From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Dec 1 07:02:35 1994 Thu, 1 Dec 1994 07:00:41 -0800 for Date: Thu, 01 Dec 94 08:26:47 EST From: "T R. Young" <34LPF6T@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU> Organization: Central Michigan University Subject: Social Sources of Postmodern Sensibility To: GRADUATE STUDENTS IN SOCIOLOGY There are three things every sociologist should know about postmodern scholarship: 1) what is it, 2) where did it come from and 3) how will it re-shape the discipline and/or profession of sociology. In the first two mini-lectures, I tried to give you some idea of what postmodernity is all about...in a word, the relocation of 'authorship' of science and knowledge from 'God,' 'Nature' and 'Society' to the fallible human beings who set their own 'texts' as the impersonal laws/word of God, Nature or Society. In this mini-lecture, I will try to locate postmodern scholarship in the social base which gave rise to it...an essay into the sociology of know- ledge as it were. The third needfull thing; what kind of sociology will come out of this, that can be answered only by those of you who think, work, write, teach, and edit the texts, journals and scholarly meetings in the next 50 years...so learn as much as you can; think as much as you might; teach as well as you are able and enjoy this wonderfully damnable discipline of ours for all the days of your life. Social Sources of Postmodern Sensibility. A. Political Economy. The most frequently cited book about the source of postmodernity [hereafter, pomo] is Fredric Jameson [Duke: 1991]. He says that pomo is the cultural logic of late capitalism. And he develops the point in great detail in art, video, architecture, film and ideology it- self. Now one should 'read' Jameson for oneself...and, what follows is not visible in the 1991 work...it is my own effort to give you a short cut understanding of how late capitalism makes it possible for scholars to jump from modernist presumptions about knowledge and truth to pomo ideas. There are two major sources of pomo in late capitalism which gives rise to the data base for pomo sensibility: the legitimacy problem and the real- zation problem. Again, Jameson might not agree with this 'reading' of late capitalism. 1. The Legitimacy Problem: late capitalism is a magnificent system of production but, for more and more people, a terrifying system of distri- bution. Late capitalism relies more and more on capital intensive labor and, thus, tends to disemploy or under-employ more and more workers. Many go into the service sector and do quite well but the overall trend is to increase inequality re: access to the market and all it holds. The logic of late capitalism is to use more and more of the 'surplus' value produced to buy the media and the media 'stars' in order to manage dissent/create a 'favorable climate' for the inequality inherent in a system which amplifies the power/wealth/status of fewer and fewer. In law, science and politics, billions of dollars are spent to create the dramaturgical facsimile of justice, knowledge and democracy. With all the technical and artistic processes which create images, simulacra, performances, expressions-given-off, make-believe, just-pretend and never- was, it is easy for pomo scholars to look at the knowledge process and to see it as a human product rather than an 'objective' description of that- which-is. Part of the task at legitimating inequality is to design a science which legitimates inequality...The Bell Curve, by Herrnstein and Murray is a current effort which transfers failure and poverty to the separate person and, thus, exculpates the larger economic process which throws more and more millions into an underclass. 2. The Realization Problem. Impressive as it is as a productive system, capitalism cannot survive unless it 'realizes' profit. There are lots of ways to do that...many illegal...but since workers do not get paid 100% of the value they produce, owners must generate 'demand'...much more demand than is registered in 'need.' Again, the media and all the technology by which images are artfully created, is useful. Those who have 'discretionary' income can be persuaded to buy more and more via what Marcuse calls the 'colonization of desire.' The very visible use of artists, musicians, heroes [O.J. Simpson], writers, actors and editors to create the dramaturgical image of health, sexuality, status, love or joy through advertisements. Using what we know of psychology, sociology, anthropology and religion, skilled artisans can generate 'demand' on the part of countless millions with one perfect moment in an ad. In all this, the reality-creating process is laid bare for the more nihilistic of the postmodern camp to condemn and to disdain. But there is far more to postmodern sensibility than the dis-enchantment of a few dozen french essayists. B. Feminist Theory. Out of the successes of colonial capitalism came a new layer of 'liberated' women in Europe and England to offer art, music, novels, and later theory with which to displace male phallo-centric cultural products. Modern science is nothing if not phallo-centric, i.e, oriented to prediction, control and instrumental rationality. Feminist theory rejects rationality and control as the 'highest' form of human behavior. In the USA, WWII brought women into factories, shops, and offices...many went back to the home after but, given that women work better, longer, cheaper and with less macho resistence than do males, capitalism tends to give them the economic, social and legal power with which to challenge male hegemony as the only politically correct game in town, home and college. By the 1970's women such as Carol Gilligan were making an effective challenge to Kohlberg's ideas about the use of rational application of abstract principles as best the way to judge/scale moral growth. C. Third World Challenges. World War II saw the collapse of great empires around the world. Germany, France, England and Japan lost empire and, in the doing, lost ideological hegemony over the standards of art, medicine, music, poetry, religion and science. Again, capitalism plays an uncertain role; as the center of wealth moved from Venice to Brussels to London to New York in centuries past, it moves to Tokyo, Hong Kong, Singapore and Taiwan now. The quest for ever cheaper labor and ever safer shelters for wealth drives the move from country to country and re-centers the standards for art, music, religion and science as it moves. D. Globalization and Bloc Formation. Since the turn of the century, we have seen an uneven process of globalization/bloc formation. The globalization of communications, transport, banking, finance and commerce not to mention the multi-local 'sourcing' of parts and services by industrial capital...all have worked to de-center Europe and its American cousin as the arbitor of morals, standards, tests, and measures. MacDonald's tries to de-culture the production food [with some small success]; Coca Cola tries to universal its beverages; Chase-Manhattan tries to universalize its financial instruments; IBM tries to universalize its hardware and software...in all this, 'difference' is made the topic of analysis while 'otherness' gets a new face...instead of smug and superior dismissal, that which was marginal becomes respectable. Entirely new and different ways to think, to feel, to do and to be are considered. The certainties of pre-modern and modern sensibility are brought back for reconsideration, re=evaluation and, perchance replacement. E. Desire and Sexuality. The text and subtext of many works in postmodern sensibility center around human sexuality and the ways in which both modern and pre-modern sensibility limit and channel desire and sensuality. It is not by accident that some of the more active critics of modernity are gay and lesbian. If we are to understand the concern in pomo with desire and sexuality, we should give a bit of thought to how alternative ways to do and be gendered arise/are repressed. Assume with me that there are an infinite array of ways to do gender...that physiology and psychology permit far more than two and only two gendering modalities. If so, why should some societies limit human sexuality to but two genders; why should other societies not repress variety; why should a social base for gay and lesbian forms of sexuality emerge in late capitalism??? Why should this be the 'sub-text' for so much in both pre-modern, modern and postmodern polemics... I am not the best one to answer such questions...I simply do not know. I tend to think that late capitalism maximizes both the labor reserve and the generation of markets by de-gendering workers and consumers but that is such an easy answer, I don't trust it too much. You take it from here??? Conclusion. Notice that I have not given much room to objective, intellectual reasoned discourse in accounting for the rise of postmodern scholarship. I have tried to give it a social base and a social history...grounded upon, of course, some basic ideas in political economy. I am wise enough to know that my own reading of postmodernism is shaped by my own history and beliefs; that there are other readings of the rise of pomo which, in their own right, have much to offer to the student. I encourage those on socgrad to consider other explanations [but be wary of psychologistic and pathologistic explanations]. Finally, I want to say as emphatically as you can hear, that it is my most carefully considered position that pre-modern, modern and postmodern thinking are essential to a good and decent society. Pre-modernity gives us the basic knowledge tools with which to construct social relations and social life worlds without which there is nothing: faith, belief, trust, hope, compassion, community and fellowship are indispensible to the human project. Modern science has and will always have much to offer the human process; food, shelter, transport, art forms, educational resources, and health care are the enduring contributions of modern science and its concern with control and certainty. Postmodern scholarship is, in a way, biblical in that it offers us of the fruit of the tree of knowledge and, in the taking, we become responsible as never could we be in a god-hewn world or in one driven by 'iron laws' of nature and/or society. As the preacher said in the old testament, I have given my heart to seek and to search out by wisdom all things that are done under the sun and Lo, I find that all is vanity and vexation of the spirit but...also that knowledge and wisdom maketh the face to shine...it is a good time to be alive and to learn. For both you and for me. T.R. From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Dec 1 15:56:23 1994 Thu, 1 Dec 1994 15:44:24 -0800 for Dec 94 00:31:14 LCL Thu, 01 Dec 94 00:31:14 LCL From: "John Brady Thomas" Organization: Maxwell School, Syracuse University To: "T R. Young" <34LPF6T@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU> Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 00:29:11 EST Subject: Re: Causality, Chaos and Postmodern Phil/Sci John Thomas offered this point in critique of an earlier mini-lecture. Thought members of socgrad would like to see it...my response follows. T.R. Young ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- T.R., Your first lecture brought to mind a quote I once read and I was wondering if chaos/complexity theory has anything to say about it - here it is: "The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that all energy systems 'run down' like a clock and never rewind themselves. But life not only 'runs up,' converting low-energy sea-water, sunlight and air into high-energy chemicals, it keeps multiplying itself into more and better clocksthat keep 'running up' faster and faster." Your statements seemed to speak in terms of going from order to disorder more than the other way around which is what made me think of this quote. Let me know what you think. No rush if you're busy. Thanks for the postings. JBT From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Dec 1 16:17:58 1994 Thu, 1 Dec 1994 16:04:12 -0800 for Date: Thu, 01 Dec 94 18:38:07 EST From: "T R. Young" <34LPF6T@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU> Organization: Central Michigan University Subject: Re: Causality, Chaos and Postmodern Phil/Sci To: John Brady Thomas My response to JBT's query re: the sources of new order in chaos/ complexity theory...and explanation of partiality for 'disorder' T.R.Y. ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- JBT: you've hit a good point...Chaos/Complexity does 'repeal' the second law...Ilya Prigogine took a Nobel prize in 1977 for his work on irreversible thermodynamics...I had been focussing upon the changing ratio between order and disorder in my effort to help foster a postmodern philosophy of science...in opposition to the modernist concern with order, precision, prediction [and control]. Some of the most interesting implications for sociology stem from the generation of new forms of 'order' from turbulent systems in unstable equilibrium...new forms of marriage, of governance, of crime and of life itself. Thanks for the question/criticism...I need all the help I can get to set this stuff before the discipline and profession. T.R. From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Dec 1 16:48:14 1994 Thu, 1 Dec 1994 16:36:22 -0800 for From: smithm@nicco.sscnet.ucla.edu (Marc Smith) Subject: Call for Papers: Communities in Cyberspace To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 16:36:15 -0800 (PST) CALL FOR CONTRIBUTORS VOLUME ON COMMUNITIES IN CYBERSPACE A volume entitled _COMMUNITIES IN CYBERSPACE_ is being prepared for publication by the University of California Press. We are looking for papers that examine the subject of online interaction and community. Papers should focus on existing examples of online interaction, with particular attention to the collective organization of groups, the emergence of community, and the issues, conflicts, and problems that go along with those developments. A partial list of suggested topics is included below: Social Interaction: =================== The dynamics of online interaction Comparisons of online interaction with other forms of interaction Identity, anonymity, cryptography The presentation of self Sex and gender dynamics in online groups Power in online communities Synchronous versus asynchronous interaction Social Organization: ==================== Systems of exchange in online groups Scarcity, value, and markets in online communities Informal social control Group solidarity in online communities Cooperation and conflict in virtual communities Crime and deviance Governance in online groups Culture and ritual Constructing an online community Community protest/collective action based on online groups To be considered for inclusion in this volume, prospective authors should submit the following: 1) A 300-500 word abstract describing the substantive focus, methodology, and conclusions of research to be reported in the proposed paper 2) A brief biographical statement (or curriculum vita) indicating previous research and/or relevant experience in this area Submissions should be sent via mail, e-mail or fax no latter than February 1st, 1995 to the volume editors at the address below: Peter Kollock and Marc Smith UCLA Department of Sociology 405 Hilgard Ave. Los Angeles, California 90024-1551 USA E-mail: kollock@soc.sscnet.ucla.edu smithm@nicco.sscnet.ucla.edu Fax: (310) 206-9838 Invited authors will be provided with guidelines for the preparation of the paper. The tentative deadline for receipt of the final manuscripts will be June 1st, 1995, with an anticipated publication date in the first half of 1996. Marc A. Smith ____________________________________________________________________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ University of California, Los Angeles Department of Sociology Email: SmithM@NICCO.SSCNET.UCLA.EDU ____________________________________________________________________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Marc A. Smith ____________________________________________________________________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ University of California, Los Angeles Department of Sociology Email: SmithM@NICCO.SSCNET.UCLA.EDU ____________________________________________________________________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Dec 1 23:53:46 1994 Thu, 1 Dec 1994 23:49:01 -0800 for From: lichter@nicco.sscnet.ucla.edu (Michael Lichter) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 23:48:56 +0000 To: "T R. Young" <34LPF6T@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU> Subject: Re: Causality, Chaos and Postmodern Phil/Sci T.R., et. al., My understanding of Chaos Theory (CT) is that it provides a framework for understanding the complex behavior of *deterministic* (physical) *systems*. Even relatively simple systems which operate according to fixed rules can display complex patterns of behavior which are for all practical purposes unpredictable. Ben Goertzel (Ted's son) calls choas "deterministic unpredictability." My question to you is: are you arguing that human society (or some subset thereof) meets the assumptions of CT (that it is a chaotic system in the CT sense), or are you saying instead that while human society is not a CT-type chaotic system, CT can help us imagine explanations for social phenomena? Personally, I think that if anything is non-deterministic, then human behavior is. I am skeptical that CT has anything to offer for understanding society because society does not operate according to CT rules. Michael -- Michael Lichter -----------------------------+ Department of Sociology | University of California, Los Angeles ---------------------------------------+ From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Dec 2 00:47:12 1994 Fri, 2 Dec 1994 00:39:18 -0800 for From: lichter@nicco.sscnet.ucla.edu (Michael Lichter) Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1994 00:39:12 +0000 To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: Re: childless couples A correction. The Census DOES have information on co-habitating unmarried partners of householders. Here's what it looks like for one area: Households by Relationship of Householder, Greater L.A., 1990. ------------------------- Household Type Percent ------------------------- Male/Male 0.22% Female/Female 0.09% Male/Female 3.84% Married 47.32% None 48.53% Total 100.00% N (4887346) ------------------------- Source: U.S. Census, PUMS A Sample. According to the census, then, only about one household in 300 is headed by a same-sex couple. (We don't know anything about non-marital relationships among household residents that do not involve the householder.) I think that's a smaller number than was talked about here earlier. Michael -- Michael Lichter -----------------------------+ Department of Sociology | University of California, Los Angeles ---------------------------------------+ From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Dec 2 07:41:11 1994 Fri, 2 Dec 1994 07:23:59 -0800 for From: lichter@nicco.sscnet.ucla.edu (Michael Lichter) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 23:48:56 +0000 To: "T R. Young" <34LPF6T@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU> Subject: Re: Causality, Chaos and Postmodern Phil/Sci To all gradual students in sociology [love the phrase, Michael!], my reply to Michael Licter's questions re: Chaos/complexity theory follows. First, Chaos theory is a very technical theory based upon the nonlinear dynamics of a very deterministic algorithm...that is, two or more complex numbers which, when feedback into the result of earlier interaction, produce a very regular transformation from order to dis- order. Complexity theory deals with much more complex feedback loops...the same nonlinearity is found but is much less 'deterministic,' i.e., it is much more difficult to discover the algorithm [s] which produce the leaps, turns, twists, jumps and otherwise unexpected patterns of events. Whether the same elegant patterns found in simple chaotic regimes [modelled by the bifurcation maps so often seen in the literature], are to be found in social dynamics...that is still an open question since the basic research is not in place. I tend to think that much of the things one can say about simple chaotic regimes will be found to be useful in sorting out the generation of, say, new forms of crime, new forms of gendering, new forms of marriage/cohabitation, new forms of racism and new forms of religion. There are two pieces of work which tend to confirm that suspicion...first there is the work of Dr. Patricia Hamilton and her colleagues at Texas Woman's University...they have found two hidden attractors [fuzzy patterns] in a large data set from records kept by the State of Texas on births to teen age women. They are now looking for the factors which produce each attractor. Then too, there is the work of Brian Berry at U/Texas, Dallas who has reported that both the 50 year Kondratieff cycles and the 15 year Kutznet cycles behave nonlinearily. ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- T.R., et. al., My understanding of Chaos Theory (CT) is that it provides a framework for understanding the complex behavior of *deterministic* (physical) *systems*. Even relatively simple systems which operate according to fixed rules can display complex patterns of behavior which are for all practical purposes unpredictable. Ben Goertzel (Ted's son) calls choas "deterministic unpredictability." My question to you is: are you arguing that human society (or some subset thereof) meets the assumptions of CT (that it is a chaotic system in the CT sense), or are you saying instead that while human society is not a CT-type chaotic system, CT can help us imagine explanations for social phenomena? Ans: The later more than the former would be my present position until we have a lot better reading on these nonlinear dynamics. Personally, I think that if anything is non-deterministic, then human behavior is. I am skeptical that CT has anything to offer for understanding society because society does not operate according to CT rules. Ans: I too, think that human/social behavior is non-deterministic in the sense that causality opens and closes. I made that case in an article in Humanity and Society a couple years ago...entitled Chaos and Human Agency...I made the case that, at any scale of observation, certainty was replaced by variety...that in complex dynamics there are moments when human agency [esp. collective human agency] is possible more so than at other time...the interesting thing to look for/at is whether there is 'pattern' in the cycles of freedom and necessity which catch us all. I'll try to keep members of socgrad up to date on new evidence to Michael's questions as I hear from those active in the area. I will teach [post- modern symbolic interaction/social psych at TWU beginning in Jan. and will be able to follow the Hamilton research closely...it is, in my considered opinion, very important. Thanks Michael, for the questions. T.R.Y. P.S.: I've met Goetzel's son, Ben...he was very good at the third annual conference on Chaos/Complexity in Canada...Ted tells me Ben moved to New Zealand...our loss, their gain. -- Michael Lichter -----------------------------+ Department of Sociology | University of California, Los Angeles ---------------------------------------+ From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Dec 2 11:41:15 1994 Fri, 2 Dec 1994 11:33:00 -0800 for Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1994 12:32:59 -0700 (MST) From: rebel palm aitchison Subject: closings of Soc depts To: socgrad , methods , qualrs I heard from someone who is a dean of a graduate school (not here at UNM) that some universities have been closing down their soc depts. Does anybody know of soc depts that have been closed in the last 2-3 years? And if so, why? From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Dec 2 12:41:32 1994 Fri, 2 Dec 1994 12:39:19 -0800 for Date: Fri, 2 Dec 94 14:30 EST From: "Frank D. Beck" Subject: Re: Call for Papers: Communities in Cyberspace To: smithm@nicco.sscnet.ucla.edu -- Thu, 1 Dec 1994 16:36:15 -0800 (PST) Hi folks, In light of the call for papers "Communities in Cyberspace," I feel the need to make a few comments. I don't believe communities exist in cyberspace. Historically sociologists have thought of community as composed of three elements: territory/locality local culture, and locality/community oriented interaction. Though different theories have emphasized these to varying degrees, where all three exist you are likely to find community. Interaction alone is a very important part of the picture and may produce a sense of community among participants but it does not make a community. When people talk about their place and their local culture, when they work for the improvement of either and the well-being of others in the place, then community happens. Frank and Doug From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Dec 2 13:07:17 1994 Fri, 2 Dec 1994 13:03:33 -0800 for Fri, 2 Dec 94 16:03:22 +1100 From: "MORTEN G. ENDER" Organization: University of Maryland,College Park To: "Frank D. Beck" , socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1994 16:03:08 EDT Subject: Re: Call for Papers: Communities in Cyberspace >I don't believe communities exist in cyberspace. Historically >sociologists have thought of community as composed of three elements: >territory/locality local culture, and locality/community oriented >interaction. Though different theories have emphasized these to >varying degrees, where all three exist you are likely to find >community. frank and doug, might cyberspace then provide an arena for the maintenance of the community rather than forming new communities--much like the telephone facilitates the maintenance of family? perhaps we should think of _communities across cyberspace_ rather than _in_ cyberspace morten From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Dec 2 13:15:25 1994 Fri, 2 Dec 1994 13:13:31 -0800 for From: lichter@nicco.sscnet.ucla.edu (Michael Lichter) Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1994 13:13:18 +0000 To: "Frank D. Beck" , smithm@nicco.sscnet.ucla.edu Subject: Re: Call for Papers: Communities in Cyberspace On Dec 2, 2:30pm, "Frank D. Beck" wrote: > I don't believe communities exist in cyberspace. Historically sociologists > have thought of community as composed of three elements: territory/locality > local culture, and locality/community oriented interaction. Though different > theories have emphasized these to varying degrees, where all three exist you > are likely to find community. > > Interaction alone is a very important part of the picture and may produce a > sense of community among participants but it does not make a community. When > people talk about their place and their local culture, when they work for the > improvement of either and the well-being of others in the place, then communit > happens. What exactly constitutes community has always been at least a little bit up for grabs. I would say that locality is not required, but boundaries are. Lists, BBSs, newsgroups are all to greater or lesser degrees bounded in the minds of participants and to outsiders. Other definitions of community requrire community spirit, which you touch upon, and the idea that community only "happens" when it is integrated by networks (social networks, not electronic ones!) of interpersonal ties. Community spirit is most in evidence in these virtual places in boundary-defining situations, I think, such as setting the rules and direction of interaction (deciding whether or not professors are allowed :), fending off spammers, trying to end flame wars, etc. I think that what is most lacking in at least the larger electronic fora are interpersonal ties of more than a very transitory nature. But finding out is what, it seems, Marc's book is about. Michael -- Michael Lichter -----------------------------+ Department of Sociology | University of California, Los Angeles ---------------------------------------+ From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Dec 2 15:01:38 1994 Fri, 2 Dec 1994 14:58:07 -0800 for From: estrayer@cats.ucsc.edu Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1994 14:58:01 -0800 To: FDB1@psuvm.psu.edu, smithm@nicco.sscnet.ucla.edu Subject: Re: Call for Papers: Communities in Cyberspace > From: "Frank D. Beck" > Subject: Re: Call for Papers: Communities in Cyberspace > In-Reply-To: smithm AT nicco.sscnet.ucla.edu > -- Thu, 1 Dec 1994 16:36:15 -0800 (PST) > >Hi folks, > >In light of the call for papers "Communities in Cyberspace," I feel the need to >make a few comments. > >I don't believe communities exist in cyberspace. Historically sociologists >have thought of community as composed of three elements: territory/locality >local culture, and locality/community oriented interaction. Though different >theories have emphasized these to varying degrees, where all three exist you >are likely to find community. Yeah, well, glad you stuck your neck out, because this is a good topic for discussion, and I see that there have been some good responses. Consider that the term "community" is an abstraction. It implies that which is within as being different from that which is without. It is like political borders in this regard. We act as if they are physical, so, they may as well be. But they do NOT exist in the physical world, but rather in our minds as concepts. (Powerful concepts, for certain!) So, just as borders change by agreement, rather than, say, moving mountain ranges or oceans, I think one can apply the concpet of community to the so-called cyberspace. Actually, I don't care for the term cyberspace, but in a way it is a better generalization than "the net." As others have mentioned, it appears that people DO act as if their place on the net is a community. They protect it, and they compare it to other places or access points (AOL, Compuserve, etc). But I would like to see the discussion continue, because I think there are more questions than answers right now. Maybe, though, a better word IS in order, to make the distinction between communites based upon geographical specifics from those that are less rigidly bounded. Any anthros out there? Best, Eric From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Dec 2 16:35:59 1994 Fri, 2 Dec 1994 16:23:20 -0800 for Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1994 16:23:18 -0800 (PST) From: Jiannbin Lee Shiao Subject: Re: Call for Papers: Communities in Cyberspace To: Sociology Graduate Student List On Fri, 2 Dec 1994, Frank D. Beck wrote: > I don't believe communities exist in cyberspace. Historically sociologists > have thought of community as composed of three elements: territory/locality > local culture, and locality/community oriented interaction. Though different > theories have emphasized these to varying degrees, where all three exist you > are likely to find community. Then perhaps this sociological definition of community is wrong? :) Bellah et al's *Habits of the Heart* found many middle class white Americans living in residential spaces *without* the community-spirit, or to be more sociological, the community-practices they imagine existed in past decades. Maybe because I grew up in a white Tennessee suburb, when I heard of this study, I had a difficult time imagining "white suburban anomie". The Southern whites surrouding me seemed to have a pretty rich community life, and they sure didn't invite my family --right next door-- into it. Our most intimate community was the widely scattered network of Taiwanese Americans in the city, hardly residentially close. I would argue that locality is neither necessary or sufficient for community. (I also laugh when folks claim that Internet will sweep away all social division because we're after all in One Big Place.) As long as sociologists agree to this, cyberspace's "non-locality" does not present a brand new theoretical challenge. However, I would agree that it is exceedingly difficult to discern when communities (not just boundaries or sites) exist in cyberspace, and I look forward to seeing how the volume deals with this methodological issue. :) tha j'ster Jiannbin "J" Lee Shiao Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Sociology Operator, Instructional and Collections Computing Facility University of California, Berkeley From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Dec 2 17:46:03 1994 Fri, 2 Dec 1994 17:42:59 -0800 for Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1994 20:42:53 -0500 (EST) From: Lanny Lalumondier Subject: METACOMMUNITY - human spatialness of interaction To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU "Frank D. Beck" , smithm@nicco.sscnet.ucla.edu, Roland Robertson , Lanny La Lumondier , mitchell richard sociology , Charles Langford , Harry Sharp , Mike-Frank Epitopoulas , Rachelle D Schaaf , "Anthony L. Lack" , Linda M Purinton This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. --1915900478-1684884238-786418973:#7165 What exactly constitutes community doesn't. What I have observed within the electronic communities of sociology would lead me to say that abstraction isn't required to describe or examine cyberspace, although it may be helpful. To what extent this community may operate in regards of "...territory/locality local culture, and locality/community oriented interaction..." is problematic. To exclude the multiple levels and modes of interactional-communities, which may not be anchored in traditional spatially-defined norms, is to deny the legitimacy of norms which those communities exist with. TO DO SUCH is paramount to using similar critical approaches as those of ethno/racial/gender/methodological centrists...n'cest pas? How would you describe ~~us~~? It may be that you are observing, as I have been, an unfolding? What it is that you (or I) believe exists in cyberspace may be not what is in cyberspace. Does not the sociological imagination include different dimensions of application? Should the sociotechno system be removed from all consideration of community-type analysis? Sure...make communities across cyberspace...make communities `nexus-to' cyberspace. Meanwhile...real people are experiencing `community' in cyberspace. Let's study and discuss them/us, also. Lanny La Lumondier Faculty of Arts and Sciences University of Pittsburgh --1915900478-1684884238-786418973:#7165 RnJvbSBGREIxQFBTVVZNLlBTVS5FRFUgRnJpIERlYyAgMiAyMDoxNTo1NSAx OTk0DQpEYXRlOiBGcmksIDIgRGVjIDk0IDE0OjMwIEVTVA0KRnJvbTogIkZy YW5rIEQuIEJlY2siIDxGREIxQFBTVVZNLlBTVS5FRFU+DQpUbzogc21pdGht QG5pY2NvLnNzY25ldC51Y2xhLmVkdQ0KQ2M6IHNvY2dyYWRAVUNTRC5FRFUN ClN1YmplY3Q6IFJlOiBDYWxsIGZvciBQYXBlcnM6IENvbW11bml0aWVzIGlu IEN5YmVyc3BhY2UNCg0KSGkgZm9sa3MsDQoNCkluIGxpZ2h0IG9mIHRoZSBj YWxsIGZvciBwYXBlcnMgIkNvbW11bml0aWVzIGluIEN5YmVyc3BhY2UsIiBJ IGZlZWwgdGhlIG5lZWQgdG8NCm1ha2UgYSBmZXcgY29tbWVudHMuDQoNCkkg ZG9uJ3QgYmVsaWV2ZSBjb21tdW5pdGllcyBleGlzdCBpbiBjeWJlcnNwYWNl LiAgSGlzdG9yaWNhbGx5IHNvY2lvbG9naXN0cw0KaGF2ZSB0aG91Z2h0IG9m IGNvbW11bml0eSBhcyBjb21wb3NlZCBvZiB0aHJlZSBlbGVtZW50czogdGVy cml0b3J5L2xvY2FsaXR5DQpsb2NhbCBjdWx0dXJlLCBhbmQgbG9jYWxpdHkv Y29tbXVuaXR5IG9yaWVudGVkIGludGVyYWN0aW9uLiAgVGhvdWdoIGRpZmZl cmVudA0KdGhlb3JpZXMgaGF2ZSBlbXBoYXNpemVkIHRoZXNlIHRvIHZhcnlp bmcgZGVncmVlcywgd2hlcmUgYWxsIHRocmVlIGV4aXN0IHlvdQ0KYXJlIGxp a2VseSB0byBmaW5kIGNvbW11bml0eS4NCg0KSW50ZXJhY3Rpb24gYWxvbmUg aXMgYSB2ZXJ5IGltcG9ydGFudCBwYXJ0IG9mIHRoZSBwaWN0dXJlIGFuZCBt YXkgcHJvZHVjZSBhDQpzZW5zZSBvZiBjb21tdW5pdHkgYW1vbmcgcGFydGlj aXBhbnRzIGJ1dCBpdCBkb2VzIG5vdCBtYWtlIGEgY29tbXVuaXR5LiAgV2hl bg0KcGVvcGxlIHRhbGsgYWJvdXQgdGhlaXIgcGxhY2UgYW5kIHRoZWlyIGxv Y2FsIGN1bHR1cmUsIHdoZW4gdGhleSB3b3JrIGZvciB0aGUNCmltcHJvdmVt ZW50IG9mIGVpdGhlciBhbmQgdGhlIHdlbGwtYmVpbmcgb2Ygb3RoZXJzIGlu IHRoZSBwbGFjZSwgdGhlbiBjb21tdW5pdHkNCmhhcHBlbnMuDQoNCkZyYW5r IGFuZCBEb3Vn --1915900478-1684884238-786418973:#7165-- From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Sat Dec 3 07:12:29 1994 Sat, 3 Dec 1994 07:09:17 -0800 for Date: Sat, 3 Dec 1994 10:09:12 -0500 (EST) From: James Cassell Subject: Re: closings of Soc depts To: rebel palm aitchison On Fri, 2 Dec 1994, rebel palm aitchison wrote: > I heard from someone who is a dean of a graduate school (not here at > UNM) that some universities have been closing down their soc depts. Does > anybody know of soc depts that have been closed in the last 2-3 years? > And if so, why? > Sociology departments at the Univesity of Rochester and Washington University were closed several years ago. The departments at Yale and one of the Cal State campuses apparently came close within the past couple of years, but were kept open. You might look over past issues of Footnotes for more information. There was also an issue of Society (I think) which discussed the WU closing. As you might suspect, reasons given for closings differ by campus and the person telling the tale. The underlying reason is the need to cut costs. Higher Ed is looking at the sort of restructuring experienced in the private sector over the past decade. At least that's the current buzz. Best, Jim ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Jim Cassell jwcassell@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 list-relay@UCSD.EDU Sat Dec 3 13:08:28 1994 Sat, 3 Dec 1994 13:06:24 -0800 for Date: Sat, 3 Dec 1994 14:59:42 -0600 (CST) From: Michael Gibbons Subject: cyberspace. To: socgrad hello all. i can't help but feel that the locality aspect is important in dealing with some notion of community. we can have lots of intimate connections across space, but i have to question what kind of community that would be. further, i also get annoyed hearing people tout the wonderful aspect of the internet which allows us to dissassociate with one another. for instance, i don't know which of you are latina, and therefore cannot be racist in a directly individual manner. my problem with this is that removing the human parts of interaction allow us to avoid the problems related to those human parts (ie racism, sexism, intimidation...), but those problems are left undealt with until we run into other sorts o' folks at the gas station and grocery store in our immediate and physical community. while it is lots of fun to converse with you all on this network, my understandings of you are all going to be sorely misled because of the lack of a holistic human contact. this is why i think that locality is important, and that the ability of the net to be "-ism-less" if i may coin a wierd term, is overstated. michael From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Sun Dec 4 18:25:14 1994 Sun, 4 Dec 1994 18:18:37 -0800 for From: BREKHUS@zodiac.rutgers.edu Date: Sun, 04 Dec 1994 21:18:14 -0500 (EST) Subject: sources on popular culture To: psn@csf.colorado.edu, socgrad@UCSD.EDU Thanks to everyone who responded a while back to my request for sources on popular culture for an undergraduate class. The following is a list of some of the suggestions I received. The comments below some of the sources were supplied by the person recommending the source and are not mine. I've tried to categorize the sources to give some semblance of order; keep in mind that I haven't read most of these so my categorizations may be off. SOURCES ON PRODUCTION OF CULTURE/ REPRESENTATIONS OF CULTURE IN MEDIA Benjamin, "Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" in REFLECTIONS John Berger WAYS OF SEEING "like Goffman's Gender Advertisements but with more of a Marxist approach" Barnouw, THE SPONSOR "about the rise of TV and how commercial TV won out in the U.S." Becker, ART WORLDS "nice empirical discussion of the production of culture" Mary Rogers, NOVELS, NOVELISTS, AND READERS George Huaco on the sociology of film An edited volume titled LITERATURE AND SOCIAL PRACTICE SOURCES ON CONTENT OF POPULAR CULTURE Roland Barthes MYTHOLOGIES George Ritzer, THE MCDONALDIZATION OF SOCIETY LEFT PERSPECTIVES ON POPULAR CULTURE (U of CA Press) Murkeiji and Schudson RETHINKING POPULAR CULTURE (ed volume) U of California Press John Fiske UNDERSTANDING POPULAR CULTURE Herbert Gans POPULAR CULTURE AND HIGH CULTURE Paul Fussell CLASS "a tongue-in-cheek look at class culture" Wendy Simonds, WOMEN AND SELF-HELP CULTURE (Rutgers Univ. Press) "excellent not only substantively but as an exemplar of qualitative methods" Toni Morrison's edited volume on Thomas/Hill Todd Gitlin on television Wendy Griswold "American Character and the American Mind" 81 AJS "Fabrication of Meaning" 87 AJS Janice Radway, READING THE ROMANCE John Caweliti ADVENTURE, MYSTERY, AND ROMANCE SOURCES ON THE CULTURE OF THE PEOPLE Studs Terkel, WORKING Bellah et. al. HABITS OF THE HEART CULTURE OF THE PEOPLE (RACE & AMERICAN CULTURE) Blauner BLACK LIVES, WHITE LIVES Mitchell Duneier SLIM'S TABLE Crenshaw and Peller "Reel Time/Real Justice" in READING RODNEY KING/ READING URBAN UPRISING ed. by Robert Gooding-Williams 1993 Routledge Omi and Winant "The Los Angeles 'Race Riot' and Contemporary U.S. Politics" also in READING RODNEY KING/READING URBAN UPRISING CULTURE OF THE PEOPLE (Resistant Subcultures/Youth cultures) Dick Hebridge SUBCULTURE Stuart Hall & Tony Jefferson RESISTANCE THROUGH RITUALS "shows roots of youth and colonial resistance through music and style" Deena Weinstein, "The Rise and Fall of Youth Culture" and THE CULTURAL SOCIOLOGY OF HEAVY METAL Donna Gaines, TEENAGE WASTELAND: SUBURBIA'S DEAD END KIDS OTHER SOURCES THAT WERE RECOMMENDED Trisha Rose, BLACK NOISE Lipsitz, TIME PASSAGES Roland Barthes, "Wrestling" "The Problems of Articulation" in Wuthnow's THE COMMUNITIES OF DISCOURSE Wayne Brekhus Rutgers University From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Sun Dec 4 22:02:33 1994 Sun, 4 Dec 1994 21:55:23 -0800 for Date: Sun, 04 Dec 94 21:54:09 -0800 (PST) From: Xuan Ho Subject: Re: sources on ethnographic and oral history To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Hi colleagues, I am conducting a preliminary Lit Review for ethnographic and oral history research on the Vietnamese refugees, immigrants, emigrants, and their children. I will appreciate your leads and inputs, and comments on this new phase of immigration history. Thanks. Xuan HO Health Sciences Santa Rosa Junior College 1501 Mendocino Avenue Santa Rosa CA 95401 From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Dec 5 04:55:53 1994 Mon, 5 Dec 1994 04:54:54 -0800 for From: "Derek A. Kalahar" Subject: subscribe To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Mon, 5 Dec 1994 06:54:34 -0600 (CST) subscribe From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Dec 5 06:21:33 1994 Mon, 5 Dec 1994 06:19:05 -0800 for Date: Mon, 05 Dec 94 09:14 EST From: "Pamela Paxton" To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: methodological centrism? On Friday, Lanny Lalumondier used the following phrase: ethno/racial/gender/methodological centrists could someone elaborate the methodological part of that and why it belongs placed with the others? Pam Paxton From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Dec 5 12:19:52 1994 Mon, 5 Dec 1994 12:11:14 -0800 for Date: Mon, 05 Dec 94 15:10 EST From: "Pamela Paxton" To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: (Copy) virus warning received this on another network and thought I'd pass it on to all of you. Pam Paxton From: "ROBERT J.S. (BOB) ROSS, CHAIR OF SOCIOLOGY" Subject: virus warning X-Comment: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK From: GRAMPS::RVITALIS 5-DEC-1994 12:43:06.58 To: RROSS MARC PMILES BCOOK ZACH TRUBO @IDND.DIS CC: Subj: new virus - - - ------- Forwarded Message > >Some miscreant is sending e-mail under the title "good times" nation-wide. >If you get anything like this, DON'T DOWNLOAD THE FILE! It has a virus that >rewrites your hard drive, obliterating anything on it. Please be careful >and forward this mail to anyone you care about--I have. From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Dec 5 15:14:41 1994 Mon, 5 Dec 1994 15:08:20 -0800 for From: JWL3697@UTARLG.UTA.EDU id <01HKAI6VV8A8008UH1@UTARLG.UTA.EDU>; Mon, 05 Dec 1994 17:08:13 -0600 (CST) Date: Mon, 05 Dec 1994 17:03:05 -0600 (CST) Subject: info needed To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Hi, cyber-pals: About 10 days ago, I had posted a request for any literature about the work participation of Chinese American teenagers in this country. Unfortunately, I did not get any response. the database that I have looked are; Wilson, Carl, Eric, Socioabs, Wildcat and some others. I have not been able to locate any. Anybody has any suggestion? I just find it hard to believe that NO ONE hs has ever studied this wonderful sub-group within the Asian-Americans. Appreciate any feedback and thank you in advance. ...Julia Lam UT Arlington From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Dec 5 20:41:27 1994 Mon, 5 Dec 1994 20:40:14 -0800 for Date: Mon, 5 Dec 1994 22:40:02 -0600 From: Gregory Yelland Subject: Re: Grad Student Conference To: Socgrad 4TH ANNUAL "CHANGING THE CLIMATE: A MULTI-DISCIPLINARY CONFERENCE FOR GRADUATE STUDENTS" The conference will be held at The University of Saskatchewan March 9th & 10th, 1995. This is an open theme conference open to people from the Social Sciences and Humanities. Submissions are encouraged from