From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Feb 1 08:15:57 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 1 Feb 1994 08:09:34 -0800 for socgrad-list Tue, 1 Feb 1994 08:09:29 -0800 for via Charon 3.4 with IPX id 100.940201110711.288; From: "Leslie Nicoll" To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Tue, 1 Feb 1994 11:08:02 EST Subject: Qualitative Research Hello, I understand that there was a recent discussion of software for qualitative research on this list. If anyone has a digest of the messages, or a summary, could they please send them to me via private e-mail. I am not a subscriber to this list so please don't post it here. Thanks in advance for your help. Leslie ********************************************************************** Leslie H. Nicoll, PhD, MBA, RN * The University of Research Associate * of Southern Maine Edmund S. Muskie Institute of Public Affairs * kindly grants me University of Southern Maine * Internet access, but 96 Falmouth Street * opinions you read Portland, ME 04103 * here are mine, not (O) 207-780-4568 * theirs. (F) 207-780-4953 * ********************************************************************** * lnicoll@maine.maine.edu *or* leslien@usm.maine.edu *or* * * leslien@muskie2.usmacs.maine.edu Take your pick--they all work! * ********************************************************************** From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Feb 1 09:07:33 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 1 Feb 1994 09:05:14 -0800 for socgrad-list Tue, 1 Feb 1994 09:05:01 -0800 for From: roxburgh@epas.utoronto.ca (S Roxburgh) Subject: light relief To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Tue, 1 Feb 1994 12:05:31 -0500 (EST) >From a column by James Lileks, reprinted in the Globe and Mail, on the occasion of Clinton's State of the Union Address, offering the essence of such a message: In the past year we have done many things (strong applause from ruling party) but let us never forget that some things remain to be done. In particular: We need to take action against things that need action taken against them. (Five minutes of applause). We need the courage to accomplish what it takes courage to do. (Vice-President stands and applauds, weeping). We need the strength to do things that are hard to do is we are weak. And make no mistake. I want a strong America. (Speaker of the House bolts from his chair as though he has hit the ejector button, claps until hands are bleeding.) Most of all we need the vision to see ahead, and the wisdom to look behind, because sometimes in America (a hush falls) objects in the mirror are closer than they appear. That's the great thing about this nation. Our past is never far behind. And our future is, at present, ahead of us. (Wild screaming applause; a Supreme Court justice pulls a groin muscle attempting to vault the banister and embrace the President; a shot of the cabinet shows the members are all on their knees weeping, and several are gazing raptly at the President, the faint sings of stigmata appearing on their outstretched hands. The first lady ascends through the roof to heaven.) Together, with your help, we will achieve some noble-sounding yet vague objective. From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Feb 1 09:21:23 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 1 Feb 1994 09:14:03 -0800 for socgrad-list Tue, 1 Feb 1994 09:14:00 -0800 for From: blovitts@nsf.gov To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: My Last Message Date: 1 Feb 94 12:02 EST Socgraders -- For those who cannot open my last message -- Graduate Student Socialization -- I wrote a message and then attached a copy of a paper that I wrote last year on graduate student socialization for a class on socialization. I thought it was relevant to the recent discussions on being a first-year student, dissertations, and being discouraged. My apologies to those who might be interested in it and don't have the technological capability of opening it. Barbara From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Feb 1 09:21:58 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 1 Feb 1994 09:13:11 -0800 for socgrad-list Tue, 1 Feb 1994 09:12:16 -0800 for From: blovitts@nsf.gov To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: Graduate Student Socialization Date: 1 Feb 94 11:49 EST Text item: Socgraders -- Relative to the discussions on being a first-year student, dissertations, and being discouraged in general, last year I wrote a paper on graduate student socialization for a class on socialization. It's not the best thing I've ever written -- had to work over 60 articles and a 100+ pages of notes into a paper in two short weekends. I would, however, like to work it up into a presentable conference piece or publishable journal article some day. Anyway, it deals with a lot of the issues that have been under discussion lately, and may serve to help you realize that you're not alone in what you are feeling. I'm attaching it as a Word Perfect file for anyone who cares to, and has the capability to, open it. Barbara *************************************************** * Encoded PC file follows. * * On NSF's NOTE system, use detach command to * * download. On other systems, use uudecode and * * and PC file transfer program. * *************************************************** begin 600 SOCY624.PAP M_U=00TX* !"@ ! /O_!0 R /H #__P@ !" !@ 0 2@ M /__6@ * #__P #Z 0V]U #^%3806 < $$4#) /P82P 3 %@"0/[^_O[^_O[__O__ M__[___[__________________________TA0($QA#!>,"@ 01 M0,D A\\! $ : %H 6@!: 'PEAK[@E@"0/O_!0 R )@! #__Q L 0 M# !: / $ , )8! ) ( "6 0 ""-\ $L ! M $A0($QA#!>,"@ 010,D A\\! $ : %H 6@!: 'PEAK[@E@" M0"C?^_\% #( &@H \ 6 $ ,H! ' #( B P @)C P 5 , ," M8P, +<& !4!?__B0 _ '@ > !X + $ 0 $T8ML!> #^%3806 < $ M$4#) /P82P 3 %@"0/[^_O[^_O[__O___P'___[_____________________ M_____Y(%__^) #\ > !X '@ L 0! @ ?O+VP%X - 6$A$@" 018,D MDQY+ !, 6 * _O[^_O[^_O_^_________O__________________________ M@@<\ (4 ,@!F #T +@"P! $ %0 !6Q'J 68 ]!I<$AH) $"!0C@ !PD,! M$P F E#^_O[^_O[^__[___\#___^___________________________ !___ MA0 R &H /0 N + $ 0 A '/ NH!:@#T&C02&@D 0('". "A!0P$3 "8" MD/[^_O[^_O[__O________[__________________________T-O=7)I97( M0V]UGJ$<&:$A#U'A'"CA(1FA'IF<(2$K82$ M<#TS/59GI1<%%P47!1<%$],STS M/3,],X1E%Z481<<%%P47!1<%&$7(1CUF1V9'9D=F1W S<#-P M,X1UM6]OOP !) !G,I< @ULM2P !^ MDK4 +6U;V^_ "-@X.#@U"7 C8V- ;V\ 'D %L M !E "> &4 98, M M (, (/1A'1Z90 ;TMP6W!0<%N$;XA@/3R% M97YEHUR$8'9:A&6-969E;6\ 4'!0?VJ,8(1EDGZ-?G10;SP\96IJ?@!T M9/3T]7&DN/2XS7%Q<7%Q<7%Q<7#T]:6EI7*N$>H2$>G"/CT=H2$MX2$>CTS/6ME%Z47I1>E%',TE%Z47I1>E&/7(]C-Z,WHSA&:$9H1FA&:/7(]CUZ/81FA&:$9H1FA&:$9K>$A%QZ47I1>E$ (1F>C.$9H11 M9D=Z/81 &4 98, M M (, (/1A'1Z90 ;TMP M6W!0<%N$;XA@/3R%97YEHV:$8'9:A&6-969E;6\ 4'!0?VJ,8(1EDGZ-?G10 M;SP\96IJ?@!T 7,L(%=H;R!,96%V97,L(&%N9"!7:'D_Q S$@PH* M"@H*"@H*"@H*"@H*P0((!P@'& #!P0)@"6 )( #!P0*X"[@+* #!P0(0#A . M, #!P0)H$&@0. #!4W5B;6ET=&5D('1O.L$"&!48%4@ P58N($QE92!(86UI M;'1O;@K! @@'" <8 ,'! F )8 D@ ,'! K@+N LH ,'! A .$ XP ,'! F@0 M:! X ,%3=6)M:71T960@8GDZP0(8%1@52 #!0F%R8F%R82!%+B!,;W9I='1S M"L$"" <(!Q@ P<$"8 E@"2 P<$"N NX"R@ P<$"$ X0#C P<$":!!H$#@ MP<$"P!+ $D P<$"&!48%4@ P5-/0UD@-C(T"L$"" <(!Q@ P<$"8 E@"2 MP<$"N NX"R@ P<$"$ X0#C P<$":!!H$#@ P<$"P!+ $D P41A=&4ZP0(8 M%1@52 #!36%Y(#4L(#$Y.3/4 !P !8 &P$ ,P*C J,"JP!+ $ M' U S4 0P :% %, , '4T0$C +J 68 ]!I<$AH) $"!0C@ ! MPD,!$P "6Q$F E C '1T OW ) SV"!0#NP3-0#!5VAO(%-T87ES+"!7:&\@3&5A=F5S+"!A M;F0@5VAY/\0,Q(,*"L'@.Q'L$SL P4)A![ M$.P3.0#!56YI=F5R2!O9B!-87)Y;&%N9(,*"@I0F%T:6]N(,%PS"(H M(W< P3&#"L$ " <(!Q@ P<$ 8 E@"2 P4(@(%1H92!087)A9&]X:6-A;"!2 M;VQE(&]F('1H92!'2!3;V-I86QI M>F%T:6]NP7#,(B@C=P#!,X,*P0 (!P@'& #!P0!@"6 )( #!1"X@5')A;G-I M=&EO;B!A;F0@061J=7-T;65N=#H@5&AE($9IT" H(X EV" MT" H(X EV"&EM871E;'D@-3 @ M<&5R8V5N="!O9B!T:&]S92!W:&\@96UB87)K(&]N(&1O8W1O65A2P-,3DY,3L@3U1!+" Q.3@X+"!A;F0@5'5C:V5R M+" Q.38T*2X@($9U2P@,3DY,3L@3E-&+" Q.3DP.R!/9F9I8V4- M;V8@4V-I96YT:69I8R!A;F0@16YG:6YE97)I;F<@4&5R2!A('-M86QL('!E2!O9B!A='1R:71I;VX-0UC;VUM=6YI=&EE7-T96US(&ES(&)E;&EE=F5D('1O(&9A8VEL:71A=&4@9&5G2!PBP@,3DW-BDL('1H97)E(&%R M90UC;VUP87)A=&EV96QY(&9E=R!S='5D:65S(&]F(&=R861U871E('-T=61E M;G0@2!W;W)K(&]N(&=R861U871E M('-T=61E;G0-2!C=7)R96YT;'D@96YR;VQL960@2!OF%T:6]N(&EN=&\@=&AE(&%C861E;6EC(&%N9"!S;V-I86P-2!W:6QL(&)E#6=U:61E9"!B>2!T:&4@=&AE;W)E=&EC86P@9G)A;65W;W)K M(&QA:60@;W5T(&EN(%1I;G1O)W,@*#$Y.#<[(#$Y.#@I('-E;6EN86P@=V]R M:R!O;B!A='1R:71I;VX@9G)O;0UU;F1E2!T:&5OF%T:6]N+"!R;VQE('1H96]R>2P@86YD('-Y;6)O;&EC(&EN=&5R86-T M:6]N:7-M+@H*24DN("###L-"86-K9W)O=6YD(&%N9"!2871I;VYA;&7$#L0* M"D$N("###L-4:&4@4')O8V5SF%T:6]N('1O('1H92!P2!A;F0@<&5E2!FF5D(&EN=&\@ M=&AE('-T=61E;G0@2X@ M($)L;V]M("@Q.38S*2!I;F1I8V%T97,@=&AA="!B;W1H(&]F('1H97-E('9I M97=S#6UA>2!B92!C;W)R96-T+B H5&AI6EN9R!O;B(@;V8@ M=&AE(')O;&4@;6]D96PGF%T:6]N*2X@(%-H97)L;V-K(&%N9"!- M;W)R:7,@*#$Y-C2!O9B!I;F1I=FED=6%LF%T:6]N('!R;V-EF5R+"!A;F0@8F5T=V5E;B!I;F1I M=FED=6%L(&%N9"!I;G-T:71U=&EO;BX@#2A3964@4W1E:6X@)B!796ED;6%N M+" Q.3@Y8B!F;W(@86X@871T96UP="!A="!I;G1E9W)A=&EN9R!T:&4@:6YD M:79I9'5A;"!A;F0@:6YS=&ET=71I;VYA;"!P97)S<&5C=&EV97,N*0H*0BX@ M(,,.PU1H92!087)A9&]X:6-A;"!2;VQE(&]F('1H92!'2P@ M;75C:"!O9B!G0UA2!W:&5N('1H92!A9V5N=',@8V]N=')O;"!T:&4@2!A2!M=7-T(&%C8V5P="!T:&4@8V]N9&ET:6]N'!E8W1E9"!T;R!A8VMN;W=L961G M90UT:&4@875T:&]R:71Y(&]F('1H92!S;V-I86QI>FEN9R!A9V5N=',@86YD M('1O('-U8FUI="!T:&5MFEN9R!P&EC86P@<75A;&ET>2!T;R!I=#H@1W)A9'5A M=&4@2P@:6YT96QL96-T=6%L;'DL(&%N9"!F:6YA;F-I86QL>2X@( K! M -P%W 44 ,%!8V-O7-T96US(&]F('1H92!I;G-T:71U=&EO;B H4F]S96X@)@U"871E2!F86-U;'1Y M+B @2&5R92P@=&AE(&UA:6X@=&%S:R!F;W(@9W)A9'5A=&4@0UU;F1E2!T:&4@0UTF%T:6]N M('!R;V-EF%T:6]N(&%N9"!S='5D96YT2!H879E(&)E96X@86-Q=6ER:6YG#71H92!B87-I8R!S970@;V8@2X@($)U8VAE2!T:&4@9W)O=7 @;VX@=&AE(&YA='5R92!O9B!T:&4@<')O M9F5S7-T96TL(&%N9"!T;R!F86EL=7)E(&%N9"!D969E8W1I;VX@86UO M;F<-2!R;VQE+B @1G)O;2!A('-A;7!L M92!O9B R,S8@2!I;B!T:&4@16%S="P@0F5S2!W:&\@:&%D M(')E2!M=6-H(&QI:V4@<')E&-E<'1I;VYS+"!T:&5Y#7!R969E2!M96UB97)S+B @0F5S M&-L=7-I=F5L>2!O;B!T:&4@86-A9&5M:6,@ M2!T;R!F M:6YD:6YG2!3;V-I86QI>F%T:6]NQ [$+B @4W1U M9&5N=',@=VAO(&5N=&5R(&=R861U871E('!R;V=R86US(&%R92!A(&AI9VAL M>2!S96QFJ7-E;&5C=&5D(&=R;W5P(&%N9 UM=6-H(&]F('1H:7,@65A2!S;V-I86QI>F%T:6]N(&%N M9"!E;F1S(&5I=&AE2!OF%T:6]N#6EN9&EC871E2!S;V-I86QI>F%T:6]N(&ES('5S=6%L;'D@:61E86QI2!"86ER9"P@,3DW-BD@9F]U;F0@=&AA="!S96YI;W)S#6)E M;&EE=F5D('1H870@86QL(&=R861U871E('-C:&]O;',@=V5R92!C:&%R86-T M97)I>F5D(&)Y(&5X8V5L;&5N="!T96%C:&EN9RP@9G)I96YD;'D@<')O9F5S M0UI M;G1E2!M96UB97)S('=H:6-H(&QE860@=&\@;W9EF%T:6]N('!R;V-E2!E>'!E2!M87D@2!T;R!T:&4@87=A2!B96=I;B!T:&5I'!E8W1A=&EO M;G,@=&AA="!C;VUP;&5T96QY(&UA=&-H('1H92!O2!O;FQY(&AA;&8@*#$X*2!R971A:6YE9"!T:&ES(&-O;6UI=&UE;G0@=&AR M;W5G:&]U="!T:&4@9FER65A2!A2D@<')I;W(@=&\@96YT97)I;F<@=&AE:7(@4&@N1"!P M65A2!B971W965N(&]U='-I9&5R(&%N9"!I;G-I M9&5R+B @02!H:6=H('!E&%C="!F:6=U'!E8W1A=&EO;G,@86YD#71H96ER('!E'!E65A'!L86EN('=H>2!S;VUE('-T=61E;G1S M('!E'!L86EN(&AO=R!T:&4@979E;G1S(&]F('1H92!F:7)S M="!Y96%R#6]F(&=R861U871E('-C:&]O;"!C;VYTF%T:6]N(&ES('1H92!TF5D(&)Y(&$@<')O8V5S2!T:&4@9F]R M;6%L(&%N9"!I;F9O2X@($%N(&EM<&]R M=&%N="!T87-K#61U2P@;6%N>0US M='5D96YTF%T M:6]N("A,;W5I'!L86EN(&AO=R!T:&4@ M96YT65A2!E>'!EF4@86YD(&1E9FEN92!T:&4@;F5W('-I M='5A=&EO;B!I;B!T97)M0UE>'!E'!E8W1A=&EO;G,@*&-O;G-C:6]U'!E'!E8W1A=&EO;G,@86YD(&5X<&5R:65N8V5SU < 6T"8' # M ,"J0*) HL 2P!!P -0+:6X@;W)G86YI>F%T:6]N7!I8V%L;'D@ M;V-C=7!Y('1H92!N97=C;VUE2!T:&EN:VEN9R!A;F0@ M2!A2!A;B!U;G)E2!I;B!O<@UL96%V M92!A;B!O2!N M97=C;VUE2!B92!I;G1E2!A2!A0US='5D96YT2!S;VQV960- M=&AE('%U97-T:6]N(&]F('!R;V9E2X@(%1H92!S M='5D96YT65A2!I65A65A2!E;F-O=6YT97(@86X@961I9FEC92!O9B!T:&5O2!A2!U'!E&EO=7,@=&\@:6UP&ES="!I9B!B96AA=FEO7-E;&8L('1H;W5G:"!T:&4@2!E;G1H=7-I87-T:6,@2!O=&AE3L@;W1H97)S#7=A;F1E0UR96QA=&5D('1O M('1H92!N871U2X@(%1H92!M86IO"!M;VYT M:',@;V8@9W)A9'5A=&4@2!O=71S:61E(&]F(&-L87-S M97,@9'5R:6YG('1H92!F:7)S="!W965K2!T:&5Y('=E2!A;F0@ M=&AE('-T=61I97,-8VET960@86)O=F4L('!R;W9I9&4@979I9&5N8V4@;V8@ M=&AE(&EM<&]R=&%N8V4@;V8@9F]R;6%L(&%N9"!I;F9O2!A;F0@<&5E M3H@5&AE($1E=F5L;W!M96YT(&]F M($-O;7!E=&5N8V7$#L0*P0#F%T:6]N('1A2!M96UB97)S:&EP M+B @5&EN=&\@*#$Y.3$I(&%R9W5EF5D('=I=&AI;B!T:&4@9&5P87)T;65N="P@:6YT97)A8W1I;VYS('=I M=&AI;B!T:&5M#71E;F0@=&\@8F5C;VUE(&EN=&5R='=I;F5D.B!3;V-I86P@ M:6YT97)A8W1I;VX@=VET:"!P965R2!B96-O;64@8VQO M2!L:6YK960@8F]T:"!T;R!T:&4-2!F;W(-9&]C=&]R M86P@8V]M<&QE=&EO;BX@(%1H=7,@<&5R2!P97)C96EV92!T:&5I2!A6-H;VQO9VEC86P@=VET:&1R87=A;"X@($AO=V5V97(L M('1H97-E('-T=61I97,@87)E(&%L;"!CF%T:6]N(&EN=&\@=&AE(&%C861E;6EC(&%N9"!S;V-I86P@'!L;W)E('=H870@=')A;G-P M:7)E2!A="!B97-T+B @06QO;F<@=&AE(')O860L('-T=61E;G1S M(&UU2!C M;VUM:71T965S+"!A<'!R;W9A;"!O9B!P2=S(&]F9FEC92X@("!) M;B!A9&1I=&EO;BP@1VER=F5S(&%N9 U796UM97)U&ES=&5N8V4@;V8@2!O=71S:61E('1H96ER(&]F9FEC92P@:&%V92!F97=E2P@*$1U;F-A;BP- M,3DW-BD@F]F9B!F;W5N9"!T:&%T(&]N9:ET M:&ER9"!O9B!G'!E&EE='D-86YD(&-A=7-E('-T=61E;G1S('1O('=O MBP@,3DW-BDN(%-T=61E;G1S M)PUS96QFJ65S=&5E;2!IBP@,3DW-CL@5&%Y;&]R+" Q M.32!S='5D96YT2!I9&EO2!H879E(&%N M(&%F9F5C="!O;B!L871E2!O9B!W:&%T(&ES(&QE87)N960@86)O=70@=&AE(&YA='5R92!O M9B!T:&4@<')O9F5S2P@=V]R:RD@;V9T96X@9V%I M;G,@:6X@:6UP;W)T86YC92!A;F0@;6%Y('-P96QL('1H92!D:69F97)E;F-E M(&)E='=E96X-'!EF5S M('=I=&@@=&AE:7(@F]F9BP@,3DW-BDL M(&YO="!T;R!M96YT:6]N('1H92!F96%R('1H870@86QL('1H90UP97)S;VYA M;"!A;F0@9FEN86YC:6%L('-A8W)I9FEC97,@=&AA="!T:&5Y(&AA=F4@;6%Y M(&AA=F4@8F5E;B!F;W(@;F]T:&EN9RX*P0#2!S=&%G97,@;V8@2 H2&5I2!I;7!O2!B96-O;64@87=A2!O2!S='5D96YT"!A M;F0@86YX:65T>:EP2!A=V%R92!O9B!T M:&5M(&%N9"!T:&5I2P@87!P2 R,"!P97)C M96YT(&1E'!E2!D M:7-S97)T871O6QE(')E<75I2!H879E(&$@<&]S:71I=F4@:6YF;'5E M;F-E(&]N(&EN=&5L;&5C='5A; UA;F0@<&5R0UP97)C96EV92!T:&4@;&5V96P@;V8@9&EF9FEC=6QT M>2!A6-H;VQO9VEC86P-=VET:&1R87=A;"X@( K! -P%W 44 ,%4 M:'5S('1H92!D:69F97)E;F-EF%T:6]N(&%N9 UH;W<@;75C:"!B>2!A='1R:71I M;VX@;V8@7-T96US(&]F('1H96ER(&1E<&%R=&UE;G0L(&]R('=H;R!C:&]S92!N;W0@ M86-C97!T(&%N9 UA9&]P="!T:&4@9W)A9'5A=&4@2X@($%L;"!W92!K;F]W#6ES('1H870@ MPP[#Q [$96%C:"!S=&%G92!O9B!G6-H;VQO9VEC86P@<&ET M9F%L;',@86YD#6]P<&]R='5N:71I97,@=&AA="!A<'!E87(@=&\@8F4@:&EG M:&QY(&1E<&5N9&5N="!O;B!T:&4@9F]R;6%L(&%N9"!I;F9O2!I!"$NP3/P#!PPS#4F5F97)E;F-E<\0,Q(,* M"@I!9&QE2X@QB@CW 7&"@I!;'1B86-H+"!0:&EL:7 @1RX@*#$Y M-S I+B!#;VUM:71M96YT(&%N9"!0;W=EF%T:6]N(&%N9"!I=',@0V]N M7,@:6X@5VAI=&4Z( W" "P!W 72!O9B!#:&EC86=O(%!R97-S+L8H(]P%Q@H*0F5R9RP@2&5L96X@32X@ M)B!-87)I86YN92!!+B!&97)B97(N("@Q.3@S*2X@365N(&%N9"!7;VUE;B!' M7-I8VEA;BX@PP[#06YN M86QS(&]F('1H92!!;65R:6-A;B!!8V%D96UY(&]F()#" "P!W 7I-SC&*"/< M!<8*"D)O=V5N+"!7:6QL:6%M($F%T:6]N.B!!($-O;7!A2X@QB@CW 7&"M0 ' %M F M#0 0 # JD"B0*+ $L 0< #4C$5G86XL($IA;F5T($TN(" H,3DX M.2DN("!'F%T:6]N+B @PP[#5&5A8VAI;F<@ M4V]C:6]L;V=YQ [$+B @,3F%T:6]NJ:E!;F0@9F]R(%=H;VT_("###L-496%C:&EN M9R!3;V-I;VQO9WG$#L0N(" Q-SH@,C$QJ3(Q-"[&*"/2[$#L0@,C@SJ3(Y M,"[&*"/2X@(,,.PT=R;W5P(&%N9"!/I-# W+L8H(]P%Q@H*2&%L;&5C:RP@4V5Y;6]U MBP@2F]S97!H+B H,3DW-BDN M($1E=F5L;W!M96YT(&]F('1H92!-:6YD+B!P<"X@,3 WJ3(V+B!);B!*;W-E M<&@@2V%T>B F(%)O9&YE>2!4+B!(87)T;F5T=" H161S+BDN#<,.P\( + '< M!=P%% #"4V-H;VQA2[&*"/B F(%)O9&YE>2!4+@W" "P!W 72!T:&4@ M4&%T:"!T;R!T:&4@4')O9F5S2XB("###L-4:&4@0VAR;VYI8VQE(&]F($AI9VAE2X*"DYA=&EO M;F%L(%-C:65N8V4@1F]U;F1A=&EO;BX@("@Q.3DP*2X@(,,.PU=O;65N(&%N M9"!-:6YO2!!2!);F9L=65N8V4@86YD(%!R;V9E<0.Q"X@,S6X@*#$Y.#DI+B @(E=H96X@:6X@1&]U M8G0L($%S:R!T:&4@4W5B:F5C="(Z($$@4F5S<&]N<0.Q"X@(#$W.C(P.*DR M,3$NQB@CW 7&"@I2;V]T;6%N+"!)2!7:71H9')A=V%L(&9R;VT@82!4;W1A;"!!9'5L="!3;V-I86QI>FEN9R!/ M2[$#L0@,S2 F($IO:&X@0RX@5V5I9&UA;BX@("@Q.3@Y8BDN("!3;V-I M86QI>F%T:6]N(&EN($=R861U871E(%-C:&]O;#H@($$@0V]N8V5P='5A; W" M "P!W 76QO'!E2!'2[&*"/ P$.P3.@#!PPS#3W1H97(@5V]R M:W,@0V]NI-#,R M+L8H(]P%Q@H*0FEG;&%N+"!!;G1H;VYY+B H,3DW,V$I+B!4:&4@8VAA6-H;VQO9WDNQ [$(#4W*#,S*2 Q.36I,C S+L8H(]P%Q@H*0FEG;&%N M+"!!;G1H;VYY+B H,3DW,V(I+B!296QA=&EO;G-H:7!S($)E='=E96X@4W5B M:F5C="!-871T97(@0VAA<0.Q"X@,S'!E8W1A=&EO;G,@:6X@=&AE()#" "P!W 72!0<0.Q"X@-3(H-2DZ(#(S M-JDR-# NQB@CW 7&"@I(87)T;F5T="P@4F]D;F5Y(%0N("@Q.32!4+B F($IO:&X@ M02X@0V5N=')A+B H,3DW-RDN(%1H92!%9F9E8W1S(&]F($%C861E;6EC($1E M<&%R=&UE;G1S(&]N(%-T=61E;G0@D,( + 'BX@*#$Y-S8I+B!087-T(&%N9"!0B F(%)O9&YE>2!4+B!(87)T;F5T=" H M161S+BDN(,,.PU-C:&]L87)S(&EN('1H92!-86MI;F6QOB F(%)O9&YE>2!4+B"0P@ L =P%W 44 ,)(87)T M;F5T=" H161S+BDN(,,.PU-C:&]L87)S(&EN('1H92!-86MI;F Date: Tue, 01 Feb 94 13:40:03 EST From: Joya Misra Organization: Emory University - Atlanta, Georgia, USA Subject: 1ST YEAR BLUES To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU Scott, absolutely still appropriate for the list.. :) Since you asked, I applied for grad schools in soc initially because I had the fortune of TA-ing an Intro class as a senior in college. I had a section of 15 students for an hour every week, as we read Berger's _Invitation to Sociology_ and other such works. That was my calling, and my teaching remains key to me. I found sociology enlightening as a student, I find it wonderfully compelling as a teacher. That didn't keep me from considering quitting many many times. Grad school can be frustrating, and too many people feel too little support for their endeavours. I was mentored well, supported by close friends in the program, had great students and good teaching opportunities (small discussion classes in my area of interest), got decent money, and work in an area of sociology which is well-represented in journals. And yet, there were many times that I considered quitting to write full time, or go back to running a radio station, or just being something different. All I can tell you is that every year I've done this, I've loved it more. I enjoy my research, I love teaching, I like hanging out with other academics. I'm glad I stuck with it, because I think this is really right for me. But it's not right for everyone, and it always helped knowing that my friends supported me no matter which path I chose to take. Best of luck. joya From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Feb 1 12:29:12 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 1 Feb 1994 12:27:23 -0800 for socgrad-list Tue, 1 Feb 1994 12:27:18 -0800 for From: CATHRINE@cati.umd.edu Tue, 1 Feb 94 15:25:58 +1100 Organization: Survey Research Center, UMCP To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Tue, 1 Feb 1994 15:25:33 EDT Subject: dissertation The best disseration is a done disseration. From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Feb 1 12:56:44 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 1 Feb 1994 12:52:51 -0800 for socgrad-list Tue, 1 Feb 1994 12:52:40 -0800 for From: S-ENDER@bss1.umd.edu Tue, 1 Feb 94 15:50:07 +1100 To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Tue, 1 Feb 1994 15:49:34 EDT Subject: Re: 1ST YEAR `tune in, turn on and drop out' BLUES >I was mentored well, supported by close friends in the program, had >great students and good teaching opportunities (small discussion >classes in my area of interest), got decent money, and work in an >area of sociology which is well-represented in journals. And yet, >there were many times that I considered quitting to write full time, >or go back to running a radio station, or just being something >different. i wasn't mentored (advisor on sabbatical), received no support from friends (thought i was nuts to leave california), students (:-^)), cruddy teaching opportunities (class sizes = 60-80), lousy pay (especially for living in washington, dc) and work in an area of sociology which has been unrepresented in the journals (sociology of peace and war)...and yet, there were many times that i considered quitting to sleep full-time, or go back to running a homeless shelter full-time, or just riding a harley davidson across america. morten `first-the-ph.d-then-a-harley' ender From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Feb 1 19:42:30 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 1 Feb 1994 19:37:11 -0800 for socgrad-list Tue, 1 Feb 1994 19:37:08 -0800 for Date: Tue, 1 Feb 1994 22:35 EDT From: "SCOTT S. BLAKE" Subject: Explanations To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU I feel that I should explain a little. Some of the replies have been of the, "Buck up!" variety and while I definitely need and appreciate the votes of support, they are not what I was/am fishing for. (Thanks to all who sent them) Rather, sociology as a field seems to be lacking in definition and direction. I find that reflected in my own drifiting and that of those around me. This morning, I had a discussion with threee students and aprofessor (in person, even!). The students were generally lamenting our "thinglessness." As several people have pointed out, an important step in being a student and in becoming a professional entails locating oneself in the scheme of things, often carving out a niche within a field or subfield or whatever. The professor suggested that grad students should try to find a "provisional thing" with which to dissertate and get a job. From there they can find their career thing and go with it then. My problem is that not only am I thingless, I am having trouble conceiving of a thing that I can be passionate about. My thinglessness extends beyond the realm of sociology and into academia in general. It seems that many of the folks in socgradland have found their thing or at least their provisional thing. I, on the other hand, have not located a field in which to look for a thing, let a lone a provisional thing. How do people find their thing? Is it just me or is there realy a lack of interesting things to be had? In my view, sociology has become mired in counting and describing without imparting meaning on anything. Despite Weber's assertion that science cannot provide meaning, I think it must since nothing else in our society seems able to do it. Maybe this is just the nihilist in me, but where are we going? What do we think we a re doing? Are we really contributingto the world or just blowing smoke? Lost in space and time, scott blake@binah.cc.brandeis.edu From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Feb 1 19:46:55 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 1 Feb 1994 19:42:31 -0800 for socgrad-list Tue, 1 Feb 1994 19:42:28 -0800 for Date: Tue, 1 Feb 1994 19:42:15 -0800 (PST) From: Robert Duniway Subject: Re: Re[2]: Discouraged predoc .. To: blovitts@nsf.gov On 31 Jan 1994 blovitts@nsf.gov wrote: > > A consistent attrition rate of 50% going back well over 30 >years indicates that something is wrong with the system. (See Durkheim on >Suicide, if you new need more theoretical support.) Universities are medieval > institutions and still maintain a trial-by-ordeal mentality. "The Best" are > defined by those who finish -- a bit tautological, if you ask me. At the risk of being branded an apologist for the status quo, on what basis do you conclude that 50% attrition is inappropriately high? When I look at the job market lately it seems there are more Ph.Ds in the world than we really need. I think the high attrition rate serves to keep people out of the struggle for research money and publication, and is therefore heavily tied to the canidates ability to finish a significant research project and write about it in a professional manner. By making this a painful process (insert dabate over usefulness of qualifying exams here) and setting the dissertation bar high the system weeds out people who are less passionate about doing actual research (read normal) or less committed to getting whatever they think a Ph.D. will provide. Rampant credentialism will only get worse if a higher percentage of the labor force have graduate degrees, and to the extent that making the process difficult reduces the number of people who pursue or achieve graduate degrees it helps hold back this phenomena. The other option, of course, is to make it a lot harder to get into graduate school, but then who would teach all those courses and clean up those data sets? Bob Duniway University of Washington - Dept. of Sociology From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Feb 1 23:42:18 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 1 Feb 1994 23:40:24 -0800 for socgrad-list Tue, 1 Feb 1994 23:40:22 -0800 for To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: What is sociology? Date: Tue, 01 Feb 94 23:40:16 -0800 From: bigdog@nevada.edu Formlessness is the main strenght of sociology. It allows us to ride a Harley up the steps of Columbia and kick the number crunchers in the crotch. It allows those that are number crunchers to reify the world into tidy little boxes. It allows theoreticians to gather in offices at universities and never experience the world they imagine. Sociology is what you make it. It is formless. It is seamless. While that can be disconcerting, it may also be a chance for one to make sociology what you need it to be. We have spent considerable time on this net lately discussing the need for publishing and the importance of the dissertation. We have already bought into the publish or perish mentality of current academic structure. It does not have to be that way. We do not have to go gently into the good night of academic stagnation. We can rage against the machine that demands this of us. We have the ability to change this system. Teach what is true to you. Research what is of interest to you. Write what is genuine to you. All of these are possible in sociology. If current sub-areas are not sufficient enough to shroud you ideas, create new categories. We are not cheerful robots that are ignorant of the power of what we do. The question is if we are up to the challenge of that responsibility? Dave Ballard 'bigdogs swill tequila and ride nasty hogs in their dreams as they lay on the porch during a hot and sticky summer day' From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 2 05:16:50 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 2 Feb 1994 05:15:02 -0800 for socgrad-list Wed, 2 Feb 1994 05:14:56 -0800 for X-NUPop-Charset: English Date: Wed, 2 Feb 94 08:02:12 CST From: "Dave.L.Brunsma.1" To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: RE: Graduate Student Socialization >M;BXB("!4:&4@2!T:&5OMF%T:6]N+"!OM86QI>F%T:6]N+"!R;VQE('1H96]R>2P@86YD('-Y;6)O;&EC(&EN=&5R86-T >M:6]N:7-M+@H*24DN("###L-"86-K9W)O=6YD(&%N9"!2871I;VYA;&7$#L0* > Barb, what language is this, I know of a good translator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rom: S-ENDER@bss1.umd.edu Wed, 2 Feb 94 9:50:18 +1100 To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 09:49:37 EDT Subject: Re: spatio-temporal explanations >My problem is that not only am I thingless, I am having >trouble conceiving of a thing that I can be passionate about. My >thinglessness extends beyond the realm of sociology and into >academia in general. scott- in my social problems course, when my students seem overwhelmed by all the social ills and can't focus on a topic...i ask them a crude but simple question... what pisses you off? morten From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 2 12:50:20 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 2 Feb 1994 12:42:55 -0800 for socgrad-list Wed, 2 Feb 1994 12:42:54 -0800 for Date: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 12:42:52 -0800 From: Laura Miller To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: publish or perish I agree with Bigdog that it would be a real loss to buy into the publish or perish mentality, but I don't think that means we have the luxury of thumbing our noses at it entirely. If we want gainful employment after this long, grueling process we do have to think about trying to get an article or 2 out (while remembering that most grad students don't manage it), and think about doing a dissertation that can be turned into a book when we're involved in the long, grueling climb towards tenure. But what I think is very dangerous is buying into the idea that academia is a true meritocracy -- that those who do manage to get lots and lots published, or those who get the plum jobs at name universities are smarter and more deserving than everyone else. It's obvious that there's an awful lot of marketing, networking, back-scratching, clinging to the coat-tails of famous people, and luck involved in all this. So we may be constantly deciding whether and how to make compromises in pursuing the work that's most meaningful to us, but I certainly hope that doesn't mean losing a critical perspective on this business (as far too many faculty members have obviously done). Laura lmiller@ucsd.edu From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 2 13:33:37 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 2 Feb 1994 13:15:42 -0800 for socgrad-list Wed, 2 Feb 1994 13:15:34 -0800 for Date: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 16:12 EDT From: "SCOTT S. BLAKE" Subject: Poltical Action Thing. To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU For those of you that don't know what Clipper is: Its a cryptographic system developed by the US government. It has a "law enforcement backdoor" that allows any government official with the key to read any and all data encrypted with Clipper. To obtain the key, an official does NOT need a warrant of any kind. I 'll answer any additional questions people might have. Scott Blake@binah.cc.brandeis.edu | Date: Mon, 31 Jan 1994 15:20:54 -0800 | Originator: cpsr-announce@cpsr.org | Sender: Dave Banisar | Subject: Clipper Petition | Clipper Petition | | Electronic Petition to Oppose Clipper | Please Distribute Widely | | On January 24, many of the nation's leading experts in cryptography | and computer security wrote President Clinton and asked him to | withdraw the Clipper proposal. | The public response to the letter has been extremely favorable, | including coverage in the New York Times and numerous computer and | security trade magazines. | | Many people have expressed interest in adding their names to the | letter. In response to these requests, CPSR is organizing an | Internet petition drive to oppose the Clipper proposal. We will | deliver the signed petition to the White House, complete with the | names of all the people who oppose Clipper. | | To sign on to the letter, send a message to: | | Clipper.petition@cpsr.org | | with the message "I oppose Clipper" (no quotes) | | You will receive a return message confirming your vote. | | Please distribute this announcement so that others may also express | their opposition to the Clipper proposal. | | CPSR is a membership-based public interest organization. For | membership information, please email cpsr@cpsr.org. For more | information about Clipper, please consult the CPSR Internet Library - | FTP/WAIS/Gopher CPSR.ORG /cpsr/privacy/crypto/clipper | | ===================================================================== | | The PresidentThe White HouseWashington, DC 20500 | | Dear Mr. President: | | We are writing to you regarding the "Clipper" escrowed encryption | proposal now under consideration by the White House. We wish to | express our concern about this plan and similar technical standards | that may be proposed for the nation's communications infrastructure. | | The current proposal was developed in secret by federal agencies | primarily concerned about electronic surveillance, not privacy | protection. Critical aspects of the plan remain classified and thus | beyond public review. | | The private sector and the public have expressed nearly unanimous | opposition to Clipper. In the formal request for comments conducted | by the Department of Commerce last year, less than a handful of | respondents supported the plan. Several hundred opposed it. | | If the plan goes forward, commercial firms that hope to develop | new products will face extensive government obstacles. Cryptographers | who wish to develop new privacy enhancing technologies will be | discouraged. Citizens who anticipate that the progress of technology | will enhance personal privacy will find their expectations | unfulfilled. | | Some have proposed that Clipper be adopted on a voluntary basis | and suggest that other technical approaches will remain viable. The | government, however, exerts enormous influence in the marketplace, and | the likelihood that competing standards would survive is small. Few | in the user community believe that the proposal would be truly | voluntary. | | The Clipper proposal should not be adopted. We believe that if | this proposal and the associated standards go forward, even on a | voluntary basis, privacy protection will be diminished, innovation | will be slowed, government accountability will be lessened, and the | openness necessary to ensure the successful development of the | nation's communications infrastructure will be threatened. | | We respectfully ask the White House to withdraw the Clipper | proposal. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ------- End of Forwarded Message | | -- Adam Shostack adam@bwh.harvard.edu Systems Manager, Surgical Planning Lab 617 278 0639 Department of Radiology Fax 732 7963 Brigham and Womens Hospital, Boston From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 2 13:44:38 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 2 Feb 1994 13:36:41 -0800 for socgrad-list Wed, 2 Feb 1994 13:36:39 -0800 for Subject: sociology is ... To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 16:35:17 -0500 (EST) From: Karen T Farquharson The thing I like about sociology is precisely that it is "lacking in definition and direction." The beauty of this is that you can choose to pursue any number of diverse, seemingly unrelated areas, using a variety of quantitative and qualitative methods. Despite the "thinglessness" of our chosen field, there is definitely a culture specific to sociology. (Of course, I haven't been studying sociology long enough to determine just what this consists of. :)) Scott says that sociology seems to be stuck in the counting and/or describing mode, while neglecting to discuss what it all means. (Excuse the rephrasing!) This is sometimes the case, but there are sociologists who take that extra step and interpret meanings. Perhaps some don't because it is risky. In any case, if that's what you think sociologists should do, and I think it is, by all means do it. Karen From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 2 16:16:39 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 2 Feb 1994 16:08:45 -0800 for socgrad-list Wed, 2 Feb 1994 16:08:41 -0800 for Date: Wed, 2 Feb 94 18:43 EST From: "This is really annoying" Subject: Re: My Last Message To: blovitts@nsf.gov Why don't you convert it to ASCII (text) format first, then upload and send? Jetaway Dave From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 2 17:46:14 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 2 Feb 1994 17:43:29 -0800 for socgrad-list Wed, 2 Feb 1994 17:43:25 -0800 for From: blovitts@nsf.gov To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU, "SCOTT S. BLAKE" Subject: Re: Explanations Date: 2 Feb 94 09:43 EST Scott, You raise an interesting issue with respect to the nature of Sociology. As someone who has come to the discipline from the outside, yet studied the nature of disciplines when I was in History of Science, I've at times been perplexed about what Sociology is. I expect that my next set of comments will get me shot down by a lot of people on the net, but in some ways I have likened Sociology to Philosophy. Philosophy is essentially a contentless discipline, yet it is the study of the essence of all things, its subject matter is limitless. In MY MIND Sociology is relatively contentless as well -- at least when you compare it to disciplines like physics, chemistry, biology ... - but it is the study of the social relations of all things which makes it broader and of more utility than narrowly defined disciplines. I think of it as a way of approaching and viewing the world. So consequently, it can be more difficult to get a hold of a strand and make it one's own. That's my two cents for the day. Careful with those poison arrows folks. Barbara From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 2 19:04:47 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 2 Feb 1994 19:03:27 -0800 for socgrad-list Wed, 2 Feb 1994 19:03:26 -0800 for To: blovitts@nsf.gov neese@helios.nevada.edu Subject: Re: Explanations <9402021111.jg19368@Note2.nsf.gov> Date: Wed, 02 Feb 94 19:03:16 -0800 From: neese@nevada.edu No "poison arrows" here, Barbara. After going through what Scott went through: being in search of my "thing", I came to many of the realizations that you mentioned in your last message. I've always been turned on by the micro-macro dialectic of our everyday lives and the constant dynamics of life in general. It's all about being nothing and being everything si- multaneously; about knowing no bounds and about feeling imprisoned -- it's life. Studying sociology to me has always been a legitimate (yet marginalized) way of being a student of life. That's what I wanted to be when I grew up, that's why I'm a sociologist...this week. Anyway, it's late and I'm rambling. Just wanted to let Barbara know I've often made that Sociology/philosophy link; in my mind they're inseparable. Morten -- loved your advice...what was it "just get pissed". Yes. Denise From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Feb 3 05:41:11 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 3 Feb 1994 05:39:20 -0800 for socgrad-list Thu, 3 Feb 1994 05:39:17 -0800 for From: S-ENDER@bss1.umd.edu Thu, 3 Feb 94 8:36:45 +1100 To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Thu, 3 Feb 1994 08:36:20 EDT Subject: local university e-mail bulletin boards socgradders help-- does your university campus have an e-mail bulletin board/network/posting accessible to all/most undergraduates? if so, could you `whisper' it to me...i'm trying to reach a unique population, called `third culture kids' (tck) in the literature, with a pilot pencil and paper survey... thanks for the space, morten s-ender@bss1.umd.edu From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Feb 3 05:59:31 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 3 Feb 1994 05:58:36 -0800 for socgrad-list Thu, 3 Feb 1994 05:58:35 -0800 for From: blovitts@nsf.gov To: This is really annoying Subject: Re[2]: My Last Message Date: 3 Feb 94 08:48 EST Why don't you convert it to ASCII (text) format first, then upload and send? Jetaway Dave How does, I'm basically computer illiterate grab you? Although I could find someone to help me make the conversion, I got one very angry response about sending unsolicited messages of that size over the net, "No, no, no!!! GRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!" So I think its better if I don't resend it. Barbara From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Feb 3 06:38:52 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 3 Feb 1994 06:37:21 -0800 for socgrad-list Thu, 3 Feb 1994 06:37:12 -0800 for From: blovitts@nsf.gov To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: Socialization Paper in DOS -- at risk of getting growled at Date: 3 Feb 94 09:16 EST Text item: Socgraders -- At the risk of getting growled at but in the hopes of relieving some frustration, I've converted my graduate student socialization paper into DOS and cleaned up the formatting. Barbara *************************************************** * Encoded PC file follows. * * On NSF's NOTE system, use detach command to * * download. On other systems, use uudecode and * * and PC file transfer program. * *************************************************** begin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ail V1.1d/1.7f) with RFC822 id 6651; Thu, Date: 3 Feb 1994 10:26:30 CST From: To: Subject: I am so depressed The reason I have fallen into this deep sense of hopelessness is that I am finally making progress on the dissertation. I can see the light at the end of the tunnel. Maybe I will get a job soon. I was so excited. But then I started to read socgrad and everyone has convinced me that there is nothing useful that sociology can add to the world of science. We are simply a bunch of historians, philosophers, political scientists, psychologists, etc. Doesn't sociology have something unique to offer? I had always thought that sociology was the study of the many dimensions of society from a scientific point of view. Certainly, we have things in common with other disciplines, but we must also have something unique or we will simply be absorbed into these other disciplines. Alas, my sense of hopelessness. I have spent all these years in sociology only to be absorbed into a philosophy department. Okay, I'm exaggerating. But does anyone agree that sociology has something that we can call our own? IMHbcO, I think that sociology searches for those aspects of the social structure that are present in many, if not all, of the parts of its various substructures. What do you all think? Dave Hunt From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Feb 3 09:18:11 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 3 Feb 1994 09:14:15 -0800 for socgrad-list Thu, 3 Feb 1994 09:14:11 -0800 for Date: Thu, 3 Feb 1994 09:14:02 -0800 (PST) From: Robert Duniway Subject: Re: Explanations To: blovitts@nsf.gov I agree that sociology is a very broad discipline with very fuzzy boundaries. That does not mean the boundaries are non-existent, or that we are really disguised philosophy departments. As someone who went from a B.A. in philosophy to graduate school in sociology I have a pretty definite notion of the differences. Philosophy is a discipline of abstract thinking. The usual tools of philosophers are semantics, rhetoric, and thought experiments. Sociologists also use these tools, but they give more credence to the systematic collection and analysis of information. Except when engaged in meta-theorizing, sociologists tend to focus on particular substantive questions (like what influences suicide rates, how do members of some less powerful group manage interaction with members of more powerful groups, how are graduate students socialized) and use theory/philosophy talk to suggest what information they should look for to better understand that process. Philosophers tend to focus on looking for first principles, and if you've read much philosophy you'll recognize the truth in the following statement. Philosophers seek to understand the picture of the world they are already carrying around in their heads. This explains the popularity of the thought experiment in that discipline. Good sociologists should try to bring the picture of the social world they already carry into sharper focus by seeking out key information. Bob Duniway - University of Washington P.S. Some of you will probably object to the above statements because they do not adequately represent a post-modernist approach to sociology. This is probably flame bait, but it appears to me that post-modernist objections to conventional social science are meta-theoretical, and that when post-modernists do good substantive work they present lots of information about individual experiences within social structures. From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Feb 3 09:18:40 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 3 Feb 1994 09:15:41 -0800 for socgrad-list sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 3 Feb 1994 09:15:40 -0800 for socgrad@ucsd.bitnet Thu, 3 Feb 94 17:15:39 GMT Date: Thu, 03 Feb 1994 12:07:26 -0500 From: danryan@minerva.cis.yale.edu (Dan Ryan) Subject: U-Hauls in space To: socgrad@ucsd.bitnet content-length: 153 On the NPR news at noon: "The space shuttle Discovery took off this morning without a hitch...." I guess all the baggage fit in the trunk this time. From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Feb 3 10:59:47 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 3 Feb 1994 10:57:49 -0800 for socgrad-list Thu, 3 Feb 1994 10:57:41 -0800 for Date: Thu, 3 Feb 1994 12:51:30 -0600 (CST) From: Michael Gibbons Subject: Re: Explanations To: blovitts@nsf.gov i love the idea that socioloigy is imilar to philosopohy. the earliest theory we studied was simply ancient philosophers. i do think of sociology as the philosophy of societies and it seems to me that all the empirical stuff we do is just to prove or disprove our theories. of course many people will disagree and say that all the empirical testing and examination is what makes sociology worthwhile and respectful, but i'm not of that mind. the question of philosophy as it relates to our human existence is how to live our lives, and the study of sociology for me gives me more fodder for the cannon aimed at an answer to that question as it applies to my life. great thought barbara michael From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Feb 3 12:25:59 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 3 Feb 1994 12:21:02 -0800 for socgrad-list Thu, 3 Feb 1994 12:20:57 -0800 for From: blovitts@nsf.gov To: Robert Duniway Subject: Re[2]: Explanations Date: 3 Feb 94 15:11 EST I'm glad my comments sparked some discussion on the nature of Sociology. But let me be clear. I did not equate Sociology with Philosophy or claim that they used the same methods. To the contrary, I made an analogy. I said that I thought that they were both very similar in that instead of having a clearly delineated subject matter per se, that they they were essentially methodologies that could be applied to just about anything. Philosophy uses its methods to understand the essence of whatever is under investigation. Sociology uses its methods to understand the social aspects of whatever is under investigation -- and often philosophizes in the process. Barbara From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Feb 3 12:32:12 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 3 Feb 1994 12:28:13 -0800 for socgrad-list Thu, 3 Feb 1994 12:28:10 -0800 for Date: Thu, 3 Feb 1994 12:28:09 -0800 From: Laura Miller To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: technical matters Without meaning to growl at anyone: Some email systems are not equipped to accept extremely large files, and some net users don't know the command to stop an email message once they start reading it. So as a general policy, can I suggest that when people have long papers or files they would like to make available to the rest, they post a message about how interested subscribers can get it (through FTP, email, or regular mail)? Thanks. Laura Miller lmiller@ucsd.edu lmiller@ucsd.bitnet From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Feb 3 12:49:08 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 3 Feb 1994 12:43:38 -0800 for socgrad-list Thu, 3 Feb 1994 12:43:37 -0800 for To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: Re: I am so depressed Date: Thu, 03 Feb 1994 12:45:02 -0800 From: Michael Lichter Okay, I'm exaggerating. But does anyone agree that sociology has somethin g that we can call our own? IMHbcO, I think that sociology searches for tho se aspects of the social structure that are present in many, if not all, of t he parts of its various substructures. What do you all think? In the end, does it really matter what Sociology "has"? I confess that I can't make sense of the phrase "those aspects of the social structure that are present in many .. of the parts of its various substructures" but if the "search" for them is what you want to spend your working life on, and if your peers think it's Sociology, then who cares what Sociology "has"? On the other hand, I just read _The Sociological Imagination_, and I think you should spend your time at the intersection of Biography and History, hopefully trying to resurrect Reason and Freedom ;). Michael From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Feb 3 13:00:22 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 3 Feb 1994 12:52:43 -0800 for socgrad-list Thu, 3 Feb 1994 12:52:42 -0800 for To: Laura Miller Subject: Re: technical matters <199402032028.MAA04968@weber.ucsd.edu> Date: Thu, 03 Feb 1994 12:53:57 -0800 From: Michael Lichter So as a general policy, can I suggest that when people have long papers or files they woul d like to make available to the rest, they post a message about how interested subscribers can get it (through FTP, email, or regular mail)? Thanks. I was going to finish writing another message before broaching this topic, but wouldn't it be nice if there was a socgrad ftp or gopher site? Does UCSD -- or anybody else -- have the resources to provide a socgrad repository? Such a site would allow us to accumulate materials on common concerns, and could also house things like syllabi, descriptions of programs at various departments, and electronic versions of papers that list members would like to share for comment or for information. If nobody else steps forward, I could probably at least set up a socgrad gopher here. Michael From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Feb 3 13:57:42 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 3 Feb 1994 13:45:33 -0800 for socgrad-list Thu, 3 Feb 1994 13:45:27 -0800 for From: S-ENDER@bss1.umd.edu Thu, 3 Feb 94 16:42:39 +1100 To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Thu, 3 Feb 1994 16:42:11 EDT Subject: Re: technical matters >Such a site would allow us to accumulate materials on common >concerns, and could also house things like syllabi, descriptions of >programs at various departments, and electronic versions of papers >that list members would like to share for comment or for information. how about contributing to an electronic article (on a very, very general sociological topic), for possible journal/magazine submission under the authorship: socgrad@ucsd.edu departments of sociology western hemisphere, earth morten From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Feb 3 13:59:47 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 3 Feb 1994 13:52:35 -0800 for socgrad-list Thu, 3 Feb 1994 13:52:30 -0800 for Date: Thu, 03 Feb 94 13:45:50 PST From: KENDEL@UVVM.UVic.CA Subject: any feminists out there To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU hello socgrads monica kendel here in lotus land (also known as Victoria, British columbia canada) the cherries are blooming and we are very sad that we did not have winter. sigh. onto more important things. i am a radical lesbian feminist, and am looking for like minded. any such creatures on this highway? i will be doing my research in the area of the politics of the family since it is the wisdom of the united nations and no doubt right wing fundamentalists to declare 1994 as the international year of "THE" family...as you can guess, there are no lesbians under that heading. if anyone has any leads on some juicy homophobic commentary to include in my papers (and i'm sure it exists, and is floorishing) i would appreciate your lovely assistance! i even bet there are some subscribers to such materials and wallow in the self congratulation... in any case, hope to hear from you'all soon. nicko university of victoria kendel@uvvm.uvic.ca From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Feb 3 14:00:33 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 3 Feb 1994 13:52:18 -0800 for socgrad-list Thu, 3 Feb 1994 13:52:12 -0800 for Date: Thu, 3 Feb 1994 11:44:12 -0600 From: "Andrew C. Mills" Organization: SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY St. Louis, MO Subject: Doctoral Disorder of Adulthood Does anyone out there fit these diagnostic criteria? Unfortunately the original post does not discuss treatment or cure. :) Marni (the Cookie Monster) Hancock SOCAW059@EMUVM1 ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- A colleague shared an article with me which at first I thought was tongue in cheek. But after re-reading it, I'm not sure. Dooley-Dickey, K., & Satcher, J. (1991). Doctoral disorder of adulthood. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 13, 486-491. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~ Four of the following are required for diagnosis: - obsession with statistical language... - extreme passivity with an overwhelming desire to please... - extreme fatigue with sallow complexion... - predisposition to physical illness... - haggard appearance, unwashed hair... - sleep pattern distubrance... - peculiar eating patterns... - dissociation with life events... - shortness of breath... - lack of interest in pleasurable activities... - presence of paranoid delusions... Course of events can be subchronic, chronic, chronic with acute exacerbation, in partial remission, and in full remission. For dissertation dementia, three of the following should be present: - aggression and hostility (except toward committee member)... - inability to concentrate on or convers on topics other than the dissertation... - tendency to speak in computer and statistical language... - tendency to bizarre behaviors... - sitting motionless infront of a computer screen... - sleeping with a style manual... - carrying a current draft of the dissertation at all times... - phobia of losing copies of articles... - magical thinking... - grandiose delusions (belief that dissertation has some signiicance)... The authors discuss the phenomenon in greater detail. For those interested, there was an article in the New York Times, August 2, 1987, titled The Never-Ending Dissertation by Amy Stuart Wells. It can also be interesting reading. ---------------------- Andrew C. Mills Saint Louis University  Doctoral Disorder of Adulthood From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Feb 3 14:48:30 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 3 Feb 1994 14:43:37 -0800 for socgrad-list Thu, 3 Feb 1994 14:43:33 -0800 for Date: Thu, 3 Feb 1994 16:38:46 -0600 (CST) From: nick mcree Subject: Re: any feminists out there To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU On Thu, 3 Feb 1994 KENDEL@UVVM.UVic.CA wrote: > hello socgrads > > monica kendel here in lotus land (also known as Victoria, British > columbia canada) the cherries are blooming and we are very sad that > we did not have winter. sigh. > > onto more important things. i am a radical lesbian feminist, and am > looking for like minded. any such creatures on this highway? what, exactly, is a radical lesbian feminist? Nick The University of Texas at Austin From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Feb 3 19:26:05 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 3 Feb 1994 19:23:42 -0800 for socgrad-list Thu, 3 Feb 1994 19:23:41 -0800 for From: KARP@bcvax1.bc.edu Date: Thu, 03 Feb 1994 22:22:19 -0400 (EDT) Subject: speaking for sociology To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU There seems to be a fair amount of chest beating about whether sociology offers anything distinctive, can clearly be distinguished from philosophy, and so on. I appreciate how some people can get exercised about the fact that no one paradigm or set of concepts clearly defines the work of all sociologists. In a way, such paradigm clarity might provide insulation against identity dilemmas. But the world is just too complicated for that. I have no problem with the need to look at behaviors and social structures from multiple perspectives. As long as you're not especially worried about discovering some absolute, invariant "truths" about things, there is a contri- bution in just providing interesting ways to think about things. I think what we share in common is a set of concepts, theories, perspectives (call it what you will) that allows sociologists to write really interesting contemporary history. Whatever might separate us, sociology, when done well, provides a distinctive vision on social life. The proof is in the pudding as they say. To realize how valuable a field is just cite those pieces of work that powerfully demonstrate sociological thinking. I think it would be fun for people on a list like this to say what they considered the four or five pieces of writing that represent for them really compelling sociological thinking. Among my candidates would be things like Whyte's Street Corner Society, Arlie Russel Hochschild's book on emotional alienation in the emerging service economy entitled The Managed Heart, Diane Vaughan's book Uncoupling, William Domhoff's multiple books on power, Goffman's Asylums, and so on. These are to my mind all enetrating analyses that understand the interplay of agency and structure. the bigger point is that none of these books could have been written by a person other than a sociologist. The distinctiveness of a sociological approach is made even more important in a society that is prone to think about everything in psychological terms. There is real danger in such psychological reductionism. It contributes to an individualized view of things and blinds people to the forces "behind their backs," so to speak, that propell them. Mills' observation nearly 40 years ago that people feel a dis-ease about their lives, but lack a perspective that locates the source of the difficulty beyond the immediate milieus of their daily life, is more true today.}ixDi]}i Actually, it's amazing to me how few people can think well sociologically. This makes sense when you consider how abstract the idea of social structure is. Just one last example that I really like. In an essay in the Yale Review Kai erikson has us imagine walking down a really busy city street. At street level we can clearly see the faces of the persons who pass us by. We can see them up close and personal, as they say on Wide World of Sports. But each of these persons seems like an isolated atom, randomly buzzing by each other, having virtually nothing to do with one another. It all seems sort of chaotic. If, however, you climb to the roof of a nearby 12 story building and look down, you see a remarkable thing. There is a complex order to what's going on below. It is an order that you can only see from the perspective of the 12th floor. Moreover, the people on the street are themselves likely unaware of their own contribution to that order. There is a kind of invisible "social gravity" at work. I I see sociologists as people who habitually get on the roofs to explore social patterns. Of course, there is a lot of lousy sociology. when it's done well, though, there's nothing like it. I don't feel we need to do quite so much self flagellation or apologizing. Sorry for the length of this. David Karp Karp@bcvms.bc.edu From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Feb 3 22:13:43 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 3 Feb 1994 22:07:29 -0800 for socgrad-list Thu, 3 Feb 1994 22:07:26 -0800 for Date: Thu, 3 Feb 1994 21:58:28 -0800 (PST) From: Laura Lee Adams Subject: Sociology/existential agony To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Just a few comments about this damn tired navel-gazing "what is sociology and why are we here" thread: 1) Sure sociology is the intersection of all the other social sciences. But isn't political science the intersection of sociology, economics and history? Isn't anthro the place where sociology, cultural studies and often economics and political science meet? Is the lack of a paradigm our weakness or is it a sign that we have been more foresighted (or lucky) than other fields which have only recently abandoned a unitary approach and are now losing control of their disciplinary boundaries? 2) Sociology isn't just the manipulation of empirical evidence to support or refute a theory or philosophy; sociological practice also has important implications for the formation of social policies and what people "know" about U.S. society. To whatever extent that everyday people have some understanding of how their lives are influenced by forces other than the psychological (as was referred to earlier), sociology can take some credit as educator. End of tirade. :) -Laura A. From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Feb 3 22:15:40 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 3 Feb 1994 22:09:52 -0800 for socgrad-list sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 3 Feb 1994 22:09:51 -0800 for SOCGRAD@UCSD.BITNET Date: Thu, 3 Feb 1994 22:09:51 -0800 From: DONNELLY@WISCSSC.BITNET Fri, 4 Feb 94 06:09:50 GMT Apparently-To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.BITNET Date: Fri, 4 Feb 1994 00:02 CDT From: It's a nike thing Subject: Morten,,,regarding sound bites To: socgrad@ucsd Original_cc: DONNELLY I just got to your reply of Jan 20th...yes I agree that once something is said in print or by a "legitimated authority" that the damage is done, regardless of where the truth lies. However, there is a dimension of abuse of power that occurs within academic discourse, and scientific research. So while we are looking to 'research' to provide an arena for honest debate and advancement of the discipline, there are others who are looking equally hard, for the media to provide them with a vehicle for reaching a large populus.... Anyone who heard the sound bite, which I now ...Anyone who heard the sound bite and was intrigued by it, would probably be receptive to hearing another sound bite that contradicts it, or is more along the lines that you originally intended. While some distrust the power of the media, many disturst the power imbalances that occur in all arenas....it seems then that a general perspective concerning power is an important framework for understanding the 'sound bite' -- who bites and who's been bitten type of analysis! -- and THEN strategizing, given the parameters determined through a power framework. Reminds me of a phrase ... 'power lecture' -- a lecture that is held 2 days a week rather than spread over 3 days, for the same number of credits. Once the damage is done, it's done. True. What next? Patrice :) From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Feb 3 23:50:30 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 3 Feb 1994 23:44:32 -0800 for socgrad-list Thu, 3 Feb 1994 23:44:31 -0800 for From: Tristan Riley Subject: Re: any feminists out there To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU (soc) Date: Thu, 3 Feb 94 23:44:29 PST nick mcree writes: > >On Thu, 3 Feb 1994 KENDEL@UVVM.UVic.CA wrote: > >> hello socgrads >> >> monica kendel here in lotus land (also known as Victoria, British >> columbia canada) the cherries are blooming and we are very sad that >> we did not have winter. sigh. >> >> onto more important things. i am a radical lesbian feminist, and am >> looking for like minded. any such creatures on this highway? > >what, exactly, is a radical lesbian feminist? >Nick >The University of Texas at Austin > what, exactly, is the intent of this question? Tristan From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Feb 4 05:52:43 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 4 Feb 1994 05:50:37 -0800 for socgrad-list Fri, 4 Feb 1994 05:50:35 -0800 for From: S-ENDER@bss1.umd.edu Fri, 4 Feb 94 8:48:02 +1100 To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Fri, 4 Feb 1994 08:47:38 EDT Subject: Re: speaking for sociology >I see sociologists as people who habitually get on the roofs to >explore social patterns. just to compliment roof-top sociology; maybe we need some sociologists to go underground and look up at people.... morten From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Feb 4 08:25:10 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 4 Feb 1994 08:20:13 -0800 for socgrad-list Fri, 4 Feb 1994 08:20:07 -0800 for Subject: white pages on internet? To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Fri, 4 Feb 1994 10:20:01 -0600 (CST) From: "Laura L. Fertwagner" Hello all-- I am trying to find a way to access the telephone white pages for the entire country--and Canada (not too ambitious a quest :) ). I have been told that there is a way to do so via internet. Does anyone out in Socgrad-land know if this is true--or better yet HOW to do it? Any help will be GREATLY appreciated. Laura Fertwagner lfertwag@cwis.unomaha.edu From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Feb 4 11:01:19 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 4 Feb 1994 10:46:25 -0800 for socgrad-list Fri, 4 Feb 1994 10:46:20 -0800 for From: S-SCHUBERT@bss1.umd.edu Fri, 4 Feb 94 13:43:48 +1100 To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Fri, 4 Feb 1994 13:43:22 EDT Subject: Returned mail: Host unknown socgradders, maybe we should be searching for ways to transgress boundaries rather than make them more rigid? "the other" dan From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Sat Feb 5 11:24:12 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Sat, 5 Feb 1994 11:22:54 -0800 for socgrad-list Sat, 5 Feb 1994 11:22:52 -0800 for Date: Sat, 5 Feb 1994 11:11:32 -0800 (PST) From: Donavan Willems Subject: Graduate Schools To: socgrad Hello everyone: My name is Chuck Brown and I was wondering if there was anyone out there in socgradland who is attending (or has attended) the following universities in sociology: 1. Princeton 2. U of Arizona 3. Notre Dame 4. Boston U. 5. U of Missouri/Columbia 6. U of Kentucky 7. Southern Illinois U. I finished my masters degree and am planning on pursuing a Ph.D., possibly at one of these schools. I would appreciate any info about the sociology departments that anyone might wish to share. You can send it to my individual e-mail address (willemsd@ucs.orst.edu). Thanks From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Feb 7 17:18:26 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 7 Feb 1994 17:10:06 -0800 for socgrad-list Mon, 7 Feb 1994 17:10:04 -0800 for Date: Mon, 7 Feb 1994 18:53:19 -0600 (CST) From: nick mcree Subject: Re: any feminists out there (fwd) To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU A couple of days ago, Monica from Victoria, B.C. identified herself to socgrad as a "radical lesbian feminist," and then proceeded to lay out her research interests. I asked for a definition of the phrase. She e-mailed me a quick retort today. I am forwarding her message, along with my reply, for two reasons. First, her server will not accept mail. More importantly, however, I raised some issues/assumptions about the discipline that could be of interest to you. Nick The University of Texas at Austin On Mon, 7 Feb 1994 KENDEL@UVVM.UVIC.CA wrote: > dear nick and any other like minded texans out there... > > what part of radical lesbian feminist are you having trouble understanding? The question I posed concerning a definition of "radical lesbian feminist" came for two reasons. First, you assumed that the readers of socgrad implicitly understood what you meant when you identified yourself as a radical lesbian feminist. I don't think that the meaning of the description is clear, and I asked my question precisely to point that out. If for some reason you are offended because I asked the question, consider the following: What if I had introduced myself as a black orthodox Jew? Do those characteristics create enough meaning for *you* so that you can know who I am? I would think not--as a budding sociologist you are surely aware that self-identity is a phenomenon much more complex than three word labels can describe. In all honesty, I was gently chiding you for summing up your raison d'etre in such a simplistic and meaningless manner. Radical lesbian feminist, indeed. More importantly, the question I asked was appropriate because it subtly makes a point that I believe needed to be made. What in the hell does your particular sexual orientation/political affiliation have to do with your potential contribution to the discipline? At most I could agree that it might motivate you to pursue particular questions over others. If we are to agree, however, that we are endeavoring to become social *scientists,* in the sense that we are trying to develop verifiable theories which, ultimately, can explain and predict human behavior, then what one's particular idiosyncrasies happen to be are irrelevant to that goal. No one cares who you sleep with, or how many political rallies you attend. Nor does anyone care what I do in my personal life. Our colleagues are concerned with the contribution you may make to the discipline. What you can say about how people behave *is* important to sociology--a plaintive cry concerning your individual lifestyle is not. Incidentally, I am not from Texas... Nick From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Feb 7 17:26:35 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 7 Feb 1994 17:19:43 -0800 for socgrad-list sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 7 Feb 1994 17:19:41 -0800 for socgrad@ucsd.bitnet Tue, 8 Feb 94 01:19:41 GMT Date: Mon, 07 Feb 1994 19:52:30 -0500 From: danryan@minerva.cis.yale.edu (Dan Ryan) To: socgrad@ucsd.bitnet content-length: 16 Are we there? From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Feb 7 18:24:28 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 7 Feb 1994 18:20:26 -0800 for socgrad-list sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 7 Feb 1994 18:20:22 -0800 for socgrad@ucsd.bitnet Tue, 8 Feb 94 02:20:21 GMT Date: Mon, 07 Feb 1994 19:52:30 -0500 From: danryan@minerva.cis.yale.edu (Dan Ryan) To: socgrad@ucsd.bitnet content-length: 16 Are we there? From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Feb 7 19:39:02 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 7 Feb 1994 19:37:52 -0800 for socgrad-list Mon, 7 Feb 1994 19:37:50 -0800 for To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: It does matter Date: Mon, 07 Feb 1994 19:34:49 -0800 From: JAMES D BALLARD 1. It does matter if who we choose to cohabitate with. Ask any person who faces peer review if said reviewers think it acceptable to sleep with a student or someone of the same sex. 2. Not everyone is seeking a verfiable scientific sociology. The whole idea that some such animal exists is political in and of itself. 3. The statement of oneself as aligned with a socio-political position is not unique or adverse to the study of sociology. What about Marxists, Parson's sons, and any other niche we adopt for the gaining and keeping of jobs/careers? The more I read about feminism the more I understand the need to seperate from others. I would not want to be considered a liberal feminist if that was not the ideology I wanted to follow. If I was to want to hold a polical view different from mainstream sociology I would NEED to declair that. If I wanted to be a radical lesbian feminist then by darn that is what I would be. The two feminisms are radically different. They are not the same. The words do have meaning for the person that speaks them and for the sociologist that hears them. Last I feel there are no budding sociologists. We are all social animals and everyone is an expert on at least some aspects of sociology, theirs. We are not so unique because we stayed in school to 'learn' about this. We may in fact be removing ourselves from that we wish to study by the 'study' of the social in some isolated place (Ivory Tower?) bigdog is back on line and missed this discussion until today. Hope I was not too late, Dave From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Feb 7 21:53:23 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 7 Feb 1994 21:51:45 -0800 for socgrad-list Mon, 7 Feb 1994 21:51:43 -0800 for From: halebsky@ssc.wisc.edu Date: Mon, 7 Feb 94 23:37:53 -0600 To: "socgrad@ucsd.edu"@ssc.wisc.edu Subject: Monica & Nick I think it's legitimate to tell socgrad that you are a "radical lesbian feminist," but I also think it's equally legitimate for someone to ask for clarification. Speaking for myself, I understand "lesbian," of course, but what *exactly* do *you* mean when you say "radical" and "feminist?" By radical, do you mean Marxist, anarchist, social democratic (that's radical in this country) or something else completely? By feminist, do you mean the feminism of Andrea Dworkin, Susie Bright, Katie Roiphe, Susan Faludi (phase 1), Susan Faludi (phase 2) or something else entirely? Just asking. Steve Halebsky Un. Wisc. - Madison From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Feb 7 22:06:09 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 7 Feb 1994 22:04:27 -0800 for socgrad-list Mon, 7 Feb 1994 22:04:25 -0800 for To: Robert Duniway Subject: Re: Re[2]: Discouraged predoc .. Date: Mon, 07 Feb 1994 22:05:47 -0800 From: Michael Lichter Robert Duniway writes: At the risk of being branded an apologist for the status quo, on what basis do you conclude that 50% attrition is inappropriately high? When I look at the job market lately it seems there are more Ph.Ds in the world than we really need. I think the high attrition rate serves to keep people out of the struggle for research money and publication, and is therefore heavily tied to the canidates ability to finish a significant research project and write about it in a professional manner. By making this a painful process (insert dabate over usefulness of qualifying exams here) and setting the dissertation bar high the system weeds out people who are less passionate about doing actual research (read normal) or less committed to getting whatever they think a Ph.D. will provide. I think there are at least two issues here: 1. How many PhDs should a discipline produce per year? a. How responsive should a discipline be to the market? b. How can departments coordinate to limit production? 2. How much attrition is inevitable in graduate study? a. What proportion is due to inadequate prior information? b. What proportion is due to people changing their minds? c. What proportion is due to unrelated personal problems? d. What proportion is due to inadequate social support? e. What proportion is due to inadequate academic support? f. What proportion is due to inadequate financial support? Attrition is only one way of adjusting (large) graduate admissions to the (small) market. In some fields, e.g. medicine, high costs of education and powerful professional associations have converged to severely limit the number of admits. (Perhaps it is not a coincidence that medicine also has low attrition rates.) Because attrition is difficult to get a handle on, departments will tend to respond to market forces, to the extent that they do at all, by varying admissions. Admissions, however, have a bottom limit in the number of students a department needs to keep its current level of funding, and a top limit in the number of faculty the host university is willing to pay for. The end result is that the discipline does not really try to adjust PhD production to the state of the market. The only thing that would justify such high attrition, in my opinion, is if (a) less than half of the people admitted to graduate school could be successful sociologists, and (b) there was no reasonable way to narrow down the field beyond that 50% level without losing many "good" sociologists. Since, as Barbara says in her paper, most graduate school attrition has nothing to do with academic performance, I conclude that 50% attrition is not inevitable. On the other hand, it does seem to me that some attrition is inevitable and desirable. This is the attrition that occurs within the first two years, as people acquire information about what graduate school and the discipline itself is like. Attrition which occurs later is wasteful. "Attrition" which occurs *after* the PhD, as when sociologists, unable to find a job, become used car salespersons, is even more wasteful. Attrition at these later stages wastes both personal and institutional resources, and so it is undesirable. So, 50% attrition rates are neither inevitable nor desirable. It seems logical to me that rather than trying to control numbers through attrition, that instead disciplines ought to collectively determine optimal rates of PhD production relative to demand, and to distribute the load throughout the national system of universities. It's probable that the interests of individual institutions makes this kind of coordination highly unlikely. Comments? Michael From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Feb 7 22:23:26 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 7 Feb 1994 22:21:53 -0800 for socgrad-list Mon, 7 Feb 1994 22:21:52 -0800 for From: Tristan Riley Subject: Re: any feminists out there (fwd) To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU (soc) Date: Mon, 7 Feb 94 22:21:51 PST nick mcree writes: > > >On Mon, 7 Feb 1994 KENDEL@UVVM.UVIC.CA wrote: > >> dear nick and any other like minded texans out there... >> >> what part of radical lesbian feminist are you having trouble understanding? > >The question I posed concerning a definition of "radical lesbian feminist" >came for two reasons. First, you assumed that the readers of socgrad >implicitly understood what you meant when you identified yourself as a >radical lesbian feminist. I don't think that the meaning of the >description is clear, and I asked my question precisely to point that >out. If for some reason you are offended because I asked the question, >consider the following: What if I had introduced myself as a black >orthodox Jew? Do those characteristics create enough meaning for *you* so interesting, no? how the assumptions concerning which categories are "natural" and which deserve interrogation survive so well, even (especially?) in the discourse of social *science* (emphasis, nick is sure to point out, on the *SCIENCE* part). wonder, nick, if you'd have asked your curt, fairly sniggering question to a "Marxist historical sociologist" or a "Blumerian symbolic interactionist"? Both of these also are less than crystal clear (to me at least) and provide some pretty good ideas into political insight and affiliation as well (at least if I can infer that the Blumerian shares her mentor's position on high/low culture--but that would require acknowledging how insufficient, how "simplistic and meaningless", in nick's words, this label really is). In all honesty, I was gently >chiding you for summing up your raison d'etre in...just three >words. yes, language *is* quite a prison. you should take your own advice, of course, nick and eliminate from your sig. that "U Texas Wherever" part, as it is hopeless simplistic and really cannot do justice to your complicated relationship with the institutional structure in which you make your "raison d'etre". >More importantly, the question I asked was appropriate because it subtly >makes a point that I believe needed to be made. What in the hell does >your particular sexual orientation/political affiliation have to do with >your potential contribution to the discipline? If we >are to agree, however, that we are endeavoring to become social >*scientists,* in the sense that we are trying to develop verifiable >theories which, ultimately, can explain and predict human behavior, thank you, nick, for these insights. i can use reminding now and again as to exactly how far some of you sociologists are from the world i live in. tristan From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Feb 8 01:31:11 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 8 Feb 1994 01:29:55 -0800 for socgrad-list Tue, 8 Feb 1994 01:29:53 -0800 for From: jflint@kean.ucs.mun.ca (5.65d3+/IDA-1.4.2+MUN1.3 for socgrad@ucsd.edu); Tue, 8 Feb 94 06:03:32 -0330 -0230 Date: Tue, 08 Feb 1994 06:00:13 -0230 To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: re: re: any feminists out there Jeezum! Just blows my mind that a presumable grad student in sociology doesn't "implicitly understand" what is mean by "radical lesbian feminism" in this day and age. Check your very basic feminist literature, Nickk (liberal feminism, socialist feminism, radical feminism, hello, hello?). And then when offered an explanation to shoot back patronizing (read "patriarchalistic") homilies!! Well, anyway it was a delightful demonstration of the sort of mindset that motivated the radical lesbian feminist movement ;-). Reminds me of a joke: Q: "How come there seem to be so many women getting battered these days?" A: "Cause they just won't *listen*!" David Flint Memorial University of Newfoundland From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Feb 8 05:24:56 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 8 Feb 1994 05:23:41 -0800 for socgrad-list Tue, 8 Feb 1994 05:23:39 -0800 for Date: Tue, 8 Feb 1994 08:18:34 +0500 (EST) From: James Cassell Subject: re: re: any feminists out there To: jflint@kean.ucs.mun.ca On Tue, 8 Feb 1994 jflint@kean.ucs.mun.ca wrote: > Just blows my mind that a presumable grad student in sociology doesn't > "implicitly understand" what is mean by "radical lesbian feminism" in > this day and age. Check your very basic feminist literature, Nickk > (liberal feminism, socialist feminism, radical feminism, hello, hello?). > And then when offered an explanation to shoot back patronizing > (read "patriarchalistic") homilies!! There was a paper at one of the Southern Sociologcial Meetings some time back by some grads at NC State University who surveyed grads in several department on their exposure to feminist thought. I never saw the paper, but recall that they found most of the sample had little exposure. Anyone else out that know this work? Maybe you could give us a summary. Best, Jim PS I had no exposure to feminist theory in amy of my theory courses here at UNC or earlier at Penn State. That was several years ago, so I don't know what's being taught now. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Tue Feb 8 07:47:26 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 8 Feb 1994 07:45:50 -0800 for socgrad-list Tue, 8 Feb 1994 07:45:47 -0800 for From: roxburgh@epas.utoronto.ca (S Roxburgh) Subject: monica & Nick To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Tue, 8 Feb 1994 10:46:19 -0500 (EST) Ok, here's me two cents worth. Maybe it should be pointed out that 'radical' in this context is not an adjective it is a noun. Pick up any basic primer on feminism and you'll find a chapter on radical feminism. Also, Nick there's a combative tone to your comments that I find troubling. As for one's sexual orientation not being an issue - I don't imagine you'd suggest that being afro-american didn't matter - or didn't have some kind of impact on one's sociological interests/orientation - then again perhaps you would. Regardless of what you might think, it seems to me that Monica's initial note was a call for input from other people with similar interests in the field and her definition was a short-hand for this purpose. From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Feb 8 09:29:02 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 8 Feb 1994 09:23:16 -0800 for socgrad-list Tue, 8 Feb 1994 09:23:14 -0800 for From: khaskin@merle.acns.nwu.edu Subject: minica and nick To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Tue, 8 Feb 94 11:23:11 CST Monica, sorry I butchered your name on the message line. Anyway, it seems to me that part of this debate over Monica and Nick's message is about different versions of sociology. Nick is arguing for a traditional, "hard science" view in which researchers believe there is something called "objectivity" and that our own demographics, affiliations, etc. don't count. Monica (and her defenders) are arguing for a post-modernist view of the discipline, in which the concept of "objectivity" is being questioned, if not rejected altogether. In this view, one's personal, professional, and political characteristics are extremely important because they indicate something about the perspective one takes on questions (not just what questions you ask, but how you frame the questions, what kind of methodology you consider appropriate to answer them, and how you write up your results). This post-modernist view is now the dominant one in cultural anthropology, but it has so far had much less impact in a lot of sociology departments. Now, as for the reason Nick was so nasty in his response to Monica, I cannot explain that. Maybe he could. Karen -- ************************************************************************* Karen Haskin k-haskin@nwu.edu Department Of Sociology Northwestern University 1810 Chicago Avenue Evanston, IL 60208 From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Feb 8 10:26:51 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 8 Feb 1994 10:18:53 -0800 for socgrad-list Tue, 8 Feb 1994 10:18:50 -0800 for From: blovitts@nsf.gov To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: Re[4]: Discouraged predoc .. Date: 8 Feb 94 10:35 EST Michael raises some nice points about attrition. I thought Bob's message had been sent to me personally, so I responded to Bob personally. Below is my response. And yes, I believe that some attrition is both necessary and tolerable as people change their minds etc., but it is not tolerable when the system prevents a dedicated person from achieving his or her goals. Bob, 50% is high when you take the personal and financial toll of those who leave into consideration -- dashed hopes, upset lives, depleted bank accounts. The attrition rates in medical schools and law schools are somewhere between 3 and 10% - and there ARE too many lawyers, but no one argues for a cap on admissions to law schools. The fundamental market problem that you raise is that universities train graduate students to be university faculty and the halcyon days of lots of faculty positions are over. However, there is a need for highly educated people in other domains in the labor market-- public policy, government (less than 5% of Congress have even an undergraduate degree in science broadly defined), journalism, museum and library work, business and industry and on and on. The viewpoint that the Ph.D is only a research and publication degree is a narrow one. There is also a fundamental problem with the metaphor you use -- "weeding out" as opposed to nuturing. Institutions should not admit people that they are less than committed to seeing through, which does not mean that all people should make it through, but more could be done to help those who need nuturing get through. I've read and witnessed enough horror stories to know that we too often blame the victim for their inability to finish. Barbara ---------------------- Original Header Lines (From NOTE) ----------------------- ------------------------------- Message Contents ------------------------------- On 31 Jan 1994 blovitts@nsf.gov wrote: > > A consistent attrition rate of 50% going back well over 30 >years indicates that something is wrong with the system. (See Durkheim on >Suicide, if you new need more theoretical support.) Universities are medieval > institutions and still maintain a trial-by-ordeal mentality. "The Best" are > defined by those who finish -- a bit tautological, if you ask me. At the risk of being branded an apologist for the status quo, on what basis do you conclude that 50% attrition is inappropriately high? When I look at the job market lately it seems there are more Ph.Ds in the world than we really need. I think the high attrition rate serves to keep people out of the struggle for research money and publication, and is therefore heavily tied to the canidates ability to finish a significant research project and write about it in a professional manner. By making this a painful process (insert dabate over usefulness of qualifying exams here) and setting the dissertation bar high the system weeds out people who are less passionate about doing actual research (read normal) or less committed to getting whatever they think a Ph.D. will provide. Rampant credentialism will only get worse if a higher percentage of the labor force have graduate degrees, and to the extent that making the process difficult reduces the number of people who pursue or achieve graduate degrees it helps hold back this phenomena. The other option, of course, is to make it a lot harder to get into graduate school, but then who would teach all those courses and clean up those data sets? Bob Duniway University of Washington - Dept. of Sociology From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Feb 8 11:58:00 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 8 Feb 1994 11:45:33 -0800 for socgrad-list Tue, 8 Feb 1994 11:45:24 -0800 for From: S-SCHUBERT@bss1.umd.edu Tue, 8 Feb 94 14:42:13 +1100 To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Tue, 8 Feb 1994 14:41:43 EDT Subject: in the nick of time socgradders, are chiding and science incongruous? jes wondrin, "the other" dan From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Feb 8 13:37:18 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 8 Feb 1994 13:13:46 -0800 for socgrad-list Tue, 8 Feb 1994 13:13:39 -0800 for Date: Tue, 08 Feb 94 15:20:19 EST From: Steve Harvey Subject: a few added rejoinders... To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU Hi guys. The distinction made between "positivism," "objectivism," etc., on the one hand, and "postmodernism," "radical anythingism," etc., on the other, can be misleading. "Positivism" is a concept which emerged in distinction from "normativism," as in "positive" and "normative" theories. Normativism is the attempt to delineate what should be; positivism is the attempt to delineate what is. Though many of us mix the two, most of us engage in some degree of positivism. The acknowledgement that notions of pure objectivity have been discredited, that one's sociometric location is relevant, and that the defini- tion of truth is a political process merely serves as an appropriate qualifier to a more subtle and sophisticated positivistic (or mixed) enterprise. In the discussion of "what is sociology," as in other discussions, I'm a bit uneasy with our tendency to be cheerleaders of the great enterprise to which we belong. Sociology is one modest (often woefully modest, in fact if not in attitude of practitioners) contribution to a vast reservoir of wonderful insights about nature and the human condition (one aspect of nature). Like most enterprises, it is best when it is least balkanized and least smug. I agree that there is room for (and value in) the various approaches and paradigms to which we adhere. However, there is also room for considerable modesty about their analytic "value" (power, scope, and accuracy); and, for those who eschew "positivism," about their normative value (soundness of underlying assumptions, implementability, nonlinearity effects causing consequences diametrically opposed to those intended) as well. This is not to suggest that we should not engage in either positive or normative theorizing, but that we should do so with much more humility than is often evident, and a greater appreciation of the extent to which nature's wonders -social systems not least among them- exceed in subtlety even our most subtle paradigms. In response to the chorus of "of course, but..." that is rising to a crescendo even now, consider how often members of our guilde decry the poverty -or, more often, the ideological servitude- of other disciplines and other paradigms in our own discipline, while implicitly laying claim to knowing what's right and true. There is, conversely, a value in taking a lens, and pushing it to its logical limits. The choice of lens is not arbitrary, but neither is it either "right" or "wrong." It will likely have certain qualities, and lack certain others, and we choose our own on the basis of our emotional predilictions, our abilities, our agendas, our experiences, and chance exposure. I believe there is a value in experiencing several intimately, but there is also a value in pursuing one with focused intensity, and where to strike the balance between the two is an open issue. In my opinion, there is too great a tendency, in sociology as in the larger cultural milieu, to commit to one too early and to grow less as a result. "Critical analysis," though a useful tool, is often used in this self- limiting way. To be truly useful, it must be coupled with, and perhaps even subordinated to, extracting what is meaningful and insightful about any given analysis. I've often seen ideologues perform only a mockery of this latter exercise, as a means to reinforce their unflinching adherence to their chosen ideology. Hope this adds something of value to the discussions of the day.... Steve "Snowbound-in-Connecticut" Harvey Harvey@uconnvm From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Feb 8 14:04:55 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 8 Feb 1994 13:54:10 -0800 for socgrad-list Tue, 8 Feb 1994 13:54:03 -0800 for Date: Tue, 8 Feb 1994 16:23:59 -0400 (EST) From: "Stephen Bayer (GD 1997)" Subject: Re: any feminists out there (fwd) To: Tristan Riley content-length: 2854 We have an EXTREMELY interesting debate here, I think. Nowhere in our friendly radical lesbian femininst's statement and request for information does she suggest that her identity is her "raison d'etre", whatever her challenger means by that. In addition, she does not say that she is directly using her own personal experience, however relevant that may be, to inform her current research interests, although her challenger's comments seem to suggest otherwise - "what does one's sexual orientation have to do with building a social SCIENCE, testable propositions, etc." (a liberal paraphrasing) ASSUMPTIONS, ASSUMPTIONS... I get the impression that somehow, if one declares one's sexual orientation in the profession (i.e., "queerness" because, of course, we all know that you only need to declare ANYTHING unless your identity falls outside of the privileged normativity of heterosexuality), any research that you conduct in the area of sexuality becomes immediately suspect, tainted with the suggestion of subjectivity, bias, and personal opinion. In many ways, this echoes an earlier discussion on socgrad re: the wisdom of conducting feminist research if you are a woman, or on racial/ethnic groups if you are a member of one of these groups. POISON!!! These all seem to be taboo subject areas, especially for those who consider themselves members of the groups they study. Would others care to comment on this? Do you see parallels or are the situations different? Does being gay or lesbian, and conducting research on sexuality and gay/lesbian issues, immediately place you in a "suspect" and marginalized class? Is resistance to research on gay/lesbian issues one of the last bastions of conservatism in an otherwise allegedly liberal profession? To comment on Tristan's comments: I generally agree with you, although I do not think the questioning of self-identity categories is bad, rather I think it necessary to begin to understand (a la David Byrne) "how did we get here?" - sexuality is fluid, pliable, its meaning and expression subject to forces of political power, culture, and social control and interaction. To question how someone comes to "reify" their sexuality, or have restrictive categories placed upon them, ("radical", "lesbian", "femininst"; even, believe it or not, "heterosexual") involves the sociological project at one of its finer moments, that is, building bridges between the micro- and the macro-: how are conceptions of the self, self-identity, and sexual identity, implicated in wider cultural meanings and ideologies regarding sexuality and self-expression? That said, I, too, detected a hostile tone to his query. But such are the vagaries of "face-to-face" interaction in cyberspace. Goffman, I'm sure, would be appalled... sbayer@minerva.cis.yale.edu Cheers, Stephen From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Feb 8 17:13:01 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 8 Feb 1994 16:54:07 -0800 for socgrad-list Tue, 8 Feb 1994 16:54:06 -0800 for To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: Objectivity Date: Tue, 08 Feb 1994 16:54:05 -0800 From: JAMES D BALLARD I was not under the impression that it is only post modern to question said. What about praxis? I envision objectivity as a vampire that has a stake in its heart (held by a Marxist), a silver bullet in its head (shot by an Interactionist), and three different sociologists (Post Modern, Feminist, and Multi-Cultural) awaiting their turn to drive that stake home. Violent images aside the debate is not about one (positivism and normaitivism are not seperate) perspective against another. The issue is what we are studing. If it is true that not many schools are teaching feminism then why are WE not demanding that exposure? Can't we find the library and look up some intro like Tong? If we are so set on survey methods why not read Shulamit Reinharz's "Feminist Methods in Social Research" (1992, Oxford University Press) and see what her work brings to the survey? From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Feb 8 18:54:21 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 8 Feb 1994 18:51:51 -0800 for socgrad-list Tue, 8 Feb 1994 18:51:49 -0800 for Date: Tue, 08 Feb 94 21:39:44 EST From: Steve Harvey Subject: objectivity To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU It might be useful to replace the word "objectivity" with "intersubjectivity," since that is what we really mean (unless we missed the boat altogether). But, since the old bishop Berkeley argument that we can't know that anything we perceive has any external validity (e.g., how do you know you're not just dreaming?) makes moot any discussion (why converse with figments of one's own imagination?), we all operate under the convenient assumption that there is *some* shared reality. Whatever any group on any given systemic level can agree upon as to the nature of that reality is what we mean when we use the term "objective." To state that objectivity is dead is to present as an objective reality the denial of objective reality. Steve "Still-Just-a-Figment-of-Your-Imagination" Harvey harvey@uconnvm From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Feb 8 19:08:50 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 8 Feb 1994 17:39:31 -0800 for socgrad-list Tue, 8 Feb 1994 17:39:28 -0800 for Date: Tue, 8 Feb 1994 20:37 EDT From: "SCOTT S. BLAKE" Subject: Survey Research To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Just a note. Shulamit Reinharz's book comes highly recommended from several folks here at Brandeis (where she teaches =:)). scott From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Feb 8 19:28:56 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 8 Feb 1994 19:26:04 -0800 for socgrad-list Tue, 8 Feb 1994 19:26:01 -0800 for Date: Tue, 08 Feb 94 21:55:05 EST From: Steve Harvey Subject: addendum to "objectivity" To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU Maybe the objection to the concept of "objective truth" is to the notion that any truth is *universal*. I think there are "truths" with varying degrees of universiality (and some gain or lose adherents in the power struggle among discourses). For instance, it seems that a smile has the same meaning across cultures (whether universally or not is an empirical question, of course). More broadly, nearly all mammals recognize that a drink of water will quench their thirst. This is a yet more "universal" (i.e., more "general") perceived reality. Some "truths" (or "beliefs") are more particular: I personally believe that everything we can imagine (and everything we can't) exists in the *real* universe of time and space. Others sometimes adhere to even more particular realities, often to the extent that they are incapable of participating in the realities of those around them. The clinical term for the extreme case of this is "schizophrenia." I've often enjoyed entering the realities of such people and having a look around, and an interesting conversation t'boot. I think there is much value in both the particular and the general. The development of more particular realities (perspectives, truths, beliefs) enriches the pool from which we may collectively (and individually) draw. Thus the value of having more perspectives enter the academic sphere. Even the "dead white male" perspective itself suggests the value of the demise of the dominance of the dead white male perspective: From a classical economist's point of view, the marketplace for ideas is enriched when new ideas are allowed to enter and compete. But the general is also valuable: It gives us something to rally around, to form "community" on larger scales. In our discussion about "what is society," I suggested that social coalescences cohere through the mortar of hierarchies, markets, norms, and ideologies. Here, we are talking about ideologies (which has always been my main interest). The more "universal" the "truth," the larger the collectivity that is cemented by it. This is by no means an unmitigated good, for the larger the colectivity, the greater the likelihood that "agents" are used to maintain it (government, etc.). Usually, those agents are a class that has historically institutiona- lized its predominance by usurping the role of agent. So, they have dispropor- tionate influence in the determination of the structures by which the larger collectivity coheres (including the ideology), and disproportionate benefit from the public goods it produces. Steve "Objection-Overruled" Harvey harvey@uconnvm From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Feb 8 19:42:10 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 8 Feb 1994 19:39:56 -0800 for socgrad-list Tue, 8 Feb 1994 19:39:47 -0800 for VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with RFC822 id 2836; Tue, Date: 8 Feb 1994 19:59:45 CST From: To: Subject: fuel for feminist fire Alliteration aside, one thing has really struck me in this whole debate brought on by the radical, lesbian feminist and her questionner. I will get at the point with a few questions. First, what if a poster had identified himself as a conservative, heterosexual, white male? Would anyone have questionned his ideas? Or would we all have taken his ideas at face value? If this poster had made such an introduction, would we all have simply made assumptions about his ideas and judged them based on stereotypes and the bias they introduce, or would we have considered that we know nothing about his world view. Is there a certain prescribed set of ideas that sociologists must have, or can we perhaps come from a different perspective and have valid concerns, while we honestly question the ideas and assumptions of others? Finally, if this whole discussion has actually been about the legitimacy of varying perspectives and the importance of seriously considering them, why has it seemed to have taken on a tone of radical-lesbian-feminist-questionner bashing? Signed, a (insert three descriptors here) From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Feb 8 21:22:21 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 8 Feb 1994 21:19:13 -0800 for socgrad-list Tue, 8 Feb 1994 21:19:12 -0800 for To: Subject: Re: fuel for feminist fire <199402090339.TAA06365@ucsd.edu> Date: Tue, 08 Feb 1994 21:20:35 -0800 From: Michael Lichter Alliteration aside, one thing has really struck me in this whole debate brought on by the radical, lesbian feminist and her questionner. I will get at the point with a few questions. First, what if a poster had identified himself as a conservative, heterosexual, white male? Would anyone have questionned his ideas? Or would we all have taken his ideas at face value? Please. No ideas were presented. I don't have the original message, but if I recall correctly, the woman (name???) in question said that she was a "radical lesbian feminist" and asked if there were any like-minded people on the net. When asked what her label signified, she retorted "what part don't you understand?" I daresay that if someone said "I am a moderate heterosexual masculinist looking for intellectual company" he would have generated some discussion too. I think that the real problem for many readers is that the original person gave herself a label that might have been pure personal description and might have been a description of intellectual interests. If it was the former, I can understand her refusal to elaborate -- "it's just what I am". If it was the latter, her refusal to explain herself was like someone saying "I'm a neo-Parsonian Marxist ethnomethodologist" and insisting that if we don't get it we're brain-damaged. The difficulty is that we don't know which she intended, or if she just doesn't see any difference between personal identity and intellectual interests. Finally, if this whole discussion has actually been about the legitimacy of varying perspectives and the importance of seriously considering them, why has it seemed to have taken on a tone of radical-lesbian-feminist-questionner bashing? The discussion of perspectives came about as a result of a set of statements which were seen as "radical-lesbian-feminist-questionner bashing". That's why. I hope we can do away with this part of the discussion. The discussion of perspective and objectivity (maybe Steve or somebody else would like to expand on why "intersubjectivity" is a better label) has been interesting and useful and hopefully will continue. Michael From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Feb 8 22:06:07 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 8 Feb 1994 22:03:41 -0800 for socgrad-list Tue, 8 Feb 1994 22:03:38 -0800 for Date: Wed, 09 Feb 94 00:33:21 EST From: Steve Harvey Subject: Radical Lesbian Feminism AND objectivity To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU For people familiar with the theoretic orientation associated with radical lesbian feminism, there's a touch of irony in the subject heading: The former is similar to a broader paradigm called "radical humanism," which maintains that social structure is fundamentally a function of consciousness, and that consciousness is the fundamental means of changing it (as I don't claim to be a radical lesbian feminist, I beg forgiveness -and correction- if I'm perpetra- ting any misunderstanding here). Amyway, the point is, that "radical lesbian feminism" is a widely (though clearly not universally) known term which refers to a clearly defined political and theoretical perspective. Invoking the term is as appropriate as claiming to be a Parsonian Functionalist or Post-Modern- ist. The confusion seems to stem from some people responding to the term as though it were primarily a declaration of some irrelevant sexual orientation. The point is, however, that radical lesbian feminists don't consider their sexual orientation irrelevant to their political and theoretical orientation, and have generated a formidable body of literature espousing this. The "camps" in this rather heated exchange are talking past each other, because, to invoke the rhetoric of my recent posts, their "realities" do not perfectly coincide. They see and uderstand two different things when they read "radical lesbian feminist," both because of their relative familiarity or unfamiliarity with the established usage of the term, and because of the more general "framework" from which they operate. The reason why "intersubjective" might be less misleading (though more cumbersome) than "objective" is because we collectively carve out some shared understanding of the world we face, and treat that shared understanding as objective truth. When a newscast talks about a shuttle launching, they take it for granted that the audience holds a shared understanding about the elements involved. However, such shared understandings vary through time and space, for they are "socially constructed realities." Thus, it is not that the truth is "out there" to be discovered (objectivity), but rather that we collectively construct it from the complexity of the world we encounter. I could go off on a huge tangent here about to what degree and in what way one can differentially evaluate the merits of these various realities, but that would just be MY reality anyway, and you've all had enough of that for tonight, I'm sure! Steve "Bricolaging-the-Night-Away" Harvey (Levi-Strauss, anyone?) harvey@uconnvm From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 9 06:48:19 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 9 Feb 1994 06:47:11 -0800 for socgrad-list Wed, 9 Feb 1994 06:47:09 -0800 for Date: Wed, 9 Feb 1994 08:41:40 -0600 (CST) From: "Laura L. Fertwagner" Subject: Soc. of family lists? To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Hello all-- A friend of mine is looking for a family list on the internet. I don't know of any, and the last time I had the "list of lists" mailed to me, I was frightened by its enormity and immediately deleted it... If anyone out there knows of any such lists, could you share the info? Thanks in advance. Laura Fertwagner lfertwag@cwis.unomaha.edu From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 9 06:56:59 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 9 Feb 1994 06:55:17 -0800 for socgrad-list Wed, 9 Feb 1994 06:55:16 -0800 for Date: Wed, 9 Feb 94 08:32 CST From: "Brenda S. Fergen" Subject: Over-reactions to Monica and Nick To: I usually don't get involved in the discussions which take place on this medium because I am too busy. However, some of the responses have been so outrageous that I felt compelled to add my two cents. It must be nice to be so self-righteous (for lack of better terms) and well informed/schooled to know what Monica was referring to when she labeled herself a radical lesbian feminist. Some people must have had the time to do additional reading or the luck to have taken courses which covered this material. However, as Jim Cassell pointed out, there are many graduate students who are unfamiliar with that material. Who defines what what every sociologist (good or other- wise) should have read. In case some of you haven't noticed, there is a massive amount of reading material related to the many areas of sociology. Most graduate students aren't familiar with every area. Most of us don't have time to go to the library and look for additional reading. We are too busy preparing for the classes we are currently taking, preparing to teach, working full/part-time, caring for our children and husbands, trying to do our laundry and clean our bathrooms, buying groceries, and just trying to live our lives the best that we can. Rather than jump all over Nick (and probably discourage him and many other readers from ever engaging in conversation through this medium) why don't people try to answer questions and share their knowledge? I though Michael Lichter was right. No one was shooting down Monica's ideas, because she didn't express any. The only individual who has attempted to clarify what "radical lesbian feminist" means is Steve Harvey and even he didn't clearly define the phrase. Since Monica is the one who introduced this phrase, it would be nice if she would explain rather than responding sarcastically. While most of us can define the individual terms, we can't assume what Monica meant. Is this list service meant to add to our knowledge and expand our horizens or is it a method of blowing off steam and putting others down? I'm questioning whether I might not be putting my time to better use by unsubscribing. I'd like to think that reading what other's have to say is going to be a learning experience. Brenda Fergen From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 9 07:20:25 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 9 Feb 1994 07:19:03 -0800 for socgrad-list Wed, 9 Feb 1994 07:19:00 -0800 for Date: Wed, 09 Feb 94 09:30:43 EST From: Joya Misra Organization: Emory University - Atlanta, Georgia, USA Subject: Bashing as an exercise in intersubjectivity To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU Couldn't keep myself from (eventually) entering into the fray... >Finally, if this whole discussion has actually >been about the legitimacy of varying perspectives and the importance of >seriously considering them, why has it seemed to have taken on a tone of >radical-lesbian-feminist-questionner bashing? I think we've all seen this on the list before...there are certain moments that we try and define the intersubjective truths that we all share. This seems to be one of them. I think that's fine, we are building our own little culture here, this is a good project. I wish the bashing wasn't always quite so vitriolic, but, again it's upto us to determine the norms of our SOCGRAD-(dare I say it)society. Remember R1JSE? Personally, I mostly enjoy watching how we collectively construct our truth "from the complexity of the world we encounter" (as Steve puts it). I think this is why I became a sociologist to begin with (oh not THAT discusssion again). Finally, I can't help but respond to something that Dave said: It strikes me that in our society, we pretty much all know something about the world view of the conservative, heterosexual, white male. It's the given, it's what surrounds us. Not true for radical lesbian feminism. Although I've seen some very good pieces of work mentioned here, I don't think anyone has already mentioned Patricia Hill Collins' _Black Feminist Thought_. Her discussion of standpoint epistemology may be useful for our discussions of objectivity, intersubjectivity, etc. Anyone up for a discussion of readings? The first two chapters of Collins? Or maybe "Science as a Vocation" by Weber? Maybe then we could focus a little more on the ideas and a little less on the people. Joya From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 9 08:57:21 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 9 Feb 1994 08:48:32 -0800 for socgrad-list Wed, 9 Feb 1994 08:48:23 -0800 for Date: Wed, 9 Feb 1994 11:44:59 +0500 (EST) From: James Cassell Subject: Re: Soc. of family lists? To: "Laura L. Fertwagner" On Wed, 9 Feb 1994, Laura L. Fertwagner wrote: > Hello all-- > > A friend of mine is looking for a family list on the internet. I don't > know of any, and the last time I had the "list of lists" mailed to me, I > was frightened by its enormity and immediately deleted it... If anyone > out there knows of any such lists, could you share the info? Thanks in > advance. > > Laura Fertwagner > lfertwag@cwis.unomaha.edu > Try the Family Science Discussion . Best, Jim ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Wed Feb 9 09:16:24 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 9 Feb 1994 09:07:19 -0800 for socgrad-list Wed, 9 Feb 1994 09:07:16 -0800 for Date: Wed, 09 Feb 94 11:06:43 EST From: Steve Harvey Subject: pride and prejudice To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU "Welcome back my friends to the show that never ends...." Brenda's right that Monica is really the best qualified to clarify the meaning of "radical lesbian feminism," but since all the heat may dissuade the major players from chiming in just now, I'll offer what little I know on the subject. RLFs maintain that our patriarchal world order is sustained and reproduced via the institution of heterosexuality. Breaking with that institution is consider- ed integral to the political agenda of undermining patriarchy. The one RLF with whom I am personally acquainted is heavily into goddess warship. She believes that there have been matriarchal egalitarian societies which serve as examplars of the political and cultural institutions with which we should attempt to replace our own patriarchal institutions. Whether this is inherent to RLF or merely her own version, I don't know. Yes, it would be nice if we could be more tolerant, open-minded, mutually supportive, and in general dedicated to generating more good-will and harmony than anger and antagonism. I am not targeting anyone inparticular here; I think many of share some responsibility for fostering various levels and types of hostilities on the net. Sometimes it's subtle; sometimes overt. This is a dynamic little vortex of social drama, and the fall-out is often palpable. Henry Kissinger, whose praises I rarely sing, once said (I paraphrase): The reason that academic politics are so particularly nasty is that there is so particularly little at stake. Though we can argue that the production of knoledge is not trivial, I think there is a good point embedded in that observation. The consequences of our "actions" as scholars are rarely swift and clear. The world hardly notices whether functionalism or marxism (or any other ism) is the dominant paradigm. Lives are not (in any direct sense) dramatically affected by the outcomes of struggles in the hallowed (or is that "hollowed"?) halls of academe. But *our* identities are strongly linked to our paradigmatic commitments. As in Kuhn's account of scientific revolutions, adherents to even a discredited paradigm are reluctant to abandon it because they have a lifetime invested in it. As sociologists, we form our identities around our theoretical orientations. "I'm a phenomenologist," or "I'm a postmodernist," or "I'm a game theorist." And, way too often, we snigger at the folly of those who have not seen the light. Trashing the supposedly unenlightened torch-bearers of lesser paradigms is a favorite passtime in graduate seminars. However, it is often little more than shallow group-think, in which everyone agrees to agree that, for instance, anyone who is not a Marxist is either a fool or a hand- maiden to bourgeois domination, or both. We are trying to understand and affect a subtle and complex world, and no sociological paradigm or political orientation yet has a corner on the market. Personally, I don't believe in the efficacy of brute revolution (violent or non-violent) because the consciousness embedded in social reality itself is "bigger" than the consciousness embedded in any group of individuals attempting to restructure it. I *do* believe in plying and prodding the system, but real revolutions are the results of cascading unintended consequences catalyzed by minute, sometimes accidental, inputs. To me, the greatest good we can do is to continue to generate an ever subtler and more sophiticated understanding of this grand human dance, the better to know where a gently placed nudge will send dramatic reverberations down the river of human history. So, let's all kiss and make up. Steve "At-Peace-With-the-Universe-(Today)" Harvey harvey@uconnvm From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 9 11:34:21 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 9 Feb 1994 11:22:51 -0800 for socgrad-list Wed, 9 Feb 1994 11:22:49 -0800 for Date: Wed, 9 Feb 1994 14:14:29 -0400 (EST) From: Daniel Ryan Subject: Another helpless response... To: socgrad content-length: 1007 I can't help but respond to something that Joya wrote this morning > Finally, I can't help but respond to something that Dave said: > It strikes me that in our society, we pretty much all know something > about the world view of the conservative, heterosexual, white male. > It's the given, it's what surrounds us. Not true for radical lesbian > feminism. I beg to differ with the implicit point that there is A conservative, heterosexual, white male world view. Granted it's just an offhand, shorthand characterization, but connecting them all together like that suggests a sort of monolithic cultural entity that really isn't so seamless as all that. Same thing when one says radical lesbian feminist to refer to something more general than a particular subspecies of feminism, no? If you really mean CHWMWV then it isn't necessarily so general anymore. It's always easy to speak of "the dominant ideology," but I think it's usually fuzzier and more fragmented than "the" implies. Oder? DanR From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 9 11:51:53 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 9 Feb 1994 11:49:35 -0800 for socgrad-list Wed, 9 Feb 1994 11:49:30 -0800 for Date: Wed, 09 Feb 94 14:35:16 EST From: Steve Harvey Subject: springboarding off Dan's comments... To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU I agree that "ideology" is more of a branching dispersion of orientations or discourses than a monolithic "thing." Harking back to my statements on univers- al v. particular perceptions of reality, I would argue that there are aspects of reality that all humans hold in common (e.g., that eating relieves hunger), and aspects that are particular to individual human beings (idiosyncracies), and aspects that varying swirls of social cohesion adhere to (religions, etc). Even in a given religion, there are branches off the trunk, and twigs off the branches, until ultimately each individual has some unique twists in their understanding of the religion. Foucault's work on the dispersion of discourses gets at this "geometry" fairly well I think. Steve "Wish-I-Was-In-Bermuda" Harvey harvey@uconnvm From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 9 14:17:54 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 9 Feb 1994 14:14:49 -0800 for socgrad-list sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 9 Feb 1994 14:14:48 -0800 for SOCGRAD@UCSD.BITNET Date: Wed, 9 Feb 1994 14:14:48 -0800 From: KARP@BCVMS.BITNET Wed, 9 Feb 94 22:14:47 GMT Apparently-To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.BITNET Date: Wed, 9 Feb 1994 16:58 EDT From: To: socgrad@ucsd unsubscribe socgrad From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 9 14:24:46 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 9 Feb 1994 14:23:13 -0800 for socgrad-list Wed, 9 Feb 1994 14:23:09 -0800 for Date: Wed, 09 Feb 94 16:01:47 EST From: Joya Misra Organization: Emory University - Atlanta, Georgia, USA Subject: LEAR-NED HELPLESSNESS To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU Oder? Oder nichts. Du bist richtig. I really put my foot into it this morning, didn't I? Dan, dear, you're absolutely right that there is not A conservative, heterosexual, white male world view...and I'm sorry tohave suggested that there is. About on the levels of saying "Some of my best friends are conservative, white males..." I do think that we, as people, have standpoints that grow from our experiences. Groups with shared experiences can make their standpoint known to themselves and to others. Collins (1990, p.26) says "Groups unequal in power are correspondingly unequal in their ability to make their standpoint known to themselves and others." What I was clumsily trying to say was that we are all pretty familiar with the various standpointS of the groupS which are dominant in our society, but less familiar with those which are not. Back to Marx. Now, have I dug myself in an even deeper hole? (For example, what definition am I using for "dominant"?) Joya SOCAK663@EMUVM1.BITNET OR SOCAK663@EMUVM1.CC.EMORY.EDU ********************************************************************* Dept. of Sociology Emory University "I've been so wrong, for so long" Atlanta, GA 30322 -Patsy Cline From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 9 15:31:24 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 9 Feb 1994 15:22:36 -0800 for socgrad-list Wed, 9 Feb 1994 15:22:30 -0800 for From: khaskin@merle.acns.nwu.edu Subject: community on teh net To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Wed, 9 Feb 94 17:22:29 CST This whole cyber-community thing is really interesting. On the one hand, it seems like we are sending out our messages into a vast unknown, and sometimes that may make it easy to be irresponsible in the content of those messages. On the other hand, we are all getting to know some of those more frequent posters to the net, so some of these electronic conversations are every bit as real as if there were physical bodies, rather than just computers, visible to us. I hope that my last post did not offend or insult anyone. It was intended to soothe some of the conflict, rather than increase it. And I never intended to be perceived as a post-modern ideologue, because I don't consider myself to be in any one ideological or methodological camp. Maybe no one thought I was. It is hard to tell. Anyway, at this point in the conversation, it would be nice to hear from Monica and Nick again. I am terribly sorry if this whole flurry of messages scared them from re-posting. Could we all decide not to flame them if they wanted to post something in response? I think that this has been one of our more interesting conversations. It bothers me that some people were so upset by some of the messages that they no longer feel comfortable with the net. I think it is just like debates we sometimes have in class. They can get really heated and people sometimes say things in stronger terms than they really mean. It is important to remind each other that debate can be the richest kind of intellectual discussion, and that disagreement helps further the conversation. I'll stop there. I hope that wherever you are, it is warmer than it is here. Karen -- ************************************************************************* Karen Haskin k-haskin@nwu.edu Department Of Sociology Northwestern University 1810 Chicago Avenue Evanston, IL 60208 From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 9 15:33:31 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 9 Feb 1994 15:29:28 -0800 for socgrad-list Wed, 9 Feb 1994 15:29:26 -0800 for To: Joya Misra Subject: Re: Bashing as an exercise in intersubjectivity Date: Wed, 09 Feb 1994 15:30:42 -0800 From: Michael Lichter Anyone up for a discussion of readings? The first two chapters of Collins? Or maybe "Science as a Vocation" by Weber? Maybe then we could focus a little more on the ideas and a little less on the people. I'd be up for either of the above. I have the Collins book and haven't gotten around to reading it, and have been meaning to re-read Weber for quite a while. Michael From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 9 16:57:17 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 9 Feb 1994 16:54:05 -0800 for socgrad-list Wed, 9 Feb 1994 16:54:02 -0800 for From: Swen E Johnson Subject: ABC To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Wed, 9 Feb 1994 19:54:00 -0500 (EST) Dear Fellow Socgrads, Hello. The Florida State University Sociology Graduate Student Union (SGSU) is exploring the possibility of non-traditional methods of evaluation, i.e. evaluating class performance w/o the A-F grading scale. We're looking for information from any individuals/departments that evaluate students in a non-traditional manner. We are also interested in knowing if any grad departments have attempted to institute alternative grading and have failed. If you think this is a fruitful subject to discuss on Socgrad, please reply en massse. If not, please reply (in private) to: Sven Johnson or Ravinder Singh sejohnso@garnet.acns.fsu.edu rsingh@garnet.acns.fsu.edu P.S. Any suggestions (Joya?) on the matter are greatly appreciated From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 9 17:38:13 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 9 Feb 1994 17:34:33 -0800 for socgrad-list Wed, 9 Feb 1994 17:34:30 -0800 for From: bb05246@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu (John Hollister) Subject: Objectivity To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Wed, 9 Feb 1994 20:32:43 -0500 (EST) This discussion about the radical lesbian feminist interests me because I am an out gay man researching the sites of gay male life. I would like to think that my sexual orientation is irrelevant, but the fact is there is still a lot of discrimination against gays and lesbians in sociology. There was a paper at the last ASA which documented this. Yes, a few departments may take diversity seriously, but as the presenters concluded, coming out is high-risk activism, even in sociology. As long as this remains the case, I strongly respect and support those who are also out of the closet, even as I disagree with the specific theoretical approaches known as 'radical lesbian feminism'. I cannot dismiss those who challenge the right to come out as 'just another view in the marketplace of ideas'. I wish more heterosexuals were a little more vocal in confronting, and taking responsibility for, homophobia. In some ways, my sexuality actually is relevant to my work: my access as an insider enriches my ethnographic research. My experience as a gay man contributes to my sense of what problems are worth researching. When I see that sociology provides so few useful tools for analyzing gay male cultures, my knowledge as a gay man might contribute to the theoretical value of my work. Until recently, sociological research on sexuality came under the categories of 'family' (as if we actually lived in a 'society' whose basic unit was indeed 'families') or 'deviance', which reflects the folk mapping of 'society' most characteristic of heterosexuals. If more sociologists came out, and brought insights derived from our own lives into our work, and if other sociologists welcomed us, the profession would benefit immensely. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ John Hollister ----- bb05246@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 9 19:15:50 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 9 Feb 1994 18:25:33 -0800 for socgrad-list Wed, 9 Feb 1994 18:25:29 -0800 for Date: Wed, 9 Feb 1994 21:23 EDT From: "SCOTT S. BLAKE" Subject: Re: ABC To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Here at Brandeis, we use a credit/nocredit system. Most classes only have a term paper for evaluation, so extensive comments are made on that. This system only applies to graduate studenmts in the sociology department. I like! The purpose of this is to eliminate competition among the students and foster a community feeling including collaborative work. I'm in my second semester, so my experience is not complete, but I think that it works. Wuestions? scott From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 9 19:17:30 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 9 Feb 1994 18:06:47 -0800 for socgrad-list Wed, 9 Feb 1994 18:04:36 -0800 for To: Swen E Johnson neese@helios.nevada.edu Subject: Re: ABC Date: Wed, 09 Feb 94 18:04:09 -0800 From: neese@nevada.edu Sven and Ravinder -- Alternative grading/non-traditional evaluation is an integral part of what has recently fallen under the umbrella of radical pedagogy. The biggest and most obvious problems have been 1) institutional requirements and 2) class- room size. Of course there are a myriad of other things to be taken into consideration. I am currently conducting a case-study on the implementation of radical pedagogy in a Sociology 101 course with ~100 students. Part of the experiment (I'm using this term loosely) involves having the students grade themselves. Since it's not even mid-semester, I have no results for you regarding my case study. However, Madeleine Picciotto wrote an article in _The Writing Instructor_ (Winter 1992) entitled "Educational Literacy and Empowerment: An Experiment in Critical Pedagogy". She used non-traditional evaluation methods in her experiment and reports the results in the article. Good Luck and feel free to contact me if I can be of any more assistance. Denise Dalaimo neese@nevada.edu From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 9 19:17:46 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 9 Feb 1994 18:17:48 -0800 for socgrad-list Wed, 9 Feb 1994 18:17:40 -0800 for From: halebsky@ssc.wisc.edu Date: Wed, 9 Feb 94 20:16:01 -0600 To: "socgrad@ucsd.edu"@ssc.wisc.edu Subject: Mental Decay at NIMH From: EUNICE::"owner-pen-l@ecst.csuchico.edu" 9-FEB-1994 16:26:07.50 To: pen-l@bobby.ecst.csuchico.edu CC: Subj: on urban violence (fwd) An interesting note from another List, PSN, Progressive Sociologists Network. Date: 07 Feb 1994 23:41:57 -0700 From: SPECTOAJ <@cunyvm.cuny.edu:SPECTOAJ@PUCAL.BITNET> Subject: A Campaign Against the "Violence Initiative" As many of you are aware, there is a strong push to demonize deviance and rebellion. In particular, there is a misuse of the rhetoric of genetics to promote what is essentially a theology, a return to the idea of original sin, predestination, and other medieval superstitition, but with the seemingly scientific halo of biology. Specifically, the psychologists are again looking for a "gene" --- not to reduce 'In "intelligence" down to one dimension, as Jensen, Herrnstein, Eysenck, etc. tried to do, but this time, to reduce "violence", including, presumably, rebellion. The main force behind this political move does not have to do with advances in science. It has mainly to do with the impending social crisis which is directly tied to capitalism's developing economic crisis. In other words, just as it is wrong to separate out "nature" from nurture when dis- cussing human "traits", it is also wrong to see the development of so-called "scientific" theories as being the "NATURAL" unfolding of scientific progress, when in fact, they are the result of the developing political environment..... I don't have the time, or the facility with this one line at a time, no corrections allowed typing editor, to go into all the nuances. There are several pieces of literature coming out about this. Dr. Peter Breggin of Maryland is the main authority on this. One excellent piece of literature is put out by the International Committee Against Racism, P.O. Box A3338, Chicago, that gives some important details about this campaign, as well as political analysis. They'll send it to you if you write them. This is a serious issue. It is not just some crackpots. The current head of NIMH is the main mover behind this. They are playing on the fear of crime---which is NOT the number one issue. More children die of poor capitalist' health care than from gangs, for example---but crime is the issue that allows the right wing to form a united front with the liberals. The NIMH head actually compared urban youth (presumably black) to hyper-agressive monkeys!!!!!---yes, you read it right. Again, I could go into great detail on this post, but it would be much better if you get the pamphlet from Chicago and try to contact Breggin, or others to get up to date info on this. The danger is not simply that they plan to start drugging thousands of 'urban youths---which they might. That is bad enough. What is worse is that the theory that there is a gene for violence and urban youth have a lot of those genes, can also be used mostly in an ideological way, so that suburbanites and those who don't know, can now have a reason to casually dismiss the negle ct the police brutality, and so forth on the grounds that the system has no other way to deal with these subhumans. There are hundreds of millions of dollars being earmarked for research around this. Because there have been some remarkable breakthroughs in understanding genes and disease, the promoters of this Violence Initiative are trying to hitch a ride on that bandwagon and get people to support their theory based on the prestige that is currently going to biologists studying diseases. The combination of fake benevolence (we want to cure these people), and fear of violence have roped a number of liberal social scientists into defending the research. Of course, they are not proposing that the ("white", European) participants in mass violence in Bosnia are somehow suffering from a sudden upsurge in this genetic disease, or that U.S. pilots in Vietnam had genetically caused low levels of serotonin in their brains when they fried hundreds of thousands of innocent people, but...somehow, they seem to want to focus it on urban youth. In any case, it is important for sociologists, especially "progressive" sociologists to help build a campaign against this crap. Let them howl that we want to suppress science in the name of "political correctness." In fact, it is the overwhelmingly dominant "political correctness" that is the root of the attempt to claim that urban youth have a biological defect! We should work for resolutions in all the sociology, and other disciplines, associations that we can. These people are essentially trying to say that social science has a new discovery. In effect, we are letting them speak in our name. Certainly resolutions could be introduced at SSSP, at regional meetings, within sections of the ASA, and even at the *ASA* itself. It probably would not pass at ASA, but if enough people introduce resolution and try to make an issue of it, it can educate literally THOUSANDS of professors and others in the field, who in turn can work to oppose the rising tide of this racist movement. If we work to make a big issue out of this, we cannot lose. If we don't, we well might lost. The post-modern amnesia that many people suffer from can cause them to forget that there have been massive retreats in the past and that anti-human mysticism, sometimes posing as science, has sometimes reappeared and pushed the scientific community backwards for a while. Already one sociological organization has passed a resolution against the Violence Initiative. The Association for Humanist Sociology, at its convention in New Orleans this past autumn passed the following resolution: Alternative grading/non-traditional evaluation is an integral part of what >has recently fallen under the umbrella of radical pedagogy. The biggest and >most obvious problems have been 1) institutional requirements and 2) class- >room size. Radical, perhaps, but not a new thing. I got my BA from New College in Sarasota, Florida in 83. It's been gradeless for nearly 30 years. There are a few other schools that have used it over the years as well. Important to distinguish between non-evaluated and non-graded situtions. One's work at NC was certainly evaluated and usually held to quite high standards. (It was like a grad school in some ways.) The point of the non-grading wasn't to keep you from feeling bad or anything like that, but rather (among other things) to open up the limits of performance (no incentive to stop at A) and to make failure inexpensive (to encourage folks to try new things). What else does "radical pedagogy" involve? How is it different from long standing alternative educational practices? - ======= - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - == == == == == == == == ======== dan ryan == == yale university == == dept of sociology == == == box 208265 == == == new haven, ct 06520-8265 ==== == danryan@minerva.cis.yale.edu From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 9 21:15:16 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 9 Feb 1994 21:13:58 -0800 for socgrad-list Wed, 9 Feb 1994 21:13:56 -0800 for Date: Wed, 9 Feb 1994 21:13:55 -0800 From: Laura Miller To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: how to unsub 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. Any problems or questions can be directed to lmiller@ucsd.edu From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Feb 10 10:31:07 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 10 Feb 1994 10:22:11 -0800 for socgrad-list Thu, 10 Feb 1994 10:21:59 -0800 for From: S-SCHUBERT@bss1.umd.edu Thu, 10 Feb 94 13:18:40 +1100 To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Thu, 10 Feb 1994 13:18:28 EDT Subject: genetics and deviance socgradders, alan spector recently wrote about the use of new technologies and the creation of social deviants. for anyone interested in the impact of genetics research on this age-old problem, i recommend Ruth Hubbard and Elijah Wald's EXPLODING THE GENE MYTH: How Genetic Info is Produced and Manipulated by Scientists, Physicians, Employers, Insurance Companies, Educators, and Law Enforcers. It is completely readable and downright frightening. not only that, but jonathan kozol is cited on the back cover, so it must be good. "the other" dan From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Feb 10 11:26:42 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 10 Feb 1994 11:18:03 -0800 for socgrad-list Thu, 10 Feb 1994 11:18:00 -0800 for To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: Radical Pedagogy Date: Thu, 10 Feb 94 11:17:56 -0800 From: neese@nevada.edu Dan R. asked what else radical pedagogy involved besides non-traditional/ alternative evaluation. First let me say that Dan was right in stating that alternative evaluation, as well as alternative teaching methods, has been around for a long time. What I meant by "...recently fallen under the umbrella of Radical Pedagogy..." is that *relatively* recently "feminist pedagogy" has joined "critical pedagogy" in the drive for enlightenment/empowerment. I and the people I relate with in this field use "radical pedagogy" to include both. So what's involved? Well, briefly: - examine school curricula for "what" is taught, "how" it is taught, and "how" it is learned. (assumes teaching is a political act) - teach students to look at their society "critically", i.e. look at what is being taught, but perhaps more importantly, what is NOT being taught. They should ask "whose knowledge is this?" - accentuates the struggle of the the oppressed for social justice, while highlighting successful grassroots movements, i.e. show ways to overcome the injustices - the aim is to change structured class, race, and gender inequalities in contemporary societies. To this, feminist pedagogy adds: - women as a central issue in the class, race, gender inequalities - women must be given a voice and made to know their experiences are impor- tant and valuable. How? Curricula must be gender inclusive and gender expan- sive, i.e. include "feminine" traits such as nurturing, cooperative, rela- tional as legitimate parts of history as well as the "masculine" traits such as independence, ambition, competition, etc. (clearly this is problema- tic, however, I'm trying to be as brief as possible) - change the educational process from hierarchical (A-F grades; teacher as lecturer and keeper of knowledge) and positionally oriented to a more relationally oriented one one, i.e. positive reinforcement or just plain old personal satisfaction (yes, I know, pretty hard in our little commodified world) Okay, so basically what radical pedagogists want is a more democratic and egalitarian society. To teach students to question the status quo and to not reify the dominant ideology. Obviously, this is very sketchy. If any- one wants to discuss this further, perhaps off-net would be better for those socgradders who are sensitive about the size of their folders (sounds like a personal problem!) ;-) ? Dan, I hope this fills in some gaps. Take care. Denise (the sun is shining in the desert today, though it's a brisk and windy 50 degrees) From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Feb 10 11:30:25 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 10 Feb 1994 11:17:08 -0800 for socgrad-list Thu, 10 Feb 1994 11:17:02 -0800 for Date: Thu, 10 Feb 94 13:11:14 -0600 From: donnelly@ssc.wisc.edu (It's a nike thing) To: "socgrad@ucsd.edu"@ssc.wisc.edu Subject: Re: definitions While we go through this expansion of the term making the personal political into perhaps unwarranted areas, such as hurling personal comments within a political arena (which seems to have been occurring under the pretext of defining what a LESBIAN is)....here is a thought about definitions in general. Definitions can exist at both a highly aggregated level, as well as a more refined particular level. While any number of persons can be white, and while there could be attempts made at defining white, there would certainy be a great deal of heterogeneity within this category, along other attributes, such as gender/sex, class, ethnicity, etc. This does not mean that the highly aggregated definition is WRONG, it just means that we would need to be careful when wielding it within a public policy arena, or even while speaking with friends. The person who defined herself as a radical lesbian feminist, probably felt comfortable with this level of aggregation, and felt that this level of detail was sufficient. At a highly aggregated level, each word is obtainable in the webster's dictionary, and can be put together to yield a broad definition. If persons are really interested in the degree to which heterogeniety exists within the radical lesbian feminist community, then why not ask enthusiastically rather than condeming the entire category. Awaiting your replies.... Patrice From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Feb 10 13:00:46 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 10 Feb 1994 12:58:17 -0800 for socgrad-list Thu, 10 Feb 1994 12:58:12 -0800 for Date: Thu, 10 Feb 1994 12:48:03 -0800 (PST) From: Janice Tanche Subject: Here come the lesbians! To: Socgrad The discussion regarding radical lesbian feminism is one of the most heated I've seen on this list. Interestingly, the same discussion was the most heated (and, I might add, the nastiest) I witnessed in grad school. I think, as others have all ready stated, that it raises hackles because to say one is a lesbian is often understood to be a statement about sexual orientation and sexual orientation is not considered to be relevant to our discussions. To say, "I am gay," is a statement about sexual orientation. To say, "I am a lesbian," or "I am a radical lesbian feminist" is a political statement. That the statement is relevant to our discussions seems obvious to me from the responses it has generated. A few years ago, I wrote a paper in response to the discussion generated in the class I mentioned above. I've cut a small piece out of it to include here by way of trying to offer a response to the question, "What exactly is a radical lesbian feminist?" I offer it only as one of many ways of understanding the politics behind radical feminism. The theory of compulsory heterosexuality has as its focus the political "institutional and ideological domination of heterosexuality as a fundamental part of male supremacy" (Bunch, 1978:180). Catherine Arnup's description of compulsory heterosexuality is not to condemn heterosexuality, but rather to take under consideration the institution of heterosexuality. For Arnup, the theory of compulsory heterosexuality reveals the inevitability of male-female coupling. Formulated as a political institution, heterosexuality is maintained by a system of forces which convince women that it is necessary to orientate toward men in spite of sometimes finding this unsatisfying, or oppressive. As Arnup points out, the idea of compulsory heterosexuality challenges the notion of choice in heterosexual partnerships and she argues that neither homosexuality nor heterosexuality are an innate sexual orientation. Adrienne Rich fist explicitly put forward a theory of compulsory heterosexuality in 1980. Quoting Kathleen Gogh, Rich argued that heterosexuality acquired a compulsory nature through, men's ability to deny women sexuality or to force it upon them; to command or exploit their labor to control their produce; to control or rob them of their children; to confine them physically and prevent their movement; to use them as objects in male transactions; to cramp their creativeness; or to withhold from them large areas of the society's knowledge and cultural attainments (cited in Rich, 1983:146). Compulsory heterosexuality in Rich's analysis, as in Bunch's, is a manifestation of male power and male domination of society. An institution of heterosexuality in this analysis, is a regulatory ideology of a patriarchal culture. The portion of Gough's article that Rich has used elucidates only some of a "cluster of forces" which are meant to explain how and why heterosexuality is compulsory for women. However, the compulsory nature of heterosexuality is not maintained only by men. Women's desire for what can be called heterosexual privilege assists its maintenance. A heterosexual woman is validated for having (or at least wanting) men in her life. A woman's heterosexuality, visibly demonstrated, shields her from the vicious attacks reserved for non- heterosexual women (Overall, 1990:8). Beyond Overall's suggestion that heterosexual women will be protected from attacks against them at least as man-hating or lesbians, heterosexual privilege should also be understood as assisting to improve a woman's life qualitatively. For example, a woman alone is more vulnerable physically and economically. The theory of compulsory heterosexuality is compelling for a number of reasons. For example, through a theory of compulsory heterosexuality it is possible to understand the separate political existence of a lesbian community apart from a "gay and lesbian community." While the "gay and lesbian community" is certainly not apolitical, its aims are liberal. Its goal is equality in civil liberties and it seeks that equality by positing every individual as more or less the same as every other individual. In this community, differing sexuality is understood to be a function of biology, or socialization because these explanations are used to resist moral and mental illness arguments. A radical theory which posits difference between women and men cannot exist in this community. Homosexuality is not a choice, but a destiny. The lesbian community's politics are more radical. It aims to affirm women's difference. Lesbianism is understood as a political choice and the theory of compulsory heterosexuality can be used to explain and justify that choice. References Arnup, Catherine. "Lesbian feminist theory." The International Journal of Women's Studies, 5 (1982):53- 55. Bunch, Charlotte. "Lesbian-feminist theory" in Our Right to Love. Ed G. Vida. New Jersey: Printince-Hall. 1978. Rich, Adrienne. "Compulsory heterosexuality and lesbian existence." Women: Sex and Sexuality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980:61-91. Janice Tanche@unixg.ubc.ca From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Feb 10 16:40:47 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 10 Feb 1994 16:37:10 -0800 for socgrad-list Thu, 10 Feb 1994 16:37:00 -0800 for To: Janice Tanche Subject: Re: Here come the lesbians! Date: Thu, 10 Feb 1994 16:38:04 -0800 From: Michael Lichter I would like to thank Janice for a very nice contribution ... to a debate we're not having. And I mean that sincerely. The most amusing and frustrating thing about the "debate" is that it has no center, there is no subject. I guess that makes it post-Modern and perhaps therefore appropriate. It's just a set of reactions to reactions to misinterpretations of an ambiguous sentence. Argh! Michael From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Feb 10 17:08:55 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 10 Feb 1994 17:02:48 -0800 for socgrad-list Thu, 10 Feb 1994 17:02:44 -0800 for Date: Thu, 10 Feb 1994 17:10:25 -0600 (CST) From: nick mcree Subject: elaboration To: socgrad Hello. I have been observing the dialogue which has developed with great interest. I would like to clarify and extend my remarks. 1. First, to dismiss with the personal. Some people are accusing me of being "snotty" about my reply to Monica. I believe I made a valid, if perhaps contentious, observation about the relationship of the researcher to a discipline, and to the objectives we pursue in our discipline. I do not believe that my comments amounted to a bashing of Monica at all. They were meant as, and I still believe they represent a relevant perspective about what we do and how we go about doing it. For those who nevertheless thought I was "over the top" in my tone, perhaps they would review the "dig" Monica made concerning "...other like-minded Texans out there." Others have noted that her comment contained a similar connotation to my own, an acknowledgement for which I am grateful. 2. Some are suggesting that the problem concerning what feminist labels actually represent can be clearly resolved by a cursory review of a textbook on feminism. "Just consult an authority...," or so I have understood the argument. The irony of this position is staggering. Many of the same folks who want to issue forth a grand social critique by deconstructing social authority structures are now suggesting that the resolution of this controversy (in this case, what various labels mean) can be had by referring to the authority of a textbook. (If someone would only publish a textbook on what *all* words and phrases really mean then we could extinguish the entire debate over ambiguous language and its impact on social research.) :) 3. The real meat of my position was that we are foolish to abandon the principle of objective analysis of social phenomena. Harvey was correct to point out that at a very general level there are universal features of individual (and thus social) behavior. He suggested that a smile has a regularized and transferable meaning. He is right--and it is true among non-human social groups (such as dogs) as well. Another example I prefer is a situation of an individual afflicted with Tay-Sachs disease. If an individual is carrying the gene for this disease, there *will* be biological and behavioral dispositions. Some sociologists may wish to "deconstruct" the meaning of this, but this is the intellectual equivalent of tilting at windmills. In the final analysis we are left with the *inescapable* conclusion: (All X is Y), or All persons exhibiting this genetic makeup will have their brains turn to fat. The individuals' ability to behave socially is immutably affected. Yet the tools in the traditional sociologist's grab-bag of analytical tools and theoretical idealizations to explain this phenomenon are inadequate and in fact wholly laughable. We need to include the efforts and processes of our cousins in the so-called "hard sciences" if we are ever to explain behavior fruitfully. This argument is not, and I repeat, *NOT* to suggest that there are in any sense "universal" determinants for behavior. On the contrary--for Tay-Sachs disease, for example, genetic makeup is highly deterministic, but for other types of phenomena, like schizophrenia, it is far less so. Not only is there evidence that a combination of genetic *and* environmental factors are responsible for episodes of schizophrenic behavior, but also social influences (like counseling, drug therapy) can influence the manifestation of the disease. And in some cases, genetic factors may play *no* part in a particular phenomenon--like disruptive behavior among youth in the inner-city, as some have recently addressed on this net. Just as we need to expand our horizons to include the "hard sciences," so too do our cousins need to incorporate our insights into behavior. But our contribution will certainly not come from those camps who suggest that the endeavor to objectively study social phenomena is pointless. Folks, those scientists playing with Petri dishes have done more to explain and predict behavior in the past 5 years than we have with our "create the world anew" verbiage of the past 50 years. There *is* room for sociological analysis of human behavior. But we have to relinquish our fetish for obscuring what people do as we insist that "we can never really know what people do..." We know that in a certain *limited* number of cases behavior can be explained in direct causal relationships. For the most part, though, things are much more complicated indeed. But "complicated" is not a synonym for "there must not be any explanation at all." I believe our task is to establish *levels* of influence between environmental and biological factors. The only way to accomplish this is through *objective* analysis of data. "Humans do create their world, but not just as they please." The interesting (and for me, agonizing) thing about this diatribe is that I didn't arrive at graduate school with this perspective. When I got here I thought Anthony Giddens' shit didn't stink. But the more I read, the more I concluded that a lot of what we turn out in our journals and working papers is pure crap-ola. Then I read Scientific American, E.O. Wilson and Richard Dawkins and I just get more depressed. I think I may very well be "educating" myself out of the discipline I love. Nick The University of Texas at Austin From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Feb 10 22:05:25 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 10 Feb 1994 22:04:25 -0800 for socgrad-list Thu, 10 Feb 1994 22:04:23 -0800 for Date: Thu, 10 Feb 1994 23:59:59 -0600 (CST) From: nick mcree Subject: support (fwd) To: socgrad Hello again. I received the following response from a thoughtful and articulate fellow graduate student concerning my comments about our discipline. She was much more parsimonious about explaining my position than was I. Nick The University of Texas at Austin ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 10 Feb 1994 19:57:04 -0600 (CST) From: Laurie Ann Drapela To: mcree@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu Subject: support I think the biological paradigm is valid in sociology and helps us to establish a backbone to the discipline, one which can guide our research and produce a discipline focused around a set of principles instead of a bunch of discombobulated intellectual masturbation. Feminism could benefit from EXPLORING the biological paradigm, as opposed to running away from it by labeling it deterministic. It amazes me that people who are so dedicated to opeining the minds of others close their when it suits them. The human evolved out of the animal; be that as it may, I find it hard to believe that thousands of years of culture supercede millions of years of evolution. THEY WORK IN CONCERT BECAUSE THAT IS HOW WE GOT HERE IN THE FIRST PLACE. Execuse my crude use of the word "got"; it's just the like-minded Texan (ALWAYS with a capital 't') coming out in me. Even though I am female, I refuse to ignore the fact that I evolved out of a tree shrew and was once a member of a hunting and gathering tribe. At the same time, I refuse to let this information be used to justify me making 75 cents on every male dollar. The two perspectives can be blended in such a fashion....Isn't taking a negative label and making it a positive one a large part of what feminism is? I would appreciate it if you did not forward this.... Laurie From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Feb 11 07:31:46 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 11 Feb 1994 07:28:09 -0800 for socgrad-list Fri, 11 Feb 1994 07:28:03 -0800 for Date: Fri, 11 Feb 94 10:27 EST To: socgrad From: PATTYO%IRISHMVS.CC.ND.EDU@UICVM.UIC.EDU Subject: black feminist thought I haven't caught up on reading my socgrad mail from the past 2 days, so forgive me if I overlap here. Since we've been talking a bit about feminist theories, I thought I'd try to provoke some discussion about black feminist thought. One of the premised of this strand of feminism is that black women suffer from a "double jeopardy" in society because of their status as women and their status as African American. I think of it in terms of an interaction effect. Aside from the direct effect of being woman and the direct effect of being African American, there is an additional burden of being African American Woman. Some good sources on this thought include: King, "Multiple Jeopardy, Multiple Consciousness: The Context of Black Feminist Ideology," _Signs_ 14(1). hooks, _Aint I a Woman_ Hill Collins _Black Feminist Thought_ Anyway, Orlando Patterson was here at Notre Dame yesterday giving a speech about "The Crisis of Gender Relations in the African American Community," during which he mentioned that the notion of "double jeopardy" is not valid. He said that African American men suffer in many ways more burdens than do African American women - they go to jail more, they have higher rates of suicide, higher rates of death by homicide, lower rates of entrance into college, lower rates of attaining a high school diploma, etc. I am wondering what other socgraders think of this. I don't agree with Patterson. Of course you can point out these kinds of statistics, there are statistics that suggest white men carry more burden - heart disease, higher car insurance, etc. But what about rape, sexual harassment, eating disorders, lower wages, and the subtler forms of discrimination? So my question is: is there a double jeopardy, or not? What do you think?? Patty O'Donnell pattyo@irishmvs.cc.nd.edu From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Feb 11 07:55:42 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 11 Feb 1994 07:50:45 -0800 for socgrad-list Fri, 11 Feb 1994 07:50:42 -0800 for Date: Fri, 11 Feb 1994 09:47:32 -0600 (CST) From: nick mcree Subject: i did get laurie's permission To: socgrad sorry. Dr. williams was right. Nevertheless, I called Laurie after i received her post and received her permission to forward it to socgrad. I neglected to delete that portion of her message. Again, sorry for the mix-up. Nick The University of Texas at Austin From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Feb 11 08:42:09 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 11 Feb 1994 08:32:48 -0800 for socgrad-list Fri, 11 Feb 1994 08:32:44 -0800 for Date: Fri, 11 Feb 94 10:57:33 EST From: Joya Misra Organization: Emory University - Atlanta, Georgia, USA Subject: BLACK FEMINIST THOUGHT To: Patty Patty & the list, I remember hearing Patterson speak before about this, and have also seen other scholars speaking about these issues discount the idea of "double jeopardy" for African-American women. My sense of it is that the problem here is that they are treating discrimination as if it is a one-dimensional concept, and every person can be measured on one "discrimination" scale. Discrimination is multi-dimensional, and it must be conceptualized that way. I believe that there is no common metric to measure all discrimination. That doesn't mean I'm willing to give up trying to talk about discrimination and the differential experiences of groups. But I think we need to be willing to discuss it with a little more *complexity* than is usual. Rather than saying "African-American women have it harder than African-American men," why can't we elucidate the ways in which African-American women are affected by discrimination, the ways African-American men are affected by discrimination, etc. I'm all for elegance and clarity, but sometimes I think we strive too hard for neat packages when society is just not neat. One of the members of my dissertation committee said tome when I was complaining about some results, "Reality is messy!" I've gotten a couple more message about reading the first couple chapters of Patricia Hill Collins' _Black Feminist Thought_. This book is a delight to read, very quick, and these first chapters are only 35 pages or so. Anyone else up for it? Starting when? Tschuss, Joya SOCAK663@EMUVM1.BITNET OR SOCAK663@EMUVM1.CC.EMORY.EDU ********************************************************************* Dept. of Sociology "Look I understand too little too late, I realize Emory University there are things you say and do you can never Atlanta, GA 30322 take back, But what would you be if you didn't even try, You have to try, So after a lot of thought, I'd like to reconsider, Please, If it's not too late, Make it a cheeseburger." -Lyle Lovett From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Feb 11 12:21:32 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 11 Feb 1994 12:02:26 -0800 for socgrad-list Fri, 11 Feb 1994 12:02:10 -0800 for Date: Fri, 11 Feb 94 13:52:50 EST From: Steve Harvey Subject: I'll let you know when I get there... To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU New England is enshrouded in a beautiful blanket of falling white; I had the pleasure of negotiating the mostly unplowed rural roads of Northeastern Connecticut today. The entrance to my apartment complex was blocked up with cars coming and going and stalling and slip-sliding away, and rather than igniting frazzled nerves, the scene was one of jovial comradery. Both at the department and at the dentists office, people were in a festive mood. Winter- borne love and laughter seemed to be as thick as pollen on a hazy Spring day... Yesterday, I drove to the semi-distant towns of Norwich and New London, where diplomatic and legal missions associated with the research I'm doing took me. In Norwich, where I'm seeking a "letter of support" from the Town Manager to submit with my grant proposal for my own study of HIV infection among IV drug users, I was met by the Town Manager, the head of Social Services, the police chief, and the head of epidemiology at the hospital. We met for an hour, and all were satisfied of the need and value of my project, but the head of Social Services repeatedly complained, with a stone-faced expression, that I should have contacted her from the moment that the project was a glimmer in my eye. For this reason, she seemed to be withholding her support. In New London, I went to the office of Planning and Zoning to obtain docu- ments relevant to a legal action between the city and the state, the state acting on behalf of the university. The city doesn't want us there delivering a federally funded social service, because they already "bear too great a burden of providing social services in the state." Translated: If we stop providing "them" with services, maybe they'll go away. The chief zoning officer, who is a key member of the city-led opposition, dilligently helped me search for documents that he would rather I didn't find, while debating the merits of the case and the ways in which each side has handled it. Tomorrow I'll go cross-country skiing in the woods surrounding the reservoir. I'll come home and drink hot rum and spiced cidar while admiring the snow- covered panarama from the warmth of my hill-top apartment. Life is coursing and burbling all around us. The short and long chapters; the thoughts and feelings and hopes and regrets. The world is laces with pain and suffering and injustice and oppression. But it is also laced with pleasure, and joy, and unlimited possibilities. As sociologists and, even more so, as people, we should certainly face the former with passionate resolve, but if we are not driven and inspired by the latter, we, and the world we affect, is the lesser for it. Sometimes, I lament the trials and tribulations of life, the ups and downs, the bitter disappointments. But today, I feel a great lightness of heart and sense of gratitude to be able to live the life I live, to be burdened with those trials and tribulations, to experience those ups and downs, to taste those bitter disappointments. To be sure, my life is not a hard one; i have shelter and plenty of food. I have memories, and I have prospects. Yet how often do we, even when the necessities of life are not in immediate question, fail to pause and admire the wonder of it all? How often do we, to put it simply, miss the point? Steve "At-Peace-With-The-Universe...Still" Harvey harvey@uconnvm From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Feb 11 13:05:55 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 11 Feb 1994 12:50:13 -0800 for socgrad-list Fri, 11 Feb 1994 12:50:02 -0800 for From: S-ENDER@bss1.umd.edu Fri, 11 Feb 94 15:46:45 +1100 To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Fri, 11 Feb 1994 15:46:14 EDT Subject: Re: I'll let you know when I get there... steve- `life's a beach, then you dive' morten From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Feb 11 15:44:21 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 11 Feb 1994 15:29:14 -0800 for socgrad-list Fri, 11 Feb 1994 15:29:10 -0800 for From: khaskin@merle.acns.nwu.edu Subject: black feminist thought To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Fri, 11 Feb 94 16:28:09 CST I would like to agree with Joya's response to Orlando Patterson. It has never made sense to me, this competing for who's discrimination is worse. And there is a lot of this competition going on: African American women v. African American men American Jews v. African Americans I could write a longer list, but you get the point. But what does it get us? Instead of trying to create a hierarchy of oppression, which only serves to divide oppressed groups, doesn't it make more sense to have a highly nuanced and complex discussion of the various forms and manifestations of oppression? I.e., African American women experience multiple jeapordy on account of particular sets of experiences (e.g., working as domestic help and being sexually assaulted by employers in such jobs), and African American men experience another type of multiple jeapordy (e.g., being portrayed as sexual predators, resulting in false accusations of assault on white women). Both of these are horrible and unjustifiable. It does not improve anything to argue about which is worse. -- ************************************************************************* Karen Haskin k-haskin@nwu.edu Department Of Sociology Northwestern University 1810 Chicago Avenue Evanston, IL 60208 From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Feb 11 15:44:36 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 11 Feb 1994 15:28:52 -0800 for socgrad-list Fri, 11 Feb 1994 15:28:47 -0800 for Date: Fri, 11 Feb 94 16:49:19 CST From: KLOSKY@VM1.NoDak.EDU Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computer Network Subject: ABC+ To: Socgrad list Alternative schoolings: First, I beleive there to be school in Orregon, or Washington called "ever-green?" Very non-specific about the place or the exact name. But, if you ask around you should be able to find someone with more knowledge than I. In terms of non-traditional schools, what about Monissori? I attended this style of schooling THROUGH the sixth grade, and never got anything close to a grade. Post - Modernism: Isn't life simply a set of reactions? I would say to someone dis-satisfied with the lack of debate: "Make a statement of your position on a topic instead of critiquing those who are TRYING to have a discussion." By the way, yesterday here in North Dakota the high was -7, the low: -29 SKEE From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Feb 11 17:07:58 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 11 Feb 1994 17:00:18 -0800 for socgrad-list Fri, 11 Feb 1994 17:00:15 -0800 for Date: Fri, 11 Feb 1994 19:55:04 -0500 (EST) From: "Daniel P. Walsh" Subject: Social research on naval ships, navies etc. To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU I would appreciate any information regarding sociological research concerned with naval personnel, regardless of country. This could take the form of surveys, ethnographic/participant observation research particularly of naval ship board life or shore installations, life-history interviews with naval veterans, etc. A fairly exhaustive survey of the literature turned up a few gems, i.e. Homan's article "The small fighting ship" reproduced in a number of sources. Other than this miniature classic, there is little else. I assume there must be some material; how to explain the surety of exposition of Charles Moskows at the Senate Armed Forces hearings early last year. Please send any information, abstracts, anecdotes, titles whatever to the e-mail address below. Thank you in advance for anything that turns up. Daniel Peter Walsh dpw7@columbia.edu From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Feb 11 17:31:16 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 11 Feb 1994 17:28:35 -0800 for socgrad-list Fri, 11 Feb 1994 17:28:31 -0800 for From: BREKHUS@zodiac.rutgers.edu Date: Fri, 11 Feb 1994 20:28:17 -0500 (EST) Subject: Double Jeopardy and Orlando Patterson. To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Both Joya and Karen have suggested that rather than create a hierarchy of oppression that it would make more sense to have a complex discussion of the various manifestations of oppression. I totally agree, but am I wrong to assume that this was the point behind Patterson's objection to the term "double jeopardy?" Of course, I didn't see his talk so I there may ne more to the story that I'm missing, but I thought his objection to the term "double jeopardy" was because it implies that black males only experience single jeopardy (as do white women). I think his argument would be that one can not simply add levels of oppression (i.e woman, black, homosexual, lower-class etc.) because things are more complex than this. There is an interaction effect to being young black and male for instance that negates most of the advantages of being male that white middle-class males experience. The term "double jeopardy" assumes a hierarchy of oppression, and while Patterson may have overstated his case by saying black men are more oppressed than black women, I think his basic argument that the term double jeopardy implies that African American men only face single jeopardy and thus aren't really that oppressed is valid. I think the term "multiple jeopardies" which Karen suggested in her last post is better because it does away with this image of linear oppressions stacked one on top of the other in an arithmetic manner. Anyhow, whether this is Patterson's argument or not, the term "double jeopardy" does imply the very hierarchy of oppressions that we should be rejecting as too simplistic a conception of oppression, and it does imply that one group's discrimination is worse than the others. Sorry about all the typos. Wayne Brekhus Rutgers University "Brekhus@zodiac.rutgers.edu" From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Feb 11 18:05:05 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 11 Feb 1994 18:03:08 -0800 for socgrad-list Fri, 11 Feb 1994 18:03:07 -0800 for To: BREKHUS@zodiac.rutgers.edu Subject: Re: Double Jeopardy and Orlando Patterson. <01H8RSBC7L1U8WZLRP@zodiac.rutgers.edu> Date: Fri, 11 Feb 1994 18:04:36 -0800 From: Michael Lichter I'm going to read the first couple of chapters of _Black Feminist Thought_ before responding in any depth, but I do want to make a quick comment. A few years ago, a colleague (who, being smarter than the rest of us, later dropped out and went to law school) tried to make the argument that the effects of race, gender, and class were multiplicative rather than additive. My question to her should have been: what is the dependent variable? What do race, gender, and class add or multiply up to? The term "double jeopardy" seems to me fatally flawed in describing anyone's life situation. First, it doesn't distinguish (for my former colleague) between addition and multiplication (we don't know if adding a class term gives us "triple jeopardy" or "8-times jeopardy"). Second, what is "jeopardy"? What are black women in twice as much jeopardy of as white women (the implicit comparison, I think)? Does it just apply to the grab bag of "bad things that happen to women", or something more? I'll wait on suggesting alternatives until later ... Michael P.S. If Patty or somebody else could summarize Patterson a little more fully, that might be valuable. My suspicion, based on the topic of the lecture, was that Patterson wasn't saying much more than "black men have it bad, too -- don't treat us like the enemy." From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Feb 11 18:39:01 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 11 Feb 1994 18:36:42 -0800 for socgrad-list Fri, 11 Feb 1994 18:36:37 -0800 for Date: Fri, 11 Feb 94 21:34 EST From: "This is really annoying" Subject: Re: ABC+ To: KLOSKY@VM1.NoDak.EDU My socgrad traffic has slowed down the last couple of days and I don't recall seeing a couple of topics picked up in mid-thread. Whatever, I do know that Evergreen College is in Washington State. It's located in.... unusual name.... exit is right after... Well, can't remeber exacatly, but it is located about 10 miles north of Olympia, which if you are not familiar with the geography is roughly half way between Seattle and Portland (Oregon, not Maine, for you eastcoasters ;) No grades, and design your own studies. Jetaway Dave From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Feb 11 19:04:24 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 11 Feb 1994 19:02:34 -0800 for socgrad-list Fri, 11 Feb 1994 19:02:31 -0800 for Date: Fri, 11 Feb 94 21:53:34 EST From: Joya Misra Organization: Emory University - Atlanta, Georgia, USA Subject: ???S ABOUT SUPPORT To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU I'm a little confused. Was that my imagination or was there a request NOT to forward that message? I feel a little uncomfortable having read something not meant for me, especially since I only realized it at the end of the message. Keeping that in mind, I'm unsure about talking about the substance of the message, but I'm confused there too. I think I must have missed something. Have people been arguing here that biology plays NO role in the construction of society? Thanks for your help in making sense of this puzzle...and now on to Picket Fences. Joya From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Feb 11 19:42:08 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 11 Feb 1994 19:38:17 -0800 for socgrad-list Fri, 11 Feb 1994 19:38:15 -0800 for Date: Fri, 11 Feb 94 22:30 EST To: socgrad From: PATTYO%IRISHMVS.CC.ND.EDU@UICVM.UIC.EDU Subject: Orlando Patterson's talk Wayne (I think) asked for more of a summary of Orlando Patterson's talk at Notre Dame entitled "The Crisis of Gender Relations in the African American Community." I will do my best to remember... Basically, Patterson was looking at the African American community and how this community has affected the relationships between men and women. He looked at working class community and middle calss (oops) class communities. In the working class community, Patterson suggests that some of the problems that lead to strain between men and women (all of this conversation will refer to African Americans) have a lot to do with socialization of children. He cited some sources from Psychological and Sociological literature to back his premises. Patterson suggests that one problem in the working class community is the relationship between fathers and sons. He says that this relationship is strained and often abusive, whereas the relationship between mothers and daughters is more friendly and compatible. He then talked about the relationship between mothers and sons, and how rap music, for instance, puts down that relationship, In the middle class community, the women are more educated, often than the men, and have the most liberal attitudes toward women's roles and places within society, while men have the most sexist attitudes toward women's roles. So, while women are striving for this liberal position, men are on the exact opposite side of the fence, so to speak. This, in turn leads to strain - in no marriage, stressed marriages, and divorces. I'm sure I am missing a lot of what Patterson talked about. But he also mentioned, at the end, that the institute of slavery in this country has greatly affected African American families and gender relations. He said that during slavery men were deprived of their two "most important roles" in society - father and husband; but, women were still allowed to be mothers. This history has had an impact on relations today. I had several problems with Patterson's talk. One important problem is that he talks of every parent-child relationship except that of father and daughter. If he is relating child abuse to negative relations between the genders, he cannot just ignore sexual abuse. He did mention that there are significant numbers of single-mother households, but did not pay as much attention to that as I thought was necessary. He also talked about working class sons turning away from their mothers and moving toward their fathers as allies, while at the same time saying that this relationship is antagonistic. I was wondering, is the father "ally" or "antagonist"? Of course, he may be both, but this wasn't clear. I do think that oppression and discrimination occurs differently for all individuals, and is not necessarily hierarchical. But I don't think we can so easily dismiss the "double" or "multiple" jeopardy notion of discrimination. I think that Patterson was suggesting that we cannot say that African American women have "twice" the jeopardy that African American men have. His reasoning, however, was not valid to me. You cannot point out different forms of discrimination and say that they are all the same. The discrimination that women often suffer is very subtle, as is the discrimination suffered by minorities, homosexuals, less abled, etc. While they may not "add" up, or "multiply together," there is something unique about the discrimination faced by members of more than one non- dominant group. I don't know if I'm making any sense here! Help me out... Patty O'Donnell pattyo@irishmvs.cc.nd.edu From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Feb 11 21:02:51 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 11 Feb 1994 21:00:42 -0800 for socgrad-list Fri, 11 Feb 1994 21:00:41 -0800 for Date: Sat, 12 Feb 94 00:00:17 EST From: eschaefe@bach.helios.nd.edu (elizabeth schaefer) To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: Orlando Patterson I guess, it's time to chime in on the Patterson discussion. Help me out here, Patty. I understood Patterson saying that we needed to look at the concept contextually. Rather than looking at the status of African American women in the larger society, we might want to look at their status within the African American community. Because the point of his lecture was to discuss gender relations within the African American community, I thought this distinction was helpful. In addition, I thought he painted a complex picture of "jeopardy." It seemed to be extemely qualitative, taking into account both historical and contemporary obstacles facing the African American relationship. I think he was suggesting we consider the high suicide/homocide rates among black men as a measure, perhaps, of something more telling than the socio-economic status of those African Americans who answer surveys or write feminist theory. It seemed he was suggesting that African American women have more social-psychological capital than African American men. Does this sound right to you? Beth From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Sat Feb 12 00:33:34 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Sat, 12 Feb 1994 00:32:42 -0800 for socgrad-list Sat, 12 Feb 1994 00:32:41 -0800 for From: BREKHUS@zodiac.rutgers.edu Date: Sat, 12 Feb 1994 03:32:31 -0500 (EST) Subject: multiple jeopardy To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU There's an article by Deborah King in the Autumn 1988 issue of SIGNS called "Multiple Jeopardy, Multiple Consciousness: The Context of a Black Feminist Ideology" that argues against the concept of double jeopardy and for a more complex understanding of multiple jeopardys. O.K. I know that's incredibly vague but I read the article a long time ago. At one point in the article King compares the incomes of White men, Black men, White women, and Black women. Not surprisingly black women have the lowest on average. What is interesting, however, is that black women with a college degree make more than white women with a college degree, while the gap between black men and white men remains relatively constant regardless of education level. So if we're talking about earning potential for college educated men and women, race does not carry the same jeopardy for women as it does for men. Of course black women still make less than black men but their race can hardly be considered a "second jeopardy" in this context, since they make slightly more than white women of the same educational level. King argues that the relative significance of race, sex, or class etc. is dependent on the socio-historical context and the social phenomenon being studied. I think her argument is relavent to Patterson's talk, because Patterson apparently was objecting to the idea that black men are only half as oppressed as black women. Because our present socio-cultural climate so demonizes young, inner-city, black males as "dangerous animals" (see previous postings about the NIMH) one could argue that there are contexts where the normally advantaged status of male can even be a "jeopardy." In terms of police brutality, for instance, I can envision the combination of being young, black, and male as deadlier than just about any other combination. There was a case here two years ago where a young, black, male was shot in the back of thehead and killed while fleeing the police. Had the victim been female, white, or even older I very much doubt a shot would have been fired. In this case the interaction of all three variables was probably far more significant than the additive effect of the variables. Moreover, given the context of a police chasebeing male was probably a 'jeopardy' rather than a privileged position (esp. when combined with the other two variables). King's basic argument is that one can't reduce oppression down to a math equation where (racism + sexism = black women's experience) (racism = black men's experience) and (sexism = white women's experience). The concept of 'double jeopardy' does this. Besides if you include age, class etc. most of us do come from positions of two or more jeopardies (unless we're very rich, middle-aged, healthy, white, heterosexual men). Perhaps, even though the concept is imperfect, it is still heuristically useful, but in defense of Patterson the term does have some problems (whoa, what a horribly constructed sentence. No wonder I'm taking a class on writing!) Incidentally, I should add that the black male mentioned above was unarmed and fleeing over being stopped for drinking in public (hardly an offence that would normally draw a chase with weapons drawn--hence the importance of his demographic composition). As a general statement it may be fair to say black men are on average better offthan black women, but to siplify the equation to say that black men only suffer from racism while black women suffer from both racism and sexism misses a great deal of the complexities involved. I think yhis may have been Patterson's point (especially given Beth's reading of the lecture). Sorry for all the rambling but it's hard to be coherent at this late time. Wayne Brekhus Rutgers University "Brekhus@zodiac.rutgers.edu" From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Sat Feb 12 07:09:59 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Sat, 12 Feb 1994 07:09:08 -0800 for socgrad-list Sat, 12 Feb 1994 07:09:07 -0800 for From: S-ENDER@bss1.umd.edu Sat, 12 Feb 94 10:06:28 +1100 To: "Daniel P. Walsh" , socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Sat, 12 Feb 1994 10:06:12 EDT Subject: Re: Social research on naval ships, navies etc. Date sent: Fri, 11 Feb 1994 19:55:04 -0500 (EST) From: "Daniel P. Walsh" Subject: Social research on naval ships, navies etc. To: socgrad@ucsd.edu I would appreciate any information regarding sociological research concerned with naval personnel, regardless of country. This could take the form of surveys, ethnographic/participant observation research particularly of naval ship board life or shore installations, life-history interviews with naval veterans, etc. A fairly exhaustive survey of the literature turned up a few gems, i.e. Homan's article "The small fighting ship" reproduced in a number of sources. Other than this miniature classic, there is little else. I assume there must be some material; how to explain the surety of exposition of Charles Moskows at the Senate Armed Forces hearings early last year. Please send any information, abstracts, anecdotes, titles whatever to the e-mail address below. Thank you in advance for anything that turns up. Daniel Peter Walsh dpw7@columbia.edu daniel, we do military sociology here at maryland--unfortunately the navy has little need for sociologists--you see cohesion amongst the masses produces mutiny--remember fletcher cristian? the homan's article is great, i would say it is probably the bases for developing exchange theory as we know it... ...sounds like you're interested in intergration of homosexuals into the armed forces...moskos wrote something in the wilson quarterly within the past two years...david segal here at maryland also spoke at the senate armed services hearings...his more sound sociological and cross national comparison of militaries was unfortunately not well received...also you might want to check the government documents literature...there tends to be some systematic applied in-house research reports archived which never make academic journals...i'm passing this on to a collegue up-to-date on the integration issue....i'd appreciate a copy of your bibliography when you've compiled it... references: hoiberg & ernst (1980) motherhood in the military: conflicting roles for navy women. _international j. of sociology of the family, 10, 265-280 hunter (1982) _families under the flag: a review of military family literature_ praeger goes back to vietnam and the pow/mia experience of navy wives. segal & sinaiko (1986) _life in the rank and file: enlisted men and women of the united states, australia, canada and the united kingdom_ pergamon-brassey's zurcher (1977) the naval reservist: an empirical assessment of ephemeral role assessment _social forces_, 35, 753-768 zurcher (1983) _social roles: conformity, conflict and creativity_ sage good luck, morten From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Sat Feb 12 11:18:54 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Sat, 12 Feb 1994 11:18:05 -0800 for socgrad-list Sat, 12 Feb 1994 11:18:03 -0800 for From: Ravinder Singh Subject: 2nd try To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Sat, 12 Feb 1994 14:17:31 -0500 (EST) okay folks...come on... maybe we were not so clear in our first posting. so, i guess we will be forced to do so now. ARE THERE ANY GRADUATE SOCIOLOGY DEPARTMENTS (out there) THAT DO NOT USE GRADES (i.e. a,b,c...)