From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Jun 1 07:04:42 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 1 Jun 1994 07:03:31 -0700 for socgrad-list Wed, 1 Jun 1994 07:03:29 -0700 for Subject: Re: The Original Grade Post To: pachinko@uclink.berkeley.edu (Jiannbin Lee Shiao) Date: Wed, 1 Jun 1994 09:03:23 -0500 (CDT) From: "John J. Maurer" > > > Excuse me, John, is this your normal style of emailing or are you > intentionally flaming me here? We don't know each other, and I see no > reason for your seemingly insulting tone. If you disagree with my posts > then say so, but you have absolutely no call to denigrate my person. Is > that clear? The only reason I am not outright blowing my stack at you is > that we're on email which means I can't be sure what your tone actually > is. > The tone I used was sarcastic and cynical. The tone was in response to how I felt about your reasons for giving a student a lower grade. They were not intended to be an attack on yourself per se. I have been of the opinion that email serves as a format for both discussion/debate and opinion. My definition of opinion includes expressing emotions (be they irrational or otherwise). I have also felt that in this arena one can feel more free to express their opinions than one would in face to face discussion. By giving my own reaction to a specific topic, I don't TRY to offend anyone's person. In all honesty I don't consciously consider a fellow emailer's personal measure of what they consider to be offensive, as long as it is a reaction to something they've put on the table to discuss. I want to stress that this is not the etiquette I tend to apply in one on one conversation/discussion. The reason I dichotomize my etiquette is because I have felt that email is inherently different because it is a faceless, random sample response I am typically expecting. That is, I have nothing but what they've stated to criticize. Since this is so I feel there can be no misunderstanding of what it is I am criticizing. Just for clarification I feel that what other people do or say on email is open game BUT, who they are and their various personal qualities (race, gender, sexual orientation, hair color, religion etc.) are not, as long as it is not put on the table for discussion. Perhaps I DO need to reevaluate what is appropriate. I do understand that it is real people who are writing this stuff I read on a blue screen. When I am told that what I've done has offended someone inadvertantly, I like to apologize for the miscommunication. Since I may have crossed your line of what is considered offensive, by writing what you considered to be a personal attack in an open forum, I want to write an apology. I AM SINCERELY SORRY FOR OFFENDING YOU. (<-caps are meant to represent sincerity not anger) >I certainly now know "what the hell you were thinking" but, I still do not agree with your arguments for what you did. but, that's Okay. > > > However, I agree with Steve and Morton's comments that John's approach is > too individualistic. If smart students skip discussion section, I also > consider that to be academic snobbery. If ability and effort must be put > on a single scale, then I think it is condescending to give some students > "consolation" points for effort and not penalize others for lack of > effort. Obviously I'm not happy with my solution to this problem; any > suggestions? > Yes, if attendance is not officially looked at one way or another then it is not served as either a penalization or consolation. Once again the effect of missing important discussions itself may serve as the penalization. If it doesn't then it doesn't (as in this case). We cannot fairly contrive a way to supplement for students who cannot acquire good grades with or without absences. > I just have conflicting views on this common approach of instructors I want to clarify my earlier above statement. I meant to say I have conflicting views WITH this common approach. > As stated above, I think there are better reasons than "regs, rules, or an > absent audience" to grade for attendance. John, the next time you want to > work out "conflicting views" or debates you are having with yourself, then > *please* state that upfront and clearly. Thus my debate was not with myself it was with you/common approach. I'm sorry this was made unclear by a grammatical error But let's give each other > more benefit of the doubt in public dialogue, okay? If we reduce each > other to stereotyped positions then why would we want to communicate with > each other in the first place? :-) And I do realize you may not have > intended to do that. > >From now on I will certainly attempt to avoid your stated offensive behavior in public discourse with you. I feel that I didn't reduce you to a stereotyped position, I just stated that what you did may be considered appropriate to the common or ordinary or temporaly dominant approach. I'm sorry if you saw it any other way. The good of this is I now have an oppurtunity to ask any other readers of this post to let me know what is the appropriate etiquette for email from a sociological perspective. I don't believe I've read any theories on discourse norms via the info highway. -jm