of lots of others -- and then he went on to say that this thoughts <-> things dynamic shows up in relations between values and social practices (I vaguely remember this coming up before too). Good to know that they are catching on, but disturbing that this will be marketed as a discovery of medical men, grants will be awarded to folks with fancy machines and Nobel prize eligibility and more sociology departments will be closed as it is realized that what we do is done elsewhere. Hmmmmmm. From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Sun Oct 17 10:58:23 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Sun, 17 Oct 1993 10:57:22 -0700 for socgrad-list Sun, 17 Oct 1993 10:56:42 -0700 for Subject: Causality in Crisis To: socgrad@ucsd.edu Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1993 12:56:35 -0500 (CDT) From: "Elizabeth H. Schaefer" Greetings from South Bend, Since we're on the subject of conferences, I wanted to ask for some reaction to the "Causality in Crisis" conference we held at Notre Dame this weekend. Clifford Clogg (Penn State) and Stanley Lieberson (Harvard) both had some interesting things to say about quantitative methods in the social sciences. Stan specifically critiqued the following methods: False Variance Model, because it distorted data; Mill's comparative small sample method, because of it's impossible assumptions (ie every category will match with perfection or we through out the proposition); and Event History Analysis, because we can't possibly know which elements led to the event. His conclusion is that we are obligated to deal only with probability equations when working with small "N" data. Cliff gave a talk about regression, warning that we must consider its assumptions before using it to denote causality. He suggested, first, that improvements are required in the areas of consistent language regarding our statistics, the relationship between our theory and methods, realizing the assumptions of our statistics before applying them to our data, and the process of data collection as a whole. He defends the social sciences for asking the right questions, but he questions whether we are using proper methods to find the answers. Secondly, he suggests the tough reality that chi square, t-tests, and other non-parametric tests tell us very little about beta1 and beta2. Regression is a good measure for predictablity, but it can't be used to measure causality. There was, also, Alexander Rosenberg (Philosophy, U of CA Riverside), who claimed that if we aren't using social science to create public policy, then the federal government is wasting its money on us. This comment raised considerable reaction from the sociologists. What do you think? Any reactions, please post to socgrad. Regarding the conference you attended, Dan, did you suggest to these people that they are reinventing the wheel? Are they actually trying to write new theory about these relationships? From the model you presented, it looks like neuro-psychology was the bottom line. How involved was this? Thanks for the update. Peace, Elizabeth From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Sun Oct 17 12:08:59 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Sun, 17 Oct 1993 12:07:57 -0700 for socgrad-list Sun, 17 Oct 1993 12:07:12 -0700 for Date: Sun, 17 Oct 93 14:49:53 EDT From: Dan Organization: Yale University Subject: (Neuroscience and Sociology) Did I tell them...? To: On Sunday 17 October, our correspondent in South Bend asked: >Regarding the conference you attended, Dan, did you suggest to these people >that they are reinventing the wheel? Are they actually trying to write new >theory about these relationships? Unfortunately, it was a very nice day out (an exception these days) and so I left before the discussion and I didn't attend the potluck that followed. So much for being a serious intellectual. I spent the rest of the afternoon in the sun and then went shopping! >From the model you presented, it looks like neuro-psychology was the bottom >line. Actually, the speaker's intention was to show that neuroscience could benefit by realizing that these questions have been thought about before by philosophers, psychologists and others (and vice versa, since most of the audience were in those groups). He was, however, quite impressed by the fact that the beauty of it all was that new developments meant that we could really "test" these ideas now. I think it's pretty important for folks in our generation to stay in touch with these people and these developments or we -- as sociologists -- will end up being forced into obselescence in the area of the individual just as has been "attempted" at the other other of the scale by economics. Of course, we have a lot to offer at both ends, but WE need to grasp the big picture including who else is out there selling answers to the same questions we're asking and to be able to make a sound and persuasive case as to what we have to add to the picture (and, of course, to strive to produce more knowledge that does add to the picture). Cheers, Dan From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Sun Oct 17 12:22:47 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Sun, 17 Oct 1993 12:21:43 -0700 for socgrad-list Sun, 17 Oct 1993 12:21:20 -0700 for Date: Sun, 17 Oct 93 15:07:16 EST From: Alan Subject: Causality in Crisis To: list It is my understanding that the reason that "causality is in crisis", as it has been at least since Lieberson's Making it Count is because we as social scientists may be asking the right questions, but we aren't specifying what kinds of causal relationships may be existent and how they differ from other causal relationships which could be argued to also exist. Instead, we (not all social scientists but obviously some number if you see some of what even gets into our better journals) wait for our regression runs to specify what possible causal relationships exist without any grounded understanding on the part of the researcher with respect to the variables they are dealing with and the meaning of the relationships they are specifying. If one focuses, for instance, on research in intermarriage between religious groups, it isn't enough to just focus on the fact that group A associates with group B, an d this produces intermarriage. We need to draw the line one step before: are there any variables which could be argued to explain the probability that group A will associate with group B. The probability that the researcher will discover these variables through their regression runs without any knowl edge of the social patterns of group A and group B, and the meanings to be attached to group A and group B intermingling is about as great as a meteor hitting Earth tomorrow. Causality in crisis because it is being used, as many methods are to tell researchers things methods without theory cannot tell. From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Sun Oct 17 12:29:24 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Sun, 17 Oct 1993 12:27:58 -0700 for socgrad-list Sun, 17 Oct 1993 12:27:35 -0700 for From: khaskin@merle.acns.nwu.edu Subject: other disciplines To: socgrad@ucsd.edu Date: Sun, 17 Oct 93 14:27:33 CDT I agree with Dan's last posting, that we need to be informed about what other disciplines are saying. I am part of an inter-disciplinary program which forces me to spend more time with economists and psychologists than most sociologists do. I was also required to take a couple basic courses in economics. This made a great difference in my understanding of other disciplines, their core assumptions, etc. I can now read papers that I could not read before and respond to them intelligently. It has not changed my point of view--I still think that economics is a very flawed field. But now when I say that, I am not just going on my gut reaction. I have information to back up the statement. So that brings me to a second point. We need a lot more interdisciplinary contact. We should not be in a situation where publishing articles in anthropology or economics journals would call into question your "seriousness" as a sociologist. What do you think? Karen Haskin Northwestern University k-haskin@nwu.edu From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Sun Oct 17 12:54:44 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Sun, 17 Oct 1993 12:52:55 -0700 for socgrad-list Sun, 17 Oct 1993 12:52:28 -0700 for Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1993 15:55:02 -0400 (EDT) From: "Del Rounds, (803) 953-5072, 953-5066" Subject: Today's (Sunday) Postings To: socgrad@ucsd.edu There are three comments I must make today in regard to Davidson's, and Haskin's & Ryan's postings. Davidson's Posting: Your message illustrates why theory is so widely neglected in Sociology today: 1.) Theory doesn't often get published; statistics do 2.) Without theory, though, we often get wrong answers 3.) Over emphasis on statistics might very well be the beginning of Sociology's demise Haskin's and Ryan's Postings (collectively): 1.) Some of these disciplines (being so new) are encouraging theory development 2.) The statistical techniques these disciplines are using are what so many in the public are in awe of 3.) Because of the above the growth of some of these disciplines is nearly assured--especially when the public respects these disciplines because these disciplines (and their techniques) seem so very "scientific" I guess that is probably more than three comments...but I had to get it out. In sum, you could say I'm in agreement with the postings today--but, upset that Sociology isn't more respected, upset that theory doesn't get published, upset that qualitative research is ignored, upset that statistics and statistical-manipulation is "where its at," and upset that the weather here sucks :) !!! Have a good day, Del. From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Sun Oct 17 15:12:49 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Sun, 17 Oct 1993 15:11:29 -0700 for socgrad-list Sun, 17 Oct 1993 15:10:51 -0700 for Subject: stats w/out theory To: socgrad@ucsd.edu Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1993 17:10:48 -0500 (CDT) From: "Elizabeth H. Schaefer" Back from South Bend, In response to Allen and Del, I am in agreement with you regarding the need for theoretical assmptions as a guide for our statistics. But you wouldn't beleive what these mathmatical philosophers were suggesting. A la Glymore, they were suggesting that theory gets in the way of our statistical research. Supposedly, they have invented an algorithm which will tell us what the causes of a given event are, independent of any theory. I think we can dismiss this suggestion, but it goes to show the importance of keeping up on these things. One professor, maybe Lieberson, bowed to the philosophers and called sociolgy the "worm of the sciences". This was likely a rhetorical device, but I find it sad that we are viewed in this way. I would encourage sociologists to publish their work in a variety of journals, and I wasn't aware that a stigma was attached to that. How can we hope to be respected if we keep our ideas within our own enclave? My understanding is that there are numerous opportunities to present work within interdisciplinary circles; we not only have things to contribute, but things to learn as well. Cheers, Elizabeth From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Sun Oct 17 15:15:55 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Sun, 17 Oct 1993 15:14:31 -0700 for socgrad-list Sun, 17 Oct 1993 15:13:57 -0700 for Subject: Rosenberg (fwd) To: socgrad@ucsd.edu Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1993 17:13:55 -0500 (CDT) From: "Elizabeth H. Schaefer" Forwarded message: > From Greg_Nagy@MTS.cc.Wayne.edu Sun Oct 17 13:18:48 1993 > Date: Sun, 17 Oct 93 14:17:36 EDT > From: Greg_Nagy@MTS.cc.Wayne.edu > To: eschaefe > Message-Id: <774977@MTS.cc.Wayne.edu> > Subject: Rosenberg To Socgrad: I just thought people might like to get in on this discussion, too. > > I think Rosenberg should go back to his philosophy deparment in CA. His > whole argument is predicated on the assumption that the current system > of policy administration is basically O.K. And that -now I'm reading > in some sub-text- only philosphers could objectively verify or negate > the value of our S.O.P.A.. I am not suggesting that as sociologists > we should all work outside of the system, but rather, that by simply > allocating funds to those researchers who will always give us what we > want, we will often only be contributing to many social problems instead > of addressing them... On the other hand, this is not to say that > everyone should get the same amount of funding. Clearly, there needs > to be some regulatory mechanism in terms of funding... I just don't > want some petty bureaucrat holding the purse strings... > > I enjoyed your post! > > Take Care, > Greg > From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Mon Oct 18 05:20:58 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 18 Oct 1993 05:19:12 -0700 for socgrad-list Mon, 18 Oct 1993 05:18:39 -0700 for Date: Mon, 18 Oct 93 08:19 EDT From: Subject: G.G. Allin To: socgrad@ucsd.edu Several months ago during a discussion on culture, it was stated that G.G. Allin was dead. I was shocked, suprised, and yes, in a state of disbelief. Someone kindly wrote back saying that he/she was not entirely sure, but was fairly certain that Allin was dead. G.G. Allin is indeed dead. According to a review of a movie about G.G. Allin, he died last June of a heroin overdose. I've spaced the name of the movie, but the headline was (parapharase) A wasted film about a wasted life. Jetaway (Culture Vulture) Dave From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Mon Oct 18 06:33:12 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 18 Oct 1993 06:31:47 -0700 for socgrad-list Mon, 18 Oct 1993 06:31:07 -0700 for From: S-PAM@bss1.umd.edu via Charon-4.0A-VROOM with IPX id 100.931018092919.416; To: socgrad@ucsd.edu Date: 18 Oct 93 09:29:15 EDT Subject: unsubscribing unsubscribe. From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Mon Oct 18 06:46:33 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 18 Oct 1993 06:44:29 -0700 for socgrad-list Mon, 18 Oct 1993 06:43:54 -0700 for Subject: unsubcribe To: socgrad@ucsd.edu Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1993 08:43:51 -0500 (CDT) From: Drew Regan unsubcribe please From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Mon Oct 18 07:28:07 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 18 Oct 1993 07:26:39 -0700 for socgrad-list Mon, 18 Oct 1993 07:26:07 -0700 for From: winston@epas.utoronto.ca (Nessa Winston) Subject: unsubscribe To: socgrad@ucsd.edu Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1993 10:25:45 -0500 (EDT) unsubscribe. From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Mon Oct 18 10:59:35 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 18 Oct 1993 10:57:37 -0700 for socgrad-list Mon, 18 Oct 1993 10:56:15 -0700 for by weber.ucsd.edu (8.6.2/UCSDGENERIC.4c) on ttyv6 Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1993 10:56:09 -0700 From: lmiller@weber.UCSD.EDU (Laura Miller) To: socgrad@ucsd.edu Subject: how to unsubscribe Too much email in your life? If you want to unsubscribe from Socgrad, send a message to: listserv@ucsd.edu (if you're on Internet) or LISTSERV@UCSD.BITNET (if you're on BITNET) and in the body of your message, type: unsub socgrad Remember to send the message to listserv, NOT to Socgrad itself. From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Mon Oct 18 12:47:31 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 18 Oct 1993 12:43:45 -0700 for socgrad-list Mon, 18 Oct 1993 12:40:39 -0700 for Date: Mon, 18 Oct 93 14:45:45 EDT From: Dan Organization: Yale University Subject: Conversation as a Public Good To: socgrad@ucsd.edu Greetings one and all -- I begin in the land of the empirical... I have gotten numerous comments and responses to general posts mailed to me as "private" email in the last few days, many of which were quite appropriate and potentially interesting as public posts. Elizabeth S. and Joya M. tell me that they've also received many such messages. On some lists, people have to constantly be told to send things like, "Thanks, Sally, for the refs" privately instead of posting them to the list. We seem to have the opposite problem. In my work as humanities computer consultant here at Yale I describe LISTSERVs as electronic seminar tables -- posts to the list are comments made out loud, private posts are like leaning to your neighbor and whispering a comment in his or her ear or saving a comment until you meet for coffee later that after- noon. Those of us who have taught seminars or discussion sections know how frustrating it is when students will comment under their breath to one another but won't join in a "class" discussion. I veer off into the realm of the theoretical... Mancur Olson suggested that collective goods will never be produced by "rational" agents except in small groups or where selective incentives (like credit for class participation) can be offered because everyone knows that the good can be had whether or not s/he contributes and, in general, other group members don't know who is consuming without contributing (the image of a potluck dinner during a power outage comes to mind). Sometimes I think there are two kinds of people in the world. The first type is convinced that everything s/he says is the ultimate word on a subject, the clearest, most profound expression of thought ever uttered. The second type is convinced that their ideas are worthless and would just be laughed at or cut down and have probably been said a thousand times before. Both types are usually wrong. The empirical returns... So, to all those who are in this seminar but who only ever chat quietly with their neighbors... 1 HELLO! We'd like to hear what you think. There's really no need to hide out -- after all, this is one of the friendliest, least "e-dangerous" lists around (like all human groups we have a few sour grapes (or is it bad apples?), but all in all it's a mature, intelligent and interesting group). 2 QUESTION: What is behind your silence? (or should that be "in front of your voice"?) I'm really curious about this, wondering whether: my perceptions of the group are different from yours, or you just aren't a talkative person, or you think that the folks who DO talk are sort of silly, or you don't have time, or you think people would attack you, or you're afraid people would bombard you with friendly mail, or you feel above it all, or below it all, or too conservative, or too liberal, or you just don't have anything to wear, or you find that the men monopolize the discussion, or you find that the women monopolize the discussion, or you feel that your ideas are very personal and private, or you know how to use the arrow keys and but not the letter keys, or you don't want anyone to steal your ideas, or your shoes are too tight, or something else. This isn't meant as a survey, but as a spurring and a reminder. Silence and boring conversation are partly the product of the (non)doings of the silent. A spirit or sense of (intellectual) community can only arise when a goodly number of the putative community members DO communal things (a group version of MofE??). The spirit is a product of practices, not vice versa (Thanks to ED for that idea -- EFRL). We all need and want to hear YOUR voice, loud and clear and to the table. Looking forward to hearing from ya'll (on the net), Dan P.S. As a pre-emptive rejoinder to the obvious response, let me add that, of course, I'm not against private email or private conversations. Just that several of us have noticed (and, yes, we found out it was several via private ongoing converations) that we've gotten lots of very postable comments and we felt that lots of the points raised would have been very welcome additions to our public discourse. Ciao, djjrjr From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Mon Oct 18 16:25:17 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 18 Oct 1993 16:19:53 -0700 for socgrad-list Mon, 18 Oct 1993 16:19:08 -0700 for Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1993 15:42:54 -0700 (PDT) From: Robert Duniway Subject: Re: Causality in Crisis To: Alan Sorry if this comes out as overly pedantic. I'm just trying to come up with a clear statement of this point mostly for my own consumption, but if I get it right some of you might find it clarifying, and if I get it wrong I'm sure I'll gain some enlightening feedback. The relationship between theory and method is reciprocal. What we are ultimately engaged in is developing clearer and more useful understandings of our subject matter. No equation in and of it self constitutes a clear and useful *understanding* of anything. Potentially it might be useful, like it is useful to know that the acceleration of gravity near the surface of the Earth is 9.8 meters per second square, but knowing that formula does not mean we understand gravity. On the other hand, it is frequently more useful to be able to specify relationships between parts of a model that is rather sloppy than it is to have a model that is elegant but which cannot be specified. For example, it might be more useful to have an economic theory which assumes everyone is seeking to maximize net income than a model which points out (correctly) that individuals are motivated by a number of values, and that it is impossible to specify which values will motivate which agents in any given situation. With this in mind, there are at least two possible relationships between theory and methods. 1. Methods can be used to identify consistent relationships in data, and these relationships can then be "theorized" post hoc. That is, we could notice that women have an average income that is lower than the average income of men and guess that this has something to do with discrimination. The crucial step in this approach is to then test the theory by identifying implications about different data than the data used to develop the theory. If the answer is discrimination, then I might expect to find less qualified men being promoted over more qualified women or women being excluded from lucrative professions. 2. Models which might be more useful than the current understanding of some subject can be tested against that current understanding by forming hypotheses which discriminate between these alternative accounts and can be evaluated using obtainable data.[Note: the current understanding could be "we don't know anything about this subject, in which case a model that does better than chance is an improvement. This complete lack of prior belief, however, is probably very rare.] That is a wordy way of saying that a new theory is only interesting if it improves our understanding, and the way to find out is to see if the theory does a better job of dealing with what we can observe. It seems that statistics can both inform theory and be used to evaluate competing theories. It also seems that both processes should occur in any active field of study. If a post hoc explanation based on crunching the numbers is developed, it should then be tested against competing theories. If competing theories are not very useful, then a little data dredging might suggest a more fruitful approach. In the end it is the horse that matters, not its pedigree. Bob Duniway University of Washington From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Mon Oct 18 16:28:57 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 18 Oct 1993 16:24:13 -0700 for socgrad-list Mon, 18 Oct 1993 16:22:40 -0700 for Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1993 15:58:30 -0700 (PDT) From: Laura Lee Adams Subject: Re: Conversation as a Public Good To: socgrad@ucsd.edu Well Dan, your appeal brought at least one person out of the "lurker" closet! Actually, my theory about why I haven't contributed before is that since I never had posted to any "electronic community" before, it would take a lot to get me to do it the first time (kindof like losing your virginity ;) ?) Last night while frolicking in cyberspace I ran across a message board that dealt with a topic about which I am fairly knowledgable as well as impassioned (the Georgian civil war) and since the people posting to the board were not very well informed, I felt compelled to clear some things up for them. So here I am, freed of my lurkish inhibitions. And now to contribute to the discussions of late, I'd just like to support the idea of taking an interdisciplinary approach, and not just limiting it to those disciplines closest to sociology. Philosophy of science is an obvious area that helps us think about our discipline, and an area like cognitive psychology can help us understand how some of the phenomena we study may have constraints imposed by the way our brains process information. Unfortunately, the way the discipline is structured allows little room for exploring these realms, except in social conversation. Knowing more about the way other disciplines work is also useful for understanding the development and organization of sociology. So let's hear it for inter- disciplinary dinner parties! And lastly, two questions: 1) Does anyone have some references for good theories of identity construction (especially ethnic identities?) 