? and if there are...let us know about them. thank you for indulging us...don't ignore us because we are not discussing black feminist thought or radical pedagogy or... just lookin for some answers, ravinder and sven rsingh@garnet.acns.fsu.edu sejohnso@garnet.acns.fsu.edu From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Sat Feb 12 11:44:18 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Sat, 12 Feb 1994 11:43:26 -0800 for socgrad-list Sat, 12 Feb 1994 11:43:25 -0800 for From: S-ENDER@bss1.umd.edu Sat, 12 Feb 94 14:40:54 +1100 To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Sat, 12 Feb 1994 14:40:26 EDT Subject: feminist thought and 2nd try From: Ravinder Singh Subject: 2nd try To: socgrad@ucsd.edu Date sent: Sat, 12 Feb 1994 14:17:31 -0500 (EST) okay folks...come on... maybe we were not so clear in our first posting. so, i guess we will be forced to do so now. ARE THERE ANY GRADUATE SOCIOLOGY DEPARTMENTS (out there) THAT DO NOT USE GRADES (i.e. a,b,c...)? and if there are...let us know about them. thank you for indulging us...don't ignore us because we are not discussing black feminist thought or radical pedagogy or... just lookin for some answers, ravinder and sven rsingh@garnet.acns.fsu.edu sejohnso@garnet.acns.fsu.edu well since you two are speaking in capital letters (according to bill moyers in `overcoming masculine oppression in mixed groups'--men often speak to women in capital letters)...i think the university of california, santa cruz gives evaluations rather than grades...why don't you check some underground `colleges and graduate schools of the united states' in your local library... morten `e-mail's better than cigerette' ender From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Sat Feb 12 14:13:21 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Sat, 12 Feb 1994 14:12:19 -0800 for socgrad-list Sat, 12 Feb 1994 14:12:14 -0800 for Date: Sat, 12 Feb 94 17:11 EST From: PATTYO%IRISHMVS.CC.ND.EDU@UICVM.UIC.EDU To: socgrad Subject: (Copy) SASH-3 sneak preview I thought this might be of interest to members of the list. Patty O'Donnell pattyo@irishmvs.cc.nd.edu ---------------------------- Text of forwarded message ----------------------- Date: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 23:38:23 MST From: Phoebe Subject: SASH-3 sneak preview THE THIRD ANNUAL CONFERENCE SASH--SOCIOLOGISTS AGAINST SEXUAL HARASSMENT THE BILTMORE HOTEL, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 7:00am--7:00pm AUGUST 6, 1994 "SEXUAL HARASSMENT, LAW, AND THE POLICY PROBLEM" Pre-registration: Day Pass only $5.00 Complete Program Packet (includes pass) $10.00 On-site registration: Day pass only $8.00 Complete Program Packet (includes pass) $20.00 PRELIMINARY SCHEDULE: session: 7:00--8:00am Meeting: "SASH Coffee and Registration" Organzers: Phoebe Stambaugh, 1994 James E. Gruber, 1995 Liliane Floge, 1993 Kimberly J. Cook, 1992 session: 8:00--9:45 Panel 1: "Sexual Harassment: A Focus on Law and Policy" Presider: Jackie Eller, Sociology MTSU session: 10:00-11:45 Panel 2: "Sexual Harassment Research: Contemporary Issues, Recent Findings, and Current Problems" Presider: Kimberly J. Cook, Sociology, Univ. New Hampshire. session: 12:00-1:45 Event: "Sexual Harassment, Law, and Latin American Women" Speaker: Gladys Acosta Vargas The Latin American Institute for Legal Alternatives Translators:Richard Dell Buono, Sociology, Rosary College Marjorie Zatz, Justice Studies, ASU session: 2:00--3:45 R.table 1: "Contingent Workers, Structural Vulnerability, and Sexual Harassment" Moderator: Robert Parker, Sociology, Univ. Nevada R.table 2: "Why Do the Few Speak for So Many? Issues of Consent, Confidentiality, and Representation for Researchers of the Sexually Harassed Moderator: Brenda Seals, Center for Disease Control R.table 3: "Sexual Harassment, Victim Advocacy and Higher Education--A Discussion Among Victim Advocates" Moderator: Susan Hippensteele, Victim's Advocate, Univ. of Hawai'i, Manoa. session: 4:00--5:45 Workshop 1: "How To Do Sexual Harassment Training for Faculty, Staff and Students: A Comprehensive Model" Facilitators: Vicky Foxworth and Deborah Gerrity, The Office of Human Relations Program, Univ. of Maryland session: 6:00--7:45 Workshop 2: "Straight Talk--A Male Guide to Understanding the Issue of Sexual Harassment" Facilitator: Floyd Weatherspoon, Law and Graduate Center, Capital University MEETING ANNOUNCEMENT (PLEASE POST) __________________________________________________________________ THE 3RD ANNUAL DAY CONFERENCE SASH-SOCIOLOGISTS AGAINST SEXUAL HARASSMENT SATURDAY, AUGUST 6, 1994 BILTMORE HOTEL, LOS ANGELES THEME: "SEXUAL HARASSMENT, LAW, AND THE POLICY PROBLEM" FOR INFORMATION/PRE-REGISTRATION CONTACT: PHOEBE STAMBAUGH AZPXS@ASUACAD.BITNET PHN: (602) 965-0217 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Sat Feb 12 14:49:09 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Sat, 12 Feb 1994 14:48:17 -0800 for socgrad-list Sat, 12 Feb 1994 14:48:16 -0800 for Date: Sat, 12 Feb 1994 17:42:31 -0400 (EST) From: "Stephen Bayer (GD 1997)" Subject: Re: genetics and deviance To: S-SCHUBERT@bss1.umd.edu content-length: 945 Just to throw my two cents in re: the subject of the politics of "objective" biological research on "undesirable" traits, "deviance", etc. The search for a genetic basis to homosexuality is not so benign and progressive as some would like to think. The politically correct party line is that social justice would somehow magically flower from the discovery that these poor, pathetic fags just somehow can't help it because they were just born this way. Ridiculous - such biological claptrap didn't save 6 million Jews from the gas chambers just because "they were born that way" according to Nazi propaganda and ideology. To base all our political hopes on the research being done under the auspices of the CANCER division of the National Institutes of Health (figure out the symbolic implications of that one yourselves) is foolish and dangerously naive. Like I said, two cents...well, maybe two and a half... Cheers, Stephen From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Sat Feb 12 16:26:23 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Sat, 12 Feb 1994 16:25:23 -0800 for socgrad-list Sat, 12 Feb 1994 16:25:21 -0800 for From: S-JHERMSEN@bss1.umd.edu Sat, 12 Feb 94 19:22:51 +1100 To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Sat, 12 Feb 1994 19:22:31 EDT Subject: black feminist thought Are we going to discuss Hill-Collins? In casual conversations when this work comes up I find that I don't see the book as outstanding as others do. So, I'd like to hear what some of you have to say about the book. I'm game to start discussing end of the week. Joan Hermsen s-jhermsen@bss1.umd.edu From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Sat Feb 12 16:44:21 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Sat, 12 Feb 1994 16:43:28 -0800 for socgrad-list Sat, 12 Feb 1994 16:43:27 -0800 for Date: Sat, 12 Feb 94 19:42 EST From: "This is really annoying" Subject: Re: 2nd try To: rsingh@garnet.acns.fsu.edu -- Sat, 12 Feb 1994 14:17:31 -0500 (EST) I don't know about all graduate schools, but ... The sociology department at Penn State _does_ use the A - B - C grading system Now whether the grade received reflects efforts, politics, or norms is a whole 'nother question. Jetaway Dave From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Sun Feb 13 12:17:54 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Sun, 13 Feb 1994 12:16:32 -0800 for socgrad-list Sun, 13 Feb 1994 12:16:30 -0800 for Subject: Why don't we ... To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Sun, 13 Feb 1994 15:16:28 -0500 (EST) From: Michael P Biggs ... search for a genetic basis for heterosexuality? ... examine the position of whites in American society? ... research the social status of men in early modern Europe? Just a thought (re: genetics and deviance). Michael (biggs@isr) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 'Significance tests ... are not legitimately used for any purpose other than that of assessing the sampling error of a statistic designed to describe a particular basis of a probability sample.' (Morrison & Henkel, 'Significance Tests Reconsidered,' 1969) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Sun Feb 13 17:51:37 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Sun, 13 Feb 1994 17:50:32 -0800 for socgrad-list Sun, 13 Feb 1994 17:50:30 -0800 for Date: Sun, 13 Feb 94 19:48:24 CST From: KLOSKY@VM1.NoDak.EDU Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computer Network Subject: SNL: Canteen Boy To: Socgrad list Did anyone else see the skit on SNL last night titled "Canteen Boy?" It definitly deserves comments. SKEE From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Feb 14 06:14:11 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 14 Feb 1994 06:12:30 -0800 for socgrad-list Mon, 14 Feb 1994 06:12:28 -0800 for Date: Mon, 14 Feb 1994 08:00:29 -0600 (CST) From: "Laura L. Fertwagner" Subject: Re: SNL: Canteen Boy To: KLOSKY@VM1.NoDak.EDU On Sun, 13 Feb 1994 KLOSKY@VM1.NoDak.EDU wrote: > Did anyone else see the skit on SNL last night titled "Canteen Boy?" > > It definitly deserves comments. > > SKEE Ok I'll bite... I did see the skit, and to be honest, was repulsed. For those of you who didn't see it, it portrayed a boyscout (canteen boy) whose den (are boyscouts in dens?) leader was sexually molesting him. I was not sure of the point of the skit. I don't know at whom/what SNL was poking fun. I usually find SNL to be great fun, and have a rather warped sense of humor myself... but this particular skit went too far for me. Before the conversation takes a turn toward restricting free speech or I end up categorized with the religious right... THAT IS NOT MY POINT. I am not saying that they had no right to air the piece. I AM saying that I missed the point (anyone know what it was????) and PERSONALLY found it to be repulsive. Sexual abuse is not funny, and I don't believe that this was an anti-abuse skit--I think SNL was pushing the limits (as they do so well), and they pushed too far for my taste. Anyway, that's my deux centimes... Laura From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Feb 14 06:29:23 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 14 Feb 1994 06:27:51 -0800 for socgrad-list Mon, 14 Feb 1994 06:27:46 -0800 for Date: Mon, 14 Feb 94 09:00:53 EST From: Joya Misra Organization: Emory University - Atlanta, Georgia, USA Subject: VALENTINES GREETS To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU Yea, yea, I know, the commercialization of romance...and yet, I still wish you all love. As the Beatles say, love is all there is. For those who can stomach the sugar, here's something written to a friend I met in Europe while travelling many years ago... joya You are alive your heart beating somewhere within these four walls of atmosphere we call home and I am tied to the beating of your heart as if your heart beats for mine I dream of fleeting moments in which our souls follow steep hills to the morning markets by the clear lake there in Lugano moments in which we wake and sleep together smiling our secret across mountains and seas you are alive am I not also alive freed by the knowledge of my dreams. From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Feb 14 08:06:01 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 14 Feb 1994 08:04:40 -0800 for socgrad-list Mon, 14 Feb 1994 08:04:38 -0800 for From: S-ENDER@bss1.umd.edu Mon, 14 Feb 94 11:01:44 +1100 To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Mon, 14 Feb 1994 11:01:18 EDT Subject: Re: QUOTES for Today 02/14/94 Valentines Day (Resend) --from somewhere else "Love stinks" ----J. Geils Band "Love is word invented by poets and authors to sell $1.95 paperback novels." (Make it $3.95 for today's inflation.) -----DeEtta L. Culbertson 1980 (deetta@tenet.edu) "Love does not begin and end the way we seem to think it does. Love is a battle, love is a war; love is growing up." -----James Baldwin "I never loved another person the way I loved myself." -----Mae West "The head never rules the heart, but just becomes its partner in crime." -----Mignon McLaughlin "Love is a many-splinterd thing." -----R. Buckminster Fuller "The art of love ....is largely the art of persistence." -----Dr. Albert Ellis "The heart has its reasons which reason does not understand." -----Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) "The story of love is hello and good-by...until we meet again." -----Jimi Hendrix "Love is the delightful interval between meeting a beautiful girl and discovering that she looks like a haddock." -----John Barrymore (1882-1942) "When turkeys mate they think of swans." -----Johnny Carson "Love means never having to say you're sorry." -----Ryan O'Neal quoting Ali MacGraw in the movie "Love Story" "That's the dumbest thing I ever heard...." -----Ryan O'neal to Barbara Streisand regarding the previous quote in the 1972 movie "What's Up Doc?" "Love means knowing when, how often and how sincerely to say you're sorry...don't give me any trite lines from the movies." -----Cindy Barbo Greenwood to Glenn Greenwood 1977 during their first year of marriage "Love is what you've been through with somebody." -----James Thurber (1894-1961) "Love is the only game that is not called on account of darkness." -----M. Hirschfield "In a great romance, each person basically plays a part that the other really likes." -----Elizabeth Ashley "Someday we'll look back on this moment and plow into a parked car." -----Evan Davis "Trust your husband, adore your husband, and get as much as you can in your own name." -----Advice to Joan Rivers from her mother From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Feb 14 08:26:01 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 14 Feb 1994 08:23:24 -0800 for socgrad-list Mon, 14 Feb 1994 08:23:21 -0800 for Date: Mon, 14 Feb 94 10:16:46 CST From: KLOSKY@VM1.NoDak.EDU Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computer Network Subject: Canteen Boy To: Socgrad list Laura, While I agree with you that the skit pushed the limits too far, in an attempt (I think) to produce shock. Their goal I believe was to get people to watch them next week to see what crazy thing they will do. But, on the issue of abuse: Where do we see a protrail of abusive situations in the media that is both accurate, and non-offensive? SKEE -- ND is getting above 30 today, for the first time in over 3 months! Spring must be on the way. From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Feb 14 08:53:15 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 14 Feb 1994 08:48:00 -0800 for socgrad-list Mon, 14 Feb 1994 08:47:58 -0800 for From: S-SCHUBERT@bss1.umd.edu Mon, 14 Feb 94 11:45:21 +1100 To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Mon, 14 Feb 1994 11:44:55 EDT Subject: evolve this... socgradders, i would like to make two parsimonious points: 1. when we take the biological METAPHOR to its logical conclusion, society dies. 2. apparently, that we evolved up "from little snails" is not necessarily an accepted FACT. it seems quite a few local school districts (i know of a few in california) are pushing to teach adam & eve and those folks alongside of evolutionism. yours, "the once and still other" dan From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Feb 14 09:07:11 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 14 Feb 1994 09:01:23 -0800 for socgrad-list Mon, 14 Feb 1994 09:01:20 -0800 for VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with RFC822 id 0336; Mon, Date: 14 Feb 1994 10:04:20 CST From: To: Subject: SNL skit The really important thing is what does the CAT think of the skit? Dave From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Feb 14 09:24:00 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 14 Feb 1994 09:15:43 -0800 for socgrad-list Mon, 14 Feb 1994 09:15:35 -0800 for Date: Mon, 14 Feb 1994 09:15:25 -0800 (PST) From: Robert Duniway Subject: Re: ABC+ To: KLOSKY@VM1.NoDak.EDU On Fri, 11 Feb 1994 KLOSKY@VM1.NoDak.EDU wrote: > Alternative schoolings: First, I beleive there to be school in Orregon, > or Washington called "ever-green?" Very non-specific about the place or > the exact name. But, if you ask around you should be able to find someone > with more knowledge than I. My sister graduate from Evergreen State College (actually I think they're technically a University now). They program is unique in two respects. First, they do not have grades, but rather written evaluations which are typically three pages long, and which contain discussion of the student's strengths and weaknesses and the quality of the work done in the course. To make these evaluations possible there is a limited student:faculty ratio of something like 20:1. The second unique part of the Evergreen program is the emphasis on integrated curriculum programs. For at least the first couple of years students don't register for individual courses, but select programs organized around a theme. As I understand it, the programs involve four faculty members, from four different disciplines, all addressing the same topic. An example might be, "From Rags to Riches," a progam on economic mobility. The faculty might include an economist or sociologist discussing stratification, a political scientist discussing the relationship between economic philosophies (individualist capitalism vs. various forms of collectivism vs. feudalism vs. etc.), a social worker discussing the realities of poverty, and a theologian discussing the role of religion in regulating economic aspirations. Rather than taking a math course in a vacuum, students might learn calculus as part of program on the world environment, and would see how what they were learning was essential for developing models of weather systems, or they might apply it to astronomy in a program on heavenly bodies. By the way, although they do not have grades, they do have a satisfactory/ no credit cut off. Something like a third of the students seem to confuse no grades with no required work, and these students usually drop out very quickly. If anyone would like to know more, send me email and I'll tell you anything I know. Bob Duniway - University of Washington From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Feb 14 09:25:15 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 14 Feb 1994 09:18:33 -0800 for socgrad-list Mon, 14 Feb 1994 09:18:30 -0800 for Date: Mon, 14 Feb 1994 11:12:52 -0600 (CST) From: "Laura L. Fertwagner" Subject: Re: Canteen Boy To: KLOSKY@VM1.NoDak.EDU On Mon, 14 Feb 1994 KLOSKY@VM1.NoDak.EDU wrote: > Laura, > > While I agree with you that the skit pushed the limits too far, in an > attempt (I think) to produce shock. Their goal I believe was to get > people to watch them next week to see what crazy thing they will do. > > But, on the issue of abuse: Where do we see a protrail of abusive situations > in the media that is both accurate, and non-offensive? > > SKEE -- ND is getting above 30 today, for the first time in over 3 months! > Spring must be on the way. BUT WHAT WAS THE POINT????????? As for media portrayals of abusive situations (accurate or otherwise), they are bountiful. Some examples: almost any talk show (Oprah did a series--I believe last year), the Menendez trial, a plethora of made-for-TV movies, etc., etc., etc... Laura From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Feb 14 10:12:41 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 14 Feb 1994 09:57:28 -0800 for socgrad-list Mon, 14 Feb 1994 09:57:22 -0800 for Date: Mon, 14 Feb 1994 09:57:11 -0800 (PST) From: Robert Duniway Subject: Re: evolve this... To: S-SCHUBERT@bss1.umd.edu On Mon, 14 Feb 1994 S-SCHUBERT@bss1.umd.edu wrote: > socgradders, > > i would like to make two parsimonious points: > > 1. when we take the biological METAPHOR to its logical > conclusion, society dies. > 2. apparently, that we evolved up "from little snails" is not > necessarily an accepted FACT. it seems quite a few local school > districts (i know of a few in california) are pushing to teach adam > & eve and those folks alongside of evolutionism. > Hmmm... too parsimonious for a born complicator like me. Let me try to muddy the water a bit. 1. The social sciences are ultimately interested in patterns (or the abscence of patterns) of human activity. 2. One undeniable factor in the existence of some regularity in human activity is that we are all biologically human. E.g. - We use language because are brains are adapted to use language. 3. Another undeniable factor in shaping human activity is that we must all respond to the environment, both physical and social, in ways that are sufficiently adaptive for us to survive. E.g. - We use language to help get our physical needs met. We cooperate. We use clothing, build shelters, and convert potential energy into heat to maintain our own body temperatures. 4. Both biological and learned behavior is very complex. 5. Refusing to look at the role of either source of behavior because of concern over the possible consequences is analogous to refusing to use language because sometimes people use words destructively. The end should be both to make the tools of greater understanding available, and to use those same tools constructively in combating hate. As for the specific issues of a genetic tendency toward deviance and a genetic predisposition toward homosexuality, such thinking should not be treated as taboo. If there are in fact inherited behavioral tendencies (it does seem likely in the case of homosexuality, and certainly doesn't seem impossible in the case of violent aggression) it is better to know about the genetic mechanism and how it functions than to remain ignorant. The debate over whether or not "homosexuality" should be viewed as a disease or simply as a difference is the legitimate domain of social philosophy, and many sociologists are well trained and capable participants in this type of debate. Similarly, if it turns out that there is a risk factor for violont crime which can be identified genetically, the question of how to deal with people who are more at risk of committing such crimes is not purely biological. However, knowing that such a risk exists (if it does) would allow resources to be directed toward helping such individuals avoid problems could seriously reduce the quality of their own lives and the lives of others. If you were married to someone with a geneticly innate short fuse, wouldn't you prefer it if they had been identified and provided with resources that allowed them to deal with their tendency to blow up in a non-destructive manner? Refusing to consider research into the existence of a genetic component to violent behavior would not make you any safer, and might make you less safe. Please do not conclude from my comments that I am denying the importance of environments/social factors. I am simply arguing against what I take to be the position of some of the posts on this list, namely that research into genetic factors influencing behavior should be opposed on political/ philosophical grounds. I am not a sociobiologist, but I think we should never rule out information on the grounds that it might be misused. Bob Duniway - University of Washington From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Feb 14 10:13:42 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 14 Feb 1994 09:59:47 -0800 for socgrad-list Mon, 14 Feb 1994 09:59:38 -0800 for From: S-ENDER@bss1.umd.edu Mon, 14 Feb 94 12:56:59 +1100 To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Mon, 14 Feb 1994 12:56:29 EDT Subject: Re: Canteen Boy its sweeps week on television...its obviously working... morten `prefers-the-spanish-channel-but-no-habla-es-spanol' ender From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Feb 14 11:50:58 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 14 Feb 1994 11:41:30 -0800 for socgrad-list Mon, 14 Feb 1994 11:41:22 -0800 for To: KLOSKY@VM1.NoDak.EDU Subject: SNL: Canteen Boy Date: Sun, 13 Feb 94 18:39:40 -0800 From: neese@nevada.edu Sorry for the delay in forwarding, my mail gets backed up sometimes. SKEE -- ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- Hi Skee - Yes, I saw the Canteen Boy skit on SNL last night. Pretty progressive, eh? I couldn't believe they actually did that on TV, late night or not. I would have loved to be a fly on the wall when they were rehearsing. Quite contro- versial ... I love it. Perhaps they're trying to rival the famous Seinfeld "Masturbation" episode for shock value. What did you think? Denise Dalaimo From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Feb 14 11:51:34 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 14 Feb 1994 11:40:12 -0800 for socgrad-list Mon, 14 Feb 1994 11:40:08 -0800 for Date: Mon, 14 Feb 94 13:35:02 CST From: KLOSKY@VM1.NoDak.EDU Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computer Network Subject: SNL To: Socgrad list Laura, I would have to agree with Morten. They did it to get the ratings. Shock value as Denise has labeled it. On abusive protrails: Of the ones you mention, do you think that TV movies actually protray any sense of reality. They usually show the abuser being caught, and charged, and jailed. Rarely do they leave lose ends, or unresolved issues. Victims recover. Life is happy again. As for the trials, the media is terribly biased. Also, it seems that abuse is becoming more of a defense than it is a crime. SKEE "the snow is melting!!!" From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Feb 14 11:52:13 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 14 Feb 1994 11:44:10 -0800 for socgrad-list Mon, 14 Feb 1994 11:42:04 -0800 for From: jflint@kean.ucs.mun.ca (5.65d3+/IDA-1.4.2+MUN1.3 for socgrad@ucsd.edu); Mon, 14 Feb 94 16:15:09 -0330 -0230 Date: Mon, 14 Feb 1994 16:10:50 -0230 To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: re:re: ABC+ I think the question was if anybody knew of a graduate program in sociology which was ungraded. I think lots of undergraduate programs are ungraded. It didn't sound like you were describing a graduate program at Evergreen. -David From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Feb 14 14:17:30 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 14 Feb 1994 14:03:49 -0800 for socgrad-list Mon, 14 Feb 1994 14:03:45 -0800 for From: blovitts@nsf.gov To: Socgrad list , KLOSKY@vm1.nodak.edu Subject: Re: Canteen Boy Date: 14 Feb 94 13:10 EST Where they intending to shock or do they simply not get it??? A few weeks ago we had an incident here at NSF where a program director in Engineering "accidentally" forwarded a 3 page long pornographic story built on mathematical puns about the rape of Polly Nomial to the Executive Committee. The story entitled, "impure mathematix" told "how that polygon of womanly virture (our heroine) is acccosted by that notorius villian Curli Pi, and factored (oh horrors!)." It contains such lines as "Quite suddenly two branches of hyperbola touched her at a single point. She oscillated violently ..." and "Hearing a common fraction behind her, Polly rotated and saw Curli Pi approaching with his power series extrapolated." The person who sent it claimed that he inadvertently forwarded while trying to delete it. (Any computer literate person knows that that's not possible.) More likely he was trying to forward it to the ECS (an all male division in Engineering) and sent it to EC instead. To make a long story short, it got sent around to quite a few women at NSF who were outraged and the incident even resulted in a story on the Federal Page in the Washington Post. The offending program officer offered a weak apology over email for having "accidently" forwarded it. He never explained what it was doing on email (which is for "Offical Business Only") in the first place. Of more concern, is that he didn't apologize for its sexist content and appears not to understand why women were so offended by it. HE SIMPLY DID NOT GET IT. I can't claim that I saw Canteen Boy, but it strikes me as though it falls into a simlar category. Epilogue of the NSF story: No one knows whether the program director was reprimanded or go a pat on the back. Everyone at NSF did, however, get a memo informing them in very bureaucratic terms about the appropriate use of email a few weeks later, although a I doubt that many people made a connection between the two events. Had the story been racist, I expect there would have been a much bigger bruhaha. Boys will be boys, after all... Barbara From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Feb 14 14:23:42 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 14 Feb 1994 14:09:17 -0800 for socgrad-list Mon, 14 Feb 1994 14:09:10 -0800 for Date: Mon, 14 Feb 94 17:03:34 EST From: Steve Harvey Subject: re: evolve this To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU General systems theory. Bertalanffy, James G. Miller, Boulding. Pretty parsimonious, eh? Steve "NMI (in the name of parsimony)" Harvey here. From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Feb 14 15:21:03 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 14 Feb 1994 15:10:10 -0800 for socgrad-list Mon, 14 Feb 1994 15:10:00 -0800 for From: blovitts@nsf.gov To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: Al Gore on the Social Sciences Date: 14 Feb 94 16:40 EST Socgraders -- Thought you might be interested in the following excerpt from remarks Gore delivered to the Forum on Science in the National Interest at the Academy of Science on February 1: We are also seeing fruits from our basic research in social sciences. In discussions like these, the social science are sometimes slighted [SOMETIMES ??? - editorial remark from yours truly]; including research on one of the most serious problems facing our nations, criminal and violent behavior. How should be respond? We are learning how often violence spread because individuals are influenced by social networkks [he seems more enlightened than the folks at NIH -- he needs to talk with Barbara Mikulski -- editorial comment]; too often social programs focus on the individual rather than larger framing units within which the individual operates [go for it Al ...bad news for psychology... sure like to know who on your staff wrote this -- editorial comment]; that neighborhood instability interacts with poverty; and how a small percentage of "career criminals" are responsible for a high percentage of the crimes committed. It was social sciences who [sic, should be that] created the inshight that 6 percent of criminals produce 70 percent of crime. I don't have to give you statistics to prove that we have to do more basic, sicentific research on the causes and correlations of crime and violence. [again, talk to Barbara Mikulski, she controls the research budgets at NSF and NIH ...] From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Feb 14 16:53:37 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 14 Feb 1994 16:41:51 -0800 for socgrad-list Mon, 14 Feb 1994 16:41:47 -0800 for From: BREKHUS@zodiac.rutgers.edu Date: Mon, 14 Feb 1994 19:23:56 -0500 (EST) Subject: homosexual genes? and deviance genes? To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Some comments regarding the debate over Biology. Bob Duniway argues that we shouldn't oppose research on the genetice factors influencing behavior on political grounds. Suppose someone proposed to test Jewish males to see if their was a genetic component to hoarding and investing money? Could we not reject that research on political or philosophical grounds? How does the NIMH research differ from this? Second, I think the NIMH study and most of the "homosexuals are born that way" studies can be rejected on a more fundamental basis. It appears to me that these studies are normatively committed to finding a biological basis. They are pre-disposed to find what they are looking for. Neither appears to be willing to test alternative hypotheses; they will simply look for evidence to support a biological component until they find some. Evidence which does not support their conclusions will be discraded. Thus, if the NIMH were to find 20,000 things that show no support for a genetic component to deviance and 4 things which do, they will publish their 4 findings and discard 20,000 non-findings. I think we would be suspicious of much of the biological researchdone in Nazi Germany because we know the researchers were pre-disposed to find anatomical differences between Jews and Aryans. Even though present research ismore benign, we should be equally suspicious when it appears that their pre-dispositions and political agendas are also guiding their research. Third, the studies I've seen on a genetic component to deviance are bad because they use "agression" as a proxy for deviance. Nor are there control samples of upper-class males or middle-class males in these studies. I suspect that most corporate executives and political leaders would score high on assertiveness and agression yet we don't study them. In any rate, since aggressive behavioris often socially valued in a capitalist society, measuring it may actually be measuring conformity rather than deviance, or propensity to survive in a capitalist society rather than something that is maladaptive. These studies shouldn't be allowed to claim they're studying deviance or crime when what they're really studying is aggression. Fourth, for a critique of the biological studies on homosexuality check out an article "Born Gay?" by Darrel Yates Rist in the October, 19 1992 edition of The Nation magazine. Incidentally, I had a friend who would only have sex with men with long hair. She simply was not attracted to men with shorter hair (or women). One could say she had a sexual orientation for men with long hair. Would anyone argue that this was genetic? How bout men who will only sleep with thin women? People who prefer redheads to blondes? I just don't see how our genes can tell us who were going to want to have sex with 20 or 30 or 40 years after were born. I realize my 3rd and 4th points aren't directly related to Bob Duniways point since he was only talking about whether or not these things should be studied and not the adequacy of past studies in the area. But I wanted to bring them upanyways. There's my 2 cents on the Biology issue. Wayne Brekhus Brekhus@zodiac.rutgers.edu From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Feb 14 16:54:24 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 14 Feb 1994 16:46:03 -0800 for socgrad-list Mon, 14 Feb 1994 16:45:59 -0800 for From: BREKHUS@zodiac.rutgers.edu Date: Mon, 14 Feb 1994 19:45:26 -0500 (EST) Subject: point of clarification To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Just to make sure no one misinterprets my previous analogy, I am not implying that Jewish men are prone to saving or investing money. I am simply suggesting that we would rightfully be suspicious of a study that took that stereotype and then acted upon it to find a biological basis. Actually the proper analogy would be if they singled out only Jewish Bankers for a study (since the NIMH is also only studying a certain segment of black males who fit stereotypes). Imagine then if the study also compared these bankers to hyper-agressive squirrels who run around and hoard money like acorns.Remember The NIMH's comparison of black inner-city males to hyper-agressive monkeys?? I think we would rightfully be outraged at a study which seemed design to reconfirm stereotypes and to find a biological basis for the stereotypes. I think the outrage over the NIMH's study is equally justified. Sorry, for hogging space but I think the issue of science as a legitimating tool for racism is important and worthy of debate. Wayne Brekhus Rutgers University Brekhus@zodiac.rutgers.edu From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Feb 14 17:17:05 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 14 Feb 1994 17:03:52 -0800 for socgrad-list Mon, 14 Feb 1994 17:03:48 -0800 for Date: Mon, 14 Feb 94 19:09:18 EST From: Steve Harvey Subject: an expansion To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU Okay, so parsimony isn't my strong suit.... I think what Bob said, in terms of the interaction of biological and social factors in determining human behavior, is pretty much on target. I would like to perforate the boundary between the two influences a bit, though. Western philosophical and religious orientations (and, to a degree often ignored, non-Western orientations as well) have tended to place humans in an exulted position among natural phenomena. This is simply human arrogance: We cannot transcend nature; we are products of nature. The distinction between the "natural" and the "artificial" is..., ah, artificial. The more essential distinction which it tries to capture is that between sensitivity to delicate- ly balanced systems and insensitivity to delicately balanced systems. A natural disease, such as cholera, can be considered insensitive to the delicately balanced system of the human body. An artificial construct, such as a windmill, can be considered sensitive to the geological system from which it draws power. The popular distinction between human and natural phenomena is similarly arrogant (or, if you prefer, "speciescentric"). It is true that social phenomena is mind-bogglingly complex; it is not true that natural phenomena isn't (sometimes double negatives are unavoidable!). There are some few things in nature which can be understood as linear phenomena (that is, small in-puts have incremental and small impacts on the system dynamics). These are the phenomena that modern science has explored most thoroughly. The experimental method involves isolating certain variables and ignoring "complicating" variables (such as air resistance in Galileo's and Newton's expositions on physics). This is useful when a system can be understood through such a crude disaggregation of component variables. However, in MOST natural phenomena, including almost all of that portion of natural phenomena which falls to the subcategory of social phenomena, a profusion of feedback loops renders such disaggregation of component variables virtually meaningless. This is what the "chaos" paradigm addresses. By suspending the search for the crude order charateristic of a linear system (such as a clock), chaos theorists from physics, mathematics, biology, economics, meteorology, and from anywhere else they choose to hail, have begun to explore and express the subtler order of non-linearity. It is not that social systems are any less "systemic" than biological systems, which in turn are no less systemic than mechanical systems..., it is simply that these ascend a hierarchy of increasing non-linearity. The relation- ship between between social and biological is *similar* to the relationship between biological and chemical: The latter are the micro-level components of the former, but the former represent a systemic level qualitatively different from the latter. Social systems are comprised of biological creatures, but social systems are not biological systems. Biology is relevant to sociology in the way that (as I said) chemistry is relevant to biology, or subatomic physics is relevant to chemistry (one might wish to tuck psychology between biology and sociology). The biological *metaphor* is counterproductive because it expresses the social as though it were biological. Exploring biological *underpinnings* is productive (or can be) because it addresses the fact that the social is a system which has biological systems as its component parts. For the record, I don't believe (and I don't think the evidense supports) that biological differentiation explains much behavioral or cultural differentiation. On the fringes, perhaps (as with psychological disorders directly attributable to chemical imbalances). But, for the most part, the value of the biological is as an underlying constant. Biological variation among humans is minute (thus, we are a species), and the distribution of predispositions through that narrow range is probably fairly similar across cultures. Variation occurs, rather, through the complex interaction of the social system comprised of that biological constant, and the environment that that social system both encounters and creates. Steve "So-Much-For-Parsimony" Harvey harvey@uconnvm.uconn.edu From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Feb 14 18:23:50 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 14 Feb 1994 18:21:54 -0800 for socgrad-list Mon, 14 Feb 1994 18:21:52 -0800 for Date: Mon, 14 Feb 1994 20:05:31 -0600 (CST) From: "Laura L. Fertwagner" Subject: Re: SNL To: KLOSKY@VM1.NoDak.EDU On Mon, 14 Feb 1994 KLOSKY@VM1.NoDak.EDU wrote: > Laura, > I would have to agree with Morten. They did it to get the ratings. > Shock value as Denise has labeled it. > > On abusive protrails: Of the ones you mention, do you think that > TV movies actually protray any sense of reality. They usually show the > abuser being caught, and charged, and jailed. Rarely do they leave lose > ends, or unresolved issues. Victims recover. Life is happy again. > As for the trials, the media is terribly biased. Also, it seems that > abuse is becoming more of a defense than it is a crime. > > SKEE "the snow is melting!!!" I agree with morten, too. I also thought Dave's comment was great! Since no one has seems to be able to explain the point of the skit, I will assume that I am in very good company in that regard. :-^) As for the portrayal of abuse by the media, you ASKED for examples. I gave a few--off the top of my head-- and I believe that I said something, parenthetically, about inaccuracy... I am looking at the media for my thesis, so I am well aware of their biases/inaccuracies/propogandizing/etc. BTW, I don't usually watch made-for-TV-movies, so I don't know the story lines... Do they really all end with "happily ever after?" Hope you all have/had a happy Valentines day!!!! Laura From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Feb 15 02:42:30 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 15 Feb 1994 02:39:45 -0800 for socgrad-list Tue, 15 Feb 1994 02:39:43 -0800 for To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: Re: evolve this... Date: Tue, 15 Feb 1994 02:41:15 -0800 From: Michael Lichter Robert Duniway says: I am not a sociobiologist, but I think we should never rule out information on the grounds that it might be misused. Hopefully, I can clarify Robert's meaning by restating this as: "we should never prevent research on the basis that its conclusions might be misused." Parenthetically, I'd like to point out that this is about *knowledge*, not about *information*. Information is streams of numbers or scribbled notes on a piece of paper. Knowledge is information interpreted. Knowledge is what the Violence Initiative will produce. Knowledge is always for a purpose. It may be usable for other purposes, but for those other purposes it may be distorted and fragmentary. For example, it is possible that the knowledge gained by the CIA in its efforts at "nation building" in Vietnam and Guatemala may offer insights on the nature of people, nation, and state unavailable elsewhere -- but would you trust it for scholarly purposes? Getting back to the topic, if we shouldn't prevent research baesd on the uses of its conclusions, what about preventing research on the basis of its purposes? Would you try to prevent research designed to develop a virus (never to be used, of course) capable of killing all homosexuals? Would you try to prevent research to produce a drug (also never to be used) which turns women into Stepford Wives? Maybe you wouldn't. But if you would, does it matter what the *intent* of the research was, if it's clear the result would be the same? I do not agree with Robert that we should never try to prevent research from being conducted based on the uses of its conclusions. On the other hand, my opposition on the Violence Initiative is based not only on the uses of its conclusions but on the narrowness of its scientific vision, and on the soiled reputation of its chief investigator (talked about it other articles). This is a politically-inspired project unlikely to have significant value in understanding any social question that confronts us. This is also an expensive publicly funded project. Therefore, not only is it bad science, but it is a waste of *our* money. We can and should oppose it. By the way, I *do* believe that there is a link between genetics and behavioral tendencies. If exploring that link was really what this project was about, however, it would not be called the Violence Initiative, and it's chief would not be comparing inner-city youth to apes in the jungle. Michael P.S. My apologies to Robert if I have in any way distorted his position. From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Feb 15 06:01:43 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 15 Feb 1994 06:00:16 -0800 for socgrad-list Tue, 15 Feb 1994 06:00:13 -0800 for Date: Tue, 15 Feb 94 08:46:36 EST From: Steve Harvey Subject: one comment on Wayne's post To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU One of Wayne's contentions with the NIMH research is that it is predisposed to finding what it has hypothesized. How is that different from any other research project? If I have a theory, and I generate a hypothesis from that theory, and I set up a study to test that hypothesis, I am not testing ALL possibilities, but rather the possibility that I have hypothesized. The alternative is "data dredging," in which one runs a barrage of statistical manipulations on a data set, and whenever they get a significant finding, write it up. The problem is, without a theoretical underpinning, the "significant" finding is without substance. In my discussion of system levels, I forgot to mention a useful concept from the organization literature: looseness of coupling. That refers to how tightly or loosely system components are "coupled" (joined, linked, integrated). A clock is a tightly coupled system, with gears fitting closely together. A human body is a somewhat more loosely coupled system, with more slippage among parts. A social system is more loosely coupled yet. Steve Harvey From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Feb 15 11:06:30 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 15 Feb 1994 11:00:36 -0800 for socgrad-list Tue, 15 Feb 1994 11:00:00 -0800 for From: S-SCHUBERT@bss1.umd.edu Tue, 15 Feb 94 13:56:50 +1100 To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Tue, 15 Feb 1994 13:56:27 EDT Subject: Re: evolve this... > socgradders, > > i would like to make two parsimonious points: > > 1. when we take the biological METAPHOR to its logical > conclusion, society dies. > 2. apparently, that we evolved up "from little snails" is not > necessarily an accepted FACT. it seems quite a few local school > districts (i know of a few in california) are pushing to teach adam > & eve and those folks alongside of evolutionism. > Hmmm... too parsimonious for a born complicator like me. Let me try to muddy the water a bit. 1. The social sciences are ultimately interested in patterns (or the abscence of patterns) of human activity. --am i supposed to reply, even though neither of my points was addressed? an ideal speech community this ain't. anyway, here goes: stuff has been on socgrad many times before, but i'll say it again: the social sciences are interested in lots more than patterns (or the lack thereof) of human activity. they are also, for example, interested in meaning. 2. One undeniable factor in the existence of some regularity in human activity is that we are all biologically human. E.g. - We use language because are brains are adapted to use language. --well, if its "undeniable," i can hardly respond. but that's never stopped me before. what, exactly, does it mean to say that we are biologically human? is it possible that we could ever agree on just which factors are biological? isn't the search for some biological factors -- genetics, for example (more specifically, the criminal "gene") - - rather than others a social phenomenon? i'm caucasion, which would seem to be a biological given, at least until we understand that race (and racial categories) are socially constructed categories, rather than biological givens. that i stand 5'11' would seem to be a biological given, until we decide to measure my height in meters (or whatever the unit of measurement is that my fourth grade teacher guaranteed we'd be using by the time i graduated from high school). 3. Another undeniable factor in shaping human activity is that we must all respond to the environment, both physical and social, in ways that are sufficiently adaptive for us to survive. E.g. - We use language to help get our physical needs met. We cooperate. We use clothing, build shelters, and convert potential energy into heat to maintain our own body temperatures. --hey! there's that undeniable word again. what function does such an adjective serve, other than silencing opposition? 4. Both biological and learned behavior is very complex. please define biological behavior for me. it seems like an oxymoron to me. 5. Refusing to look at the role of either source of behavior because of concern over the possible consequences is analogous to refusing to use language because sometimes people use words destructively. The end should be both to make the tools of greater understanding available, and to use those same tools constructively in combating hate. As for the specific issues of a genetic tendency toward deviance and a genetic predisposition toward homosexuality, such thinking should not be treated as taboo. If there are in fact inherited behavioral tendencies (it does seem likely in the case of homosexuality, and certainly doesn't seem impossible in the case of violent aggression) it is better to know about the genetic mechanism and how it functions than to remain ignorant. The debate over whether or not "homosexuality" should be viewed as a disease or simply as a difference is the legitimate domain of social philosophy, and many sociologists are well trained and capable participants in this type of debate. Similarly, if it turns out that there is a risk factor for violont crime which can be identified genetically, the question of how to deal with people who are more at risk of committing such crimes is not purely biological. However, knowing that such a risk exists (if it does) would allow resources to be directed toward helping such individuals avoid problems could seriously reduce the quality of their own lives and the lives of others. If you were married to someone with a geneticly innate short fuse, wouldn't you prefer it if they had been identified and provided with resources that allowed them to deal with their tendency to blow up in a non-destructive manner? Refusing to consider research into the existence of a genetic component to violent behavior would not make you any safer, and might make you less safe. Please do not conclude from my comments that I am denying the importance of environments/social factors. I am simply arguing against what I take to be the position of some of the posts on this list, namely that research into genetic factors influencing behavior should be opposed on political/ philosophical grounds. I am not a sociobiologist, but I think we should never rule out information on the grounds that it might be misused. please define homosexuality and violence for me so that i'll be able to respond to your query. "the other" dan From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Feb 15 13:55:04 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 15 Feb 1994 13:52:26 -0800 for socgrad-list Tue, 15 Feb 1994 13:52:21 -0800 for Date: Tue, 15 Feb 94 16:39:39 EST From: eschaefe@bach.helios.nd.edu (elizabeth schaefer) To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: predisposed findings I think it's really important that we realize that our research is carried out within a specific context. It seems to me the best research not only tests the original hypothesis but goes on to test the alternatives. Only when alternative theories have been tested can we feel confident about our findings. It's our responsibility to formulate alternative models and to test those models in opposition to our own theories. The fear I have is that the NIMH researchers won't responsibly consider alternative models. Elizabeth From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Feb 15 14:32:37 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 15 Feb 1994 14:18:39 -0800 for socgrad-list Tue, 15 Feb 1994 14:18:36 -0800 for Date: Tue, 15 Feb 94 16:58:05 EST From: Steve Harvey Subject: quick response to Beth To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU But, even if one is so dilligent as to test alternative hypotheses (and even so extra-dilligent as to test alternative hypotheses generated by alternative theories...), the range within their research roams will still be constrained by their predispositions. I am not likely to devise a test of the possibility that the rise of supranationalism in Western Europe is a result of Swahili folk festivals, because I am not predisposed to consider that possibility. Less absurd examples abound. Furthermore, we are each limited by personal and institutional constraints. One is expected to publish, and to fulfil other responsibilities, and an unflagging commitment to exploring all possible nooks and crannies of all research questions that one addresses is unrealistic. If you look around, you see people pursuing their own interests and their own agendas, almost without fail. The saving grace is not in each researcher exploring the entire spectrum of possibilities on her/his own, but rather in the diversity of researchers with a diversity of predispositions each exploring a certain segment of that spectrum, and hopefully generating enough dialogue to divert people toward the underdeveloped frontiers. Steve "Seeking-a-Resonant-Frequency" Harvey harvey@uconnvm From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Feb 15 14:59:28 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 15 Feb 1994 14:51:14 -0800 for socgrad-list Tue, 15 Feb 1994 14:51:04 -0800 for Date: Tue, 15 Feb 94 17:21:58 EST From: Joya Misra Organization: Emory University - Atlanta, Georgia, USA Subject: GRAD PROGRAMS To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU I have some very bright students who are hoping to go into graduate programs in sociology. Two of my favorites have voiced a concern that they want to find programs that are interdisciplinary in nature, in that they want to be able to take classes with economists, political scientists, anthropologists, historicans, and yet still feel integrated into a department, receive mentoring, etc. I think I remember Karen talking about such a program -- is that right Karen? -- at Northwestern, and I'd like to hear more about any others so I can advise them. Or if you just feel that your department is relatively supportive to this kind of broad study and is a good place to be, I'd appreciate hearing. Thanks for your help. SOCAK663@EMUVM1.BITNET OR SOCAK663@EMUVM1.CC.EMORY.EDU ********************************************************************* Dept. of Sociology "I would have been your good friend, that's Emory University what I would have been..." Atlanta, GA 30322 --Violent Femmes From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Feb 15 15:00:58 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 15 Feb 1994 14:50:58 -0800 for socgrad-list Tue, 15 Feb 1994 14:50:56 -0800 for Date: Tue, 15 Feb 1994 17:44:23 -0400 (EST) From: "Stephen Bayer (GD 1997)" Subject: deviance and genetics To: S-SCHUBERT@bss1.umd.edu content-length: 758 The whole problem in searching for a genetic basis for homosexuality is to assume that there is some real, objective entity out there called "homosexuality" which is capable of being discovered and accurately measured. Is it fair, not to mention scientifically accurate, to place all persons in one sexual category based upon what they say (or may not say) what they "are". Why not, as one person suggested earlier, categorize people by what they "do", sexually - that is, have sex with men with short hair, etc. It's a hell of a lot more observable and quantifiable than the notion of sexual "identity". By the way, what do we do with bisexuals? Do they have only half a gay gene? More's the pity, some might say.... Just some more thoughts.... From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Feb 15 15:08:00 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 15 Feb 1994 15:06:03 -0800 for socgrad-list Tue, 15 Feb 1994 14:51:04 -0800 for Date: Tue, 15 Feb 94 17:21:58 EST From: Joya Misra Organization: Emory University - Atlanta, Georgia, USA Subject: GRAD PROGRAMS To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU I have some very bright students who are hoping to go into graduate programs in sociology. Two of my favorites have voiced a concern that they want to find programs that are interdisciplinary in nature, in that they want to be able to take classes with economists, political scientists, anthropologists, historicans, and yet still feel integrated into a department, receive mentoring, etc. I think I remember Karen talking about such a program -- is that right Karen? -- at Northwestern, and I'd like to hear more about any others so I can advise them. Or if you just feel that your department is relatively supportive to this kind of broad study and is a good place to be, I'd appreciate hearing. Thanks for your help. SOCAK663@EMUVM1.BITNET OR SOCAK663@EMUVM1.CC.EMORY.EDU ********************************************************************* Dept. of Sociology "I would have been your good friend, that's Emory University what I would have been..." Atlanta, GA 30322 --Violent Femmes From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Feb 15 15:16:09 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 15 Feb 1994 15:12:23 -0800 for socgrad-list Tue, 15 Feb 1994 15:12:21 -0800 for Date: Tue, 15 Feb 94 17:56:52 EST From: Joya Misra Organization: Emory University - Atlanta, Georgia, USA Subject: Quick response to Steve (& Elizabeth) To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU Well, I think that you're right in that we can't possible test ALL alternative hypotheses. Not just because we don't have the time/resources to pursue all others. Those hypotheses that we do devise, and those alternative hypotheses that we consider, are also all conditioned by our viewpoint...but then again I think the idea of value-free science is naive. While I agree that the diversity of researchers with all their preconditions exploring the spectrum of possibilities is KEY (of course this is KEY for me...I'm always going on about the whole point to what we're doing being ENGAGING with other researchers), I also want to point out (not that you are unware of this) that there is stratification in the ways in which researchers have access to resources, sometimes based on their preconditions. Doing certain kinds of work, working out of certain sets of assumptions, can affect how widely your work will be read. We can only hope... joya From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Feb 15 16:00:27 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 15 Feb 1994 15:55:53 -0800 for socgrad-list Tue, 15 Feb 1994 15:55:50 -0800 for From: aewaters@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu Date: Tue, 15 Feb 1994 15:36:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: evolve this... To: S-SCHUBERT@bss1.umd.edu Sociology has been borrowing the "evolutionary" paradigm from biology for years. But, what would the biological world look like if it were to borrow sociological paradigmes? E.g. what would the biological world look like if rather than using the gene pool as the unit of analysis, the interactive community was the unit of analysis? This would mean that humans would be more closely "related" to dogs with whom they interact than with chimpanzees with which they by and large do not interact with. Hmmm. Just a random thought from an old biology major. From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Feb 15 16:00:48 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 15 Feb 1994 15:56:27 -0800 for socgrad-list Tue, 15 Feb 1994 15:56:23 -0800 for From: S-ENDER@bss1.umd.edu Tue, 15 Feb 94 18:52:19 +1100 To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Tue, 15 Feb 1994 18:51:54 EDT Subject: graduate (declining) housing we've had four armed robberies in graduate housing in the past 10 days...the perptrators are getting bolder, they're robbing us in broad day light...in the past five years, sociology gradders alone have had: 2 cars stolen 2 stereos from cars stolen - one guy was caught hunkered down in the back seat of the car an attempted break-in a giggled door knob and i was involved with a breaking and enterer in the laundry room at night, eventually spent half a day in court... anybody having similar problems; any solutions? morten `walking home late every night clutching my books' ender From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Feb 15 16:39:38 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 15 Feb 1994 16:35:35 -0800 for socgrad-list Tue, 15 Feb 1994 16:35:33 -0800 for Date: Tue, 15 Feb 1994 19:36:40 -0500 To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU From: danryan@minerva.cis.yale.edu (Dan Ryan) Subject: Re: graduate (declining) housing content-length: 465 >we've had four armed robberies in graduate housing in the past 10 >days... Wow -- and this in COLD weather... >a giggled door knob a what? - ======= - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - == == == == == == == == ======== dan ryan == == yale university == == dept of sociology == == == box 208265 == == == new haven, ct 06520-8265 ==== == danryan@minerva.cis.yale.edu From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Feb 15 16:48:42 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 15 Feb 1994 16:46:04 -0800 for socgrad-list Tue, 15 Feb 1994 16:45:58 -0800 for From: jflint@kean.ucs.mun.ca (5.65d3+/IDA-1.4.2+MUN1.3 for socgrad@ucsd.edu); Tue, 15 Feb 94 21:19:55 -0330 -0230 Date: Tue, 15 Feb 1994 21:09:54 -0230 To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: getting a handle on humor Say Morten, How does one giggle a doorknob? I do remember a *frowning* doorknob from Alice and Wonderland but this is a new one on me. Well, even with a 20++% unemployment rate there's virtually no "blue- collar" crime up here - outside of booze and cigarette smuggling. Gotta do *something* with those unused fishing boats! David Flint Memorial U. of Newfoundland From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Feb 15 17:25:54 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 15 Feb 1994 17:18:31 -0800 for socgrad-list Tue, 15 Feb 1994 17:18:22 -0800 for From: BREKHUS@zodiac.rutgers.edu Date: Tue, 15 Feb 1994 20:15:21 -0500 (EST) Subject: pre-disposed findings To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Steve Harvey is right, of course, that most research is pre-disposed to find what it is looking for. However, the degree to which the researchers are willing to ignore or even suppress data that doesn't support what they want to find varies considerably. Some researchers will modify their hypothesis or even change it if after enough manipulation, massaging of data, and throwing out of "bad data" at their discretion, they still can't match the data to what they're committed to finding. My argument is that the NIMH and many of the "gay gene" folks won't do this. They will manipulate the data until it fits, no matter how much it becomes clear that it doesn't fit that well. To say that all research is motivated to find what it is lookingfor should not preclude us from being suspicious of research that appears TOO motivated to only find a pre-determined conclusion. Second, I agree with Steve Harvey that we can't test every rival hypothesis. If we did we would never get any research done. However, I don't think its unreasonable to test one or two of the "more plausible" rival hypotheses. Perhaps, I gave the wrong impression by using the hypothetical case of the NIMH considering 4 findings significant out of 20,000 and discrading the rest. I did not mean to imply that the NIMH should test 20,000 hypotheses, only that if they cranked out 20,000 computer tests and found 4 that were significant theywould report the 4 "good tests" and discount the probability of statistical fluke accounting for their results. I agree with Steve that people who call for start to finish research across all possible areas are being unrealistic. But we do need to be suspicious of people who are unwilling to explore rival hypotheses, especially when they don't address plausible alternatives in their reported findings. Third, mindless "data-dredging" is unfortunately one of the alternatives to pre-disposed findings. But it's not the only one. Grounded theory is another. But I do like Steve's comment about people who run a barrage of statistical manipulations on a data set and then claim a significant finding that has no substance, because it reminds me of yet, one more critique of the gay genes stuff. According to Rist, the latest study about the gay gene which was reported as a significant finding looked at the brains of dead "homosexual" men, "heterosexual" men, and women (no distinction among women, as usual). Leaving aside the problem of how corpses were placed into each group, there are still problems here. The study looked for differences in between the brains of the heterosexual men and the homosexual men. They finally found a difference. The homosexual mens anterior commisure averaged 34% larger than that in the heterosexual men. Apparently, the other zillion parts of the brain showed no difference (hence the researcher's ignored brain similarities). But, here too Rist points out that the standard deviation was so high that a 34% average was probably statistically irrelevant, a fluke. After all, the difference between the largest womans commisure and the smallest commisure for women was 300%. How significant then is a 34% difference between heteros and homs when their is this much variation within the group of women? The problem with this research and most of the research in this genre, is that they look for differences then explain those differences as biological. The researchers did not say they could predict one's sexual orientation by measuring their commisure and then test the theory. They searched for differences, found some, and explained it as biological differences. So, yet, another critique of the gay gene research is that it's post-hoc theorizing, and has no predictive potential. At least this is the case with some of the significant work in this area. This is only related to Steve's comments in that they reminded me of yet, another criticism of the "gay genes" research. And because I think this research demonstrates the problems of findings without substance, that can even get published in prestigious hard science journals. Enough rambling for now. Wayne Brekhus Rutgers University From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Feb 15 18:13:36 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 15 Feb 1994 18:12:21 -0800 for socgrad-list Tue, 15 Feb 1994 18:12:18 -0800 for From: S-ENDER@bss1.umd.edu Tue, 15 Feb 94 21:09:47 +1100 To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Tue, 15 Feb 1994 21:09:32 EDT Subject: Re: getting a handle on humor >Say Morten, >How does one giggle a doorknob? I do remember a *frowning* doorknob >from Alice and Wonderland but this is a new one on me. that's `jiggle' as in shake, rattle, wiggle, twitch or to move in slight jerks...if i'm approached on the way home tonight, i will laugh hysterically...wonderful crime solver...hysterical laughter as a breaching experiment...thanks, :-^) i think it worked for dick gregory at a diner lunch-counter in southern alabama in 1959...anybody read his autobiography? morten laughing ----------> :-) mick jagger laughing ----> :-0 its late From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Feb 15 18:35:56 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 15 Feb 1994 18:34:35 -0800 for socgrad-list Tue, 15 Feb 1994 18:34:32 -0800 for Date: Tue, 15 Feb 94 21:20:53 EST From: Steve Harvey Subject: a few commments on passing comments... To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU Hey, Schubert, you don't have to wait for biology to coopt sociological paradigms to find the type of research you're musing about: We have a maverick symbolic interactionist (yet another oxymoron?) whose most recent research is into human-companion animal interactions (Clint Sanders, for anyone interested) Wayne, as an addendum to your comments on findings of physical variation in the brains of heterosexual and homosexual males, consider this: We are so predisposed to consider the physical as antecedent to the behavioral that we ignore the obverse. Evidense increasingly illustrates that behavioral variation *causes* physical variation. The brain's physical structure is affected by behavioral patterns. Research into the anatomy of the brain has indicated that we are much more "soft wired" than we have been inclined to realize, and that much of our "hard wiring" occurs through experience and behavior rather than through genetic inheritance. Steve "Putty-For-Brains" Harvey harvey@uconnvm From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 16 04:23:03 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 16 Feb 1994 04:21:41 -0800 for socgrad-list Wed, 16 Feb 1994 04:21:38 -0800 for Date: Wed, 16 Feb 94 07:16 EST From: "This is really annoying" Subject: Cyber Kulture To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Several months ago someone one this list inquiried about the sociology of the internet. Stumbled across a starting point yesterday. The South Atlantic Quarterly 1993 92:4 "Flame Wars: The Discourse of Cyberculture." It appears to be a somewhat scholary post-modern (of course!) tinged collection of essays about the culture of the internet. Jetaway (exstructing the night away) Dave or maybe exconstructing. From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 16 09:37:31 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 16 Feb 1994 09:31:59 -0800 for socgrad-list Wed, 16 Feb 1994 09:31:57 -0800 for Date: Wed, 16 Feb 1994 11:21:26 -0600 (CST) From: nick mcree Subject: Re: evolve this... To: S-SCHUBERT@bss1.umd.edu On Mon, 14 Feb 1994 S-SCHUBERT@bss1.umd.edu wrote: > socgradders, > > i would like to make two parsimonious points: > > 1. when we take the biological METAPHOR to its logical > conclusion, society dies. > 2. apparently, that we evolved up "from little snails" is not > necessarily an accepted FACT. it seems quite a few local school > districts (i know of a few in california) are pushing to teach adam > & eve and those folks alongside of evolutionism. > > > yours, > "the once and still other" dan Hello. Nick from UT-Austin. I'm not sure I understand either of your points. What does it mean to take the biological metaphor to its logical conclusion? And why would society "die?" Second, I'm not sure that a fact must be accepted for it to be verifiable. From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 16 11:11:43 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 16 Feb 1994 11:01:15 -0800 for socgrad-list Wed, 16 Feb 1994 11:01:11 -0800 for From: "Patricia L. Pirkey" Date: Wed, 16 Feb 1994 13:00:58 -0600 To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: biology just to add to the biological vs. social fray, may i suggest a book called "Animal Minds" by Donald R. Griffin. maybe our own egoistic view of the world alienates us from our biological heretiges and relationships. hum.... .............pat From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 16 14:37:35 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 16 Feb 1994 14:31:00 -0800 for socgrad-list Wed, 16 Feb 1994 14:30:56 -0800 for Date: Wed, 16 Feb 1994 14:30:26 -0800 (PST) From: Robert Duniway Subject: Re: homosexual genes? and deviance genes? To: BREKHUS@zodiac.rutgers.edu On Mon, 14 Feb 1994 BREKHUS@zodiac.rutgers.edu wrote: > Suppose someone proposed to test Jewish males to see if their was a genetic > component to hoarding and investing money? Could we not reject that research > on political or philosophical grounds? How does the NIMH research differ from > this? Am I missing something, or is this as absurd as it looks? 1. The NIMH research described does not assume, a priori, that a particular group is genetically predisposed toward crime. What they want to know is if there is a genetic predisposition toward certain types of behavior. 2. Testing Jewish males looks like sampling on the dependent variable. Go back to study design class. Do not pass Go. Do not collect NIMH grants. 