From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Jun 1 07:31:36 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 1 Jun 1994 07:29:45 -0700 for socgrad-list Wed, 1 Jun 1994 07:29:42 -0700 for From: S-ENDER@bss1.umd.edu Wed, 1 Jun 94 10:29:38 +1100 Organization: University of Maryland,College Park To: "John J. Maurer" , socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Wed, 1 Jun 1994 10:29:08 EDT Subject: Re: The Original Grade Post john said- >The good of this is I now have an oppurtunity to ask any other >readers of this post to let me know what is the appropriate etiquette >for email from a sociological perspective. I don't believe I've read >any theories on discourse norms via the info highway. i'm not sure what a norm is for technology, but one argument suggests new technologies go through a period of normlessness and ultimately norms are then applied from older technologies... ...some research on e-mail suggests time and space are taken up talking (discoursing) about talk (discourse)...which is exactly what we are doing here... ...i recommend poster on e-mail posts mark poster (1990) _the mode of information: poststructuralism and social context_ university of chicago press morten From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Jun 1 07:53:17 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 1 Jun 1994 07:52:00 -0700 for socgrad-list Wed, 1 Jun 1994 07:51:58 -0700 for Date: Wed, 1 Jun 1994 09:32:26 -0500 (CDT) From: "Laura L. Fertwagner" Subject: Another grading story... To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Hello all! I'm a little slow these days so I hope I'm not too late in adding my grading nightmare story. I guess I am very interested in hearing how others would feel if they were in this situation... I just TA'd a basic stats course. The prof had a line in his syllabus that stated that flunking the final exam meant a student automatically flunked the entire course. So--two of our students did just that. (Two of our GOOD students!) One of these students had attended almost every class, showed up for weekly tutoring sessions with the prof, handed in every weekly assignment (and did well on them), and was carrying a 'B' going into the final. The other student also attended EVERY class, handed in all of her assignments (and aced them all), got a 93 on her midterm, and was carrying a strong 'A' going into the final. I guess my problem with this is that both of these students gave full effort and had proven their abilities prior to the final, yet failed the course because of one bad exam (even tho' both had actually passed based on class average). Would this have bothered anyone else? My take on it is that the students could've been allowed to re-take the final or given a grade based on actual average. I felt that it was semi-anal to flunk these particular students. (there were others who flunked the class and deserved to do so--I've no qualms with that!) Well, that's my late grading story. I'm very interested in other opinions. Laura From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Jun 1 14:47:36 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 1 Jun 1994 14:45:33 -0700 for socgrad-list Wed, 1 Jun 1994 14:45:31 -0700 for Date: Wed, 1 Jun 1994 15:42:41 -0600 (MDT) From: "Dale A. Albers" Subject: Micro - Macro To: socgrad Can anyone tell me the theoretical origins of the Micro-Macro scheme? Is there any recent thoughts (published, if you will, but non published thoughts are quite acceptable too) on the conceptual utility of this scheme? With thanks. D Albers From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Jun 1 17:46:18 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 1 Jun 1994 17:44:39 -0700 for socgrad-list Wed, 1 Jun 1994 17:44:37 -0700 for Date: Wed, 1 Jun 1994 20:49:18 -0500 To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU From: danryan@minerva.cis.yale.edu (Dan Ryan) Subject: Re: Micro - Macro content-length: 1337 >Can anyone tell me the theoretical origins of the Micro-Macro scheme? I'm not sure it quite works to speak of "the" micro-macro scheme. The nature of the problem is that there are many different micro-macro schemes. One way to classify "theories of society" is whether and how they define and deal with the micro-macro "problem." When I was at the hyper-methodological individualist stage of life, I really liked R. Collins' "The Micro-Foundations of Macro Sociology" (or something very much like that -- AJS early 80s or so). There are two collections I've gone back to again and again on this stuff: The Micro-macro link / edited by Jeffrey C. Alexander et al. Berkeley : University of California Press, 1987. Advances in social theory and methodology : toward an integration of micro- and macro-sociologies / edited by K. Knorr-Cetina and A.V. Cicourel. Boston : Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1981. I also have a note here on a book I've not had a chance to look at: Macro-micro linkages in sociology / Joan Huber, editor. Newbury Park, Calif. : Sage, 1991. This used to be my main declared area of interest until I learned the lesson of declaring one's substantive interests first and letting the theory follow later. Dan