2) Is anybody else on socgrad interested in Russia and the other former Soviet republics? Alternatively, does anyone on socgrad know any sociologists who are doing work on this region? Except for Berkeley's soc department, it seems sociologists interested in the FSU are few and far between and I'd like to start some kind of exchange with these folks. Thanks! -Laura From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Mon Oct 18 17:02:00 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 18 Oct 1993 16:59:05 -0700 for socgrad-list Mon, 18 Oct 1993 16:58:20 -0700 for From: bigdog@nevada.edu To: socgrad@ucsd.edu Subject: FSU (no not Fl. St.) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 93 16:58:12 -0700 Hi Laura, Here at UNLV we have one professor deeply interested in the happenings of the FSU. His name is Dimtri Shalin. He writes both for journals and for the mass media. He is one of the TV experts you may have seen on Nightline. When possible he teachs seminars on Soviet Sociology and Soviet Society. He also conducts (last spring was the last) forums on these topics using American and Soviet social thinkers. If it matters he is the same D. Shalin that is so closely asso. with S-I and G. H. Mead. He is a great teacher and wonderful to get to know. If you or anyone else is interested in his editorials and ref. to journals please let me know and I will send along by snail mail. Dave aka bigdog@nevada.edu PS. Is it too late for dress up? If not I want to come as Brother Zerox The older I get the more we look alike. Blessings to one and all! From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Mon Oct 18 17:04:01 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 18 Oct 1993 17:00:58 -0700 for socgrad-list Mon, 18 Oct 1993 16:59:12 -0700 for Date: Mon, 18 Oct 93 19:56:18 EST From: DAVIDSON%UCONNVM.bitnet@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu To: socgrad@ucsd.edu ======================================================================== 9 Date: Mon, 18 Oct 93 19:31:18 EST From: Alan To: Bob The main point isn't to critique data drudging vs. hypothesis/theory testing. R ather, it is that researchers ought to state that the reasons they "discover" particular relationships in the course of their analysis is because they alread y have some incipient theoretical knowledge of how particular x's relate to par ticular y's, and vice-versa. From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Mon Oct 18 17:33:18 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 18 Oct 1993 17:29:26 -0700 for socgrad-list Mon, 18 Oct 1993 17:28:47 -0700 for From: Melissa R Herman Subject: Conversation To: socgrad@ucsd.edu (socgrad network) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1993 17:28:47 -0700 (PDT) In response to Dan's fascinating list of potential variables affecting individual inhibition (or lack thereof) to posting, I would like to make several comments: first, I bet Dan is the kind of person that talks a lot in class/seminar. (Notice I didn't say he's the kind of person he described as thinking his contributions are the be- and end- all.) That brings me to my second comment. Not being a member of any other bulletin boards or whatever these computer conversations are called, I don't have a relative sense of how inhibited we socgraders are. I also don't have a sense of who everyone else out there is, all the (thousands?) of silent people who may be laughing at the expense of the vociferous risk takers. Basically what I'm saying is that without knowing who I'm talking to, it feels pretty risky to be talking. In the average seminar, one sizes up the competition, so to speak, and then proceeds based on that evaluation. People are much more likely to speak in small seminars than in large lectures, and I can't tell which one socgrad is. (Incidentally, knowing the number of subscribers wouldn't help this matter, because as we all know, many messages get deleted without being read.) My third comment is that I've noticed several occasions when someone would ask a question, solicit personally addressed responses, and then post a summary of edited, anonymous responses. This may have become an unconscious norm early on in the life of socgrad--so maybe we'll change it now. My final comment is this: I hope nobody thinks I'm ridiculous for taking a common sense (symbolic interactionist?) approach. I worry about my writing, my ideas, and my choice to share them every time I post to socgrad because someday I'll be out on the job market and (in my nightmares) one of the people interviewing me will remember "oh, yeah, she's the one that always makes dumb comments on socgrad." I also worry about being perceived as a computer nerd (although being at Stanford kind of precludes the possibility of NOT being one.) The other problem, of course, is how to end these silly messages. Catch you all later... -M -- Melissa Herman manoki@leland.stanford.edu Department of Sociology Stanford University From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Mon Oct 18 18:02:46 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 18 Oct 1993 18:00:49 -0700 for socgrad-list Mon, 18 Oct 1993 18:00:20 -0700 for Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1993 17:59:07 -0700 (PDT) From: Robert Duniway Subject: Causality - Theory and/or Method To: socgrad@ucsd.edu ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1993 17:37:54 -0700 (PDT) From: Robert Duniway To: Alan Subject: Re: your mail On Mon, 18 Oct 1993, Alan wrote: > The main point isn't to critique data drudging vs. hypothesis/theory testing. R > ather, it is that researchers ought to state that the reasons they "discover" > particular relationships in the course of their analysis is because they alread > y have some incipient theoretical knowledge of how particular x's relate to par > ticular y's, and vice-versa. > However, I'm not sure that is *always* true. I have seen too many studies in which models were packed with control variables, and then unanticipated relationships obtained statistical significance, and the author offered a speculation about what produced the relationship. As a final product this is pretty unsophisticated, but as path to developing a more inclusive or realistic theory it is often useful, and was not guided by any implicit theory. For example, neighborhood social control accounts of deviance were largely a product of the fact that crime records in large cities were collected by precinct, and some researchers who wanted to see what the impact on crime rates of ethnic immigration discovered that the high crime areas stayed high no matter what the ethnic composition of the neighborhood was. You can't really assume that they had some incipient theory about neighborhoods when they did the analysis, but they once they had an unexpected finding they didn't simply throw it away because it hadn't been grounded in theory. By the way, this discussion is pretty fine grained. In general I agree that theoretical considerations drive the decision to collect and analyze certain data while ignoring other available data. I just don't want this to become a litmus test which must be passed in order for an inquiry to be "real sociology" any more than I want to throw out any analysis which doesn't employ random sampling. Bob Duniway University of Washington P.S. I wouldn't mind hearing other viewpoints. Feel free to forward this to socgrad if you think it would interest anyone. From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Mon Oct 18 18:07:55 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 18 Oct 1993 18:06:18 -0700 for socgrad-list Mon, 18 Oct 1993 18:05:46 -0700 for Date: Mon, 18 Oct 93 21:01:13 EST From: Alan To: socgrad@ucsd.edu Actually, the Juvenile Delinquency in Urban Areas study which Duniway is referr ing to was very much motivated by the attempt on the part of Sociologists to debunk more biological and psychoanalytic approaches to deviance, as well as the eugenic social theories which existed well into the 1930's. From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Mon Oct 18 18:12:47 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 18 Oct 1993 18:10:26 -0700 for socgrad-list Mon, 18 Oct 1993 18:08:48 -0700 for To: Melissa R Herman Subject: Re: Conversation <199310190028.RAA01371@power.Stanford.EDU> Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1993 18:17:31 -0700 From: Michael Lichter My third comment is that I've noticed several occasions when someone would ask a question, solicit personally addressed responses, and then post a summary of edited, anonymous responses. This may have become an unconscio us norm early on in the life of socgrad--so maybe we'll change it now. This is proper Net Ettiquette, and in particular is a USENET norm. Well, except that the summary usually *isn't* anonymous. This norm developed in order to spare people from messages of marginal interest, and to conserve net bandwidth (e.g. why send ten messages to a list of 2000 people each containing one reference when you can summarize and send only one message to the list). I suspect that irritable readers rather than bean counters were the driving force. My final comment is this: I hope nobody thinks I'm ridiculous [...]. I also worry about being perceived as a computer nerd (although being at Stanford kind of precludes the possibility of NOT being one.) I think that the only way you can hurt yourself here, or on similar lists, is by being deliberately offensive and/or belligerent. I don't get the comment about Stanford, but if you're a nerd for using this list, I guess we're all nerds here. Michael From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Mon Oct 18 18:36:52 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 18 Oct 1993 18:34:27 -0700 for socgrad-list Mon, 18 Oct 1993 18:34:01 -0700 for Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1993 21:33:50 -0400 (EDT) From: Charles Wright Subject: Whither Social Science? To: socgrad@ucsd.edu In response to Karen's post--I'd like to say that the important thing is scholarship. One of the most tragic things that ever happened to the pursuit of knowledge was the development of the rigorous division of labor we term disciplines. The resulting polemic has led academia into a bitter stage of infighting and rivalry. I myself am guilty, as I'm quite sure all of us are--but it is a vice I am aware of and am constently seeking to overcome. As a sociologist, as with members of other academic disciplines, it is now virtually impossible for us to operate without specialties, subfeilds and sub-disciplines. We operate from a myraid of paradigms. What is an axiom to one intellect is often seen as rubbish by another. Social historians often seek to explain history without ever examining the model of the social sciences. The social sciences often seek to explain the present with no regard for the insght of historians. We should awaken and listen to the likes ofC. Wright Mills, Immanuel Wallerstein, and Paul Conkin. Intellectualism will be hard pressed to survive and to provide utility to the pursuit of knowledge if the disciplinary boundaries are no overlapped and a shared epistimolgical ground is not forged within academia. Too long haveologists left ecological variables out of their analysis, tooo long have economists left out the dynamics of social interdenes . Once thinkers like Aristotle could cover the breadth of knowledge, now social movement theorist are hard pressed to understan the central concepts of criminology. The three world views of science: the physical, the natural and the semiotic stand apart. Theory is left in the wake of ........ lord I just realized I'm on my soapbox again--please forgive. Lieberson makes some very, very, important points in MAKING IT COUNT. This is response to Elizabeth and others....I must go, other obligations call. cw Peace From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Mon Oct 18 19:03:27 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 18 Oct 1993 19:01:56 -0700 for socgrad-list Mon, 18 Oct 1993 19:01:25 -0700 for Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1993 22:01:12 -0400 (EDT) From: Charles Wright Subject: Trojan Horse To: socgrad@ucsd.edu Ah but Dan--Mancur Olson, his logic of collective goods and rational choice theory in general is soon to be the goat. Klandermans says it well--its value expectancy that determines the incentives for individual action in collectivites processes--its meaning man, forget rational behavior. There is little of that in the world. Say it aint so. Just jousting. Olson did social movement theory a diservice though if you ask me. The research mobilization research program that arose from his assumption that individuals should not be expected to act in the same manner in pursuit of collective goods as they would in pursuit of indiidual utility is as Myra Ferree suggests, nothing more than a trojan horse "the qualitative attractiveness of its emprically testable incentive formulations conceals theoretically dangerous assumptions, carried over uncritically from Olson that threaten the ability of RM to explain what social movements are and do." As you can tell I'm down on rational choice theories--to much collective blood I guess. cw Peace From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Mon Oct 18 19:11:09 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 18 Oct 1993 19:09:20 -0700 for socgrad-list Mon, 18 Oct 1993 19:08:47 -0700 for Date: Mon, 18 Oct 93 21:51:24 EDT From: Dan Organization: Yale University Subject: Worries about the impression one makes... To: On Mon, 18 Oct 1993 17:28:47 -0700 (PDT) Melissa wrote: >My final comment I worry about... every time I post to socgrad because >someday I'll be out on the job market and (in my nightmares) one of the >people interviewing me will remember "oh, yeah, she's the one that always >makes dumb comments on socgrad." I've worried about this from time to time, but I think that the interaction of status and reputation in the big world works more like this: o When a grad student says something stupid or naive, people say "another stupid comment by some grad student" and the person and the comment are forgotten. o When a grad student says something brilliant or interesting, people say "Who is that person?" and make a note to remember who it was. This may be the opposite of what happens within a department where folks need to establish a pecking order. As another post said, you might get remembered for being obnoxious, mean or vindictive, but probably not for saying something silly. AT LEAST I SURE HOPE I'M RIGHT ABOUT THIS! :) From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Mon Oct 18 19:13:02 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 18 Oct 1993 19:11:21 -0700 for socgrad-list Mon, 18 Oct 1993 19:10:45 -0700 for Date: Mon, 18 Oct 93 21:07:34 CDT From: KLOSKY@vm1.nodak.edu Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computer Network Subject: Conversation To: Socgrad list Just a thought.... Maybe one reason some don't respond to the list is a perception on their part that the conversations that DO go on are simply "pissing" matches between scholars to see can say/quote the most profound thing. Any thoughts? SKEE -- Still in North Dakota! From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Mon Oct 18 19:25:55 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 18 Oct 1993 19:24:26 -0700 for socgrad-list Mon, 18 Oct 1993 19:23:27 -0700 for Date: Mon, 18 Oct 93 19:06:59 CDT From: Colin Subject: Public Good To: socgrad@ucsd.edu As a student who buy into Etzioni's "Spirit of Community," I have to say Dan is right in his criticisms upon people like me who do those silent works. My sincere apology. I hope this net can be a place of civil discourse, no personal abuses, and where ideas, no matter how outrageous they are, I mean, be it Marx, Stalin, Hitler, or David Koresh, can be freely, and civicly expressed and criticized. Thanks! From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Mon Oct 18 19:47:23 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 18 Oct 1993 19:45:55 -0700 for socgrad-list Mon, 18 Oct 1993 19:44:59 -0700 for Date: Mon, 18 Oct 93 22:23:52 EDT From: Joya &Steve Organization: Emory University / U Connecticut Subject: RATIONAL CHOICE/FEMINIST THEORY To: SOCGRAD@ucsd.edu Hello there fellow soc-gradders, We've been having an ongoing discussion concerning the relative legitimation in the field of the rational choice approach and feminist theory. We disagree about whether the field is best characterized by what's going on on the margins or what's going on in the center. For the purposes of this discussion, we're agreeing that rational choice is more generally considered part of what's going on in the "center" of contemporary sociology, whereas feminst theory would be considered part of what's going on in the "margins." Do you agree with this characterization of the margin and the center? Half of us don't. We'd like to toss out several questions for discussion/debate/whatever: Have you gotten a bigger dose of gender et al. (race,class,etc.) in your classes or formal theory (rational choice, network analysis, etc.)? We've had different experiences in this regard. Which kinds of specializations provide better job opportunites? So what do you think? Joya Misra Steve Harvey From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Tue Oct 19 10:17:30 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 19 Oct 1993 10:15:43 -0700 for socgrad-list Tue, 19 Oct 1993 10:15:09 -0700 for From: Raymond B Familusi Subject: migration\community\W. Africa To: socgrad@ucsd.edu Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1993 13:14:50 -0400 (EDT) Hi, Is anyone doing any work on labor migration in a global system? Specifically, I am interested in the transnational character of social formations with a particularly focus on West Africa (and the African diaspora as a whole), but all takers welcome. Raymond From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Tue Oct 19 10:23:37 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 19 Oct 1993 10:22:18 -0700 for socgrad-list Tue, 19 Oct 1993 10:21:38 -0700 for Subject: conversation To: socgrad@ucsd.edu Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1993 12:21:35 -0500 (CDT) From: "Laura L. Fertwagner" Hello, In response to some of the comments about non-contributing members of the network: I've only been on socgrad for a few weeks, so my comments regarding socgrad are based only on the exchanges of those few weeks. I think that Skee, up there in North Dakota, had a valid point. I know there have been times that I have read messages that I felt were just intellectual sparring matches, where I sensed (electronically?) that those involved were "one-upping"one another. However, most of what goes on,as I have observed it, doesn't fit that characterization. I personally prefer NOT to get into many of the conversations. For one thing, time is a factor.Unless I am truly interested in the topic discussed I'd rather just "listen" ( yes this is my modus operandi in flesh-and-blood seminars). When socgrad discusses a topic that pushes my buttons, and with which I feel reasonably comfortable, I will participate. I did post to socgrad already and ended up feeling foolish, so... As far as people forgetting stupid comments, I'm not sure that Dan is right in making that assumption. I find it very hard to put my ideas and comments up to public ridicule (not unheard of on this network). My intellect is an important part of myself esteem (I'm sure that holds true for many, if not most of us) that I don't want torn apart. Maybe I'm not as self-assured as those that post frequently. About those "private" conversations.... I guess I believe that they are as, if not more, important than the public postings. They are a safe place to discuss things. I look at them as conversations where I can kick off my shoes, let down my hair and not worry about how I look!!! Most of my learning has taken place by private conversations (not socgrad related) I guess I like those personal bonds that allow an _uninhibited_ exchange of ideas. If these sound like random musings of a bored person, THEY ARE!!! I guess I should get back to this week's paper writing. Peace, Laura F. From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Tue Oct 19 12:23:24 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 19 Oct 1993 12:20:43 -0700 for socgrad-list Tue, 19 Oct 1993 12:18:33 -0700 for Date: Tue, 19 Oct 93 04:26:20 EDT From: Greg_Nagy@mts.cc.wayne.edu To: KLOSKY@vm1.nodak.edu Subject: Conv and piss... Greg sent this to me privately, but to make dan happy, I'm forwarding. SKEE ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- That is not all that is going on... but I would have to agree that that may be a big part of it. Of course, that may be the ignominious nature of academe anyway! :) (I wish I could cite somebody here for added humor but no one comes to mind) Take Care, Greg From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Tue Oct 19 13:38:24 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 19 Oct 1993 13:36:46 -0700 for socgrad-list Tue, 19 Oct 1993 13:35:58 -0700 for From: khaskin@merle.acns.nwu.edu Subject: Re: RATIONAL CHOICE/FEMINIST THEORY To: SOCAK663@emuvm1.cc.emory.edu (Joya &Steve) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 93 15:35:54 CDT Joya and Steve, Here at Northwestern, the two areas of social inequality and rational choice theories are both very popular, though usually not by the same people. We have some famous people in both areas. The contemporary theory classes are usually taught by Art Stinchcombe (who emphasises rational choice, among other paradigms) and Carol Heimer, who is prominent in that area, advises a lot of grad students. But Aldon Morris and Arlene Daniels, among others, teach courses with heavy emphasis on race and gender. So from this vantage point, it is difficult to see which is considered more "mainstream". They are simply different paradigms which occasionally intersect. Karen From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Tue Oct 19 16:12:08 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 19 Oct 1993 16:10:36 -0700 for socgrad-list Tue, 19 Oct 1993 16:09:54 -0700 for Date: Tue, 19 Oct 93 18:14:17 EDT From: Joya Misra Organization: Emory University - Atlanta, Georgia, USA Subject: Posting, more engaging, being on the job market To: SOCGRAD@ucsd.edu I took the weekend off, and let the mail pile up 100+ deep, and have just gone through the socgrad portion. Whew, you guys have been humming along! Of course, as a frequent poster, I have lots to say... Obviously, I think that posting is a good thing. As you have heard me so uneloquently argue, I think the whole point of academia is _engaging_ with others, whether it be your students, or people reading your work in journals, or professors and grad students in the hallway, at ASA, or here on the net...What else are we up to,if not connecting with other people and discussing our ideas? Yea, Dan spoke up in his seminars and so did I. Nothing wrong there.Don't think it boils down to self-assuredness, though. I feel very unsure at times. But I do believe that the risk is worth the amazing rewards - I can't tell you the things I've gained through my interactions with peopl on the net (both personal and net ones). At least as much as I gained in my seminars. And that's a lot. You guys, I see you as my colleagues! I look forward to many years of talking with you, on the computer, at conferences, in our field! We will be hanging out at the Dept. Alumni Night party at the SOCGRAD table twenty years from now, laughing about the directions we've gone in, gossiping about whether the grad students on the net know what a great piece of history they've tapped into! Here's an important point on all this -- "what will people think of me?" question. I AM on the job market PRESENTLY. I think being on this list could only help me in this endeavor. Not because I think my posts are brilliant, or that someone will hire me because they see my name again and again. I say dumb things sometimes (all the time?), my posts tend to ramble, and people are more likely to get sick of my name than develop