3. The question of whether there is a miser gene is a legitimate scientific question, and if this hypothesis was not eliminated by already available data there is no reason why it should not be considered for funding. If you oppose it because you think it has something to do with Jewish males, then you are arguing that we should not ask a particular question because you believe the answer will be uncomfortable. To suggest that the research proposing such an investigation is motivated by antisemitism tells us something about your beliefs, but nothing about the researchers. Bob Duniway - University of Washington From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 16 14:50:25 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 16 Feb 1994 14:39:18 -0800 for socgrad-list Wed, 16 Feb 1994 14:39:12 -0800 for Date: Wed, 16 Feb 1994 14:38:18 -0800 (PST) From: Robert Duniway Subject: Re: homosexual genes? and deviance genes? To: BREKHUS@zodiac.rutgers.edu On Mon, 14 Feb 1994 BREKHUS@zodiac.rutgers.edu wrote: > > Third, the studies I've seen on a genetic component to deviance are bad because > they use "agression" as a proxy for deviance. Nor are there control samples > of upper-class males or middle-class males in these studies. I suspect that > most corporate executives and political leaders would score high on assertiveness and agression yet we don't study them. In any rate, since aggressive behavioris often socially valued in a capitalist society, measuring it may actually be > measuring conformity rather than deviance, or propensity to survive in a > capitalist society rather than something that is maladaptive. These studies > shouldn't be allowed to claim they're studying deviance or crime when what > they're really studying is aggression. I'm not as familiar with this literature as you apparently are. I had always heard that what they were studying was aggression, and that they viewed a genetic predisposition toward agression to be a risk factor for committing violent crimes. From a genetic point of view it is absurd to argue that someone carries a gene for robbing liquor stores, but not so far fetched to think that some people are born with a shorter fuse than other people. Anyway, what a study claims to be addressing is often influenced by what the funding agencies are interested in this year. If your looking for political bias, that might be the place to look, rather than with people doing the studies. Bob Duniway - University of Washington From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 16 15:08:46 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 16 Feb 1994 15:05:12 -0800 for socgrad-list Wed, 16 Feb 1994 15:05:08 -0800 for Date: Wed, 16 Feb 1994 15:04:57 -0800 (PST) From: Robert Duniway Subject: Re: evolve this... To: Michael Lichter On Tue, 15 Feb 1994, Michael Lichter wrote: > Getting back to the topic, if we shouldn't prevent research baesd on > the uses of its conclusions, what about preventing research on the > basis of its purposes? If you are paying for the research, then you always have the right to do that. If the purpose of the research is clearly to produce some immoral outcome, then I also have no problem with such restrictions. However, I suspect that I am much more reluctant to conclude that I know the unexpressed objectives of researchers. If someone says they are working on a biological weapon, then we can react accordingly. If someone says they are looking for a biological cause of homosexuality I don't think you have the right to interpret that as anything more than what the researcher says their purpose is. > Maybe you wouldn't. But if you would, does it matter what the *intent* > of the research was, if it's clear the result would be the same? Again, I think we might agree that some research is obviously to dangerous, but I don't think we are in that insightful position very often. After all, the Catholic Church was pretty sure that Galileo was going to lead people out of the salvation provided by the Church into eternal damnation. Are we really in a better position to determine the "clear results" of research on the links between genetics and violence or genetics and homosexual orientation? > I do not agree with Robert that we should never try to prevent research > from being conducted based on the uses of its conclusions. If you want to prevent research based on the uses of its conclusion, then you are a very confident futurist indeed. On the > other hand, my opposition on the Violence Initiative is based not only > on the uses of its conclusions but on the narrowness of its scientific > vision, and on the soiled reputation of its chief investigator (talked > about it other articles). This is a politically-inspired project > unlikely to have significant value in understanding any social question > that confronts us. > > This is also an expensive publicly funded project. Therefore, not only > is it bad science, but it is a waste of *our* money. We can and should > oppose it. Here I am in complete agreement with you. If peoples preconceptions are causing them to conduct poorly designed and unpromising research, then we taxpayers should sound all the load alarms we can, write our congressmen, etc. etc. I just don't want to make any sweeping pronouncements about classes of research as basic a sociobiology being declared a waste of money or too dangerous. > By the way, I *do* believe that there is a link between genetics and > behavioral tendencies. If exploring that link was really what this > project was about, however, it would not be called the Violence > Initiative, and it's chief would not be comparing inner-city youth to > apes in the jungle. Sounds like we reach the same place in the end. I would be really interested in the context of that remark, however. I know that sociobiologists have a tendency to talk about other primates as the closest models for human interaction patterns. He might not have had any racist intent when he made the statement (though, of course, he also might have). Bob Duniway - University of Washington From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 16 15:37:26 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 16 Feb 1994 15:33:43 -0800 for socgrad-list Wed, 16 Feb 1994 15:33:42 -0800 for To: Robert Duniway Subject: Re: evolve this... Date: Wed, 16 Feb 1994 15:34:55 -0800 From: Michael Lichter Robert Duniway says: I would be really interested in the context of that remark, however. I know that sociobiologists have a tendency to talk about other primates as the closest models for human interaction patterns. He might not have had any racist intent when he made the statement (though, of course, he also might have). Below I include a slightly edited [got rid of typos] and reformatted article from Alan Spector, originally posted on PSN. There's a quote from Goodwin in the middle. From: SPECTOAJ%PUCAL.BITNET@vaxf.Colorado.EDU Subject: information about the racist, pseudo-biological "Violence Initiative" Several people have posted messages to me for an address to obtain the booklet I mentioned about the "Violence Initiative." I do have a supply of them on hand, and actually, you would probably get them a lot quicker by writing to me over PSN and giving me your U.S. mail address. I also have access to the document on a disk which I could e-mail, but as much fun as these electronic things are, I'm not sure what the advantage is to having this on a disk. But if you want the whole thing e-mailed., let me know. In any case, i can send out a hard copy within 24 hours of receiving your real, reality address (if campuses could be called real, reality)---e.g. regular postal addresses. The address for the International Committee Against Racism, if you want to get copies in quantity, is P.O. Box A 3338, Chicago, IL 60690. In case anyone thinks that perhaps I'm being a bit alarmist (because, I, too, sometimes get frustrated by people who think that every minor event is proof that Hitler's grandson will take over the world next Tuesday--e.g., that if something bad happens to them personally, that is proof that fascism is here, let me give you the actual quote from Frederick K. Goodwin, then director of the Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration of the U.S. government in a speech to the National Mental Health Advisor Council, Feb. 11, 1992. Since then, Goodwin was apppointed overall Director of the National Institute for Mental Health. Of course, MAYBE Donna Shalala doesn't know that Goodwin has these positions. And maybe Reagan didn't know about Iran-Contra..... HEEEEERE'S GOODWIN: "If you look at other primates in nature--male primates in nature--you find that even with our violent society we are doing very well. If you look for example, at male monkeys, especially in the wild, roughly half of them survive to adulthood. The other half die by violence. That is the natural way of life for males, to knock each other off and, in fact, there are some interesting evolutionary implications of that because the same hyper-aggressive monkeys who kill each other are also hyper-sexual, so they copulate more and therefore they reproduce more to offset the fact that half of them are dying. "Now, one could say that if some of the loss of social structure in this society, and particularly within the high impact inner city areas, has removed some of the civilizing evolutionary things that we have built up and that maybe it isn't just the careless use of the word when people call certain cities jungles, that we may have gone back to what might be more natural, without all of the social controls that we have imposed upon ourselves as a civilization over thousands of years in our own evolution." YEP- those are his words. Putting aside the pathetic, anti-scientific, disregard of the data bullshit (e.g., Many inner city communities have lower fertility, you can't attribute a social collapse in one generation to genetics, how come this wasn't the case in 1957 since evolutionary change couldn't happen that fast, and more to the point, has there been a rise of this genetic disease in Bosnia, were U.S, bomber pilots reverting to their monkey stage (???!!!) when they bombed Vietnam, Panama, and thousands of surrendering Iraqi troops. But there is something like 400 million dollars earmarked for this kind of research, including blood tests on siblings of juvenile offenders, and including drugging youth. And to repeat, the danger isn't just to the youth who would be drugged, it is to the whole society, especially the lower income sections of the working class which includes especially black and Latino people, who could now be guiltlessly disregarded when they cry out against oppression, because, hey, they are just closer to monkeys than the rest of us......This is not just a prescription for drugging thousands, it lays the basis for jailing or killing millions. And I don't think this is exaggeration. Hundreds of millions of dollars of grant money buys a lot of research money for grad students picked towork o n this, it buys the ability to publish to get tenure, to endow chairs directlyl or to "indirectly" create new criminal justice postitions with people who may have gotten through grad school on that Nazi-like research. It will buy a lot of grad assistantships, alot of publications, and a fair number of professor ships. And eventually, these folks will be on Oprah, and Phil, and Heraldo, and Nightline, and millions of people will learn about how some people are really like monkeys and that's why they are violent, and we wonder how a supposedly advanced, civilized country like Germany could so efficiently, and in a decidedly non-monkeylike way, exterminate so many millions of people. It may be acting like a crybaby to scream FASCISM just because you or I get pushed around by the cops at an anti-Ku Klux Klan demonstration, but this Violence Initiative campaign is very big and has allowed the right to make a United Front with the "anti-crime Liberals" including even those who "worry" about the state of our cities......If we don't kill the snake in its nest, we might all be surprised at how rapidly it reproduces. --- Alan Spector Behavioral Sciences Department Purdue Calumet Hammond, IN 46323 "spectoaj@pucal.bitnet" From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 16 16:01:39 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 16 Feb 1994 15:59:30 -0800 for socgrad-list Wed, 16 Feb 1994 15:59:27 -0800 for Date: Wed, 16 Feb 1994 15:59:18 -0800 (PST) From: Robert Duniway Subject: Re: evolve this... To: Michael Lichter > Robert Duniway says: > I would be really interested in the context of that remark, > however. I know that sociobiologists have a tendency to talk > about other primates as the closest models for human interaction > patterns. He might not have had any racist intent when he made > the statement (though, of course, he also might have). > > HEEEEERE'S GOODWIN: > > "If you look at other primates in nature--male primates in > nature--you find that even with our violent society we are > doing very well. If you look for example, at male monkeys, > especially in the wild, roughly half of them survive to > adulthood. The other half die by violence. That is the > natural way of life for males, to knock each other off and, in > fact, there are some interesting evolutionary implications of > that because the same hyper-aggressive monkeys who kill each > other are also hyper-sexual, so they copulate more and > therefore they reproduce more to offset the fact that half of > them are dying. > > "Now, one could say that if some of the loss of social > structure in this society, and particularly within the high > impact inner city areas, has removed some of the civilizing > evolutionary things that we have built up and that maybe it > isn't just the careless use of the word when people call > certain cities jungles, that we may have gone back to what > might be more natural, without all of the social controls that > we have imposed upon ourselves as a civilization over thousands > of years in our own evolution." > There are several interesting things to note here. 1. I was right that the reference to monkeys was apparently not made in reference to any racial group, and was just a sociobiological habit. 2. His next reference is to a breakdown of social controls. To get from this quote to the research described by Spector you need to take a rather lengthy path. Unless there is further evidence, I am inclined to think that Goodwin is being villified by Spector because of Spector's own political leanings. If racist research is being done, it was not sanctioned by the contents of this statement. Is there more to this expression of concern about NIMH funding priorities? Remember, most people have always been unhappy with the focus taken by any large grant writing agency. The only people who are every happy are the people who already want to do the type of research being funded. That doesn't make the directors of these agencies evil fascists, just bureaucrats with their own set of priorities. Bob Duniway - University of Washington From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 16 16:54:52 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 16 Feb 1994 16:51:31 -0800 for socgrad-list Wed, 16 Feb 1994 16:51:28 -0800 for From: XTTOWLER@CCVAX.FULLERTON.EDU Date: 16 Feb 1994 16:43:02 -0800 (PST) To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU sub "XTTOWLER@FULLERTON.EDU" SOCGRAD From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 16 17:45:18 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 16 Feb 1994 17:39:54 -0800 for socgrad-list Wed, 16 Feb 1994 17:39:50 -0800 for Date: Wed, 16 Feb 94 20:19:12 EST From: Steve Harvey Subject: free v. democratically constrained speach and research To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU Veeeery Interesting. I think it is clear that many (most? all?) research agendas represent researchers' and/or funding agencies' biases, as do journalistic reporting and editorializing, and all forms of thought and expression. Many of those biases are, in my estimation at least, rather odious, hateful, and destructive. But, there is no clear and simple set of criteria by which to determine what is odious, hateful, and destructive. Many people argue for various kinds of controls on thought and expression, and many others argue that no one is in a privileged position to determine what forms of thought and expression warrant such controls. In academe of late, we see a much-discussed attempt of some on the marginalized left to impose certain controls in the name of creating an environment conducive to healthy and happy living and learning for all. And, indeed, the struggle to establish one truth over others is at least in part a political process (I believe there is also a utilitarian component. For instance, a medical procedure that more often results in the continued survival of the patient tends to prevail over a medical procedure that less often results in the continued survival of the patient). So, how do we address "truths" we consider odious and destructive? One answer is to protest the expression of such "truths," and attempt to prevent their dissemination. Of course, those espousing those truths will likely engage in the struggle as well, and factors far removed from the merit or life-affirming qualities of the rhetorical positions will bear heavily on the determination of which prevails. Another possible answer, to reduce the balkanization of the "truth-seeking" enterprise, is to put each form of expression to a vote, and let the majority decide what should and should not be said. Needless to..., ah..., "say," most of us would thereby be forced to make our livings by other means. A third possibility is to put forth competing versions of truth. That is, rather than egg George Will's car whenever he says that all goods and services should be provided by the market, and the govern- ment should reduce taxes and provision of social services, one could put forth arguments that are stronger and more compelling. Unfortunately, as I mentioned above, that won't necessarily suffice. What's the answer? I have no idea. But I do have reservations about becoming too comfortable with the idea that people who say things we find offensive should be prevented from saying them. You see, we're not as smart as we think we are. Any centralization of production, whether it's production of goods or production of knowledge, bears a heavy cost. The decisions about what to produce and how to produce it falls to a few central planners ("agents," in my lexicon), who are distracted both by their own particular interests and their own particular limitations. When production (of goods or of knowledge) is decentralized, many producers produce junk, but many different ideas are toyed with, and a greater abundance of possibilities are "out there" to be considered. There is no panacea. But in the politics of rhetoric, I rally to the party of Learn, Teach, Listen, and Wonder. If someone wants to pursue an agenda I find distasteful, then I'll pursue an agenda which competes with it. If their research is faulty, then I'll point out its flaws. This may not be enough for those who want THEIR truth to be the only one on the table, but, frankly, I'm more concerned about INCAR's destructive potential than that of the researchers who, carefully or sloppily (I still don't know which), explore the role of genetics in human behavior. We rally to emotional banners, but emotional banners can betray us. Many of the great inhumanities of past and present were perpetrated beneath highly charged emotional banners. In the minds of those who rally to them, it is easy to know "good" from "bad," and they act swiftly and surely in the confidence that they represent the "good." So it was to those who rallied to Hitler, or, more ambiguously and forgivably, to Lenin or Mao. But people, you and I included, are "small-minded," or, to put it more gently, we are quite limited. That does not mean that we should not act, for, in spite of our limitations, we are all that we have. But it does mean that we should look beyond our own thoughts and inclinations, beyond our own convictions about WHAT to think, to the subtler enterprise of HOW to produce (and disseminate) knowledge. We need to think less about imposing determinations of substance, and more about establishing determinations of process. For all of the injustice, oppression, and general folly that abounds in the world around us, the institutions by which we live are far more effective, BY ANY CONCEIVABLE MEASURE, than anything you or I (or Marx or Keynes or Will or...) can intentionally invent. If that sounds too much like "functionalism," it's because functionalists weren't (aren't?) just a bunch of idiots: They were inspired by a genuine appreciation of the sophistication of social "order." The flaws in the paradigm lie elsewhere, and are largely reproduced in most contemporary sociology anyway. While political motivations certainly affect what does and does not get published, and political motivations even more saliently affect what of that becomes popularized, the process is not entirely arbitrary. The institution of peer-reviewed journals is, as far as I can tell, the fairest and least prone to the kinds of abuses over which we are voicing concern of any process which I can imagine. That doesn't mean it can't be improved on; it just means that it requires more imagination than I possess. Probably, it requires more imagination than any individual possesses, and possibly, more imagination than any "party" possesses. So, let's get with the program. For those of us who are passionately determined to improve the quality of life on earth for all people (all living things? all things, living and inanimate? Well, I guess that wouldn't be "quality of life" then...), let's realize that there are no short-cuts, no quick fixes, no magic elixers. We can look at the world, and see layers of exploitation, and say, "tear that down, and all will be well!" We can even go a step beyond, and offer an alternative, and say, "replace all that is with all that we suggest, and all will be well!" But that is true folly. No blueprint can approach in subtlety and sophistication the present array of cultures and institutions by which humans live. We, as sociologists, should understand that first and foremost. The only sane choice is to work with what is, for all other choices tend to destroy what is right with the world, and leave intact what is wrong. "Some people see a glass that's half empty; others see a glass that's half full; but I see a glass that's twice as big as it needs to be." -George Carlin. Steve "Who-Let-Him-In-Here,-Anyway?" Harvey harvey@uconnvm From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 16 19:51:06 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 16 Feb 1994 19:49:34 -0800 for socgrad-list Wed, 16 Feb 1994 19:49:31 -0800 for Date: Wed, 16 Feb 94 22:07:25 EST From: Joya Misra Organization: Emory University - Atlanta, Georgia, USA Subject: freedom To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU While I basically agree with many of the points that have been made in the discussion about preventing or not preventing research, I do have a few questions... I am generally unwilling to believe that somehow _I_ can determine what research deserves to lives and which to die. As Steve puts it, if someone pursues a research agenda I find distasteful, I can pursue a competing agenda; this is the cornerstone of academic dialogue. Yet, my question is this: Are there not limits? Michael says: >> Getting back to the topic, if we shouldn't prevent research baesd on >> the uses of its conclusions, what about preventing research on the >> basis of its purposes? Bob says: >If you are paying for the research, then you always have the right to do >that. If the purpose of the research is clearly to produce some immoral >outcome, then I also have no problem with such restrictions. However, I >suspect that I am much more reluctant to conclude that I know the >unexpressed objectives of researchers. If someone says they are working >on a biological weapon, then we can react accordingly. If someone says >they are looking for a biological cause of homosexuality I don't think >you have the right to interpret that as anything more than what the >researcher says their purpose is. And the Tuskegee study? We don't know what the unexpressed objectives of these researchers were. What we do know is that they allowed syphilis to destroy the lives of their African-American experimental subjects in the name of science. They might have had the best of intentions, but there must be a moment at which we say enough. Yes? You argue that you are all for restricting research which will produce immoral consequences. Yet, I worry that our reluctance to judge too quickly may sometimes lead us into dangerous circumstances. I feel that this is particularly a problem for liberals, because we hold freedom dear,and sometimes seem to lose sight of the forest for all the trees. Am I being muddy here? I'm not talking about the Violence Initiative here, because I simply don't know enough to talk about it. And I do agree that we rarely are in a position in which we can determine if research should NOT be done because of the possible consequences of that research. But I am also unwilling to absolve myself, absolve the academic community from any responsibility. I don't feel comfortable with the myopic excesses of those who deny others the right to do research if it conflicts with their agenda...I also don't feel comfortable with the idea that we simply can't judge and therefore shouldn't try. Oh I know, no one was saying that...everyone has been very good and very measured and used a lot of qualifications. Yet somehow I feel that we've also been letting ourselves off the hook a little too much. Joya From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Feb 17 06:22:33 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 17 Feb 1994 06:20:06 -0800 for socgrad-list Thu, 17 Feb 1994 06:20:00 -0800 for From: khaskin@merle.acns.nwu.edu Subject: Donna Shalala To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Thu, 17 Feb 94 8:19:58 CST In one of the many messages regarding the Violence Initiative, someone said something implying that Donna Shalala must have known she was hiring a racist when she put the head of NIMH in. I think we should try to pose some of these questions directly to the people involved. Does anyone out there know how to get e-mail addresses for people in government? We could get the addresses for Shalala, the guy from NIMH, and whomever we think is pertinent, and get their answers about this program. Maybe they won't answer personally, but someone in their office is likely to respond. By the way, in her book _Deborah, Golda and Me_, Letty Cottin Pogrebin describes Shalala in the most flattering of terms. Shalala for many years was the intermediary in a dialogue between Jewish and Palestinian women. Also, wasn't Shalala in charge at Wisconsin during a free speech conflict there? Maybe the person from Wisconsin could tell us something here. I realize that I am focusing on the specifics, where others are focusing on the general principles involved in conducting controversial research. But since we started the discussion with this specific case, I thought it might help if we had more details. -- ************************************************************************* Karen Haskin k-haskin@nwu.edu Department Of Sociology Northwestern University 1810 Chicago Avenue Evanston, IL 60208 From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Feb 17 06:47:51 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 17 Feb 1994 06:39:25 -0800 for socgrad-list Thu, 17 Feb 1994 06:39:21 -0800 for Date: Thu, 17 Feb 94 08:33:14 EST From: Steve Harvey Subject: truth or consequences To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU Joya raises some good points. There are other issues involved besides the struggle among competing "truths." There are also the consequences of the research findings (which are hard to determine in advance), and the consequences of the research process. In "pure" science, as opposed to "applied" science (a distinction which admittedly becomes fuzzier all the time, as the lag between theoretical inovation and application diminishes), the consequences of the findings are, by definition, indeterminate. People will debate what they believe the consequences to be, and those who maintain that the consequences are apocolyptic will do so with a sense of great urgency, and though the latter group may sometimes be right, we are still in the same bind: Every inovation in thought or production meets with this kind of resistance. Christian fundamentalists consider secular education apocolyptic, and urgently fight to stem its growth. So, unless the research is specifically directed to some identifiable application, we can only constrain it on the basis of possible consequences through some agreed upon process by which we determine the value of the possible consequences, rather than on an ad hoc basis. When some of the consequences of the research are explicit and intentional, the debate is simplified somewhat. We no longer have to argue over both what *may* happen, and whether it *should* be allowed to happen (except with regard to those aspects of the research that still may yield unintended or epiphenomenal consequences), but rather just over whether it should be allowed to happen. This may be *simpler*, but it is not necessarily *simple*. Should we, for instance, have a procedural guideline in place which dictates that any research whose purpose is to create weapons of destruction should be prevented by law? We may all dream of a world in which such sanity would be possible, but as WWII dramatically illustrates, pacifism and appeasement do not always lead to peace. If international law prohibited the production of weapons (at the present level of ability to enforce such a law), then the world would be at the mercy of those who chose to break that law. Even if some would reject this specific example, the point is that even when the consequences are explicit and intentional, there can be reasonable debate about whether they are acceptable (or essential). In a complex world, even when the consequences of a given research agenda are made explicit in advance, we still can not rely on an ad hoc political determination of whether it should be allowed to proceed, because such determinations are often based on weak or naive analyses. The best we can do is to carefully delineate procedural guidelines by which to dispassionately make such determinations. As new and unforeseen situations arise, procedural guidelines need to be reconsidered, but this is different from taking each proposed piece of research as an isolated event, and consider- ing its value in a vacuum. As for the consequences of the research process, procedural guidelines have been in place for years. Some of the atrocities of government use of human subjects occured before such guidelines were explicitly in place (which further illustrates the dangers of making ad hoc determinations of the acceptablity of a given research project. In a vacuum, the government can argue that sacrificing individuals to national security is acceptable. When we specify clear procedural rules about when and how human subjects may be used, the government can still break the law, but it is politically more dangerous, and there are more opportunities for watchdog groups -like the media- to intervene). Procedural guidelines are not perfect: They can be broken. They are determined by political processes which carry various biases of their own. But, all things considered, focusing on process rather than substance offers a more flexible and "organic" approach to the production of knowledge (and of the arrangements by which we coexist). I am loathe to consider individual research projects on an ad hoc basis, because I recognize my own ignorance. In a world as complex as ours, with as many growing frontiers of "knowledge," we have no choice but to sometimes defer to the expertise of others. That does not mean that we must give anyone free reign to follow their own moral (or amoral) compass, but that we must allow for determinations to be made systematically, and on the basis of state of the art information and analyses, to the greatest extent possible. If this were not still, for the most part, the guideline which our society follows, again, most of us would be out of a job. If decisions about the value of given research events were made on an ad hoc basis by political process open to the whole public, how much Marxist research do you think would be allowed to continue? And how many people would sanction the use of tax dollars to subsidize anything so esoteric as postmodernist research? We have no reasonable choice but to constrain the fine-points of the political process (the determination of the value of individual projects) to the community of scholars most familiar with the body of analysis from which that research springs. This is what peer-review journals are for. There are reasonable fronts on which to fight over the determination of what research does and does not proceed. We can engage in the process of determining procedural guidelines in the academic community at large (perhaps some inovation which can compete with peer-review, for instance). We can engage in establishing the specific criteria in our own discipline. We can engage in the enforcement of procedural guidelines already established. We can join editorial boards and engage in the interpretation of the specific criteria used in our own discipline. We can develop sociological analyses which compete with analyses generated by other disciplines. But, except in perhaps the most extreme instances (and so far, from what I've seen, nothing that's been presented is extreme enough), I do not think it's a great idea for sociologists to tell biologists what they should and should not publish in biological journals. I certainly wouldn't want biologists trying to constrain what I publish in sociological journals. I would rather see voices raised in the assertion of what they hold to be true than in the attempt to prevent others from doing so. Here's an interesting example: though I am staunchly pro-choice, I have a pecular feeling about the pro-life commercials that have recently been aired. If they were divorced from the political agenda of trying to shut down choice (that is, if they are taken strictly on their own merit without reference to the larger political movement which they represent), I would be glad to see a group of people voicing their point of view in such a healthy way. The commercials argue that "life is a beautiful choice," and encourage women to choose to carry their babies to term rather than abort them. Frankly, I think this is probably lousy advice for a lot of women, especially pregnant teen-agers, but I don't believe that it's an opinion which should not be voiced, or which I should try to prevent from being voiced. Sometimes, we have to remember to divorce our specific beliefs from our willingness to let those who disagree have their say as well. Steve "Good-Morning-Starshine" Harvey harvey@uconnvm From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Feb 17 07:20:34 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 17 Feb 1994 07:17:13 -0800 for socgrad-list Thu, 17 Feb 1994 07:17:08 -0800 for Date: Thu, 17 Feb 94 10:12:38 EST From: Paul Galatowitsch Organization: Yale University Subject: AIDS Research or dissertations To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Is anyone out there doing a dissertation on AIDS or is any one involved in research projects looking at the subject. I am currently do an organizational analysis of AIDS Response efforts in New Haven, Ct and want to compare notes with people in other cities to see if similar types of conflicts and processes are occurring. I am also interested in the methodological approaches people are using to gather data. From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Feb 17 08:26:54 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 17 Feb 1994 08:21:24 -0800 for socgrad-list Thu, 17 Feb 1994 08:21:10 -0800 for Date: Thu, 17 Feb 94 11:07:45 EST From: Joya Misra Organization: Emory University - Atlanta, Georgia, USA Subject: What do you like about your seminars? To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU Friends, I recently posed this question on another net to which I belong. I would like to know what things you have liked best about the best seminars you have been in. Basically, I am hoping to put together a list of "things to do" which will help with being an effective teacher at the grad level. So if you could take a few moments and recall that most wonderful experience in your grad classroom career... Joya P.S. So, we'll start talking about Patricia Hill Collins' book _Black Feminist Thought_ tomorrow, yes? From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Feb 17 09:19:38 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 17 Feb 1994 09:05:17 -0800 for socgrad-list Thu, 17 Feb 1994 09:05:08 -0800 for From: S-SCHUBERT@bss1.umd.edu Thu, 17 Feb 94 12:01:54 +1100 To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Thu, 17 Feb 1994 12:01:15 EDT Subject: thomas dolby dear socgradders, gee, it looks as if i'm being left behind in our debates. hmm, maybe that's because i spent too much time last night searching for my stats and methods books. it seems i couldn't find them because they were somewhere under Lifton's THE NAZI DOCTORS, James Jones' BAD BLOOD (which addresses the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, Shilts' AND THE BAND PLAYED ON, Peter Wyden's DAY ONE, and a number of other books already mentioned in this debate. i wondered if i should mention any of these works to my pals on socgrad, but then i realized that they were merely examples of "bad" science. "as long as we do it right," i told myself, "science as such is no problem." when i continued my search for blalock, babbie, cook, et al, i happened across Horkheimer & adorno's DIALECTIC OF ENLIGHTENMENT. "ah," thought i, "we have been doing it right." yours, "i used to be `the other' dan, now you can just call me `hey'" schubert p.s. bob duniway, do you mean if we can agree on YOUR terms then we can have a discussion? From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Feb 17 10:01:45 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 17 Feb 1994 09:43:26 -0800 for socgrad-list Thu, 17 Feb 1994 09:43:08 -0800 for Date: Thu, 17 Feb 94 12:23:05 EST From: Steve Harvey Subject: problems and solutions To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU In brief (yes, you heard me right) response to the no-longer-other-Dan, Who said there are no problems, with science or anything else? But identifying the problems is a long way from identifying the solutions. So we agree that science (for instance) produces many horrors. What's the answer? Dismantle research institutions and forestall all future attempts at exploring the nature of reality? Create a panel, much like our own beloved CAT, which will oversee what is and is not acceptable to promote as "truth?" It's easy to point to the problems. Sociology has made its mark as the Great Debunker, and sociologists have become too cozy with the delusion that debunking is problem-solving. Come on! Citing horrors is a small beginning, and nothing more. The difficult challenge of creating and amending social institutions so as to both diminish the likelihood of such horrors, AND still continue to produce and refine the means by which we coexist (and celebrate life) is not met by pointing out that science, government, media, corporate enterprise, non-profit charity, and every other institution that has ever existed is responsible for various grievous crimes. There is no utopia lying dust-covered beneath a pile of evils lain atop it. The "good" and the "evil" are woven together, a piece of the same fabric. The tough questions remain, and few attempts at implementable and viable answers have been offered. Takers? Steve "Wish-I-Were-Getting-Hammered-In-Lillihammer" Harvey harvey@uconnvm From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Feb 17 11:34:33 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 17 Feb 1994 11:17:22 -0800 for socgrad-list Thu, 17 Feb 1994 11:17:16 -0800 for Date: Thu, 17 Feb 94 14:04:28 EST From: Steve Harvey Subject: A forwarded message from Ralph w/ short response from me To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU From: Organization: Survey Research Center, UMCP To: Steve Harvey Date: Thu, 17 Feb 1994 13:41:26 EDT Subject: Re: problems and solutions > Date sent: Thu, 17 Feb 94 12:23:05 EST > From: Steve Harvey > Subject: problems and solutions > To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU hi steve, bob, others: some comments; > In brief (yes, you heard me right) response to the no-longer-other-Dan, Who > said there are no problems, with science or anything else? the discussion about these issues seemed to indicate [to me] that quite a few discussants still think there is a good chance of doing 'good' , 'correct' or 'right' science. there seems to be an underlying belief in science and research and that there might be individuals who do not follow procedures or methods right but in general, if procedures are followed everything is ok --too put it in simplified terms. what Dan is trying to get across -i think is that it is not a matter of doing science right or wrong; rather it is a question mark about science, its methods, and more importantly its underlying appsumptions about its 'matter' that is questionable. But identifying the > problems is a long way from identifying the solutions. So we agree that scienc e > (for instance) produces many horrors. What's the answer? Dismantle research > institutions and forestall all future attempts at exploring the nature of > reality? no, not really. but we should be aware that our methods of doing science inherently produce or are conducive to producing certain results while excluding others. for elaboration of that theme, see social studies of science, a field that became prominent in the mid- seventies [approx the same time as postmodern thought. [e.g. Latour & Woolgar; Mendelsohn (ed) the social production of scientific knowledge; Knorr-Cetina & Mulkay; Bloor; Zilsel; and many other authors. Create a panel, much like our own beloved CAT, which will oversee > what is and is not acceptable to promote as "truth?" > > It's easy to point to the problems. no and yes. i think it is crucial to understand who has interest in defining something as a problem and not other issues. in other words, who decides what is a problem? Sociology has made its mark as the Great > Debunker, and sociologists have become too cozy with the delusion that > debunking is problem-solving. Come on! Citing horrors is a small beginning, an d > nothing more. The difficult challenge of creating and amending social > institutions so as to both diminish the likelihood of such horrors, AND still > continue to produce and refine the means by which we coexist (and celebrate > life) is not met by pointing out that science, government, media, corporate > enterprise, non-profit charity, and every other institution that has ever > existed is responsible for various grievous crimes. There is no utopia lying > dust-covered beneath a pile of evils lain atop it. The "good" and the "evil" > are woven together, a piece of the same fabric. The tough questions remain, an d > few attempts at implementable and viable answers have been offered. Takers? > > Steve "Wish-I-Were-Getting-Hammered-In-Lillihammer" Harvey > harvey@uconnvm > that's all for now ralph 'don't call me by my last name' (end of Ralph's message, which he asked me to forward in a separate note, and beginning of my response): Basically, I agree with what Ralph has said here. BUT, the fundamental question still hasn't been addressed. Given that there are inherent biases in the type of knowledge that "science" produces (a fact I have never disputed), what specific procedural modifications in how we "do science" would you recommend? I believe there may be some good ideas floating around, and I'd certainly like to see improvements in the "quality" of discourse that the scientific community produces, but it's not a simple or trivial challenge, and I fear that many (or most) proposed solutions are far more odious than the problems they purport to solve. Steve "Trailing-In-The-Polls" Harvey harvey@uconnvm From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Feb 17 12:54:32 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 17 Feb 1994 12:38:36 -0800 for socgrad-list Thu, 17 Feb 1994 12:38:34 -0800 for Date: Thu, 17 Feb 1994 12:38:25 -0800 (PST) From: Robert Duniway Subject: Re: free v. democratically constrained speach and research To: Steve Harvey Much shouting and applause!!! Bob Duniway From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Feb 17 13:01:15 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 17 Feb 1994 12:45:24 -0800 for socgrad-list Thu, 17 Feb 1994 12:45:10 -0800 for From: LEE@cati.umd.edu Thu, 17 Feb 94 15:41:35 +1100 Organization: Survey Research Center, UMCP To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Thu, 17 Feb 1994 15:41:11 EDT Subject: Violence Initiative I may have missed something in the flurry of messages lately. My understanding of the Violence Initiative is that it is a policy framework that reappeared under different names several times in the past couple decades of NIMH's lifespan. The crux of this social control mechanism (fascist someone accurately noted) is only on the surface one dealing with criminality and biological predispositions toward aggression. The Violence Initiative is about trying to use the political and (considerably specious) scientific ideology of biopsychiatry to get millions of poor kids (mostly Black and Hispanic kids) labeled under any of the many DSM-III, soon to be IV version, rubric of diagnoses. Who would benefit from selling such a plan: biopsychiatry because they would have generations of millions of additional "patients," more money chanelled through NIMH, along with the makers of Ritalin, Prozac, and those nasty and dangerously effective social control agents, the neuroleptics. Those who would like to correspond concerning works by Peter Breggin (*Toxic Psychiatry*), Loise Armstrong (*And They Call It Help: The Psychiatric Policing of America's Children*), or the Family and Children Committee hearing before Congress two years ago are encouraged to contact me at lee@cati.umd.edu From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Feb 17 13:08:26 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 17 Feb 1994 12:50:39 -0800 for socgrad-list Thu, 17 Feb 1994 12:50:35 -0800 for Date: Thu, 17 Feb 1994 12:50:19 -0800 (PST) From: Robert Duniway Subject: Re: freedom To: Joya Misra > Yet somehow I feel that we've also been letting ourselves off the hook a little too much. Joya I have quite the opposite reaction. I get the impression that many people would ban any research where the research couldn't promise in advance that no harm could possibly come to anyone. If we applied the same standards to driving a car, no one ever would. I have never done any research that resulted in the propogation of hate and evil, as far as I know. Why should you be held responsible if I am mistaken? Why draw up standards we can't possibly maintain? Bob Duniway - University of Washington From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Feb 17 13:26:27 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 17 Feb 1994 13:10:41 -0800 for socgrad-list Thu, 17 Feb 1994 13:10:34 -0800 for Date: Thu, 17 Feb 94 15:28:11 EST From: Steve Harvey Subject: a procedural suggestion... To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU Greetings, Comrades. In regards to the philosophy of science debate we've been having, I've noticed emotions heating up a little here and there. The sarcasm, too, can, intentionally or unintentionally, appear a bit antagonistic. So, how about a big group hug and a 60s flower-child song by the campfire, just to recapture a bit of perspective here? Steve "I-Can-Fly!-I-Can...Ooops!" Harvey harvey@uconnvm From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Feb 17 14:23:40 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 17 Feb 1994 14:11:29 -0800 for socgrad-list Thu, 17 Feb 1994 14:11:25 -0800 for Date: Thu, 17 Feb 1994 14:11:13 -0800 (PST) From: Robert Duniway Subject: Re: A forwarded message from Ralph w/ short response from me To: Steve Harvey > Basically, I agree with what Ralph has said here. BUT, the fundamental question > still hasn't been addressed. Given that there are inherent biases in the type > of knowledge that "science" produces (a fact I have never disputed), what > specific procedural modifications in how we "do science" would you recommend? > I believe there may be some good ideas floating around, and I'd certainly like > to see improvements in the "quality" of discourse that the scientific > community produces, but it's not a simple or trivial challenge, and I fear that > many (or most) proposed solutions are far more odious than the problems they > purport to solve. > > Steve "Trailing-In-The-Polls" Harvey > harvey@uconnvm > Well you have my vote on this one. If it is discourse that matters, then having some feeling that the other person knows what they are talking about if beneficial. Methods are simply an attempt to produce such confidence. If you object to the existing methods, and want to propose introspective naval gazing or Ordinary Maximized Squares Regression as the basis of your information about the world, no one has any reason to take you seriously until you can establish the quality of the information such a method produces. Notice I said information, not knowledge. As someone else pointed out to me earlier (assuming I had accidentally used the wrong abstract noun) information and knowledge are not the same thing. What methods give us in information, and we try to turn that information into understanding or knowledge. But we have no reason to even attempt to understand information from a source we have no confidence in. Hence the heavy investment if arguing for the soundness and validty of methods. Most of us are not going to throw our methods away simply because they are not perfect. We would rather have limited but reliable information rather than great quantities of information we have no reason to trust. Bob Duniway - University of Washington From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Feb 17 14:24:57 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 17 Feb 1994 14:12:55 -0800 for socgrad-list Thu, 17 Feb 1994 14:12:50 -0800 for Date: Thu, 17 Feb 94 17:00:12 EST From: Steve Harvey Subject: inclinations and regulatory interests. To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU I'm a little verklempt. Talk amongst yourselves. I'll give you a topic: Is social control inherently evil? Subtopics: Is social control inherently hierarchical (or can it be diffuse and mutual)? Is hierarchical social control inherently evil (or is it sometimes a means of producing mutual cooperation, albeit an inherently problematic one)? Is there some optimal balance between "freedom" and social control? From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Feb 17 16:21:15 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 17 Feb 1994 16:11:02 -0800 for socgrad-list Thu, 17 Feb 1994 16:10:23 -0800 for Date: Thu, 17 Feb 94 18:57:36 EST From: Joya Misra Organization: Emory University - Atlanta, Georgia, USA Subject: freedom (& a little social control...it's like buttah) To: Bob Duniway Bob, >I have quite the opposite reaction. I get the impression that many >people would ban any research where the research couldn't promise in >advance that no harm could possibly come to anyone. Maybe this is so. I haven't really run up against much of this, to tell the truth. I do think that people like Spector go off the scale at times. But I don't feel like this is representative of "many" people. In fact, I think if we read through the posts on this subject, no one here has suggested anything this extreme. We're all bright enough to know that we don't know what might come of anything we do. I'm not quite sure why this has been turned into such a polarized debate. >If we applied the >same standards to driving a car, no one ever would. Yet we do apply CERTAIN standards to driving cars. We ask people who drive to take driving tests, eye tests, written tests tomake sure they know a little about the enterprise they are about to engage in (grad school?). We try to ensure that people do not drive impaired by alcohol or other substances, and we are expected to follow certain other rules and guidelines when we drive -- we agree to drive on a certain side of the road, we stop at stop signs, etc (peer review?). None of this ensures that we will be "good" drivers, just as none of this ensures that we will practice "good" science. The point is, though, that even in driving cars, even in engaging in research, we have a certain amount of responsibility to others. Call THIS social control if you like, I don't think social control is entirely a bad thing. >I have never done >any research that resulted in the propogation of hate and evil, as far as >I know. Why should you be held responsible if I am mistaken? Why draw >up standards we can't possibly maintain? I'm not sure what kinds of standards you think I am suggesting. Funny, because I basically agree with Steve on this issue, you seem to agree with him as well, and yet...well, maybe I'm missing something. I guess all I'm arguing for is that we go into this enterprise that we are all involved in (by this I mean research) with our eyes wide open. joya From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Feb 17 16:21:37 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 17 Feb 1994 16:13:36 -0800 for socgrad-list Thu, 17 Feb 1994 16:13:29 -0800 for From: Tristan Riley Subject: Re: Violence Initiative To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU (soc) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 94 16:13:28 PST LEE@cati.umd.edu writes: > > I may have missed something in the flurry of messages lately. >My understanding of the Violence Initiative is that it is a policy >framework that reappeared under different names several times in the >past couple decades of NIMH's lifespan. The crux of this social >control mechanism (fascist someone accurately noted) is only on the >surface one dealing with criminality and biological >predispositions toward aggression. The Violence Initiative is about >trying to use the political and (considerably specious) >scientific ideology of biopsychiatry to get millions of poor kids >(mostly Black and Hispanic kids) labeled under any of the many >DSM-III, soon to be IV version, rubric of diagnoses. Thank you for this post. What you missed in the flurry was what looked to me like more than a few apologies for the endeavor of "Science" (capital S), no matter what its likely ramifications and motivations, in the interests of functionalism, 'scientific progress', 'pluralism', etc. and a general rejection of the idea that science (human or otherwise) could be fundamentally *political*. Tristan (who's quite prepared to reject some 'sciences' and 'arguments' out of hand without spending time 'exploring them' for the decidedly unscientific reason that they institutionalize, criminalize and otherwise marginalize entire classes of people--guess that makes me 'biased' and perhaps even 'merely *de*structive', no?) From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Feb 17 16:38:31 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 17 Feb 1994 16:29:26 -0800 for socgrad-list Thu, 17 Feb 1994 16:29:19 -0800 for Date: Thu, 17 Feb 94 18:32:47 EST From: "Marlen R. Hancock" Organization: Emory University - Atlanta, Georgia, USA Subject: Re: What do you like about your seminars? To: Joya Misra Marni meant to send this note to the list, so I'm forwarding it on. I've only gotten a few suggestions so far, and I know many of you MUST have opinions about what makes a grad seminar interesting or boring, "bad" or "good" so feel free to share your thoughts! ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- On Thu, 17 Feb 94 11:07:45 EST you said: >Friends, > >I recently posed this question on another net to which I belong. I would >like to know what things you have liked best about the best seminars >you have been in. Basically, I am hoping to put together a list of >"things to do" which will help with being an effective teacher at the >grad level. So if you could take a few moments and recall that most >wonderful experience in your grad classroom career... > >Joya > >P.S. So, we'll start talking about Patricia Hill Collins' book _Black >Feminist Thought_ tomorrow, yes? > What do you like about your seminars? Joya, not quite what you requested, but still, I think, significant. "A seminar is used to discuss an idea, debate a point, analyze an issue or work together to gain concensus. It involves group discussion. Discussion is defined as free and unhampered consideration of a problem by a cooperative group of persons talking together under guidance. Not all small groups are seminars. It is misuse of the term when it is used to indicate a course with a small enrollment or an undirected, unfocused discussion by the instructor or student or both. Guinee defined a seminar as a form of class organization that utilizes a scientific approach to the analysis of a problem chosen for discussion. The seminar is guided discussion with the student taking the intellectual initiative. The teacher is a member of the group, sometimes acting as a leader, other as consultant. Discussion is the sharing of ideas and information, give and take of opinions and exploration of problems. The seminar provides students with practice in assessing, relating, summarizing and applying ideas. The group process effects an individual's own style of solving problems through exposure to how others solve problems." from de Tornay, Rheba. _Strategies for Teaching Nursing_. 1971G Based on the above description, I have had very few true seminars. Of those, I most enjoyed one in feminist theory where the topic was of clear interest to the instructor and where the instructor functioned primarily to keep the discussion on track. She also had a true capacity to say "I never thought of that!" It was a glorious class-- one of the best in all of my educational career. (And as Joya knows, I have a checkered and lengthy educational career.) :) Marni (the Cookie Monster) Hancock SOCAW059@EMUVM1  Re: What do you like about your seminars? R From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Feb 17 17:33:44 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 17 Feb 1994 17:28:06 -0800 for socgrad-list Thu, 17 Feb 1994 17:28:03 -0800 for Date: Thu, 17 Feb 94 20:13:59 EST From: Alan Subject: Science and methods To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Is all this debate an issue over what methods and procedures we use, or is it about the attitude we take toward our "data?" It seems that anybody who has a favorite methodology who somehow only learned one method in grad school (I h ope I'm not insulting anyone) has the notion that their method holds the precio us key to unlock the "true" picture of what is going on, and this is what makes us "scientists" versus laypeople. If you have a notion that a social problem is in the making and you want to find ways to control it and the individuals in volved, it doesn't really matter how good your tools are, or whether you engage in Participant Observation, Grounded Theory, in-depth interviewing, least squa res regression, Lisrel, or what was facetiously termed by Bob "Ordinary Maximiz ed Squares Regression." From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Feb 17 19:16:38 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 17 Feb 1994 19:13:47 -0800 for socgrad-list Thu, 17 Feb 1994 19:13:45 -0800 for Date: Thu, 17 Feb 1994 22:14:52 -0500 To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU From: danryan@minerva.cis.yale.edu (Dan Ryan) Subject: Truth and method...is all the abstraction necessary? content-length: 2899 BDofW says: >Methods are >simply an attempt to produce such confidence. If you object to the >existing methods, and want to propose introspective naval gazing or >Ordinary Maximized Squares Regression as the basis of your information >about the world, no one has any reason to take you seriously until you >can establish the quality of the information such a method produces. I wonder if this discussion wouldn't benefit from yet another distinction: a method of data collection is not the same as a method of data analysis. (Apologies if this is redundant.) When I have a problem with quantitative methods, my misgivings more often derive from doubts about the meaningfulness of the measurement than from general suspicions about the logic of the analysis. I find myself thinking that if natural scientists used such crude, fuzzy and indirect measures, few airplanes would fly and most medicines would be poisonous. I'm unimpressed by some attempts to be "scientific" via quantification because they seem like play-science to this former chemist/physicist/systems analyst kinda guy. When I have a problem with qualitative work, my misgivings often derive from doubts arising from sloppy thinking, unclear reasoning and the like. I find myself wondering why the author thought this was interesting or how could s/he be so unsubtle or how did s/he imagine this stuff supports that interpretation. In either case, it's not a problem with "method," but with the incompetent or bungled use of a "method." I wonder, sometimes, why we're so much more comfortable talking about how respectable things are based on the method employed, rather than getting down to the nitty gritty of the fact that, to put it bluntly, some people are smart and some people are not, sometimes people do good work and sometimes people do not, some people are careful and original thinkers, some people are not. Some folks may bark "who's to say what is good?" but I don't buy the argument. It's what you are paid to do, if you become a scholar. It's your job to say what you think is good, and what you think is bad, to back up your judgment as best you can, to submit it to careful scrutiny by your peers, AND to be take responsibility for your judgements should they turn out to be wrong. Methods of measurement or analysis alone don't inspire or undermine confidence or produce a particular quality of information. Using such things as the first basis of whether one respects a piece of research or not will cause one to accept much that is flawed and to reject much that could enlighten. - ======= - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - == == == == == == == == ======== dan ryan == == yale university == == dept of sociology == == == box 208265 == == == new haven, ct 06520-8265 ==== == danryan@minerva.cis.yale.edu From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Feb 17 20:56:31 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 17 Feb 1994 20:52:31 -0800 for socgrad-list Thu, 17 Feb 1994 20:52:27 -0800 for Date: Thu, 17 Feb 94 23:27:11 EST From: Joya Misra Organization: Emory University - Atlanta, Georgia, USA Subject: *political* science To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU Tristan says: >Thank you for this post. What you missed in the flurry was what >looked to me like more than a few apologies for the endeavor of "Science" >(capital S), no matter what its likely ramifications and >motivations, in the interests of functionalism, 'scientific progress', >'pluralism', etc. and a general rejection of the idea that science (human >or otherwise) could be fundamentally *political*. Again, I'm not quite sure how this debate became so polarized. I don't think I've really seen anyone reject the idea that science could be fundamentally *political*. In fact, what I've seen are some very nuanced discussions about how despite the fact that science is by nature political, it's the means that we presently have, and some requests for ideas how to better "do science." Haven't seen any responses to these requests though. I certainly haven't offered any myself. I'm not just trying to make nice here between the opposing camps in this debate. I am beginning to think though that we don't all seem to be listening to each other very carefully. These are complex issues and rather than setting up each other's positions as straw-people to knock down, I think the discussion would benefit from careful consideration of each other's ideas. This isn't to knock any one person, and I'm sure that someone can point a finger at me as well. But let's inject a little less posturing and a little more search- for-answers-to-hard-questions into all of this. joya From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Feb 17 21:00:32 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 17 Feb 1994 20:58:00 -0800 for socgrad-list Thu, 17 Feb 1994 20:57:57 -0800 for Date: Thu, 17 Feb 94 23:21:37 EST From: Steve Harvey Subject: method in the madness To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU While I basically agree with Dan's assessment of the limited relevance of using "good" methods for doing "good" work, and I definitely agree with his assessment of the shortcoming of quantitative data analysis, there are a couple of things worth pointing out: 1) "Methods" does not just refer to data gathering and analysis; it also refers to deductive reasoning. The quality of an argument is not a mysterious rabbit from a hat; it's the skilled use of logic. And there are well- developed methods for using and assessing the use of logic (mathematics being the most formal version). 2) The quality of research, the quality of analysis, and the quality of theory building, regardless of the paradigm, can be subjected to certain generally agreed-upon standards. How many people on socgrad would praise an analysis which argues that higher voting turnout in the United States is a direct consequence of higher earthworm fertility in Bali, because the researcher recalls that the election following his/her visit to Bali, there seemed to be an unusually high voter turn out, and there had seemed to be a whole lot of earthworms in Bali on that visit.... Why can we all agree that this is a poor analysis? Because we have some understanding of the "rules" of both inductive and deductive logic, virtually all of which this analysis breaks. 3) Methods are tools. Swinging a hammer doesn't a carpenter make. But it's awe- fully hard to wish a nail into the wood. Whether people are doing qualita- tive or quantitative work, they employ methods. We do not operate in a vacuum. 4) Whereas sociologists tend to think of mathematics as something one applies to data, and theory as the verbal interpretations of those analyses, mathematics can also be used in theory building, and mathematics, of course, need not be used in data analysis. Personally, I prefer qualitative research coupled with quantitative theory building, because, as Dan pointed out, reducing the real world to numbers requires some big leaps. But using math to express ideas about underlying dynamics (hypothetical numbers, so to speak) simply means making theories very explicit in their assumptions and very sound in their logical integrity. Steve "Really-Just-a-Clone-of-Myself" Harvey harvey@uconnvm From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Feb 18 05:19:28 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 18 Feb 1994 05:14:57 -0800 for socgrad-list Fri, 18 Feb 1994 05:14:56 -0800 for Date: Fri, 18 Feb 94 07:00:30 -0600 From: donnelly@ssc.wisc.edu (It's a nike thing) To: "socgrad@ucsd.edu"@ssc.wisc.edu Subject: Hell and back... Dear sogradders: I have just been to hell and back with the medical profession to find out I have a SINUS INFECTION. Has anyone out there gone for years without adequate medical care, not by some perverse act of will, but through inadquate health care, only to find themselve caught up in a series of pregroessively worse and worse diagnoses, all missing the root of the problem, and all running up HUGE pharmaceutical bills in the process? I am now ruling out a number of possibilities for my recent poor health, from an integrated mind/body/soul perspective. THat means I go into the hospitals/clinics and other areas which are paid for by my health insurance, (something I have not had for years) and I rule out each possibility for every ache, starting from the smallest to the most serious. Each time I rule out something, rather than feel like an idiot for pursuing the wrong track, i consider it progress and keep going to determine the cause of various symptoms. One word of caution to other women, minorities and the poor who are often treated with second best since they are not valued highly and are often thought to not have the means or the interest to pay their bills and are therefore given a number of placebos rather than serious health care -- DON"T QUIT/ and make sure you get second and third opinions on anything requiring prolonged drug therapy, particularly when this involves experimental drug therapy (which we will be offered more frequently than others)/ and before/during and after receiving ANY diagnosis, continue to get complete comprehensive medical exams. Dont' let anyone tell you you are not worth this much. I'm really pissed right now at the appalling lack of concern for the health well-being and care of marginalized people in our society. Any one else out there? Please respond to me privately as well as over the distribution list, particularly if you are involved in health care research or have an interest in this area. No, this is not my dissertation topic, but I would like to exchange ideas with other like-minded individuals. Anyone have information on the health care benefits/risks of SMILING among women? :) Patrice "one angry over-medicated, under-valued, literally sick of prejudice and injustice, puppy" What do we think statistics are supposed to be telling us anyway! All of ..... back to my work with a healthy rage. From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Feb 18 07:16:56 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 18 Feb 1994 07:14:39 -0800 for socgrad-list Fri, 18 Feb 1994 07:14:35 -0800 for Date: Fri, 18 Feb 94 09:10:01 EST From: Steve Harvey Subject: positions To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU A few clarifications: 1) I don't agree with everything Bob has written, though I think his arguments contribute to the dialogue. 2) I have stated my own position clearly, but I find people often responding to their own selective pruning of it. 3) I have emphasized repeatedly that I DO consider the struggle over the establishment of what is held to be true a political process, neither benign, nor unbiased, nor fair. 4) I worked from a cultural hegemony/critical theory perspective for about three years. I fully understand the argument that science is part of an historical bourgeois and/or patriarchal ideological package. 5) I have argued that identifying these conditions is not the same as solving them. These are not "artificial" constructs which obscure some pure and good social reality beneath them. These ARE social reality. 6) I believe that the problems characteristic of Western society are one permutation of "problems," or pitfalls, inherent to social organization. This does not mean that these problems cannot be mitigated, or that there are no alternative forms of social organization by which various forms of oppression, exploitation, and overcontrol can be eliminated. It *does* mean that to do so requires explicit attention to the underlying (microlevel) causes of oppression, exploitation, and overcontrol. 7) Things such as health care are "public goods" in my lexicon, and require institutions by which individuals are coordinated to provide for their collective welfare. These institutions develop historically, carrying the biases and unjust residues of historical exercises of power with them. "Science" also is such a public good, and is molded by the same history. 8) Tearing down the institutions by which we provide public goods remedies the unjust distribution of those goods, but it also causes the ceasation of their production. 9) Tearing down the institutions by which we provide public goods AND attempting to replace them with a blueprint of a superior arrangement creates a feeding ground for the newly empowered (not the newly empowered class, but the newly empowered individuals who claim to represent that class). There is much more I can say on these subjects. The fundamental distinction between the orientation I am presenting here and the opposing orientation which takes the high moral ground is that the former identifies social dynamics as a non-zero-sum struggle among multiple nested and overlapping social configura- tions, and the latter identifies social dynamics as a zero-sum struggle among "oppressor" and "oppressed" groups. I have explored structural marxism, critical theory (ala the Frankfurt School) and postmodernism in my 5 years of grad school, and have been intrigued by the insights they have to offer. But, many of my nagging reservations were never addressed until I adopted the approach I now use. The former approaches helped identify many questions and issues that might otherwise have gone unaddressed, but I have found that they can all be subsumed and transcended by what, somewhat misleadingly, can be referred to as a "microeconomic" approach. There is certainly room for people to disagree with these conclusions, but it might help, and it would certainly show a little more intellectual courage, if people listened first, and engaged in honest debate, before blowing trumpets and unfurling banners in (self-)righteous indignation. Steve "Blood-Sweat-and-Tears" Harvey harvey@uconnvm From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Feb 18 08:36:38 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 18 Feb 1994 08:31:27 -0800 for socgrad-list Fri, 18 Feb 1994 08:31:20 -0800 for Date: Fri, 18 Feb 94 11:22:01 EST From: Joya Misra Organization: Emory University - Atlanta, Georgia, USA Subject: straw people To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU In a post last night, I argued that I felt that the sides to this *science* debate were setting one another up as straw people. I may not have been clear enough. I was not pointing the finger at only one side. Let me be entirely explicit. These are the statements I found suspect. Bob said: >>I get the impression that many >>people would ban any research where the research couldn't promise in >>advance that no harm could possibly come to anyone. Tristan said: >>What you missed in the flurry was what looked >>to me like more than a few apologies for the endeavor of "Science" >>(capital S), no matter what its likely ramifications and >>motivations, in the interests of functionalism, 'scientific progress', >>'pluralism', etc. and a general rejection of the idea that science (human >>or otherwise) could be fundamentally *political*. Both of these statements seem to belie the complexity of the arguments that have been presented here. That's ALL I was saying. If you want to know my substantive position, go back and read my posts on the subject. Or ASK me. joya From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Feb 18 09:07:27 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 18 Feb 1994 09:04:19 -0800 for socgrad-list Fri, 18 Feb 1994 09:04:12 -0800 for From: blovitts@nsf.gov To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: Violence Debate and the Review Process Date: 18 Feb 94 11:18 EST Before I address the Violence debate, let me quickly deal with another issue. Someone on the net forwarded my "Al Gore on the Social Sciences" to the White House. I got response back from the autoresponder. While I appreciate the political motivation behind the act, I don't appreciate the act. I am a Federal employee and live under all sorts of restrictions -- public opinion of government employees and waste and abuse notwithstanding. We have only recently been un-Hatch Acted, i.e, we can now engage in partisan political activies like working on campaigns. One of the restrictions that still applies, however, is that it is ILLEGAL for us to lobby the government. That email message could be viewed as lobbying and it does have my federal return address on it. I could probably even get into trouble for being on this net if I didn't have an Independent Research/Development plan which is giving me time to work on my dissertation. An argument could be made that being on the net furthers my professional development in that regard. Without it, this interaction might no be possible. So please, before you forward messages, ask the sender first. Thanks. I'm about a day or so late on this debate. I was actually on campus yesterday being graduate student. It felt great! I can't locate the actual comments made about the peer review process, but I think a little too much faith was put in it. Hopefully, most of you are aware of the literature on peer review. Let me give you an insiders perspective on the review and funding of proposals. When grants officers get proposals that they really like or really dislike they often try to find a reviewer that they know will give them a high or low rating, respectively. Thus the fate of a proposal (and a journal article) is more in the hands of the person seeking the reviews than in the reviews themselves. This is not to discount the reviews. We take them very seriously. Often proposals we thought were good get exposed as having a fatal flaw and proposals we thought were bad turn out to have more merit than we originally thought. The basic point is that the review process is only as good as the referees sought and that the person seeking the reviews often brings conscious biases to the selection process. I have been asked, and have asked, other program officers to suggest a reviewer to will give a proposal the type of review desired. With respect to the violence proposal at NIH, I expect that project probably had a budget in the millions. If it did, it probably also had to pass through a higher level of review than just the program officer. At NSF, projects over $10 million or more than $1.5 million per year have to be approved by the National Science Board. So I expect that the violence proposal probably received more than the usual degree of scrutiny and was probably reviewed by ethics experts. However, that proposal was probably not looked at by sociologists. Why, after all should the program director have sent it to them? If we as sociologists want them to start addressing the issues we raise upfront before our taxpayer dollars are spent on research of which we disapprove, then we have to start building bridges. Screaming and yelling and sending letters of condemnation won't get you anywhere. If you want to have an impact, then you have to show them how you can be of service to them. Anyone ever read the book _Getting to Yes_? The biologists have their interests, we have ours, the trick is to get them to believe that our interests are important in furthering theirs. A first step would be to get them to believe that it is in their interests to have their "sensitive" proposals sent to one or two sociologists for review. But, if we are to do that, then we must reciprocate in kind. Barbara From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Feb 18 09:29:23 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 18 Feb 1994 09:25:28 -0800 for socgrad-list Fri, 18 Feb 1994 09:25:26 -0800 for Date: Fri, 18 Feb 1994 09:25:21 -0800 (PST) From: Robert Duniway Subject: Re: Violence Initiative To: Tristan Riley On Thu, 17 Feb 1994, Tristan Riley wrote: > Tristan > (who's quite prepared to reject some 'sciences' and 'arguments' out > of hand without spending time 'exploring them' for the decidedly > unscientific reason that they institutionalize, criminalize and > otherwise marginalize entire classes of people--guess that makes me > 'biased' and perhaps even 'merely *de*structive', no?) > How do you know that they institutionalize, criminalize, and otherwise marginalize entire classes of people if you don't spend at least some time exploring them. Are your powers of perception really that extrordinary? Bob Duniway - University of Washington From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Feb 18 09:43:28 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 18 Feb 1994 09:40:54 -0800 for socgrad-list Fri, 18 Feb 1994 09:40:48 -0800 for Date: Fri, 18 Feb 94 12:10:11 EST From: Steve Harvey Subject: Getting to Yes To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU Barbara's comments reiterate the point I've been trying to make. I never meant to place unflagging faith in the peer review process. I merely suggested that to improve upon it requires positive suggestions and positive effort, rather than just shrill denunciation. Some red herrings that have been put forward in this debate: I have never defended the virtue of statistical analysis. In fact, because it requires a numerical data set, I tend to think of most statistical analysis as involving an unacceptable loss of information. Of course, this is only my own bias. I'm sure that many fine insights can be generated via statistical analysis. I have never argued that sciene is a benevolent enterprise. I have challenged people to suggest ways of improving upon it, and Barbara is the only person to have risen to that challenge so far. Tristan's remarks were simply an act of discarding by labelling. *Since* anything other than a denunciation of ideas with which Tristan finds political fault are apologetics for functionalism, pluralism, and all evil things; and since such ideas refuse to acknowledge that science is a political process (despite the repeated aknowledgement that science is a political process), people who do anything other than simply denounce such ideas are in some enemy camp. Tristan proudly rejects the ideas in question, though I have no idea what it means and what consequence it has that Tristan rejects these ideas. The world remains unchanged for this noble stand, and no suggestion of how it might be changed is implied. No alternative argument, no definition of functionalism et al., and no explanation of how ideas presented fall into that rejected-by-definition category are offered. I would call the argument vacuous, but there was no argument. Just a series of labels. Steve "Unstuck-In-a-Tralfamadorian-Zoo" Harvey harvey@uconnvm From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Feb 18 10:12:36 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 18 Feb 1994 10:08:06 -0800 for socgrad-list Fri, 18 Feb 1994 10:08:00 -0800 for Date: Fri, 18 Feb 1994 10:07:55 -0800 (PST) From: Robert Duniway Subject: Re: straw people To: Joya Misra On Fri, 18 Feb 1994, Joya Misra wrote: > In a post last night, I argued that I felt that the sides to this > *science* debate were setting one another up as straw people. I may > not have been clear enough. I was not pointing the finger at only one > side. Let me be entirely explicit. These are the statements I found > suspect. > > Bob said: > >>I get the impression that many > >>people would ban any research where the research couldn't promise in > >>advance that no harm could possibly come to anyone. Joya, I'm afraid I'm guilty as charged here. This statement is certainly more extreme than the actual position of anyone on this list. I was getting annoyed by the debate, and this statement was simply an emotional outburst. Thanks for refereeing this match. I'll try to be a bit more thoughtful in future posts. Bob Duniway - University of Washington P.S. - Although the statement above is clearly too extreme, I still feel there is a grain of truth in it. There seems to be a number of people who devote much of their energy to sounding alarms. While a certain amount of policing is undeniably necessary, it can be (and has been) taken too far. I think both the Spector quote and the rejection of any research into a biological factor in homosexuality are good examples of destructive over policing. P.P.S. - Lest some of you now think I am a homophobe as well as a racist, I want you to know that: 1. Three of my closest friends are homosexual, and all three of them believe they were born that way. 2. My sister is a lesbian, and spent years trying to repress her attraction to other women because she was very religious. She has never felt any sexual attraction for anyone male. I think this and similar anecdotal evidence justifies investigating the possibility that there is a biological predisposition toward homosexuality. I don't know whether there is a biological component or not, but I know that the way to find out is to encourage quality research. Contrary to the claims of some critics of science, researchers do not always confirm their theories, and in fact biologists are more likely to find disconfirming evidence for their own hypotheses than social scientists because they have somewhat more precise measurement methods. From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Feb 18 10:22:06 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 18 Feb 1994 10:19:22 -0800 for socgrad-list Fri, 18 Feb 1994 10:19:09 -0800 for Date: Fri, 18 Feb 94 13:11 EST From: "Pamela M Paxton" To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: income measurement and publications Before we get into a discussion of the Patricia Hill Collins book, I wanted to throw out one observation. Awhile ago, someone asked socgradders to mention how long they have been in graduate school and how many publications they have. As I recall, Joya was the only one who revealed any information. Although the questioner may have received some answers privately, I suspect most people ignored the pst. So, anyone else notice? Is asking a graduate student (or perhaps any acadamician) for their number of publications like asking the average american for their income? Should we place it way down at the bottom of a survey and divide the possible answers into nice broad (read somewhat safe) categories? if thats true, what does it tell us? Do we all buy into 'publishing means you're OK?' Does anyone else have any feelings on this? Was it just a boring question or is something really going on? Does non- response work both ways - people w/ no publications not responding b/c they don't want to admit it and those with many publications afraid to admit it? Does the reason for lack of response have anything to do with year in graduate school? (for example, I am a second year graduate student and felt it was pretty pointless to say I have no publications) anyway, I just thought it was rather interesting to see Sociologists avoiding a type of survey question (we're normally pretty good about it) and wanted to point it out. Pam UPAMMP@unc.oit.unc.edu From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Feb 18 10:56:28 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 18 Feb 1994 10:47:46 -0800 for socgrad-list Fri, 18 Feb 1994 10:47:40 -0800 for Date: Fri, 18 Feb 94 13:35:01 EST From: Steve Harvey Subject: Tristan's response To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU Following is a note Tristan sent to me. One other individual has also sent me angry diatribes (short and sarcastic). The anger in this note seems to be motivated by the affront that I could dare to maintain an orientation which differs from that which Tristan maintains. The assumptions about my epistomology and my familiarity (or lack thereof) with certain bodies of literature are convenient, but mistaken. I won't honor hate-mail such as this with any further response. -S.H. From: Tristan Riley Subject: Re: positions To: HARVEY%UCONNVM.bitnet@YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (Steve Harvey) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 94 9:56:50 PST 94 9:10 am Steve Harvey writes: > >3) I have emphasized repeatedly that I DO consider the struggle over the > establishment of what is held to be true a political process, neither > benign, nor unbiased, nor fair. > >5) I have argued that identifying these conditions is not the same as solving > them. These are not "artificial" constructs which obscure some pure and good > social reality beneath them. These ARE social reality. > > >I have explored structural marxism, critical theory (ala the Frankfurt School) >and postmodernism in my 5 years of grad school, and have been intrigued by the >insights they have to offer. But, many of my nagging reservations were never >addressed until I adopted the approach I now use. The former approaches helped >identify many questions and issues that might otherwise have gone unaddressed, >but I have found that they can all be subsumed and transcended by what, >somewhat misleadingly, can be referred to as a "microeconomic" approach. There >is certainly room for people to disagree with these conclusions, but it might >help, and it would certainly show a little more intellectual courage, if >people listened first, and engaged in honest debate, before blowing trumpets >and unfurling banners in (self-)righteous indignation. > > Well, the narrative of progress could hardly be any clearer in your most recent post. Also the trope of being the "high minded and _courageous_ defender of intellectual integrity" comes through with a vengeance. I am pleased that you have so successfully "transcended" the naivete of "Marxism, critical theory, and postmodernism" (whatever that last term means--generally a good sign of an 'outsider' to radical discourses when this useless blanket term is used for anything other than sarcasm) and found the more intellectually satisfying functionalist position. I have no desire to expend energy doing what I've already had to do a million times in my short stay in grad school, that is, argue about whether sociology is a "science" with people with perspectives and ideologies incommensurable to my own. Perhaps if you'd taken some of your "postmodernism" a bit more seriously, you'd wonder about the readiness with which you throw out "honest debate" as the obvious solution to any disagreement which might arise. I think, quite frankly, that your point about the need for sociology to 'solve the problems' as well as provide the 'critique' is wonderful evidence of the pomposity and self-importance assumed by some of the worst in this discipline--this is the quickest way to discount anyone who is critical of *anything*, they after all have no "positive program". I look at my role in this business as quite a bit less messianic than this--I'm interested in preventing my "colleagues" from speaking and legislating for the rest of the social world as if they were born (or trained) for the job and allowing the 'solutions' to arise from the people who will have to deal with them, not from a bunch of oh-so-wise and "intellectually courageous" academics. Your comments on this list about "comradeship" have provided me with quite a good laugh from time to time--I thank you for that. A few of us here understand that some of our "colleagues" on this list are really just slightly younger versions of the scary faculty and administrators we have to battle constantly with to survive who are patiently awaiting their own ascension into seats of power from which they can deny tenure to folks like me. Good day to you. Tristan From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Feb 18 13:21:53 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 18 Feb 1994 13:19:01 -0800 for socgrad-list Fri, 18 Feb 1994 13:18:58 -0800 for Date: Fri, 18 Feb 94 16:03:27 EST From: Steve Harvey Subject: More from Tristan To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU From: Tristan Riley Subject: Re: Tristan's response To: HARVEY%UCONNVM.bitnet@YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (Steve Harvey) Date: Fri, 18 Feb 94 12:32:44 PST 94 1:35 pm Wonderful (if predictable) move, Steve. You are now a victim and a martyr. Do you feel that much more justified now? You shall have to pardon me if I remain rather unmoved by this attempt to portray yourself as the great apostle of intellectual integrity attacked by the evil "Marxists" (or whatever category you've stuck me in by now). I nearly asked in my last post whether your question as to whether or not social control is inherently bad or not might have been motivated by the fact that the subjects having it exercised on them via the Violence Initiative aren't white guys in the Yale sociology department, but this clears that up for me. Will you post this to the group as well as further evidence of my "anger" and your own "integrity"? I would imagine the response to that question has already been provided. I remain entertained by the fact that some are so concerned that everyone "get along nicely" that they feel compelled to engage in public histrionics of the order you've displayed here when someone finds your position pernicious. If this is the best "hate mail" you've ever gotten, all the more reason that perhaps you might want to consider your own comfy perspective in this and other discussions in the future and try comparing say this 'horrible attack' you've just suffered and the experiences of those who are on the receiving end of your particular sociological ideology. Tristan Martyr's note: I'm not at Yale; I'm at the University of Connecticut. I understand your position, but I don't consider it "Truth," just your position. I gain nothing from my "pernicious" theoretical bent. I'm not particularly ambitious, just muddling around trying to make sense of the world. As for the poor souls at the receiving end of my sociological ideology, I operate under the delusion that it remains an open question under what ideology poor souls suffer most, and that it requires more than venom to gain insight into that question. Have you ever considered the possibility that not all people who disagree with you are evil, and that your Truth may not be the only Truth? Steve "Oh-No!-Not-The-Comfy-Chair" Harvey From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Feb 18 14:14:52 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 18 Feb 1994 14:08:35 -0800 for socgrad-list Fri, 18 Feb 1994 14:08:30 -0800 for Date: Fri, 18 Feb 94 16:43:15 EST From: Steve Harvey Subject: a procedural/ethical question To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU Someone asked me if I had permission to forward Tristan's note (now notes) to the list. Here is my answer: No, but since it pertained to a discussion on the list, and since I found it to be an offensive personal assault, I believed it belonged on the list. If someone sent me antisemetic mail, for instance, I wouldn't feel a moral obligation to protect their identity. I have no ill-will toward people who view the world differently from myself, but I do resent the ad hominem attacks from people who disagree with me. I think there is room for a modicum of mutual respect in a forum such as this. I have done nothing that I know of to personally offend anyone on this list, and I am willing to say, "here is the response to my expression of ideas in this public forum. Is this what we are about?" An added comment: To be honest, I'm not that bothered by the whole thing. For some reason, though, I *do* find the interaction compelling. People use many vehicles for their emotional gratification, and, perhaps for all involved, this is one such vehicle. People vent; people parry; people joke; people posture (yeah, sure, no exception here!). It's a little dance. But, in other circumstances, the choices of how we engage in such dances have real consequences. If people are tired of this nonsense, I apologize for drawing it out. I've imposed on you all quite a bit lately, I know! But this is one field among many in which life is being played out, and I throw myself into it with gusto on all fronts. For what it's worth, I sincerely apologize for annoying so many people with whatever it is I have done which people are finding annoying. It's really not my main objective in life, and, even if it's been vilified as a somehow offensive attitude, I tend to think that "praxis" starts at home (I may not always act on that, but I admit to my share of hypocricy).Anyway, consider the olive branch held out to anyone interested in taking it. I'm still interested in engaging with anyone on this list who cares to (Tristan included) in a friendly and mutually enriching way. Steve "Tear-Along-The-Perforated-Edge" Harvey harvey@uconnvm From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Feb 18 17:49:51 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 18 Feb 1994 17:39:59 -0800 for socgrad-list Fri, 18 Feb 1994 17:39:56 -0800 for From: roxburgh@epas.utoronto.ca (S Roxburgh) Subject: straw people To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Fri, 18 Feb 1994 20:38:58 -0500 (EST) I haven't been following this debate super-carefully, but would like to comment on Robert Duniway's recent posting - demonstrating anecdotally that there's evidence that a behaviour has a hereditary component is not the point. There's probably a hereditary component to a predeliction for blue wallpaper, but nobody cares enough to study this. In other words, what's already been said still stands - what government choses to fund is no accident - ask yourself why some in the scientific and government agency are so interested in establishing that homosexuality is genetic - because it's regarded as deviant and because a cause always suggests/implies the possiblity of a cure. Hope I haven't missed the point - as I say I 've been reading the postings very quickly. From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Feb 18 18:41:03 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 18 Feb 1994 18:33:49 -0800 for socgrad-list Fri, 18 Feb 1994 18:33:47 -0800 for Date: Fri, 18 Feb 1994 18:33:35 -0800 (PST) From: Robert Duniway Subject: Re: straw people To: S Roxburgh On Fri, 18 Feb 1994, S Roxburgh wrote: > I haven't been following this debate super-carefully, but would like > to comment on Robert Duniway's recent posting - demonstrating anecdotally that > there's evidence that a behaviour has a hereditary component is not > the point. There's probably a hereditary component to a predeliction > for blue wallpaper, but nobody cares enough to study this. In other > words, what's already been said still stands - what government > choses to fund is no accident - ask yourself why some in the > scientific and government agency are so interested in establishing > that homosexuality is genetic - because it's regarded as deviant and because > a cause always suggests/implies the possiblity of a cure. Hope I haven't > missed the point - as I say I 've been reading the postings very quickly. > A conspiracy theory is a very substantial claim about the nature of the world, and there should be a substantial burden of proof when trying to defend such a claim. Once again, I think that the uses to which a particular line of research will be used is difficult to surmise, and your concern provides a good opportunity to demonstrate what I mean. I have heard Pat Robertson attack the suggestion that homosexuality is hereditary because he sees this as an attempt to provide legal protection against discrimination. If homosexuals don't have a free choice in whether or not they are homosexual, he reasons that they would be able to claim the same legal status as racial group or gender groups (Please, don't even bother posting to say that race and gender race socially constructed. Our understanding of the role of our biological sex in shaping our identities is certainly largely determined by cultural influences, but I think my biology had quite a bit to do with my perception that I am white and male.) Others have argued that if homosexuality is biologically determined, homosexuals can claim worker protection under the American's With Disabilities act because their homosexuality is a cultural disability. Others fear that proving sexual orientation is not an decision completely under the control of the individual will lead to teaching that homosexuality is (gasp) natural and not immoral and preverse (Aside: Here in Washington State signatures are being collected to but an initiative before the voters that would outlaw teaching that homosexuality is natural.). How do you determine that your assessment of the alterior motives of research funding agencies is correct, and these alternatives are incorrect? I don't think it is usually possible to tell. This is why I would rather not lobby against research, but encourage competing political factions to bring forward the best evidence they have, try to find the holes in the evidence the opposition is using, and fight the public policy battles in the political arena. Second guessing researchers and only researching PC theories will not do as much to enlightenb us. Bob Duniway - University of Washington From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Feb 18 18:59:51 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 18 Feb 1994 18:57:07 -0800 for socgrad-list Fri, 18 Feb 1994 18:57:04 -0800 for Date: Fri, 18 Feb 94 21:24:12 EST From: Joya Misra Organization: Emory University - Atlanta, Georgia, USA Subject: Black Feminist Thought To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU Well, I've been waiting to see who might make opening remarks on the Patricia Hill Collins book _Black Feminist Thought_, and decided that I might begin with a few questions. (1) What do you think of the concept that conditions in the wider political economy both foster black women's oppression and black women's activism? Without oppression would activism exist? (2) How central is the notion of the "outsider-within" to black feminist thought? How central is it to other kinds of thought? (3) What do you think of the ways in which the author tries to define "black feminists"? Do you agree with her take? With any of the other definitions posited? (4) Why is the interdependence of thought and action so central to the notion of a black woman's standpoint? Is it central to other standpoints? (5) What do you think of bell hooks' suggestion that we shift from statementslike "I am a feminist" to "I advocate feminism"? (6) Does the concept of "womanism" water down the impact that black feminists are trying to make ("To Walker, one is a 'womanist' when one is 'committed to the survival and wholeness of entire people, male and female.'" p. 38)? Well, those were just a few questions I had which I thought might stimulate a little discussion. Hope you all are enjoying the reading. SOCAK663@EMUVM1.BITNET OR SOCAK663@EMUVM1.CC.EMORY.EDU ********************************************************************* Dept. of Sociology "If love was a train I'd throw my body right Emory University down on her tracks." Atlanta, GA 30322 -Michelle Shocked From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Feb 18 20:07:25 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 18 Feb 1994 20:04:54 -0800 for socgrad-list Fri, 18 Feb 1994 20:04:52 -0800 for Date: Fri, 18 Feb 94 22:03:33 -0600 From: donnelly@ssc.wisc.edu (It's a nike thing) To: "socgrad@ucsd.edu"@ssc.wisc.edu Subject: One persons reply -- ok to forward -- Re: SMILING and your HEALTH...:) From: EUNICE::"@EMUVM1.CC.EMORY.EDU:SOCAK663@EMUVM1.CC.EMORY.EDU" 18-FEB-1994 07:55:35.05 To: Patrice CC: Subj: HEALTH CARE RE: health care Smiling is not a good thing when you are trying to convince doctors to help you. At ASA in 1992 I was infected with a parasite. I missed a conference in Germany the following week. Doctors told me I was under stress. I continued to get sick. They ran a few tests, told me all was well (though my sed rate was in fact quite high). I got sicker. I insisted seeing specialists. They told me I was fine - had I considered stress? I got sicker. I could not leave my bed. I was in acute pain. I lost more than 30 pounds. I thought I was dying. My doctors thought so maybe too, but couldn't figure out why. One particularly sensitive one said "Maybe you have AIDS...we should test you, but you know, if you are HIV infected you already have progressed into AIDS." Two weeks later he called and quite casually announced my test came back negative. I trudged into my doctors' offices weekly, but always with a smile on my face, always saying,"I know you're trying to help, but..." I lost a years work in my program. I spent a year in bed, feeling like I might never get better. They did a biopsy in May (got infected in August). I was much better by June, and my strength had returned by October. Smiling is a mistake. DO NOT SMILE. Joya From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Feb 18 20:44:25 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 18 Feb 1994 20:42:00 -0800 for socgrad-list Fri, 18 Feb 1994 20:41:58 -0800 for Date: Fri, 18 Feb 94 22:22:38 -0600 From: donnelly@ssc.wisc.edu (It's a nike thing) To: "socgrad@ucsd.edu"@ssc.wisc.edu Subject: Hell and back and incomplete sentences... Integrated mind/body and soul approach to health care is essential for marginalized groups. WHY? Because too often marginalized groups are treated symptomatically, and the medical model of ruling out all causes is not applied. Pills, experimental drugs (and I do not mean hard to find experimental drug testing, I mean the dumping of surplus drugs, and the prescribing of new drugs to marginalized persons as a means of testing the drug before marketing it with greater knowledge of its side effects, and effectiveness) are pushed onto the poor as a means of treating their symptoms without taking the time to rule out all possible causes. The more integrated our approach is to treatment the less possibilities there are of allowing a single diagnosis to exist without considering other areas of a persons life. For example, the simple integration of mind and body, reduces the likelihood that a person in pain from an untreated and undiagnosed ulcer, will be diagnosed as anxious and depressed, and the reverse is true, a person who has been treated for an ulcer will also be able to be treated for anxiety and depression that may have resulted from years of living with the physical pain of an ulcer..... Considering the soul in conjunction with the mind and body, ultimately means that a persons overall health will be evaluated from a larger perspective, perhaps having the effect of bringing more optimism into that persons life, etc. However you want to evaluate it, what I am suggesting is a model that is inclusive of all three elements, and all three are taken seiously. I'm a bit happier not that I have interanlized my experiences in a way which provides me with a grater awareness of how to use the medical system such as it is, and how to talk to others about it, and listen to others concerns. I mean that the experience has enriched my life, at the same time that I fell it has taken a lot from me. Ayway, I'm getting better -- not to be confused with the line in the monty python film -- I would appreciate hearing from anyone who has more to say on comparative health care systems as well as health care among the poor, women and minorities (picture set notation inwhich the categories overlap and dont' use watercolors, otherwise we'll ahve to switch to another pardigm to make sense out of all the blurred edges) ... :0 uh oh, there are a ton of typos in the above paragraph, ... should I hit control-z or rewrite this thing....hmmmm.... I think I'll have to switch over to editing and mailing files rather than mailng from my editor, which does not allow me to move up a line to correct any messes... Re: smiling, I had heard that smiling actually made you feel better, so I was wondering to what extent this bit of information could be taken...my favorite passtime -- taking things to their logical conclusion to find they have lost/no/changed meaning. Major procrastination going on here.... Ciao. Patrice From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Feb 18 20:56:52 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 18 Feb 1994 20:54:34 -0800 for socgrad-list Fri, 18 Feb 1994 20:54:32 -0800 for Date: Fri, 18 Feb 94 23:52 EST To: socgrad From: PATTYO%IRISHMVS.CC.ND.EDU@UICVM.UIC.EDU Subject: health care stuff I cannot keep out of this discussion of health care. As my friends at Notre Dame are all too aware, I have been suffering from a heart problem for the past year and a half or so. I have been tested for everything from drug usage to lupus to diabetes to mytral valve prolapse, and on and on. And all of these tests have been conducted with minimal health insurance (thanks to ND's policy of not treating grad students as employees, but this is a whole different discussion). I have been to three cardiologists, three general practitioners, and the answer? Well, young women often get rapid pulse rates, hot flashes, dizziness, fatigue, excessive shakiness of the hands, etc. and more often than not, they find no cause. All of the tests were to rule out "real" physical disorders and now, I am medicated (with Tenormin - 50 mg/day), told to engage in cardiovascular exercise, but not too much, or I'll pass out from a pulse rate too high, and I am on a restricted diet (no caffeine, no alcohol, no aged cheese, no chocolate, no red wine...). All of these restrictions for a 24 year old! And there is no answer in sight. The tests have stopped, and I am to try to wean off the medication every 6 months to see what happens (it has been unsuccessful thus far). So, what does this have to do with sociology? Well, it does just feel good to vent! But I feel that I am often not taken seriously as a patient because I am a young, female grad student with little insurance. Our health care system does not meet my needs. I know that doctors simply work on hypotheses as we do, but I feel that they have stopped thinking of hypotheses for me. And they have ruled out stress. There have been hints that it is "hormonal" - a catch-all for many illnesses women have that can't be figured out. If so many young women suffer from this "disorder," then why isn't more research being conducted to find out what is going on? Medical sociology is very interesting to me, and I am hopeful to learn more about it in the future! To all those ailing socgraders - good luck! Get well! Patty (pattyo@irishmvs.cc.nd.edu) From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Feb 18 21:19:24 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 18 Feb 1994 21:16:07 -0800 for socgrad-list Fri, 18 Feb 1994 21:16:05 -0800 for Date: Sat, 19 Feb 1994 00:17:18 -0500 To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU From: danryan@minerva.cis.yale.edu (Dan Ryan) Subject: Behaviour in public places... content-length: 1590 Colleagues, Brother Harvey wrote recently >Someone asked me if I had permission to forward Tristan's >note (now notes) to the list. Here is my answer: > >No, but since it pertained to a discussion on the list, >and since I found it to be an offensive personal assault, I >believed it belonged on the list. For someone so into logic, I find the argument a weak one, and... ...(having read the messages)the characterization ("o.p.a") overwrought and... >If someone sent me antisemetic mail, for instance, I wouldn't feel ...the analogy less than apt, and... >a moral obligation to protect their identity. ...revealing identities is not the issue. When someone sends a personal, non-net piece of mail, s/he knows, of course, that the technology makes it possible and even likely that it might get forwarded. Within a collegial community, however, I believe one ought reasonably be able to assume that correspondence is one thing, comments "to the table" are something else. I think that violating a norm like this one does more serious harm to public discourse than any amount of irrationality or other such behaviours. I think it might deserve an apology. I think it ought not happen again. That's what I think. Dan - ======= - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - == == == == == == == == ======== dan ryan == == yale university == == dept of sociology == == == box 208265 == == == new haven, ct 06520-8265 ==== == danryan@minerva.cis.yale.edu From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Feb 18 21:19:31 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 18 Feb 1994 21:16:12 -0800 for socgrad-list Fri, 18 Feb 1994 21:16:10 -0800 for Date: Sat, 19 Feb 1994 00:17:23 -0500 To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU From: danryan@minerva.cis.yale.edu (Dan Ryan) Subject: Disagreeing with Bob's reading of Sue content-length: 1920 >On Fri, 18 Feb 1994, S Roxburgh wrote: ...Sue's comments... >A conspiracy theory is a very substantial claim about the nature of the >world, and there should be a substantial burden of proof when trying to >defend such a claim. Come on, Bob -- Sue didn't mention "conspiracy" at all. She's simply showing good sociological sense in suggesting that one be aware of the fact that science is embedded in a world of conflicting interests. The interests don't have to be so organized as a conspiracy to merit attention. You more or less advance evidence for the same thing in the comments that follow. But then, at the end, you revert to essentially saying leave the politics to the politicians: >How do you determine that your >assessment of the alterior motives of research funding agencies is >correct, and these alternatives are incorrect? I don't think it is >usually possible to tell. Probably not with hand washing certainty. There is such a thing, however, as the ethic of responsibility. One takes a stance, realizing that there is no absolute proof. There are lots of folks out there who will change the laws (citing this, that or whatever as "proof" supporting their changes) while you sit back, unsure of what to do. >This is why I would rather not lobby against >research, but encourage competing political factions to bring forward the >best evidence they have, try to find the holes in the evidence the >opposition is using, and fight the public policy battles in the political >arena. I'm always amazed at how much faith some sociologists have in the marketplace of ideas. - ======= - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - == == == == == == == == ======== dan ryan == == yale university == == dept of sociology == == == box 208265 == == == new haven, ct 06520-8265 ==== == danryan@minerva.cis.yale.edu From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Sat Feb 19 06:15:10 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Sat, 19 Feb 1994 06:13:46 -0800 for socgrad-list Sat, 19 Feb 1994 06:13:43 -0800 for Date: Sat, 19 Feb 94 08:33:52 EST From: Steve Harvey Subject: etiquite To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU Well, my choice to send Tristan's comments to the list is debatable, but all things considered, I stand by my choice without apology. We make judgement calls. Even before reading Dan's indictment, I had decided not to send Tristan's latest. Enough is enough. I did not mean to make any direct comparison of Tristan's behavior to antisemitism, but, since my only "minority" status is that of a Jew, that's the comparison I drew. Bigotry is often considered hatred based on a person's race, religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or *beliefs*. Tristan throws around the word "functionalism" (misused, since functionalism is a specific paradigm to which I don't specifically adhere) as though it were a slur, and frankly, this is a form of bigotry, albeit a small and inconsequential form. Again, Tristan's notes to me were hurled with malice, and in response to ideas I presented on the list in the belief that our *norm* is mutual respect. As Dan has tried to hold me accountable for what he considers a breach of norms, I have tried to hold Tristan accountable for what I consider a breach of norms, for such is one way in which norms are maintained. Also, as for what does discourse on the list "more harm," as Dan puts it, this tendency for other, side-line issues to spill-over into list-lashings certainly does discourse on the list more harm than almost anything else I can think of. On another note, I think I may be responsible for the current popularity of the phrase "marketplace of ideas" on the list, so I'd like to play with the term a little. Certainly, neither the marketplace of ideas nor the commercial marketplace is a benign process, devoid of the influence of power and prejudice. But, at the same time, both markets are vital forces, and have some subtle positive attributes. So, consider academe a *political economic* marketplace of ideas, in which all does not transpire according to the benign will of an invisible hand, but rather according to a combination of struggle and exchange. As a side-note: The term "political economy" is used in two, oddly similar, venues: Marxist political economy, and rational choice political economy. In both, state actors and market actors (I refrain from saying "corporate actors" because, in my usage, this means an organization that has a single, well- defined decision making algorithm) are treated as similar in their pursuit of self-interest, and that the state cannot be considered the benign mediator as it is in pluralist theory. Neither can market actors be consider non-opportuni- stic and without guile, so that collusion, oligopoly, and monopoly factors are especially relevant. Steve "Backstroking-To-Cambodia" Harvey harvey@uconnvm From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Sat Feb 19 06:26:33 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Sat, 19 Feb 1994 06:25:48 -0800 for socgrad-list Sat, 19 Feb 1994 06:25:46 -0800 for Date: 19 Feb 1994 08:16:17 CST From: To: Subject: Policy and medical anecdotes Several posters have described recent experiences with the medical community. All posters were dissatisfied with the care they received. A couple of questions. What changes would you want made? President Clinton has developed a plan to modify the healthcare system. Do you think that his proposed changes would have made your experiences more satisfying, less satisfying, or the same as before? What policy would you develop? (Please, nothing of the 1300+ page Clinton variety, Steve :) ). Dave From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Sat Feb 19 07:14:34 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Sat, 19 Feb 1994 07:13:31 -0800 for socgrad-list Sat, 19 Feb 1994 07:13:28 -0800 for Date: Sat, 19 Feb 94 09:57:49 EST From: Steve Harvey Subject: norms as context-dependent To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU A brief additional thought on the boundaries of relevance of any given norm: A norm is not a rule which can be stated in a vacuum, and which applies to all circumstances. The norm against physical assault, for instance, ceases to be applicable when one witnesses another person being assaulted: Assaulting the assaulter, in this example, is considered perfectly appropriate. Ironically, this issue has a bit of currency: There is a growing tendency for criminal trespassers to (often successfully) sue those they have trespassed upon for criminal liability for, say, slipping on roof shingles while trying to commit a robbery. It's an amazing world! Steve "Ti-Na-Ma-Nischt-Keine-Toivous*" Harvey harvey@uconnvm (*misspelled Yiddish for "don't do me any favors") From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Sat Feb 19 07:24:00 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Sat, 19 Feb 1994 07:23:05 -0800 for socgrad-list Sat, 19 Feb 1994 07:23:03 -0800 for Date: Sat, 19 Feb 1994 10:22:42 +0500 (EST) From: James Cassell Subject: Re: METHODS VIDEOS (fwd) To: Sociology Graduate Student Discussion FYI ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Fri, 18 Feb 1994 14:22:38 EST From: FHALLEY@ACSPR1.ACS.BROCKPORT.EDU Subject: Re: METHODS VIDEOS METHODS POSITION State University of New York - Brockport. Sociology. Full-time tenure-track appointment; Assistant Professor beginning September 1994. Required qualifications: Sociology Ph.D., teaching experience, ability to conduct and publish scholarly research, strong quantitative skills, competency to teach statistics and research methods and courses in Women's Studies. Strength in social stratification and social inequality desirable. Some service in Women's Studies program is expected, including teaching an interdisciplinary course in Women's Studies each semester. Ability to work with a culturally diverse population is required. Women and minorities encouraged to apply. Letter of application, curriculum vitae, and three reference letters should be sent to Edward Kelly, Assistant to the President, SUNY Brockport, Brockport NY 14420 by beginning review date of 4/15/94. Applications will continue to be accepted until the position is filled. Applicants are encouraged to apply by the above date for early consideration. AA/EOE. From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Sat Feb 19 08:40:35 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Sat, 19 Feb 1994 08:38:58 -0800 for socgrad-list Sat, 19 Feb 1994 08:38:55 -0800 for Date: Sat, 19 Feb 94 11:31 EST To: socgrad From: PATTYO%IRISHMVS.CC.ND.EDU@UICVM.UIC.EDU Subject: black feminist thought I would like to address a few of the questions posed by Joya about Hill-Collins' _Black Feminist Thought_. The questions were very thought provoking for me, and I digested them last night, so here goes! First, as to the question about activism and oppression - can one be an activist without being oppressed? I would say yes and no. There has to be oppression existing in order for there to arive a movement against it. If there were no oppression in this world, there would be nothing to fight (in terms of discrimination, sexism, racism). But I don't think that an individual necessarily has to experience that oppression first hand in order to become an activist. If the significant people in your life are being oppressed, you are more likely to do something about it than if there is no direct oppression in your life. I have seen plenty of men involved in our "activist" movement here to open a women's center. Some are involved because they believe that all people are created equal, etc. These are the humanists. Other men get involved because the women in their lives are suffering, and they want that suffering to end. Are they humanist? I'm not sure. But, my point here is that oppression has to exist in the world for there to be activism, but it does not necessarily have to exist in a person's own individual experience for that person to get involved. The second question I want to address is the "outsider-within." I think that this is an important position to take in the beginning. Of course, the goal is to have no more outsiders, but this is not something that comes so easily. I'm not sure I'm on the right track here, but what comes to my mind from Hill Collins is the discussion of groups solely for Black women. In addition to working with the other groups of feminists and civil rights, many argue that black women need their own groups for just black women's issues. Is this separatist? Maybe. But it is necessary, I think. In a class I took about comparative feminism a wild debate broke out as to whether black sororities and other such groups should be allowed, or are productive. If we are moving toward "humanism," it was argued, separtist groups can only hurt us. I disagree. As I have often said in our efforts to establish a women's center - we are not being separatist, we are being autonomist. Additionally, when I argue with my fiance about being a feminist (he prefers the word "humanist"), I tell him that until women are on equal footing with men, I will be a feminist - working for women's rights. When women are equal to men, then I will be a "humanist." I think that separate oppressions need to be addressed in various ways - one of them being through individual groups who coordinate with other individual groups. Related, then, Joya asks whether the ideas of "womanism" water down the impact of black feminism. This may sound contradictory to what I have just said, but my answer is "no." I feel this way because not only do I work for women's rights in some organizations in various ways, but I think it is important to keep in mind that the overall goal is to work on everyone's rights - men, women, black, white, jewish, muslim, and on and on. We all pick our battles, but we need to coordinate them with the other battles. So, I think it is important to be a black feminist and a womanist - at the same time. Well, I have gone on enough! Thanks to Joya for the interesting questions. I'd love to hear more responses! Patty (pattyo@irishmvs.cc.nd.edu) From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Sat Feb 19 08:53:24 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Sat, 19 Feb 1994 08:49:11 -0800 for socgrad-list Sat, 19 Feb 1994 08:49:08 -0800 for Date: Sat, 19 Feb 94 11:48 EST To: socgrad From: PATTYO%IRISHMVS.CC.ND.EDU@UICVM.UIC.EDU Subject: policy and medical care Dave asks about policy changes we would like to see in the Health Care system resulting from experiences we've had with recent medical care. That is a tough question to address. Unfortunately, I am not completely aware of Clinton's proposed changes. The most important step for me personally, is to be covered with health care insurance. At Notre Dame, all grad students MUST have health care insurance. If you don't have any of your own, they sign you up for their insurance (at about $360, I think) which is pretty minimal in coverage. For instance, they will only cover a certain amount of outpatient care (last year it was $300, this year $600). So, last year, one echo cardiogram ate up all of my insurance for the entire year. I could not afford anymore outside testing, and had to rely on the testing at the health services - which is fairly decent - but not all of this testing was covered either. If grad students were given "employee" status, they could be covered with the same benefits as staff and faculty. We do work for the university, afterall. I teach 71 students this semester alone, which is far more than almost all faculty have taught all year. Other grad students do at least 17 hours of research a week. This is my first policy recommendation. Also, I think we need to change the attitudes of doctors about women's health problems. This is probably not even considered by the Clintons. Some kind of training has to occur - in medical school and beyond - to show doctors that all of women's illnesses cannot be boiled down to emotional or hormonal problems. This is all too common. Well, these are just some ideas off the top of my head. Any other ideas would be appreciated! Patty (pattyo@irishmvs.cc.nd.edu) From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Sat Feb 19 09:48:32 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Sat, 19 Feb 1994 09:47:35 -0800 for socgrad-list Sat, 19 Feb 1994 09:47:33 -0800 for From: S-ENDER@bss1.umd.edu Sat, 19 Feb 94 12:44:30 +1100 To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Sat, 19 Feb 1994 12:44:27 EDT Subject: Re: policy and medical care there is long history of socialized medicine in the united states-- the u.s. military...when president clinton goes for his annual check- up, he goes to the bethesda naval hospital as the commander and chief of the united states...however, beyond economic concerns, the national health care proposal by clinton seems to rely on cross- national comparisons...the soundbite is look at germany, japan, sweden...they've remained competitive with national health care, why can't we...yet, i'm concerned that the health care systems abroad are a relative success because of social dimensions associated with culture... ...i don't think anyone has studied the u.s. military's health care system with reference to national health care (maybe a master's thesis here for someone)...perhaps the understanding and application of the characteristics of career military medical doctors would help take the u.s. health care success analysis beyond economics...and to patty, i think the proportion of female to male military doctors is higher than their civilian peers... morten `never-had-a-health-problem-til-i-got-health-insurance' ender p.s. spare me the hawkeye pierce and b.j. jokes :-> From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Sat Feb 19 10:31:40 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Sat, 19 Feb 1994 10:30:37 -0800 for socgrad-list Sat, 19 Feb 1994 10:30:35 -0800 for From: roxburgh@epas.utoronto.ca (S Roxburgh) Subject: dan's comments To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Sat, 19 Feb 1994 13:29:37 -0500 (EST) RE: One of Dan's notes: I actually wrote to Steve in a private note, a similar guffaw regarding his remarks about conspiracy theories - I thought it was pretty obvious that thats not what I meant - and I'm happy to see someone else agreed. However, I also thought he made a good case for the counter-argument that recognition of homosexuality as biological could have positive consequences for the gay community. His faith in the marketplace of ideas is a different issue altogether and I am similarly skeptical. RE: The other note of Dan's: As for Dan's comments re: Steve forwarding, I can't agree - what Tristan wrote was, I thought, absolutely appalling. Dan, your argument is partially that Steve's actions threaten collegiality, but that has been thrown out of the window by T anyway - anyone who writes such a note over an academic argument would probably need to look up the word collegial in the dictionary to get a sense of its meaning. Furthermore, I believe that people should be confronted with the consequencies of their unreasonable behaviour, not a earth-shattering proposal, since I'm sure most people would agree - and forwarding the note is a good way to do this. I can't help thinking that we'd be more sympathetic towards Steve if Tristan had sent his comments to a women - because then it might be more obvious to us that T's behaviour borders on the abusive. From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Sat Feb 19 10:55:03 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Sat, 19 Feb 1994 10:54:00 -0800 for socgrad-list Sat, 19 Feb 1994 10:53:57 -0800 for Date: Sat, 19 Feb 94 13:48:51 EST From: Steve Harvey Subject: Bob, not Steve To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU Dan S. just posted something about "Steve's" comments on the implications of researching a possible genetic basis for homosexuality (a discussion I chose to sit out, at least in regards to the specifics), and conspiracy theories. Just to keep the record straight, those were Bob's comments, not mine. Steve Harvey From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Sat Feb 19 11:40:08 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Sat, 19 Feb 1994 11:39:09 -0800 for socgrad-list Sat, 19 Feb 1994 11:39:06 -0800 for Date: Sat, 19 Feb 94 14:20:29 EST From: Steve Harvey Subject: correcting my correction... To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU Oh, sorry, my correction was in regards to a post from S. Roxburgh, not Dan S. Also, I hope I've clarified my (intended to be passing) reference to the "marketplace of ideas." Thanks for the moral support vis abusive behavior on the net. I have to admit to my share of reponsibility, though. I could have just "walked away" at the first sign of the futility of engaging T, but I'm a bit too hot-blooded for that myself. And, perhaps irresponsibly, I'm too fascinated by all of the unbridled venom I've inspired in this individual (you should see T's most recent note to me!) to divert my gaze. -Steve "Smoke-'em-if-You-Got-'em" Harvey harvey@uconnvm From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Sat Feb 19 11:55:45 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Sat, 19 Feb 1994 11:54:40 -0800 for socgrad-list Sat, 19 Feb 1994 11:54:38 -0800 for From: Tristan Riley Subject: Re: dan's comments To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU (soc) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 94 11:54:36 PST S Roxburgh writes: > >RE: The other note of Dan's: >As for Dan's comments re: Steve forwarding, I can't agree - what Tristan wrote >was, I thought, absolutely appalling. Dan, your argument is partially that >Steve's actions threaten collegiality, but that has been thrown out of the >window by T anyway - anyone who writes such a note over an academic >argument would probably need to look up the word collegial in the >dictionary to get a sense of its meaning. Furthermore, I believe that people >should be confronted with the consequencies of their unreasonable behaviour, >not a earth-shattering proposal, since I'm sure most people would agree - and >forwarding the note is a good way to do this. I can't help thinking that we'd >be more sympathetic towards Steve if Tristan had sent his comments to a women ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >- because then it might be more obvious to us that T's behaviour borders on the >abusive. > Well, Mr. Harvey has not so subtly compared me to an anti-semite, now am I a potential misogynist as well? I certainly have no issue to take with your group closing its ranks and everyone stroking one another and uttering words of support and encouragement, as I suppose that's what such groups do. I would like to say, however, that I find *this* move to attempt to make connections of *any* sort between what I wrote to Mr. Harvey and abuse of women just as "appalling" as S Roxburgh found my original remarks (and to her I would echo comments made to Mr. Harvey--if *that's* your idea of "appalling", what a wonderful life you must lead), although it might be useful to add that I certainly don't have the same resources to draw upon; comparing my remarks ever-so-subtly to sexism and racism certainly allows you to attempt to play some powerful cards. The fact that the analogies are completely empty of course means nothing--it's the shock effect which is desired. I sent Mr. Harvey a private note in response to his ridiculous anti-semitism mongering and nearly responded to this note similarly before realizing...how convenient! now I'll have sent "hate mail" to a woman as well as a Jew. Perhaps I should be thrown off the list or jailed. In that note to Mr. Harvey, I spoke very briefly about the intriguing point of seeing "PC hysteria" get mobilized by the *liberals* against the purported 'radical deconstructionists', 'Marxists', whatever. This post further plays out that scenario. What an interesting group this is. Tristan From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Sat Feb 19 12:23:43 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Sat, 19 Feb 1994 12:22:33 -0800 for socgrad-list Sat, 19 Feb 1994 12:22:30 -0800 for Date: Sat, 19 Feb 1994 14:16:50 -0600 (CST) From: "Deborah R. Bronson" Subject: The latest "debate" To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU I joined the list for intellectual intercourse......PLEASE!! From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Sat Feb 19 13:40:41 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Sat, 19 Feb 1994 13:39:44 -0800 for socgrad-list Sat, 19 Feb 1994 13:39:42 -0800 for Date: 19 Feb 1994 15:37:21 CST From: To: Subject: medical response First of all, the last line in the post indicates that there is no problem with my posting this to socgrad. I found it interesting and thought others might as well. Dave ========================================================================= I am a physician that was trained in England under their Nationalized Health System... now I am in the USA practicing. In a former life, I was a hospital corpsman in the US Navy.... so I can say, from a provider's perspective.... I have seen and experienced many types of health care management schemes. Personally, I am in favor of providing some types of basic medical care for children and pregnant women. However, I htink that President clinton's plan is doomed to eventual failure and am generally not in favor of it for several reasons detailed below: 1) By removing the "fat" from the USA medical care plan, the margin that was previously just written off as a loss will now have to be accounted for leaving less room to provide charity care. Homeless folks, drug addicts, prostitutes, battered women and other pennyless deviants will no longer be able to benefit from the sanctuary of the generous charity that has been a tradition in americam medicine. There won't be any fat..... everything will have to be accounted for. I don't think that Clinton is aware of the magnitude of this "secret safety valve" type of charitable medical care that goes on every day. It is going to cost him a lot more than he thinks it will because the "official" budgets and expense figures and data are fluffed to hide this loss. 2) By allowing the government to take control of your health care you lose power as patients to dictate the extent of treatment. Suddenly your status will change from a "valued paying customer" to that of a begger waiting to collect on his/her "government benefits".... Just get in line buddy.... with the rest of the rabble.... We'll take care of you when we get to you. You get the idea. Likewise, the physicians will lose power too: "ummm lets see, I just scanned the government policy document and it doesn't cover spinal cord repairs.... (they weren't around when Clinton was making policy, you see) so, you can either go to Canada to get the repair done at you own expense or wait for eight months till the next government policy meeting" 3) Can any of us say that our government is going to be more efficient at handling the buisness end of health care than private industry with a profit motive? Do you really think that our government, with its abysmal budget deficit, the one that can't even keep their own books balanced, is going to do a better job than private industry at keeping the books straight? If you are looking to cut paperwork costs and administrative costs, do you really think that the largest bureaucracy in this country, stuffed with useless paper pushers, operating at a loss and over budget since 1940: Our Government, can straighten out the health care industry with a 3000 page document? Come on people, wake up and smell the coffee! This is not a "free lunch", it is "bait" to give the goverment yet another justification to dig into you pocket and take yet another slice of your pie. PS: feel free to repost this to any newsgroup or mailing list you like. Robert S. Williams, MD From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Sat Feb 19 13:48:23 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Sat, 19 Feb 1994 13:47:30 -0800 for socgrad-list Sat, 19 Feb 1994 13:47:28 -0800 for Date: 19 Feb 1994 15:40:39 CST From: To: Subject: medical thoughts There seems to be two different types of complaints about the health care system as it is now. First, insufficient coverage. Second, poor treatment by health care professionals. Unfortunately, these two types are tightly coupled. A change in one affects the other. For example, insuring everyone increases bureaucracy which leads to a potential for receiving poor medical\ care. Just ask sick Canadians when their health care system shuts down. Or, if the regulations are tightened on health care professionals, the cost of their services will increase, similar to the effect that an increase in malpractice cases has done. It seems it is a case of not being able to have your cake and eat it too. But even a bite would be nice once in a while. Dave malpractice cases From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Sat Feb 19 13:54:38 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Sat, 19 Feb 1994 13:53:29 -0800 for socgrad-list Sat, 19 Feb 1994 13:53:27 -0800 for From: jwill@cabell.vcu.edu (J. Sherwood Williams) Subject: Physician subscribes to socgrad To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Sat, 19 Feb 94 16:52:52 EST Hello everyone. Just thought I would let everyone know that I am here and reading your messages. Since you bring up the health care issue and all.... thought you folks might like the opportunity to ask questions or bounce ideas off of me. While, I can't say my opinions are representative of *all* american physicians, at least I can share some insight into the actual workings of medicine in the USA, England, and the millitary. Why am I on this mailing list? Well, my father is a sociologist and I thought he might enjoy reading the mailing list.... so I subscribed for him. Since he allows me to use one of his accounts via dialup, I have access to the Internet. I also have a Compu$erve account. My Background: I was a Hospital Corpsman in the US Navy for six years. I have experience working at Bethesda Naval Hospital and on independent duty aboard several ships. I have a BS in Biology chemistry from VCU. I have a foreign medical degree from Montserrat in the British West Indies. I did my medical school clinical training in England alongside the British students. I also have done some electives at Eastern Virginia medical school. And, finally, I have recently been cleared by the ECFMG to practice medicine in the USA in a residency/internship program. So, basically I have been into medicine for 16 years and have intimate knowledge of three different medical systems and, from my childhood, have had exposure to most ideas that Sociologists like to talk about.... I know a little of the Dogma, lingo, etc... but am, by no means, an expert in that academic field. So, If I can be of service to any of the folks reading the mailing list... if I can answer any questions you may have about the workings of any of the three medical systems I have experience with... Fire away. Please, no flames: they will all be directed to dev/nul . Regards, Robert S. Williams, MD From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Sat Feb 19 14:15:22 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Sat, 19 Feb 1994 14:14:18 -0800 for socgrad-list Sat, 19 Feb 1994 14:14:16 -0800 for Date: Sat, 19 Feb 94 17:13 EST From: "This is really annoying" Subject: Re: medical response To: SSQLHUNT@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu And now for something completely different: TV invents a disease You think you have so you buy our drugs And soon you depend on them Pain is in your mind Gotcha Comin' back for more Again and Again and Again and Again Gonna Rip you off Rip you off Doctors says you need surgery now Feelin' Good 'Till the side effects Fuck Up something else You're ensared by the medicine man Paying up the ass Again and Again Gonna Rip you off Trust you mechanic to mend your car Bring it to his garage He tightens and loosens a few spare parts One thing's fixed, another falls apart And the rich eat you A maganize says your face don't look quite right Unless you wear our brand new wonder creme tonight Never look right again Unless you grease you skin Again and again and again and again Gonna rip you off Told you're depressed So of course you see the psychiartist Right when you hit your neuroses' roots He confuses you He fucks your head up worse Gotcha feeling helpless You're comin' back for more Again and again Gonna rip you off Rip you off Trust your Mechanic To plug your holes Trust him to make more Somewhere else Trust your mechanic He'll always come through And rip you off "Trust Your Mechanic" from the album "Plastic Surgery Disasters" by the Dead Kennedys. Copywrite and all that stuff Decay music, Alternative Tentacles or maybe Faulty Products. Whatever Jetaway Dave From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Sat Feb 19 15:55:14 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Sat, 19 Feb 1994 15:54:12 -0800 for socgrad-list Sat, 19 Feb 1994 15:54:11 -0800 for Subject: Re: Why don't we ... To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Sat, 19 Feb 1994 18:54:00 -0500 (EST) From: Michael P Biggs Now the thread has been totally lost, I've got time to reply to SKEE's query. > Are you suggesting that the topics studied by sociology are politically > derived? Are you saying that some subjects are ignored due to a lack > of political backing? No, this was not my point. Of course the subjects of social science are (in part) politically derived. What I was trying to suggest is that the very way we frame questions is loaded--and often misconceived. Asking 'Is homosexuality genetically determined?' is a classic example of taking one pole of a dichotomy (heterosexuality) as invisible, and the other (homosexuality) as marked. We don't ask what determines heterosexuality--thus presuming it is natural (in the sense taken-for-granted), and unneccessary to explain. Yet clearly the issue is what determines/conditions sexual orientation--not one particular form of orientation. This alternative way of framing the question also has the virtue of avoiding the reification inherent in the binary opposition of heterosexual/homosexual--instead leaving open the possibility that sexual orientation is not dichotomous (there is bisexuality, after all). The other two instances are similar. We wouldn't ask about the status of men in early modern Europe because we know that the category 'men' includes such a wide variety of class/rank positions--lumping kings and (male) serfs together is clearly ludicrous. Yet this reification is common when talking of women--again, the marked term of the binary. Of course one might argue that women were treated primarily according to their sex, not their rank: they were women first, and queens or serfs second. But this would be a conclusion, not a premise. When teaching American history (not in this country), I had quite a job convincing my students that statements like 'after the Civil War, Southerners attempted to maintain virtual slavery' was nonsensical: blacks in the South, after all, were also Southerners! What they meant was 'white Southerners.' Once again, the unmarked term has disappeared: it is the absence of signification which carries signification. (The terminology is Roland Barthes 2nd-hand, so feel free to correct me anyone.) Michael -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 'Significance tests ... are not legitimately used for any purpose other than that of assessing the sampling error of a statistic designed to describe a particular basis of a probability sample.' (Morrison & Henkel, 'Significance Tests Reconsidered,' 1969) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Sat Feb 19 16:08:48 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Sat, 19 Feb 1994 16:07:45 -0800 for socgrad-list Sat, 19 Feb 1994 16:07:42 -0800 for Date: Sat, 19 Feb 94 19:03:13 EST From: Steve Harvey Subject: binary categories To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU Michael, interesting points! I love semiology (am: semiotics). But, as for the bias involved in asking whether homosexuality is genetically determined, isn't that obviated simply by asking whether sexual orientation is genetically determined? -Steve From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Sat Feb 19 16:47:22 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Sat, 19 Feb 1994 16:46:29 -0800 for socgrad-list Sat, 19 Feb 1994 16:46:28 -0800 for Subject: Re: binary categories To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Sat, 19 Feb 1994 19:46:17 -0500 (EST) From: Michael P Biggs Yes, that's exactly what I meant in saying 'Yet clearly the issue is what determines/conditions sexual orientation.' Framed this way, the question is fine. Michael From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Sat Feb 19 16:58:41 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Sat, 19 Feb 1994 16:57:47 -0800 for socgrad-list Sat, 19 Feb 1994 16:57:44 -0800 for Date: Sat, 19 Feb 94 19:52:44 EST From: "Marlen R. Hancock" Organization: Emory University - Atlanta, Georgia, USA Subject: INAPPROPRIATE DICHOTOMIES To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU Thanks to Michael (I think) for the discussion of the inappropriateness of some artificial dichotomies. The idea of the hidden pole was also helpful. It has helped me clarify a portion of my thought processes which has always been fuzzy, and for that I am grateful. Hope to be ready to contribute to the Hill Collins discussion by tomorrow. I've been reading a new SF novel this weekend instead of what I could have read to improve my mind in other ways. Marni (the Cookie Monster) Hancock SOCAW059@EMUVM1 From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Sat Feb 19 17:15:14 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Sat, 19 Feb 1994 17:14:02 -0800 for socgrad-list Sat, 19 Feb 1994 17:14:00 -0800 for From: BREKHUS@zodiac.rutgers.edu Date: Sat, 19 Feb 1994 20:13:41 -0500 (EST) Subject: marking and sexual orientation To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Interesting post Michael. I'm glad you brought the term "marking" into the discussion. Incidentally, the term originated in linguistics. According to Linda Waugh it was first defined in a 1930 letter from Nikolaj Trubetzkoy to Roman Jakobson. Jakobson saw the concept as having utility far beyond just the field of language and suggested that it could be used to look at all kinds of semiotic structures. People like Levi-Strauss, Barthes, and Waugh picked up the ideas from there. The letter where the term was first defined is reprinted in a 1975 edited volume by Jakobson Called "Letters and Notes." And the article by Waugh is called "Marked and Unmarked: A choice between unequals in semiotic structure" and it's in a 1982 issue of SEMIOTICA pp. 299-318. The reason I have all these cites on hand is I'm presently working on a paper on marking and the assigning of sexual identities. I felt a sense of deja vu, when I took a study break to check my e-mail and find Michael bringing up some of the very issues I was looking at. One additional point on sexual orientation. I think we need to think of sexual orientation in broader terms than just what sex the person we want to have sex with is. If we do this we'll discover that most of us have very "homo" tastes. Most people prefer to have sex with people who are similar in age, species, class, race, religion etc. and yet we don't usually think of these as indicatorsof a "homo" orientation. There's a lot more than just the sex of our partners that goes into who we are oriented to want to have sex with. Wayne From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Sat Feb 19 18:19:16 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Sat, 19 Feb 1994 18:18:02 -0800 for socgrad-list Sat, 19 Feb 1994 18:18:00 -0800 for Date: 19 Feb 1994 20:17:11 CST From: To: Subject: More health care stuff ========================================================================= I think the grumblings are a reflection of the way that pricing is done for health care. Currently the system is priced so that malingerers, people looking only for emotional support or reassurance of their health, and folks who don't *really* need the intervention of a physician with over 10 years traning in the treatment of physicial disease can't easily drop in for a "visit" without emptying their pockets really fast. I can't describe the frustration a physician feels when he is faced witha waiting room full of retired elderly folks with "aches and pains" and "I don't feel right" complaints.... essentially, there is not much that can be done about old age... It is just a fact of life and some amount of awareness that the body is degenerating is bound to reach the awareness of elderly folks. But, I digress. I think that people who are really in need of health care ... I mean *really* in need are getting taken care of. There is an informal "genleman's agreement" within the health care system that provides for the charity cases and gives them health care on an equal footing with "paying customers". The charity folks get billed for our services. But we never expect to see any payment from them. So, in essence, you already have a national health care plan.... you just don't know it .. you are susidizing our charity cases according to how heavily you consume health care. Another reason that health care costs are inflated is that the supply of physicians is tightly controlled. If the supply of physicians is too high, then prices will drop. If the cost of medical care is too high, then demand will decrease until the price drops. I don't think that allowing the government to interfere with and control the economy of health care is going to be any more successful than their past attempts to control our economy and Inflation: those attempts were all abysmal failures. I personally don't think that the main problem of our health care systems lies in the realm of Physician supply and demand, or physicians at all. I think the real thing that sucks up the dollars and the real waste lies in these areas: 1) Physical plant maintainance and overhead. In the old days, your family doctor used to set up his office in one or two spare rooms in his home.... this isn't possible any more: patients expect a brightly lit office with a spacious waiting room, smiling cheereful nurse, on-site lab facilities, perhaps a X-Ray facility too. And, if you don't have those things and use them then you are viewed with doubt and suspected of being a quack. Well, office space, electricity, nurses, lab techs, x-ray techs all cost money: Lots of money! So, even the minimal one-doctor practice is going to be expensive. 2) Costs of Documentation and Administration: In the old days, a relationship was established between the physician, his/her patients and their families... The physician would live among his patients, knew them all very well, and didn't need to keep but the most rudimentary documents to keep track of the health status of all patients. Nowadays, the doctor is viewed as a health-care "object" ..much like a gas station pump .... People who you have no idea of who or what they are come in and say "fill er up" and you have to deal with them from square one. No history, very impersonal. Also, now the need to overdocument in case one of your visitees decides that they weren't satisfied with the quality, completeness, or attitude of your servitude and decides to get a lawyer to take a pot shot at your income. Believe me, the ambulance chasing lawyers can make you look like Hitler for forgetting to put a bandaid on a patient after an immunization... This creates a sort of underlying distrust between the physician and *all* of his/her patients. It also creates a terrible burden of working up each case to the point where you would feel comfortable to carry the record into court and defend every minute action. The last elective I did at EVMS was with a plastic surgeon that was so terrorized in court that she now hires a full-time photographer to film every operation as she does it and also creates a 300+ page record for each operation she does.... Hey! everybody is paying for that! So, those are a few areas where enormous waste is being created ... and I seriously don't think Clinton and his 3000 page plan is going to solve those problems with a wave of his pen. The problems in US Health care system didn't evolve overnight, and they won't be solved overnight either. The problems are a reflection of changes in our society and its relationship with health care providers. Likewise, feel free to repost this to socgrad if you like or feel that it adds to your intellectual discussion. Robert S. Williams, MD From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Sat Feb 19 19:07:05 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Sat, 19 Feb 1994 19:05:59 -0800 for socgrad-list Sat, 19 Feb 1994 19:05:58 -0800 for To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: Re: medicine for mind, body, and soul <9402190422.AA00420@eunice.ssc.wisc.edu> Date: Sat, 19 Feb 1994 19:07:22 -0800 From: Michael Lichter Patrice advocates an "integrated mind, body and soul approach to health care" for minorities. She says that (a) minorities are normally treated in a very fragmented way, and (b) they are used as unknowing guinea pigs in drug testing. She says that an integrated approach would means consideration of both physical and environmental factors together in diagnosis and treatment. Interestingly, the two horror stories about healthcare which followed Patrice's post were examples of doctors being too willing to blame environmental factors to the exclusion of more "medical" causes for their illness. I have a friend whose pneumonia was diagnosed as stress, and another friend whose fibroid tumor was diagnosed a menstrual abnormality (and prescribed medication that made it worse) both in the recent past, and both by our Student Health Service here at UCLA. (These are both white students, by the way.) [*] While I think that the medical model is indeed a source of problems for people, these sorts of complaints are about mainstream medicine failing to live up to its own standards. Student health clinics are a special case because they have a very particular kind of clientelle. I would say, however, that those with little money are treated in settings with (a) inadequate staffing, (b) lower quality (on average) personnel, and (c) tight cost controls on treatment (so that, e.g. tests are minimized). My questions to Patrice are (a) is the poor care you are pointing to really a matter of class, rather than race? and (b) can you distinguish between cases where the model of treatment rather than the quality (as defined by mainstream medicine) of treatment is the problem? In cases where the model is the problem, is the effect really differential across social groups? (E.g. my non-minority non-poor dying grandmother was being cared for by expensive doctors in a reputable private hospital, and the quality of her care was clearly being compromised by the fact that her specialists understood her case only by the symptoms under their jurisdiction.) With regard to our doctor in residence, two comments. First, he is entirely correct about the negative effects of eliminating "cost-shifting". Right now, people with indemnity health plans (in particular) are essential in underwriting patients who have inadequate health insurance (e.g. Medicare) or no ability to pay. If the new health plan were to be truly universal and were to compensate doctors and hospitals more fairly than is currently the government practice, this might not be a problem. Unfortunately, the way things seem to be moving in Congress, universal coverage has already been thrown out. It looks like the primary beneficiaries will be the insurance companies, and large corporations who will be able to cut their health care costs. In fact, it looks to me like more people will lose (e.g. blue collar workers with good corporate plans, the excluded poor) than will gain. This isn't inevitable, but it does seem to be way things are going. As indemnities disappear and HMOs, managed care organizations, and PPOs come to predominate, at least two of the three factors I mentioned above (understaffing and restrictions on testing and treatment) are coming to characterize health care for almost everybody in the U.S. Higher incidences of bankruptcy and insolvency among hospitals and increasing growth of home health care are part of this trend (which is not necessarily all bad). My second point is that these kinds of changes in the organization of health care and restrictions on its availability are here already. The freedom of choice and quality of care that that the AMA trumpets are not a reality for most people now. It's not clear that having the governement decide which procedures are OK (more so than it does already) is any different from having insurance companies decide. I have sympathy for doctors on this matter only in the sense that I recognize that their loss of control over the health care process means a blow to their self-image as professionals and to their quality of work-life (we're talking Braverman, here). As the doctor mentioned, the artificial monopoly the profession has maintained over new entrants is a key factor in the high costs of health care. Either this will cease, or continuing efforts by doctors to restrict the employment of less-highly trained personnel, in particular nurse practitioners and physician's assistants, will have to end. In addition, since somebody mentioned Canada, most Canadians I've talked to are appalled by the lack of availability of health care in the U.S. They may not be entirely happy with the Canadian system, but I doubt you'd find many Canadians who would trade it for the mess we have. I'm not sure how all this fits in with the purpose of this list. My excuse is that I'm doing some research on the health care industry as part of my dissertation work on hospital employees. Michael [*] The case of my friend with the fibroid tumor is particularly relevant to concerns about the treatment of women. The (female) practitioners consistently dismissed the significance of her symptoms until she had to be hospitalized from losing so much blood. She needed two transfusions, which cost her dearly. She told me (and I have not checked independently) that roughly 25% of women will develop a fibroid tumor at some point in their lives. To fail to even look for something so common boggles the mind. Is the prevalence of male doctors, even in specialties relating to the female reproductive system, an adequate sociological explanation for this? From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Sat Feb 19 19:22:23 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Sat, 19 Feb 1994 19:21:03 -0800 for socgrad-list Sat, 19 Feb 1994 19:21:01 -0800 for Date: Sat, 19 Feb 94 22:06:04 EST From: "Marlen R. Hancock" Organization: Emory University - Atlanta, Georgia, USA Subject: HEALTHCARE REFORM To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU Having observed, worked in, taught in, and/or been a patient in far too many hospitals and clinics/dr's offices in the last 25 years, I am at a loss to describe what needs to change. Having seen and experienced military health care--we can't afford the disadvantages of such a system. It is by far too rewarding to those who can manipulate the system and by far too hard to access for those who can't. The VA system is an expensive, wasteful behemoth. I have seen men kept in inpatient hospital beds for 2 weeks while waiting for a broken x-ray machine to be repaired. While the charity care recently described most definitely occurs, too many people forego care because their pride won't let them create indebtedness which they don't expect to ever repay. I do believe that nurse practitioners could and should provide ongoing care of persons with chronic or predictable disorders. They have proven very adept and when well paid they are considerably cheaper than MD's. What I can't figure out is how to organize and pay for the whole thing. Our current system has proven that, without price restraints or utilization review, (OH, how I HATE those words!), unscrupulous practitioners will provide unnecessary care/treatments (including surgeries) for the purpose of making more money. Can someone come up with a way to limit those behaviors while providing easy access and enough MD independence so there will be room for the art as well as the science involved in the practice of medicine? I can't. Sorry to go on for so long, but it is an issue near and dear to my heart. Marni (the Cookie Monster) Hancock SOCAW059@EMUVM1 From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Sat Feb 19 19:34:23 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Sat, 19 Feb 1994 19:33:11 -0800 for socgrad-list Sat, 19 Feb 1994 19:33:09 -0800 for Date: Sat, 19 Feb 94 22:23:03 EST From: "Marlen R. Hancock" Organization: Emory University - Atlanta, Georgia, USA Subject: MEDICAL CARE To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU Michael, Probably more than 25% of women _eventually_ develop fibroids. Most, however, are approaching or in the middle age years by the time their fibroids become significant as a cause of pain, bleeding, or other incoveniences. By middle aged, I'm talking 40-45 years old or older. If your friend is in this age group, the lack of early diagnosis is inexcusable; if she is in her 20's it would make me wonder what other diagnoses were considered, since, even at that age, the physical exam should have revealed the nature of the problem. Of course, if the physical exam was not done because it was felt that she was too young to be having any significant problems or because (if she is in her 40s) the medical staff weren't accustomed to thinking about the physical problems of midlife women--only pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases or perhaps cramps or hysterics (an appropriate word in this context)--then the student health service needs to re-examine its modus operendi. Keep posting--you make me think. :) Marni (the Cookie Monster) Hancock SOCAW059@EMUVM1 From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Sat Feb 19 20:09:20 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Sat, 19 Feb 1994 20:08:10 -0800 for socgrad-list Sat, 19 Feb 1994 20:08:06 -0800 for From: jflint@kean.ucs.mun.ca (5.65d3+/IDA-1.4.2+MUN1.3 for socgrad@ucsd.edu); Sun, 20 Feb 94 00:42:05 -0330 -0230 Date: Sun, 20 Feb 1994 00:38:14 -0230 To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: Dr. Williams & healthcare I tried *so* hard not to get sucked into this, I *do* have a thesis to write :-) but that last letter from Dr. Williams..... (woops) studying in Canada so I have had occasion to look at both health delivery systems. Foremost is the attitude that people have toward illness, particularly serious illness. When people got sick in Vermont, when *I* got sick, the first thought on my mind was "can I afford this?" When people were dying in Vermont (and I was a hospice volunteer) both they and their families were wondering "Will there be any money left for the heirs when death comes" --if they were lucky. Otherwise the relatives were wondering, "Is it worth it for me to pay for mother/father/husband/wife/child's care when they are going to die soon anyway and I'm going to be stuck with the bills?" When people are seriously ill or dying up here, they and their relatives can think about the human thing that is going on. The best care available is already being provided, there is no heavy guilt from the patient (I'm costing too much) or the relatives (are we paying enough). That's the background atmosphere difference. Now for the practical points. First who "really needs health care"? It is the people who are going to get seriously ill but are not yet seriously ill. I must digress and say that for 20 years I was a small-time renovations contractor, rarely making more than $20,000 a year. I needed credit to purchase supplies and owned my own home, so while I wasn't a "poor person" I was caught in a medical dilemma. I couldn't afford to go to a doctor, but I was too rich (and I might add too "proud") to get "charity". On the other hand, if I got *really* ill I wouldn't have much choice, and would lose my paltry life savings and my few possessions, the tools etc. that I needed to work. What I had to do was get catastrophic health insurance ($2000 deductible) so that I wouldn't be ruined if I got really ill. It still cost me 60 bucks a month and I still had to pay for normal doctors' visits. Needless to say I put off preventative medicine. As for the fact that doctors bill but do not "expect" to get paid by the poor, I can cite the case of my girlfriend. She became seriously ill at one point. She was a schoolteacher making 15,000 a year before taxes and couldn't afford health insurance. You can bet the doctors hounded her for years intil she paid every cent of the several thousand dollars she owed, and her life was miserable. Incessant phone calls, having to live in a crummy apartment, etc., this was the charity she received. Contrary to Dr. Williams assertions, the demand for health care does *not* drop when prices rise. First, a considerable fraction of the population does have good health insurance and their demand is unaffected by cost. But to the point (and here I still shudder from Dr. Williams' "businesslike" lack of compassion) demand for health care *never* drops. Do people stop getting sick because the price of being sick goes up? The only thing that makes the demand drop is affardable preventative care. When the price of medical care goes up, people get *sicker*. This is why Cuba has a considerably lower infant mortality rate than the US. It is certainly not because Cuba has technological superiority! Fact is, it is cheaper for Canada to provide universal health care than for the US to provide selective healthcare. I read recently that the entire administration cost of the Canadian system was less than the administrative cost of Blue Cross in Massachusetts. (sorry, it was on a BBS and I can't cite). The Canadian system varies from province to province, in some cases people do pay a monthly premium, and I belive in some cases there are minimal "user fees". The important difference is that it is a "single payer" system (in this case the provincial government) and so the vast administrative costs of multiple insurance companies (I belive there are over 3000 in the US) and the physicians themselves dunning patients are eliminated. And there *is* competition. Physicians have their own offices, medical groups etc. just like in the US. You can choose your family physician, go to your favorite specialist. The difference is that doctors don't look at you when you walk in and wonder if you're going to pay them, you don't wonder whether they're going to ruin you financially. They're going to get paid promptly every time by the same reliable source. Costs for medical procedures are set, of course, but by the health dept. in consultation with physicians, not by the health insurance companies. One final point and I'll get back to writing my thesis. At the beginning of his letter Dr. Williams complained about his office being filled by "malingerers" and "old people" with "aches and pains". If American physicians would give up a little of their lucrative turf, these complains could largely be addressed by nurses and nurse practicioners. There are plenty of caring people out there that would be delighted to work with the simple complaints of a bewildered and suffering population of folks who can't afford preventative medicine or a family doctor, don't know what's going on with their bodies. And those caring people would do it for a fraction of a typical physician's bill. Oh, sorry, one more point, everyone I have met here is delighted with the Canadian health system, some say it's the *only* thing that works here, they are appalled by the US sytem and say it is one reason they would never "go south". David Flint (temporarily at) Memorial University of Newfoundland From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Sat Feb 19 20:58:28 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Sat, 19 Feb 1994 20:57:38 -0800 for socgrad-list Sat, 19 Feb 1994 20:57:36 -0800 for Date: 19 Feb 1994 22:55:09 CST From: To: Subject: sociological analysis of proposed health care plan I know, I know, the proposed health plan is only a proposal and probably is not even close to what it will turn out to be, but does anyone know of any sociological analysis of the proposed health care plan? Are researchers waiting for the final version or are there adventurous souls in the sociological community that have ventured a guess and anlysis? BTW, the several comments on the state of health care have been quite interesting. Dave From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Sat Feb 19 22:26:51 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Sat, 19 Feb 1994 22:25:51 -0800 for socgrad-list Sat, 19 Feb 1994 22:25:49 -0800 for Date: Sun, 20 Feb 94 00:27:24 EST From: Joya Misra Organization: Emory University - Atlanta, Georgia, USA Subject: medicine for mind, body, and soul To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU You've seen my health care horror story...I was seriously ill for a year due to intestinal parasites. Additionally, this entire issue seems interesting to me because my dad is an M.D. Ph.D., and currently he is teaching at a medical school. He doesn't think much of their training -- particularly in regards to the scientific method. Michael asks Patrice (and I feel like jumping in...) >My questions to Patrice are (a) is the poor care you are pointing to >really a matter of class, rather than race? and (b) can you >distinguish between cases where the model of treatment rather than the >quality (as defined by mainstream medicine) of treatment is the >problem? In cases where the model is the problem, is the effect really >differential across social groups? I think that poor care is very much a matter of class, but of course class and race are inseparable. Best analogy I can think of: in Atlanta media attention for homicides seems to follow this pattern (1) lots of attention to upper class members who are killed (2) almost as much to white middle class members who are killed (3) almost as much to black middle class and white lower class members who are killed, and (4) a serious dropin attention to black lower class members who are killed. I think that African-American lives are not valued as highly, whether it's about health care or homicide. However, class plays a key role in understanding the patterns. In terms of the question about model or quality, I guess that would depend on how you define the model and how you define quality. With my recent illness, I went to many traditional doctors (for those of you who are wondering, my medical bills ran to about $15000...I paid about $5000 of that) and turned to some alternative methods of healing as well. What I found I wanted, and what I believe can fit into a quality care within the traditional medical model, was a doctor who (1) listened to me, spent the time to get to know that I wasn't a "malingerer" (2) utilized logic, what I've been trained (since birth!) to think of as the scientific method -- proposing and testing hypotheses in a systematic way, and using all the information that was available. While the *medical model* has often been defined as including the second, and not the first, I think that the first is really part of the second...part of collecting good, reliable information comes from listening to the patient. In terms of quality, one of the tests that was run on me has a 50% chance of turning up negative, even if you're really positive. My gastroenterologist ran it thrice, it came out negative thrice, and so she said -- "If it came out negative even just twice, we know you don't have it - 50% + 50% = 100% certainty." I tried to correct her, even mentioned that I work as a statistical consultant and that's not how probabilities work. She wouldn't listen. That was the last time I went to her. I didn't trust her after that. She has an excellent reputation, by the way, and charged me $110 for 10 minute sessions. So, I don't know if I've added to this discussion, but I certainly am enjoying it. joya From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Sun Feb 20 07:29:44 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Sun, 20 Feb 1994 07:20:42 -0800 for socgrad-list Sun, 20 Feb 1994 07:20:40 -0800 for From: dscott@kean.ucs.mun.ca (5.65d3+/IDA-1.4.2+MUN1.3 for SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU); Sun, 20 Feb 94 11:54:42 -0330 -0230 Date: Sun, 20 Feb 1994 11:50:52 -0230 To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU Mr. Flint's anecdotal response indicates that he also knows little (if anything) about the Canadian health and medical systems. Based on the fact that he is an American this is hardly surprising. Rather than glamorizing the Canadian health and medical care Mr. Flint should take a closer look at the numerous analyses pointing to the declining quality, e.g., excessively long waiting lists, which Canadians have become increasingly subjected to. In fact, there are many cases of Canadians travelling to the USA seeking immediate medical care rather than risk dying. Second, the proportion of GDP and GNP that Canada spends on its medical care by far exceeds that of other OECD nations -- see Julia O'Connor's (1992) article, "The Welfare State in Comparative Perspective" in the Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology. Finally, Mr. Flint fails to distinguish health care from medical care and provincially from federally funded programs. Indeed, residing in a province such as Newfoundland which is dependent on transfer and equalization payments from the federal government for its very existence hardly provides Mr. Flint an opportunity to experience and gain knowledge about the intricacies of the Canadian health and medical systems. As Mr. Flint himself suggests, his time would be better spent finishing his thesis. Dave Scott Memorial University of Newfoundland St. John's, Canada From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Sun Feb 20 07:52:17 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Sun, 20 Feb 1994 07:43:04 -0800 for socgrad-list Sun, 20 Feb 1994 07:43:02 -0800 for From: S-ENDER@bss1.umd.edu Sun, 20 Feb 94 10:39:52 +1100 To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Sun, 20 Feb 1994 10:39:44 EDT Subject: Re: Dr. Williams & healthcare >One final point and I'll get back to writing my thesis. At the >beginning of his letter Dr. Williams complained about his office >being filled by "malingerers" and "old people" with "aches and >pains". If American physicians would give up a little of their >lucrative turf, these complains could largely be addressed by >nurses and nurse practicioners. There are plenty of caring people >out there that would be delighted to work with the simple >complaints of a bewildered and suffering population of folks >who can't afford preventative medicine or a family doctor, don't >know what's going on with their bodies. And those caring people >would do it for a fraction of a typical physician's bill. right on david-- my