From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Jun 1 18:23:25 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 1 Jun 1994 18:21:56 -0700 for socgrad-list Wed, 1 Jun 1994 18:21:48 -0700 for (5.65c+/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Thu, 2 Jun 1994 11:21:32 +1000 Date: Thu, 2 Jun 1994 11:21:32 +1000 To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU From: Paul.Reser@jcu.edu.au Subject: Re: Another grading story... In regards to students who pass all but one piece of assessment...I too "TA" (though we have different terminology down under - we say "tutor") in a basic stats course, and certainly I have seen the same situation arise, as we have two exams in the year long subject which are required passes. If the student fails one of these and is otherwise passing the subject, we allow for a supplementary exam. This seems a bit more humane than Laura's tale, though I must mention that the maximum score possible in a supplementary exam is 50% - no matter how well the student does. The reasoning is that though the student may not do exactly the same exam they would have an unfair advantage in that they would have seen the content of the exam and talked to others. Of course if they did well on everything else they could still get a good overall grade as each exam is worth 17% of the final mark. >Hello all! > >I'm a little slow these days so I hope I'm not too late in adding my >grading nightmare story. I guess I am very interested in hearing how >others would feel if they were in this situation... > >I just TA'd a basic stats course. The prof had a line in his syllabus that >stated that flunking the final exam meant a student automatically flunked >the entire course. So--two of our students did just that. (Two of our GOOD >students!) One of these students had attended almost every class, showed >up for weekly tutoring sessions with the prof, handed in every weekly >assignment (and did well on them), and was carrying a 'B' going into the >final. > >The other student also attended EVERY class, handed in all of her >assignments (and aced them all), got a 93 on her midterm, and was carrying >a strong 'A' going into the final. > >I guess my problem with this is that both of these students gave full >effort and had proven their abilities prior to the final, yet failed the >course because of one bad exam (even tho' both had actually passed based >on class average). Would this have bothered anyone else? My take on it is >that the students could've been allowed to re-take the final or given a >grade based on actual average. I felt that it was semi-anal to flunk these >particular students. (there were others who flunked the class and deserved >to do so--I've no qualms with that!) > >Well, that's my late grading story. I'm very interested in other opinions. > >Laura Cheers Paul A. Reser Department of Psychology and Sociology James Cook University Townsville, QLD 4811 AUSTRALIA From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Wed Jun 1 18:39:31 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 1 Jun 1994 13:45:22 -0700 for socgrad-list Wed, 1 Jun 1994 13:45:14 -0700 for Wed, 1 Jun 94 13:45:18 GMT-7 To: socgrad@ucsd.edu From: "KARRY" Organization: Urban and Public Affairs Date: Wed, 1 Jun 1994 13:45:42 PST Subject: Subscribe Please subscribe me to this list From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Wed Jun 1 18:48:55 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 1 Jun 1994 14:02:19 -0700 for socgrad-list Wed, 1 Jun 1994 14:02:17 -0700 for Date: Wed, 01 Jun 94 16:54:31 EDT From: Thomas Loya Organization: Emory University - Atlanta, Georgia, USA Subject: EMAIL To: SOCGRAD Dave, Gopher is for sure the way to find someone on the internet but David Frisby cannot be found this way because none of the network servers at the University of Glasgow provide user names (users real names) to outside searchers, as far as I can tell. I got onto Gopher, which I've used successfully several times, and then onto a netfind server at Univ. of Colorado at Boulder. I searched for I searched first for Glasgow servers (there are dozens), and found two things that might help you if you haven't already found D. Frisby. First, here is an adress at stats department who may well know Frisby (Soc doesn't have a server listed). Their server adress is DBUNIT.stats.gla.ac.uk You may have better luck with the central VMS coordinator at the University of Glasgow. His/her SERVER ADRESS IS cent.glasgow.ac.uk (CALL DEPT ON PHONE!!) Again, good luck TOM lOYA From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Wed Jun 1 18:58:11 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 1 Jun 1994 09:32:15 -0700 for socgrad-list Wed, 1 Jun 1994 09:32:13 -0700 for Date: Wed, 01 Jun 94 10:23:29 CDT From: KLOSKY@VM1.NODAK.EDU Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computer Network Subject: Re: Another grading story... To: "Laura L. Fertwagner" , Socgrad list Laura, and others... I have to admit that I am torn about Laura's story. On the one hand, the policy seems a little tough, and on the other the students knew of the policy ahead of time. For me though, the issue that is raised by the story is that TA's are placed (sometimes) in the position of