an attachment to it. But in interacting here, I am making myself a better sociologist. This may sound very presumptuous, but I know it's true. You guys sharpen my mind. This can only help me do better work and get a better job. On a more concrete level, I also WANT people to know who I really am, and if something I say here keeps me from getting a job well, that obviously wasn't the job for me. Also, I've mentioned before that Emory is hiring in Pol Econ and in Race and Ethnicity this year. If any of you would like me to make sure your file is read, just let me know. That's what being a colleague is all about. Joya Misra From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Tue Oct 19 17:30:23 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 19 Oct 1993 17:18:39 -0700 for socgrad-list Tue, 19 Oct 1993 17:10:22 -0700 for Subject: posting,etc. To: socgrad@ucsd.edu Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1993 19:10:19 -0500 (CDT) From: "Laura L. Fertwagner" Hi again, I somehow feel the need to clarify what I said in my last posting. Please do not misinterpret what I said as a complaint against those that "speak Up" alot. I appreciate your outspokenness(is that a word?) and in no way did I mean to say that it wasn't a good thing. I believe that what I meant about self-assuredness is that, for me, I prefer not to speak out on issues that I don't know very well. I'd rather listen, digest the info, mull it over and then --maybe-- say something. Only problem is that by the time I get that done socgrad has moved on to other things. As for the seminar participation issue, I keep thinking about the very first graduate seminar that I took and how I felt in it. It was a theory seminar in which there were a couple of grad students (one in particular) that were extremely bright and theory-literate. I was brand-new and felt totally outclassed. I did not resent the fact that the aforementioned students did much of the conversing. Not one bit!! I LEARNED more by listening to them than I ever could have learned without them there. They kept the discussion at such a high level and I appreciate that still. I CHOSE not to participate very much, at least not verbally, but I LISTENED and I took it all in. I will admit that there were times that I had something to say and held back; in retrospect that may have been wrong, I don't know. This is where the self-assuredness comes in In any social environment there is bound to be some social comparison taking place. If someone perceives others in that environment as much more learned than oneself, then doesn't it make sense totake a back seat until one feels comfortable with the material? The grad students that are in seminars with me now probably wish I would shut up (Mary?? I know you're out there...), but I've reached a level of knowledge (and comfort) that allows me to be outspoken in those seminars (Beth, you'd be surprised:-) ). I don't feel that YET on most of the topics that have been discussed on this network. I am VERY glad for those of you that do speak up. Am I alone here? Or do others share some of my tentativeness?? And to Joya: ramble on!! I have enjoyed your postings. Judging by the length of mine, we have that tendency in common!!! Take care all, Laura From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Tue Oct 19 21:47:46 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 19 Oct 1993 21:44:48 -0700 for socgrad-list sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 19 Oct 1993 21:43:27 -0700 for socgrad@ucsd Wed, 20 Oct 93 04:43:27 GMT Date: Tue, 19 Oct 93 21:00:38 EDT From: RDWYNN@wmvm1.bitnet Subject: like a virgin To: socgrad@ucsd.BitNet Hello all you socgrad-ers out there! As the subject title suggests,this is my first contribution to socgrad. What has caused me to come forward you ask? The "why so many subscribers do not add to the electro-conversations" discussions is the reason, of course. reason, of course. My reasons for not joining the discourse up to this point are several: 1. Many topics are interesting but my lack of knowledge on the subjects has precluded me from replying. As someone else mentioned, for this reason I would rather sit back and "listen." 2. When the occasion arises that I do have something to add it many times has already been stated. I know, I know, everybody has their own opinion and most people's comments do not cover word-for-word what I would have said, but they hit the main points. 3. It is also due to the public nature of this medium. I feel a tad I feel a tad (a convenient understatement) nervous about publicly airing my views. 4. Lastly, (Thank God, huh?!) and intertwined with #3 is my perception of the other contributors (since I am now amongst your ranks) being more knowledge than me, thus their opinions more valid. It was the realizaiton of #4 that really bothered me. One person stated earlier, he or she (sorry but there are just so damn many mail messages that I can not keep track of them all) sees socgrad as an "electronic seminar." After reading that I said to myself, "Yeah, that person is right! Lord knows I do not feel inhibited about speaking up in class, why should I feel that way with socgrad!" So, hopefully y'all (I am from the Virginia) will be seeing my name more often. This whole topic is interesting because it ties into a problem we have been experiencing in our contemporary theory class. It has been observed that almost half of our class does not verbally participate regularly. This half consists solely of women. Unfortunately, this does not come as a shock to me, and I assume it does not to many of you. In discussing this issue with one of the women in that group we decided that several factors were probably to blame. Many of these are probably the same ones holding back the vast majority of socgrad-ers. However, one factor, the socialization of females in American society, is both obvious and important, and I would like to bring it into the converstion. --- What do people have to say about this in terms of socgrad? --- What about in terms of their soc. grad. seminars or any other classes? --- If this has happened to you, how was it handled? --- Et cetera? I am sorry that I am not going into much detail about our situation. I will gladly supply more specific info upon request, but at this point I feel it is best to start with the general problem. I would like to end this posting with a few words of encouragement to other subscribers out there. Two specific reasons, previously stated by others on this network, for noninvolvement in socgrad (and also noted as reasons in our class by my colleuge and myself) is the fear of saying something stupid and the lack of a completely formulated answer. Please note that these two are inter- related. Because of this I will treat them together. As you have all heard at one point in your lives, there is no such thing as a dumb answer, or an attempt at one. One of my professors recently backed this up by saying that answers we may call "dumb" or "stupid" all aid in the learning process. If I may be allowed to employ a metaphor, they are pieces of "clay" which can be "molded" only with the help of others by their challenging, augmenting, and yes even disproving them. Of course he is right, for what else do our lives consist of but attempts to do certain things for which we, at first, do not have correct or absolute answers. (I know this an extremely reductivistic statement,but...) There is no correct way to raise a child, to choose a spouse, to buy a stereo, or to eat an Oreo cookie, but that does not mean we do not try. I hope my attempt at universalizing this fear of making a "dumb" incomplete answer or comment has helped someone. If my words have not then they stand to prove themselves by their lack of "correctness". And so it goes.... Yours, Rob College of William and Mary rdwynn@wmvm1 From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Tue Oct 19 22:51:24 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 19 Oct 1993 22:49:54 -0700 for socgrad-list Tue, 19 Oct 1993 22:49:06 -0700 for Subject: women and soc To: socgrad@ucsd.edu Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1993 00:49:04 -0500 (CDT) From: "Elizabeth H. Schaefer" Back from South Bend, This is in response to Rob's questions regarding women and their partisipation in academe. Laura posted a message earlier about our first theory class (terrible memories abound). But, the most interesting thing about that class was that the women never spoke up. I can't really remember how verbal I was, but I recall specifically that half the class (the half that was female) never responded to the material. I think this was more a result of the people not reading the material, rather than a part of their socialization as women. But, no matter how much I would like to think we have overcome prejudice against women in sociology, I have had the feeling that my input is less valuable than that of men. I wonder if I'm just hypersensative because I am a woman, but it sometimes seems that male professors give more credit to other male comments. As far as socgrad goes, I think we have a good balance of men and women who contribute to discussions. I know people of both genders who prefer to read, rather than respond. The issue of self-confidence seems to be a greater factor in this venue. A question follows from this: Is it more interesting to the majority when we read an article together and have an open discussion? It seems that this would be one way to encourage collective conversations, independent of where you might be in your studies. Also, how did everyone feel about Chambliss jumping in on the fun? I was glad for his presence, because I thought it would raise the intensity of the discussion. I can also see how this might have seemed like an invasion. I just want to chime in with what Joya said earlier. This is meant to be a place to talk about sociology; it isn't a job interview. The connections we can make with each other will make us better thinkers. Just because there isn't a discussion going on regarding your topic of interest, doesn't mean that others wouldn't like to start one. Generally, I think socgrad is a pretty forgiving group, and it could be a lot more fun if everyone joined in. Sorry for Ramblin' Elizabeth From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Wed Oct 20 00:15:05 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 20 Oct 1993 00:13:32 -0700 for socgrad-list Wed, 20 Oct 1993 00:12:54 -0700 for From: bigdog@nevada.edu To: socgrad@ucsd.edu Subject: Attn Jim At Kent State Date: Wed, 20 Oct 93 00:12:47 -0700 Please send me a correct address so that I can send along the info your asked about. I tried to send a private email along but can't. We are changing our Bitnet server and that may be the reason. If you have an Internet address please send along, if not a snail mail address and I will be happy to reply. Dave big@nevada.edu From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Wed Oct 20 04:37:02 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 20 Oct 1993 04:35:51 -0700 for socgrad-list Wed, 20 Oct 1993 04:35:22 -0700 for Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1993 07:31:25 +0501 (EDT) From: James Cassell Subject: virtual community paper (fwd) To: Sociology Graduate Student Discussion I thought some of you might be interested in the paper referred to below. The first portion talks about forming and maintaining professional networks, then looks at how e-mail fits into this. To get a copy, send e-mail to rre-request@weber.ucsd.edu using the subject line ARCHIVE SEND NETWORK. Don't include anything in the body of the note. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Jim Cassell Jim_Cassell@UNC.EDU Institute for Research in Social Science Phone: 919-962-0782 University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill Fax: 919-962-4777 Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3355 USA ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1993 17:57:14 -0700 >From: pagre@weber.ucsd.edu (Phil Agre) >Subject: Networking on the Network >The following article (about 6300 words and 40kB) is a how-to for research >people who are learning to use the Internet as part of their professional >networking. It has two goals, practical and philosophical: >Its practical goal is to give new users a structured way of thinking about >e-mail as part of everyday life. It warns against some of the more common >risks of indiscriminate e-mail use, and it offers some specific formulas for >approaching common situations. >Its philosophical goal is to cast doubt on the idea of "virtual communities" >and "cyberspaces" that are supposed to exist in a different dimension from >the rest of our lives. To the contrary, I think we should learn to view >electronic communications as part of a larger ecology of communication media >and community-building processes. That's not to say that e-mail has no >revolutionary potentials; quite the contrary, it is to emphasize that real >revolutions can be made, and can *only* be made, as the article says, "down >here on earth, amidst your actual relationships with actual people, and not >in an abstract technological head-space." >"Networking on the network" is also an experiment in Internet publishing. >I don't get any credit for it at tenure time, but I do get to keep revising >it forever, based on the comments I receive from people all over the net. >At any given time the current version can be fetched by sending an e-mail >message like so: >To: rre-request@weber.ucsd.edu >Subject: archive send network From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Wed Oct 20 06:37:38 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 20 Oct 1993 06:35:23 -0700 for socgrad-list Wed, 20 Oct 1993 06:34:55 -0700 for Date: Wed, 20 Oct 93 09:18:34 EDT From: RDWYNN%WMVM1.BITNET@VTBIT.CC.VT.EDU Subject: GG Allin To: SOCGRAD@ucsd.edu In response to Dave's posting on Monday... yes, sad but true, GG Allin is dead. For your information, there was an article in the September 1993 issue of SPIN magazine (the one with the cheezy guy from Stone Temple Pilots on the cover) on his death. If your interested I can send you a copy of the article. Seeing as how I planned on attending his Halloween show in D.C. a year ago (or was it two), where he was going to commit suicide on stage, I am interested in how he was brought up in your discussion on culture and what specifically was said, or at least what you can remember. Lastly, the movie is titled "Hated: GG Allin & the Murder Junkies"." I plan on watching it if I can get my hands on it. Ta-ta, Rob rdwynn@wmvm1 william & mary From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Wed Oct 20 06:41:05 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 20 Oct 1993 06:38:51 -0700 for socgrad-list Wed, 20 Oct 1993 06:38:33 -0700 for X-NUPop-Charset: English Date: Wed, 20 Oct 93 08:34:25 CST From: Dave.L.Brunsma.1@nd.edu MMDF-Warning: Parse error in original version of preceding line at nd.edu To: socgrad@ucsd.edu Subject: unsubscribing unsub socgrad From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Wed Oct 20 07:59:02 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 20 Oct 1993 07:57:42 -0700 for socgrad-list Wed, 20 Oct 1993 07:57:06 -0700 for From: C580002@mizzou1.missouri.edu Date: Wed, 20 Oct 93 09:45:33 CDT To: socgrad@ucsd.edu Subject: peering from the closet on rational choice and feminist theory: rational choice, to me, seems to focus on the objective; the objective *(and often positivist)* paradigms have often been the "core" of sociological studies....SI, and more recently feminists, have challenged this tradition....much of the feminist theory and methodology that i have studied focuses on the art of reflexivity and subjective (yes, i know there are many quantoid studies that feminists have used, but that may be another issue altogether)....because sociology has traditionally been a white male dominated field it would stand to reason that rational choice models have been in the center (not a bias here, but simply a part of the "scientific" evolution in our previously industrial society) while feminist theory is marginalized.....closely tied to this is the subject of women speaking out.... again, men seem to hold the majority of jobs at the university and administrative levels, which gives them the "authority" to disseminate the "knowledge"....as Jaggar (1989) suggests: "A woman is made to feel so unsure of herself that she hesitates to express her ideas in public, for fear that her thoughts are not worth expressing; and she scurries up and down the hallowed halls of academe frequently fearing that she will be exposed as a pretender, not a possessor, of knowledge. To the extent that men set the terms of thought and discourse, women are never at ease" the institution of education has held women "in their place" since its embodiment in american culture. this little post is not meant as a male-basher....on the contrary one of the reasons i like sociology is because many of my male counterparts are becoming more sensitized to how women are socialized..... so, i've thrown down the mantle, now i'll crawl back into cyberspace and grade stats papers from there....Deej University of Mizzou From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Wed Oct 20 08:21:55 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 20 Oct 1993 08:20:21 -0700 for socgrad-list Wed, 20 Oct 1993 08:19:37 -0700 for X-NUPop-Charset: English Date: Wed, 20 Oct 93 10:14:38 CST From: Dave.L.Brunsma.1@nd.edu MMDF-Warning: Parse error in original version of preceding line at nd.edu To: socgrad@ucsd.edu Subject: unsub me baby unsub dave.l.brunsma.1@nd.edu socgrad From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Wed Oct 20 08:37:32 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 20 Oct 1993 08:36:16 -0700 for socgrad-list Wed, 20 Oct 1993 08:35:49 -0700 for From: RALPH@cati.umd.edu via Charon-4.0A-VROOM with IPX id 100.931020113402.480; To: socgrad@ucsd.edu Date: 20 Oct 93 11:29:16 EDT Subject: is there a causal relationship between the discussions that have been going on for the last several days and the number of people unsubscribing?? just wondering ralph ralph@cati.umd.edu From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Wed Oct 20 09:01:12 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 20 Oct 1993 08:58:57 -0700 for socgrad-list Wed, 20 Oct 1993 08:58:28 -0700 for From: S-ENDER@bss1.umd.edu via Charon-4.0A-VROOM with IPX id 100.931020115633.448; To: socgrad@ucsd.edu Date: 20 Oct 93 11:56:24 EDT Subject: causal relationships > From: RALPH@cati.umd.edu > To: socgrad@ucsd.edu > Date: 20 Oct 93 11:29:16 EDT > Subject: > is there a causal relationship between the discussions that have been > going on for the last several days and the number of people > unsubscribing?? > > > just wondering > > ralph > > ralph@cati.umd.edu which direction? # unsubing <-------> discussion morten From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Wed Oct 20 09:17:23 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 20 Oct 1993 09:15:39 -0700 for socgrad-list Wed, 20 Oct 1993 09:15:05 -0700 for Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1993 12:06:49 -0400 (EDT) From: Charles Wright Subject: Spuriousness? To: socgrad@ucsd.edu I don't know Ralph-- It has not made me consider unsubscribing--even though some of it does not interest me. Heck, it just nice to have the e-mail--except these two thousand conversation posts are becoming a pain. Does anybody out there know why this one message keeps appearing and appearing? Is it just my account or is this phenomena happening to everyone? cw Peace From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Wed Oct 20 09:50:24 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 20 Oct 1993 09:48:42 -0700 for socgrad-list Wed, 20 Oct 1993 09:48:10 -0700 for VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with RFC822 id 0377; Wed, Date: 20 Oct 1993 11:10:20 CDT From: To: Subject: sociology's strategy Several recent posts have referred to the fact that sociology is being criticized because what is being done in sociology departments is also being done in other academic departments. The result is reduced funding for sociology departments or closing them. In other recent posts, some have suggested that sociology should become more interdisciplinary in nature. Now to the point. This suggestion seems to be detrimental to sociology since it is advocating the very thing that gets us criticized. Sociology made great strides in the 60's and 70's by providing research that was new and timely. Have we lost this niche in the market? Do we want to get it back? How would we do it? Do we really want to become just like all the other departments out there and lose our sociology identity? Should we, instead, advocate a boundaries to sociology? Any thoughts? Dave From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Wed Oct 20 10:29:21 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 20 Oct 1993 10:26:21 -0700 for socgrad-list Wed, 20 Oct 1993 10:23:19 -0700 for Date: Wed, 20 Oct 93 13:23 EDT From: Subject: Re: peering from the closet To: C580002@mizzou1.missouri.edu >the institution of education has held women "in their place" since >its embodiment in american culture. -------- Seems more like every known culture to me, not just american. Jetaway Dave From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Wed Oct 20 10:37:35 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 20 Oct 1993 10:29:07 -0700 for socgrad-list Wed, 20 Oct 1993 10:27:34 -0700 for Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1993 13:31:09 -0400 (EDT) From: JOYCEKG@bcvax1.bc.edu Subject: unsub To: socgrad@ucsd.edu unsub socgrad From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Wed Oct 20 11:01:35 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 20 Oct 1993 10:57:36 -0700 for socgrad-list Wed, 20 Oct 1993 10:55:33 -0700 for Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1993 10:50:29 -0700 (PDT) From: Robert Duniway Subject: Re: peering from the closet To: CGH2@psuvm.psu.edu On Wed, 20 Oct 1993 CGH2@psuvm.psu.edu wrote: > >the institution of education has held women "in their place" since > >its embodiment in american culture. > -------- > > Seems more like every known culture to me, not > just american. > Wait, we have an ambiguous pronoun here. Does the it refer to "women's place" in society, or the institution of education? If the latter, then this is certainly not universal, and defining the scope as american culture seems appropriate. Just picking a nit. Bob Duniway University of Washington From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Wed Oct 20 11:09:36 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 20 Oct 1993 11:07:38 -0700 for socgrad-list Wed, 20 Oct 1993 11:06:54 -0700 for VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with RFC822 id 2517; Wed, Date: 20 Oct 1993 12:36:54 CDT From: To: Subject: Repetitive(!) Postings CW - No, you are not alone. I have also received several(!!) copies of the same message and also found it annoying. I sent a message to the LISTSERVE people so hopefully they will take care of it. As a new subscriber I have to say that I find it amusing to sit down and "gab" with others across the country. I don't know if I'll post a lot but I will certainly appreciate the discussions (well, most of them hopefully). So, tata... Diann From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Wed Oct 20 12:47:39 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 20 Oct 1993 12:42:04 -0700 for socgrad-list Wed, 20 Oct 1993 12:40:21 -0700 for Date: Wed, 20 Oct 93 14:37:05 CDT From: KLOSKY@vm1.nodak.edu Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computer Network Subject: ALL THE NEWS THATS FIT To: Socgrad list I tend to agree with ralph, that the discussion on why people don't speak up is related to the series of attempts to unsub this list. Just as some find psychotherapy difficut, and frightening, so to do people find a discussion of their public-self uneasing. I think the causation would be clear. Look at the timing, how could the unsubing cause something that had already been emerging on the list? Any thoughts? SKEE From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Wed Oct 20 12:48:55 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 20 Oct 1993 12:46:20 -0700 for socgrad-list Wed, 20 Oct 1993 12:43:54 -0700 for Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1993 14:43:47 -0500 From: kenneth steven simon To: SSQLHUNT@UIUCVMD.BITNET Subject: Re: sociology's strategy (Dave!) wrote: >Several recent posts have referred to the fact that sociology is being >criticized because what is being done in sociology departments is also being >done in other academic departments. The result is reduced funding for >sociology departments or closing them. In other recent posts, some have >suggested that sociology should become more interdisciplinary in nature. Now >to the point. This suggestion seems to be detrimental to sociology since it >is advocating the very thing that gets us criticized. Sociology made great >strides in the 60's and 70's by providing research that was new and timely. >Have we lost this niche in the market? Do we want to get it back? How would >we do it? Do we really want to become just like all the other departments >out there and lose our sociology identity? Should we, instead, advocate a >boundaries to sociology? Any thoughts? I think we have two separate issues to grapple with here: 1) Will the benefits of sociology (and related fields) benefit from an interdisciplinary, less bounded approach? 