grandmother is one of those `malingerers' who has aches and pains...fortunately she lives in germany...and instead on `loitering' in some doctor's office, she sits at home and has three visitors a week at her home--a physical therapist, a general practitioner and concientious objector who runs her errands, takes her on walks and drinks coffee with her...clearly dr. williams has taped into another social problem which needs attention--the social neglect of the elderly in the u.s....unfortunately, they pitifully attempt to have their social and emotional needs met by a medical specialist who has little time and training to deal with their needs...and the beat goes on... morten `trace it, face it and erase it' stuart smalley saturday night live - 2-19-94 From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Sun Feb 20 08:17:09 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Sun, 20 Feb 1994 08:07:47 -0800 for socgrad-list Sun, 20 Feb 1994 08:07:43 -0800 for Date: Sun, 20 Feb 94 10:49:58 EST From: Steve Harvey Subject: inelasticity of demand in medical care To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU No economist would argue that as "medical prices rise, demand falls." Demand (not meaning "need," but rather the actual "choice" to consume) *does* respond somewhat to price, but not very strongly. People value their own survival highly enough that they will pay any price for medical care. This is called "inelascticity of demand," and is included in economic models. Indeed, the barriers to entry for new physicians are set up by the AMA, on behalf of already practicing doctors, in order to keep prices artificially high, because this inelasticity of demand makes it profitable to do so. Steve Harvey harvey@uconnvm From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Sun Feb 20 16:27:35 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Sun, 20 Feb 1994 16:26:01 -0800 for socgrad-list Sun, 20 Feb 1994 16:26:00 -0800 for From: S-JHERMSEN@bss1.umd.edu Sun, 20 Feb 94 19:22:57 +1100 To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Sun, 20 Feb 1994 19:22:42 EDT Subject: black feminist thought Hi fellow BFT readers! The end of the week has come and gone and I haven't had a chance to review the first couple of chapters. I'll try to get to it tomorrow and post my thoughts. If there are just two or three of us taking part, do we want to do this privately or keep posting to the whole group? Back to prepping a lecture -- Joan s-jhermsen@bss1.umd.edu From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Sun Feb 20 16:45:41 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Sun, 20 Feb 1994 16:44:23 -0800 for socgrad-list Sun, 20 Feb 1994 16:44:22 -0800 for To: dscott@kean.ucs.mun.ca <0097A56F.34976900.11500@Leif.ucs.mun.ca> Date: Sun, 20 Feb 1994 16:45:25 -0800 From: Michael Lichter Dave Scott says: Rather than glamorizing the Canadian health and medical care Mr. Flint should take a closer look at the numerous analyses pointing to the declining quality, e.g., excessively long waiting lists, which Canadians have become increasingly subjected to. In fact, there are many cases of Canadians travelling to the USA seeking immediate medical care rather than risk dying. Remember not to glamorize the U.S. either. The procedures for which Candaians are wait-listed are probably not available at all to the uninsured in the U.S. As Mr. Flint himself suggests, his time would be better spent finishing his thesis. I don't think this remark does anything to strengthen your argument, Mr. Scott. Anyway, many of you probably heard that the GAO did a fairly positive assesment of the Canadian system, and suggested that a single-payer system could save a lot of money. Despite support from a fairly large minority of Democratic House members, the idea of a single-payer system have been completely marginalized by center and right politicians in collusion with the media [*]. Here's a forwarded note on the GAO report. ----- Forwarded Message -- From: "John D. Monnier" Subject: Re: Query: OMB Health Care Study? To: pen-l@bobby.ecst.csuchico.edu On Mon, 14 Feb 1994, Barnet Wagman wrote: > I've heard that some government agency, possibly the OMB, did a study of > health care alternatives that was very favorable to a Canadian style > single payer system. If you've heard of it and have a citation, please > let me know. > > Thanks, > Barney Wagman > Yes.. In fact I have the text in front of me.. It is called "Canadian Health Insurance: Lessons for the United States." Published by Government Accounting Office it is from June 1991, GAO/HRD-91-90. Orders may be made by calling 202-275-6241 and the first 5 copies are free.. For those pushing for a Canadian-Style health care program, I highly reccommend this booklet. It is surprising positive with very little negative observations.. It evaluates whether Canadians cross the border to use American hospitals, "Both groups (The AMA and the Pepper Commission) concluded that few Canadians seek care at American medical centers." In addition we find this statement.. "If the universal coverage and single-payer features of the Canadian system were applied in the United States, the saving in administrative costs alone would be more than enough to finance insurance coverage for the millions of Americans who are currently underinsured.." The paper concludes that some elements of the Canadian system should be considered for a reformed U.S. system (universal access, uniform payment system, expenditure controls), but that unique existing conditions within the American medical "structure" offer sufficient reasons to want to avoid a wholesale adoption and to 'build on the strengths" of our current system. These important distinguishing features include "the expansion of the private health insurance industry, the diffusion of medical technology, and the development of alternative service delivery arrangements." I hope this answers some questions.. John Monnier Berkeley ----- End Forwarded Message -- [*] If the media decide that something is marginal, regardless of how central it is in reality, they still treat it as marginal and not worth talking about. I had a conversation in 1988 with one of the L.A. Times' main political reporters about the huge amount of coverage they were giving Gore, Gephardt, Simon, and Dukakis in the Democratic primary, while totally neglecting Jesse Jackson. The reporter insisted that Jackson was not a viable candidate. Jackson was less viable than Simon? In the end, Jackson was second only to Dukakis, getting 2/3 as many votes as Dukakis, more than the rest added together (maybe not including Gore -- don't remember). But he wasn't viable. From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Sun Feb 20 18:14:36 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Sun, 20 Feb 1994 18:13:35 -0800 for socgrad-list Sun, 20 Feb 1994 18:13:33 -0800 for Date: Sun, 20 Feb 94 20:08:35 EST From: Steve Harvey Subject: health care..., abstractly. To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU To be honest, I don't feel I know enough about the specifics of either the Canadian system, the Clinton proposal, or the alternatives to enter this discussion on the concrete level. But I'll toss in a few abstract ideas for consideration: The issue, as always, is how to devise and establish (two separate challenges) institutions which provide a collective good equitably and effectively. In this case, the collective good is health care. Obstacles include 1) the fact that institutions are already in place. They have developed semi-chaotically as a part of a larger cultural/institutional matrix, and exhibit a great deal of "path dependence," i.e., inertia. Changes, modifications, innovations can not just be direct attempts to conceive and implement great ideas about how health care service should be provided, but must also be sensitive to the cultural and political landscape in which they are being planted. This brings me to obstacle number 2. Revamping American health care is not just a planning problem; it is also a political problem. This may be obvious, but even so, it is habitually overlooked in conversation. This means that vested interests need either to be mobilized (i.e., any new plan must seem to serve the interests of those most invested in the current system), or divested, the latter being a more formidable and, often, socially costlier option. Both government and private industry are comprised of people who, like all people, have interests which do not perfectly (or, sometimes, at all) converge with the interests of those they serve. Any institutional modification has as it's first challenge the issue of how to bring providers' and insurers' interests more "perfectly" in line with health care consumers' interests. The reason why neoclassical economists and political conservatives love the market is because market mechanisms are fairly subtle means for aligning the interests of producers and consumers. But, in spite of all this "faith in the market" jazz (why bother with "faith"?), there are clearly many challenges of human coordination that markets can't accomplish on their own (e.g., pollution control. There is no individual consumer demand for it; it's a pure public good), and they clearly lead to capital concentration and gross inequality when left unfettered. But, many sociologists (not to mention revolutionaries) have been too quick to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The subtle mechanisms which the market provides clearly has a place in human social organization. (before people start crying "but you're reifying the market!", let me define the term: The provision and enforcement of clearly delineated property rights to facilitate the exchange of goods and services. Though many people find this notion odious, the fact we have to eventually face is that nothing in human history provides much evidense that humans are purely altruistic at heart, so that it is up to our social institutions to simulate collective altruism through mechanisms which coordinate our individual interests to meet our collective needs and wants. Observations of societies where this seems to be unnecessary overlook the subtle normative and ideological mechanisms that are in place. Whether normative and ideological social organization is sufficient for larger collectivities is an open question, but of limited relevance, since market and hierarchical mechanisms are too well established in THIS larger collectivity to disregard). Because of the tendency toward capital concentration, the unregulated market gives way to private sector hierarchies, such as the large insurance companies. This obviates much of the value of relying on the market. The difference between private and public sector hierarchies is a matter of accountability to the public. Neither are highly accountable; both present particular short- comings of their own. Oversimplistically, corporations are more efficient but less equitable (in the provision of public goods), and government is *more* equitble but less efficient. The question becomes how to maximize both efficiency and fairness through some combination of government and corporate organization. Well, this may not contribute much to the discussion, but the point is this: Any consideration of reform has to take into account that whatever agents are designated to perform whatever functions in the proposed system, if there are not specific institutional constraints on their behavior such that they find it IN THEIR OWN BEST INTEREST to perform that function in a way which satisfies the intentions of the system-designers, the system is doomed to failure. The ideology of professional (and personal) responsibility is one such mechanism, but in an individualistic and atomized society such as ours, far too weak a mechanism to be sufficient on its own. Any design which does not include a consideration of the political process it must pass through to be implemented is doomed to failure. These are daunting challenges to planners, but these are the key issues in the feasibility of any policy plan. Steve "I-Would-Wile-Away-The-Hours,-Confering-With-The-Flowers,-Consulting-With -The-Rain..." Harvey harvey@uconnvm From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Sun Feb 20 18:15:45 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Sun, 20 Feb 1994 18:14:25 -0800 for socgrad-list Sun, 20 Feb 1994 18:14:22 -0800 for Date: Sun, 20 Feb 94 20:43:24 EST From: Joya Misra Organization: Emory University - Atlanta, Georgia, USA Subject: Netiquette To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU The last few days I've received a couple notes that I might characterize as "attacks." I've noticed at the same time what seems to be an unusually high level of hostility on-net. This note might inspire even more attacks but I felt I wanted to make this point publicly. I think SOCGRAD is a wonderful space. It's a place for intellectual debate, for thought- provoking dialogues and sharing of information, and for getting to know people. I have made many good friends among socgradders and hope to continue to do so. I know that not everyone buys into the rhetoric that we are all colleagues, but I choose to. I think of hanging out at conferences with you guys many years from now, laughing about the "good ol' days" and hopefully still full of passion and fire. I'm a wimp though. I don't want to be attacked personally for what I say here. I don't mind being attacked intellectually. I'm willing to argue and debate and stomp around about an issue. But I don't want to be sent insults about my personal character based on my stance on said issue. I am indeed a very flawed individual, but I don't really feel that the analyses of strangers based on my postings here will help in my search for inner strength and harmony. Of course, my friends are welcome to make any comments they choose. And they do. :) Although I'm not forwarding the "dislike-mail" to the list, I really understand the impetus to such an action. I felt, and I thought the same of Steve, that I was simply trying to discuss issues with my fellow socgradders -- go further in the intellectual debate, really learn new things by thinking these things through together. And right now I'm feeling like that absolutely enjoyable and possibly productive enterprise has been tarnished by these little packages of anger. What happens on-list is certainly affected by off-list acts like this. And it makes me pretty frustrated. Thanks for listening to my rant. I apologize for the length. I don't want any pity, I'd just like to call a truce. Best, joya From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Sun Feb 20 18:20:30 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Sun, 20 Feb 1994 18:19:23 -0800 for socgrad-list Sun, 20 Feb 1994 18:19:21 -0800 for From: S-ENDER@bss1.umd.edu Sun, 20 Feb 94 21:16:18 +1100 To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Sun, 20 Feb 1994 21:15:46 EDT Subject: electronic lag and qualitative methods qualitative methodologist-remember the qualitative methods inquiries awhile back? i recently got this--i'll pass it on: ==================================== Hi. I haven't been doing a lot in the area of computers and sociology in the last few years, so I'm behind on the literature. I've never seen anything on using email to locate respondents, but there might be something. There is an email listserver on qualitative research-- it is called qualrs-L. I don't know if you're familiar with these thhings-- they're basically a kind of bulletin board where people can post questions, get replies, etc. To sign up, send a message to listserv@uga.bitnet. Leave the name and subject fields blank. In the body of the message put: subscribe qualrs-L Morten Ender (or whatever name you want). This will get you their messages as they come through. To post a message (e.g., your query about avaialbility samples) just send the question to qualrs-L@uga.bitnet. People on the list will (hioefully) be able to give you some concrete help. Best of luck, From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Feb 21 02:16:44 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 21 Feb 1994 02:15:53 -0800 for socgrad-list Mon, 21 Feb 1994 02:15:52 -0800 for To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: How to give an oral exam Date: Mon, 21 Feb 1994 02:17:21 -0800 From: Michael Lichter This is something a USENET-scouring friend forwarded to me. Michael ----- Forwarded Message --- From: e_p@unlinfo.unl.edu (edgar pearlstein) Newsgroups: sci.physics,soc.college.teaching-asst Subject: How to give an oral exam Date: 15 Jan 1994 18:30:14 GMT Organization: University of Nebraska--Lincoln Distribution: world HOW TO GIVE AN ORAL EXAM Edgar Pearlstein University of Nebraska, Department of Physics A. Preparations 1. The room should be as large as possible, and the examiners should sit at opposite corners, to facilitate ping-pong questioning. 2. The blackboard should be full of writing; there must be no erasers and no piece of chalk longer than one centimeter. 3. Examiners should be equipped with dark glasses, since inscrut- ability is so important. B. How to start 1. First tell the examinee to wait outside the door while the exam- iners have a meeting. It is then the duty of the person in charge to tell a joke funny enough to elicit loud guffaws. As the laughter subsides, SHOUT for the examinee to enter. 2. Very quietly, while looking down at the floor, ask for the examinee's name, and how to spell it. (Very effective if the examinee is already well-known to everyone.) This might provide your first opportunity to shout "speak up". C. The main part 1. Always look down when asking a question, and most of the time when the examinee is talking (see item A3 on inscrutability). But occasionally look up suddenly and thrust out your neck, with your mouth agape. Or look at the other examiners and wink. 2. It's good to have a magazine to read, and a pad of paper on which to calculate. If you have a laptop computer, bring it. 3. Be sure to complain about illegible writing on the blackboard. (See item A2, above.) 4. Interrupt often with hints, and don't let the examinee get too far with a hint before suggesting another. If it appears that the examinee is getting on the right track, immediately ask a side-issue question. 5. If the examinee claims complete ignorance about a question, don't accept that, but continue to ask variations on the same question. 6. Once in a while an examinee will say something correct. That represents a failure on the part of one or more examiners, which can be partly mitigated by mumbling "trivial", or asking: "Can't you do it more elegantly?" In an extreme case, show everyone the centerfold of the magazine you're reading. D. The conclusion 1. When the time is up, lower your head more than usual (tying your shoelace is a good idea) and quietly and rapidly say: "That's all. Close the door behind you." 2. In a really well-concluded exam, the instant the door closes someone will say a phrase which reminds the others of the guffaw- producing joke. . ----- End Message --- ----- Forwarded Message --- From: bpc@netcom.com (Benjamin P. Carter) Subject: Re: How to give an oral exam Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 1994 10:20:53 GMT One additional suggestion: if the candidate is not sufficiently discouraged and is judged to have passed the examination, then the committee should make it clear to the candidate that the decision was a very difficult one, and far from unanimous. This strategy is guaranteed to make even the successful candidates suffer so much that many of them will stumble over subsequent hurdles (of which there should be as many as possible). -- Ben Carter internet address: bpc@netcom.com ----- End Message --- From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Feb 21 05:25:24 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 21 Feb 1994 05:24:19 -0800 for socgrad-list Mon, 21 Feb 1994 05:24:16 -0800 for Date: Mon, 21 Feb 94 08:21:21 EST From: Steve Harvey Subject: a note Michael asked me to forward to the list To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU Date: Sun, 20 Feb 1994 21:53:56 -0800 From: Michael Lichter Steve: In your these comments about health care, and in your earlier comments about the institutions of science, you seemed to be saying that we live in the best of all possible worlds. I don't mean that facetiously -- you're saying not that this is the best of all *conceivable* worlds, but that changes, other than minor tinkering, can only make things worse than they are now. Hence, this is the best of all possible worlds. What strikes me as contradictory is that the world got to be the way it is through the struggles of people ("good" and "bad") who do not see things that way at all. And these struggles are not now in abeyance; they go on all the time. The struggle over health care is an example. Of course it's political! Most of the time it's hard to think of it as a practical problem at all, because the rhetoric is so charged. This isn't about efficiency, it's about who pays for health care for the poor and working class people, and what quality of care they're going to get. And we're not sitting here in equilibrium waiting to make a decision; the industry has seen major structural changes especially over the last decade. Much of the insurance infrastructure you mention is relatively *new*. With or without planning, things are changing fast. The changes don't come organically, either. Even without state intervention, there are ongoing struggles between practitioners, hospitals, insurance companies, HMOs, etc. If you think about the Civil Rights struggles in the 1950s and 1960s, most whites and many blacks were telling African American leaders that they were pushing for change too fast, that white people would never adjust. They were being too emotional, and who knows where it might end? Yet the institutions of Jim Crow were crushed (although they refuse to die off completely). There has been backlash, but I don't think many African Americans are advocating a return to the old days. Did they make a mistake in fighting the venerable institutions of Jim Crow? I'm not accusing you of anything. It just seems that you are closing off the possibility of (progressive) change. Is it your belief that significant social change is (a) unrealistic, (b) undesirable, (c) both, or (d) am I missing the point? Before we demand changes, do we need to be able to clearly understand all the consequences of those changes? Is such a thing possible? This is not a taunt -- I'm just asking. One last thing. You say: nothing in human history provides much evidense that humans are purely altruistic at heart, so that it is up to our social institutions to simulate collective altruism through mechanisms which coordinate our individual interests to meet our collective needs and wants. Observations of societie s where this seems to be unnecessary overlook the subtle normative and ideological mechanisms that are in place. Whether normative and ideological social organization is sufficient for larger collectivities is an open question, but of limited relevance, since market and hierarchical mechanisms are too well established in THIS larger collectivity to disregard). I'm having a really difficult time figuring out what you mean here. You seem to be saying that altruism has something to do with the distribution of goods and services (needs and wants) and that the market accomplishes that for us. While clearly the market is an important distributive mechanism -- the more you got, the more you get -- I don't see the connection to altruism. Are you saying that everybody gets what they want through the workings of the Translucent Hand? Michael From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Feb 21 06:24:11 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 21 Feb 1994 06:23:17 -0800 for socgrad-list Mon, 21 Feb 1994 06:23:12 -0800 for Date: Mon, 21 Feb 94 08:22:32 EST From: Steve Harvey Subject: embeddednes and social change To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU Michael- I'm glad you raised the issues you did: It's an intelligent critique, and it gives me a chance to address some of the "deepest" misconceptions about the argument I've been making. First of all, I don't argue that it's the "best of all possible worlds," but rather that the embeddedness of social institutions requires that all attempts at social change be conceived, not in a vacuum, but in careful consideration of the fabric being changed. Change does not have to be slow and incremental; threshold effects, facilitated by the "tightly woven" fabric of social reality (i.e., everything affects everything else), can result in dramatic change, even (and particularly) in response to tiny inputs (as in the "butterfly effect" of Chaos theory, one word can change the world, if it just happens to reverberate outward in such a way as to do so). But change cannot be superimposed: The deeper and more institutionalized a set of relations is, the more intractible it is found to be. Historical attempts at fomenting change have had various effects and side-effects, but the most effective ones, it seems to me, have been those that have most sensitively "worked with what is." The Civil Rights example you raise is just such a case. The combination of civil disobedience and boycotting was effective because it was well-placed prod. Granted, the fear that the Black Power had instilled in the white population helped the civil rights movement gain legitimacy, but the Black Power movement, I don't believe, was as effective or as realistic as Civil Rights. Also, I have never used the word "equilibrium," and nothing I do is based on equilibrium analysis. The only constant is change. Social reality is in constant flux, sometimes flowing slowly along, sometimes heating up to a boil and boiling over, but NEVER in "equilibrium!" As for why I argue that we tend to overrate their own social designs, and need to reincorp an appreciation for the sophistication of the institutional matrices that have developed over time: Again, there is no such thing as a "break" with history. Attempts at doing so have created something entirely other than what they intended, and entirely more like what preceeded it than anyone would have imagined possible. The French Revolution, which tried to reinvent *everything*, ended in a dictatorship and subsequent reinstatement of the monarchy. The Bolschevic Revolution replaced a Czar with a General Secretary. The Civil Rights example you cite, while an excellent example of intentional and dramatic social change, was certainly just a case of "tinkering at the edges," and, in fact, was far less successful than anyone imagined it was going to be. It facilitated the creation of a Black middle class, but it left inner-city Blacks worse off than they ever were. I am not arguing against struggling for change. Everything I do is part of a struggle for change. But i *am* advocating a return of focus to taking a microscope to the patterns of social dynamics in which we're embedded, so that when we attempt to change those patterns, we do so in the most effective and meaningful of ways we are capable of. Social reality and social change are not *just* reducible to "struggle," as though there's nothing subtler to it than classes of people slugging it out, and we should slug on the side of the underdog. This history of "stuggle," which has not just been *between* classes of people, but also *within* classes of people, in a mind-boggling abundance of cross-cutting configurations, has created, over thousands of years, rich, deep, sophisticated patterns which exceed in subtlety the blueprints for society that people intentionally produce. This doesn't mean that those patterns are "good" and "right," but that what's "good" and "right" about them is easy to forget, since our attention is on what's "bad" and "wrong" about them. Just as, when you walk down the street, you may forget to wonder at the sublime beauty of the Oak along the way, because it's been there all along, and you have come to take it for granted. Societies, too, are natural phenomena, NOT happening in-spite of and beyond the grasp of struggle, but woven of struggle. However, when the struggles of billions of people over thousands or millions of years is considered, the patterns which emerge are more than the sum of the struggles which have produced them. Now, once again, I see in your note some reference to something like "my faith in the market." I have no faith in the market! I have no faith at all. But the market is one of the threads of that pattern which has emerged, and it has some subtle qualities. I do not argue that anything is "taken care of" by the market, but rather that market mechanisms are one set of mechanisms that 1) exist in a deeply embedded way, and so must be worked with, and 2) are useful tools, among other useful tools (e.g., norms, ideologies, hierarchies), for coordinating human behavior. Now, for people who think that I'm overemphasizing this "coordinating human behavior" jazz, and that I'm missing the point that that's just a ruse by which the oppressed are exploited, remember that revolutions require the coordination of human behavior as well. The Civil Rights movement was such a relative success because of the successful coordination of human behavior, the mobilization of resources. In struggles for change, understanding these dynamics is more essential than ever. To mobilize a population requires what Samual Popkin refers to as "political entrepreneurship," the ability to rally villages around issues of importance to them (the study was of peasant revolution in Vietnam), and to use the "surplus" in organizational resources to organize the villages into a larger struggle. Certainly, the "charismatic" side of this is important: emotions play a strong role in collective action, and, in fact, the role of emotions in mobilizing and consolidating people is one of my pet areas. My underlying point remains the same throughout every post and argument: Social relations are not zero-sum, so they are not reducible to a zero-sum struggle conceptualization. Losers can be partial winners, winners can be partial losers, and there's not a fixed pie that people are fighting over. At the extremes, everyone can win, or everyone can lose. Well, I don't have Michael's post in front of me, so I may not have addressed a few points, but I hope this clarifies my position a little. Steve Harvey harvey@uconnvm From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Feb 21 06:47:11 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 21 Feb 1994 06:46:08 -0800 for socgrad-list Mon, 21 Feb 1994 06:46:06 -0800 for Date: Mon, 21 Feb 94 09:23:31 EST From: Steve Harvey Subject: a clarification To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU Rereading Michaels' post, I want to reiterate: I have never maintained that things can only be made worse by trying to change them in any fundamental way. BUT, I do maintain that changing things, whether fundamentally or incremental- ly, is most possible and most positive when the change is initiated through a high degree of sensitivity to the fabric and flow of social phenomena. So, I argue that *real* change *does* occur at the margins, and that the visible revolutions are often mere overlays of more fundamental revolutions that are occurring as a result of subtler processes. I prefer to work at the margins ("tinkering," so to speak) not because I believe only incremental change is possible or desirable, but because I believe that real revolutions are fought in subtler ways on subtler fields than we often imagine. And, PLEASE, stop attributing to me all this "invisible hand," "transluscent hand" garbage! My bottom-line is purposive actors pusuing their interests. There are no "forces" beyond that, just permutations of that dynamic. And, as for all the attributions that I think things are "neat," and "tidy," and "perfect," no, I think life is a very messy business, and our world is a very messy place. But, I argue that abstraction is a useful tool, and that abstracting from the messiness can yield insights into underlying processes. Refusing to indulge in such abstraction binds us to the level of descriptive narrative. Steve harvey "I had a map of the United States. It was its harvey@uconnvm actual size." -Stephen Wright (plagerizing Foucault) From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Feb 21 07:27:37 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 21 Feb 1994 07:26:37 -0800 for socgrad-list Mon, 21 Feb 1994 07:26:30 -0800 for From: S-ENDER@bss1.umd.edu Mon, 21 Feb 94 10:23:17 +1100 To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Mon, 21 Feb 1994 10:22:55 EDT Subject: Re: a clarification >Steve harvey "I had a map of the United States. It was its >harvey@uconnvm actual size." -Stephen Wright (plagerizing >Foucault) "i have a map of the united states, one mile equals one mile" stephen wright early wright maybe, ;-^) morten "people in glass houses shouldn't get stoned" -james michener `kent state' (quoting a hippie) From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Feb 21 08:54:22 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 21 Feb 1994 08:52:53 -0800 for socgrad-list Mon, 21 Feb 1994 08:52:51 -0800 for Date: Mon, 21 Feb 94 10:57:11 EST From: Steve Harvey Subject: self-interest, altruism, and social institutions To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU I noticed another point Michael had made that I didn't directly address: What do I mean that institutions (such as the market) are required to "simulate" altruism? A really in-depth and honest answer to that is going to raise more hackles than anything I've yet said on this list, but, hey, you only live once (and sometimes, not even that often)! A while ago, I said that biology is useful as an underlying constant, and that the degree to which we distinguish "human" phenomena from "natural" phenomena is a function of our arrogance -our "speciescentrism." We are subsumed by nature: We were not "put on" the Earth; we are "of" the Earth. This also relates to Michael's distinction between social dynamics as a process of struggle *rather than* as an organic process. Why are these in opposition? Struggle is the underlying generator of population-level (and eco-system level) dynamics, but that does not mean that these dynamics are not "organic." Indeed, struggle is a force of Nature, perhaps, in a sense, the most basic of all forces. One might be able to conceive of much of the physical universe in terms of "struggle," but I digress. As much as we may shudder at the word "evolution," the Darwinian paradigm is a powerful analytic tool. It does not represent a teleological notion of the "end-product" of evolution; there is no such thing. That, again, stems from the human arrogance that equated the theory with an explanation of how evolution "culminated" in the human being. Evolution has not culminated in the human being; it has culminated in all that now exists (in the limited sense of the word, in all living things that now exist). It is not a channeling of diversity into a singular end-product; it is a blossoming of possibilities (and, the sometimes brutal extinguishing of other possibilities). And, it is not "good" or "right." I am not defending conquest because evolution is the "way to go." Remember, no teleology? It's a process, a dynamic, not a "good" to be maintained, and we are not capable of subverting it or transcending it, not because "destiny prevails," but because the choices we make, the directions we take, are a part of this dynamic. According to the logic of natural selection, those *individual* biological creatures which, by sheer chance, happen accidentally to be most well adapted to produce progeny which survive persist, since, as it happens, their progeny survive. In understanding the proliferation of forms in nature, and the combination of competition and cooperation among forms (again, a non-zero-sum struggle), this paradigm has proved enormiously useful. I highly recommend Stephen Jay Gould to all social scientists, not because they should adopt this paradigm, but because they should be familiar with it (as I am with many bodies of literature I'm assumed never to have encountered, and from which I have gleaned much of value. Here's another example of non-zero-sum struggle: Many ideas that are held to be in irreconcilable opposition are actually far more compatible than ideologues recognize). One of the "accidents" of Nature that facilitates continued survival (and reproduction) is some form of collective existence. This is not peculiar to humans. Humans have their own particular form. But, basically, we rely on our ability to act collectively to persist (and improve our existence). This ability, I think, is rooted in the emotions. Love, hate, gratitude, anger, these are the primal "footholds" of collective existance. But reason acts on these footholds to elaborate them and institutionalize them. Since Nature's vengance is so much more formidable than my neighbor's, let's be sure not to *anger* the gods. This is where I think Durkheim's and, more recently, Randall Collins' ideas fit in. A given culture continues to refine this "reification" of the emotional force which binds us together, elaborating the rules, establishing mechanisms of mutual monitoring and sanctioning (and, once differ- ent collectivities start to interact and compete, exploitative monitoring and sanctioning). But, both the emotional footholds (which, of course, persist and remain perhaps the most salient element of human coexistence), and the "rationalization" of those emotional footholds (Weber), are mechanisms by which individuals manage to act collectively in their collective interests. They are, in essence, "solutions" to a fundamental "prisoner's dilemma." If we were inherently altruistic, we would act collectively automatically, and we would live in a virtual utopia (or, maybe not. See "The Altruist's Dilemma" by Doug Heckathorn). But we're not. We *can be* opportunistic, and predatory. Since, leaving aside for the moment the question of distribution of gains, we can all gain by acting collectively, we negotiate institutions which constrain us to do so. Power comes in in the ways in which sub-collectivities organize for the collective gain of diverting disproportionate shares of the larger collectivi- ty's collective gain toward themselves. This instutionalization of means for collective action is what I meant by institution's simulating altruism; they facilitate collective action where otherwise more people would "defect" and "free-ride." Steve Harvey harvey@uconnvm From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Feb 21 09:23:55 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 21 Feb 1994 09:22:46 -0800 for socgrad-list Mon, 21 Feb 1994 09:22:43 -0800 for Date: Mon, 21 Feb 94 11:43:34 EST From: Joya Misra Organization: Emory University - Atlanta, Georgia, USA Subject: black feminist thought To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU Well, I think I'd like to see this discussion try and hobble along on-net but we'll see how it goes. I don't think you need to have done the reading to jump into this discussion, personally. I find the approach that Patricia Hill Collins takes toward the idea of activism and oppression a relatively subtle one. She seems neither willing to argue that only the oppressed can be activists, or that anyone can be a key activist in any movement. Like Patty says, oppression is the initial condition necessary for a movement to arise against it, yet individuals within that movement need not necessarily experience that oppression first hand. But PHC seems to be saying, that at the _center_ of that movement needs to be those that have experienced that oppression. I find her discussion of autonomy vs separatism a very interesting one. She quotes Barbara Smith -- "Autonomy and separatism are fundamentally different. Whereas autonomy comes from a position of strength, separatismm comes from a position of fear. When we're truly autonomous we can deal with other kinds of people, a multiplicity of issues, and with difference, because we have formed a solid base of strength" (p35). This is really tricky, though, because it's hard to judge when a movement is being autonomous or simply separatist. My students really get into this debate in class, and I often have a difficult time refereeing. Two or three years ago, women in my department began having potlucks (haven't had one in a LONG time now). It was for all the women grad students and faculty. From my standpoint it was great! We got to chat with each other, be social, and discuss issues which impacted us all within the department dueto our gender. One of my closest friends, though, expressed his discomfort with the "separate" nature of these parties, he really felt excluded. This was a difficult issue for me. At that point, I was quite used to going to seminars and being the only woman, or among only one or two other women in a room full of men. I often felt excluded even right there with everyone. Today, the dept. seminar has as many women participants as men. I'd like to think that our potlucks helped de-marginalize women (tosome extent) in the dept., and that they were a good thing...a reaching for autonomy, not separatism. Yet, I don't think everyone would agree with me. What do you guys think? joya From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Feb 21 09:54:44 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 21 Feb 1994 09:53:20 -0800 for socgrad-list Mon, 21 Feb 1994 09:53:10 -0800 for From: RALPH@cati.umd.edu Mon, 21 Feb 94 12:52:11 +1100 Organization: Survey Research Center, UMCP To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Mon, 21 Feb 1994 12:51:32 EDT Subject: Re: norms, etc Hi socgraders, I might be a little late on this one but nevertheless; Dan Ryan spoke about violating the norms of the network; would somebody please fill me in what they are -did I agree to something here by signing up that I am not aware of?? I think everybody has the right to post whatever they please -- remember there is a delete key!! I get annoyed at some people and a lot of messages but who forces me to read them?? and I also see no purpose in keeping the discussion intellectual; who defines what counts as intellectual discussion?? ralph 'keep-it-open-and-remember-the-delete-key' From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Feb 21 10:01:28 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 21 Feb 1994 10:00:24 -0800 for socgrad-list Mon, 21 Feb 1994 10:00:21 -0800 for Date: Mon, 21 Feb 94 12:51:07 EST From: Steve Harvey Subject: Black Feminist Thought... or? To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU I think I'll throw in my own twist here, keeping in line with the thread I've woven into the general dialogue of the list thus far: does a group need to be oppressed to engage in a social movement (I probably missed something here, not having read the book and not having followed the debate discussion too closely)? But, do groups form only to confront their institutional environment, or can they form to confront their natural environment? One might argue that a "tribe" is a social movement confronting the challenge of survival. Also, even certain institutional factors are not about marginalization: the environmental- ist movement is about the provision of an essential public good which, due to our present over-reliance on market mechanisms of societal integration, is underproduced. No "marginalized group" involved. I'm sure this isn't really what the discussion was about, but from the outside, the notion just sort of struck me.... Steve Harvey harvey@uconnvm From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Feb 21 10:27:55 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 21 Feb 1994 10:26:00 -0800 for socgrad-list Mon, 21 Feb 1994 10:25:57 -0800 for Date: Mon, 21 Feb 1994 10:25:51 -0800 (PST) From: Robert Duniway Subject: Re: Disagreeing with Bob's reading of Sue To: Dan Ryan On Sat, 19 Feb 1994, Dan Ryan wrote: > Come on, Bob -- Sue didn't mention "conspiracy" at all. She's simply > showing good sociological sense in suggesting that one be aware of the fact > that science is embedded in a world of conflicting interests. The > interests don't have to be so organized as a conspiracy to merit attention. > You more or less advance evidence for the same thing in the comments that > follow. Since your finger pointing for misrepresenting others posts, please note that your last sentence above is a complete misinterpretation of my comments. > > But then, at the end, you revert to essentially saying leave the politics > to the politicians: > No, I never varied from my position, which if you go back and read it more carefully, you will find makes the following argument: There are several different theories about the motives and consequences of researching a biological component to homosexuality. They are advanced by people with different political concerns. There does not seem to be any way of determining the real political consequences. Therefore there is no justification for trying to bar this research because of the consequences of finding (or disproving, for that matter) a biological predisposition toward homosexuality. What is done with the information is a political issue, and should be addressed through a political process. > >How do you determine that your > >assessment of the alterior motives of research funding agencies is > >correct, and these alternatives are incorrect? I don't think it is > >usually possible to tell. > > Probably not with hand washing certainty. There is such a thing, however, > as the ethic of responsibility. One takes a stance, realizing that there > is no absolute proof. There are lots of folks out there who will change > the laws (citing this, that or whatever as "proof" supporting their > changes) while you sit back, unsure of what to do. There certainly are! In fact, a whole bunch of them are collecting signatures in my home state right now to make it illegal to discuss homosexuality in publicly funded schools (including the colleges and universities) because they are afraid there children will be seduced into this unnatural and perverse lifestyle. I happen to be actively opposing that particular exercise in the "ethic of responsibility. You may think I'm picking an unusual example, but I happen to have enough of a history with the provincial politics of Washington State to be firmly convinced that government action based primarily on a strong emotional reaction of fear and/or hate is usually destructive. One good way to minimize such destruction is to insist that weak arguments be exposed as weak arguments, no matter where on the political spectrum they are located, and to refrain from using the heavy hand of government restrictions unless a strong case can be made. > > >This is why I would rather not lobby against > >research, but encourage competing political factions to bring forward the > >best evidence they have, try to find the holes in the evidence the > >opposition is using, and fight the public policy battles in the political > >arena. > > I'm always amazed at how much faith some sociologists have in the > marketplace of ideas. > I'm equally amazed at how a scholar (or aspiring scholar) can advocate repressing research. I would rather have a system where bad research was attacked on its lack of sound methods and discredited, than a system where potential research had to pass some ideologically inspired litmus test before it could be carried out. I know the current system has plenty of flaws, but as Steve said, simply pointing that out is not compelling unless you can demonstrate that there is a better alternative. Bob Duniway - University of Washington From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Feb 21 10:28:52 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 21 Feb 1994 10:25:58 -0800 for socgrad-list Mon, 21 Feb 1994 10:25:52 -0800 for Date: Mon, 21 Feb 94 13:19:01 EST From: Steve Harvey Subject: response to Ralph's query To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU Ralph- Dan wasn't referring to any norm constraining what can and can't be said on- list. He was referring to the norm against forwarding private mail, a norm which I breached regarding private mail I received responding to comments I had made on list. This norm, in general, is a useful one, since it facilitates side discussions that participants can trust to be held in confidense. I've already explained my reasons for breaching it ad nauseum, and won't reiterate it here. Other than that, just play it by ear.... Steve Harvey From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Feb 21 10:39:33 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 21 Feb 1994 10:37:57 -0800 for socgrad-list Mon, 21 Feb 1994 10:37:53 -0800 for Date: Mon, 21 Feb 1994 10:37:48 -0800 (PST) From: Robert Duniway Subject: Re: Bob, not Steve To: Steve Harvey On Sat, 19 Feb 1994, Steve Harvey wrote: > Dan S. just posted something about "Steve's" comments on the implications of > researching a possible genetic basis for homosexuality (a discussion I chose > to sit out, at least in regards to the specifics), and conspiracy theories. > Just to keep the record straight, those were Bob's comments, not mine. > > Steve Harvey That's right. Don't you think Steve has enough work defending his own opinions, without accusing him of having mine as well? ;) Bob Duniway - University of Washington From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Feb 21 10:58:37 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 21 Feb 1994 10:56:57 -0800 for socgrad-list Mon, 21 Feb 1994 10:56:54 -0800 for From: RALPH@cati.umd.edu Mon, 21 Feb 94 13:55:49 +1100 Organization: Survey Research Center, UMCP To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Mon, 21 Feb 1994 13:55:37 EDT Subject: Re: private mail > Ralph- > > Dan wasn't referring to any norm constraining what can and can't be said on- > list. He was referring to the norm against forwarding private mail, a norm > which I breached regarding private mail I received responding to comments I had > made on list. I think this is a very interesting issue and had to come up sooner or later. Is there such a norm that 'one' does not forward mail that was sent privately?? How about letters in comparison? Does anybody show letters around that they think contain interesting material without conferring with the sender first?? most of these issues have to do with the fact that e-mail is r relatively new medium and some people are not quite sure how to deal with it. >This norm, in general, is a useful one, since it facilitates >side discussions that participants can trust to be held in >confidense. I'll take the position that if you do not express that you want this mail to be confidential i assume that I can show it to other people let me qualify this somewhat. to me this is somewhat of a judgement call; i have certain ideas and standards that are around when i decide to show a message or not show it. i don't claim that these should be universal i decide this on a case to case issue one more take on the intellectual issue: Joya and others have urged for more 'intellectual' discussions; I remember talking about recipes and football scores. i still think this should be an open medium and if you want to talk about something -- do so! recent experience shows that if particip[ants don't like it thye will shoot it down fast enough. what i do not like, and in this i side with joya and others that have made similar experiences; i do not like personal attacks. i don't care if you reject my ideas or attack them but i think you should keep the peronal [ such as monopoly-talk] to yourself ralph 'say what you want to but don't be an asshole about it' From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Feb 21 11:04:46 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 21 Feb 1994 11:03:04 -0800 for socgrad-list Mon, 21 Feb 1994 11:03:02 -0800 for Date: Mon, 21 Feb 1994 10:57:47 -0800 (PST) From: Donavan Willems Subject: "O" Sociology To: socgrad Hello: I was reading a book by an English Sociologist named David Lyon who made reference to "O" sociology. Has anyone heard of this term before, and if so, could h/she give me a definition and tell me about it's roots. I am not sure if this is a term that I should have learned in one of my lower division courses, but was sleeping at the time, or if this is a term that is not widely used. I would appreciate any response. Thank you. Chuck From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Feb 21 11:04:47 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 21 Feb 1994 11:03:10 -0800 for socgrad-list Mon, 21 Feb 1994 11:03:09 -0800 for Date: Mon, 21 Feb 1994 11:02:58 -0800 (PST) From: Robert Duniway Subject: Re: INAPPROPRIATE DICHOTOMIES To: "Marlen R. Hancock" Keep in mind, however, that due to the limitations of measurement, it is often impractical to study something like sexual orientation as continuous, and a decision to compare the extreme cases when doing exploratory research may simply be the most efficient strategy. The point about forgetting that there is a continuum is well taken, as is the concern about deciding a priori that one value is normal and what needs to be explained is deviation from that value. In the case of looking for the causes of homosexuality (wether biological or sociological) the symantics are wrong, but the research design implied by this question (e.g. - compare heterosexual population to homosexual population, dropping cases that cannot reasonable fit into either of these categories) is a reasonable starting point. Bob Duniway - University of Washington From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Feb 21 11:41:35 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 21 Feb 1994 11:39:27 -0800 for socgrad-list Mon, 21 Feb 1994 11:39:25 -0800 for Date: Mon, 21 Feb 94 14:03:50 EST From: Steve Harvey Subject: What's "monopoly-talk"? To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU Ralph- What's "monopoly-talk"? -Steve From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Feb 21 11:54:31 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 21 Feb 1994 11:52:58 -0800 for socgrad-list Mon, 21 Feb 1994 11:52:49 -0800 for From: RALPH@cati.umd.edu Mon, 21 Feb 94 14:51:34 +1100 Organization: Survey Research Center, UMCP To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Mon, 21 Feb 1994 14:51:13 EDT Subject: Re: that's "monopoly-talk" > Ralph- > > What's "monopoly-talk"? > > -Steve > steve, monolpoy talk is something i encountered in at least one private message and in one or two posted ones. it is this kind of patronizing language that basically tells you how dumb you are and that you should go do certain stuff. e.g.: do not go to start; go to bookshelf and pick up basic methods book; etc, etc i do not want to go into extensive interpretations because it is not really worth it to me? but make your minds up yourself I for one care less for it [to paraphrase my favourite musician] ralph 'can you guess you that might be?' From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Feb 21 12:04:45 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 21 Feb 1994 12:03:14 -0800 for socgrad-list Mon, 21 Feb 1994 12:03:11 -0800 for From: S-ENDER@bss1.umd.edu Mon, 21 Feb 94 15:00:07 +1100 To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Mon, 21 Feb 1994 14:59:57 EDT Subject: Re: that's "monopoly-talk" >I for one care less for it [to paraphrase my favourite musician] >ralph 'can you guess you that might be?' might that be frank zappa? morten `shut-up-and-play-your-guitar' ender From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Feb 21 13:19:09 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 21 Feb 1994 13:17:53 -0800 for socgrad-list Mon, 21 Feb 1994 13:17:50 -0800 for Date: Mon, 21 Feb 94 15:27:13 EST From: Joya Misra Organization: Emory University - Atlanta, Georgia, USA Subject: INTELLECTUAL LIST/ALTRUISM/BFT To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU Hey guys, good to see you out on a nice day like today... I don't really think the list should be only "intellectual." I'm not sure if one of my posts suggested that, if so, I apologize because part of the fun of this stuff is getting to know people...I sent in a recipe, though I've never contributed to sports scores :), and a week ago even posted Valentines greets...The real issue is just that I don't want to be personally attacked. It's like in the classroom, discussions can go off in lots of different directions, and that's fine, somtimes what's needed is just some getting-to-know-eachother stuff...but I absolutely won't allow my students to call each other names. By the way, I really appreciate all the supportive notes...you guys are the best :) !! About passing around mail...you're right Ralph, this is a pretty complex issue. For example, what's the difference between my telling SKEE something Dan says to me, and my forwarding SKEE a note Dan has sent to me. OK, there is a difference, but it's more subtle than might be imagined. Next...Steve? Can you give us some concrete examples of your argument below...maybe from your project? And can you explain what you mean by the margins? I see most social processes as so vast, that I can't really get a handle on what the margins you're referring to are (another example might help me get it). >BUT, I do maintain that changing things, whether fundamentally or >incrementally, is most possible and most positive when the change is >initiated through a high degree of sensitivity to the fabric and flow >of social phenomena. So, I argue that *real* change *does* occur at the >margins, and that the visible revolutions are often mere overlays of >more fundamental revolutions that are occurring as a result of subtler >processes. (S-NMN-H, 2/21/94, 9:23 a.m. EST) Also, the thing I still don't get about altruism (Iknow we've argued this point before) is if acting collectively is in the best interest of the members of the collectivity IN THE LONG-RUN, why is it considered altruism? For example, I do things for my friends which are sometimes not in my immediate short-term interest, but benefit me in the long-run because within our relationship, a certain amount of trust and respect is built up, maybe they are willing to do things for me, and more importantly my life is enriched by their presence. Does that make me altruistic? Not really...I'm still acting based out of self-interest, it's just a self-interest which takes a longer-view on things. You know, the old short-term gratification vs. long-term happiness thing... I'm personally a long-term-happiness kind of person. So when you say "if we were inherently altruistic, we would act collectively automatically..." I think, well it's a little more complex than that. I understand that to act collectively, we may have to give up certain immediate self-interested goals, in exchange for the longer-term more widely held goals, but I don't see why there is such a tension between the two. In regards to the Black Feminist Thought argument, and social movement, I think PHC is talknig about a specific KIND of social movement here, one which is centered around trying to lessen oppression of one group, Idon't think this means that these are the only kinds of social movements that form. Any other takes? So...I've said my piece. Anyone still with me? joya From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Feb 21 13:32:29 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 21 Feb 1994 13:31:01 -0800 for socgrad-list Mon, 21 Feb 1994 13:30:58 -0800 for From: S-SCHUBERT@bss1.umd.edu Mon, 21 Feb 94 16:27:53 +1100 To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Mon, 21 Feb 1994 16:27:46 EDT Subject: gao phone number socgradders, michael lichter recently wrote describing a pamphlet on canadian health care. the number he listed for the gao was incorrect. "the new number"* is (202) 512-6000 ever the helpful socgradder, " " dan *its a direct quote From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Feb 21 13:57:03 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 21 Feb 1994 13:55:31 -0800 for socgrad-list Mon, 21 Feb 1994 13:55:28 -0800 for To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: Re: private mail <4F66C181758@cati.umd.edu> Date: Mon, 21 Feb 1994 13:56:57 -0800 From: Michael Lichter RALPH says: I think this is a very interesting issue and had to come up sooner or later. Is there such a norm that 'one' does not forward mail that was sent privately?? How about letters in comparison? Does anybody show letters around that they think contain interesting material without conferring with the sender first?? most of these issues have to do with the fact that e-mail is a relatively new medium and some people are not quite sure how to deal with it. > Steve said: >This norm, in general, is a useful one, since it facilitates >side discussions that participants can trust to be held in >confidense. I'll take the position that if you do not express that you want this mail to be confidential i assume that I can show it to other people Huh? Private correspondence should be treated as private correspondence. It doesn't matter whether by letter, FAX, e-mail, or carrier pigeon. Perhaps because the medium is new people haven't decided to accept this equivalence. Sometimes it is permissible (ettiquette-wise) to show private correspondence to others, either because the audience is right or because the contents are sufficiently innocuous or public. You can use your discretion, but if there's any reason to assume that the sender might not want others to know what he or she said, you should consult that person first. You would not want someone else to publicly disclose information (or opinions) that would hurt or embarrass you, and you should return the courtesy to others. Michael From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Feb 21 15:04:24 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 21 Feb 1994 15:02:39 -0800 for socgrad-list Mon, 21 Feb 1994 15:02:36 -0800 for Date: Mon, 21 Feb 94 17:01:25 EST From: Steve Harvey Subject: At the margins To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU By "at the margins," in this usage, I mean by other than direct and "brute" means. Examples, almost by definition, won't be very exciting and impressive. Teaching is praxis at the margins: It plants many seeds that may reverberate through the social fabric latter. For instance, Thoreau's overt political actions were fairly tame: A night or two in jail for refusing to pay taxes. But his tract, "Civil Disobedience," inspired Ghandi and Martin Luther King to dramatic and effective action. Thoreau's ideas were a well-placed seed which contributed to dramatic social events (the degree of impact Thoreau had is, of course, not directly measurable, but Ghandi translated Thoreau from English to Hindi while living in South Africa, and MLK explicitly emulated Ghandi and the principle of passive resistance espoused by Thoreau). Some such efforts may fizzle: 15 years ago I lived on a farming commune in Illinois, associated with "The Farm" in Tennessee, and believed that the commune movement perhaps represented such a seed of alternative social organization, and that as the shell of the existing order became hollower and less viable, the under-the- surface commune network might provide the foundation for an emergent new social order. Well, some (most) small experiments die with nary a trace. Though, you can't always tell: The experience on The Farm may have affected one of its members in such a way as to affect other things..., and so on. Usually, the roots of such amplified reverberations of small in-puts are untracable. As far as I'm concerned, the greatest heroes of human history are the unnamed and forgotten people who planted small seeds wisely, such that their effects are scattered and attributed to seemingly unconnected others. As unsatisfying as gun-toting revolutionaries are going to find this, I think that the most effective forms of praxis are "mundane" things like raising children in an inspired way, or creating provocative art or literature. These are the kinds of actions that *really* change the world. As for altruism, well, you're right. It would be more correct to say that social institutions simulate *trust*. But the word "altruism" quickly leads to a semantic swamp: Is it tautologically-true that whatever one does, they do because they find some kind of gratification in doing it (even if coerced, the "gratification" of not being punished)? If so, nothing is *truly* altruistic. So, we say that one finds gratification in helping another, then they are exhibiting altruism. More generically, altruism refers to deviating from action based on strict self-interest. Well, if I'm a worker in a sweat- shop, and I know that if all of my fellow workers revolted all at once we would win gains, but that the first would be killed in the effort, then strictly self-interested people would never initiate the revolt (as is, in fact, the biggest obstacle to revolutionary action. Not false-consciousness, but simple *individual* self-interested rationality). An altruist, eager to see her fellows prevail, might sacrifice herself on the alter of the revolution, so facilitating collective action. But, if workers managed to secretly form a union, and made it clear to one another that anyone not striking at the designated time would pay a high price socially and perhaps physically, then they have established an institutional arrangement which accomplishes what the altruistic martyr would have accomplished. What is really at issue is trust. If the workers could unfailingly trust one another to all strike at the agreed upon time, no other mechanisms would be needed. But the free-rider problem is an authentic obstacle. That's why unions have had to lobby for legislation which allows them to establish mandatory dues payment from all members of the trade they represent. Since the gains made by the union benefit everybody in the trade, a "rational" (by the technical definition used here) actor would not pay dues, since their contribution has a negligable effect on the unions ability to provide a collective good. But since everyone would follow the same logic, the union would be incapable of sustaining itself. Even knowing about this dynamic doesn't obviate it. That's why people devise institutions by which they can monitor and sanction one another, so that they can successfully engage in collective action for mutual benefit. Steve Harvey harvey@uconnvm From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Feb 21 15:46:54 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 21 Feb 1994 15:45:54 -0800 for socgrad-list Mon, 21 Feb 1994 15:45:52 -0800 for To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: biological psychiatry and social responsibility Date: Mon, 21 Feb 1994 15:47:14 -0800 From: Michael Lichter I decided last week that I would try to sum up some of the more theoretical points about objections and and objections to objections to research on links between genetics and behavior, crystallizing the whole thing and converting you all to my point of view with a sharp, cogent argument. Didn't happen. I'm totally exhausted with this topic now, and I don't want to talk about it any more. BUT I have this whole big long message sitting here and I can't rest without first inflicting it upon you. Sorry. ----- Let me see if I can sum this up without insulting anyone. This discussion started with concerns about research on the links between genetics and behavior. There were two main projects about which people expressed concern: 1. Efforts to demonstrate a biological basis for homosexuality. 2. The Violence Initiative (VI), a specific governmental effort to determine the genetic causes of criminal violence [1]. Two threads of argument accompanied this discussion: 1. Several argued that these kinds of research start with the wrong questions and are likely to generate misleading answers, likely to the detriment of the people studied. 2. In a message I forwarded, Alan Spector argued that the VI was racist, facist, dangerous and needed to be stopped because of its likely ramifications on urban minority youth. A response emerged: Steve attacked, arguing against 1 & 2 above on several fronts: A. We don't have a universal set of criteria to determine what is "bad". He also argued that since no one position is inarguably correct, no one is in a position to decide what is "bad". In other words, not only don't we have a set of criteria, but we cannot. B. People are either advocating or leaning towards censorship, and censorship is bad. He also notes that the Left is marginal and supports censorship [2]. C. Protesting the results of "bad" research, and struggling against its dissemination leads to extremism and balkanization of science. Fighting for moral convictions leads down the slippery slope to atrocities. D. Given the above, especially C, those who find faults with ongoing research should do their own research and attempt to defeat the "bad" stuff in the scientific discourse rather than in other arenas. E. It makes more sense to focus on the process of the production of knowledge than on specific ideas. If we are intellectually honest, then we should be able to improve the quality of our stock of knowledge about the world, and get rid of the "bad" stuff, by getting beyond the "what" and reforming the "how". F. We can only gradually reform the current, organically grown institutions of science; efforts towards radical change, especially ones that are grand in conception, are doomed to failure. If we want to solve society's problems, we have to start in a small way, and work incrementally. G. Given the above, and despite the fact that personal and state politics, institutional power, and many other forces impinge themselves on the processes of funding, publication, and debate over scientific issues, we have to work with what we've got. Critiques of the system do not help unless they are accompanied by concrete suggestions for improvement. No viable alternatives have been proposed. Ergo, put up or shut up. Robert insisted: H. There is never any excuse for "suppressing" or banning research both because it is a free speech issue and because we are not in a position to determine for certain what the ultimate effects of any piece of research are. Barbara added a more specific point: I. If sociologists want to be involved in the discussions around research on biology and behavior they will have to build links with the people actively pursuing such research. Only then can sociologists have a significant impact on the direction of this research (which will clearly have an impact on the public understandings about human behavior, and probably on the future prospects for funding of sociology). [3] Most of the responses to Steve were of one of two types: 1. "You are way too naive about the functioning of the system." 2. "But this research really *is* bad!" Tristan also argued: 1. Some perspectives are incompatible and cannot be reconciled through any amount of collegial discussion. 2. It is not up to sociology to develop solutions for society's problems. Analysis and criticism are more fitting functions, functions which facilitate the people developing their own solutions. ----- This is not complete but hopefully it is a reasonable sketch. I was going to print everything out and read it over, but the combined messages turned out to be over 50 pages long! I devoted a little more space to Steve than to others because he made himself the center of the discussion. Having strung all this together, I'm now going to make some comments. First, I think that Steve is correct about us not being able to create a set of criteria for judging what research is OK, and what not. We *can* better develop a set of standards of social scientific logic and methodology, but, as Steve mentions, we probably can't do much in this direction without the undesirable (I agree that it's undesirable) step of centralizing control over the sciences. However, even if the Violence Initiative were SC (scientifically correct), I would still object to it on moral grounds. I don't think it's either possible or desirable to try to develop a set of moral standards for science. At the same time I don't believe it is possible or desirable to try to convince scientists to abandon their own moral principles. While we can agree that there is no absolute Right to appeal to in defending our moral positions, that does not mean that we as scientists (or whatever the hell we are) must act as if we have no values. While recognizing that we are on shaky ground, we should nevertheless act on our principles in an honest way. By "an honest way" I mean not fanatically, not unquestioningly, but nonetheless seriously. Steve implicitly recognizes the legitimacy of moral stands, but argues they should be expressed only through research or other (strictly speaking) scholarly activities. To step outside the bounds of the marketplace of ideas, however defined, is to make a date with Hitler. Not only that, but if the "good" people act, then the "bad" people are going to do the same thing. Of course, I share this last concern. In my opinion, the "bad" people are going to act anyway, so that not acting just allows the "bad" people to turn contested ideas into uncontested ones. By the way, I should clarify what actions I think are called for. I think that people should call on the Clinton Administration to: (a) Abandon the Violence Initiative as such, and to seriously reconsider the merits of individual research projects funded under the VI. (b) Seriously reconsider the appointment of Frederick Goodwin as director of the National Institutes of Mental Health. The Association for Humanist Sociology has already approved a resolution which I think is roughly consistent with my position. Note that my concern is not with de-funding any particular piece of research, but with removing the overall structure that was clearly planning to use individual pieces of research for ideological purposes. Second (gosh, this is getting long!), Steve's appeal for suggestions does not address what is happening *now*. Maybe the VI isn't a very big deal, and the fact that it "slipped through" isn't important. On the other hand, maybe it *is* very significant, and will negatively affect many people. In the latter case, long term solutions are not relevant. It isn't possible to tell in advance which way it will go, but certainty is a luxury we rarely have in real (as opposed to historical) time. Third, with regard to proposing alternatives the current organization of scientific research, I'm sure that there are some specific changes that would help. As an excuse for not producing any, I invoke Adorno and the Negative Dialectic. We want a new environment in which humans will be free to realize their potential without coercion. To criticize what is, is an essential part of creating this environment. To propose new structures is, however, an imposition of will -- it is coercive and will never enable us to reach our goals. Totally inconsistent with the rest of my arguments, but what the hell! Actually, what I would like to argue here is that the structure of scientific research is not THE problem (though it clearly has problems). As long as racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. permeate our society, some scientists are going to be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc., and their ideas will have an impact on the process. I think it should be clear from past debates that we're unlikely to be able to develop guidelines to filter out all but the most egregious examples of these isms. So, the goal is to change SOCIETY, in order to change science, which is a part of that society. Easier said than done, eh? So what do we do about really "bad" research while we're standing around waiting for society to change? Third, with regard to Robert's equation of research with free speech, I think there are a couple of arguments going in the opposite direction. On one hand, the right to free speech is *not* unlimited in this country (if you argue it ought to be unlimited, that is another question). There are laws against slander and libel. There are laws against sedition, in particular advocating the immediate overthrow of the U.S. government (not enforced at the moment, thank Karl :). There are laws against inciting to riot. In keeping with this, I think that there are many kinds of research that all, or almost all of us would unconditionally like to see banned. Medical reserach on unwitting subjects. Research on biological and chemical weapons. "Mind control" and torture technique research by or for the CIA. On the other hand, research is "censored" every day by funding agencies. Some kinds of research are virtually assured of funding, as long as they meet certain minimum criteria, while others are almost guaranteed of failure, regardless of their quality (however measured). Fourth, with regard to Barbara's suggestion that sociologists insert themselves into the biology debate by building bridges with those involved in such research is a good one. On the other hand, as someone whose research is only very marginally related to that area, I don't think that my objections alone make me a very good candidate for doing this. In the end -- and I think this goes for the "do opposing research" exhortation too -- there are too many battles worth fighting for any one of us to be "bodily" involved in more than a miniscule fraction of them. This shouldn't stop us from exercising our judgement and advocating that others do so as well. I'm too lazy to write a conclusion, so that's all for now. Michael ----- Notes [1] As opposed to violence in war, violence by the police, violence on TV. part of spector's arguiemnt was that the VI would create a class of professors dependent on this kind of research -- this came off a psn discussion of the importance of CJ courses and positions [2] Steve will probably disagree, but this is essentially what he said. No doubt his facile treatment of the Left led to the facile replies he got. [3] This idea of building inter-disciplinary networks is not new, but it is an interesting suggestion. From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Feb 21 16:00:54 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 21 Feb 1994 15:59:46 -0800 for socgrad-list Mon, 21 Feb 1994 15:59:45 -0800 for Date: Mon, 21 Feb 94 18:59:18 EST From: eschaefe@liszt.helios.nd.edu (elizabeth schaefer) To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: Students and Health Care Sorry I'm so behind in the conversation on health care, but I wanted to reply to something Patty said about ND. It's my understanding that Clinton's plan will be costly for students. Though our current insurance provides only limited coverage, we receive this coverage at a group rate. This group contains only students (to my knowledge), helping to keep our costs down. If Clinton's plan is passed, then our coverage will be based on the local population - throwing into the pot older, less healthy people than the average student. Does anyone know if this is a true assessment? At ND, a lobbying force has begun working toward attaining employee status for students. This effort is going on with the hope that ND will provide the health care benefits we may not be able to afford if Clinton's plan is enacted. Does anyone on this list have employee status at your university? Does this status include health care? Any information on students and health care coverage would be appreciated. Elizabeth "working-for-a-better-world" Schaefer From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Feb 21 16:15:10 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 21 Feb 1994 16:12:54 -0800 for socgrad-list Mon, 21 Feb 1994 16:12:51 -0800 for Date: Mon, 21 Feb 94 19:07 EST From: "Pamela M Paxton" To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: oppression (BFT) Another thing to consider when we think about activism and oppression is whether the experiance of a PARTICULAR oppression can help you to understand other oppressions. There has been a debate about whether men can be feminists. But how about, can black men be feminists? Does their status as an oppressed group lead them to a different (obviously not exact) understanding of other oppressed groups (such as women) who may not be oppressed in exactly the same way? Yes, oppressions differ. But is there ANY similarity in experiance between different oppressions? Any post-modernists want to step in here? I was just throwing those out as questions for discussion. How do I feel about the answers? Well, actually I'm pretty much on the fence. I think that there are some commonalities to oppression, all kinds of oppression. But yet, the specifics of A oppression forego understanding for people who are not of that group. Thus, I think there is some kind of understanding that a black man can have about gender oppression simply because he has experianced oppression based on race. How far does that take him, however? Probably not all that far. Perhaps he receives a simple empathy but no exact understanding. (Of course, if he is gaining benefits from his status as male, he may never think to see that there are similarities between his situation and a woman's situation.) what do all of you think? Pam From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Feb 21 16:32:30 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 21 Feb 1994 16:31:33 -0800 for socgrad-list Mon, 21 Feb 1994 16:31:30 -0800 for Date: Mon, 21 Feb 94 19:07:35 EST From: Steve Harvey Subject: critiquing caracatures To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU Michael- It's comforting to know that critiquing caracatures of ideas rather than the ideas themselves is still in vogue. Almost everything you attributed to me bears no relationship to anything I've ever said. A few examples: Your section A was all Bob. I never advanced nor reiterated any of those ideas. In section B, the censorship comment was Bob's. The comment about the "marginalized left" was not an insult: I think most on the left consider themselves marginalized by a rightist dominant political ideology. In your section C, you claim I object to protesting results of bad research. I never made any such objection. I *did* argue that some lattitude should be granted to those of one discipline by those of another, to allow the former to develop their argument before those not familiar with the theories being developed cut off all discussion. I could go on, but why bother? Clearly, my arguments themselves are irrelevent. They have neither been heard nor considered by those supposedly critiquing them. Michael, by the way, I really must object to what you said about cheese being produced by chimpanzees sent to the moon to harvest it.... That's about how close you got! Since I really prefer to represent myself, or at least be represented with a semblance of effort to do so correctly, I surrender. I agree to no longer post if you agree to no longer speak on my behalf. -Steve From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Feb 21 16:53:10 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 21 Feb 1994 16:52:08 -0800 for socgrad-list Mon, 21 Feb 1994 16:52:07 -0800 for To: Steve Harvey Subject: Re: critiquing caracatures Date: Mon, 21 Feb 1994 16:53:33 -0800 From: Michael Lichter It's comforting to know that critiquing caracatures of ideas rather than the ideas themselves is still in vogue. Almost everything you attributed to me bears no relationship to anything I've ever said. I don't think there's much point in arguing this. I do, however, take offense at your suggestion that I've intentionally misrepresented you. I did not purposely distort anything you said, and I would not have posted if I thought I was doing so. By the way, if people misunderstand me, I always try to make sure I've expressed myself clearly before blaming them for the communication breakdown. Michael From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Feb 21 17:01:30 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 21 Feb 1994 17:00:39 -0800 for socgrad-list Mon, 21 Feb 1994 17:00:37 -0800 for To: Steve Harvey bigdog@pioneer.nevada.edu Subject: Re: critiquing caracatures Date: Mon, 21 Feb 1994 17:00:34 -0800 From: JAMES D BALLARD Hi Steve, I have stayed away from any discussion for the last few weeks because I have lost a sense of the rules of this dialog. As you know I misinterperted your actions and posts in the recent past. I do not want to acuse you of anything here but consider the possibility that it may be this forum or a lack of clarity on our part about what it is you are saying. You have been very active as of late and that is cool. What I still have a hard time seeing MYSELF is what is the point of these many posts? That is not a criticism but rather just a friendly question. I promised to drop my baggage during last weeks 'argument'. I am trying but I still 'see' a rational choice' strand to your posts. I see that economic argument in there somewhere. If you are the story teller then this story has been unclear as of late. At least from my perspective and that may not be whort a damn. No matter the interpertation of what you are trying to say I would incourage you to continue to post. We have too few story tellers in the world and need someone to make it worth reading. Above I stated that I have lost a sense of the rules of dialog on the net. I am not the only one and hope this message is taken for what it is meant to be, a supportive message and encouragement to continue on the net. From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Feb 21 17:09:42 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 21 Feb 1994 17:08:21 -0800 for socgrad-list Mon, 21 Feb 1994 17:08:20 -0800 for To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: Recent posts Date: Mon, 21 Feb 1994 17:08:19 -0800 From: JAMES D BALLARD HI folks, I am as guilty as anyone of abusive posts. I am not one to let the easy shot go by so easyly. As such I have refrained from posting lately. I mis takenly answered Steve Harvey in what I thought was private and low and behold my email system sent it along to the net as well. My fault and I am sorry if it clutters the mail box of anyone Dave "one who is seeking a quite place in the storm of life" From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Feb 21 17:29:15 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 21 Feb 1994 17:28:20 -0800 for socgrad-list Mon, 21 Feb 1994 17:28:17 -0800 for Date: 21 Feb 1994 19:25:39 CST From: To: Subject: What does Monty Python have to say about all this? "Let's not bicker and argue over who killed who...This is supposed to be a happy occasion" - Monty Python's Holy Grail From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Feb 21 17:54:34 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 21 Feb 1994 17:53:36 -0800 for socgrad-list Mon, 21 Feb 1994 17:53:33 -0800 for Date: Mon, 21 Feb 1994 20:54:53 -0500 To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU From: danryan@minerva.cis.yale.edu (Dan Ryan) Subject: Norms and critiquing caricatures content-length: 638 Hey, now here's an idea worthy of norm-nomination... >Always try to make sure you've expressed yourself clearly before >blaming them for the communication breakdown. (ML 2-21-94) A few golden rules like this (taken seriously) would make academia a much finer place. Cheers, DJR - ======= - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - == == == == == == == == dan ryan ======== yale university == == consultant for humanities computing == == dept of sociology == == == box 208265 == == == new haven, ct 06520-8265 ==== == danryan@minerva.cis.yale.edu From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Feb 21 18:01:21 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 21 Feb 1994 17:59:17 -0800 for socgrad-list Mon, 21 Feb 1994 17:59:13 -0800 for From: jflint@kean.ucs.mun.ca (5.65d3+/IDA-1.4.2+MUN1.3 for socgrad@ucsd.edu); Mon, 21 Feb 94 22:33:26 -0330 -0230 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 1994 20:17:36 -0230 To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: monolopy talk Hey I bet *I* can guess what "monopoly talk" means. David From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Feb 21 18:07:10 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 21 Feb 1994 18:06:16 -0800 for socgrad-list Mon, 21 Feb 1994 18:06:13 -0800 for From: S-ENDER@bss1.umd.edu Mon, 21 Feb 94 21:03:10 +1100 To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Mon, 21 Feb 1994 21:02:53 EDT Subject: uh oh! uh oh! i see a group hug on the horizon! morten From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Feb 21 19:36:00 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 21 Feb 1994 19:34:59 -0800 for socgrad-list Mon, 21 Feb 1994 19:34:48 -0800 for Date: Mon, 21 Feb 94 21:22:20 CST From: KLOSKY@VM1.NoDak.EDU Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computer Network Subject: socgrad protocal To: Socgrad list I have only recently been privy to the conversation at hand about who did what to whom and who misunderstood who...however, it would seem that quite a bit of time has been spent worrying about who is right and who is out of line....We all seem to have different ideas on what the purpose of socgrad should be, but I feel that we would all be better off if we stopped trying to squelch ideas and refrain from any personal attacks.. There is already enough sanctioning going on in academia without any future sociologists adding to the baggage..... trish, a soc grad along for the ride From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Feb 21 20:34:39 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 21 Feb 1994 20:33:20 -0800 for socgrad-list Mon, 21 Feb 1994 20:33:17 -0800 for Date: Mon, 21 Feb 94 22:59:16 EST From: Joya Misra Organization: Emory University - Atlanta, Georgia, USA Subject: talking about talking To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU I'm tired. It seems as if all of this talk about keeping certain discourses open or closed (VI, etc.) has now closed some of _our_ discourse, in particular the rational choice arguments that Steve Harvey has made. I don't claim objectivity here, but I've learned a lot from Steve, I've very much enjoyed hearing his views, and I would like to continue to see his posts on the list. I certainly don't think that Michael's summary of Steve's points was intentionally off-track, I have a great deal of respect for Michael. But, it was dangerous. Steve's name is attached to this summary, and people might read it as if these were Steve's words, rather than an interpretation of Steve's words. Of course, we all do it, we all sit in our seminars and say "Marx says..." or "Collins says..." or whatever. But at least in our seminars, we can all go back to the text...go back to the words Marx actually wrote, and on a medium like this,that's not necessarily true. I know Steve's arguments pretty well I think, and I don't really agree with the interpretation presented here. I don't really feel up to a point by point discussion of the points, and anyway, such a discussion should really come from Steve (MY interpretation would no likely be flawed). All of us are trying to understand one another, trying to get somewhere, I believe. But there has also been a lot of breast-beating and territory claiming on ALL sides of this debate. Not enough listening (and I'm guilty here too no doubt). SOCGRAD is such a good space, I hate to think that anyone feels silenced on this list. I'm sorry that that seems to have been the effect of this debate. I would like to publicly urge Steve to remain on board, and I hope that those of you who have felt he has added something to this community do so as well. joya-can't-we-all-just-get-along-misra From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Feb 22 04:40:29 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 22 Feb 1994 04:39:34 -0800 for socgrad-list Tue, 22 Feb 1994 04:39:33 -0800 for Date: Tue, 22 Feb 1994 07:31:02 +0500 (EST) From: James Cassell Subject: Does your department pay tuition for TAs or RAs? To: Sociology Graduate Student Discussion TAs here at Carolina currently pay in-state tuition. There is some interest in getting the department to pay the remaining portion. We're interested in finding out whether other departments pay tuition for TAs and/or RAs. Please send me a quick "yes" or "no" note over the next few days. (Also, please include your department affilition--sometimes I can't tell from the node address). I'll post a summary to socgrad next week. Thanks, Jim PS: I'm obvioulsy not after a probability sample here, just some anecdotal information. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Tue Feb 22 09:14:59 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 22 Feb 1994 09:09:23 -0800 for socgrad-list Tue, 22 Feb 1994 09:09:19 -0800 for From: khaskin@merle.acns.nwu.edu Subject: talking about quitting To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Tue, 22 Feb 94 11:09:16 CST I would like to second Joya here. As I said to Steve in a private post, whether I agree with him on particular points or not, his ideas were adding a lot to our discussion. I would hate to see that end. I, too, have questioned the point of staying on the net at times. I get an incredible number of messages every day, and sometimes I get flamed when I participate in the conversation. But when I am not getting flamed, I really enjoy this list. So for now, you are stuck with me. I hope Steve decides the same. Karen -- ************************************************************************* Karen Haskin k-haskin@nwu.edu Department Of Sociology Northwestern University 1810 Chicago Avenue Evanston, IL 60208 From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Feb 22 09:58:28 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 22 Feb 1994 09:53:38 -0800 for socgrad-list Tue, 22 Feb 1994 09:53:33 -0800 for From: Raymond B Familusi Subject: "McGill sells out to Sony." (fwd) To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU (soc), peasemar@student.msu.edu, 22607vlb@msu.edu Date: Tue, 22 Feb 1994 12:53:14 -0500 (EST) I thought people would find this item very interesting. Perhaps this is a wave of the future (or _fact_ today). =->Raymond Forwarded message: > This item appeared anonymously in , a Usenet > newsgroup. The poster ascribed it to Canadian University Press. > > One morning this past week a member of McGill's senate (Prof > Noumoff, I think) spoke on "Daybreak," a local CBC AM programme. > He expressed a harshly critical view of the secret, quid pro quo > arrangements with Sony. > > Sony is the transnational conglomerate based in Japan. It owns > Columbia Pictures, CBS Records, Epic Records/Pictures, Tri-Star > Pictures, etc. > -- _ > Dale Wharton dale@dale.cam.org M O N T R E A L Te souviens-tu? > ================================================================ > > McGill Sells Out to SONY (CUP); Montreal; Feb 3, 1994 > > New equipment was bartered for influence over curriculum. > > Montreal (CUP)--The McGill University music department has > traded partial control of its curriculum in return for equipment from > a major corporation. > McGill struck a deal with Sony Classical Productions that > guarantees Sony representation on the curriculum committee of the > faculty of music. In exchange, McGill got $250,000 worth of high-end > audio equipment on indefinite loan and a guarantee that two graduates > would be hired each year as interns by the corporation. > Calling the agreement an unprecedented violation of academic > freedom, McGill's Senate voted Jan. 19 to condemn any deal which > grants a profitmaking corporation a say in the school curriculum. > While the agreement with Sony has been in effect since June 1992, it > was a secret to most senators until last week. > It is unclear how the Senate's motion will affect the agreement. > Instead of including a Sony representative per se on the > curriculum committee, the faculty of music has hired an employee of > Sony as an adjunct professor in the department. Christian > Constantinov, the vice president of audio operations for Sony > Classical Productions, Inc. in New York City, now teaches three days > a month in the graduate faculty of music at McGill. This gives him a > vote on the curriculum committee. > Constantinov is not the only adjunct professor at the > university. But even adjunct professors who work outside the > university are hired as individuals, and not as representatives of > corporations. > On behalf of Sony, Constantinov negotiated an agreement stating > that the university would "appoint a designated member of Sony to be > a voting member of the university's...committee...for creating > and/or approving the curriculum of the university regarding music and > sound recording." > Michael Temelini, postgraduate representative to the > university's Board of Governors, said he finds the agreement > "completely shocking." > "Whether Constantinov is eminently qualified or not is not the > issue," Temelini said. "The fact is that they hired this guy totally > without regard for regular hiring procedure." > Sam Noumoff, a senator and political science professor, said the > agreement signals a change in the relationship between businesses and > schools. > "Increasingly, companies and private foundations are now > insisting upon a direct role in the management of monies that they > make available," he said. > Noumoff said Sony is essentially getting a cheap training camp > for employees. Considering the high cost of teachers' salaries and > facilities at McGill, even very pricey audio equipment seems like an > incidental expense in comparison. > "The public purse is paying for their training," Noumoff said. > The two graduates Sony hired as interns last year have since > been given permanent jobs at the company. > Since Sony has input at the teaching level in the graduate > program in sound recording, they can ensure that McGill grads are > well-trained in the types of skills Sony doesn't want to have to pay > to teach for themselves, Noumoff said. > While the high-tech recording equipment may have been a > bargaining chip on Sony's part, it was exactly what the music faculty > needed. > Raymond Luk, a second-year music student at McGill, said that > most students in the department know about the new equipment from > Sony. "The general consensus is that it's a really good thing," he > said. > "This is some very, very special equipment," said Professor > Bruce Pennycook. "There are only a few of these machines in the > world." Pennycook teaches computer applications in music at McGill. > Having the Sony equipment has enabled the music department's > special graduate program in sound recording to come into the 90s, > said John Grew, dean of music. > "It's a huge amount of money," Grew sad of the Sony > contribution. "My capital equipment budget for the entire faculty of > music is half of that." > Private funding for the program is not at all unusual, Grew > said. Over 75 per cent of the faculty's money comes from sources > outside the university. > But the question in this case is not the source of the funding, > but what the corporation gets in return, said Noumoff. > "Let Sony or anybody else make a donation to the music school," > Noumoff said, but pointed out that when you give them a position on > the faculty in exchange, "you inevitably bend academic decisions to > conform to the donor's will." > The apparent secrecy of the deal has raised some eyebrows on > campus. > "There are some serious deals that have been made here," said > Board of Governors member Temelini. "If this sets a precedent, then > it absolutely should have gone to the Board or to the Senate." > McGill Secretary General David Bourke said that he would > normally go to the Board of Governors for approval of a deal between > a department and a private company, but in this case "there was no > money changing hands so it was unnecessary." > Temelini said he wonders how many other similar agreements the > university has signed independent of the Board of Governors or > Senate. ### --Kristen Andrews, Canadian University Press > From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Feb 22 10:17:05 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 22 Feb 1994 10:05:38 -0800 for socgrad-list Tue, 22 Feb 1994 10:05:24 -0800 for Date: Tue, 22 Feb 1994 10:05:12 -0800 (PST) From: Robert Duniway Subject: Re: biological psychiatry and social responsibility To: Michael Lichter > > Robert insisted: > > H. There is never any excuse for "suppressing" or banning research > both because it is a free speech issue and because we are not in > a position to determine for certain what the ultimate effects of > any piece of research are. Did I insist that there is NEVER any excuse for banning research? I believe I insisted that it is very difficult to reach the level of certainty necessary for banning research, so banning research is seldom the most appropriate strategy. > > > Third, with regard to Robert's equation of research with free speech, I > think there are a couple of arguments going in the opposite direction. > On one hand, the right to free speech is *not* unlimited in this country > (if you argue it ought to be unlimited, that is another question). There > are laws against slander and libel. There are laws against sedition, in > particular advocating the immediate overthrow of the U.S. government (not > enforced at the moment, thank Karl :). There are laws against inciting to > riot. I also don't recall equating research with free speech. I do recall stating that the free exchange of research findings when debating matters of public policy and the freedom to attack the findings of others are often more productive than trying to determine which research should be allowed in the first place. > > In keeping with this, I think that there are many kinds of research that > all, or almost all of us would unconditionally like to see banned. > Medical reserach on unwitting subjects. Research on biological and > chemical weapons. "Mind control" and torture technique research by or > for the CIA. > Absolutely. In fact, if I were on a grant review board, and someone applied for money for a study of "How to harm babies" I would certainly refuse. The question is how far from such unabiguous cases you are willing to go before admitting you don't know the ramifications of the research being conducted. You (and Spector) are apparently willing to go much further than I am, which is the basis of our debate. > On the other hand, research is "censored" every day by funding agencies. > Some kinds of research are virtually assured of funding, as long as they > meet certain minimum criteria, while others are almost guaranteed of > failure, regardless of their quality (however measured). This point is not central to our debate, but I can't resist pointing out that the belief that some reasearch is "Virtually assured funding" is a pretty major overstatement, unless you have a very elaborate set of "minimum criteria in mind." On the other hand, the fact that some research ideas will never be funded has something to do with the perceived quality of those projects using the measures of the granting agencies. The statement could only be true if you remove the paranthetical "however measured" and replaced it with the basis of judging quality you use which granting agencies don't use. Bob Duniway - University of Washington From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Feb 22 10:56:26 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 22 Feb 1994 10:43:50 -0800 for socgrad-list Tue, 22 Feb 1994 10:43:47 -0800 for To: Raymond B Familusi peasemar@student.msu.edu, 22607vlb@msu.edu, bigdog@pioneer.nevada.edu Subject: Re: "McGill sells out to Sony." (fwd) Date: Tue, 22 Feb 1994 10:43:43 -0800 From: JAMES D BALLARD Hi Raymond, I see nothing different from this 'gift' and what has been happening in schools since manditory education started. Business has always 'advised' universities and schools at all levels what is 'needed' by the workers to be more productive. Schools and Universities have since that time (maybe before) been training grounds for business. Specialization and department alization are the result. We have specialists like sociologists to talk about the social, ect. ANY GIFT HAS ITS PRICE TAG!!! Sony is doing what we let them. Co-optation as usual. From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Feb 22 12:32:15 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 22 Feb 1994 12:24:29 -0800 for socgrad-list Tue, 22 Feb 1994 12:24:23 -0800 for From: blovitts@nsf.gov To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: Re: Policy and medical anecdotes Date: 22 Feb 94 11:11 EST A quick off the cuff response to what changes in health care policy I would make, I would make a full-year course in nutrition a requirement for all medical students. Nutrition is only offered in about 1/3 of all medical schools, usually as an elective and it usually focuses on the biochemistry of nutrition. Medicine as it is currently practiced is too focused on curing disease rather than preventing it. Too much of our health care dollars are spent on disease which could have been prevented by proper diet -- most heart disease, many forms of cancer, diabetes, and others. Too many people would rather have their bodies cut up and take pills for the rest of their lives rather than change their lifestyles. I am pleased when the medical insurance industry gives me a discount because I don't smoke. I would also like to see them give me a discount because I don't eat meat, fish, fowl, dairy or eggs, ergo, my risk factors are far, far lower than those of the general public. But I won't hold my breath. And I am always amused when I tell a doctor that I am a vegan (strict vegetarian) and they tell me they don't know much about nutrition, ask me if *I* am informed, and leave it at that. These issues extend to social class as well. Note the concentration of fast food restaurants with their high fat diets in low income areas and the amount of advertising that is directed at this population. Diet is not benign and too many medical practitioners are ignorant of it. But then again the Meat Council, the Beef Council, the Dairy Council ("She drinks milk and it shows"! Yeah? More than half the world's population is lactose intolerant.) etc., are not benign either. Next time you look at a chart of the four food groups, note who sponsored it. By the way, the "four" food groups have long history. At one time it was up to 12. One more instance of the social construction of knowledge -- and diet. The Clintons do have a personal interest in diet -- Chelsea subscribes to _Vegetarian Times_ and Dean Ornish, the doctor who promotes a vegan diet, meditation, and exercise as a means to avoid heart surgery -- has been to the White House to advise on menus. But none of this seems to be showing up in health care legislation. A realistic approach to health and disease would save the country a lot of money. But the AMA has too much invested in the cut-em-up-and-medicate-em approach to medicine. Barbara From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Feb 22 13:43:34 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 22 Feb 1994 13:36:30 -0800 for socgrad-list Tue, 22 Feb 1994 13:36:27 -0800 for Date: Tue, 22 Feb 94 15:30:09 CST From: KLOSKY@VM1.NoDak.EDU Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computer Network Subject: Health and Control To: Socgrad list To barbara: You mention in your post that you think you should get a discount on your insurance because of your eating habits. Should I get a discount on auto insurance if I promise not to go out of my home state? We could check ID's between states. Anyone crossing would have to pay an extra insurance rate. The point: You want to reward one lifestyle, and sanction another. Where is the issue of freedom in this position? Should we control everyone's life to benefit the whole? SKEE "Stalin made the trains run on time." From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Feb 22 20:51:26 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 22 Feb 1994 20:50:20 -0800 for socgrad-list Tue, 22 Feb 1994 20:50:18 -0800 for To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: e-mail order brides! Date: Tue, 22 Feb 1994 20:51:44 -0800 From: Michael Lichter I encountered this message while perusing the local LA personals newsgroup (for, uh, my research). Amazing. By the way, was there ever a discussion here about why so many women (according to the media) liked the movie "Indecent Proposal", where Woody Harrelson sold Demi Moore to Robert Redford for a night? Michael ------- Forwarded Message Newsgroups: la.personals From: wrldclas@netcom.com (Rob Hankins) Subject: Meet your new wife! Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 1994 22:41:35 GMT Your new wife is waiting to meet you! She is young, beautiful, loving, educated, faithful and FOREIGN. I met my lovely wife this way four years ago. I publish a 52 page magazine featuring 500 really gorgeous ladies from all over the world who are marriage minded. Send me your physical mailing address and telephone number, and I will send you a free copy. Regards, Rob Hankins - -- Its true, its real and it works. wrldclas@netcom.com ------- End of Forwarded Message From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 23 06:24:04 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 23 Feb 1994 06:23:02 -0800 for socgrad-list Wed, 23 Feb 1994 06:23:00 -0800 for Date: Wed, 23 Feb 1994 09:00:18 +0500 (EST) From: James Cassell Subject: Thanks for information on tuition & note on "summary" To: Sociology Graduate Student Discussion Thanks to all of you who've answered my query departments paying tuition for TAs and RAs. Thus far, I've heard from folk at the following shcools: COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY EMORY UNIVERSITY INDIANA UNIVERSITY-BLOOMINGTON KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY MEMORIAL UNIVERSITY OF NEWFOUNDLAND MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY MISSISSIPPI STATE UNIVERSITY NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY RUTGERS UNIVERSITY STANFORD UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-DAVIS UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS, URBANA-CHAMPAIGN UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA AT OMAHA UNIVERSITY OF NORTH DAKOTA UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MILWAUKEE Most of the replies so far indicate their department _does_ pay tuition. I'm interested in hearing "no" answers also, so please send me a note even if your department does not pay tuition. All replys are appreciated, but I'd particularly like to hear about practices at "high prestiege" departments (eg. Wiscosin-Madison, Harvard, Michigan). Our faculty like to compare our program with these programs. Most replys have given a thumb-nail sketch of how students are funded in their department. I've found this extremely interesting, and would like to pass the summaries on to our chair, associate chair & graduate director. (Maybe it will give them some ideas.) What I propose to do is edit out ALL information which would identity the author, plus any pleasantries, and pass that file on to these folks, students here at UNC-CH, and this list. IF YOU DO NOT WISH ME TO PASS ON an edited version of your comments, PLEASE SEND ME A NOTE BY WEDNESDAY EVENING. I'll need to get the summary together early Thursday morning so that I can distribute it for a 2PM meeting. Thanks again for your help with this. It's been very interesting to see how departments support their graduate students. Best, Jim ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Wed Feb 23 06:49:12 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 23 Feb 1994 06:47:47 -0800 for socgrad-list Wed, 23 Feb 1994 06:47:44 -0800 for From: blovitts@nsf.gov To: Socgrad list , KLOSKY@vm1.nodak.edu Subject: Re: Health and Control Date: 23 Feb 94 09:17 EST I wasn't advocating controlling people's lifestyles. Note that I pointed out that I get a discount for not smoking. I get a discount on my apartment insurance for having a smoke detector and I am eligible for discounts on my car insurance for having this that and the other safety feature. These are all incentives not fines or penalties. Why shouldn't people who lead lifestyles that are known not to clog up the medical system get additional discounts??? I have serious problems splitting dinner bills when other people eat meat and I have equally serious problems (and with a lot less control) of having to underwrite the health costs of diseases that are preventable. The issue in part boils down to personal responsbility. The medical industry promotes irresponsibilty in its curriculum, its close relationship with the various meat, poultry, dairy, and egg councils, its cozy relationship with the pharmacuticals industry ... Our health care industry is designed to treat symptoms and not get at root causes. Diet is a major root cause, just as sanitation was in the last century. If we want to get health care costs under control, then the way the entire medical industry does business needs to be rethought and that means starting with prevention. Disease is big business in this country, health is not. Barbara From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 23 06:49:27 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 23 Feb 1994 06:47:49 -0800 for socgrad-list Wed, 23 Feb 1994 06:47:48 -0800 for From: blovitts@nsf.gov To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU, Michael Lichter Subject: Re: e-mail order brides! Date: 23 Feb 94 09:37 EST How is e-mail order brides different from ads in newspapers and magazines and video dating, and match making ...? It only seems naturally to scale up as the technology scales up. Barbara From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 23 08:17:04 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 23 Feb 1994 08:14:47 -0800 for socgrad-list Wed, 23 Feb 1994 08:14:44 -0800 for Date: Wed, 23 Feb 94 10:22:05 EST From: Steve Harvey Subject: a clarification To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU I would like to clarify my objection to Michael's post. I do not suggest that we refrain from paraphrasing ideas in order to critique them. Nor do I suggest that Michael sat down and calculated how best to be inaccurate. However, not only is it important not to intentionally misrepresent an argument -it is also important to intentionally not misrepresent it. That means one must make a positive effort to get it right, not just refrain from making the effort to get it wrong. I made an analysis with which people can agree or disagree, which people can build on or critique. But Michael repackaged it as a series of polemical claims devoid of analysis. In other words, in paraphrasing my analysis, he left out the analysis! That's a pretty serious omission. I believe that the repackaging was intentional to the extent that the purpose was to debunk my position. It's much easier to debunk arbitrary polemical assertions (not all of which were even present, either explicitly or implicit- ly, in my posts) than a reasoned analysis. Though I am often "hard" on people, I make an honest effort, when I paraphrase them, to do so correctly. For instance, I scathingly critiqued Tristan's first post as a series of assertions rather than as an argument. In fact, Tristan claimed that "honest debate" over the issue was unnecessary, and that opposing arguments can be dismissed on an a priori basis. This is not only an assertion rather than an argument, it is also a rejection of the very practice of analytical debate. Similarly, when I summarized the lesbian radical feminist argument, I attempted to summarize it as I believed a radical lesbian feminist would. If I were to critique it, I would wish to critique the actual argument rather than a convenient repackaging (and distortion) of it. Granted, such devices are used all too often in the discipline at large, and we must acquire "thick skins" if we are to engage in the academic process. But, this venue seems to have become overrun by snide jabbing, and seems to be facilitating increasingly less analytical discussion. Personally, I'm in this profession because I have a sense of wonder about the world, and I'm on this list because I want to interact with people who have a similar sense of wonder. But "wonder" seems in short supply. If one provides an analysis, critique the analysis, not fabricated polemical assertions the reader, as a result of their own preconceptions, associates with the analysis. If a reader believes the analysis implies such polemical asser- tions, quote the passage and argue why it does so. This may be oh-so-civil to those who believe civility is a tool of oppression, but the alternative is the kind of petty bickering, posturing, and pot-shot taking that has come to characterize many "discussions" of late, and the discouragement of thoughtful contribution in favor of thoughtless retribution. -steve From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 23 09:57:57 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 23 Feb 1994 09:56:29 -0800 for socgrad-list Wed, 23 Feb 1994 09:56:26 -0800 for Date: Wed, 23 Feb 94 12:45:32 EST From: "Marlen R. Hancock" Organization: Emory University - Atlanta, Georgia, USA Subject: DEAD HORSES To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU :) :) :) :) :) :) :^) :^) :^) :^) :^) :-^) :-^) :-^) (I am intending to become EXTREMELY sarcastic) For many years I have heard women and men complain about "that time of the month" that some women experience which seems to result in angry and all too predictable unsociable behavior. Given the recent spate of messages on SOCGRAD, I am beginning to wonder if male graduate students in Sociology experience an equivalent "time of the semester". In my humble opinion: It's time to pronounce the horse DEAD and continue on to other topics. Can we do something for fun? Can I post the long list of computer viruses I received on another List? You know, like the Oprah virus where your 200 mg hard drive suddenly shrinks to 80 mg and then gradually increases to 200 mg again? Something, anything, to replace the vitriole that is currently poisoning my computer. Thanks, Marni (the Cookie Monster) Hancock SOCAW059@EMUVM1 From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 23 10:04:05 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 23 Feb 1994 09:58:26 -0800 for socgrad-list Wed, 23 Feb 1994 09:58:24 -0800 for Date: Wed, 23 Feb 94 11:58:21 -0600 From: Jeffrey D Racine To: S-SCHUBERT@bss1.umd.edu, socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: Re: gao phone number As a relatively new subscriber to this group, I hope what I'm about to type is not a repeat of a previous post. Some posters have inquired about various GAO Reports and about how to obtain them. It is now possible (it has been for some months now) to obtain *some* (not all) GAO Reports via Anonymous FTP. To reach GAO ftp to ftp.cu.nih.gov, login as anonymous and enter guest as the password. Once you've logged on, cd to gao-reports and get or mget whatever you desire. Note: *do not* invoke binary prior to downloading. If anybody needs any help in this regard (I download from here on a semi-regular basis) feel free to e-mail me at: racine@convex.csd.uwm.edu. Jeff From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 23 10:35:50 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 23 Feb 1994 10:32:07 -0800 for socgrad-list Wed, 23 Feb 1994 10:32:02 -0800 for From: "Patricia L. Pirkey" Date: Wed, 23 Feb 1994 12:31:56 -0600 To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: mail order spouses the notion of mail order brides is relatively one that has been around for awhile. the posting of such listings on e-mail is simply a case of applying new technology to an old medium. personally, i am waiting for mail order husbands to come into vogue. after all, there are plenty of up and coming single, economically successful women who may like to scan over a listing of available exotic men for the right price. if they could just figure out how to work submissive into the ad....... later.............pat From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 23 11:06:12 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 23 Feb 1994 11:03:02 -0800 for socgrad-list Wed, 23 Feb 1994 11:02:49 -0800 for From: S-ENDER@bss1.umd.edu Wed, 23 Feb 94 13:59:35 +1100 To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Wed, 23 Feb 1994 13:59:03 EDT Subject: Re: DEAD HORSES society >For many years I have heard women and men complain about "that time >of the month" that some women experience which seems to result in >angry and all too predictable unsociable behavior. Given the recent >spate of messages on SOCGRAD, I am beginning to wonder if male >graduate students in Sociology experience an equivalent "time of the >semester". sounds a little like `couvade syndrome' - an empathetic arousal in which husbands experience the morning sickness, backaches, food cravings, wieght gains, etc of their pregnant wives...:-v), morten `the-social-psychologist-of-emotions-wanna-be' ender From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 23 12:06:29 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 23 Feb 1994 12:00:24 -0800 for socgrad-list Wed, 23 Feb 1994 12:00:17 -0800 for Date: Wed, 23 Feb 94 13:51:51 CST From: KLOSKY@VM1.NoDak.EDU Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computer Network Subject: Health and Control To: Socgrad list About deductions and penalties.... I do not see a large philisophical difference between the two.... In the case of a deduction, the party benefiting has taken some action, while those not preforming this act do not recieve the same reward. Okay, but isn't that penalizing people for NOT taking the action. I am not disagreeing that prevention in the medical field is VERY important, and I would like to see a change in that direction. What concerns me is use of DEDUCTIONS to encourage people to take action. It can easily be reversed to be seen as penalties for NOT doing it. As for risk reducing products, we could make cars that only go 25mph, and that would be safer. Should we reward (give deductions to) those who drive such cars? Should we penalize (not give deductions to) those who want a car that goes 55? SKEE From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 23 13:23:41 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 23 Feb 1994 13:21:08 -0800 for socgrad-list Wed, 23 Feb 1994 13:21:06 -0800 for Date: Wed, 23 Feb 1994 15:20:19 -0600 (CST) From: "Alma J. Martin" Subject: Battered women syndrome To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU help! help! currently i'm working on a research paper on battered women syndrome and i have encountered few fragmented information in our mighty msu library.if you have any knowledge, especially legal knowledge or knowledge about any legal cases that are using the bws defense please indulge me with it. i would appreciate very much if you could send any references, not whole articles. thankyou! **aj From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 23 13:25:08 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 23 Feb 1994 13:21:35 -0800 for socgrad-list Wed, 23 Feb 1994 13:21:30 -0800 for From: blovitts@nsf.gov To: Socgrad list , KLOSKY@vm1.nodak.edu Subject: Re: Health and Control Date: 23 Feb 94 16:06 EST ---------------------- Original Header Lines (From NOTE) ----------------------- As for risk reducing products, we could make cars that only go 25mph, and that would be safer. Should we reward (give deductions to) those who drive such cars? Should we penalize (not give deductions to) those who want a car that goes 55? We as society have established rules and procedures for making cars safer -- horns, lights, body design, seat belts, -- and have establishes rules and LAWS for proper behavior in and with cars -- wearing seat belts, child seats, speed minimums and maximums, drinking and driving ... These things are designed to both reduce bodily harm to the drivers of vehicles and those who are affected by those vehicles as well as reduce insurance costs. Penalties and deductions are built into both factors discussed above. With that said, the main point of my original post which was about health care, was that if we as a nation were really serious about reducing the cost of health care, then nutrition, a known factor in health and disease, should be a required component of medical education. Our doctors know far too little about something that could so easily have a positive impact on health and reduce health care costs. Barbara From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 23 13:56:52 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 23 Feb 1994 13:55:12 -0800 for socgrad-list Wed, 23 Feb 1994 13:55:02 -0800 for Date: Wed, 23 Feb 94 16:39 EST From: "Lisa" To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: Undergrad Exams Hi there! I am currently teaching a Marriage & the Family course--a discussion format with 56 students. Next week is that dreaded time....midterms. So what I am wondering is how do we test knowledge in such a course? I am planning on a predominantly multiple choice, T/F (correct the false) & short answer exam. There will not be essays due to the fact that they have two reaction papers (max. 5 pages) this semester & a final. Yet, I realize that there are many other exams occuring at this time, and thus had given my students the opportunity to decide when they wanted the exam. Oddly enough, they wanted it the same week when the others were. Now, some are asking me whether they can take it at another time due to other exams/presentations. So, do I let them? Or do I say that the vote was for Wednesday, March 2, & that's it? And if so, will learning be accomplished? I'm not sure about other institutions, but here, students are more concerned with their grade than learning. I'm also known as a 'harsh grader.' (I think that complete sentences, punctuation, concluding paragraphs, and focused thoughts/opinions with supporting evidence are important aspects of a paper.) But I digress. Should they take it as voted upon? Finally, what are your thoughts on review sessions and/or study guides? Thanks for any help....You can reply to me personally, unless you think this is appropriate for the list. Lisa Riley University of Notre Dame lisar@irishmvs.cc.nd.edu From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 23 14:32:45 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 23 Feb 1994 14:23:03 -0800 for socgrad-list Wed, 23 Feb 1994 14:22:57 -0800 for Date: Wed, 23 Feb 94 16:14:02 CST From: KLOSKY@VM1.NoDak.EDU Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computer Network Subject: Health and Control To: Socgrad list Barbara, I agree with your orginal post's main theme, that nutrition should be taught to MDs. It would be a large step in the right direction in my opinion. The issue that I saw underlying this discussion though was the control of people's lives through the use of incentives (deductions). I accept, I hope with grace, your comments on the control of vechicular use. What truely worries me is that the use of such control tactics can be very effective,and needs to be used in a responsible manner. Just as education is an effective means to transmit ideology, it too needs to be used for this end very carefully. SKEE From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 23 14:32:59 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 23 Feb 1994 14:23:35 -0800 for socgrad-list Wed, 23 Feb 1994 14:23:29 -0800 for From: jflint@kean.ucs.mun.ca (5.65d3+/IDA-1.4.2+MUN1.3 for socgrad@ucsd.edu); Wed, 23 Feb 94 18:57:35 -0330 -0230 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 1994 18:52:12 -0230 To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: health care costs Hi, Say, all this discussion about health care has caused a question I had in my mind recently. Up here in Canada there has been a great kerfuffle recently because the government has reduced taxes on cigarettes to counter rampant cross-border smuggling. About half of the cigarettes smoked in Canada were contraband! Anyway, the major argument made against the reduction was that more people would smoke, thus raising health costs. I started thinking about this. A heavy smoker I knew just dropped dead at 70 of a heart attack probably attributable to his habit. He was pretty wheezy and short of breath but I don't recall him ever getting seriously ill before he died. So it brought up the questions: 1) do people with bad habits have more visits to the doctor in their lives? 2) do people dying of "self-inflicted diseases" cost more to take care of than people dying "natural" deaths 3) since people with bad habits presumeably die sooner than their enlightened cohorts, but also pay into social security, are considerable savings realized by the government not having to support them for a long time after retirement? You get the drift. I just wonder if any studies have been done showing if smokers (or other "self-abusers") over their lifespan cost more than non-smokers. Maybe by a tobacco company? :-) David Flint Memorial University of Newfoundland From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 23 14:33:45 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 23 Feb 1994 14:27:01 -0800 for socgrad-list Wed, 23 Feb 1994 14:26:49 -0800 for Date: Wed, 23 Feb 94 16:21:57 CST From: KLOSKY@VM1.NoDak.EDU Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computer Network Subject: Undergrad Exam To: Socgrad list Lisa, i believe this is a wonderful topic -- Learning at the University level comes from not just the material presented in class, but also from the structure of the situations. To my way of thinking, if you allow students to choose a test date, and then break that agreement, you send a certain kind of message. Educators should think about those types of messages when thinking about this type of issue. "What am I telling my students when I do this?" SKEE - "I can have that done by friday, no problem" KLOSKY From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 23 14:44:02 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 23 Feb 1994 14:38:32 -0800 for socgrad-list Wed, 23 Feb 1994 14:38:23 -0800 for From: S-ENDER@bss1.umd.edu Wed, 23 Feb 94 17:35:13 +1100 To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Wed, 23 Feb 1994 17:34:31 EDT Subject: Re: Undergrad Exams >So what I am wondering is how do we test knowledge in such >a course? I am planning on a predominantly multiple choice, >T/F (correct the false) & short answer exam. There will not >be essays due to the fact that they have two reaction papers >(max. 5 pages) this semester & a final. standardized exams suck, period! the only time they don't suck is when you return them, then they suck even more... ...but if you must give one (and most graduate instructors do because they are efficient), switch roles---have the students submit all the questions and then really use them for the exam...this way, 1) they think about the material, 2) you learn what material they're thinking about, 3) they learn some role taking, 4) they contribute to the definition of the academic situation, 5) they can earn extra and 6) the pressure is off *you* when the grades come back...moreover, it builds cohesion in the classroom and enhances trust...so lighten up and subvert the educational paradigm which you so obviously despise... morten `i-apologize-for-all-the-social-psych-stuff' ender From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 23 15:37:36 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 23 Feb 1994 15:35:56 -0800 for socgrad-list Wed, 23 Feb 1994 15:35:43 -0800 for Date: Wed, 23 Feb 94 17:29:52 CST From: KLOSKY@VM1.NoDak.EDU Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computer Network Subject: Undergrad exams To: Socgrad list The idea of student generated tests? Some concerns... 1. What if the students don't submit quality questions? Do you grade them on the quality? 2. If we allow students to construct the academic situation, what stops them from "corrupting" the process, and lowing already low standards? SKEE From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 23 16:38:44 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 23 Feb 1994 16:37:20 -0800 for socgrad-list Wed, 23 Feb 1994 16:37:16 -0800 for Date: Wed, 23 Feb 94 19:27 EST From: "Great, I can change this." Subject: Re: Health and Control To: blovitts@nsf.gov KLOSKY@vm1.nodak.edu >I wasn't advocating controlling people's lifestyles. Note that I pointed out >that I get a discount for not smoking. I get a discount on my apartment >insurance for having a smoke detector and I am eligible for discounts on my >car >insurance for having this that and the other safety feature. These are all >incentives not fines or penalties. Why shouldn't people who lead lifestyles >that are known not to clog up the medical system get additional discounts??? >I >have serious problems splitting dinner bills when other people eat meat and I >have equally serious problems (and with a lot less control) of having to >underwrite the health costs of diseases that are preventable. The issue in t Barbara, You may not think that you are advocating controling people's lifestyle, and see not smoking, not eating meat, etc. as incentives rather than discrimiantion , but the lines are not so clear cut. As an example (some rough calculations, good enough for Intro. lectures) Lifetime risk of being Murdered. White male 1 in 131 Black male 1 in 21 White female 1 in 369 Black female 1 in 104 So should life and medical insurance rates for black males be substantially higher than white males? Black females higher than white females? Should corporations and government be allowed to "adjust" their co-pay's to reflect the higher chance of blacks being murdered? But racial status is protected under anti-discrimination laws you might say. And you are correct. But what about place of residence? No, there are no regulations stating that insurance companies cannot base their rates on place of residence. In fact though, due to the segregation of housing markets, if you know where someone lives you can predict with a very high probability the race of the resident. Many of the discounts you mentioned above (smoke detectors, safety features, non-smoking) while valid in acturarial (?) terms, are extremely biased by class. Many renters have little control over the condition of the buildings (including smoke detectors, fire escapes, etc.) that they live in. Not everyone can afford to purchase a new car and take advantage of airbags and anti-lock brakes. Finally, many insurance "incentives" are based less on acturarial data than on the political winds of the moment. Most recent example: Anti-lock brakes. I just such a little article in the Philadelphia Inquirer that a study commissioned by insurance companies has concluded that anti-lock brakes neither reduce the frequency nor severity of accidents. Yet most insurance companies have offered "incentives" for anti-lock brakes since they were introduced. Is it total coincidence that anti-lock brakes were originally introduced on high- end cars? (Whoa, turn down paranoia detector). Jetaway (food [including meat] for thought) Dave From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 23 17:19:27 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 23 Feb 1994 17:15:40 -0800 for socgrad-list Wed, 23 Feb 1994 17:15:36 -0800 for Date: Wed, 23 Feb 94 20:03 EST From: "Great, I can change this." Subject: Re: Undergrad Exams To: S-ENDER@bss1.umd.edu >standardized exams suck, period! the only time they don't suck is >when you return them, then they suck even more... Bad exams suck whether they are standardized or not. It's the quality of a test that determines their usefullness, not whether they are multiple - choice or short answer or essay or oral or free-form exposition. The aversion to standardized tests seems related to the hatred and disgust expressed by (well at least by many of my fellow grad students) of large lecture classes. I consider many of these opinions elitist. An intense interactional learning experience conducted between a small group of students and instructor / guider / partner may well be some sort of educational ideal but.... It ain't gonna happen except in very small, very private, very expensive, elitist schools. Most of us will end up teaching at relatively large state institutions and unless society radically rearranges its priorities we will be teaching to hordes of students in lecture halls. And this is not bad. Is there some master equation which can tell us that a greater good is done by intensly increasing the knowledge of 10 students rather than increasing (to a smaller, but again debatable extent) the knowledge of 250? Jetaway (watch that dosage!) Dave. From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 23 17:45:48 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 23 Feb 1994 17:41:58 -0800 for socgrad-list Wed, 23 Feb 1994 17:41:53 -0800 for From: dscott@kean.ucs.mun.ca (5.65d3+/IDA-1.4.2+MUN1.3 for SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU); Wed, 23 Feb 94 22:16:05 -0330 -0230 Date: Wed, 23 Feb 1994 22:09:39 -0230 To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU Subject: BLOVITTS, HEALTH and CONTROL I can handle second hand smoke easier than second hand morality...the medical costs for smokers would be less than for non-smokers -- smokers die of diseases such as heart disease, cancer, etc...diseases which entail standardized and relatively cheap medical care. Whereas individuals who die of non-smoking related diseases live longer and require more health and medical care...furthermore, countries which have higher smoking rates than Canada and USA such as Japan and France also have longer life expectancy. ...also, check cancer rates -- incidences of smoking-related cancers have remained steady over the past twenty years whereas non-smoking related cancers, i.e., cancers which used to be relatively rare, have been steadily increasing. I suggest "BLOVITTS" target her energy into something more useful than trying to regulate people's behaviour. From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 23 18:07:27 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 23 Feb 1994 18:06:27 -0800 for socgrad-list Wed, 23 Feb 1994 18:06:25 -0800 for Date: Wed, 23 Feb 94 19:59:46 CST From: KLOSKY@VM1.NoDak.EDU Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computer Network Subject: Health and Control To: Socgrad list I do not see smoking as the central issue, but instead merely one example of an attempt to control. I happen to agree with NO-SMOKING policies, as decided and voted on. Even in the case of eating establishments and bars, there is the power to vote by NOT going there. The central issue FOR ME is the method used to encourage the behavior. I'm sorry if i have been posting too much. I am sick, and so have a LOT of time to spead at home in front of the CRT. SKEE From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 23 19:38:36 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 23 Feb 1994 19:37:04 -0800 for socgrad-list Wed, 23 Feb 1994 19:37:01 -0800 for Date: Wed, 23 Feb 1994 22:38:23 -0500 To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU From: danryan@minerva.cis.yale.edu (Dan Ryan) Subject: Exams content-length: 2605 I surprised colleagues (and students) by giving a multiple choice final exam in a "Social Psych of Organizations" course a few years ago (as you might or might not guess, I'm into innovative teaching methods, and most folks don't associate innovation and multiple choice -- and the class was VERY small so the point wasn't to be efficient). Inspired by conversations with Mr. Mundanity of Excellence, I wanted to see if I could to come up with an intellectually- pedagogically respectable multiple choice test. Here's what I did. Student work for the semester involved completion of 5 written assignments and a final exam. I gave approximately 7 "opportunities" for written assignments, some of which had numerous options. Toward the very end of the semester, one of the options was to make up a 20-30 question multiple choice test with at least one question for each class session. I produced a handout in which I discussed what makes a good or bad question (or more importantly, set of answers) with examples. I explained that the grade on the exercise would depend on how well the questions and the right and wrong answers captured important distinctions, probable misinterpretations, etc. The assignment came with the promise that if the questions were good, I'd use them on the final. I actually planned the exercise as a sort of trick to get folks to think back over the material we'd covered and to ask what was important about each lecture and such. My thinking was that I might as well share the intellectual wealth: I often learn the most when, at the end of a course, I go back and review what we've done to plan an exam or final lecture. The results were stunningly good. Here are a few of the important things: Don't try to be tricky for the sake of being tricky. Focus on important points. Alternative answers have to be real alternatives -- they should be like a research instrument that will separate the population into those who correctly understood a given concept and those who did not get it. Be thinking that you want to give students the opportunity to show how much they've learned. Spend a lot of time on the alternative answers -- the wrong answers aren't throw-aways. Good question. More later. Cheers, - ======= - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - == == == == == == == == dan ryan ======== yale university == == consultant for humanities computing == == dept of sociology == == == box 208265 == == == new haven, ct 06520-8265 ==== == danryan@minerva.cis.yale.edu From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 23 20:48:19 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 23 Feb 1994 20:47:10 -0800 for socgrad-list Wed, 23 Feb 1994 20:47:08 -0800 for Date: Wed, 23 Feb 94 23:46 EST From: "Lisa" To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: Contraception OK, it's me again. I want to thank everyone for their help thus far on exams. Such quick responses too :) But I have a question that needs clarification. We were talking about teen pregnancy in class today and of course came to the contraception issue. The question is whether there is a minimum age to purchase condoms and other contraception?? I don't think that there is in the US, but what about other countries? One student reported that he thought there was a minimum age---16...I called OSCO this evening and no one seemed to know for sure. Finally, a pharmacist went and looked at a condom package and reported that there wasn't an age specified. Of course we talked about the stigma of buying, the cost and transportation (for the "underclass") in addition to the availability. Yet the American teen birthrate is still about 5 times that of many European countries. Is there a minimum age for birth control pills? Norplant? Other methods? What about other countries? What are their policies with regards to contraception? Of course, the issues we are discussing in class are sometimes controversial, especially if you realize that the majority of undergrads who attend ND are quite conservative. Thanks again, Lisa Riley lisar@irishmvs.cc.nd.edu From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 23 20:54:16 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 23 Feb 1994 20:52:54 -0800 for socgrad-list Wed, 23 Feb 1994 20:52:53 -0800 for From: XMGARRETT@CCVAX.FULLERTON.EDU Date: 23 Feb 1994 20:47:05 -0800 (PST) To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU add xmgarrett@ccvax.fullerton.edu From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Feb 24 05:43:19 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 24 Feb 1994 05:42:07 -0800 for socgrad-list Thu, 24 Feb 1994 05:42:04 -0800 for From: S-ENDER@bss1.umd.edu Thu, 24 Feb 94 8:38:56 +1100 To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Thu, 24 Feb 1994 08:38:38 EDT Subject: Re: Undergrad exams >The idea of student generated tests? Some concerns... >1. What if the students don't submit quality questions? > Do you grade them on the quality? two things...large class sizes usually generate at least a few qualtiy questions (since my social psych course is required for education matters, i receive a good number of questions with quality)...besides, be prepared for apathy...second...if they do not submit, one still has established a degree of trust by providing the opportunity to participate...i'm requesting questions today...i'll show you later this week... >2. If we allow students to construct the academic situation, what >stops them from "corrupting" the process, and lowing already low >standards? you are toooooo idealistic...there hasn't been a mutiny on a university campus since 1968.... morten `in the midst of apathy' ender From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Feb 24 07:14:50 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 24 Feb 1994 07:13:20 -0800 for socgrad-list Thu, 24 Feb 1994 07:13:18 -0800 for Date: Thu, 24 Feb 94 09:58:21 EST From: "Marlen R. Hancock" Organization: Emory University - Atlanta, Georgia, USA Subject: CONTRACEPTION To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU Lisa, As far as I know (and it's been 5 or 6 years since I needed to know, so I'm out of date) any female who claims to be sexually active can get any form of contraceptive she desires from a public health clinic if the clinic provides that form. Ususally this is limited to diaphragms and pills. Persons of any age can buy condoms, foams, jellies, etc. Norplant is prohibitively expensive unless covered by insurance. Currently (as recently as last year) it cost between $700 and $800 here in Georgia. If one of your concerns is the underclass (those living in persistent poverty) this is not currently an option. It may also be important to know that any young woman who has gotten pregnant immediately becomes an emancipated minor and she is the only one who can then consent to or refuse care associated with herself and her baby. ALL OF THIS APPLIES TO THE US ONLY, SINCE THAT'S THE ONLY COUNTRY I KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT TO SAY ANYTHING. :) This is a most complex problem. If access to affordable contraception automatically lead to a decrease in teen pregnancies, especially in the inner city, I can guarantee you that some crafty public health nurse would long ago have figured out a way to make free contraceptives readily available. The issue is not more money (welfare) nor the desire to have more children, nor the lack of knowledge of the means of contraception. It has much more to do with locus of control and whether one sees any sense in delaying gratification in hopes of attaining a greater good in the future. Good luck with your class! Marni (the Cookie Monster) Hancock SOCAW059@EMUVM1 From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Feb 24 07:16:51 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 24 Feb 1994 07:15:46 -0800 for socgrad-list Thu, 24 Feb 1994 07:15:44 -0800 for From: khaskin@merle.acns.nwu.edu Subject: elitism To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Thu, 24 Feb 94 9:15:43 CST Dave said that grad students who prefer small class sizes are elitist, because that is not what they will find at large public institutions. I don't agree with characterizing this as elitist. A lot of research has been done, mostly in grade schools, demonstrating the higher quality of learning which goes on in classes with a lower teacher:student ratio. This research is well-known enough that the federal government and state governments spend millions of dollars to lower class sizes, especially for educationally disadvangtaged students. Under what are known as Chapter 1 funds from the fed., schools received these funds are required to place eligible students into classes with fewer than 15 students. (Of course, this can only improve education if other factors, like teacher quality and the availability of basic materials, are present.) Most of us who have taught will also be able to tell you from anecdotal evidence that the teaching experience is very different, and usually better for teacher and student alike, when it is more intimate. So Dave, there is evidence that smaller class sizes help (although they cannot fix everything). It is not an elitist desire to have small class sizes, although I agree with you that under current conditions, few universities are able to offer many such classes. Karen -- ************************************************************************* Karen Haskin k-haskin@nwu.edu Department Of Sociology Northwestern University 1810 Chicago Avenue Evanston, IL 60208 From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Feb 24 07:41:49 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 24 Feb 1994 07:40:38 -0800 for socgrad-list Thu, 24 Feb 1994 07:40:34 -0800 for Date: Thu, 24 Feb 1994 07:40:34 -0800 From: <@EMUVM1.CC.EMORY.EDU:SOCAW059@EMUVM1.CC.EMORY.EDU> Subject: A Virus List Here, from another listserv, is a list of computer viruses currently extant. ENJOY!!!! Marni (the Cookie Monster) Hancock SOCAW059@EMUVM1 ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- > >OPRAH WINFREY VIRUS: Your 200MB hard drive suddenly shrinks to 80MB, >and then slowly expands back to 200MB. > >VINCE FOSTER VIRUS: The Clintons' aides show up an hour after your "suicide" >and take your files. Takes at least six months to get what's left of them >back. > >AT&T VIRUS: Every three minutes it tells you what great service you >are getting. > >MCI VIRUS: Every three minutes it reminds you that you're paying too >much for the AT&T virus. > >PAUL REVERE VIRUS: This revolutionary virus does not horse around. >It warns you of impending hard disk attack---once if by LAN, twice >if by C:>. > >POLITICALLY CORRECT VIRUS: Never calls itself a "virus", but instead >refers to itself as an "electronic microorganism." > >RIGHT TO LIFE VIRUS: Won't allow you to delete a file, regardless of >how old it is. If you attempt to erase a file, it requires you to >first see a counsellor about possible alternatives. > >ROSS PEROT VIRUS: Activates every component in your system, just >before the whole damn thing quits. > >TED TURNER VIRUS: Colorizes your monochrome monitor. > >ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER VIRUS: Terminates and stays resident. It'll be >back. > >DAN QUAYLE VIRUS: Prevents your system from spawning any child process >without joining into a binary network. > >DAN QUAYLE VIRUS #2: Their is sumthing rong wit your komputer, ewe >jsut cant figyour out watt! > >GOVERNMENT ECONOMIST VIRUS: Nothing works, but all your diagnostic >software says everything is fine. > >NEW WORLD ORDER VIRUS: Probably harmless, but it makes a lot of people >really mad just thinking about it. > >FEDERAL BUREAUCRAT VIRUS: Divides your hard disk into hundreds of >little units, each of which does practically nothing, but all of >which claim to be the most important part of your computer. > >GALLUP VIRUS: Sixty percent of the PCs infected will lose 38 percent >of their data 14 percent of the time (plus or minus a 3.5 percent >margin of error.) > >TERRY RANDLE VIRUS: Prints "Oh no you don't" whenever you choose >"Abort" from the "Abort" "Retry" "Fail" message. > >TEXAS VIRUS: Makes sure that it's bigger than any other file. > >ADAM AND EVE VIRUS: Takes a couple of bytes out of your Apple. > >CONGRESSIONAL VIRUS: The computer locks up, screen splits erratically >with a message appearing on each half blaming the other side for >the problem. > >AIRLINE VIRUS: You're in Dallas, but your data is in Singapore. > >FREUDIAN VIRUS: Your computer becomes obsessed with marrying its own >motherboard. > >PBS VIRUS: Your programs stop every few minutes to ask for money. > >ELVIS VIRUS: Your computer gets fat, slow and lazy, then self >destructs; only to resurface at shopping malls and service >stations across rural America. > >ROSE LAW FIRM VIRUS: Causes your printer to become a paper shredder. > >NIKE VIRUS: Just does it. > >SEARS VIRUS: Your data wont appear unless you buy new cables, power >supply and a set of shocks. > >CONGRESSIONAL VIRUS #2: Runs every program on the hard drive >simultaneously, but doesnt allow the user to accomplish anything. > >KEVORKIAN VIRUS: Helps your computer shut down as an act of mercy. > >IMELDA MARCOS VIRUS: Sings you a song (slightly off key) on boot up, >then subtracts money from your Quicken account and spends it all >on expensive shoes it purchases through Prodigy. > >STAR TREK VIRUS: Invades your system in places where no virus has gone >before. > >HEALTH CARE VIRUS: Tests your system for a day, finds nothing wrong, and >sends you a bill for $4,500. > >CLEVELAND INDIANS VIRUS: Makes your 486/50 machine perform like a >286/AT. > >MENENDEZ BROTHERS VIRUS: It claims it feels threatened by the other files on >your PC and erases them in "self defense". > >CHICAGO CUBS VIRUS: Your PC makes frequent mistakes and comes in last >in the reviews, but you still love it. > >ORAL ROBERTS VIRUS - Claims that if you don't send it a million dollars, >it's programmer will take it back. > >Use your virus scan, don't let any of these viruses happen to your PC! >----- forwarded message ends here ----- >____________________________________________________________ >Eric Gross egross@mailer.fsu.edu > Sam Weissman Internet: weissman@mary.fordham.edu Bitnet: weissman@FORDMULC "We have seen the enemy, and he is us!" Pogo  A Virus List  A Virus List F From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Feb 24 08:31:38 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 24 Feb 1994 08:30:21 -0800 for socgrad-list Thu, 24 Feb 1994 08:30:17 -0800 for Date: Thu, 24 Feb 1994 11:28:54 +0500 (EST) From: James Cassell Subject: SUMMARY: Does your Dept. pay Tuition for TAs & RAs To: Sociology Graduate Student Discussion Earlier this week I asked you kind folk to let me know whether your dept. paid tution for TAs and/or RAs. I received reports from 27 schools. Here, as promised, is a summary of your responces. Many thanks to those of you who took time to answer this query. Dept. Pays School Tuition for TAs? BOWLING GREEN UNIVERSITY Yes COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY Yes EMORY UNIVERSITY Yes HARVARD UNIVERSITY No INDIANA UNIVERSITY-BLOOMINGTON Yes KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY Yes MEMORIAL UNIVERSITY OF NEWFOUNDLAND No MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Yes MISSISSIPPI STATE UNIVERSITY Yes NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY Yes OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY Yes PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY Yes RUTGERS UNIVERSITY Yes STANFORD UNIVERSITY Yes UNIVERSITY OF AKRON Yes UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT BERKELEY No UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-DAVIS Yes UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-LOS ANGELES No UNIVERSITY OF ILL. URBANA-CHAMPAIGN Yes UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND Yes UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA AT OMAHA Yes UNIVERSITY OF NORTH DAKOTA Yes UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME Yes UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN No UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON Yes UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON No UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MILWAUKEE No --------------------------------------------------------- I've attached the actual reports to the end of this note. (Identifying information and "chit-chat" have been edited out. Reports are given in the order I received them. A few schools had multiple reports; since all agreed on the basic question, I've kept the report with the most information here.) I found the ways different graduate programs fund students quite interesting. Best, Jim ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 ======Edited Replys from SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU===== =======Emory University======== Emory "brings in" like 7 people every year. These people have tuition paid ($16,000/yr so it's a good thing!). They also receive about $10,000 in fellowship and stipend. Stipend goes either for (1)being an RA 15 hrs/wk, or (2)being a TA. This is guaranteed for 4 years, unless grades dip very very low, which is rare. Onr or two people from each cohort hhave a chance at winning a 5th year fellowship for teaching excellence, teaching one course a semester, and racking up $13000. ==========Memorial University of Newfoundland=========== At Memorial U. of Newfoundland we pay full tuition. However, tuition is very low, about CDN $2000 a year no matter where you come from. It is a small dept. (about a dozen grad students) and the majority of full time participants get a grant plus a TAship totalling about $8000/yr. The grant is tax-free and in Canada educational expenses are tax deductible. ============Univ. of Wisconsin-Milwaukee============= Here at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, TA's also must pay in-state tuition. For us folks from out of state, we get that portion waived, so that is somewhat of a benefit. Our union has been struggling with this issue as well. Good Luck. ============Kansas State Univ.================ As far as I know, Kansas State University now pays for tuition for GTAs but not RAs. When I attended the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, GTA tuition was also waived, but I'm not sure whether tuition was waived for RAs. At both schools the student had to pay general fees. ===========Univ. Illinois, Urbana-Champaign========== I am not sure how it works exactly, but here at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, those who have an assistantship are billed the in-state tuition rate and then this fee and a general service fee are waived by the university. I don't know what role the sociology department or its budget play in this, but the end result is that if you have an assistantship, you don't pay tuition or a service fee. You do have other fees to pay, including health insurance and a health center fee. It all adds up to about $300 per semester. ==============Univ. of Notre Dame============== Notre Dame pays tuition (and usually a stipend of about $8100) for almost all it's grad students. In return, all grad students past their first year (and some, like me, in their first year) have to work as either RA or TA. ==============Columbia Univ.=============== TA's have tuition payed; RA's don't. ============Northwestern================ Northwestern almost always pays tuition for RA's and TA's. There are some exceptions to this, such as when a grad student is serving as RA for someone in an unusual situation. But most of us never pay tuition. ==============Univ. Indiana-Bloomington============ Department pays all tuition and some fees for everyone with a graduate assistantship, RA, or Associate Instructorship, which in fact is everyone who's not on some fellowship or grant. ==============Univ. of Maryland================== The University of Maryland gives full tuition remission for ta's and ra's. We do have to pay fees - around $200 per semester. =============Univ. of North Dakota============= Yes. University of North Dakota - Department of Sociology =============Univ. of Washington=============== The University of Washington gives a tuition waiver to all TAs and RAs in addition to our stipend. ============Mississippi State Univ.============= here at mississippi state university all tuition is paid for by the dept. for all ra's and ta's. we only have to pay student fees. i am glad i got funded here instead of there where i was accepted at. i guess that is one good point for msu. later..................pat =========Ohio State Univ.=========== I'm at Ohio State University and if you have a 50% appointment as TA or RA (meaning one class or 20/hrs a week as RA) then they pay tuition. As an out-of state resident, this means they pay out-of-state tuition for me. As long as it is paid for by the school/dept, I am considered out of state. So if my funding stopped I'd have to pay out of state tuition for the first year until I could establish residency. Hope this helps. ==========Michigan State University========= TAs and RAs have six credits of in-state tuition paid (and are only expected to carry six credits per semester). YES. [QUESTION FROM JIM CASSELL: Thanks; do TAs & RAs who are out-of-state students make up the difference?] TAs and RAs who are out-of-state are required to pay in-state fees only. They are still responsible for paying various registration fees and associated taxes not covered by the six credit tuition waver. They pay these as 'in-state' students though. ==========Univ. of Nebraska-Omaha============= In answer to your query--yes, the University of Nebraska at Omaha does pay our tuition for grad-level courses. They also pay for any grad level courses taken during the summer after one's assistantship is complete. ==========Univ. of Calf.-Davis=============== Teaching assistants have all but $570 per quarter covered. Reasearch assistants have all fees covered. This is a University-side policy, and not peculiar to the sociology department. I would guess that even though we are liable for fees, very few grad students actually pay them due to the availibility of ta and ra positions. Also, some of the students who are not on either form of support may reive some financial aid to cover fees. On the other hand, sometimes it is easy to fall through the mkany cracks in such a hodgepodge system. There is some rumor that the university will not be covering the fees for ra's and ta's in the fasy have in the past. Thus, the policy may change next year. ================Stanford Univ.==================== Stanford pays tuition for all of the funded graduate students. First year students have a fellowship which includes a stipend of approx. $10,000 and pays full tuition. Students in subsequent years work 20 hours per week as TAs, RAs or Instructors earning approx. $3300 per quarter and tuition credit for part-time work (9 units which is roughly 3 courses). If the department did not cover tuition, pay rates & stipends would need to be SIGNIFICANTLY larger. After you have been in the program 10.5 full-tuition quarters (this is not equivalent to 3+ years because when you RA or TA you are only enrolled part-time and accrue .67 of a full-tuition quarter), you achieve what is known as Terminal Graduate Residence (TGR) status. Then you no longer pay tuition (several thousand dollars per quarter) but rather pay "fees" (about 700.00 a quarter). While some students have faculty advisors who will pay their fees through 1/10th time RA appointments, most students seem to either pay, or take a leave of absence while writing their dissertation. ==============Rutgers Univ.================= Yes. Rutgers does pay tuition for TAs and RAs. They pay full tuition whether resident or non-resident. =============Bowling Green State Univ.=============== AT BOWLING GREEN, MOST OF THE GRADUATE STUDENTS ARE FUNDED AND THE UNIV. PAYS FOR TUITION (12 HRS. A SEM.), A STIPEND (BETWEEN 6,500 & 10,000 ANN.), AND THE YEARLY GENERAL FEE OF ALMOST $800. SOME OF OUR GRAD STUDENTS DO RECEIVE WHAT THEY CALL A "TUITION WAIVER" AND NO STIPEND. ===============Univ. of Texas-Austin=============== No. But such an award does cut out-of-state tuition costs...Which might explain why "out-of-staters" (such as myself) seem to have priority over in-staters in receiving awards, ceteris paribus. ===========Univ. of Akron================ At the university of Akron Grad students that are on assistanceship have their tuition paid. Also as far as I am aware part-time faculty (usually people finishing their PhDs) are able to have 6 credit hours paid for by the Univ. per semester. ===========Univ. of Calf.-Berkeley============ I'm a newcomer to this list, so I hope I got your last message right. I'm a Ph.D. candidate at UC Berkeley Sociology, and the issue of departments paying tuition for their TAs and RAs became a heated point in our grad stud employee strike in fall of '92. We do not get tuition paid. We must do that out of our paychecks yet the administration conveniently was silent on that fact while comparing our pay rate with those of most other campuses which I understand DO pay tuition. That is what your research bears out too, right? Good luck with your survey! ===========Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison========== Jim, In reply to your request for info. about whether departments pay tuition for the grad. students who work for them, here at UW - Madison the department does not pay tuition for the teaching, research or project assistants but their tuition is reduced from the out-of-state to the in-state-rate, which is fairly low. I think it is a difference of $3000, it is about $5000 for out of state for 1 semester full-time non-dissertating grad students and $2000 for those with in-state status. We also get a very good health insurance package since we are considered to be state employees. The Teaching Assistants union is currently bargaining to have the tuition waived but I think that will be pretty difficult to get passed in the State legislature. The problem in the department is that many people come here without initial funding or any guarantees of future funding. So there are quite a few people who are paying very high rates for tuition out of their own pocket (or through some outside fund). Students with fellowships often have an arrangement to pay the in-state rate too. ===========Univ. of Calf.-Los Angeles================= I don't believe that UCLA pays for any TA tuition fees (we may not call it "tuition" here, but we have registration fees etc.). The administration has provided TAs with "fee remissions", something to compensate for the rise in fees over the last couple of years, so that fees for TAs remain at the same level as in 1992. Does that make sense? In other words, the fees have risen, but we still pay the same amount as in 1992, and the fee remission is added to that amount which brings it to the current 1994 totals for graduate student registration ("tuition") fees. Another thing benefitting TAs is if they are advanced to PhD candidacy, the administration also provides for some "in-candidacy fee-offset grants" which further reduce the total out-of-pocket costs to those candidates who are also TAs. My conclusion, then, to your question is probably "NO", the universtiy does not pay tuition for TAs. ===============Harvard Univ.============ I'm pretty certain that Harvard does not pay tuition for teaching "fellows". I'm not entirely sure, because I have another type of fellowship that covers my tuition throughout, and gives me a stipend for three years. Most of the students here have some sort of funding...I don't think they admit people who don't have support. =============Penn State Univ.================== Yes, tuition and a stipend is paid for all sociology graduate students here at Penn State. In-state or out-state does not matter. Five years of funding only. From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Feb 24 10:55:28 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 24 Feb 1994 10:52:45 -0800 for socgrad-list Thu, 24 Feb 1994 10:52:43 -0800 for From: Kimberly Ann Weeden Subject: another virus To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Thu, 24 Feb 1994 10:52:41 -0800 (PST) great list, Marlen -- thanks for forwarding it. Here's my contribution to the list: ALASKA VIRUS: Divides itself in half and makes the TEXAS VIRUS the *third* largest on the drive. Best, Kim "Tired-of-being-excluded-from-the-'national'-weather-maps" Weeden From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Feb 24 11:20:10 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 24 Feb 1994 11:18:31 -0800 for socgrad-list Thu, 24 Feb 1994 11:18:26 -0800 for From: S-ENDER@bss1.umd.edu Thu, 24 Feb 94 14:15:12 +1100 To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Thu, 24 Feb 1994 14:14:45 EDT Subject: Re: another virus how about the sociology virus: telling you your hard disk has crashed after the fact morten `merely stating the obvious' ender From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Feb 24 12:03:02 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 24 Feb 1994 11:59:56 -0800 for socgrad-list Thu, 24 Feb 1994 11:59:53 -0800 for Date: Thu, 24 Feb 1994 15:00:52 -0500 From: momaum@aardvark.cc.wm.edu (maume michael o) To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: a real virus It's too bad not all viruses are that humorous. The other day I lost a whole day's work on my M.A. thesis. It turns out the PC I was working on did not have a virus scanner. I ended up having to retrace the work I had done on an earlier version (aren't backups great?). This particular virus is called Stone. So I guess that means I GOT STONED!! Thanks for the list, Marni. I needed the laughs. Mike Maume William and Mary From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Feb 24 12:09:49 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 24 Feb 1994 12:03:29 -0800 for socgrad-list Thu, 24 Feb 1994 12:03:26 -0800 for From: blovitts@nsf.gov To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU, jflint@kean.ucs.mun.ca Subject: Re: health care costs Date: 24 Feb 94 09:35 EST 1) do people with bad habits have more visits to the doctor in their lives? 