having to enforce and defend policy that they might not agree with. Myself, I have had to tell students that I can not accept papers that are late, even one hour late. I PERSONALLY would have taken them, but the policy of the course said NO LATE PAPERS. I learned from this TAing experience -- In my own courses in the future, I know what policy I won't use. SKEE From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Jun 1 19:02:01 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 1 Jun 1994 19:00:58 -0700 for socgrad-list Wed, 1 Jun 1994 19:00:57 -0700 for From: XCHUFF@ccvax.fullerton.edu Date: 01 Jun 1994 18:59:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: another grading story... To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Laura, I too am torn when looking over your story. I would agree that the policy is at the very least "semi-anal", but then again a FINAL should be reflecting what the student has learned over the course of the semester/quarter. I think that all too often, students memorize the material the night before a test and then forget it two weeks later. I would argue that this is not the point behind "higher education". I also think that it is possible for even the best of students to blow a final occasionally. I guess that I'm just the type who preferes to give people the benefit of the doubt whenever possible. Especially those who show that they are interested and working toward a goal. -TODD- From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Jun 1 19:10:24 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 1 Jun 1994 19:08:13 -0700 for socgrad-list Wed, 1 Jun 1994 19:08:11 -0700 for From: estrayer@cats.ucsc.edu Date: Wed, 1 Jun 1994 19:08:04 -0700 To: Paul.Reser@jcu.edu.au, socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: Re: Another grading story... From Paul.Reser@jcu.edu.au Wed Jun 1 18:21:32 1994 Subject: Re: Another grading story... --snip--------intro on that he TAs a basic stats course -------------- as we have two exams in the year long subject which are required passes. If the student fails one of these and is otherwise passing the subject, we allow for a supplementary exam. This seems a bit more humane than Laura's tale, though I must mention that the maximum score possible in a supplementary exam is 50% - no matter how well the student does. The reasoning is that though the student may not do exactly the same exam they would have an unfair advantage in that they would have seen the content of the exam and talked to others. Of course if they did well on everything else they could still get a good overall grade as each exam is worth 17% of the final mark. -------- earlier Laura says: ------------------ >I just TA'd a basic stats course. The prof had a line in his syllabus that >stated that flunking the final exam meant a student automatically flunked >the entire course. So--two of our students did just that. (Two of our GOOD >students!) One of these students had attended almost every class, showed ----- more on sad story ---------------- >I guess my problem with this is that both of these students gave full >effort and had proven their abilities prior to the final, yet failed the >course because of one bad exam (even tho' both had actually passed based >on class average). Would this have bothered anyone else? My take on it is >that the students could've been allowed to re-take the final or given a >grade based on actual average. I felt that it was semi-anal to flunk these >particular students. (there were others who flunked the class and deserved >to do so--I've no qualms with that!) > >Laura OK, I'm an undergrad. I'll qualify that: I'm an adult (meaning kinda old, e.g. 40-something) re-entry student. I'll be an undergrad for another year (actully only two more quarts). I'm a socy major and looking everywhere for relevant discourse on socy whether I understand it or not, just to feed me a lot of raw info. But the process of education is a very important socy issue, and here it is being discussed by practicioners whithin its own venue! Neat. My take on reading everyone's mail here is that there is still an awful lot of attention paid to the structure of education and less (or so it seems) to the content. If a student does well on a couple of tests, papers, etc., and participates, or better, if this student has LEARNED something, then that was the point. Not some friggin' issue of passing tests which in themselves might merely be interpreted as just another means of reproducing established values, not passing on knowledge. I liked both Paul and Laura's takes in general, but as I recall, in Laura's original posting she stated that "smart" students who skipped sections should somehow be penalized (don't recall actual words) for their snobbishness. I will pick a bone here on the GENERAL interpretation implied (not knowing the specifics -- could be the students referred to were indeed snobs, brats, spoiled, intollerable, etc.). I don't think that the educational system, especially at this level, is where people should be punished for etiquette, manners, or behavior in general, unless, of course, the student(s) are impeding the process of teaching, or, more properly, the passing on of