2) Is the identity "sociologist" essential to maintain as a defined, bounded discipline, in either the name of academics or in the name of having a job and a department? Personally, I have qualms with strong boundaries. That only slows progress as sociologists, psychologists, anthropologists, etc., continue to tackle problems separately with little ability to make use of the others' techniques and discoveries. Too limiting, I believe, and too much of that is happening already. I'm tired of having to reject valuable contributions to an area because they are "too psychological" or too something-else. However, lack of identity is a problem for us sociologists, isn't it? We're splitting apart at the seams -- everyone knows about the qual/quant and the psych/org dichotomies. There are others as well, I bet. Do we as sociologists have the opportunity to be "the great synthesizers" -- or is that too big a bite? No answers right now... just questions. :) ... Ken From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Wed Oct 20 12:50:39 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 20 Oct 1993 12:48:26 -0700 for socgrad-list Wed, 20 Oct 1993 12:43:57 -0700 for Subject: subscribe To: socgrad@ucsd.edu Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1993 14:43:48 -0500 (CDT) From: "BRIGITTE M. STANLEY" Please add me to your list - thank you. From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Wed Oct 20 13:18:47 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 20 Oct 1993 13:17:27 -0700 for socgrad-list Wed, 20 Oct 1993 13:16:34 -0700 for VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with RFC822 id 6973; Wed, Date: 20 Oct 1993 14:46:09 CDT From: To: Subject: Re: sociology's strategy >From: kenneth steven simon >To: SSQLHUNT@UIUCVMD.BITNET >Subject: Re: sociology's strategy >Cc: socgrad@ucsd.edu > > (Dave!) wrote: > >>Several recent posts have referred to the fact that sociology is being > (Stuff deleted) >I think we have two separate issues to grapple with here: > > 1) Will the benefits of sociology (and related fields) benefit from > an interdisciplinary, less bounded approach? > 2) Is the identity "sociologist" essential to maintain as a defined, > bounded discipline, in either the name of academics or in the > name of having a job and a department? Isn't this the bottom line? Would a psychology department hire someone with a sociology Ph.D. with a dissertation on structural causes of poverty? Would a college continue to fund a department which duplicates efforts elsewhere in the university? If the answer to either of theseis no, does this not imply a set of boundaries. Shouldn't we set the boundaries ourselves? >Personally, I have qualms with strong boundaries. That only >slows progress as sociologists, psychologists, anthropologists, etc., >continue to tackle problems separately with little ability to >make use of the others' techniques and discoveries. Too limiting, >I believe, and too much of that is happening already. I'm tired of >having to reject valuable contributions to an area because they are >"too psychological" or too something-else. I don't think you have to reject this? But just how valuable is it? If it contributes to a sociological explanation of something, great!! > >However, lack of identity is a problem for us sociologists, isn't it? >We're splitting apart at the seams -- everyone knows about the >qual/quant and the psych/org dichotomies. There are others as >well, I bet. Do we as sociologists have the opportunity to be >"the great synthesizers" -- or is that too big a bite? > >No answers right now... just questions. :) > ... Ken > From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Wed Oct 20 13:55:31 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 20 Oct 1993 13:53:13 -0700 for socgrad-list Wed, 20 Oct 1993 13:49:51 -0700 for Wed, 20 Oct 93 20:49:36 GMT for MAILER@SDSC; Wed, 20 Oct 1993 20:47 GMT Date: Wed, 20 Oct 93 14:13:25 EDT From: R2HAF%AKRONVM%VM1.CC.UAKRON.EDU@vm1.cc.uakron.edu Subject: stepping out To: socgrad%ucsd.edu@Sdsc.Edu Hi all--another "lurker" emerges. Thanks Dan for pushing us out. I think that I sent something to the network once in the past, but for all intents and purposes you can consider me a listener. Laura F. and Rob seem to view this participation thing in much the same way as I do. I am someone who is vocal in my department and in my classes-- so why hold back here?? I guess that I have trouble sizing everyone up. Do you really know things that I don't know? (Well of course) But what things? What have you read? Do you have a more "advanced" understanding, etc.. Writing these thoughts makes this whole "fear" of participating seem rather silly. So--I'm not going to hold back any longer. Barring time constraints--I too seem to only catch up as the group moves to a new topic--I will participate. So here is a question to complement the discussion about theory in the center and on the fringe: Are you exposed to postmodernism in your departments? Here, at Akron, we now have a special topics theory course on Modernism, Postmodernism and the Self. In a word--it's pretty wild. But, I know that it would scare a lot of scientists out there. Comments Heather Bulan From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Wed Oct 20 14:17:18 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 20 Oct 1993 14:15:37 -0700 for socgrad-list Wed, 20 Oct 1993 14:14:49 -0700 for Date: Wed, 20 Oct 93 17:05:53 EDT From: DANRYAN@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu Organization: Yale University Subject: Analyzing unsub trends... To: socgrad@ucsd.edu Well, for what it's worth, we on the list only see people who try to sub or unsub incorrectly with those who do it right being completely invisible to us. My tentative thought: we can't make anything one way or the other of the information that's been available to all of us. As it stands, it means nothing. Speculation and the development of a question makes sense here, but I don't think that interpretations and conclusions are warranted. I think there is a real good lesson in this about a very common social process that might be called something like theorizing about the world in everydaylife. Happens all the time. Dan (who apologizes for being so far behind in his e-respondings) From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Wed Oct 20 14:48:39 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 20 Oct 1993 14:46:11 -0700 for socgrad-list Wed, 20 Oct 1993 14:45:16 -0700 for Subject: unsubs To: socgrad@ucsd.edu Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1993 16:45:12 -0500 (CDT) From: "Laura L. Fertwagner" Hello, For what it's worth I know for a fact that two of our latest "unsubs" had nothing to do with _what_ was on the net, but with how much there was to read when there is so little spare time already. I also think that we need to keep in mind that, as Dan, said we only see the unsubs that are inadvertently sent to socgrad instead of to listserv. I certainly hope that the conversations of the last few days didn't cause the unsubs!!! Bye, Laura From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Wed Oct 20 15:05:49 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 20 Oct 1993 15:02:41 -0700 for socgrad-list Wed, 20 Oct 1993 15:01:47 -0700 for Date: Wed, 20 Oct 93 17:49:57 EDT From: Dan Organization: Yale University Subject: P.S. re: analysing unsub trends... To: socgrad@ucsd.edu I'm sure that some smart sociologist will point out that we CAN offer some arguments about whether what we see in this case is likely to under or over-represent the "true" trend. That's always important to think through and one might argue here that we see only the tip of the iceberg. As far as exits go, that point would be well taken. Here we might note that we have both a subbing and an unsubbing to think about, and when we add together (to get a net movement) we add two numbers that are fuzzy in opposite directions yielding a trully fuzzy result. I think I'd still argue for jumping in directions other than "conclusions." DJRjr From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Wed Oct 20 15:08:45 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 20 Oct 1993 15:05:57 -0700 for socgrad-list Wed, 20 Oct 1993 15:04:40 -0700 for From: S-ENDER@bss1.umd.edu via Charon-4.0A-VROOM with IPX id 100.931020180252.416; To: socgrad@ucsd.edu Date: 20 Oct 93 18:02:42 EDT Subject: to sub or not to unsub is not the question maybe folks unsub temporarily...the ephemeral unsubber...because we are in the middle of the semester...and there are no alternatives or opportunities to temporarily store messages? is there a "temporarily away listing"? "moved and left no forwarding?" morten From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Wed Oct 20 15:45:01 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 20 Oct 1993 15:32:22 -0700 for socgrad-list Wed, 20 Oct 1993 15:25:43 -0700 for To: Subject: Re: sociology's strategy Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1993 15:34:29 -0700 From: Michael Lichter Isn't Sociology's reason for being, at base, that we are the residual social science, the one that cleans up after Economics extracts the economic realm, Political Science seizes the state and its operations, Anthropology appropriates culture, History comes to control the past, Geography conquers the earth, and Psychology pries open the individual mind? This residual status is the reason most any Sociology department faculty has the appearance of being a "grab bag", consisting of people doing wildly diverse, unrelated things, with little agreement on principles. Sociologists have to choose between being interstitial -- recognizing disciplinary boundaries and filling in the gaps between the other fields -- or being integrative -- trampling the boundaries and pulling diverse fields together. Militarized borders could only be of help to one part of the discipline, the part that avoids everybody else's territory. Taking a step back, there is a problem with this enforcing boundaries vs. being inter-disciplinary dichotomy. I think it is entirely appropriate for us as Sociologists to study issues, and problems which other disciplines claim as their own. It is mandatory when we do so, that we consider their approaches and answers and show where they are right and what they lack. What is essential in preserving an existence for Sociology is that our questions and answers be (a) uniquely Sociological, and (b) more convincing and more useful than theirs. Because the other social science disciplines have deliberately narrowed their focus (foci?) we should be able to do both. Whereas the boundaries between the other social science disciplines are the identities of the slices they've taken out of the social world; our boundary, our uniqueness should be in our questions and our approach. Our questions should be those which cannot be satisfactorily answered within the narrow focus of another discipline. Our approach should emphasize the links between different aspects of the social, and between the social and the cultural; it should not neglect the historical or the social strucutural; and it should not reduce the social to the individual (apologies to RCT folks). Thus, being inter-disciplinary in our choice of problems, while being Sociological in our handling of them can mean strengthening the perceived distinctiveness of Sociology. Probably ridiculous, but what do you think? On a related topic, as people have said, American universities in general are slimming down. Furthermore, there is increasing pressure (primarily from capital) on public universities to cut costs by forcing students to skip the frills and concentrate only on occupationally-relevant coursework. I think that Sociology's problems stem not just from a fuzzy academic identity, but also from a weak public identity; weak or declining popularity with undergraduates; and little direct connection with the labor market. At this point, I think that the institutional survival of American Sociology depends on these things: Public Identity 1. More high profile studies identified with the discipline which receive good media coverage, or become bestselling books. 2. More policy-relevant studies pitched in such a way that they actually do have policy impact, and which also have the effect of drawing sociologists into participation in the state apparatus. Undergraduate Programs 3. Increased popularity with undergraduates as a result of well-taught courses treating topical issues; and well-taught, well-thought-out courses treating classical issues. 4. Increased recruitment of sociology majors through #3, and (much more difficult) creation of a niche in the "real world" for those with a sociology degree (e.g. Political Science -> Law, Economics -> Business, Psychology -> Counseling, English -> waiting tables ;-). Michael From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Wed Oct 20 16:31:25 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 20 Oct 1993 16:29:21 -0700 for socgrad-list Wed, 20 Oct 1993 16:27:54 -0700 for Date: Wed, 20 Oct 93 19:01:37 EDT From: Joya Misra Organization: Emory University - Atlanta, Georgia, USA Subject: UNSUBBING To: SOCGRAD@ucsd.edu For what it's worth, wasn't some of this discussion on unsubbing done tongue-in-cheek? That's how I was reading it, at least. Since I am a comparative person, I thought I'd mention that in my experiences on OTHER lists, as soon as the list gets "hot" for a few days, meaning lots of messages, a bunch of people unsub. People don't always have the time. Cheers, joya From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Wed Oct 20 19:20:35 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 20 Oct 1993 19:16:45 -0700 for socgrad-list Wed, 20 Oct 1993 19:14:12 -0700 for Date: Wed, 20 Oct 93 21:09:55 CDT From: Colin Subject: About Michael Lichter's message To: socgrad@ucsd.edu I think Lichter's argument about the status of sociology as residual dis- cipline is in the right track. Maybe professions literature (Larsons, Abbott) can help us understand the issue better. Colin From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Wed Oct 20 23:35:32 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 20 Oct 1993 23:33:15 -0700 for socgrad-list Wed, 20 Oct 1993 23:32:13 -0700 for Date: Thu, 21 Oct 93 00:40:04 EST From: Steve Harvey Subject: the purpose and nature of sociology To: socgrad@ucsd.edu Hi, kids! I'm back! Did you miss me? Well, I was away for the weekend, and let this explosion of socgrad activity accumulate in my reader untouched for days, so I still haven't gone back and caught up on the whole dialogue going down here. But, from what I have read, I want to throw out a few quick lobs, just to reestablish that warm sense of be- longing.... To whoever (was it Michael?) apologized for questioning the virtue of rational choice, hey, no apologies necessary. This is the place to discuss these things and, if there's one thing we can be reasonably sure of, it's that the world is subtler and more complex than ANY of our theories or approaches. That's just the nature of the case: not a "bad" thing. As for the issue of "reducing social phenomena to individual behavior" (or something like that), you may be right, but then again, you may not be. It's not necessarily a "levels-of-analysis error" to use one level to explain another: Take quantum mechanics, for example. Much depends on the "aggregation principle" one utilizes. Psychological explanations of social phenomena, for instance, are, for the most part, levels-of-analysis errors, because they generalize the psychological to the social without delineating the processes by which these individual psyches aggregate into social groups. Rational choice, on the other hand, does not focus on the psychological attributes of actors (it employs a very simplistic psychological model: purposive actors), but rather on the aggregation principle itself. This "aggregation principle" is not ALL that we must explain, but it is precisely what we, as a discipline, have most thorough- ly failed to address so far. We've done a lot to delineate the opposite direc- tion: socialization. And we've performed the valuable service of debunking crude biological explanations of human behavior (though, in the process, we've grown too afraid of admitting that we still ARE biological creatures, not disembodied spirits, and that ultimately that fact will have relevance for sociologists). But, what to me is the most interesting and challenging task, explaining how multitudes of semi-autonomous creatures can make choices (how- ever constrained or molded by social influences) which aggregate into coherent swirls of phenomena, has been largely ignored (or at least not tackled in any rigorous way). so, where does one start? With a simple model. It doesn't have to be "true." Nothing is ("the tao of which we speak is not the eternal tao"). I tjust has to abstract some essence of things, some handle that may generate useful (and testable) implications. I just spent the day with my friend Michael Macy of Brandeis, who uses stochastic learning models instead of rational choice. What I like about Michael's work is that it is MORE simplistic (which is NOT the same as "simple") than similar rational choice models. The fact that it may be more faithful to reality is just an added bonus. This may be confusin g to folks who equate theory with accurate representation of reality, so, to borrow from Boudrillard and Stephen Wright, consider theory to be a sort of "map" of some aspect of reality (social theory is a map of social dynamics). Only a postmodernist feels the need to carry around a map that is the actual size of the terrain being traversed (that's why postmodernists always get lost on their way to meetings). A map is only useful, as a map, if it consciously abstracts some bare essence of that which it represents, and leaves out all the rest. No, we are not *just* rational actors. But we are, among other things, rational actors (in other words, we do, to some extant, identify goals and consciously pursue them). Even more substantially, we act AS IF we were ration- al actors (through socially learned heuristics, we cope with our complex world in ways which RESEMBLE rationality, even if we are just following culturally prescribed norms and techniques). The question isn't whether this is ALL of who and what we are, nor even whether this is THE MOST IMPORTANT ELEMENT of who and what we are (since the word "important" implies some subjective value judgement anyway), but rather whether any useful insight into social phenomena can be generated by abstracting this particular aspect of who and what we are. I think most people unfamiliar with the literature would be surprised by the subtlety and complexity of the implications this simple assumption generates. As for all the anxiety about white male sociology, positivism, and so on, well, yes, the way in which our culture produces knowledge is certainly "polluted" by the power-laden processes by which all of our institutions have developed. But let's not be too quick to assume that identifying "the problem" is the same as identifying "the solution", nor even that the relationship between the two is in any way obvious. Just as a revolution doesn't *necessarily* improve the conditions of those in whose name it was fought, neither does the rejection of an impure ("odious", "vial", "oppressive", "exploitative", pick your adjective, I'm in agreement with it) institution (or institutional matrix) necessarily improve life on earth, not even, necessarily, the lives of those who were most eager to reject it. For, in spite of all the inegalitarian baggage that is laced into our present social reality, it still developed through a slow accretion of (unfair) institutionalized solutions to constantly emergent social dilemmas, and as such, has an organic quality which exceeds in sophistication the constructs which righteous desenters prescribe in its place. I'm not saying it's "functional," I'm just saying it's real. And cognitively manageable soluti ons aren't. In other words, we can't "solve" the world. We can only improve it. And we can probably do so more effectively by working THROUGH the institutions we now have than by working against them (Oh boy, I've asked for it now!). I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't challenge the status quo, only that, we should recognize the futility of challenging it with sweeping condemnations, and the power of challenging it by working its fabric in subtle and sophisticated ways. The army corps of engineers once tried to cut through the huge meanders of the Mississippi river, to facilitate commerce, but the half mile cuts through ten mile loops were 20 times steeper than the river had been, and so the current surged through these cuts, picking up sediment as it did so, and slowed where the river resumed its natural course, dropping the sediment off again. In this way, the river eventually resumed the course it had originally had. The river of human life is no less stubborn, its course no less resistant to crude manipulations. The French revolution replaced a king with an emperor; the Russian a Czar with a General Secretary. To be sure, both brought real changes, but neither changes as sweeping as its architects had imagined they might be, nor as unambiguously positive. Meanwhile, modern democracy "emerged" in England, in a succession of smaller and less ambitious revolutions, culminating in some senses in the American "revolution," which wasn't a revolution at all, but rather a secession. And this whole line of development wasn't driven just, or even primarily, by a struggle between elites and masses, but rather by the unsavory fact the interests of elites themselves were incrementally served by cessions of power to ever wider circles on non-elites (to facilitate the production of taxable wealth). In fact, as a function of the "variable-sum" nature of social conflict, elites have as much to gain as non-elites (men as women, whites as minorities, core countries as countries of the periphery, etc) by a continual process of "equalizing." This is why some economists (prematurel y, to be sure) argue that "the market" is the best vehicle for the production and distribution of human welfare. Though these economists overstate the case, sociologists tend to understate it, or, more exactly, to underestimate the power of "the market," the institutionalized means of greasing the organic aggregation of individual human interests. Since these individual interests are best served by the most "frictionless" achievable means of communication, coop- eration, and exchange, the purpose of human praxis should be to refine human institutions to approach perfect alignment between individual and collective interests (since the two, in either a communist _or_ a libertarian utopia, are identical). All existing human culture, all defunct human culture for that matter, is a byproduct of that process, "distorted" by historical power differentials and unraveled by free-rider problems. But such is the nature of the phenomena, and no amount of condemnation will change it. Rote distributiona l struggles are generally misguided, since there is no fixed pie to divide. The real struggle is multidimensional, and requires as much a sense of shared fate as righteous indignation. Hmmm. Did I say "a quick response?" Silly me! Once again, thanks for indul- ging me. Steve "having-a-great-time-wish-I-were-there" Harvey harvey@uconnvm From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Thu Oct 21 05:25:22 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 21 Oct 1993 05:22:19 -0700 for socgrad-list Thu, 21 Oct 1993 05:21:05 -0700 for Date: Thu, 21 Oct 93 07:19:05 CDT From: KLOSKY@vm1.nodak.edu Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computer Network Subject: GPSA To: Socgrad list Now, for a quick note: Is anyone going to the GPSA meetings today and tomorrow