graduate students at all Western Canadian Universities. In addition, participants will have the opportunity for their presented papers to be reviewed for possible inclusion in an annual edited publication. Abstracts (150 words) of your proposed 15 minute paper must be received by JANUARY 16, 1995. Please send a one-page CV and a cover letter with your abstract. We make every attempt to accomodate all submissions so please do not assume that your work won't fit into the themes that arise out of the early abstracts. SEND TO: Gregory S. Yelland Department of Sociology University of Saskatchewan Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7N 0W0 or Tracy Young Graduate Student's Association Rm 50, Murray Building University of Saskatchewan Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7N 0W0 FAX: (306) 966-8598 EMAIL: GSY136@ARTS.USASK.CA From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Dec 8 07:46:17 1994 Thu, 8 Dec 1994 07:38:45 -0800 for Date: Thu, 8 Dec 1994 10:38:42 -0500 (EST) From: James Cassell Subject: Position Announcement (fwd) To: Sociology Graduate Student Discussion FYI ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Jim Cassell jwcassell@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, 7 Dec 1994 09:00:00 CST From: Aaron Ebata Subject: Position Announcement Assistant Professor, Extension Specialist-Adult Life and Aging. The Division of Human Development and Family Studes, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, has a tenure-track, 9-month, full-time faculty position availabe August 1995. Ph.D. desired in gerontology, aging studies, family studies or related fields. Areas of specialization sought include: ethnic and cultural issues; intergenerational relations; care-giver/care receiver relationships; aging in rural and urban contexts; older adults as a society resource. Qualifications entail the ability to develop community-based programs, provide statewide leadership for educational programs within the Cooperative Extension Service, and establish an independent program of scholarhsip. To receive full consideration, send letter, vita, transcripts, and three letters of reference to: Donald K. Layman, Director, School of Human Resources and Family Studies, 905 S. Goodwin, Urbana, IL 61801, by January 6, 1995. For additional information, contact Dr. Aaron Ebata (217-333-2919) or via INTERNET: EbataA@idea.ag.uiuc.edu. UIUC is an AA/EOE. From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Dec 8 14:28:49 1994 Thu, 8 Dec 1994 14:21:29 -0800 for From: byrd575@obu.arknet.edu Date: Thu, 08 Dec 1994 16:19:01 EST To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU unsubscribe * From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Dec 8 16:43:26 1994 Thu, 8 Dec 1994 16:40:18 -0800 for Date: Thu, 8 Dec 1994 17:40:16 -0700 (MST) From: FULLER ABIGAIL ANNE To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: Grad Student Paper Award The Peace Studies Association announces the GRADUATE STUDENT PAPER AWARD IN PEACE STUDIES Graduate students are invited to submit papers on peace, conflict, justice, global security, and other topics in peace studies. Papers should be no more than 30 pages in length and must be written within the past year. The award will be presented at the Peace Studies Association's Annual Meeting, March 9-12 at Tufts University. (Contestants need not be present to win.) The winner will receive a membership in PSA. Deadline for submission is January 15, 1995. Send three copies to: Souad Dajani Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences Antioch College 795 Livermore Street Yellow Springs, Ohio 45387 From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Dec 8 17:06:45 1994 Thu, 8 Dec 1994 17:03:11 -0800 for Date: Thu, 8 Dec 94 20:02 EST From: "Doug Smith: Computer Czar--LuvDoug" To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU It's nice to see people interested in the community concept. Some of the responses to our first post on "Communities in Cyberspace" argued that community can exist anywhere. That community is an abstraction whose definition can by agreement be changed (just like boundaries), and that if we continued to agree that community has a local component that we somehow DENY interactional norms (non sequitur, mon ami?). Still others suggested that since they were not informally interacting with their neighbors (who were interacting with each other) that community did not exist. Lastly, we were asked, "well, if we're not a community, what the hell are we?" Traditionally, there have been three definitions of community. The first states that local territory is a necessary element of community. For example, Thomas Bender (1978) states "The most common sociological definitions used today tend to focus on a community as an aggregate of people who share a common interest in a particular locality." It is local social interaction that delineates the culture and structure of a community. The second focuses on the organization of social institutions and associations in the social life of a local pop. Under this definition, community is usually taken to be the smallest complete form of "society". MacIver and Page (1949) "The mark of community is that one's life may be lived wholly within it". As you can see so far, "Cyberspace" is 0 for 2 on the old community scoreboard. Now we come to the third definition which utilizes Lewin's field theory. Under this definition, community is an "interactional field", an arena within which different degrees of interaction take place among individuals and organizations (Wilkinson, almost any piece since 1972). Local interaction, towards its place, its structure and its culture strengthens the community. Does "Cyberspace" fall under this third definition? No, because being on the net does not allow for the creation of a community field. A community field arises when people live together and interact on matters CONCERNING THEIR COMMON INTEREST IN THE LOCALITY. (I would stress here that interaction is not just discourse, but action.) Community interaction is special in that it is much more likely to produce what Schmalenbach refers to as "Bund" (loosely translated as communion). It's not impossible for other interactional fields to produce communion; however, it is much more difficult for them to do so. Now back to the questions at hand. 1) Boundaries change by agreement, why don't communities? Community fields do change; they are not static. They arise and fall all the time; however, they are infinitely more likely to arise in localities. 2) I interacted much more with a loose network of people around the city than my neighbors, doesn't this mean that communities aren't local? No, we would argue that you were in an interactional field (or what Tomatsu Shibutani or Anselm Strauss would call a social world), but not a community field. While you might be more involved in such a field it would not encompass many issues that affected your everyday life. For example, what school you attended or whether there was a crime watch program, or whether a waste incinerator would be cited in your backyard are place related issues, that would require interaction with your neighbors. These issues provide avenues for a community field to be born but do not guarantee a community field will be created. In fact if you were more involved with people across town, I would suspect that a community field would not arise. (Another good example of this is Kroll-Smith and Couch's work on the Centralia, PA mine fire. They point out that the creation of a community field to confront the government about the fire was inhibited by historic ethnic differences.) 3) Doesn't keeping locality deny norms of interaction? No. Communities are not the only interactional fields (or social worlds, if you prefer). We're not saying that interaction doesn't occur on the net; we're just saying that this form of interaction isn't a community. We do not see how this is in any way stifling interactional norms. 4) Finally, if we have a feeling of belonging don't we belong? Yes, you belong to a network and can develop sentiments toward other net members and the net itself, but the net is not tied to place. Therefore it's not a community. Lastly, we never said that interaction on the internet should not be studied. Doug and Frank From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Dec 8 19:51:13 1994 Thu, 8 Dec 1994 19:47:38 -0800 for Date: Thu, 8 Dec 1994 19:45:06 -0800 From: 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 and in the body of your message, type: unsub socgrad Remember to send the message to listserv, NOT to Socgrad itself. Any problems or questions can be directed to lmiller@ucsd.edu From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Dec 9 07:39:16 1994 Fri, 9 Dec 1994 07:08:31 -0800 for Date: Fri, 9 Dec 1994 10:08:20 -0500 (EST) From: James Cassell Subject: Fw: Harry Braverman Award (fwd) To: Sociology Graduate Student Discussion FYI ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Jim Cassell jwcassell@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: Thu, 8 Dec 1994 14:08:55 -0700 From: Christopher Chase-Dunn Subject: Fw: Harry Braverman Award ------------------------------ From: Tom Steiger Subject: Harry Braverman Award A N N O U N C E M E N T HARRY BRAVERMAN AWARD by THE LABOR STUDIES DIVISION of THE SOCIETY FOR THE STUDY OF SOCIAL PROBLEMS THIS AWARD IS GIVEN TO A GRADUATE STUDENT WHO HAS WRITTEN A PAPER RELATED TO WORK AND LABOR Submitting author must be a graduate student at time the paper was written and when submitted. Ordinarily the submitting author should be the first or sole a uthor. It is possible to submit a multi-authored paper if all authors are grad uate students. For more information contact: Tom Steiger Office number: (812) 237-2781 Department of Sociology FAX: (812) 237-8072 Indiana State University Email: SOLABOR@INDST.INDSTATE.EDU Terre Haute, IN 47809 Submit three typewritten copies to above address: Deadline April 1, 1995. Prof. Chris Chase-Dunn Department of Sociology Johns Hopkins University Baltimore, MD. 21218 USA tel 410 516 7633 fax 410 516 7590 email chriscd@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Dec 9 08:28:31 1994 Fri, 9 Dec 1994 08:25:26 -0800 for Date: Fri, 9 Dec 1994 11:26:00 -0500 (EST) From: blyden b potts Subject: Re: your mail To: "Doug Smith: Computer Czar--LuvDoug" To Doug and Frank, Oh, I see. First we'll advance three definitions of community (although there are at least a few dozen to choose from) as previously defined, and we'll show how cyberspace interaction does not match any of them. Curiously, the very use of the word space (in cyberspace) would suggest that we'd better define locality and space before we throw out all these definitions. Second we'll accept that community MUST have a locality or spatial component, by which mechanism it is clear that community does not exist on the internet. Problem solved. How simple. How sensible. Blyden B. Potts From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Dec 9 10:44:55 1994 Fri, 9 Dec 1994 10:41:06 -0800 for Date: Fri, 9 Dec 94 13:40 EST From: "Frank D. Beck" Subject: Re: your mail To: kaptbly@umich.edu In response to our recent post on the possiblity of community on the network, Blyden Potts states: >Oh, I see. First we'll advance three definitions of community (although >there are at least a few dozen to choose from) as previously defined, and >we'll show how cyberspace interaction does not match any of them. No, we realize that there have been many definitions of community. However, these definitions have centered around three elements: locality, social organization and interaction. The last of these exists in every definition. To us, the best definition comprises all three elements with an emphasis on how interaction produces the locality and the social organization. >Curiously, the very use of the word space (in cyberspace) would suggest that >we'd better define locality and space before we throw out all these >definitions. Well, evidently you didn't want to take a shot at it. To us, it is interaction which defines boundaries, but it is the SUBJECT of the interaction (discourse and action) which separates a community field from other interactional fields. >Second we'll accept that community MUST have a locality or >spatial component, by which mechanism it is clear that community does not >exist on the internet. Problem solved. How simple. How sensible. Look, we spent all day THINKING about our response to other people's comments about our earlier post. We laid out a theoretically grounded defense based on Harold Kaufmann and Ken Wilkinson's work on community. If you would like to engage in a theoretical discussion of these ideas then we would suggest that you try writing something besides insinuation. We recognize that every theory has a purpose. The benefit of the interactional definition of community is that it focuses on peoples well-being where they live. If a social problem arises in a locality, it is community action that facilitates a solution. What does a non-local community definition, which allows you to describe "Cyberspace" (whatever that is) as a community, get us? One possibility is that it allows us to think more favorably of this technology. You argue that interaction on the net produces community; community is good; therefore the net is good. Isn't that special? Frank and Doug or Doug and Frank (take your pick) From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Dec 9 13:31:18 1994 Fri, 9 Dec 1994 13:27:31 -0800 for Date: Fri, 9 Dec 94 16:26 EST From: "Jetaway Dave" Subject: Re: your mail To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU >To Doug and Frank, >Oh, I see. First we'll advance three definitions of community (although >there are at least a few dozen to choose from) as previously defined, and Really? A few dozen? Feel free to pound'em out for us. >we'll show how cyberspace interaction does not match any of them. >Curiously, the very use of the word space (in cyberspace) would suggest that >we'd better define locality and space before we throw out all these >definitions. Second we'll accept that community MUST have a locality or By all means, define not only space for us, but what is meant by cyberspace. If by the usage of the term "space" you mean an arena in which interactions unfold, then, yes, cyberspace should in fact be considered a space. However, if by "space" you mean a physical location where we live our lives, cyberspace, is most assuredly not a true instance of space. Finally, are you saying that interactional space = community? Hmmm.. You'll have to convicne me on that one. >spatial component, by which mechanism it is clear that community does not >exist on the internet. Problem solved. How simple. How sensible. I'm confused here. Is this an argument or a pathetic attempt at the art of satire? Jetaway Dave From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Dec 9 18:08:39 1994 Fri, 9 Dec 1994 18:06:08 -0800 for Date: Fri, 9 Dec 1994 18:06:06 -0800 (PST) From: Jiannbin Lee Shiao Subject: communities: locality, localities, or interests To: Sociology Graduate Student List On Thu, 8 Dec 1994, Doug Smith: Computer Czar--LuvDoug wrote: > It's nice to see people interested in the community concept. Well, it was nice to see a thoughtful response like y'all's. :) My reply here is unfortunately based on much enthousiasm but with too little sleep. I also harp on Doug and Frank's identification of communities with residential neighborhoods, perhaps more than they intended. > Some of the responses to our first post on "Communities in Cyberspace" > argued that community can exist anywhere. That community is an > abstraction whose definition can by agreement be changed (just like > boundaries), and that if we continued to agree that community has a > local component that we somehow DENY interactional norms (non sequitur, > mon ami?). Still others suggested that since they were not informally > interacting with their neighbors (who were interacting with each other) > that community did not exist. Lastly, we were asked, "well, if we're > not a community, what the hell are we?" Anyway, I think my original post fell into the second category above (neighbors), but it is related to the other two issues (locality&boundaries and what-are-we?). Let me push y'all further on the second, and I think it loosens some of the assumptions in your arguments about the other issues. Specifically, I find your arguments about cyberspace convincing (to a very particular limit), and wonder first, if you'd be willing to loosen (or rather respecify) your definition of "locality". **Why should neighborhoods constitute the most important "places" or localities if you will?** In my previous post, I pointed out that my community --back when I grew up in Nashville-- was not my neighborhood, but rather the network of Chinese Americans in the city. Your responses suggest that I simply had no community because (1) regardless of whether or not my white neighbors had a community going, we were not involved, and (2) the "cross-town" nature of our most valued social interations could not have encompassed "many issues that affected [my] everyday life". On #1 I am in agreement, but on #2 I would have to vehemently disagree. While I agree with you that residential neighborhood cannot be dropped as an important dimension of community, I think that workplace, religious faith, and leisure space also generate equally important (if not more so) "common interests". And, to relate this to my Nashville experiences, I would argue that race and ethnicity have been important coordinators for the relative importance of these different "spaces", within what folks identify as their community. Coming to your three definitions of community: (1) local territory, (2) social institutions...of a local population [redundant?], and (3) interaction != community. I think you can argue the second without the addendum "of a local population", and I think that there is indeed more to community than an interactional field. As you imply, it's more than a sense of belonging, there's also common interests; community involves a sense of having a common fate. However, I don't see that where people live has any necessary primacy in the development of these common interests. In sum, I think y'all are collapsing interests with a particular locality, which --I think-- is not a bad thing to do, when the two do coincide. But my point is, they don't always. I think we're slipping between the cracks of two "social spheres" (for lack of a better phrase): (1) the social worlds that determine our range of options (ie who has which common interests), and (2) the social worlds to which we orient our lives ("chosen" both rationally and through our frames). Perhaps community is the way in which we articulate and practice these two social spheres as if they were one world, in which case, neither the residential neighborhood nor any other social world are necessarily community or necesarily not-community. If y'all agree with me so far (and y'all may not :), then community does not require any *particular* type of locality. However, does it require *any* locality, ie what about Cyberspace? Tentatively, I would say, "no"; rather community requires collective interests, of which locality is an obviously strong attractor, but not the sole one. If so, then, are there cyberspace interests of "everyday" importance? Warning-- cop-out ahead: personally, I'm not sure how methodologically to assess interests on the Internet. But until we come up with some ways, I don't think we can dismiss cyberspace as categorically non-community. > Lastly, we never said that interaction on the internet should not be > studied. Doug and Frank, I certainly hope you do not take me as seeing your positions as such. As may be obvious, I would say the same thing ...about neighborhoods. ;) What do y'all think? tha j'ster Jiannbin "J" Lee Shiao Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Sociology Operator, Instructional and Collections Computing Facility University of California, Berkeley From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Dec 12 07:03:45 1994 Mon, 12 Dec 1994 07:00:11 -0800 for Date: Mon, 12 Dec 1994 10:00:45 -0500 (EST) From: blyden b potts Subject: Re: your mail To: "Frank D. Beck" On Fri, 9 Dec 1994, Frank D. Beck wrote: > No, we realize that there have been many definitions of community. However, > these definitions have centered around three elements: locality, social > organization and interaction. The last of these exists in every definition. > To us, the best definition comprises all three elements with an emphasis on > how interaction produces the locality and the social organization. I am sorry, I misstated. You do recognize many definitions, but as you say, centered on three elements. I should have said that you set up three bases for defining community and then decide that the internet cannot exhibit community. This does not really affect my argument at all, but I admit that you do not exclude multiple variations on these bases. As for some people who wrote suggesting that there were not so many, I can give only a limited reply: I have never actually read the article, but have several times seen it cited that G. Hillery Jr. (1955) found no fewer than 94 different definitions of community. Surely a few more have been added since. Almost all of those definitions (Bell and Newby, 1971) involved an interactional component, but a significant number did not require an area, locality or territorial component. I took a quick look at Claude Fisher's *To Dwell Among Friends* the other night; while he recognizes a spatial component, he sees it theoretically as egocentric (i.e. an aspect of interaction), though that is not how he operationalizes it. Gerald Suttles and writers following him (e.g. Ahlbrandt) suggest a definition of community which is not spatially determined, though they recognize that more traditional definitions tend to have an area component. Barry Wellman working on community from a network perspective has written considerably on community and has suggested that community is an egocentric network without spatial definition. Finally, Weber as translated by Gerth and Mills suggests that communal action "is oriented to the feeling of the actors that they belong together." This, along with other references in Weber suggests that community has an interactional base, but is primarily a cognitive state, with no implication that it needs to be associated with a locality; a perspective which may be found in other writers (e.g. Mary Rousseau) > >Curiously, the very use of the word space (in cyberspace) would