2) do people dying of "self-inflicted diseases" cost more to take care of than people dying "natural" deaths 3) since people with bad habits presumeably die sooner than their enlightened cohorts, but also pay into social security, are considerable savings realized by the government not having to support them for a long time after retirement? The answers to 1 and 2 are yes. Studies conducted by and for companies show that nonsmokers use less sick days than smokers. This finding has been an incentive to companies to assist their smoking employees to kick the habit. I recently heard or read somewhere that a company that served low fat food in its cafeteria also realized reduced sick days and other health problems among its employees. Sick days and doctors visits are related to what it costs employers to insure their employees, so companies are beginning to look more seriously at these issues. On the personal side, I have a very large circle of nonsmoking vegetarian friends, and based on my observations of the group, we are sick a lot less often and consequently visit doctors a lot less often. There are studies out there which can be found by searching health and nutrition databases similar to SOCIOFILE Barbara From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Feb 24 12:10:03 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 24 Feb 1994 12:03:28 -0800 for socgrad-list Thu, 24 Feb 1994 12:03:23 -0800 for From: blovitts@nsf.gov To: Socgrad list , KLOSKY@vm1.nodak.edu Subject: Re: Health and Control Date: 24 Feb 94 09:27 EST ---------------------- Original Header Lines (From NOTE) ----------------------- What truely worries me is that the use of such control tactics can be very effective,and needs to be used in a responsible manner. Just as education is an effective means to transmit ideology, it too needs to be used for this end very carefully. SKEE SKEE -- Thanks for your comments. Unfortunately, when it comes to health and nutrition, the various meat, dairy, and egg councils control the ideology. They are very LARGE lobbies, they produce most of the nutrition "literature" that gets used in schools, the influence dietary guidelines produced by the Dept. of Agriculture For quite a few years I was on the board of the Vegetarian Resource Group. They produce a lot of educational literature that shows the other side. We were always amused to see articles in beef council and other meat industry publications getting bent out of shape and condemning VRG's publications because they threatened the financial interests of the meat industry. .... So I guess my other point is something that is as transparent to us as diet is socially and politically constructed. Barbara From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Feb 24 12:10:09 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 24 Feb 1994 12:03:35 -0800 for socgrad-list Thu, 24 Feb 1994 12:03:31 -0800 for From: blovitts@nsf.gov To: S-ENDER@bss1.umd.edu, "Great I can change this." Subject: Re[2]: Undergrad Exams Date: 24 Feb 94 09:49 EST Actually, alternative forms of authentic assessment are under development, even for large lecture classes. This is a very hot area in educational research. Higher ed is behind the curve in this domain. But there are experiments going on large lectures (primarily physics and chemistry) where students have hand held computer/calculators that are networked to the instructor, making assessment much more immediate and relevant -- an impacting the nature of instruction. Assessment and instruction are two side of the same coin. Assessment drives instruction much more than the reverse. Bottom line, the status quo is changing, but it will be a long slow process. One of the first really observable changes will be from norm-graded exams to criterion graded exams that are responsive to external standards and don't put a group of students in competition with each other for a place on the normal curve. This post won't help the original inquirer with her dilemna, but things they are a changing. Barbara From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Feb 24 12:10:14 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 24 Feb 1994 12:03:30 -0800 for socgrad-list Thu, 24 Feb 1994 12:03:28 -0800 for From: blovitts@nsf.gov To: "Great I can change this." KLOSKY@vm1.nodak.edu Subject: Re[2]: Health and Control Date: 24 Feb 94 09:46 EST You may not think that you are advocating controling people's lifestyle, and see not smoking, not eating meat, etc. as incentives rather than discrimiantion , but the lines are not so clear cut. As an example (some rough calculations, good enough for Intro. lectures) Lifetime risk of being Murdered. White male 1 in 131 Black male 1 in 21 White female 1 in 369 Black female 1 in 104 ... The things you cite are risks that people have no control over. People do have control over the things they suck into their lungs, stick in their mouths, and shoot into their veins. Barbara From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Feb 24 12:20:28 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 24 Feb 1994 12:10:45 -0800 for socgrad-list Thu, 24 Feb 1994 12:10:43 -0800 for From: blovitts@nsf.gov To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU, dscott@kean.ucs.mun.ca Subject: Re: BLOVITTS, HEALTH and CONTROL Date: 24 Feb 94 09:57 EST ---------------------- Original Header Lines (From NOTE) ----------------------- ------------------------------- Message Contents ------------------------------- I can handle second hand smoke easier than second hand morality...the medical costs for smokers would be less than for non-smokers -- smokers die of diseases such as heart disease, cancer, etc...diseases which entail standardized and relatively cheap medical care. Whereas individuals who die of non-smoking related diseases live longer and require more health and medical care...furthermore, countries which have higher smoking rates than Canada and USA such as Japan and France also have longer life expectancy. ...also, check cancer rates -- incidences of smoking-related cancers have remained steady over the past twenty years whereas non-smoking related cancers, i.e., cancers which used to be relatively rare, have been steadily increasing. I suggest "BLOVITTS" target her energy into something more useful than trying to regulate people's behaviour. I repeat, I was not trying to REGULATE people's behavior. As for the data you site on other countries with longer life expectancies, their meat and dairy consumption is a lot lower. See Collins, Cornell University international study of diet, health, and mortality. Are you saying that just because the medical care for smokers is relatively standard and cheap that its okay to smoke? Where the evidence that the medical care is cheap? Bronchitis, emphasema (sp?), and lung cancer, are not cheap and are not short term and they drive up everyone's health insurance costs. Should I understand you as saying, promote smoking, die young, so the diseases that might crop up in later life won't have a chance of showing up? Barbara From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Feb 24 13:38:19 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 24 Feb 1994 13:30:52 -0800 for socgrad-list Thu, 24 Feb 1994 13:30:47 -0800 for Date: Thu, 24 Feb 94 16:05 EST To: socgrad From: PATTYO%IRISHMVS.CC.ND.EDU@UICVM.UIC.EDU Subject: vegetarianism and health Just a side note: I am a vegetarian, and have been for 12 years. You may remember my post on my health care problems (the rapid heart rate, etc). I get chronic bronchitis (sp?) and this week I have had a nasty stomach virus. I also have an ulcer! I am a mess! But, anyway, my dear friends and family have a tendency to blame my health problems on my being a vegetarian. "If you'd just eat more meat, you'd get more strength to fight off these problems." Even the doctors at the health services have told me to eat more protein. An interesting twist, and of course, not a fully representative sample! Patty pattyo@irishmvs.cc.nd.edu From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Feb 24 13:48:52 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 24 Feb 1994 13:46:54 -0800 for socgrad-list Thu, 24 Feb 1994 13:46:51 -0800 for Date: Thu, 24 Feb 1994 16:41:32 -0400 (EST) From: "Stephen Bayer (GD 1997)" Subject: Re: Undergrad exams To: KLOSKY@VM1.NoDak.EDU content-length: 842 I like the idea of student-generated questions that you can then reshape or reword slightly on the exam. But what about the "free rider" problem? Won't some students make the rational calculation that others will submit good, thoughtful questions, so then they won't have to put too much effort into submitting such questions themselves? You might just get a lot of mediocre, unusable questions. I suppose you could offer an extra 3 points on the exam if you submit a question (unless you make it mandatory) and then an extra 5 or 6 points if you actually use the question - that way, students might go the extra mile to construct good questions in order to earn the extra points. But then if you reduce everything to point value, then you have contributed to the commodification and monetarization of knowledge... -stephen b. From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Feb 24 14:12:54 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 24 Feb 1994 14:11:13 -0800 for socgrad-list Thu, 24 Feb 1994 14:11:12 -0800 for Date: Thu, 24 Feb 1994 14:09:58 -0800 (PST) From: Rhonda Krieger Subject: information To: Socgrad@UCSD.EDU sub "Kriegerr@ucs.orst.edu" socgrad From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Feb 24 14:32:35 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 24 Feb 1994 14:29:01 -0800 for socgrad-list Thu, 24 Feb 1994 14:28:55 -0800 for From: S-ENDER@bss1.umd.edu Thu, 24 Feb 94 17:25:38 +1100 To: "Stephen Bayer (GD 1997)" , Socgrad list Date: Thu, 24 Feb 1994 17:24:56 EDT Subject: Re: Undergrad exams >I suppose you could offer an extra 3 points on the exam if you submit >a question (unless you make it mandatory) and then an extra 5 or 6 >points if you actually use the question - that way, students might >go the extra mile to construct good questions in order to earn >the extra points. But then if you reduce everything to point >value, then you have contributed to the commodification and >monetarization of knowledge... stephen, ...the points are built into process...if your question shows up on the test/quiz, you'll know the answer... morten From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Feb 24 15:21:07 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 24 Feb 1994 15:19:26 -0800 for socgrad-list Thu, 24 Feb 1994 15:19:24 -0800 for From: XGWALTERS@CCVAX.FULLERTON.EDU Date: 24 Feb 1994 15:02:51 -0800 (PST) To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU NEW MEMBER COMING ON TO SOCGRAD. HAVE MANY IMPORTANT AND INTERESTING THINGS TO DISCUSS. WATCHOUT FOR SOME WONDERFUL MESSAGES. From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Feb 24 20:03:50 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 24 Feb 1994 20:02:19 -0800 for socgrad-list Thu, 24 Feb 1994 20:02:17 -0800 for Date: Thu, 24 Feb 1994 23:03:39 -0500 To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU From: danryan@minerva.cis.yale.edu (Dan Ryan) Subject: Student Generated Exams content-length: 2198 Stephen B. posed the following problem with student generated exam questions: >But what about the "free rider" problem? Won't some students make the >rational calculation that others will submit good, thoughtful questions, so >then they won't have to put too much effort into submitting such questions >themselves? You might just get a lot of mediocre, unusable questions. Well, if you do, you do, and you just make up the exam as usual. Point is, I think, to think of it not as a game but as a learning opportunity. In the class I described yesterday, this was not a problem. One route around it was that I took care to think about and then to describe what a quality question/answer set was like (this was a phenomenally valuable experience for ME). I was up front with them about how it's hard to create a good exam, how most multiple choice exams are bogus, pedagogically useless, etc. and that part of the trick to the assignment was to get them to (almost by accident) systematically review all the material of the course in terms of "what was it important to remember here?" In general, I think it's pretty pedagogically harmful to let strategic considerations like those mentioned take up too much of your teaching energy. Orient your teaching practices so that they do good by the students who really want to learn. It's real easy to slip into the trap of spending all your "good stuff" on the students who just don't give a %$#@. The trick is to think in terms of teaching opportunities instead of teaching problems. Don't let the students who don't want to learn set the agenda by having their indifference or scamming or what have you be the centerpiece of your planning process. To quote my teaching mentor: "At each juncture, just ask yourself 'Does this help the students who really want to learn?'" Cheers, Dan - ======= - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - == == == == == == == == dan ryan ======== yale university == == consultant for humanities computing == == dept of sociology == == == box 208265 == == == new haven, ct 06520-8265 ==== == danryan@minerva.cis.yale.edu From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Feb 25 05:12:04 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 25 Feb 1994 05:11:13 -0800 for socgrad-list Fri, 25 Feb 1994 05:11:09 -0800 for From: S-ENDER@bss1.umd.edu Fri, 25 Feb 94 8:08:00 +1100 To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Fri, 25 Feb 1994 08:07:26 EDT Subject: exam generation >spending all your "good stuff" on the students who just don't give a >%$#@. The trick is to think in terms of teaching opportunities >instead of teaching problems. Don't let the students who don't want >to learn set the agenda... dan, how do i distinguish between not giving a %$#@ and having special needs masked as not giving a %$#@? morten From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Feb 25 05:14:50 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 25 Feb 1994 05:14:08 -0800 for socgrad-list Fri, 25 Feb 1994 05:14:05 -0800 for Date: Fri, 25 Feb 94 08:13 EST From: "Great, I can change this." Subject: Re: elitism To: khaskin@merle.acns.nwu.edu >Dave said that grad students who prefer small class sizes are elitist, because >that is not what they will find at large public institutions. >I don't agree with characterizing this as elitist. A lot of research has been >done, mostly in grade schools, demonstrating the higher quality of learning >which goes on in classes with a lower teacher:student ratio. This research is >well-known enough that the federal government and state governments spend >millions of dollars to lower class sizes, especially for educationally >disadvangtaged students. Under what are known as Chapter 1 funds from the >fed., schools received these funds are required to place eligible students >into classes with fewer than 15 students. (Of course, this can only improve >education if other factors, like teacher quality and the availability of basic >materials, are present.) >Most of us who have taught will also be able to tell you from anecdotal >evidence that the teaching experience is very different, and usually better >for teacher and student alike, when it is more intimate. >So Dave, there is evidence that smaller class sizes help (although they cannot >fix everything). It is not an elitist desire to have small class sizes, >although I agree with you that under current conditions, few universities are >able to offer many such classes. >Karen Well, my use of the term 'elitist' was primarily polemical, but I still believe that there is at least a grain of truth in my statements. It is probably true that smaller class sizes are more effective than large class sizes in elementary and even high school, but again, I have seen little evidence that class size per se has a positive effect on learning in college. I also have somewhat of a unique perspective o I also have somewhat of a unique perspective on elementary and high school teaching because not only were both my parents educators, but 4 of my mothers 5 brothers taught, and in addition, of their wives. Gues Guess what was a popular topic of discussion during the holidays? (terminal is going nuts, sorry) These expierienced and award - winning educators would scoff at the belief that because it is better to have a class of 30 rather than 40, that futher reductions below 30 would have much positive effect on educational achievements, except (as you noted above) when teaching special need students. Jetaway Dave From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Feb 25 05:27:23 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 25 Feb 1994 05:26:16 -0800 for socgrad-list Fri, 25 Feb 1994 05:26:13 -0800 for Date: Fri, 25 Feb 94 08:23 EST From: "Great, I can change this." Subject: Re: Re[2]: Health and Control To: blovitts@nsf.gov KLOSKY@vm1.nodak.edu >getnote > You may not think that you are advocating controling people's lifestyle, and >see not smoking, not eating meat, etc. as incentives rather than >discrimiantion >, but the lines are not so clear cut. > As an example (some rough calculations, good enough for Intro. lectures) > Lifetime risk of being Murdered. > White male 1 in 131 > Black male 1 in 21 > White female 1 in 369 > Black female 1 in 104 ... >The things you cite are risks that people have no control over. People do >have >control over the things they suck into their lungs, stick in their mouths, and >shoot into their veins. >Barbara I guess its easier to delete than engage huh? Actually, in your orignial post you asserted that you should receive a discount because you drive a "safe" car, have smoke detectors, etc. I merely took your arguments to a logical conclusion. So, I suppose that you would also oppose government spending on say, birth control because after all, people have a "choice" of whether or not to engage in sex. And maybe convience store workers shouldn't be covered for gun shot wounds because after all, they have a "choice" as to whether to work their or not. You also seem blissfully unaware of the use of power to not shape "choice" but to define the terms of debate. Jetaway ( please, feel free to misquote and mischaracterize ) Dave From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Feb 25 05:39:03 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 25 Feb 1994 05:38:05 -0800 for socgrad-list Fri, 25 Feb 1994 05:38:02 -0800 for Date: Fri, 25 Feb 94 08:37 EST From: "Great, I can change this." Subject: Re: health care costs To: blovitts@nsf.gov jflint@kean.ucs.mun.ca >The answers to 1 and 2 are yes. Studies conducted by and for companies show >that nonsmokers use less sick days than smokers. This finding has been an >incentive to companies to assist their smoking employees to kick the habit. >I recently heard or read somewhere that a company that served low fat food in >its cafeteria also realized reduced sick days and other health problems among >its employees. >Sick days and doctors visits are related to what it costs employers to insure >their employees, so companies are beginning to look more seriously at these >issues. God yes, its important to keep the prol's healthy. More years of exploitation that way. Jetaway Dave From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Feb 25 09:38:11 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 25 Feb 1994 09:34:49 -0800 for socgrad-list Fri, 25 Feb 1994 09:34:47 -0800 for From: khaskin@merle.acns.nwu.edu Subject: Re: elitism (fwd) To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Fri, 25 Feb 94 11:34:46 CST I am forwarding this message with Wayne's permission. Forwarded message: > From BREKHUS@zodiac.rutgers.edu Fri Feb 25 00:27 CST 1994 > Date: Fri, 25 Feb 1994 01:27:35 -0500 (EST) > From: BREKHUS@zodiac.rutgers.edu > Subject: Re: elitism > To: khaskin@merle.acns.nwu.edu > Message-Id: <01H9A8JZKW2QA73YV3@zodiac.rutgers.edu> > X-Envelope-To: khaskin@merle.acns.nwu.edu > X-Vms-To: IN%"khaskin@merle.acns.nwu.edu" > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT > > Karen, > I liked your post challenging Dave's idea that preferring small > classes is necessarily elitist. Incidentally, there is hope for teaching > small classes at large research institutions. I've been teaching classes > that are limited to an enrollment of 15 students here at one of the largest > public institutions in the country. We have some intensive-writing Intro > classes for so-called at-risk students (usually from inner-city NJ high schools)or people who are English as a second language. The classes are limited to an > enrollment of 15 students and they meet for 4 1/2 hours a week instead of the > usual 3 hours. I love it! The teacher student interaction and student/student > interaction is great and I think they clearly learn more than students in large > intro lectures. The students seem to feel the same way. Their course > evaluations usually mention the small class size, and being treated like a > person rather than a number as things they most enjoyed about the class. > The classes also tend to be extremely split on ethnic background and even class > background which further adds to the learning experience. My classes usually > run about 30% Latina/o, 30% Black, 20% Asian, and 20% White. This often makes > for interesting discussions as people have widely varying life experiences with > issues like Devaince, Stratification, Racism etc.. > In fact, it's the elitists who believe that the school should operate > on the principles of Social Darwinism, that want to eliminate the program and > go back to large lecture halls designed to weed out people who came from High > Schools that didn't prepare them adequately for college. > So on an optimistic note, there is at least one large research > University where you can have the ideal situation of 15 students or less, and > it's not just a bunch of rich folks who can afford private schools. Feel free > to forward this to socgrad if you wish. > > Wayne Brekhus > Rutgers University > -- ************************************************************************* Karen Haskin k-haskin@nwu.edu Department Of Sociology Northwestern University 1810 Chicago Avenue Evanston, IL 60208 From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Feb 25 09:44:52 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 25 Feb 1994 09:43:24 -0800 for socgrad-list Fri, 25 Feb 1994 09:43:22 -0800 for From: khaskin@merle.acns.nwu.edu Subject: Re: elitism To: CGH2@PSUVM.PSU.EDU (Great, I can change this.) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 94 11:43:14 CST Dave, I appreciate that you used the word "elitist" as a polemic. But I guess you and I are just going to have to agree to disagree on this class size issue. Of course, special needs students do better in smaller classes, but I think average students do better in small classes, too. Classes, after all, are more than just opportunities to lecture students and feed them bits of information. They are opportunities to engage with students in discussions, to learn from one another. Smaller classes are better for this purpose. Also, if students are going to learn not just the facts, but HOW to think, they need more personal instruction. In a large class, it is hard for teachers to instruct intensively in writing and analysis. That's my opinion. I realize that you probably think about this differently. Karen -- ************************************************************************* Karen Haskin k-haskin@nwu.edu Department Of Sociology Northwestern University 1810 Chicago Avenue Evanston, IL 60208 From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Feb 25 09:58:45 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 25 Feb 1994 09:57:16 -0800 for socgrad-list Fri, 25 Feb 1994 09:57:13 -0800 for From: khaskin@merle.acns.nwu.edu Subject: Re: elitism (fwd) To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Fri, 25 Feb 94 11:57:11 CST Forwarded message: >From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Feb 25 11:49 CST 1994 From: khaskin@merle.acns.nwu.edu Subject: Re: elitism To: CGH2@PSUVM.PSU.EDU (Great, I can change this.) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 94 11:43:14 CST Dave, I appreciate that you used the word "elitist" as a polemic. But I guess you and I are just going to have to agree to disagree on this class size issue. Of course, special needs students do better in smaller classes, but I think average students do better in small classes, too. Classes, after all, are more than just opportunities to lecture students and feed them bits of information. They are opportunities to engage with students in discussions, to learn from one another. Smaller classes are better for this purpose. Also, if students are going to learn not just the facts, but HOW to think, they need more personal instruction. In a large class, it is hard for teachers to instruct intensively in writing and analysis. That's my opinion. I realize that you probably think about this differently. Karen -- ************************************************************************* Karen Haskin k-haskin@nwu.edu Department Of Sociology Northwestern University 1810 Chicago Avenue Evanston, IL 60208 -- ************************************************************************* Karen Haskin k-haskin@nwu.edu Department Of Sociology Northwestern University 1810 Chicago Avenue Evanston, IL 60208 From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Feb 25 10:44:33 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 25 Feb 1994 10:39:14 -0800 for socgrad-list Fri, 25 Feb 1994 10:38:49 -0800 for Date: Fri, 25 Feb 94 11:34 EST From: "Lisa" To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: exams & contraception Thanks once again to one and all who replied to each of my queries. Now, as for the exam, several of you inquired as to what I was going to do. Since it is scheduled for 3/2, I was unable to solicit questions from my students. Yet, I will be doing this for the final. I do have a brilliant bunch. I announced this morning that the exam was on 3/2....decided by a vote. Also, several people have wanted to take the exam at a later date due to other exams & presentations. So as suggested by Joya (I believe), I offered a make-up on thursday. The catch is that anyone who will not be taking the exam on wed, has to tell me monday after class. This person (or group) will have to decide on a time good for everyone (me included) & that will be it. In addition, it will be entirely essay. OK, even after this, 1 student asked me why I was punishing those who chose to take it late. I told him that it wasn't meant as a punishment, but that if he wanted to take it at a latler time, then there are going to be consequences. Now, I'm a bleeding heart & it is really hard for me not to just say, ok...you take this at your convenience (or something along those lines). So, by next friday, I'll let you know if I wimped out. As for contraception...great info! Thanks. And today, during group discussions, my class came up with a public service announcement or commercial to help decrease teen pregnancy. They all were marvelous!!!! I was so amazed. Following are some of the punch lines: "Don't let a hot date turn into a due date." "Carry a condom--Not a baby" "Do you think teenage life is tough now?" Picture of boy doing homework Pict. moves to a small, run-down apt w/ cradle in it "Be Smart... The choices you make now affect the rest of your life....Choose abstinence or if not, use protection." "If you can't get into abstinence, get into a condom." "Condoms take a few seconds, fatherhood takes a lifetime." "Teenage pregnancy is no Small matter." Of course each of these had fantastic scenarios...white & black background...fade in & fade out....girl not going to prom because she couldn't find a babysitter....a roulette wheel. And they only had 30 minutes to come up with these ideas!!!!! Enough rambling. Have a good weekend. Lisa Riley lisar@irishmvs.cc.nd.edu From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Feb 25 12:26:28 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 25 Feb 1994 12:21:37 -0800 for socgrad-list Fri, 25 Feb 1994 12:21:35 -0800 for From: Michelle M Fondell Subject: Re: qualitative software To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Fri, 25 Feb 94 15:21:34 EST Hi everyone. I have been lurking on the net for quite awhile and want to let you all know I enjoy reading your discussions. However, right now I have a request for whoever collected the information about the qualitative software programs. I have seen ethnograph and am currently getting extremely frustrated with hyperresearch. The IBM/windows version has major memory problems in the hypercard emulator. However, I am beginning to experience some of the same problems with the Mac version. If anyone is an expert, please e-mail directly about this program. I do remember a while back someone compiled a list of software programs. I had problems and lost the list. So I wondered if some kind soul could e-mail the list to me and if possible, the comments about the programs so I could have backup for finding another qualitative program. We are most interested in something that can handle large data files ( interviews that are about 2 hours long so go on 15 to 20 pages) and that have hypothesis testing capabilities as well as better sorting/referencing capabilities (mostly in speed) than ethnograph. Sorry if this is too long for those not interested. Thanks in advance Michelle Fondell Ohio State University mmf@magnus.ohio-state.edu From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Feb 25 13:05:03 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 25 Feb 1994 13:02:41 -0800 for socgrad-list Fri, 25 Feb 1994 13:02:34 -0800 for From: S-ENDER@bss1.umd.edu Fri, 25 Feb 94 15:59:26 +1100 To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU, mfondell@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu Date: Fri, 25 Feb 1994 15:59:02 EDT Subject: software for data analysis michelle et al this isn't the socgrad qualitative compilation...i picked this up a few days ago...hope it helps, i think the poster was from ohio state... morten ender p.s. names removed to protect the innocent... Software to aid qualitative data analysis Here is a brief summary of the information I have about software. I first give a list of IBM PC programs, then Macintosh programs, then addresses of places to can write to for more information. --------------------------------------------------------------------- *** Software packages *** IBM PC programs --------------- AQUAD Hard disk with minimum 1 MB free space Permits testing of ``linkages'' Uses Quine-McClusky algorithm ``for the logical minimization of configurations of conditions'' Word / phrase frequency The Ethnograph Hard disk required (for v. 4.0, ``any day now'') Some formatting required before importing Supposedly a copy is available for evaluation in the RA 009 lab Jim Pearsol: ``merely a fancy word processor that narrows the width of text on screen and allows some coding and nesting manipulations...it is not a surrogate analysis mechanism...it is a way to use fewer hard copies of text, notecards and files...you (the researcher) still make all the decisions.'' MARTIN Martin is a Windows-based PC program developed at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. MAX Hard disk required Similar to a database program Designed for narrative text and multiple choice data ``Some formal data preparation is required before import'' Notebook II Plus Database oriented Supports preparation of bibliographies Technical support included in cost NUDIST Hard disk, 4MB memory Some formatting required before text can be used Portable to Macintosh Hierarchical tree indexing scheme Boolean and relational searching Lets you ``memo'' data QUALPRO 128K memory Line length limited to 69 characters Simpler and more user-friendly than Textbase Alpha Supports ``intercoder reliability measures'' (compare how two people code the same data) SmartTalk Produced by Lotus (?) ``make connections between repeated occurrences of each concept'' Textbase Alpha Simple program Can code sentences, not just lines Can overlap and nest codes Can search one or more data files at once Macintosh programs ------------------ HyperQual 1MB memory, hard disk, system 6.05, HyperCard 2.0 HyperCard stack to organize data Coding: highlight relevant text, tag it, and sort on the tags Hypersoft hard disk, either HyperCard 1.2 or 2.0 Procedures for recording who was talking, facesheet variables (socio-demographic data), memos Enter list of codes dynamically and tag regions Specify links (e.g. ``causal'') between data Can retrieve data based on code or link HyperRESEARCH 1MB memory, hard disk, HyperCard 1.2 or higher Link text, picture, audio, video files Supports coding audio tape (need a special computer-controlled tape recorder) and video disc Supports boolean searches (and, or, not) Can export results to spreadsheets, statistical packages Hyperfocus Analysis of focus group data NUDIST NUDIST is available on both PCs and Macs. General-purpose word processors and data bases have been successfully used by many researchers too. *** software sources *** General information about several products: Renata Tesch Qualitative Research Management 73-425 Hilltop Road Desert Hot Springs, CA 92240 (619) 329-7026, Fax: (619) 329-0223 Ethnograph information: John Seidel Qualis Research Associates PO Box 2070 Amherst, MA 01004 (413) 256-8835 HyperQual, HyperFocus information: Raymond V. Padilla 3327 N. Dakota Chandler, AZ 85224 (602) 892-9173 Notebook II Plus: Oberon Resources 147 E. Oakland Ave. Columbus, OH 43201 1-800-592-9062 MARTIN: Robert Schuster Simonds Center School of Nursing University of Wisconsin-Madison Room K6/152 600 Highland Avenue Madison, WI 53792-2455 (608) 263-5336, Fax: (608) 263-5332 From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Feb 25 13:54:15 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 25 Feb 1994 13:51:08 -0800 for socgrad-list Fri, 25 Feb 1994 13:51:05 -0800 for Date: Fri, 25 Feb 94 16:29:10 EST From: Joya Misra Organization: Emory University - Atlanta, Georgia, USA Subject: teaching To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU Dan says: >Orient your teaching practices so that they do good by the >students who really want to learn.It's real easy to slip into the trap of >spending all your "good stuff" on the students who just don't give a %$#@ morten responds: >how do i distinguish between not giving a %$#@ and having >special needs masked as not giving a %$#@? I'm not entirely sure Dan would agree with me, but I think the point here is simply NOT to think of students as lazy or uninterested, to think of them as bright and motivated, orient yourself to that in them. I am very impressed by my students, I think they're truly brilliant. Because I treat them that way, as bright motivated responsible ADULTS, they seem to respond to me as if they are bright motivated responsible adults. I also make connections with my students, though...I know them all by name (I've never taught more than 65 students any given term), I read their weekly papers and get toknow their viewpoints and their individual intellects, and in a way I think they end up feeling more personally responsible to me than to their profs who don't have a chance to get to know them as well. And then as a return, I get a bunch of hard-working, thoughtful students who really give me their all. If I got hung up on the students who SEEM as if they don't give a damn, I don't think the classroom would be as stimulating and intellectually exciting a place. Instead I focus on what's best, and end up with a classroom full of stars. But you know me, I tend to see the best in everyone, and occasionally that leads me to deep disappointment (ie when people flame one another). joya From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Feb 25 13:54:30 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 25 Feb 1994 13:52:24 -0800 for socgrad-list Fri, 25 Feb 1994 13:52:18 -0800 for From: CATHRINE@cati.umd.edu Fri, 25 Feb 94 16:51:22 +1100 Organization: Survey Research Center, UMCP To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Fri, 25 Feb 1994 16:50:57 EDT Subject: e-mail adddress I am trying to contact Judy Seltzer at the University of Wisconsin- Madison. Can anyone give me her e-mail address. If you do not feel comfortable giving me her address, please give her mine and ask her to contact me at the University of Maryland. I want a copy of the paper she'll be presenting at the Pop meetings. thanks, catherine ryan From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Feb 25 14:23:36 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 25 Feb 1994 14:15:28 -0800 for socgrad-list Fri, 25 Feb 1994 14:15:11 -0800 for Date: Fri, 25 Feb 1994 14:14:25 -0800 (PST) From: Robert Duniway Subject: Re: INAPPROPRIATE DICHOTOMIES (fwd) To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU I don't want to revive the substantive discussion, but Michael and I have been debating in email. While we still have numerous disagreements, the discussion has been less heated and I wanted to share one result with all of you. With Michael's permission, I am forwarding a message in which I actually agree with him (at least with some minor qualificaitons) three times. Anything is possible. Bob Duniway - University of Washington ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 25 Feb 1994 11:20:09 -0800 (PST) From: Robert Duniway To: Michael Lichter Subject: Re: INAPPROPRIATE DICHOTOMIES Michael, It looks like we have quite a bit of common ground here. > Just to be clear, I think that in a general way you are correct. I'd > like to say that whether you can use a dichotomy or not is an empirical > question. Unfortunately, I can't say that, because you need a theory > to decide what kind of treatment the data demands. Absolutely! You need to know what question you are addressing, what you think the answer might be, and what evidence will be helpful in judging whether your proposed answer fits the real world. This is the logic behind derivation of refutable hypotheses for theory testing. It is associated with statistical analysis, but there is no reason why it should be limited to that domain. In fact, from what little I know about analytic induction and grounded theory, I believe the proponents of these methods use a repeated series of these steps in trying to make sense of what they are studying. When deriving hypotheses, one issue is always "Can I adequately measure this predicted result?" This point in the process is where consideration of data collection methods ought to play its role. Unfortunately, it is often the case that people have such strong prejudices for or against certain data collecting procedures that they will warp their hypotheses, or even their theory, to fit their methods. You have been pointing out this danger, and I agree that it is real and far too commonly ignored. I don't think there > is anything but a sense of intellectual justice (that is, doing justice > to the "real world" in your analysis of it) that can tell you how to do > this. To me this means only that your scientist conducting research on > people as either gay or straight with no in-betweens must clearly state > how he (or she) is making that classification, and justify the > classification given that sexuality is both multi-dimensional and > continuous. Again, I agree. What it means to justify a classification scheme depends on the hypothesis being addressed. See my other post for my argument as to why I believe such a classification system is adequate and efficient in identifying potential biological factors which predispose individuals toward homosexual or heterosexual orientations. The biggest concern among people on the list is that > medical doctors or whoever these researchers are take their categories > as unproblematic and so do not put in the thought that you are > suggesting is necessary. > > Michael > Again, I agree, and I think that you have very nicely addressed Steve and Barbara's concern that sociologists offer improvements in research practice rather than simply condemning current practices. The issue is not whether looking for biological factors in behavior per se is illegitimate (It clearly isn't, and if you don't agree with me I'm going to get really drunk, come find you, and punch you in the nose ;) ), but which aspects of behavior might be linked to biology, how to adequately distinguish those aspects from aspects that are almost certainly learned behavior, and how to construct measurements which might capture the biological effects despite the potentially confounding environmental effects. A well trained social scientist could be a valuable partner in trying to sort out this tangled problem, and such efforts would clarify both biological and environmental mechanisms effecting behavior. Bob Duniway - University of Washington P.S. I think this might be worth forwarding to the list, if only to astonish everyone. After all, who would have predicted I would agree with you three times in one message! From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Feb 25 14:34:56 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 25 Feb 1994 14:30:40 -0800 for socgrad-list Fri, 25 Feb 1994 14:30:36 -0800 for From: S-ENDER@bss1.umd.edu Fri, 25 Feb 94 17:27:28 +1100 To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Fri, 25 Feb 1994 17:27:12 EDT Subject: Re: teaching we here at maryland try to keep our class sizes to 55...someone (jimmy carter) thought this to be an appropriate and manageable number...however, within the still 55 class limit, there is often an academic class and intellectual diversity...i have one strategy to overcome this---i provide a range of optional books with varied difficulty levels for my students to read...they can pick and choose depending on interest, time or need...once the students have selected their books, i can break up the class into book discussion groups (both in and outside of class)...i also invite first and second year graduate students to facilitate discussion groups (thanks lee for the goffman session!)...not only do the students get in more talkin' time but grad students can get a little exposure to undergrads around a topic they are comfortable with...moreover, students can get a picking of books to read later... ...the only problem thus far...other students are buying the books off the bookstore shelf because the selection in the general sociology section is horrendous...... morten `he's-taking-up-too-much-shelf-space' ender From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Feb 25 15:06:24 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 25 Feb 1994 15:02:24 -0800 for socgrad-list Fri, 25 Feb 1994 15:02:23 -0800 for From: XDTUSO@CCVAX.FULLERTON.EDU Date: 25 Feb 1994 14:53:29 -0800 (PST) To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Can anyone reccomend a good P.H.d program that emphasises FAMILY sociology??? xdtuso@ccvaxfullerton.edu" From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Sat Feb 26 00:17:10 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Sat, 26 Feb 1994 00:15:27 -0800 for socgrad-list Sat, 26 Feb 1994 00:15:25 -0800 for From: XDNILSSON@CCVAX.FULLERTON.EDU Date: 25 Feb 1994 23:59:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: P.S.A. To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU Is anyone planning on attending the Pacific Sociological Association Conference (April 14-17) in San Diego? Just curious. I am looking forward to it. Debbie Nilsson CSU Fullerton XDNILSSON@CCVAXFULLERTON.EDU From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Sat Feb 26 00:54:04 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Sat, 26 Feb 1994 00:50:58 -0800 for socgrad-list Sat, 26 Feb 1994 00:50:57 -0800 for To: XDNILSSON@CCVAX.FULLERTON.EDU Subject: Re: P.S.A. <01H9BKKHE3CA007L42@FULLERTON.EDU> Date: Sat, 26 Feb 1994 00:52:17 -0800 From: Michael Lichter Is anyone planning on attending the Pacific Sociological Association Conference (April 14-17) in San Diego? Just curious. I am looking forward to it. People are welcome to come heckle me -- I'm presenting at a panel on immigration. Given that I finish the damn paper, of course. Should we have an official socgrad get-together? Laura? Michael From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Sat Feb 26 02:53:52 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Sat, 26 Feb 1994 02:52:51 -0800 for socgrad-list Sat, 26 Feb 1994 02:52:50 -0800 for To: XDNILSSON@CCVAX.FULLERTON.EDU bigdog@pioneer.nevada.edu Subject: Re: P.S.A. <01H9BKKHE3CA007L42@FULLERTON.EDU> Date: Sat, 26 Feb 1994 02:52:42 -0800 From: JAMES D BALLARD hi, I am attending and presenting at this meeting. Lets do a socgrad get together. Bigdog aka Dave Ballard, UNLV From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Sat Feb 26 02:54:46 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Sat, 26 Feb 1994 02:53:48 -0800 for socgrad-list Sat, 26 Feb 1994 02:53:47 -0800 for To: Michael Lichter socgrad@UCSD.EDU, bigdog@pioneer.nevada.edu Subject: Re: P.S.A. Date: Sat, 26 Feb 1994 02:53:44 -0800 From: JAMES D BALLARD HI Mike, I am attending and presenting also, Lets try to get a socgrad group together, bigdog aka Dave Ballard, UNLV From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Sat Feb 26 03:58:31 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Sat, 26 Feb 1994 03:57:40 -0800 for socgrad-list Sat, 26 Feb 1994 03:57:38 -0800 for Date: Sat, 26 Feb 94 06:57 EST From: "Great, I can change this." Subject: Re: elitism To: khaskin@merle.acns.nwu.edu >Dave, >I appreciate that you used the word "elitist" as a polemic. But I guess you >and I are just going to have to agree to disagree on this class size issue. >Of course, special needs students do better in smaller classes, but I think >average students do better in small classes, too. >Classes, after all, are more than just opportunities to lecture students and >feed them bits of information. They are opportunities to engage with students >in discussions, to learn from one another. Smaller classes are better for >this purpose. Also, if students are going to learn not just the facts, but >HOW to think, they need more personal instruction. In a large class, it is >hard for teachers to instruct intensively in writing and analysis. >That's my opinion. I realize that you probably think about this differently. >Karen Actually we probably agree much more than disagree. In conversation with friends here at PSU (soc.grad lurkers) I was forced to defend and modify my statements. What it boils down to is that, in my opinion, class size is just one of many factors that influence the quality of teaching. Others include 1) the teachers expierience / competence 2) the material to be covered 3) the quality and motivations of the students (which can be somewhat, but not completely manipulated by the instructor). Example of possible superiority of large class size over small class size: Premise 1) Facts are important. Critical thinking is more important, but nonetheless, facts are important. Virtually every field has some relatively well-agreed upon and core set of facts, propositons, concepts, etc. Until the prospective student has mastered certain concepts, gotten a feel for the field, as it were, critical thinking is virtually impossible. Large classes may well be superior for the presentation of core concepts and facts. A potential problem in small, interative classes, is getting bogged down and not being able to cover the core concepts of the field. This could occur either because 1) very bright students, who immediatly grasp the facts, who quite naturally wish to explore the field more, dominate group interactions (and flatters the instructors ego ), and leave the slightly slower (or just shyer ... a particular problem with women students) behind the conversation. 2) Slower students who just can't get a handle on the concepts, and thus slow the class down. In a large class delivered in a lecture format, these problems are less likely to develop. Jetaway Dave From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Sat Feb 26 09:33:15 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Sat, 26 Feb 1994 09:32:00 -0800 for socgrad-list Sat, 26 Feb 1994 09:31:59 -0800 for Date: Sat, 26 Feb 1994 11:31:29 -0600 (CST) From: "Laura L. Fertwagner" Subject: womens conference (fwd) To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 25 Feb 1994 14:25:23 CST From: "Arthur R. McGee" Subject: womens conference (fwd) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 24 Feb 1994 19:45:30 -0800 From: Gleason Sackman Subject: womens conference (fwd) Forwarded by Gleason Sackman - InterNIC net-happenings moderator ()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()() ---------- Text of forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 23 Feb 1994 12:18:08 -0800 Subject: womens conference (fwd) ............................................................................. Vic Sussman : "Lines of light ranged in the nonspace U.S. News & World Report : of the mind, clusters and constellations vic@access.digex.net : of data. Like city lights, receding..." (202) 955-2093 fax 2549 : _Neuromancer_ William Gibson .............................................................................. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: 23 Feb 94 13:34:40 EST From: Bill Allman <72662.1071@CompuServe.COM> To: Vic Sussman Subject: womens conference CALLING FOR PARTICIPANTS: INTERNATIONAL ONLINE WOMEN'S SYMPOSIUM U.S.NEWS Online, the interactive extension of U.S.News & World Report, is hosting an international online symposium to discuss issues facing women around the world, and is calling for participants. The conference begins on March 6th, the week of International Women's Day, and continues for four weeks thereafter, focussing on issues such as economics, health care, and the future of the women's movement. Participants tentatively include a broad range of experts such as Jane Dobija of the Warsaw Journalism Center, writer Susan Faludi of the USA, Betty Friedan, of the USA, Mitsuko Shimomura of Japan, Mary Holland of Ireland, Susan Davis of the Women's Environmental Association, Judith Tymian of Population Services International, Jacqueline Pitanguy of Brazil, Sheila Sisula of South Africa, and Lynne Povich, editor of Working Woman magazine. U.S.News Online is part of CompuServe; for a free start-up kit of software and a $15 credit of connect time, call 800 510 4247. CompuServe is also offering a $20 rebate on time spent in the symposium. Limited participation is also possible via Internet email. No prior registration is necessary; for questions or comments please send a message to WOMEN at 71154.1007@compuserve.com. From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Sat Feb 26 11:58:28 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Sat, 26 Feb 1994 11:57:23 -0800 for socgrad-list Sat, 26 Feb 1994 11:57:21 -0800 for From: XGWALTERS@CCVAX.FULLERTON.EDU Date: 26 Feb 1994 11:51:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: info To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU I would like to get some job information(if there is any) on jobs in applied social research. some direction on where to start would be appreciated. Thanks, xgwalters From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Sat Feb 26 17:08:05 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Sat, 26 Feb 1994 17:07:02 -0800 for socgrad-list Sat, 26 Feb 1994 17:06:51 -0800 for Date: Sat, 26 Feb 94 19:48:44 EST From: Joya Misra Organization: Emory University - Atlanta, Georgia, USA Subject: FUNNY STORY To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU In the interests of lightening up,I wanted to share a funny story from my first year as a graduate student. I was working with two advisors...one who is up at like 5 in the morning and thinks nothing of calling at 7 or 8 in the morning with questions or things he wants me to do, and another who stays up til like 2, and who thinks nothing of calling me after 11 with the same sort of requests. I got very little sleep, and felt like I was working around the clock. My roommate was working two jobs, one from 11 to 7 working at a gas station, and another from 10 til 5 at an ice cream store. She would come home at like 7:15 and sleep til 9:45, but after a few weeks of this schedule increasingly would be sleeping when she was supposed to be at one of her jobs. If I wasn't there to wake her, they would call and tell her to get her butt into work. She was incredibly stressed, the phone ringing was a sign that she was late to work most days. One morning, the phone rang at like 7:45. In my bedroom, my boyfriend picked up the phone (we were both asleep). My roommate also picked up the phone. Half asleep, but freaked out, she said "What time is it?" Half asleep, my beau answered "7:45." Then...they both hung up the phone. Of course, a few minutes later my (early-morning) advisor called back, and said "Joya, I've just had a somewhat surreal experience." Thankfully, he's continued working with me, though he's always taken a somewhat standoffish approach to my roommates and significant others. So, any other stories out there that might enliven the list? joya From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Sat Feb 26 18:38:27 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Sat, 26 Feb 1994 18:37:16 -0800 for socgrad-list Sat, 26 Feb 1994 18:37:14 -0800 for Date: Sat, 26 Feb 1994 18:31:28 -0800 (PST) From: Jiannbin Lee Shiao Subject: Re: FUNNY STORY and a nonsociological joke... To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Joya, I gotta say that was a great story! :-) I joined this group only a while ago, but was hesitant to get into the heavy debate, though I did enjoy the pedagogy thread. Compared to another closed group I'm a member of, this one so far seems much less "community", and more "professional". Besides your story, I'd have to say that this group is (sorry, y'all) kinda grim. :-) Worse, when I try to think of a funny sociology story from my grad school experience, I can't! BUT, in the interest of lightening up this group, and anyone can DELETE the rest if they so wish, I offer this sample of my twisted (some would just say "bad") sense of humor!!! :-) (Page down, this is a screen by screen joke!) THE RABBIT JOKE!!!! It's late at night, and this guy is driving on a very unlit, dark country road, out in the middle of nowhere, when all of a sudden...! ...A RABBIT JUMPS RIGHT OUT IN FRONT OF HIS CAR!! He screeeeeches to a halt! But it's...too late. He hits the rabbit. He can't believe it. He loves animals. He gets out of the car, and checks the rabbit, hoping, hoping that it's still alive. But it's not. Then...another car's headlights light up the street! It comes from the other direction, and stops in front of the man and the rabbit. A woman gets out, and asks "What's wrong?" because the man is in tears. He explains that he's an animal lover, that he can't believe he just killed this cute little bunny rabbit. She says, "Oh, don't worry about it! Just a second," and goes back to her car. She comes back with a small bottle, AND BEGINS POURING ITS CONTENTS OVER THE BUNNY, as if she were marinating it! The man is horrified!! "What are you doing!?" She says, "Shhhhh. Watch!" All of a sudden, the rabbit begins to TWITCH! And then, IT JUMPS UP!! And begins hopping to the side of the road! It hops into the grass, turns around, and WAVES! Then it hops some more, reaches the trees, and TURNS AROUND TO WAVE AGAIN! And it keeps doing this until the night has swallowed it up! The man is stunned. It takes him a while to get his mouth working again, and when he regains control, he asks, "Oh my god, what was that????" And the woman replies, "Oh that? That was just some hare revitalizer with a permanent wave!" Heh...want to hear some more jokes?? No, no, please don't expel me from the group!! :-) tha j'ster From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Sat Feb 26 19:17:16 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Sat, 26 Feb 1994 19:16:13 -0800 for socgrad-list Sat, 26 Feb 1994 19:16:11 -0800 for Date: Sat, 26 Feb 94 21:12:16 CST From: KLOSKY@VM1.NoDak.EDU Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computer Network Subject: Joke To: Socgrad list How many sociologists does it take to screw in a light bulb? None. Sociologists don't change bulbs, they change whole systems. How many psychologists does it take? None. The bulb has to want to change it self. How many political scientists? I don't know either, I'll have the electrical committee check with the maintance committee who can check with plant services, and I'll have an answer for you tomorrow. SKEE "Nothing else to do on Satuarday night in Grand Forks" From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Sun Feb 27 18:52:26 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Sun, 27 Feb 1994 18:51:07 -0800 for socgrad-list Sun, 27 Feb 1994 18:51:05 -0800 for To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: on a heavier note ... Date: Sun, 27 Feb 1994 18:52:22 -0800 From: Michael Lichter In early January, former ASR editor Jerry Marwell was kind enough to talk informally with several UCLA graduate students about his experiences at ASR and about issues associated with getting published. Below are what I thought were the most salient points. I wrote this list for a colleague who was unable to attend the session, but I figured it might also be of interest to socgrad. Michael 1. Only 6% of papers submitted to ASR are rejected outright, without going to reviewers. About 4% of papers are provisionally accepted after going to reviewers. Of the other 90% of papers, half are rejected and half are "revise and resubmit". 2. The notes that come with a "revise and resubmit" are not a contract. There is no guarantee that if you comply with reviewers suggestions (which may in any case be contradictory) that your article will be accepted. 3. When the editor sends a paper back to the author, he or she will indicate how probable an eventual acceptance is. For instance "I look forward to seeing your revised draft" indicates a much greater likelihood than "I would be willing to review a later version of this article." He suggests showing letters to more senior colleagues, as much of the letter's import may be implicit. 4. Marwell says that once you get a R&R letter, you should stick with that journal, doing however many rounds are necessary, until you get an accept or reject. His argument is that the process is rather long, and you're likely to get R&R from any journal, so you might as well stick with the the first journal. 5. Sometimes you may want to send a letter to the editor with regard to reviewers. Especially if you are in a small sub-field, you may want to point out that certain people are likely to be unfriendly to your work for reasons unrelated to its quality. As an example, one student said that he has had difficulties getting published because most of the researchers in his area are qualitative researchers who do not approve of his quantitative methodology. Marwell recommended that the student include letters explaining this problem. Marwell said that he himself sends letters with his own papers explaining that certain people in his field will be likely to trash his work because of a long-standing personal feud. 6. When the editors of a journal (or the ASR, at least) pick reviewers, they start by choosing somebody they know and trust who has at least some relation to the field in question. The first set of candidates for additional reviewers are the people cited in your article. 7. Graduate students are not necessarily at a disadvantage since reviewers are not told by the journal whose article they are reviewing. On the other hand, especially in small sub-fields, it is very easy for reviewers to determine whose article they are reading. 8. It is a good idea to make lots of submissions. On the other hand, submitting incompetentely executed papers may backfire on you, as reviewers get the impression that you're a sloppy writer or researcher. From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Feb 28 02:07:12 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Sun, 27 Feb 1994 06:01:45 -0800 for socgrad-list Sun, 27 Feb 1994 06:01:41 -0800 for From: S-ENDER@bss1.umd.edu Sun, 27 Feb 94 8:58:33 +1100 To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Sun, 27 Feb 1994 08:58:15 EDT Subject: a day in tunis ................in the spirit of the jokes this morning...i was traveling through north africa in the early 1980s...in tunisia i couldn't help but notice that all the young guys around tunis, the capital, were wearing ucla t-shirts and sweatshirts...one afternoon i was smoking a hooka and drinking chai in a chia house, when i started up a conversation with a local...i told him i once lived near u.-c.-l.-a....all of a sudden it was as though a burden had been lifted off his shoulders....finally, he met someone from this place called ucla (pronounced uklah, one word), the men in the chai house were whispering and the young boys gathered around my feet and wanted to hear about this place that must be the most important place in america because its name is on all the clothes...it must be an enchanting place......i obliged my guests with a story of enchantment of the community of intellectuals where people lie around on the grass all day and read books and the books are free, where the houses have beautiful green carpets in front and the streets have wonderful names like sunset and santa monica and la cienaga and imperial highway...for a day in tunisia, i was the great messenger to africa from u.c.l.a...we smoked and drank the day away and i never had to pay... morten `california dreamin' ender From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Feb 28 02:07:13 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Sun, 27 Feb 1994 05:50:57 -0800 for socgrad-list Sun, 27 Feb 1994 05:50:55 -0800 for Date: Sun, 27 Feb 1994 08:50:05 +0500 (EST) From: James Cassell Subject: Chicago Forum & Symposium on Racism, Biology, and Violence (fwd) To: Sociology Graduate Student Discussion Some of you guys near Chicago might be interested in these. Best, Jim ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Sat, 26 Feb 1994 15:20:31 -0700 From: SPECTOAJ%PUCAL.BITNET@vaxf.Colorado.EDU Subject: Chicago Forum & Symposium on Racism, Biology, and Violence **Two events are coming up in the chicago area which may be of interest to sociologists, students, and people from the community. The first event, MARCH 16--is a forum by the world renowned Ruth Hubbard, professor emeritus of biology from Harvard, entitled "Exploding the Gene Myth". Dr. Hubbard is the author of numerous works on this issue and is an excellent speaker. She will be speaking at Chicago State University, 9500 S. King drive, Chicago. at 2 p.m. The forum is free and there will be light refreshments. Dr. Hubbard is in considerable demand as a speaker, and Chicago State was fortunate to be able to have her speak there. The forum is open to the public, and it is an excellent opportunity to deepen our own understanding of this issue, which is growing in importance as the capitalist class struggles to develop more Absolutist ways to justify their control over society in the light of increasing social decay and social disorder. This is also a GREAT OPPORTUNITY to bring to students---if you have a few students who might be interested, or a class for which this would be relevant, or as a way to offer some sort of extra credit.....in any case, students would also get a lot out of this presentation. It is sponsored by the college of arts and sciences general lecture series, and is not aimed at professional biologists. Dr. Hubbard has worked with Lewinton and others and is adept at speaking to general audiences. The forum will probably be in the Health Sciences building, but I'm not sure. The campus buildings are all quite close together, and it is difficult to get lost. In any case, I'll post the office building number of the forum on this board as soon as I get it. If you're within a reasonable distance, try to arrange to come and bring others. The SECOND event is a day long conference at Chicago State on SATURDAY, MARCH 26. The theme of the conference-symposium is "Genetic Basis of Behavior: Does Vilence have a genetic contribution" The conference is sponsored by a broad range of academics, including b io biologists, sociologists, philosophers, and others. The tentative agend agenda is: 9 a.m.--Coffee and Registration 10 am--panel: "Genetics: Range and Limitations" 10:45---"Neurotransmitters and Behavior" 11:30--History of"Scientific"Theories of Race 12:30--Lunch Break 2:00---Social Implications of Genetic Theories 2:45---What is Violence? 3:30---Panel discussion: Genetics, Race, Violence, and Science 4:30---Closing Session This symposium-conference is primarily aimed at undergraduate students from all backgrounds; despite the titles of some of the talks, it is not primarily geared towards biologists. I suspect that it will be informatv that it will be informative and useful for students and academics alike. There is no admission fee for this event, and like the forum given by Dr. Hubbard a week before, this would be a good event to bring students to, or to encourage students to attend on their own. It is relevant for a wide range of interests, from sociology of science to social problems, race relations, social change, and so forth. And for those of us who want to help develop mass sentiment against biological determinism, especially in its applied uses of social domination, it is a good opportunity to depen our understanding and that of our students. If y ou live within a couple of hours---Milwaukee, DeKalb, Champaign-Urbana?, W. Lafayette, and South Bend----consider coming and bringing some colleagues, students, and others with an interest and concern about these issues. Finally, a side point, it would be great if other forums (didn't we used to call them "teach-ins"?) were organized on campuses all over the place. If you're interested in this, let me know. for further info on the conference or Dr. Hubbard's talk, you can REPLY to me or call Prof. Floyd Banks, 312-995-2208, at the Biology Department of Chicago State University. alan spector behavioral sciences purdue calumet hammond, in 46323 pps--for those who asked for the booklet on the Violence Initiative, you should be receiving it by March 3 or 4. If anyone else is intereste in a copy, REPLY to me with your regular mail address and I'll send o ne out From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Feb 28 06:46:23 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 28 Feb 1994 06:44:34 -0800 for socgrad-list Mon, 28 Feb 1994 06:44:31 -0800 for From: blovitts@nsf.gov To: "Great I can change this." KLOSKY@vm1.nodak.edu Subject: Re[4]: Health and Control Date: 28 Feb 94 09:22 EST I only deleted in order to conserve space. No I wouldn't advocate the points your raise as counter arguments. My basic issue is taking personal responsibility for one's actions and the consequences of those actions. If health care is a public good, and it is, then individuals and the medical industry need to be more responsible. We as a country have asked people to become more responsible and to make other lifestyle changes. The public is finally becoming more responsible for drinking and driving (prohibition certainly didn't work, but education, public opinion, and peer pressure have). The public has also been asked to make changes with gas consumption and driving habits during the gas crisis and one of the big debates over mandatory recycling was that it would force people to make lifestyle changes, i.e., sort their garbage. My other point was that the issues I have raised are social and political ones. Diet and nutrition are neither benign nor apolitical and thus far the ideology in this society has been very one-sided. Fortunately there is a movement to promote low fat, high fiber diets, yet the meat and diary interests held up the release of new dietary guidelines by over two years and I have still rarely if ever hear the word vegetarian raised in public forums as an alternative. People who are interested in such issue have to show a lot of initiative and do a of information and resource digging because it is still politically incorrect to offer it as an alternative, I repeat, ALTERNATIVE, as in option. Barbara From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Feb 28 06:53:36 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 28 Feb 1994 06:52:29 -0800 for socgrad-list Mon, 28 Feb 1994 06:52:26 -0800 for From: blovitts@nsf.gov To: khaskin@merle.acns.nwu.edu, "Great I can change this." Subject: Re[2]: elitism Date: 28 Feb 94 09:36 EST RE: Class size. Benefits to small size have been shown in this country, but in Asian countries that far surpass us on achievement it is not uncommon to have 40-60 students in a classroom. The major difference seems to be teacher preparedness and burnout. Asian teachers are not with their students for six straight hours a day. They have offices and engage in collaborative curriculum and instruction planning and development. They work collectively to create lessons that work and have colleagues to debrief with after a lesson to discuss what worked and what didn't work. American teachers, on the other hand, work in isolation from one another. They get little if any time during the day to plan and prepare, or even take a breather. Everything they do is done on an individual basis. Asian teachers are both amazed and appaulled by the conditions American teachers work under. Small class size is nice, but the issues go deeper. Did anyone see the segment on 60 minutes last night about the $1.2 billion that was invested in new, high-tech magnet schools in Kansas City? They expected the buildings (!) to be the magic bullet. Yet from what I could see from the segments shown they were still using the same old pedagogy and the same old curricula. Children were still sitting at their desks in neat little rows and the teacher was still the sage on the stage, the authority in front of the classroom. And from the one teacher interviewed, it's appears that the system is not populated by teachers who believe that ALL children can learn. Should we be surprised that the experiment failed? I'm not. Barbara From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Feb 28 07:33:27 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 28 Feb 1994 07:30:58 -0800 for socgrad-list Mon, 28 Feb 1994 07:30:56 -0800 for From: blovitts@nsf.gov To: "Great I can change this." KLOSKY@vm1.nodak.edu Subject: Re[4]: Health and Control Date: 28 Feb 94 09:49 EST To follow up, I am not blissfully unaware of the power to shape "choice." I am very much aware that the "prols" as you call them are the targets of industries that do not promote things we would consider healthful -- cigarettes, alcohol, and high fat, low fiber diets. The groups that I work with work very hard to get information out to these populations. Over 8 years ago one group that I'm affiliated with had a registered dietitian develop a 30-day meal plan (yes, vegetarian) for low income people. It was published in their newsletter (which has a low income rate), they encouraged people to copy and distribute it, they did a press release and offered it free to anyone who sent in a self-addressed stamped envelop -- and the pick up by the public was very high. If you are conerned about who has the power and who defines "choice" and "the debate" than look more closely at the various lobbies that define what is "healthy" and which "helpless" populations they target. Bear in mind that these lobbies and councils and interest groups underwrite the "educational" materials that get passed out in schools and other settings. P.S. I didn't say that I SHOULD get a discount for smoke detectors and car safety features, I said that I DO, because the insurance industry already offers these INCENTIVES in these particular domains of health and safety. My argument was that the incentive structure should be expanded as a way of promoting the public good. Note one insurance company has recently decided to cover the costs of Dr. Dean Ornish's program (about $3,000) to REVERSE heart disease because it's a hell of a lot cheaper (and less risky and less invasive) than open heart surgery -- $25,000 - 60,000+ -- the costs of which we as tax payers pay in this whole health insurance mess. Barbara From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Feb 28 08:26:15 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 28 Feb 1994 08:24:08 -0800 for socgrad-list Mon, 28 Feb 1994 08:24:03 -0800 for From: S-ENDER@bss1.umd.edu Mon, 28 Feb 94 11:20:54 +1100 To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Mon, 28 Feb 1994 11:20:16 EDT Subject: Re: Re[2]: elitism >on 60 minutes last night about the $1.2 billion that was invested in >new, high-tech magnet schools in Kansas City? They expected the >buildings (!) to be the magic bullet. Yet from what I could see >from the segments shown they were still using the same old pedagogy >and the same old curricula. Children were still sitting at their >desks in neat little rows and the teacher was still the sage on the >stage, the authority in front of the classroom. And from the one >teacher interviewed, it's appears that the system is not populated by >teachers who believe that ALL children can learn. Should we be >surprised that the experiment failed? I'm not. i'm not sure the project has failed, i tend to agree with principal, more time is needed...in addition, success is based on traditional norming exams...perhaps they aren't measuring what should be measured, e.g. quality of life, attendance, self-esteem, pride, interpersonal skills, motivation...you know, all those funky social psych things some of us find a little more or at least as important as high sat or act scores... morten From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Feb 28 09:24:21 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 28 Feb 1994 09:14:29 -0800 for socgrad-list Mon, 28 Feb 1994 09:14:25 -0800 for From: khaskin@merle.acns.nwu.edu Subject: elitism and 60 minutes To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Mon, 28 Feb 94 10:41:08 CST This 60 minutes story really irked me. I find that the more you know about a subject, the more misleading their stories appear to be. I did not know about the investment Kansas City made in their schools prior to the report, but here are my thoughts on it: (1) They did not say how long this "experiment" has been going on. When were the schools re-built? They noted that the elementary schools were improving test scores, but not the high schools. Big surprise! The older kids spent most of the schooling life in decaying and decrepit schools, so now they are going to need more than a new building and computers to catch up. The younger kids are starting off in a much better situation. It will take time. (2) As someone already noted, they clearly did little in the way of pedagogical change. The teachers should have gone through major re-training, and teachers who were unwilling to alter the traditional methods, or at least alternate between traditional and non-traditional methods, should be out. (3) It is incredibly naive to say that infrastructure will solve the problems. It sounds like a recipe for failure, when success if measured only by test scores. Of course, there is a long-standing concept in educational research called "school climate", which is a measure of student and staff satisfaction and morale. From the report, it sounded like the climate has improved dramatically. Human beings are more than just test scores--their daily pscyhological experience counts for something, too! -- This is the way that our educational programs continually fail. I am working on a school reform program which had from the outset a five year time frame. In other words, the idea is that no one should expect better test scores in the first four years. It takes a long time for that kind of change to occur. But even though that time frame was explicit from the outset, here in the 3rd year people (foundations, funders, etc.) are frustrated and want to know where the results are. It takes time. By expecting immediate results, we create our own failures. Sorry this message is so long, but this is obviously my pet peeve. Karen ************************************************************************* Karen Haskin k-haskin@nwu.edu Department Of Sociology Northwestern University 1810 Chicago Avenue Evanston, IL 60208 From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Feb 28 12:50:51 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 28 Feb 1994 12:37:42 -0800 for socgrad-list Mon, 28 Feb 1994 12:37:30 -0800 for From: blovitts@nsf.gov To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU, S-ENDER@bss1.umd.edu Subject: Re[4]: elitism Date: 28 Feb 94 14:57 EST i'm not sure the project has failed, i tend to agree with principal, more time is needed...in addition, success is based on traditional norming exams...perhaps they aren't measuring what should be measured, e.g. quality of life, attendance, self-esteem, pride, interpersonal skills, motivation...you know, all those funky social psych things some of us find a little more or at least as important as high sat or act scores... morten Okay, perhaps "failed" was a little too strong, perhaps I should have said "less than successful." True, you don't measure anything worth measuring with traditional standardized exams, but I saw little in the ways of nontraditional things going on either. All the stuff you suggest measuring, no offense is fluff. If you use curricula and pedagogies that motivate and engage students, then most of the social psych and gender and race things tend to take care of themselves. What they should be measuring is higher order thinking skills which standardized exams don't measure and traditional curricula don't foster. It was interesting that they found no gains at the higher levels but did find gains at the lower levels. That IS an indicator of some degree of success. You would expect to see more evidence of change in students who have less experience with a bad system. Now that Kansas City has all those beautiful buildings, it would be nice if they got equally beautiful curricula and better modes of pedagogy. What they did was like Benjamin Franklin building libraries but not providing books or a horrible story I heard at a conference this weekend about a school system that put computers in every classroom but didn't/would buy software! Barbara From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Feb 28 14:06:05 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 28 Feb 1994 13:53:38 -0800 for socgrad-list Mon, 28 Feb 1994 13:53:36 -0800 for Date: Mon, 28 Feb 1994 15:53:27 -0600 (CST) From: "Alma J. Martin" Subject: battered women's syndrome To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Karen, where ever you are out there. I greatly appreciated your response to my inquiry concerning battered woman's syndrome. But in my excitement, when I printed off your response I lost your bitnet address. I would appreciate it you would bit to me once again so that we can continue this conversation. I promise not to lose your address this time. Thank you for your time. A.J. From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Feb 28 14:07:22 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 28 Feb 1994 13:58:15 -0800 for socgrad-list Mon, 28 Feb 1994 13:58:07 -0800 for From: S-ENDER@bss1.umd.edu Mon, 28 Feb 94 16:54:54 +1100 To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Mon, 28 Feb 1994 16:54:29 EDT Subject: Re: Re[4]: elitism barbara, i hope you're not considering retention in high school--fluff... morten From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Feb 28 14:22:51 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 28 Feb 1994 14:11:43 -0800 for socgrad-list Mon, 28 Feb 1994 14:11:39 -0800 for To: blovitts@nsf.gov S-ENDER@bss1.umd.edu, bigdog@pioneer.nevada.edu Subject: Re: Re[4]: elitism <9402281529.bm08131@Note2.nsf.gov> Date: Mon, 28 Feb 1994 14:11:34 -0800 From: JAMES D BALLARD Hi, I am sending this off net because I am not sure what value it has other than a complaint section about graduate school and teaching. Maybe no one else is interested. I like you am (was?) fired up about reform in the classroom. I wanted my class to create an environment that encouraged critical independent thought. I have tried many experiemnts and different lectureing/inter action styles. The results of this first time teaching experience are dismial at best. 1. Little or no interaction no matter how the class is structured. Maybe it is the 8 am time or just this classes personality but it isn't fun to teach to yourself. 2. Little or NO support from other professors. They think teaching is sub-human tasks that are not worthy of their time and energy. Yes some are student orientated but most are research driven and as such can only criticise the extra work one does to prepair and evaluate the interaction from students. 3. NO support from the university system. We are not taught to teach but rather to research. It is only personaly drive that motivates anyone to teach at anything above the book level of discourse. My conclusions from my experience is that the turm burnout is not exactly true it is more a fact of life that the skills are not given, not wanted, and sorely needed. My question to those in research for this field is how does one overcome such structural barriers to good instruction/interaction? The questions deal with are not that hard to answer but it is the issues that we face that are the problem. We face (inside the class and in the dept. ) problems that are most difficult to surpass. Oh well I wanted to say that to someone and because of you email thought it may spark an idea. Take care, dave aka bigdog@nevada.edu From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Feb 28 15:54:45 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 28 Feb 1994 15:36:39 -0800 for socgrad-list Mon, 28 Feb 1994 15:36:34 -0800 for From: S-ENDER@bss1.umd.edu Mon, 28 Feb 94 18:33:22 +1100 To: JAMES D BALLARD Date: Mon, 28 Feb 1994 18:33:03 EDT Subject: Re: Re[4]: elitism S-ENDER@bss1.umd.edu, bigdog@pioneer.nevada.edu my two cents are this (and i've only been teaching 2 years): 1. Little or no interaction no matter how the class is structured. Maybe it is the 8 am time or just this classes personality but it isn't fun to teach to yourself. learn from your mistakes and highlight any successes 2. Little or NO support from other professors. They think teaching is sub-human tasks that are not worthy of their time and energy. Yes some are student orientated but most are research driven and as such can only criticise the extra work one does to prepair and evaluate the interaction from students. you only need one role model, find one teacher with tenure who teaches well and the students respect...ask her to be your `advisor', ask her students why she's effective as an instructor 3. NO support from the university system. We are not taught to teach but rather to research. It is only personaly drive that motivates anyone to teach at anything above the book level of discourse. neither are we, teach yourself, find another department to observe in...go to the psych or anthro departments... My conclusions from my experience is that the turm burnout is not exactly true it is more a fact of life that the skills are not given, not wanted, and sorely needed. maybe you're not cut out to be a teacher...if you view stress in this situation as a liability, maybe it is and you'd better bail for that posh government job...too many assume maybe teaching is easy... finally, if structures are preventing from doing what you think is appropriate, transgress the walls...go watch the movie `escalante' if don't get motivated...bail hey, you can post this if you want... morten From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Feb 28 16:00:39 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 28 Feb 1994 15:40:50 -0800 for socgrad-list Mon, 28 Feb 1994 15:40:47 -0800 for Date: Mon, 28 Feb 1994 18:42:12 -0500 To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU From: danryan@minerva.cis.yale.edu (Dan Ryan) Subject: buildings, bushes, methods content-length: 2163 Greets, comrades -- Resonding to Morten, Barbara B. said... >Okay, ... True, you don't measure anything worth measuring with >traditional standardized exams, but I saw little in the ways of nontraditional >things going on either. and >Now that Kansas City has all those beautiful buildings, it would be nice if >they >got equally beautiful curricula and better modes of pedagogy. Now, I'm a big fan of the non-traditional, but there's a hint here of a faith in methods or "modes of pedagogy" that strikes me as nearly as naive as the idea that new buildings alone will improve education. The best curriculum in the wrong hands is probably less effective than the "worst" curriculum in the right hands. For the sake of being intentionally inflammatory, I'd say a good teacher can teach well with just about any method. If education systems are as loosely coupled as some have suggested, where do we target our reforms? Might it be worthwhile to think about the folks who constitute that group "educators" in this country? My very limited experience with teachers in Denmark, France and Germany, suggested to me that it was a wholly different slice of the working population. How would you fix, improve, tweek or repair the institutional and cultural mechanisms behind who becomes a teacher in the US and how and where we train them? What does the career length and career path of teachers suggest about the time span in terms of which we need to think about education reform? Do some of the important causal influences on educational outcomes have very different latencies (that is, the amount of time it takes for changes to have an effect)? If so, how would this effect how we think about reforms and research on reforms? Sorry if that ended up sounding like an exam question. Cheers, DJR - ======= - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - == == == == == == == == dan ryan ======== yale university == == consultant for humanities computing == == dept of sociology == == == box 208265 == == == new haven, ct 06520-8265 ==== == danryan@minerva.cis.yale.edu From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Feb 28 16:27:08 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 28 Feb 1994 16:11:43 -0800 for socgrad-list Mon, 28 Feb 1994 16:11:25 -0800 for Date: Mon, 28 Feb 94 18:39:07 EST From: Joya Misra Organization: Emory University - Atlanta, Georgia, USA Subject: pedagogy To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU Dave, I am responding to your accidentally forwarded note on teaching on-list because I think this might be of interest to other people. I don't know how many times I've talked about teaching on this net, but I do it often on others, and one of my secondary research interests is in pedagogy. Mostly, this is meant as encouragement for the things which you wish to achieve in the classroom. I rejected the straight lecture-format of teaching long ago. I've been teaching for three years now, and have only taught classes in a participatory discussion-oriented fashion. In a class of 40, I can usually expect to hear from about 20 students any given class session. In a class of 20, I hear from about 15 students. (I also teach between 10a.m. and 2 p.m. usually). My students are mostly bright, articulate, and thoughtful. This takes a lot of time and effort. I have to find ways to encourage the students to speak out, and think critically. After a few years of it, it's getting easier, but I defintely pour more time into my teaching than my colleagues who just go the lecture-route. I'd be happy to talk about the specific things I do which make my classroom seem to work, but I have a feeling that you've already read the literature. I'd also be happy to send you lots of material on this, including my teaching packet (evaluations from students, faculty, etc.). Throughout the process, I have often wished for more support from profs. Even the professors who I have learned the most from in teaching tend to lecture to their undergrads! But, what I have had is a wonderful community of OTHER grad students, who struggle with me in my attempts to find a different way to teach. My wonderful friends here have really kept me going, especially when I was criticized for spending too much time on my teaching. When I began teaching here, we were supported in our teaching by the department. Grad students took a grad seminar in "Teaching Sociology" (happy to send out syllabito interested parties), and we were given the chance to teach a class in an area we were interested in (like Race & Ideology, or Gender and Development or whatever we DO). This is quite unusual. Since then, colleges and universities across the nation have begun putting more pressure on grad schools to develop teaching skills in their students. Emory has now putin place a really COMPREHENSIVE teaching program which includes a summer week-long course for all grad students, grad seminars, and lots of other fun stuff. To earn a Ph.D. from Emory University, you must become TRAINED as a teacher. I'm telling you this because I think things are changing. I hope to eventually teach a similar course to grad students in "Teaching Sociology," and I hope that 10 years from now more people have access to such kinds of teaching resources than don't. Students and parents are putting more and more pressure on universities to have good teachers and this will be felt in the grad programs. Anyway, I wish best ofluck to you, Dave, and to everyone who faces the kind of frustration that you elucidate. I feel so lucky to have friends and a relatively supportive administration so that my teaching means something to more than just myself and my students. I have many many articles and good cites on teaching, I have lots of the literature published by the ASA Teaching Resources Center, which has been very helpful to me, I also recommend reading _Teaching Sociology_ for ideas. Let me know what I can do to help. Best, Joya Misra SOCAK663@EMUVM1.BITNET OR SOCAK663@EMUVM1.CC.EMORY.EDU ********************************************************************* Dept. of Sociology Emory University Atlanta, GA 30322 From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Feb 28 16:53:51 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 28 Feb 1994 16:35:32 -0800 for socgrad-list Mon, 28 Feb 1994 16:35:28 -0800 for From: S-ENDER@bss1.umd.edu Mon, 28 Feb 94 19:32:22 +1100 To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Mon, 28 Feb 1994 19:32:11 EDT Subject: Re: buildings in bushes without methods >Do some of the important causal influences on educational outcomes >have very different latencies (that is, the amount of time it takes >for changes to have an effect)? If so, how would this effect how we >think about reforms and research on reforms? my teaching self-esteem is peaking this week, so i'll swig a response...i agree, `the eductors' need some focus...indeed, in germany teachers (even elementary ed) are very, very high on the occupational prestige totem pole...professors walk on water in europe...i might even go so far as to say i would feel better about myself as an unemployed prof in germany, than a non-tenured track assistant here with you guys (nothing personal)...some might say teachers are highly respected in the u.s., but i see that respect in terms of their ability to deal with disciplinary issues not for educating themselves and the populace...besides, respect comes with $$$$$$$$ ...causal influences and time? hmmmm? i would say that in the context of academic socialization, structural and organizational reforms might require an entire generational change to be effective...in other words, focus on the little kids (without neglecting the youth), and conduct and intergenerational quasi- experimental design...then we might be cruisin toward reform? morten `i-guess-flamin-comes-from-flammatory' ender From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Feb 28 21:25:09 1994 sendmail 8.6.4/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 28 Feb 1994 21:22:59 -0800 for socgrad-list Mon, 28 Feb 1994 21:22:58 -0800 for To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: Thanks and sorry Date: Mon, 28 Feb 1994 21:22:58 -0800 From: JAMES D BALLARD Thank you to the many nice notes after my accidential post to the net. It is my fault because I knoe the post keys just hit them wrong. I do want to add that it is not that no one here is willing to work with you or offer advice. It is just that the time is hard to find. We have a pro sem that helps in learning what to do, we have a school seminar on problems you face in teaching, and I have sought out many sources like "Teaching Sociology" Those are not the problems. It is finding out what works for this group. It is a temporary 'problem' that if not addressed (I don't think it is ever answered) can effect the whole of your teaching career. I also believe that with passion anyone can teach. BUT it is a lot like writing an article for a journal in that it takes time to learn the ropes. What happens to the wood-be teacher who gets lost. Thanks again for the replys. I now understand the post commands but as usual it is the spell check that is lacking. Oh well that is what happens when you can't type but with two fingers! BYE from the 75 degree Las Vegas winter (Skee I know that was cruel, sorry)