in Brookings SD? Yes? No? Anyone ever heard of the GPSA? SKEE From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Thu Oct 21 06:58:33 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 21 Oct 1993 06:55:54 -0700 for socgrad-list Thu, 21 Oct 1993 06:54:36 -0700 for VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with RFC822 id 5693; Thu, Date: 21 Oct 1993 08:28:06 CDT From: To: Subject: Re: sociology's strategy >From: Michael Lichter > >Isn't Sociology's reason for being, at base, that we are the residual >social to the individual (apologies to RCT folks). Thus, being (stuff deleted) >inter-disciplinary in our choice of problems, while being Sociological >in our handling of them can mean strengthening the perceived >distinctiveness of Sociology. > I think you're right. I think the key, though, is the sociological handling. What is sociological handling? Yes, another question. >Probably ridiculous, but what do you think? > >On a related topic, as people have said, American universities in >general are slimming down. Furthermore, there is increasing pressure >(primarily from capital) on public universities to cut costs by forcing >students to skip the frills and concentrate only on >occupationally-relevant coursework. I think that Sociology's problems >stem not just from a fuzzy academic identity, but also from a weak >public identity; weak or declining popularity with undergraduates; and >little direct connection with the labor market. At this point, I think >that the institutional survival of American Sociology depends on these >things: > > Public Identity > > 1. More high profile studies identified with the discipline > which receive good media coverage, or become bestselling > books. > I'm doing my best. > 2. More policy-relevant studies pitched in such a way that they > actually do have policy impact, and which also have the effect > of drawing sociologists into participation in the state > apparatus. > See #1 > Undergraduate Programs > > 3. Increased popularity with undergraduates as a result of > well-taught courses treating topical issues; and well-taught, > well-thought-out courses treating classical issues. > > 4. Increased recruitment of sociology majors through #3, and > (much more difficult) creation of a niche in the "real world" > for those with a sociology degree (e.g. Political Science -> > Law, Economics -> Business, Psychology -> Counseling, English -> > waiting tables ;-). > Here at the U of Illinois, the number of undergraduates in sociology has increased dramatically in the last few years. A good sign? Dave >Michael From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Thu Oct 21 08:34:02 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 21 Oct 1993 08:29:09 -0700 for socgrad-list Thu, 21 Oct 1993 08:26:50 -0700 for Date: Thu, 21 Oct 93 11:27 EDT From: Subject: Re: peering from the closet To: duniway@u.washington.edu -- Wed, 20 Oct 1993 10:50:29 -0700 (PDT) >On Wed, 20 Oct 1993 CGH2@psuvm.psu.edu wrote: >> >the institution of education has held women "in their place" since >> >its embodiment in american culture. >> -------- >> >> Seems more like every known culture to me, not >> just american. >> >Wait, we have an ambiguous pronoun here. Does the it refer to "women's >place" in society, or the institution of education? If the latter, then >this is certainly not universal, and defining the scope as american >culture seems appropriate. I believe the it refered to the institution of education. Which does not change the meaning of my responce one bit. Instituionalized education has been used to hold women "in their place" in every culture that I have heard of I would, of course, be open to a counter-example. Jetaway Dave >Just picking a nit. >Bob Duniway >University of Washington From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Thu Oct 21 08:44:56 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 21 Oct 1993 08:38:36 -0700 for socgrad-list Thu, 21 Oct 1993 08:34:33 -0700 for Date: Thu, 21 Oct 93 10:34:31 -0500 From: Edward N Ester Jr To: socgrad@ucsd.edu Subject: Request for Lost Message On Wednesday I received a paper from SOCGRAD about developing professional networks. I deleted it will trying to save it! Could someone please mail me a copy of this paper? Thank you. Ed Ester. nester From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Thu Oct 21 08:54:36 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 21 Oct 1993 08:45:29 -0700 for socgrad-list Thu, 21 Oct 1993 08:41:01 -0700 for Date: Thu, 21 Oct 93 10:40:59 -0500 From: Edward N Ester Jr To: socgrad@ucsd.edu Subject: REQUEST for LOST FILE I received a paper yesterday about developing professional networks from SOCGRAD. I deleted it when I tried to save it :( Could someone please send me a copy of it? Thanks. Ed Ester. send to: nester@csd4.csd.uwm.edu From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Thu Oct 21 09:29:18 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 21 Oct 1993 09:27:56 -0700 for socgrad-list Thu, 21 Oct 1993 09:27:17 -0700 for From: Gary_C._David@mts.cc.wayne.edu Date: Thu, 21 Oct 93 12:26:58 EDT To: socgrad@ucsd.edu Subject: one small step... Since there has been a lot of discussion around the involvment of persons on the network, I decided to throw my two-cents in. And since this is my first time (does anybody else remember theirs?), I'll try to be as concise as possible. I feel that, through reading the discussion that has been going on of late, there is a feeling of apprehension. Even though I have been on for only a short time, my observances may be off base. However, the latest round dealing with lack of participation makes me think otherwise. Often, there will be discussion going on about a subject that I have no idea about. I may want to take part in it, however, due to some of the bantering that goes on, I decide not to. Someone referred to this as a "pissing contest" (bear with me, I'm still trying to learn everyone's names). I thought there was credence to this. I have often noticed within the departments that I have been in, there is a competition between grad students to outdo eachother. Granted, this is a competitive world in which we live. However, this behavior comes at a price of others not wanting to jump in due to the fact that they don't want to sound like an idiot. The problem doesn 't (oops) lie with having a lack of knowledge on a certain subject. The problem lies with others attacking a person for a position that s/he takes. Debate is good, but a person can't infer meaning through a computer screen, or atleast it is more difficult. Another suggestion. If there is a discussion on material anyone is not familiar with, perhaps new material should be entered. I, for one, am doing a lot of work on the effects of labor saving technology and its effects upon the economic structure of this society. Any thoughts? In summary, I think that more care should be taken in discussion. Spirited discussion is great. However, just belting out on someone is not always the best tatic. Especially with persons who are just signing on (remember how you felt "your first time.") Just a thought Gary p.s. Can't we all just get along? From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Thu Oct 21 09:53:42 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 21 Oct 1993 09:51:54 -0700 for socgrad-list Thu, 21 Oct 1993 09:51:17 -0700 for From: S-SCHUBERT@bss1.umd.edu via Charon-4.0A-VROOM with IPX id 100.931021124926.288; To: socgrad@ucsd.edu Date: 21 Oct 93 12:49:17 EDT Subject: community socgradders, it seems to me that the current debate about talking to socgrad resembles the habermas/lyotard debate on the nature of discourse. does one's contribution to socgrad imply a goal of mutual understanding, or is this just another forum for agonistics? i'm not sure which it is, but the latter certainly seems like it'd be more fun. sincerely?, dan schubert From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Thu Oct 21 11:47:33 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 21 Oct 1993 11:40:59 -0700 for socgrad-list Thu, 21 Oct 1993 11:37:34 -0700 for VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with RFC822 id 1271; Thu, Date: 21 Oct 1993 11:00:34 CDT From: To: Subject: Subbing to Sociology In response to Dave's message -- you beat me to the punch -- I was going to mention our increased enrollment of undergrads. Along with this increase I want to point out that the largest specialization, most popuar subfield, is criminology. This area of course offers some of the best direct relations(?) to the labor force. Also, it is an extremely popular subfield for pre-law students -- again, a more direct relationship with an eventual "career" that is found somewhere other than in academia. As an undergrad. advisor I actually created a flyer listing job titles in which we find sociology BAs. It is a very diverse list. With regards to the interdisciplinary question I have another observation from undergrad advisor perspective. Many students select our discipline BECAUSE they like an interdisciplinary approach. For example, I had a psychology transfer student who preferred sociology because we didn't "limit her options" regarding topics. I have a lot of students who express the idea that they like sociology because they can study "anything they want" provided they keep it within a soc. perspective. So we have students taking the social psych specialization with us because psychology was too limiting. This is only the perspective from this campus however I feel that students appreciate the breadth of the field and that employers are actually beginning to appreciate it more as well. It has been suggested that employers are no longer looking for a certain kind of training but are more interested in someone who can adapt/adopt to situations and communicate well with others. Well, sociology can certainly help provide that. Diann From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Thu Oct 21 14:20:26 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 21 Oct 1993 14:12:39 -0700 for socgrad-list Thu, 21 Oct 1993 14:07:45 -0700 for Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1993 13:59:10 -0700 (PDT) From: Laura Lee Adams Subject: Re: community To: S-SCHUBERT@bss1.umd.edu On 21 Oct 1993 S-SCHUBERT@bss1.umd.edu wrote: > it seems to me that the current debate about talking to socgrad > resembles the habermas/lyotard debate on the nature of discourse. > does one's contribution to socgrad imply a goal of mutual > understanding, or is this just another forum for agonistics? Okay, well here we go. Now I know we haven't all read the same material and that's ... okay. But I know one thing that doesn't inspire me to respond to postings is not understanding them. :) I'm not afraid to admit my ignorance - I enjoy its company! The above posting sounds interesting. What does it mean? Sincerely, Laura A. From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Thu Oct 21 15:48:02 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 21 Oct 1993 15:46:12 -0700 for socgrad-list Thu, 21 Oct 1993 15:45:02 -0700 for Date: Thu, 21 Oct 93 17:47:02 EDT From: DANRYAN@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu Organization: Yale University Subject: Debate debateable... To: socgrad@ucsd.edu Howdy ya'll -- I find the notion of recent discussions being a debate about participation a little curious. Most of the posts seemed like straight-forward comments on how the poster feels or felt about joining in the conversation. I wonder how much is added by reading them as a debate about participation. My original post was meant in the spirit of invitation, like when the music is great and one says to a whole group of folks, let's dance! It WAS meant to be provocative, but not to inspire a meta discussion on the ethical merits of participating. Posting does make you better in bed and does increase how high you can jump in bare feet and makes you more likely to win prestigious international awards, but, like dancing, the best reason for joining in conversations about the things you're thinking about is just 'cause it's fun. On yet another ordinary rainy evening in New Haven, Dan From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Thu Oct 21 15:55:07 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 21 Oct 1993 15:53:34 -0700 for socgrad-list Thu, 21 Oct 1993 15:52:52 -0700 for From: Greg_Nagy@mts.cc.wayne.edu Date: Thu, 21 Oct 93 18:52:34 EDT To: socgrad@ucsd.edu Subject: Goffman's "The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life" Has anyone out there read Goffman's "Presentation of Self"? If so, what were (or are) your impressions about this piece of work? I'm doing a short paper (due monday) on it, and would appreciate any input. Thanks! Greg greg_nagy@mts.cc.wayne.edu From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Fri Oct 22 04:48:13 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 22 Oct 1993 04:45:44 -0700 for socgrad-list Fri, 22 Oct 1993 04:44:24 -0700 for Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1993 07:43:35 -0400 (EDT) From: Charles Wright Subject: Better in bed! To: socgrad@ucsd.edu True, true!! Posting also wards off the common cold! Have a good one!! cw Peace From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Fri Oct 22 07:42:42 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 22 Oct 1993 07:35:43 -0700 for socgrad-list Fri, 22 Oct 1993 07:33:44 -0700 for From: S-ENDER@bss1.umd.edu via Charon-4.0A-VROOM with IPX id 100.931022103204.576; To: socgrad@ucsd.edu Date: 22 Oct 93 10:31:55 EDT Subject: Re: community > Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1993 13:59:10 -0700 (PDT) > From: Laura Lee Adams > Subject: Re: community > To: S-SCHUBERT@bss1.umd.edu > Cc: socgrad@ucsd.edu > > > On 21 Oct 1993 S-SCHUBERT@bss1.umd.edu wrote: > > > it seems to me that the current debate about talking to socgrad > > resembles the habermas/lyotard debate on the nature of discourse. > > does one's contribution to socgrad imply a goal of mutual > > understanding, or is this just another forum for agonistics? > > Okay, well here we go. Now I know we haven't all read the same > material and that's ... okay. But I know one thing that doesn't inspire > me to respond to postings is not understanding them. :) I'm not afraid to > admit my ignorance - I enjoy its company! > The above posting sounds interesting. What does it mean? > Sincerely, > Laura A. > >i agree, i share an office with dan, and don't know what agonistics means...agnostics maybe...or maybe something about agonizing about having to discuss (share?)...and please dan, keep it to 25 words or less, you know how long winded you can be ;-)... morten From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Fri Oct 22 09:17:14 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 22 Oct 1993 09:08:02 -0700 for socgrad-list Fri, 22 Oct 1993 09:00:38 -0700 for Date: Fri, 22 Oct 93 12:00:08 EDT From: Christine Overdevest Subject: Joining list To: Socgrad How can I join this list? Can you send me the procedures? Thanks, Christine. From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Fri Oct 22 14:15:36 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 22 Oct 1993 14:14:10 -0700 for socgrad-list Fri, 22 Oct 1993 14:13:12 -0700 for From: S-SCHUBERT@bss1.umd.edu via Charon-4.0A-VROOM with IPX id 100.931022171059.448; To: socgrad@ucsd.edu Date: 22 Oct 93 17:10:48 EDT Subject: east coast time socgradders, the university of maryland socgradders have had just about enough of socgrad electronic gatherings. we're heading out to happy hour at the tick tock lounge. ya'll are welcome to join us. c u there, dan, morten, ralph From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Fri Oct 22 15:05:18 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 22 Oct 1993 14:58:54 -0700 for socgrad-list Fri, 22 Oct 1993 14:55:12 -0700 for Date: Fri, 22 Oct 93 17:48:52 EST From: Steve Harvey Subject: Let me try to send this one more time! To: ======================================================================== 55 Greetings, friends and fellow-travelers! A couple of nights ago, in the wee hours of the morning (is that an oxymoron?), I blathered a bit about the potential virtues of methodological reductionism, and then a bit more about "evolution" and "revolution" (never actually using those terms). Ken from Indiana privately, politely, and, I think, accurately suggested that the separation of my thoughts into distinct paragraphs might have made my diatribe a bit more comprehensible. UCONN's own Alan Davidson mentioned to me that my posting carried the flavor of a 2-in-the-morning stream of consciousness, and, in general, I've gathered that it was somewhat less than coherent. Sorry, folks! Anyway, it appeared as a bit of a non sequitor, plopped down in the midst of a completely different discussion about participation on the list, and so, all in all, it ended up being pretty much ignored. Well, that's fair enough -I was out of touch with the rhythm of the conversation going on at the time. But, there were some issues buried in that barrage of words that I'd like to see addressed, so here I am, on one knee, hat in hand, asking anyone who still has that posting on file to look it over and give it some thought. The question that I'm trying to raise is this: To what extent and in what ways is "social order" (and, particularly, _existing_ social order) something to be "conserved," and to what extent and in what ways is it something from which we must "liberate" ourselves? The knee-jerk response among modern (esp. young) sociologists is toward the latter; most of us are fairly well radicalized, and we're quick to recognize and emphasize the oppressive qualities of patriarchy, capitalism, and power-structures of various kinds. But life is a subtle and paradoxical condition: A given social structure is "good" or "bad" only when measured against some implicit standard, so a simple condemnation of the status quo assumes some alternate reality that is preferable (and realistic). This raises several questions: Some of these questions involve some notion of a "natural state," be it Rousseauian or Hobbesian (i.e., is exploitation of the many by the few a cancer which plagues a "natural" condition of communality, or is it an inevitable by-product of the means by which communality is achieved?). Some questions involve grappling with whether the poorest members of society (local, national, or global) are enriched or impoverished (in absolute rather than relative terms) by membership in the existing social order. I believe that conservatives, liberals, and radicals alike are all generally too quick to "know" the answers to these questions, and I'm disgruntled by the fact that many of the sociologists I know are among the quickest! Functionalism wanted to proclaim that "everything's as it should be," and radicalism wants to proclaim that "nothing is as it should be." Is the world a solution, a problem, a little of both, or essentially neither? I think these are subtle and important issues, and our implicit or explicit positions on these issues will effect the salience and value of whatever impact the study of society may have on the human condi- tion. Again, I have lobbed these issues out in rather vague terms, because unpackaging them is not a trivial task, and not one I want to tackle solo, in a single posting. So, can I entice anyone to come out and play? Yours in blissful but not complacent ignorance, -Steve "let's-first-know-that-we-don't-know" Harvey harvey@uconnvm From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Fri Oct 22 17:56:59 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 22 Oct 1993 17:42:22 -0700 for socgrad-list Fri, 22 Oct 1993 17:36:31 -0700 for Date: Fri, 22 Oct 93 19:27:30 CDT From: KLOSKY@vm1.nodak.edu Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computer Network Subject: GPSA.... To: Socgrad list Great Plains Sociological Association. (just in case it was burning you up) Steve, I tend to think of the world as a little of both: There are structures in our society that are very functional, There are also those that are dysfunctional (problematic). To try and cast the world as one or the other is time wasted. Also, both have to exist: it is like the relationship between norms and deviance, you can't be normal unless someone else is deviant. You can't have functional structures, if some are not dysfunctional! SKEE From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Fri Oct 22 18:31:54 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 22 Oct 1993 18:28:01 -0700 for socgrad-list sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 22 Oct 1993 18:27:18 -0700 for SOCGRAD@UCSD Sat, 23 Oct 93 01:27:18 GMT Date: Fri, 22 Oct 93 14:54:19 EST From: Steve Harvey To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.BitNet Greetings, friends and fellow-travelers! A couple of nights ago, in the wee hours of the morning (is that an oxymoron?), I blathered a bit about the potential virtues of methodological reductionism, and then a bit more about "evolution" and "revolution" (never actually using those terms). Ken from Indiana privately, politely, and, I think, accurately suggested that the separation of my thoughts into distinct paragraphs might have made my diatribe a bit more comprehensible. UCONN's own Alan Davidson mentioned to me that my posting carried the flavor of a 2-in-the-morning stream of consciousness, and, in general, I've gathered that it was somewhat less than coherent. Sorry, folks! Anyway, it appeared as a bit of a non sequitor, plopped down in the midst of a completely different discussion about participation on the list, and so, all in all, it ended up being pretty much ignored. Well, that's fair enough -I was out of touch with the rhythm of the conversation going on at the time. But, there were some issues buried in that barrage of words that I'd like to see addressed, so here I am, on one knee, hat in hand, asking anyone who still has that posting on file to look it over and give it some thought. The question that I'm trying to raise is this: To what extent and in what ways is "social order" (and, particularly, _existing_ social order) something to be "conserved," and to what extent and in what ways is it something from which we must "liberate" ourselves? The knee-jerk response among modern (esp. young) sociologists is toward the latter; most of us are fairly well radicalized, and we're quick to recognize and emphasize the oppressive qualities of patriarchy, capitalism, and power-structures of various kinds. But life is a subtle and paradoxical condition: A given social structure is "good" or "bad" only when measured against some implicit standard, so a simple condemnation of the status quo assumes some alternate reality that is preferable (and realistic). This raises several questions: Some of these questions involve some notion of a "natural state," be it Rousseauian or Hobbesian (i.e., is exploitation of the many by the few a cancer which plagues a "natural" condition of communality, or is it an inevitable by-product of the means by which communality is achieved?). Some questions involve grappling with whether the poorest members of society (local, national, or global) are enriched or impoverished (in absolute rather than relative terms) by membership in the existing social order. I believe that conservatives, liberals, and radicals alike are all generally too quick to "know" the answers to these questions, and I'm disgruntled by the fact that many of the sociologists I know are among the quickest! Functionalism wanted to proclaim that "everything's as it should be," and radicalism wants to proclaim that "nothing is as it should be." Is the world a solution, a problem, a little of both, or essentially neither? I think these are subtle and important issues, and our implicit or explicit positions on these issues will effect the salience and value of whatever impact the study of society may have on the human condi- tion. Again, I have lobbed these issues out in rather vague terms, because unpackaging them is not a trivial task, and not one I want to tackle solo, in a single posting. So, can I entice anyone to come out and play? Yours in blissful but not complacent ignorance, -Steve "it's-a-subtle-and-complex-world" Harvey harvey@uconnvm From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Fri Oct 22 18:49:34 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 22 Oct 1993 18:39:46 -0700 for socgrad-list Fri, 22 Oct 1993 18:33:30 -0700 for Date: Fri, 22 Oct 93 21:31:50 EDT From: Joya Misra Organization: Emory University - Atlanta, Georgia, USA Subject: PLAYING WITH STEVE To: SOCGRAD@ucsd.edu Steve, I'll play with you... I'm relatively certain there are nuances towhat you are saying that I am not hearing, and I hope that you respond