suggest that > >we'd better define locality and space before we throw out all these > >definitions. > > Well, evidently you didn't want to take a shot at it. To us, it is > interaction which defines boundaries, but it is the SUBJECT of the > interaction (discourse and action) which separates a community field from > other interactional fields. No, I will not take a shot at it. If this was seen as a cheap shot, I apologize. It was only a creative aside for me, which suggested that the definition could be played with in creative ways. I certainly have no intention at this point of following that up. But now we come to the heart of the matter. My critique is this: You have recognized community as an interactional field. I accept that. You have further specified that what makes a community as a distinct type of interactional field is the locality or spatial aspect of the interaction. This I personally disagree with, but here is what I see as the real problem: You have, definitionally, a priori excluded social phenomena from being community. If you are going to do this I expect some rational or logic for the definitional decision. This you do not provide. An analogy might be a definition which says that Dinosaurs are creatures which died out however many millions of years ago. Such a definition proscribes the possibility of finding a dinosaur alive today. Similarly, defining community in such an arbitrary way prevents us from spotting what are identical phenomena, except for this arbitrary element. Perhaps you do not think it is arbitrary, but given that the social importance of community seems to have relatively little to do with space (from my perspective, at least), I would have to say it is an arbitrary barrier. > Look, we spent all day THINKING about our response to other people's > comments about our earlier post. We laid out a theoretically grounded > defense based on Harold Kaufmann and Ken Wilkinson's work on community. If > you would like to engage in a theoretical discussion of these ideas then > we would suggest that you try writing something besides insinuation. I fail to see what the length of time you spent preparing your argument, or I spent on mine has to do with anything, except that you are insinuating that I didn't think about what I was saying. I assure you that is not the case. > We recognize that every theory has a purpose. The benefit of the interactional > definition of community is that it focuses on peoples well-being where they > live. If a social problem arises in a locality, it is community action that > facilitates a solution. > What does a non-local community definition, which allows you to describe > "Cyberspace" (whatever that is) as a community, get us? One possibility > is that it allows us to think more favorably of this technology. You argue > that interaction on the net produces community; community is good; therefore > the net is good. Isn't that special? Why should locality in the geographic sense be so privileged? I think I've explained that what my non-local definition (and I admit, I haven't given you A definition, only challenged the locality aspect) allows us to look for community more broadly, as I said above. You seriously misread into my argument by suggesting that I say the net DOES produce community, and that I think community is good. Community has negative consequences and costs as well as benefits, and I don't know that the net does produce community, but I can look. Blyden Potts From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Dec 13 09:29:30 1994 Tue, 13 Dec 1994 09:26:28 -0800 for Tue, 13 Dec 94 12:26:26 +1100 From: "MORTEN G. ENDER" Organization: University of Maryland,College Park To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Tue, 13 Dec 1994 12:25:54 EDT Subject: e-mail address needed can anybody provide me with an e-mail address for one of two usc professors: pierrette handagneu-sotelo and/or professor sally raskoff thanks, morten ender From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Dec 13 11:39:58 1994 Tue, 13 Dec 1994 11:28:15 -0800 for Date: Tue, 13 Dec 94 14:27 EST From: "Frank D. Beck" Subject: Re: your mail To: kaptbly@umich.edu Well it's that time of year. Doug and I are swamped with end of the semester work and some stressful family obligations. Therefore, for those following the community discussion lately, we will not be posting a response until January. Apologies to those who've posted thoughtful comments and questions and the socgrad "community" (**that's a joke folks**) in general. Frank From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Dec 13 11:58:40 1994 Tue, 13 Dec 1994 11:49:09 -0800 for From: blovitts@nsf.gov Date: Tue, 13 Dec 94 14:46:29 EST To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: stats for the holidays Happy Holidays to everyone on Socgrad. Thought you might find this an amusing diversion from finals, papers, grades, undergraduates .... Barbara As a result of an overwhelming lack of requests, and with research help from that renowned scientific journal SPY magazine (January, 1990) - I am pleased to present the annual scientific inquiry into Santa Claus. IS THERE A SANTA CLAUS? ======================= 1) No known species of reindeer can fly. BUT there are 300,000 species of living organisms yet to be classified, and while most of these are insects and germs, this does not COMPLETELY rule out flying reindeer which only Santa has ever seen. 2) There are 2 billion children (persons under 18) in the world. BUT since Santa doesn't (appear) to handle the Muslim, Hindu, Jewish and Buddhist children, that reduces the workload to 15% of the total - 378 million according to Population Reference Bureau. At an average (census) rate of 3.5 children per household, that's 91.8 million homes. One presumes there's at least one good child in each. 3) Santa has 31 hours of Christmas to work with, thanks to the different time zones and the rotation of the earth, assuming he travels east to west (which seems logical). This works out to 822.6 visits per second. This is to say that for each Christian household with good children, Santa has 1/1000th of a second to park, hop out of the sleigh, jump down the chimney, fill the stockings, distribute the remaining presents under the tree, eat whatever snacks have been left, get back up the chimney, get back into the sleigh and move on to the next house. Assuming that each of these 91.8 million stops are evenly distributed around the earth (which, of course, we know to be false but for the purposes of our calculations we will accept), we are now talking about .78 miles per household, a total trip of 75-1/2 million miles, not counting stops to do what most of us must do at least once every 31 hours, plus feeding and etc. This means that Santa's sleigh is moving at 650 miles per second, 3,000 times the speed of sound. For purposes of comparison, the fastest man- made vehicle on earth, the Ulysses space probe, moves at a poky 27.4 miles per second - a conventional reindeer can run, tops, 15 miles per hour. 4) The payload on the sleigh adds another interesting element. Assuming that each child gets nothing more than a medium-sized lego set (2 pounds), the sleigh is carrying 321,300 tons, not counting Santa, who is invariably described as overweight. On land, conventional reindeer can pull no more than 300 pounds. Even granting that "flying reindeer" (see point #1) could pull TEN TIMES the normal amount, we cannot do the job with eight, or even nine. We need 214,200 reindeer. This increases the payload - not even counting the weight of the sleigh - to 353,430 tons. Again, for comparison - this is four times the weight of the Queen Elizabeth (the ship, not the monarch). 5) 353,000 tons traveling at 650 miles per second creates enormous air resistance - this will heat the reindeer up in the same fashion as a spacecraft reentering the earth's atmosphere. The lead pair of reindeer will absorb 14.3 QUINTILLION joules of energy. Per second. Each. In short, they will burst into flame almost instantaneously, exposing the reindeer behind them, and create deafening sonic booms in their wake. The entire reindeer team will be vaporized within 4.26 thousandths of a second. Santa, meanwhile, will be subjected to centrifugal forces 17,500.06 times greater than gravity. A 250-pound Santa (which seems ludicrously slim) would be pinned to the back of his sleigh by 4,315,015 pounds of force. In conclusion - If Santa ever DID deliver presents on Christmas Eve, he's dead now. Lilly says that there is a Santa Claus. The reindeer and Santa are magical and can accomplish anything. From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Dec 14 19:44:27 1994 Wed, 14 Dec 1994 09:13:51 -0800 for From: Michael A Shader Subject: T.R. Young lecture-POstmodern To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 12:13:45 -0500 (EST) Could someone please send me the last lecture by T.R. that was posted on POst modernity From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Dec 14 19:47:15 1994 Wed, 14 Dec 1994 08:14:16 -0800 for Wed, 14 Dec 94 11:14:13 +1100 From: "MORTEN G. ENDER" Organization: University of Maryland,College Park To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 11:13:42 EDT Subject: asa roundtable: call for participants CALL FOR PARTICIPANTS "Community Service and Undergraduate Sociology" In conjuntion with the 1994 American Sociological Association Meetings hosted in Washington, DC (THEME: "Community of Communities") and the Section on Undergraduate Education, we would like to invite participants for a roundtable discussion on adopting a community service component in undergraduate sociology course(s). Anyone conducting research in or having experience with the implementation of community service as a pedagogical tool at the undergraduate level in a sociology curriculum is invited to participate in this informal roundtable discussion. (NOTE: Finished papers are NOT a requirement to participate in this roundtable discussion.) To participate send ideas, abstracts, and/or papers with full names, institutional affiliations and presentation titles by January 7th, 1995 to: Morten G. Ender or Brenda Kowalewski Department of Sociology Department of Sociology University of Maryland University of Maryland College Park, MD 20742 College Park, MD 20742 301 405-7707 301 405-6423 S-ENDER@BSS1.UMD.EDU S-BRENDA@BSS1.UMD.EDU From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Dec 15 07:33:55 1994 Thu, 15 Dec 1994 07:30:40 -0800 for Date: Thu, 15 Dec 94 10:29:07 EST From: SROXBURG@KENTVM.KENT.EDU To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Could someone send me the address to subscribe/un? I have it in another accoun t but can't access it right now. Thanks. From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Dec 15 12:10:23 1994 Thu, 15 Dec 1994 12:02:04 -0800 for Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 15:00 EDT From: SCOTT BLAKE Subject: Social Action over the Internet To: psn@csf.colorado.edu, socgrad@UCSD.EDU, MACDON2@fas.harvard.edu ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 13 Dec 1994 07:51:00 -0500 (EST) From: At the edge of Time and Speed Subject: "Help" Sun spread a little holiday cheer! (fwd) Want to do a kind thing for some hungry kids this holiday season? If not, press delete now. If you have a heart and a minute, read