knowledge. Education is suppose to be the passing on of knowledge (minimally) and wisdome (optimally) and NOT attitudes about any of the above. As an undergrad I don't know first hand how rigid the structure can get regarding a professor's dictums regarding late papers, attendance, farting in class or what have you. But my take from here (UCSC) is that the TAs do try to perform in accordance with such dictums, or instructions, but also that there is some room for a "take" on this. This is getting too long, but I find it VERY interesting to have had classes where we discussed issues such as the reproduction of dominant values through the educational system and how it can interfer with EDUCATION, and then find an open discourse on the topic. Hope you don't mind my participation as an undergrad. Later, Eric ===================================================================== Eric Strayer | There is no package so small as | estrayer@cats.ucsc.edu | someone all wrapped up in himself | student, beggar, dilettante | anon. DoD#1120 | ===================================================================== .] From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Jun 2 07:10:37 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 2 Jun 1994 07:06:21 -0700 for socgrad-list Thu, 2 Jun 1994 07:06:18 -0700 for Date: Thu, 2 Jun 1994 09:03:18 -0500 (CDT) From: "Laura L. Fertwagner" Subject: Re: Another grading story... To: estrayer@cats.ucsc.edu Hi Eric, Just thought I'd clarify something...I didn't call any students "snobs" or even anything closely related to that--name-calling and judging just isn't me. I am not sure how those things came to be attributed to me, but I want it clear that I said no such thing. Thanks for your reply. Take care, Laura From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Jun 2 09:45:28 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 2 Jun 1994 09:41:34 -0700 for socgrad-list Thu, 2 Jun 1994 09:41:23 -0700 for Date: Thu, 2 Jun 1994 11:39:05 -0500 From: soc_tmg@cs4.lamar.edu (Tara M. Garner) To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: subscribe Please add soc_tmg@cs4.lamar.edu to this list Thank you From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Jun 2 11:34:14 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 2 Jun 1994 11:30:53 -0700 for socgrad-list Thu, 2 Jun 1994 11:30:50 -0700 for (5.65+UW94.4/UW-NDC Revision: 2.30 ) id AA07217; Date: Thu, 2 Jun 1994 11:30:37 -0700 (PDT) From: Robert Duniway Subject: Re: Micro - Macro To: "Dale A. Albers" On Wed, 1 Jun 1994, Dale A. Albers wrote: > Can anyone tell me the theoretical origins of the Micro-Macro scheme? Is > there any recent thoughts (published, if you will, but non published > thoughts are quite acceptable too) on the conceptual utility of this scheme? I have non-published, but hopefully well thought out ideas on this topic. One point to keep in mind, when considering the utility of this "scheme," is that the Micro-Macro issue is just the manifestation in sociology of a more general intellectual problem, selecting the appropriate level of analysis. Biologists may focus on ecosystems (even the global ecosystem), species distribution patterns, species characteristics at the level of morphology, or species characteristics at a biochemical or genetic level, depending on the interests and objectives of the researcher(s). Analysis at any level could in principle be reduced to a lower level (plus identification of any properties which emerge from the organization of these lower level properties into characteristic patterns which are the units of analysis at the higher level), but whether such a move ought to be carried out is a substantive/pragmatic questions, and must be answered separately for each research question. The same principle holds true in sociology. Even though macro level social features are made of individuals acting and interacting, it does follow that every analysis ought to be reduced to be reduced to that level. A researcher needs to consider the aim of their research, and whether the added complexity of dropping the unit of analysis to a lower level is likely to provide enough additional information to justify the additional work involved. In my opinion such a decision relies on such a complex set of factors that it must be a judgement call on the part of the researcher(s). If this reliance on the researchers judgement makes you uncomfortable, try to imagine a research project of any importance where the researchers were not required to make judgements at each step. I think Dan is right on target in saying your substantive interests should come first, and you should resolve theoretical issues in light of the activities you actually wish to understand. Bob "the Pontificator" Duniway - University of Washington P.S. Despite the above post, Ron Jepperson considers it part of his professorial duty to cure me of my "individual reductionist reflexes" before I finish my graduate education. I am holding out because I think the substantive issues I am interested in explaining, namely the transmission and activation of values, are best researched as social psychological phenomena rather than as aspects of macrosociology. Our judgements differ here, and the test will be what I can actually accomplish pursuing my line of research. From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Jun 2 12:02:43 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 2 Jun 1994 12:00:49 -0700 for socgrad-list Thu, 2 Jun 1994 12:00:43 -0700 for From: JWL3697@utarlg.uta.edu Date: Thu, 02 Jun 1994 14:00:40 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: Another grading story... To: lfertwag@cwis.unomaha.edu Hi,Laura: When I was in undergraduate school, I had one prof whose policy is never let a student's final grade affect his/her course grade. Personally, I fell this is very reasonable and human, considering final time is always nightmare for everybody. Mind you though, he never reveals his policy to his students, for fear that they won't study for final. I found this out from him at the end of the semester. What do you think? Julia From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Jun 2 12:07:34 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 2 Jun 1994 12:05:47 -0700 for socgrad-list Thu, 2 Jun 1994 12:05:44 -0700 for From: JWL3697@utarlg.uta.edu Date: Thu, 02 Jun 1994 14:05:40 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: EMAIL To: SOCBX028@emuvm1.cc.emory.edu Dear Tom: You may want to try the INTERNET DIRECTORY which is updated every year. I had come across such book in book store some time ago. Good Luck. Julia From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Jun 2 14:43:30 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 2 Jun 1994 14:41:48 -0700 for socgrad-list Thu, 2 Jun 1994 14:41:43 -0700 for Date: Thu, 02 Jun 94 16:39:15 CDT From: KLOSKY@vm1.nodak.edu Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computer Network Subject: Re: Another grading story... To: JWL3697@utarlg.uta.edu, Laura Fertwagner Final exam not effecting grade? What is the point? If the student scores well on the exam, or if they score poorly, it makes no difference? Why bother with the exam then? It seems to have little meaning. SKEE From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Jun 2 17:32:19 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 2 Jun 1994 17:28:15 -0700 for socgrad-list Thu, 2 Jun 1994 17:28:13 -0700 for Date: Thu, 2 Jun 1994 18:23:53 -0600 (MDT) From: "Dale A. Albers" Subject: Re: Another grading story... To: JWL3697@utarlg.uta.edu I hope this is not in response to an otherwise private communication.If, what is reported is true then I thik one has to conclude that the profesor's intentions while they may be honorable in spirit are less than honorable in fact. This amounts to having a grading policy that is at odds with what I must assume is placed in writing for the students.I wonder why the professor can not work with this policy in a more open way? On Thu, 2 Jun 1994 JWL3697@utarlg.uta.edu wrote: > Hi,Laura: > When I was in undergraduate school, I had one prof whose policy is never let > a student's final grade affect his/her course grade. Personally, I fell this > is very reasonable and human, considering final time is always nightmare for > everybody. Mind you though, he never reveals his policy to his students, for > fear that they won't study for final. I found this out from him at the end of > the semester. What do you think? > Julia From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Jun 2 17:59:25 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 2 Jun 1994 17:54:29 -0700 for socgrad-list Thu, 2 Jun 1994 17:54:28 -0700 for From: estrayer@cats.ucsc.edu Date: Thu, 2 Jun 1994 17:54:21 -0700 To: JWL3697@utarlg.uta.edu, KLOSKY@vm1.nodak.edu, lfertwag@cwis.unomaha.edu Subject: Re: Another grading story... From KLOSKY@vm1.nodak.edu Thu Jun 2 14:39:15 1994 In-Reply-To: Message of Thu, 02 Jun 1994 14:00:40 -0600 (CST) from Final exam not effecting grade? What is the point? If the student scores well on the exam, or if they score poorly, it makes no difference? Why bother with the exam then? It seems to have little meaning. SKEE I think the point was how much to weigh the final versus previous performance. As such, I have to say that tests, per se, don't tell the same story for everyone. But any rule written stone is going to face the exception regardless of its intent. Funny thing about all of this. I was talking to my Prof. the other day about a TA that graded his students far lower than the other TAs. A number of questions arise. Were the students of this group really just not getting it? If so, who is responsible, or by what degree? The students or the TA? Or was it an organizational or environmental issue (the time, the classroom/facilities, whatever). The funny thing is that this is a sociological problem for a sociology theory class! Finally, the irony of ironies is that most everyone (that I speak to anyway) admits that the idea of studying for a test for a grade, instead of studying for personal enrichment (or other more lofty goals) is a shame. And yet, I haven't heard of a solution from anyone. Even the evaluation method is, at least in the short term, just another way that students compare themselves to each other, just as if the eval were a grade. I'm certainly no better! But it seems too bad that our values are so comparitively based. 