to me here if I misunderstand you. Your arguments made me think of the balance I try and strike as a teacher...trying to show my students that the world is neither problem nor solution, that everything we are interested in is complex and when functionalists proclaim "everything's as it should be" or radicals proclaim "nothing's as it should be," well, they're both being silly. We are more intelligent creatures than that, every last one of us. I get frustrated at my students who SEE this clearly, and then just give up. They don't care anymore. Victims of their own $25000/yr post-structuralist educations. They feel directionless. Where else do we go from here? Where does all this take us? What are you driving at Mr. Harvey? What do you suggest? Joya "just engaging and quite engaged thank you" Misra From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Fri Oct 22 20:09:02 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 22 Oct 1993 20:05:54 -0700 for socgrad-list Fri, 22 Oct 1993 20:05:23 -0700 for From: bigdog@nevada.edu To: socgrad@ucsd.edu Subject: Merton fun/dys Date: Fri, 22 Oct 93 20:05:19 -0700 I think it was Herbert Gantz (sp?) that said Merton (and Functionalists) missed the point. A structure can be both functional and dysfunctional. It can do these two tasks at the same time. It serves multi functions and have multi outcomes. Structures have multiple selfs as do us 'real' people. Now the qu question is do structures have interpertive devices to correct for face work problems? Is a conflict seen in the interaction between structural selfs and their faces? Just a syn-thesis of the tongue From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Fri Oct 22 21:48:25 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 22 Oct 1993 21:47:11 -0700 for socgrad-list Fri, 22 Oct 1993 21:46:38 -0700 for Date: Sat, 23 Oct 93 00:39:39 EST From: Steve Harvey Subject: still engaged and engaging To: SOCGRAD@ucsd.edu Yes, folks, it's easy to SAY that it's a false dichotomy and all that, but it's not easy to HOLD, to work with, to be true to. How do we balance acceptance and critique, appreciation and indignation, wonder and despair? I think we can, and should, but I don't think a dismissive wave of the hand does the trick! More later. Steve "head-hovering-above-the-pillow" Harvey From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Fri Oct 22 22:13:32 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 22 Oct 1993 22:11:49 -0700 for socgrad-list Fri, 22 Oct 1993 22:11:20 -0700 for Date: Sat, 23 Oct 93 00:04:41 CDT From: vijay To: hello all It is true that functional and dysfunctional aspects co exist. But what we consider functional or dysfunctional depend upon how we perceive the phenomenon at hand. We can be explicit about how we see it (half empty or half full). Once we state these, we can proceed with the business of empirical testing. This does not provide all the answers,nevertheless a good beginning. I enjoy this net work. People may be droping out for all kinds of reasons. Not because there is brong conversation all the time. From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Fri Oct 22 22:50:04 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 22 Oct 1993 22:49:02 -0700 for socgrad-list Fri, 22 Oct 1993 22:48:31 -0700 for Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1993 22:21:12 -0700 (PDT) From: Laura Lee Adams Subject: Re: Goffman's "The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life" To: Greg_Nagy@mts.cc.wayne.edu On Thu, 21 Oct 1993 Greg_Nagy@MTS.cc.Wayne.edu wrote: > Has anyone out there read Goffman's "Presentation of Self"? If so, what > were (or are) your impressions about this piece of work? I'm doing a I just had to teach that book for a class called "evaluation of evidence." Unfortunately, the prof. decided to use it as the exemplar of a phenomenological approach to participant observation. It wasn't pretty. I think Goffman does what he sets out to do; he creates a framework or a handbook that sociologists can use in case studies. Even though his "evidence" is all over the place (geographically as well as intellectually) it tended to resonate with my students. Of course, problems crept in for readers who weren't white males and this is the main problem I have with the book (besides finding it boring, which isn't a fair criticism): what does he think "our Anglo-American society" is? And does he think he really knows the "rules" by which women and African-Americans play? See, he brings in these examples from India and China to support points he's making about Anglo-American culture and then says that of course there are many more differences than similarities between the cultures. But what about the examples of African-American behavior in the South? Is that another example from a culture foreign to him, or is it part of "our" culture? Obviously he thinks that his gendered examples are from "our" culture but I think he often gets it wrong, even allowing for how gender relations were back then. Most of the examples that aren't about white men hit a sour note, and some of his sources are questionable. Of course a Westerner will see an interaction in China in terms of a performance, but that doesn't mean the "actors" have that in mind at all. The observers Goffman quotes have the template of their own culture imposed over the real meaning of what's going on, and this is also what Goffman does throughout the book. The metaphor of a theatre performance may make sense when imposed on certain situations, but while it allows him to see some things, it obscures others from view. So I don't think he succeeds in really getting at the meanings he's trying to uncover. He's just elaborating his own understandings without any reflexivity about his place in it all. And he doesn't seem to understand the meaning of power. But that's another story. Productivity, Laura A. From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Sat Oct 23 07:01:41 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Sat, 23 Oct 1993 07:00:31 -0700 for socgrad-list Sat, 23 Oct 1993 07:00:04 -0700 for via Charon-4.0A-VROOM with IPX id 100.931023100012.288; To: socgrad@ucsd.edu From: "Vincent Roscigno" Date: 23 Oct 93 10:01:43 EST Subject: Functional or Dysfunctional, that is the question I was wondering whether or not it made any sense to ask whether social structures could be functional and dysfunctional without also asking "functional for whom and for what?" It is certainly the case, for instance, that certain existing social structures are functional for societal stability and efficiency within that society. These same structures may be functional, if not beneficial, to particular members and subgroups within society, but by no means all. I guess my point here is that being functional for "society" or for particular members and subgroups does not preclude the possibility that those same structures are dysfunctional, if not exploitaive and destructive, to other members and subgroups within that same society. Just a thought. Regards, Vinnie Roscigno Box 8107 Department of Sociology North Carolina State University Raleigh, N.C. 27695-8107 "Men are free to make history, but some men are much freer than others." --- C. Wright Mills From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Sat Oct 23 07:32:58 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Sat, 23 Oct 1993 07:32:03 -0700 for socgrad-list Sat, 23 Oct 1993 07:31:38 -0700 for Date: Sat, 23 Oct 93 10:05:21 EST From: Steve Harvey To: SOCGRAD@ucsd.edu Is it a question of "either functional or dysfunctional," or is it a matter of degrees? Are exploitative relations necessarily "dysfunctional" for the exploited? One argument often made by oppressors is that THEIR oppressed group is materially better off than others of that group elsewhere (apartheid-era South African Blacks were materially better off than most blacks throughout the African continent; some southern slaves were materially better off than many northern factory workers, etc.). Where does this factor fit into the whole scheme of things? It has been said that the left is concerned with the division of the pie, the right with the total size of the pie. For the sake of argument, let's stipulate that there may be trade-offs between the two. How would we compare a condition of grossly unequal distribution of vaster resources to a condition of equality of poverty? Is there any one moral judgement that captures it all? Consider an extreme example: How would one compare a condition of extreme inequality to a condition of perfect equality, where the poorest in the former is materially better off than the wealthiest (i.e., anyone) in the latter? Do the effects of relative deprivation outweigh absolute measures? How do factors other than "material well-being" weigh in? And, for those who would argue that there is no such trade-off between equality and total wealth, are you sure? There is considerable evidence to the contrary. And to the extent that both values CAN be accomodated, it will require an understanding of the processes by which "wealth" (both public and private goods, both material and non-material) is produced and distributed, and the relationship between the two. Just a few more thoughts on the subject. steve harvey@uconnvm From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Sat Oct 23 09:01:20 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Sat, 23 Oct 1993 09:00:15 -0700 for socgrad-list Sat, 23 Oct 1993 08:59:33 -0700 for via Charon-4.0A-VROOM with IPX id 100.931023115942.384; To: socgrad@ucsd.edu From: "Vincent Roscigno" Date: 23 Oct 93 12:01:16 EST Subject: more... I think that Steve's message touches on a worthwhile question -- Are social structures necessarily dysfunctional for exploited groups? It is true that oppressors, more often than not, contend that the oppressed are better of here and now, under the existing structure, than they would be otherwise. I am inclined to believe that this is more of a justification and legitimation of existing exploitive practices than it is truth, especially if we conceptualize reward structures as being made up of more that just material components. With regard to Steve's example of the slave and the northern factory worker - in some cases, slaves were better off materially, not out of the slave owners humanistic concerns but out of a concern for insuring an investment in property. As for whether the slave had it "better", I doubt that he or she would say so or choose that option over being a poor northern factory worker. Beyond these comments, Steve's example does bring up another potential and related issue -- that there are also intangible and ideological forces, rather than merely material elements, at work here that are worthy of consideration and interrelated with the ideas being thrown around thus far. Regards, Vinnie Roscigno Box 8107 Department of Sociology North Carolina State University Raleigh, N.C. 27695-8107 "Men are free to make history, but some men are much freer than others." --- C. Wright Mills From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Sat Oct 23 10:39:20 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Sat, 23 Oct 1993 10:38:15 -0700 for socgrad-list Sat, 23 Oct 1993 10:37:16 -0700 for From: Greg_Nagy@mts.cc.wayne.edu Date: Sat, 23 Oct 93 13:37:08 EDT To: socgrad@ucsd.edu Subject: Just some thoughts... Just some ideas about recent posts... The extent to which one is free to choose is constrained -but not determined- by one's station in life as it relates (or does not relate) to viable social structures. These social structures are viable insofar as they offer avenues and opportunities for the attainment of both perceived material goods and power to define one's existence. The argument put forth by Steve appears to be predicated on the assumption that present differential access to "the pie" is somehow an inevitable condition of human kind. If this assumption is true, then a synthesis of "working toward a better pie" with "striving toward a equitable* pie" is a plausible alternative. However, synthesizing points of view that are fundamentally mutually exclusive is by definition an impossible task. So, are they??? Let's consider the argument of Adam Smith (quite arguably the foundation of modern day laissez faire capitalism/ i.e. the "whole pie people"). Man is by nature greedy; by nature self-interested, by nature lazy; etc; Now more fundamentally let's consider Hobbes... man is by nature violent... the natural state (or condition) of man is a war of all against all... Locke makes similar arguments...and others... They all are arguing -some tacitly others quite explicity-that man (pardon the sexist language here, but it must be understood in terms of the argument S.O.K.) is an individuated being by nature. And, that differential capacity is *more* or *less* a natural thing. Thus, man is by nature, entirely distinct from society. So, it is only through social contracts and such that man may become civilized... and (a big jump back to Smith here) the only successful path for capitalist economies is via no regulation. A counter argument could be there is no world in the world of one... a human mind presupposes two brains... an individual's being is a social construct and thus not wholly one's own... and so on... So is it Indiv---->Society; or Society---->Indiv; or Indiv<--->Society; or IsNoDcIiVeItDyUAL ??? If it is the latter, (by which I do not mean a synthesis in what I take to be Steve sense of the term) then the basic foundations to many of our ideas about society are simply wrong, with rational choice theory at the top of the list. Notice that I use the term equitable rather than equal. By equity I mean that outcome (in monetary and other terms) is commensurate with input (as moderated, mediated, and achieved within and virtually without certain social structures). Now, how do we determine input? And how do we determine structures? And who gets to determine structures? Who gets to determine input? If we use Chambliss's argument about an inversion of attitude taking place at higher levels of competition, then we need something more than self- reported input to go on. That is, if people at these "higher levels" are not regarding their stuff as more work-like, why should they reap greater benefits. Maybe recompense should be based on the amount of effort put forth within the context of structural constraints surrounding a certain person. Thus, if an African American male can make it to his 18th birthday in the city of Detroit without getting killed, he should receive a million dollars and a new lease on life. Harvard grads who are the direct or in-direct scions of Harvard grads should get half of the diploma that Blue-collar scions graduating from Harvard receive. The argument that rational choice theories work because they work, is moreover tautological... (re: Kuhn) The question shouldn't not be exclusively about efficacy, inasmuch as, it should be over what else could work even better and why? You can have fundamentally wrong assumptions and still get results... we just want better results that's all.. Just some thoughts... I hope it's engaging... Greg From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Sat Oct 23 10:50:26 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Sat, 23 Oct 1993 10:48:38 -0700 for socgrad-list Sat, 23 Oct 1993 10:48:10 -0700 for Date: Sat, 23 Oct 93 13:27:11 EST From: Steve Harvey Subject: Vinnie's comments To: SOCGRAD@ucsd.edu Vinnie (and Dan and Skee and Joya)- thanks for jumping in. But be careful: Many slaves fought for the SOUTH, and it is probable that many or most were successfully socialized into believing the ideology by which they were oppressed. Post hoc attributions of subjective value judgements often ignore the historical differences in perceptions. For those who would argue that the attitudes born of socialization just represent false consciousness anyway, and so somehow "don't count," bear in mind that all consciousness is "false consciousness" (Marx not withstanding), and explaining away people's attitudes in this way, while of *some* heuristic appeal, is pretty much a tautological argument that doesn't bear much fruit. People believe what they believe, howeve r they came to believe it, and sociologists aren't privileged to declare what they SHOULD believe! And, Vinnie, the suggestion that ideological proclamations that "the peasantry" is better off here and now than anywhere and anywhen else is a hegemonic tool is not incompatable with the possibility that there MAY BE aspects of truth to it! So, isn't anyone out there going to defend the "true faith" ("oppression is oppresion, goddammit!")? I thought my remarks would be more controversial! Well folks, once again, thanks for your indulgence! Steve "just-another-friendly-baiter" Harvey harvey@uconnvm From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Sat Oct 23 11:29:16 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Sat, 23 Oct 1993 11:27:54 -0700 for socgrad-list Sat, 23 Oct 1993 11:26:55 -0700 for From: Greg_Nagy@mts.cc.wayne.edu Date: Sat, 23 Oct 93 14:26:50 EDT To: socgrad@ucsd.edu Subject: Steve "just-another-friendly-baiter" Harvey Steve, Don't get too good at baiting, lest you become master of your craft, and subsequently, not your domain! :-) From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Sat Oct 23 12:10:25 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Sat, 23 Oct 1993 12:08:30 -0700 for socgrad-list Sat, 23 Oct 1993 12:06:38 -0700 for Date: Sat, 23 Oct 93 14:04:15 CDT From: KLOSKY@vm1.nodak.edu Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computer Network Subject: Schools... To: Socgrad list I know that in the past, Dan has asked people tell us about their schools. I am currently looking for schools at which to pursue a PhD in Sociology. Can anyone out there guess what my next post to the list will be? I'm not even going to state it...... Lets see what happens..... SKEE From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Sat Oct 23 13:12:54 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Sat, 23 Oct 1993 13:11:35 -0700 for socgrad-list Sat, 23 Oct 1993 13:10:59 -0700 for VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with RFC822 id 5630; Sat, Date: 23 Oct 1993 14:19:22 CDT From: To: Subject: Schools... Thought this was worth forwarding.... Hope Dave don't get mad! SKEE ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- This NOTE is a reply to: ------------------------ >Subject: Schools... >To: Socgrad list > >I know that in the past, Dan has asked people tell us about their schools. > >I am currently looking for schools at which to pursue a PhD in Sociology. > >Can anyone out there guess what my next post to the list will be? > >I'm not even going to state it...... > >Lets see what happens..... > >SKEE Don't do it!!! It will only cause you pain and grief. Who needs the stress? Who needs the hassle? Life is sociology, why get a degree? :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) Dave From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Sat Oct 23 20:47:25 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Sat, 23 Oct 1993 20:45:51 -0700 for socgrad-list Sat, 23 Oct 1993 20:44:22 -0700 for VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with RFC822 id 9503; Sat, Date: 23 Oct 1993 22:10:48 CDT From: To: Subject: To Steve, et.al. and SKEE Okay Steve, my first comment is -- dear boy, use paragraphs. Miss Manners is having convulsions and the rest of us are becoming bleary-eyed in the face of that entire page of symbols! Next, you must define for me what you mean by exploitation and oppression. I realize, of course, that I am oppressed as a female but what do YOU mean by the term. I think, whether we admit it or not, that we all use a little bit of each category (liberal, conservative, or radical) where it fits best. However, without defining our terms I find it very difficult to continue discussion. For example, is it exploitative to have graduate students teaching courses? When does it become exploitative -- when you have difficulty finishing your dissertation? (I admit this could be a wonderful topic for a prelim. exam so get your practice in now.) for a prelim. exam so get your practice in now.) Next, I wish to remark on SKEE's comment regarding graduate education in Sociology. I am firmly placing my undergraduate advisor's cap on my head and will say that -- ouch, that hurts! Seriously, I found myself at UIUC through a mixture of fate and money. First, I had applied to only one grad. school with an assurance that I would get in. Let us just say that family connections don't get you what they used to. Once I became an advisor I was determined to make this process easier for my students. I find that getting information from graduate students already at the places you are considering can be VERY helpful. However, you must consider the financial aspects as well as the faculty and departmental "aura" (although non-scientific I like the overall feel of the term). What I recommend is applying to at least five schools. One that you are pretty much sure will accept you, one that you feel is out of reach (but DO NOT sell yourself short), and all those in between. You can usually find fairly decent references regarding the top 20 sociology departments in you undergrad. library or through some kind persuasion to the local librarian (who can at least guide you to the reference). I feel it is critical not to take a department at face value (ie: what is in the brochures). Although this sounds simplistic you have to consider that professors (who you may want to work with) have left the department since the last publication or may be on extended leave or some such thing. Just make sure you feel comfortable with your decision (ie: the money is good and you have at least one person guaranteed to stay and be on a dissertation committee) and you like at least one person you have spoken with in the department. I have to admit that the most important person in my graduate career has not been the department head but the graduate secretary. Get to know this person early. He or she can make your life a lot easier. Hope it helps, Diann PS to Steve: You should know that the ultimate answer to life et.al. is 42. The problem is that no one in the universe can remember the question. From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Sat Oct 23 21:02:33 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Sat, 23 Oct 1993 21:00:14 -0700 for socgrad-list Sat, 23 Oct 1993 20:58:47 -0700 for VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with RFC822 id 9614; Sat, Date: 23 Oct 1993 22:44:40 CDT From: To: Subject: Graduate Groups Well, we had an official meeting of the Sociology graduate students last week and I am wondering if other departments have such a group. If so, what is its function and what does it actually do? At UIUC we have a group in our department as well as a campus-wide group. I have objected (I like to think vociferously) to some of the statements our graduate organization has made (and, in essence, signed my name to). Does anyone else have a departmental graduate student organization? What, infact, does this group do? What, if any, benefits have you gotten from your membership? Do you consider yourself an active member? If so, if you disagree with a statement and it goes out as an "official" memo of this organization do you have any recourse other than explaining your position to individual professors? Just a few questions... Diann From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Sat Oct 23 21:14:37 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Sat, 23 Oct 1993 21:11:58 -0700 for socgrad-list Sat, 23 Oct 1993 21:10:49 -0700 for Date: Sun, 24 Oct 93 00:04:09 EST From: Steve Harvey To: SOCGRAD@ucsd.edu Quick note to Diann: I intentionally left the terms undefined, because their so poorly defined in general discourse. This was all an exercise in saying, "hey, let's clarify our perceptions on these issues, because I see so much hide-and- seek going on with these notions and terms." And, I wanted to call knee-jerk responders to task (not that knee-jerk responding has been strongly evidenced on socgrad). Thanks for jumping in. And a promise to throw in a paragraph or two next time (sheesh!)