on. Sun Microsystems is donating $0.10 to a food bank each time an Internet user sends an email msg to any (or all) of the three addresses below: santa@north.pole.org elves@north.pole.org rudolph@north.pole.org Doesn't matter what the msg contains; it could be an empty msg, full of invisible holiday spirit. Pick your favorite and send email there a few times. If *everyone* on the net were to BCC all three addresses with every msg they posted to a list for one day, the counter would top out almost instantly, so this is like a weird and wonderful test of Mass Human Kindness. You can do your part to help big fat international corporations make good on their Promises of donations to charities. It only takes 250,000 msgs to reach the $25,000 Sun promised to donate to a Bay Area food bank for homeless families. Other corporations are donating to selected causes, including a banking firm in Washington DC that will donate up to $5,000 to the Chesapeake Wildlife Heritage (only 50,000 msgs...li'l baby birdies...furry baby rabbits... c'MON now! :) Other corporations are participating too: any firms wishing to add matching funds should contact Luther Brown at . The announcement's in the Dec 94 Advanced Systems magazine (pg 22). Who knows, someday you might see companies all across the globe donating part of their obscene profits to children's charities in Sarajevo, San Francisco, Manila, Mogadishu, Bombay, Moscow, Port-au-Prince, Bucharest, Shanghai, Rio de Janeiro... everywhere Santa stops in. Remember: any user can send multiple msgs, so please be counted at least _once_, OK? There are not many such opportunities to directly affect something with your computer, and it doesn't take the Compassion of Siddhartha to see what's good about putting food in the mouths of little children with no home, wherever they are. ____ ____\ / Catya Erin Belfer \ / \/ Tnebri on irc \/ catya@bwh.harvard.edu From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Dec 15 14:12:29 1994 Thu, 15 Dec 1994 14:03:55 -0800 for Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 16:58 EDT From: SCOTT BLAKE Subject: Sorry for the clutter To: psn@csf.colorado.edu, socgrad@UCSD.EDU, MACDON2@fas.harvard.edu HI folks. It seemos the thing about mailing to santa, etc @north.pole.org was indeed a hoax. Those of you with www browsers can check out http://north.pole.org/ for the opportunity to make a difference. The rest of us are SOL. The following is frm the north.pole home page: Please Don't Spam Santa There is a rumor going around that we're trying to get a@north.pole.org. Not true ... Santa has all the mail he can handle and asks th might be a few last-minute transfers to the "naughty" list. Yours, with egg on face, Scott From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Sun Dec 18 07:52:31 1994 Sun, 18 Dec 1994 07:13:21 -0800 for Date: Sun, 18 Dec 94 10:02:30 EST From: "T R. Young" <34LPF6T@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU> Organization: Central Michigan University Subject: All the Children To: GRADUATE STUDENTS IN SOCIOLOGY Christmas Greetings...thought I would send this poem to you in lieu of a mini-lecture. I've been listening to all the Christmas music which is so much a part of our life and culture and thought about an Indian poem which I found somewhere long ago. It speaks realms about the spirit of Christmas and the message hidden in the music of the time...music about another child, long time dead, who serves as an symbol for our responsibility to all the children. It is an answer to a French Catholic Missionary who was telling an Indian husband that he should not allow his wife so much freedom....that she would beget children not his own. THE CHILDREN I do not have to restrict my wife in order to know who my children are: all the children are mine. Among the Naskapi, our children ar children of the tribe...they belong to no one man nor no one family. I do not have to feed my children; I must feed all my children. I do not have to love only my children; Among the Naskapi, we are able to love all the children. I feel the same way about students...I have to teach all the students; not only those who happen to sign up for a course I happen to be teaching. Next Semester, I will teach a graduate course in postmodern social psychology to grad students at Texas Woman's University and the Univ. of North Texas...I will share some of those lectures with you as I think might be something of a gift to you...have a good holiday and help to love all the children. T. R. Young From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Dec 19 06:23:43 1994 Mon, 19 Dec 1994 06:18:11 -0800 for Date: Mon, 19 Dec 1994 09:19:51 -0500 (EST) From: James Cassell Subject: (FWD) Position Openings: HIV/AIDS Research (fwd) To: Sociology Graduate Student Discussion Saw this in another group and thought someone out there might be interested. Jim ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Jim Cassell jwcassell@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: Sat, 17 Dec 1994 13:45:09 EST From: G J HUBA Subject: Position Openings: HIV/AIDS Research +++++++ 12-15-94 +++++++ Position Openings: METHODOLOGIST-EVALUATOR-POLICY RESEARCH ON HIV/AIDS PROJECTS The Measurement Group (TMG), a national leader in applying psychological measurement, evaluation, and research methods to social policy and decision making, has openings for methodologists skilled in program evaluation, multivariate analysis, or measurement as these areas related to policy research. Professional discipline is open but might include psychology, public health, sociology, or a related social or medical science field. Knowledge of the issues in policy and "content" research is as important as formal training in statistics and measurement. TMG offers professionals the chance to work as a team on important social problems including HIV/AIDS and substance abuse services. From its (Westside) Los Angeles offices, TMG supports more than 60 projects located throughout the United States, and is involved in three large multi-site, national, cross-cutting evaluations. We are looking for energetic and creative practitioner-methodologists who can work as part of a team both with our own staff and with client organizations. Appropriate doctoral degree or masters degree with advanced experience required. Strong skills in computerized analysis and report writing are a pre-requisite. Experience in multivariate analysis and statistics, large data file management, instrument design, testing, and interviewing is highly desirable. Experience in HIV/AIDS or substance abuse studies and health care evaluation-policy research is also highly desirable. Discipline is open. Being able to participate cooperatively in work with other professionals in an absolute requirement. An equal opportunity employer, TMG provides a competitive benefits- compensation package. To apply, send a curriculum vitae, list of references, and work samples to G. J. Huba, Ph.D., or Lisa A. Melchior, Ph.D. One or more positions may be filled immediately. The Measurement Group 5811A Uplander Way Culver City, California 90230 (310) 216-1051 (310) 670-7735 (telefax) mrgj77a@prodigy.com (Internet) From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Dec 21 06:00:24 1994 Wed, 21 Dec 1994 05:59:02 -0800 for Date: Wed, 21 Dec 1994 09:00:37 -0500 (EST) From: James Cassell Subject: New list: FUTUREWORK: RE-DESIGNING WORK,INCOME DISTRIBUTION,EDUCATION To: Sociology Graduate Student Discussion Some of you might be interested in the new list described below. Please contact Sally Lerner , the list coordinator, for details. Best, Jim ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Jim Cassell jwcassell@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 ---------- New FUTUREWORK List December 19, 1994 FUTUREWORK: RE-DESIGNING WORK,INCOME DISTRIBUTION,EDUCATION This is the launch of a new listserv, FUTUREWORK, an international e-mail forum for discussion of how to deal with the new realities created by economic globalization and technological change. Basic changes are occurring in the nature of work in all industrialized countries. Information technology has hastened the advent of the global economic village. Jobs that workers at all skills levels in developed countries once held are now filled by smart machines and/or in low-wage countries. Contemporary rhetoric proclaims the need for ever-escalating competition, leaner and meaner ways of doing business, a totally *flexible* workforce, jobless growth. What would a large permanent reduction in the number of secure, adequately-waged jobs mean for communities, families and individuals? This is not being adequately discussed, nor are the implications for income distribution and education. Even less adequately addressed are questions of how to take back control of these events, how to turn technological change into the opportunity for a richer life rather than the recipe for a bladerunner society. Our objective in creating this listserv is to involve as many people as possible in re-designing for the new realities. We hope that this list will help to move these issues to a prominent place on public and political agendas worldwide. The FUTUREWORK listserv is hosted by Communications for a Sustainable Future (CSF) located at the University of Colorado at Boulder. As the coordinator of FUTUREWORK, I invite you become part of our effort. FUTUREWORK is an unmoderated and open list, so all messages posted to the list will be redistributed around the world. To subscribe to FUTUREWORK, send the message below to listserv@csf.colorado.edu SUB FUTUREWORK Yourfirstname Yourlastname To post diectly to the list (once you are subscribed), send your message to: FUTUREWORK@csf.colorado.edu or FW@csf.colorado.edu Together with others who are interested in addressing the new realities, I look foward to meeting you on the FUTUREWORK list. Sally Lerner University of Waterloo Waterloo, Ontario, Canada lerner@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Dec 23 08:17:52 1994 Fri, 23 Dec 1994 08:15:32 -0800 for Date: Sat, 24 Dec 1994 01:18:48 +0900 To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU From: h2-ono@nri.co.jp (Ono) Subject: subscription address? I hate to do this, since it gets posted periodically, but could someone give me the correct address for subscription into socgrad? I have a friend who wants to subscribe. Thanks in advance. Hiroshi hono94@midway.uchicago.edu ==================================================================== ■　小野　浩 ■　株式会社　野村総合研究所　社会・生活研究部　 ■　h2-ono@nri.co.jp ■　TEL 045-336-6877 FAX 045-336-1404　 ====================================================================　　 From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Dec 23 08:26:21 1994 Fri, 23 Dec 1994 08:24:18 -0800 for Date: Fri, 23 Dec 94 11:22:56 EST From: Alan Davidson Subject: subscription To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU The correct address for subscription to socgrad is listserv@ucsd.edu. In your message, type sub socgrad. If they are going to subscribe, listservers sometimes shut down on holidays themselves. From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Sat Dec 31 21:51:05 1994 Sat, 31 Dec 1994 21:49:27 -0800 for From: CBROWN@SIUCVMB.SIU.EDU Date: Sat, 31 Dec 94 23:47:16 CST To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: Is there anybody out there?