! steve. From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Sat Oct 23 23:03:02 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Sat, 23 Oct 1993 22:59:26 -0700 for socgrad-list Sat, 23 Oct 1993 22:58:20 -0700 for Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1993 22:58:20 -0700 From: <@vm1.nodak.edu:KLOSKY@VM1.NODAK.EDU> Tricia Robinson Apparently-To: (5.65d3+/IDA-1.4.2+MUN1.3 for KLOSKY@vm1.nodak.edu); Sat, 23 Oct 93 22:55:55 -0230 -0230 Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1993 22:56:00 -0230 From: dscott@kean.ucs.mun.ca To: KLOSKY@VM1.NoDak.EDU Subject: RE: Schools... This is also worth forwarding! Sounds like an option! SKEE ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- Have you ever considered a Canadian university. I am currently a PhD student at Memorial University of Newfoundland which has a dynamic sociology dept. In addition to having an excellent library and research facilities the university itself has about 20,000 full-time students and the location, i.e., St. John's, Newfoundland is a spectacular part of Canada. The reason I point this out to you is that there has been lots of applications to get into grad. school from the US and when you consider the cost differentialbetween Canadian and US universities it might be worth your while to check into a Canadian school. Good luck! Dave Scott From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Sat Oct 23 23:22:03 1993 sendmail 8.6/UCSD-2.2-sun Sat, 23 Oct 1993 23:14:44 -0700 for socgrad-list Sat, 23 Oct 1993 23:14:25 -0700 for From: bigdog@nevada.edu To: socgrad@ucsd.edu Subject: Hey Steve! Date: Sat, 23 Oct 93 23:14:17 -0700 My knees hurt and I am not sure but think it is your fault. To Diann what was the question? I Thought the question was 42 and the answer was forgotten in theeddies of a weird space time warp thing. Was that a blue sofa that just flew by? Living and flying in 3/5 time. That is a tri with five parts! From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Oct 28 13:14:31 1993 sendmail 8.6.3/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 28 Oct 1993 13:04:14 -0700 for socgrad-list sendmail 8.6.3/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 28 Oct 1993 13:00:36 -0700 for socgrad@ucsd Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1993 13:00:36 -0700 From: postmast@UCSD.EDU (UCSD Postmaster) To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: test Please ignore From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Oct 28 15:07:51 1993 sendmail 8.6.3/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 28 Oct 1993 14:58:27 -0700 for socgrad-list Thu, 28 Oct 1993 14:54:14 -0700 for Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1993 14:54:09 -0700 From: Laura Miller To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: online again Well, it looks like we're back up again. Apologies for technical difficulties at UCSD. Anyone who tried to post messages from Sunday on should probably resend them. Regards from San Diego where the sky's full of smoke and ashes are falling like rain. Laura From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Oct 28 18:24:53 1993 sendmail 8.6.3/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 28 Oct 1993 18:23:11 -0700 for socgrad-list Thu, 28 Oct 1993 18:23:08 -0700 for To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: Sociology lecture turns into heated debate Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1993 18:24:10 -0700 From: Michael Lichter Excusable blunder, punishable offense, or courageous act? You decide. >From the UCLA "Daily Bruin", Monday, October 25, 1993. Sociology lecture turns into heated debate by Nancy Hu Daily Bruin Staff Sociology lecturer Hazell Johnson's class on sociology and the family turned into a heated debate when students took offense at her efforts to explain racial stereotypes of African Americans Wednesday afternoon. A furor arose in the Sociology 136 class after Johnson asked a few African-American students in her class to stand up as examples that not everyone fits stereotypes. The students refused and two walked out of the classroom. "She made a statement that African Americans are the country's dark-skinned, thick-lipped, curly-haired characters," said Christopher Baily, a fouth-year political science major and one of the students who walked out. "I want her out of there. We should not have that kind of teaching at UCLA in 1993," he said, adding that he plans to drop the class. Johnson says that students misunderstood the point that she was trying to make -- that race is a social construction that the dominant party in any kind of government sets up to keep themselves in an advantageous position. "They didn't bother to listen," said Johnson, who said she was trying to teach about how the family is affected because of its race or ethnicity. "I may have made the three people up front uncomfortable because I used them to point out that this idea is ridiculous." Despite her intentions, Baily and other students thoght that Johnson's actions were irresponsible and insensitive. Baily intends to ask sociology Chair Ivan Szeleny to take disciplinary action. "I can no longer take what she says seriously, and secondly, I didn't pay my reg fees to be made the clowns in class," Baily said. Johnson said she was saddened when she heard Baily wants to drop the class. "I really took a liking to this young man, and I was really hurt that he wouldn't sit down and listen," she said. "If he were to wait and discover what I was trying to say, I think he would've see [sic] what I'm trying to say is what he's trying to say. Szelenyi was notified of the incident through another colleague, and will meet with Johnson and students to clarify any misunderstanding as soon as possible, he said. "I think this teacher, as far as I can charge [sic], means good," Szelenyi said. "What she really wanted to communicate was that race is socially identified." Many in the 160-person class sympathize with Johnson, but feel she could have made the point more tactfully. "I guess she could have done it differently. People were offended about it," said Sandy Myung, a third-year sociology major. "She spent the rest of the class apologizing. It was really tense in there. Johnson is a regular extension professor on ethnic relations who spent 15 years doing research in South Africa. "I think it's a very good class," Myung said. "I think she's a really great professor. It's just always a sensitive issue when people start talking about their nationalities." From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Oct 28 19:00:22 1993 sendmail 8.6.3/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 28 Oct 1993 18:59:02 -0700 for socgrad-list Thu, 28 Oct 1993 18:58:58 -0700 for Date: Thu, 28 Oct 93 20:49:19 CDT From: Juchuan Subject: The Johnson incident To: Socgrad I find M. Lichter's story interesting and puzzling. In a sense, the incident itself is like a Garfinkle's experiment. However, because the breaching is unintended, the cultural assumptions violated are not clear to me. Maybe sb would like to share his(her) reading with me? Colin From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Oct 28 20:23:29 1993 sendmail 8.6.3/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 28 Oct 1993 20:22:00 -0700 for socgrad-list Thu, 28 Oct 1993 20:21:56 -0700 for Date: Thu, 28 Oct 93 22:10:23 EDT From: Dan Organization: Yale University Subject: Re: Sociology lecture turns into heated debate To: Socgrad Howdy, folks! At the risk of seeming like a stick in the mud, I should like to counsel caution in evaluating the Johnson lecture incident based on a report in the Daily Bruin. Undergrad newspapers are notorious for not quite getting the story right (very, very common here at Yale, home of the "Oldest College Newspaper in the country..."). The evidence we've got here is a part of the phenomenon. That said, _sounds_ like over-reaction on the part of the students to what MIGHT have been a pedagogical miscalculation, if anything. Apropos our PC discussion of a few weeks ago, I'd like to suggest that some- times we choose the politics of rhetorical sensitivity because it's a lot easier than organizing for material change. Of course, words and ideas ARE important, but, if we're talking offensive, I'd say I find it offensive when I hear certain senators talking about truth and ethics, for example. But to do something with that I have to think things out, make a case, carefully explain what I mean -- a lot harder than button pushing. Apologies if I've overdrawn the point in order to make the distinction or not made myself clear, but I'll stop here in the interest of keeping this note short. Dan From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Oct 29 00:17:36 1993 sendmail 8.6.3/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 29 Oct 1993 00:13:22 -0700 for socgrad-list Fri, 29 Oct 1993 00:13:18 -0700 for Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1993 23:46:17 -0700 (PDT) From: Laura Lee Adams Subject: Re: Sociology lecture turns into heated debate To: Michael Lichter The problem with things like this (and it seems there are many examples, like the "Reginald Denny" or "Rodney King" trials) is that the public is given a bare outline of a complex situation and asked to condemn or defend an action. It's not fair to ask people to judge the situation based on a sketchy college newspaper article or media second-guesses of what's going on in the minds of earnest jurors; it's not fair to anyone involved. Now this instructor, regardless of what actually happened, will henceforth be known as the UCLA prof who called her students "thick-lipped, fuzzy-haired" folk, or whatever. What if that's not what happened? Will we ever hear about it? Probably not. Whatever the actual content and complexity of the situation, many people who reads that article are likely to come away with yet another example to plug into a particular political agenda, whether liberal or conservative. We socgradders, at least, are supposed to have a little stricter criteria than journalists' for the evidence upon which we base our conclusions. Polemically yours, Laura A. From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Oct 29 03:05:50 1993 sendmail 8.6.3/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 29 Oct 1993 03:01:26 -0700 for socgrad-list Fri, 29 Oct 1993 03:01:25 -0700 for To: Laura Lee Adams Subject: Re: Sociology lecture turns into heated debate Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1993 03:02:43 -0700 From: Michael Lichter I'd like to respond at greater length, but for now I'll say that friends who were present in the classroom confirm that what appeared in the Bruin is a reasonable account. Note that neither the Bruin nor my friends gave the context for the remark "African Americans are the country's dark-skinned, thick-lipped, curly-haired characters," so it may have been preceded by the phrase "Some really stupid people say that ..." In any case, this is not an appropriate forum to decide the fate of the sociologist mentioned in the article. I presented the article more as a thought piece: say that somebody on your campus did something like what is described here -- what response, if any, would you consider appropriate? Alternatively, if you think that students overreact to incidents like this, as someone has suggested, do you think that there is a reason for their hypersensitivity and that this ought to be taken into account when planning courses? Michael From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Oct 29 06:41:28 1993 sendmail 8.6.3/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 29 Oct 1993 06:33:59 -0700 for socgrad-list Fri, 29 Oct 1993 06:33:57 -0700 for Subject: Sociology lecture... To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1993 08:33:55 -0500 (CDT) From: "Laura L. Fertwagner" Hello all! After reading Laura A.'s message concerning the "news" report about a classroom incident, I feel compelled to jump in the conversation and agree with her that we should not base our conclusions on a so-called news report. I believe that most of us are aware that the media (at any level) are in the business of constructing (or re-constructing) social reality. What journalists generally do is put together a story based on what the journalist *wants* to present. In other words, the facts of a situation can be manipulated to present a point of view, while seeming to be unbiased. Anyone who has been at a news event and then seen it reported has probably been aware of this. The way pieces of film are spliced, quotations are taken out of context, and facts are ignored can serve to cant a story in any direction that a journalist sees fit. And now for the self-serving reason for this posting: Is anyone out there familiar with the literature in this area? I am looking at the way the media are treating a local grassroots social movement for my thesis. I am interested in the way the media try to thwart these movements via biased news reports and intimidation. Any info and/or insight would be appreciated!!! --Laura F. From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Oct 29 06:55:56 1993 sendmail 8.6.3/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 29 Oct 1993 06:50:24 -0700 for socgrad-list Fri, 29 Oct 1993 06:50:18 -0700 for Date: Fri, 29 Oct 93 09:23:12 EST From: Steve Harvey Subject: action/reaction To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU Hi, friends. I'd like to pick up on Laura's comments concerning public reactions to complex events. We (concerned citizens) find ourselves in a bit of a bind, since information is "costly" (in time and energy) to obtain, but relinquishing all responsibility to the "system" or the "authorities" takes the "dia" out of "lectic." Not a good idea. Personally, I don't believe that the "mass convictions" (pun intended) that ripple through the public in the face of high-profile show-trials is a very healthy thing. The effect it has on the political process is not so much to keep politicians honest, but to motivate greater and more convoluted dishonesty, pushing the "referent" deeper and deep- er into oblivion. I think that people (e.g., activists) have to balance a recognition of their own relative (individual) ignorance of the details of any given incident with organized efforts to police the political process (such as Ralph Nader's organizations). The main and most effective tool in political praxis is the dissemination of information. -steve harvey@uconnvm From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Oct 29 07:52:20 1993 sendmail 8.6.3/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 29 Oct 1993 07:46:39 -0700 for socgrad-list Fri, 29 Oct 1993 07:46:33 -0700 for Date: Fri, 29 Oct 93 10:42:46 EDT To: <@YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu:DANRYAN@YALEVM.CIS.YALE.EDU> Subject: Steve's comments... Greetings fellow Friday-experiencers -- In reply to Mr. Harvey's comments, I offer a few below. I suspect I might be in agreement with his overall point (not sure), but a few particulars caught me in a "say something in response to that" mood. On Fri, 29 Oct 93 09:23:12 EST Citizen Harvey said: >Hi, ... [missing stuff] ...We (concerned citizens) find ourselves in a bit of >a bind, since information is "costly" (in time and energy) to obtain, but >"dia" out of "lectic." I don't find the "information is costly" observation persuasive. Implicit in the notion is the idea that if only the information were available, people would do sensible things with it and the right things would happen. Human beings are not information processors who, given the right inputs and resources, produce the proper outputs. When people react to something like this UCLA thing, the "problem" is not, I think, a lack of accurate information, but the unwillingness to think carefully about what is going on. Too often we think like lawyers: if the correct facts are presented the organizational mechanisms will grind out the truth. Great theory, but things don't often work out that way. [...other stuff...] >er into oblivion. I think that people (e.g., activists) have to balance a >recognition of their own relative (individual) ignorance of the details of any >given incident with organized efforts to police the political process (such as >Ralph Nader's organizations). So, is this a counsel not to criticize activists who make political hay of an incident? Who are the activists here? NOT the folks in, say, a Nader organization? Do the organizations know better? Or do we decide whose side we are on and then believe their version of the story? I think I have something to say in response to this, but I'm not sure what it means. C'mon Professor Harvey, remember's Art's advice: it's better to to be wrong than vague. >The main and most effective tool in political >praxis is the dissemination of information. Right or wrong? So we give up any notions of truth or accuracy, handing the world over to the groups with the best media operation? Just because the dissemination of information is effective politically doesn't mean that the world created by the dissemination of certain information is one that anyone would want to live in. That's my $2 worth. Cheers, Dan (in New Haven, where it is beautifully sunny today) From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Oct 29 08:07:36 1993 sendmail 8.6.3/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 29 Oct 1993 08:01:47 -0700 for socgrad-list Fri, 29 Oct 1993 08:01:44 -0700 for Date: Fri, 29 Oct 93 10:53:15 EST From: Steve Harvey To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU A quick rejoinder to Dan (and, by the way, my name is "Steve"): When I refer to information-costs, I am not talking about raw data alone. Such costs include the effort involved in processing information. I'll leave more elaborate responses to your comments to our, hopefully friendly, ongoing dialogue _PEACE_, -steve harvey@uconnvm From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Oct 29 09:38:02 1993 sendmail 8.6.3/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 29 Oct 1993 09:23:45 -0700 for socgrad-list Fri, 29 Oct 1993 09:23:41 -0700 for From: LEE@cati.umd.edu via Charon-4.0A-VROOM with IPX id 100.931029122110.608; To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: 29 Oct 93 12:16:13 EDT Subject: "The Responsibility of Intellectuals" "Intellectuals are in a position to expose the lies of governments, to analyze actions according to their causes and motives and often hidden intentions. In the Western world at least, they have the power that comes from polticial liberty, from access to information and freedom of expression. For a privileged minority, Western democracy provides the leisure, the facilities, and the training to seek the truth lying hidden behind the veil of distortion and misrepresentation, ideology, and class interest through which the events of current history are presented to us. The responsibilities of intellectuals, then are much deeper than what [Dwight] Macdonald calls the `responsibility of peoples,' given the unique privileges that intellectuals enjoy. ...It is the responsibility of intellectuals to speak the truth and to expose lies...." Noam Chomsky Just a thought to add to the discussion. Lee From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Oct 29 10:22:34 1993 sendmail 8.6.3/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 29 Oct 1993 10:06:20 -0700 for socgrad-list Fri, 29 Oct 1993 10:06:16 -0700 for Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1993 13:04:10 +0501 (EDT) From: James Cassell Subject: Re: "The Responsibility of Intellectuals" To: LEE@cati.umd.edu On 29 Oct 1993 LEE@cati.umd.edu wrote: > ...It is the responsibility of intellectuals to speak the truth > and to expose lies...." Noam Chomsky > > > Just a thought to add to the discussion. Lee Great quote, but with all due respect to Noam Chomsky, who's job is it to check up on the intellectuals... ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Jim Cassell Jim_Cassell@UNC.EDU Institute for Research in Social Science Phone: 919-962-0782 University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill Fax: 919-962-4777 Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3355 USA From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Oct 29 11:06:32 1993 sendmail 8.6.3/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 29 Oct 1993 10:52:53 -0700 for socgrad-list Fri, 29 Oct 1993 10:52:49 -0700 for Date: Fri, 29 Oct 93 12:48:00 -0500 From: yamane@ssc.wisc.edu (DAVID YAMANE) To: "socgrad@ucsd.edu"@ssc.wisc.edu Subject: Media portrayal of soc. movements To Laura F. This may be obvious, but foundational work on media and soc. movements by Todd Gitlin is in THE WHOLE WORLD IS WATCHING, where he argues that the media frames certain events according to preestablished story forms (e.g., deviant soc movement=criminal). --Jim J. From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Oct 29 11:12:24 1993 sendmail 8.6.3/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 29 Oct 1993 10:57:28 -0700 for socgrad-list Fri, 29 Oct 1993 10:57:26 -0700 for Date: Fri, 29 Oct 93 12:35:17 CDT From: Colin Subject: Classroom Incident To: Socgrad Two points. First, I still think what is more interesting about this class- room incident is the apparent violation of certain rules regulating the specific interaction that produced such an "misunderstanding", or whatever you want to call it. Rules regarding classroom interaction, rules regarding inter-racial communication, etc. I am not so much concerned with "evaluating" this incident. But, maybe, we don't have enough material at hand. What a pity. Second, I agree the media sometimes catch on sensations and has biases. Example, a few days ago, CBS evening news carried a news about the mobilization of the religious right. Rather than interviewing them and asking their best- thought out ideas about what they think is wrong about America, and what is their reason, it shows the leader saying only "they (the liberals) have reason to fear me." And then jaxtopose a darling episode from the "Wizard of OZ," with the explanation "the religious right is opposed to this musical because it portrays a good witch." This kind of indecent caricture is no less disgusting than the tactic the Canadian Republican's tactic to portray the right side face of the Democratic candidate, asking "Is this the prime minister of Canada you want?" Talk about Media bias. From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Oct 29 11:31:47 1993 sendmail 8.6.3/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 29 Oct 1993 11:10:08 -0700 for socgrad-list Fri, 29 Oct 1993 11:10:06 -0700 for From: Melissa R Herman Subject: women in corporations To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU (socgrad network) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1993 11:10:05 -0700 (PDT) We had John Reed (CEO of Citibank) speak in class today and I was upset by his explanation of why there are not women in the top 30 senior management--namely because women have lots of other options and when things stop being fun and exciting, women make other choices. Then I started to realize that he's kind of right, but he really put it in a negative light. I have lots of interests other than work, and if my work were making the demands on my private life the way John Reed's work does, I wouldn't stay for a second. Since women see more alternatives in the way they can choose to spend their lives, corporations have less power over them in terms of making them stay and do the job. Are women socialized to see more alternatives or is it just that society sanctions more alternatives for women? It's certainly not true that women have an easier time getting a new job whenever they're dissatisfied with the one they have. Do you think that women will move into the upper echelons (sp?) more when/if they perceive their options to be fewer? If society comes to sanction lots more alternatives for men, will men come to perceive more options and then be as likely to opt out of a high prestige/high demand jobs? It seems to me that the women who make it into the top 60 (or whatever) must have wanted a high demand career, or they wouldn't have made it that far in the first place. Why would they suddenly change their minds, and why don't men experience similar changes? -- Melissa Herman manoki@leland.stanford.edu Department of Sociology Stanford University From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Oct 29 12:11:20 1993 sendmail 8.6.3/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 29 Oct 1993 11:56:25 -0700 for socgrad-list Fri, 29 Oct 1993 11:56:24 -0700 for From: khaskin@merle.acns.nwu.edu Subject: Returned mail: Host unknown (fwd)[D To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Fri, 29 Oct 93 13:56:22 CDT I had trouble sending this so I am sending to again: > From: khaskin@merle.acns.nwu.edu > Subject: women's careers > To: socgrad@ucsd > I would like to respond to Melissa's message about women choosing alternate > career paths. I think your ideas, or this Reed guy's ideas, are both right > and very wrong. It is true that women can choose alternate career paths, like > part-time work, with much less social stigma than men can. But it is also > true that women face a lot of discrimination--both overt and subtle forms. > And these kinds of discrimination result in women saying, screw this, I don't > have to put up with all of this pain when I have other appealing options > available to me. > > So it is more complicated than just saying women have more choices. They have > more choices at one level, but some choices are not available to women at all. > In some fields, like construction, women face violence when they try to work. > And in other fields, like corporations, there is a glass ceiling which keeps > women from making it to the top (with the exception of a few tokens). > > So when it is so hard to succeed in certain fields (including academia, by the > way) and you are sacrificing a lot in your personal life, too, that may just > be too much pain. And then you find out that the eventual rewards you were > promised may never be available to you. Under those circumstances, alternate > career paths may look very appealing. > > Anyway, this story is more complex than I have just said, but it would take a > book to say it all. > > Karen > From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Oct 29 14:33:56 1993 sendmail 8.6.3/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 29 Oct 1993 14:30:36 -0700 for socgrad-list Fri, 29 Oct 1993 14:30:27 -0700 for Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1993 17:09:43 -0400 (EDT) From: Joseph Moore Subject: Canadian Republicans? To: socgrad Although being bogged down in comprehensives prevents me from commenting on the issues of media, "truth", and the role of intellectuals (an interesting, and recent, book by Zygmunt? Bauman entitled From Legislators to Interpretors is worth a read), I must emerge from my igloo to inform my southern (and north-western) neighbours that while there were several official parties that were recognized in the recent federal election not one of these was the "republican" party. The party which aired the advertisement mentioned was the Progressive Conservative Party (a great oxymoron or what?). Damn its cold up here, Joey p.s. sorry for the editing problems -- its hard to get the latest technology given the dog-sled drivers strike From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Oct 29 15:40:28 1993 sendmail 8.6.3/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 29 Oct 1993 15:36:12 -0700 for socgrad-list Fri, 29 Oct 1993 15:36:10 -0700 for From: neese@nevada.edu To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: Media and politics Date: Fri, 29 Oct 93 15:36:04 -0700 Hello Colleagues - Laura F. was asking about the media's involvement with social movements. A great example would be the Guatemalan coup in 1954. The book *Bitter Fruit* by Stephen Schlesinger and Stephen Kinzer give a great account of the "untold story of the American coup in Guatemala". The media played an incredibly inter- esting role. Check it out. Denise Dalaimo UNLV From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Oct 29 16:01:44 1993 sendmail 8.6.3/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 29 Oct 1993 15:54:54 -0700 for socgrad-list Fri, 29 Oct 1993 15:54:53 -0700 for From: neese@nevada.edu To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: Women's careers Date: Fri, 29 Oct 93 15:54:50 -0700 There were some interesting points made about women's careers (and lack thereof). One point I wanted to make was that, in addition to asking why women change jobs/quit careers as often as they do, let's ask why men don't do it as often as women. One reason may be that socialization has made occupation a significant (maybe the most significant?) part of their social self. Women aren't pressured as much to have a *successful career*. Just a thought. >From the big pumpkin patch in the desert - Denise neese@nevada.edu From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Oct 29 16:23:22 1993 sendmail 8.6.3/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 29 Oct 1993 16:17:00 -0700 for socgrad-list Fri, 29 Oct 1993 16:16:54 -0700 for Date: Fri, 29 Oct 93 11:03:34 EST From: JIM MOHOLLAND Subject: DR. M.L.K. WOULD'VE BEEN PROUD To: 1st TIMER This is the first time I have entered into this marvalous computer dialogue with SOC-GRAD, and I am happy to see so much discussion regarding the JOHNSON INCIDENT. Without open dialogue, we maintain the xenophobia and ethnocentric personalities most of us are nurtured to. >From the age of two, we all are taught cultural socialization skills that pave our roads through life. We only begin to learn when CULTURAL RELATIVISM IS EMPLOYED IN ACADEMIA AND PERSONAL ADVENTURES. JOHNSON appears from what I have read in the SOC-GRAD and the article to be a facilitator who edifies with jaundice the ways for students to grasp important aspects of american society. Racism, prejudice and discrimination is covert and overt. Industrial and personal. Economic and impoverished. When finally the serious talk nowadays is to do whats been needed for too long; teach our young children, pre-kindergarden, sensitivity of others and fairness, harmony, and tolerance, through high school, many people may be misunderstanding the tactics implemented by teachers. Some times the concious is shocked because it is not acclimated to flux. Most societies are in flux all of the time. The philospher kings were fifty years old before the were allowed to preach their views publicly. And I hear sociologists compared to philosopher kings? Well then, for the most part it may have merit. But remember one thing my fellow members of academia, most of us graduate with a degree[s] by the time we are thirty. Our new socialization skills are just begining. Or have you all learned how to rid yourselves of the bad discriminatory practices you were nurtured with and spread your good knowledge to others? My main point here is this. WHO WILL TEACH OUR YOUNG? If we don't have teachers like JOHNSON,[who by the way I never heard of before this], how will we be able to aquire qualified new teachers to implement the changes we so drastically need? People need to see all sides of RACIAL/ETHNIC/RELIGIOUS/ETC. ETC. culturalistic norms and all the STEREOTYPES and misunderstood aspects of others to be abe to do what so many of you said you wanted to do when you entered college; 'MAKE A DIFFERENCE'. That is unless you want to be saying when your sixty-five in despair, "I wish I had seen the light when I first entered college!" To make a difference down the road, students must open their minds now to the understanding that is essential to their academic and social progress. I commend JOHNSON on the attempt she made to bring closet stereotypes to the surface. I hope others feel the same way. She is truly a person who is tryiny to MAKE A DIFFERENCE in the right way! On a more personal note, as I have said before; A person must personally believe in what they professionally represent to be a moral and effective part of society". "THE TRAILBLAZERS IN HUMAN, ACADEMIC, SCIENTIFIC, AND RELIGIOUS FREEDOM HAVE ALWAYS BEEN NONCONFORMISTS. IN ANY CAUSE THAT CONCERNS THE PROGRESS OF MANKIND, PUT YOUR FAITH IN THE NONCONFORMIST!" DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING JR.; STRENGTH TO LOVE, 1963 I think this says it all. [If you read this far, thanks!] Jim at KENT STATE From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Oct 29 18:21:41 1993 sendmail 8.6.3/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 29 Oct 1993 18:19:20 -0700 for socgrad-list Fri, 29 Oct 1993 18:19:16 -0700 for Date: Fri, 29 Oct 93 20:23:06 EDT From: Joya Misra Organization: Emory University - Atlanta, Georgia, USA Subject: WOMEN'S (NON)OPTIONS To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU I'm a little mystified by the discussion about women and their greater/ lesser/different options from men in the workplace/society. First, I think John Reed might want to give a look-see to Rosabeth Kanter's classic (1977) work: _Men and Women of the Corporation_. (NY: Basic Books). Specifically to address today's points: My work makes a lot of demands on my private life. I am able to live with it because I get rewards that make it seem worthwhile. If I didn't get these rewards, for whatever reason, I wouldn't stay, but that doesn't necessarily mean I have more options then someone who does stay around & dealswith the demands. We both have other options, these other options seem more appealing to me because I am not receiving the same sort of rewards (because of discrmination or whatever...) Women and men receive rewards differently in our society. This impacts the ways in which we make choices in our lives (take time out to be with our families, focus on 'making it work' in our professional lives, etc.) I think that women will move into the"upper echelons" of business when they are rewarded for being there, and men will "opt out" more when they are rewarded for doing that. I don't think any ofthis means that men have fewer options than women though. But, I'm willing to entertain those of you who disagreewith me. Really. Joya Misra SOCAK663@EMUVM1.CC.EMORY.EDU From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Oct 29 20:53:05 1993 sendmail 8.6.3/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 29 Oct 1993 20:50:51 -0700 for socgrad-list Fri, 29 Oct 1993 20:50:49 -0700 for From: Henry Daniel Anaya Subject: Johnson incident To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1993 20:50:48 -0700 (PDT) This message is in reply to those postings lately within socgrad who extol the inferred messages of free speech, free thought, etc., that the incident recently at U.C.L.A. has raised. Of course we, as future academicians value these freedoms, which are at the core of all substantive dialogue. But when issues as historically hurtful as physical stereotypes are brought into the academic arena in order to make a pedagogical point, and we as social observers fail to make the connection between a (granted) bad instructional example and the historical pain some people carry around with them, then we have no right to dismiss what happened as some sort of overreaction on the part of whoever felt slighted. To really know a person (and obviously what they feel), one must walk a mile in their shoes. Thanks for your time.. Henry Anaya From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Sat Oct 30 07:29:45 1993 sendmail 8.6.3/UCSD-2.2-sun Sat, 30 Oct 1993 07:27:46 -0700 for socgrad-list Sat, 30 Oct 1993 07:27:44 -0700 for Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1993 07:23:28 -0700 (PDT) From: Janice Tanche Subject: Re: Canadian Republicans? To: Joseph Moore Thanks to Joseph for pointing out we do not have a Republican party in Canada. I thought of making the post, too. I might add, we do not have a Democrat party, either. Reading the Democrat/Republican terms made me think our politics had been translated into "American". Joseph: Sorry to hear your igloo is cold. It'll warm up once the inside walls ice up. Janice Tanche Department of Sociology University of British Columbia Canada E-mail: tanche@unixg.ubc.ca From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Sat Oct 30 08:05:12 1993 sendmail 8.6.3/UCSD-2.2-sun Sat, 30 Oct 1993 08:04:08 -0700 for socgrad-list Sat, 30 Oct 1993 08:04:06 -0700 for Date: Fri, 29 Oct 93 11:03:34 EST From: JIM MOHOLLAND Subject: DR. M.L.K. WOULD'VE BEEN PROUD To: 1st TIMER RESENDING BECAUSE OF A POSSIBLE ERROR IN TRANSMISSION. THANKS. ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- This is the first time I have entered into this marvalous computer dialogue with SOC-GRAD, and I am happy to see so much discussion regarding the JOHNSON INCIDENT. Without open dialogue, we maintain the xenophobia and ethnocentric personalities most of us are nurtured to. >From the age of two, we all are taught cultural socialization skills that pave our roads through life. We only begin to learn when CULTURAL RELATIVISM IS EMPLOYED IN ACADEMIA AND PERSONAL ADVENTURES. JOHNSON appears from what I have read in the SOC-GRAD and the article to be a facilitator who edifies with jaundice the ways for students to grasp important aspects of american society. Racism, prejudice and discrimination is covert and overt. Industrial and personal. Economic and impoverished. When finally the serious talk nowadays is to do whats been needed for too long; teach our young children, pre-kindergarden, sensitivity of others and fairness, harmony, and tolerance, through high school, many people may be misunderstanding the tactics implemented by teachers. Some times the concious is shocked because it is not acclimated to flux. Most societies are in flux all of the time. The philospher kings were fifty years old before the were allowed to preach their views publicly. And I hear sociologists compared to philosopher kings? Well then, for the most part it may have merit. But remember one thing my fellow members of academia, most of us graduate with a degree[s] by the time we are thirty. Our new socialization skills are just begining. Or have you all learned how to rid yourselves of the bad discriminatory practices you were nurtured with and spread your good knowledge to others? My main point here is this. WHO WILL TEACH OUR YOUNG? If we don't have teachers like JOHNSON,[who by the way I never heard of before this], how will we be able to aquire qualified new teachers to implement the changes we so drastically need? People need to see all sides of RACIAL/ETHNIC/RELIGIOUS/ETC. ETC. culturalistic norms and all the STEREOTYPES and misunderstood aspects of others to be abe to do what so many of you said you wanted to do when you entered college; 'MAKE A DIFFERENCE'. That is unless you want to be saying when your sixty-five in despair, "I wish I had seen the light when I first entered college!" To make a difference down the road, students must open their minds now to the understanding that is essential to their academic and social progress. I commend JOHNSON on the attempt she made to bring closet stereotypes to the surface. I hope others feel the same way. She is truly a person who is tryiny to MAKE A DIFFERENCE in the right way! On a more personal note, as I have said before; A person must personally believe in what they professionally represent to be a moral and effective part of society". "THE TRAILBLAZERS IN HUMAN, ACADEMIC, SCIENTIFIC, AND RELIGIOUS FREEDOM HAVE ALWAYS BEEN NONCONFORMISTS. IN ANY CAUSE THAT CONCERNS THE PROGRESS OF MANKIND, PUT YOUR FAITH IN THE NONCONFORMIST!" DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING JR.; STRENGTH TO LOVE, 1963 I think this says it all. [If you read this far, thanks!] Jim at KENT STATE From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Sat Oct 30 11:31:18 1993 sendmail 8.6.3/UCSD-2.2-sun Sat, 30 Oct 1993 11:29:11 -0700 for socgrad-list Sat, 30 Oct 1993 11:29:08 -0700 for Date: Sat, 30 Oct 93 14:28 EDT From: "Pamela M Paxton" To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: women and their options just a few more cents to add to the discussion.. (this is short so its probably only worth $.01) it is interesting to think of women as having more options than men however, I do not think that it is necessarily true. We need to remember that it is often the NON-option (or must) of having a family and being expected to play the major role in child care that presents women with conflicts in other areas. (If a man and a woman both have a child, the coroporation will expect that the woman is the one who will be taking off the time to pick the child up from school, take it to the doctor etc.) so it becomes more than just whether there are differential rewards for women that make them less likely to wish to continue in a career but differential demands, at the other end, which limit alternatives. Its hard to speak of family as an ALTERNATIVE for women - its more a MUST in some ways. and this, in turn, affects the rewards women receive... (if it is expected that you will take more time off work to care for children then you are less valuable.) Pam Paxton UPAMMP@unc.oit.unc.edu From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Sat Oct 30 11:53:41 1993 sendmail 8.6.3/UCSD-2.2-sun Sat, 30 Oct 1993 11:52:13 -0700 for socgrad-list Sat, 30 Oct 1993 11:52:09 -0700 for Date: Sat, 30 Oct 93 13:47:47 CDT From: Colin Subject: Thanks for the Correction To: Socgrad I apologize for my ignorance about the Canadian politics and appreciate the corrections about "Republican vs. Democratic" stereotype I impose upon the Canadians. I regret that. Colin From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Sat Oct 30 13:23:03 1993 sendmail 8.6.3/UCSD-2.2-sun Sat, 30 Oct 1993 13:21:36 -0700 for socgrad-list Sat, 30 Oct 1993 13:21:31 -0700 for Date: Sat, 30 Oct 93 16:21:25 EDT From: C063NQ5R@UBVM.cc.buffalo.edu To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU unsub C063NQ5R@ubvm.cc.buffalo.edu socgrad From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Sat Oct 30 15:51:04 1993 sendmail 8.6.3/UCSD-2.2-sun Sat, 30 Oct 1993 15:50:07 -0700 for socgrad-list Sat, 30 Oct 1993 15:50:04 -0700 for Date: Sat, 30 Oct 93 18:39:08 EDT From: Tang Nan NG Organization: Emory University - Atlanta, Georgia, USA Subject: ASA POL.SOC. GRAD. STUDENT COMPETITION To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU To: All Interested Graduate Students: 1994 Distinguished Graduate Student Paper Award ASA Political Sociology Section The ASA section on Political Sociology is pleased to announce the 1994 Distinguished Graduate Student Paper Award competition. The competition is open to all graduate students. Papers written in the last year are eligible for the award. Papers should be no longer than 30 pages double spaced. Papers will be evaluated to the extent that they make a strong contribution to theory, method or substantive knowledge in political sociology. Papers must be received by April 15, 1994. Send 1 copy to each committee member: Barbara G. Brents, Department of Sociology, Box 455033, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV 89154-5033, FAX 702-895-4800 EMAIL BRENTS@NEVADA.EDU Tang Nah Ng, Department of Sociology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30322 FAX 404-727-7532 EMAIL SOCBN560@EMUVM1 From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Sat Oct 30 20:53:46 1993 sendmail 8.6.3/UCSD-2.2-sun Sat, 30 Oct 1993 20:52:48 -0700 for socgrad-list Sat, 30 Oct 1993 20:52:47 -0700 for Subject: Halloween... To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1993 22:52:46 -0500 (CDT) From: "Laura L. Fertwagner" Hi ALL... Happy Halloween from Omaha!!! $$$$ $$$$ $$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ (remember it's the THOUGHT that counts!) --Laura From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Sun Oct 31 05:23:43 1993 sendmail 8.6.3/UCSD-2.2-sun Sun, 31 Oct 1993 05:22:42 -0800 for socgrad-list Sun, 31 Oct 1993 05:22:41 -0800 for Subject: Re: Halloween... (fwd) To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1993 07:22:39 -0600 (CST) From: "Laura L. Fertwagner" Forwarded message: >From <@VM1.NODAK.EDU:KLOSKY@VM1.NODAK.EDU> Sun Oct 31 00:26:37 1993 Date: Sun, 31 Oct 93 00:22:27 CDT From: KLOSKY@VM1.NoDak.EDU Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computer Network Subject: Re: Halloween... To: "Laura L. Fertwagner" Laura, forgot to send to socgrad instead of you personally. Forward to the list please...... Thought your decoration was great. Very creative. More power to you. BUT: Is it correct? Can we all celebrate halloween? I think so. I enjoy it, but not this year due to grad school, and a pile of articles to read that is as high as your pumpkin is cute! By the way steve, Did the great pumpkin come yet? Are you still waiting? How long will you wait? Are you waiting alone! SKEE No great pumpkin in Nodak From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Sun Oct 31 08:48:56 1993 sendmail 8.6.3/UCSD-2.2-sun Sun, 31 Oct 1993 08:47:43 -0800 for socgrad-list Sun, 31 Oct 1993 08:47:39 -0800 for Date: Sun, 31 Oct 93 11:25:47 EST From: Steve Harvey To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU Skee: The pumpkin patch is cold and wet, and my loved one is far away. But a furry little friend stopped by last night, and we shared our tales of life as a stray.... May the Great Pumpkin continue to smile her candle-lit grin upon the warm pagan heart buried deep within us all! It was a ghoulish dream On Hallowe'en When Spirits roamed the streets, A Wandering mage From another age Came to trade his tricks for treats; Wolves and sheep With lusts run deep Emerged from 'neath soft skins, Lurid thoughts Of woulds but naughts Lurked behind their grins; Wild growls And hoots and howls Clammored in the air, A misted moon Cast town in ruin And laid its essence bare; So I went alone 'Neath moon that shone Into the darkened wood, My mind to clear Of the soft despair I've never understood; And I spent the night In quiet flight, Soft laughter on the wind; Watched the clean-up crew And the straggling few As the grey dawn was easing in. (inspired by a trippin' Hallowe'en, several years ago, in Carbondale, IL., where the annual Hallowe'en street party is an event of apocolyptic proportions!) Steve "Pumpkin-in-my-soul" Harvey harvey@uconnvm From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Sun Oct 31 10:24:51 1993 sendmail 8.6.3/UCSD-2.2-sun Sun, 31 Oct 1993 10:23:52 -0800 for socgrad-list Sun, 31 Oct 1993 10:23:49 -0800 for Date: Sun, 31 Oct 93 13:08:18 EST From: Joya Misra Organization: Emory University - Atlanta, Georgia, USA Subject: ASA IN LA To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU Hi ya'll, This morning I looked out the window, way down South here in Atlanta, and I saw SNOWFLAKES wafting through the sky! Amazing! I have found myself encouraging various friends to submit papers to ASA this year, and thought maybe I should also encourage the whole list. The deadline is usually something like December 31, so all of you doing course papers, or really all of you with papers at any stage, should try and put something together and mail it in. It doesn't have to be great - if accepted, you'll have 8 months to get the paper into shape to present. The worst thing that can happen: it won't be accepted. The end result would be the same as if you don't submit a paper at all. This is a great thing to do! So what if you don't know now how you'll get to LA? You'll have months to figure that out if it gets accepted. It looks good on your vita. It's FUN to connect with other sociologists. So, I'm telling you, DO IT! Just mail anything that you've got lying around in! It can't hurt you and it can only really be a good thing for you in the long-run! Come on, let's take over the meetings! Hey - anyone who sent me mail this morning - I didn't receive any, because out systems were down and all mail went to the great email place in the sky. So remail your words please! Joya Misra SOCAK663@EMUVM1.CC.EMORY.EDU From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Sun Oct 31 20:29:30 1993 sendmail 8.6.3/UCSD-2.2-sun Sun, 31 Oct 1993 20:28:24 -0800 for socgrad-list Sun, 31 Oct 1993 20:28:22 -0800 for Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1993 22:07:29 -0600 (CST) From: "Elizabeth H. Schaefer" Subject: women's options To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Greetings from a very cold South Bend Resident! I just returned from a week's vacation to find three hours worth of mail from socgraders...what fun! I'm a little concerned about what data we're using to justify stating that women have more options than men. I don't see how this can be true. We all live in the same economic system, and we all have bills to pay. As an unmarried woman, I don't have any options to putting food on my own table, and many married/partnered couples depend greatly upon double incomes. Whether women are socialized to see more options seems to be beside the point, especially if such a socialization leaves single women still in need of money. I'd like clarification on the original point. Are we taking the word of the CEO of Citibank that "options" are the reason more women aren't in upper-echelon positions? This strikes me as almost blaming the victim justification. As Joya and Robert point out, the rewards are likely different for men and women in the business world. However, these rewards are the residue of nostalgic views of marraige and the family. The rewards are prejudice, sanctioning different expectations for men and women. The truth is that men and women have the same problem in a capitalist economic system - how do I feed myself and my family? Why men and women change careers and what alternatives they choose is an interesting question. But, the question of why women aren't in high-profile corporate positions begs a more complex treatment than we've given here. Just a few cents for the kitty! Elizabeth