'nuff for now. Eric PS Laura, if I misread your earlier posting I'm very sorry! ===================================================================== Eric Strayer DoD#1120 | And the unix operator typed | estrayer@cats.ucsc.edu | rm a * | student, beggar, dilettante | and all was null and void | ===================================================================== From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Jun 3 10:01:08 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 3 Jun 1994 09:55:03 -0700 for socgrad-list Fri, 3 Jun 1994 09:54:56 -0700 for From: JWL3697@utarlg.uta.edu Date: Fri, 03 Jun 1994 11:54:35 -0600 (CST) Subject: fairness in grading To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Responding to all the feedback from my previous posting regarding to one prof's policy, I personally do not condone to such policy. In my class which can be big (about 100 students), I take role to gauge attendents, homeworks and exams, all account to a students' final grade. Borderline students will definitely benefit from participating in class, turning in HW on time and making extra efforts to know the instructors, etc. so far, I have been looked upon by the students as fair. I spell out everything on the first day of class, and throughout the semester, I constantly remind them to keep up with their effort because their grade reveal nothing but their effort. Anybody has other ideas of improving my fairness issue? We all live and learn, and I would appreciate some advice. Thanks and regards. Julia From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Sat Jun 4 15:28:53 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Sat, 4 Jun 1994 15:27:10 -0700 for socgrad-list Sat, 4 Jun 1994 15:27:09 -0700 for Date: Sat, 4 Jun 1994 15:25:23 -0700 (PDT) From: Jiannbin Lee Shiao Subject: email norms To: Sociology Graduate Student List On Wed, 1 Jun 1994, John J. Maurer wrote: > Just for clarification I feel that what other people > do or say on email is open game BUT, who they are and their various personal > qualities (race, gender, sexual orientation, hair color, religion etc.) are > not, as long as it is not put on the table for discussion. Perhaps I DO > need to reevaluate what is appropriate. I do understand that it is real > people who are writing this stuff I read on a blue screen. When I am told > that what I've done has offended someone inadvertantly, I like to apologize > for the miscommunication. Since I may have crossed your line of what is > considered offensive, by writing what you considered to be a personal attack > in an open forum, I want to write an apology. I AM SINCERELY SORRY FOR > OFFENDING YOU. (<-caps are meant to represent sincerity not anger) > >I certainly now know "what the hell you were thinking" but, I still > do not agree with your arguments for what you did. but, that's Okay. Thanks for the apology John. I *do* appreciate it. :-) I think differences in email styles can easily be accomodated once we acknowledge them. > The good of this is I now have an oppurtunity to ask any other readers > of this post to let me know what is the appropriate etiquette for email from > a sociological perspective. I don't believe I've read any theories on > discourse norms via the info highway. Maybe we can use this opening to discuss "email etiquette" or norms. Every list of which I'm a member has pretty different rules of interaction. The undergraduate activist lists of which I know are very "position-y", that is, poltical stands are taken, the working out ideas is not that plentiful, and news announcements dominate. Another graduate list is more "community" oriented than this one. How other posters will respond is key in how most folks write, and many members seem to live, love, and study on the group. Socgrad seems more "professionally" oriented with much more separation of text and author here in the writing. Another list (multc-ed) is almost entirely professional with discussion limited entirely to posting/getting resources on multicultural education. If anyone is taking care of anyone else's affective needs, it sure isn't on the main band. In fact, folks used to talk a lot about what was acceptable use of bandwidth. I disagree with John's characterization of email posts as a "random sample", mostly because I've heard of people studying email without any consideration of the social basis of participation. Maybe I'm making too much of this point since the lit crit folks do this all the time with their pre-produced texts, but has there been any methodological work on *how* one might "sample" email? tha j'ster From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Sat Jun 4 15:28:55 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Sat, 4 Jun 1994 15:27:09 -0700 for socgrad-list Sat, 4 Jun 1994 15:27:08 -0700 for Date: Sat, 4 Jun 1994 15:26:54 -0700 (PDT) From: Jiannbin Lee Shiao Subject: quant usefulness and consulting To: Sociology Graduate Student List [On Mon, 23 May 1994, regarding my prior post...] > On Fri, 20 May 1994, Jiannbin Lee Shiao wrote: > > Regarding Bob's post on "academic" vs. "practical" sociologists... I think > > there is a danger here of defining quantitative sociology as the only > > "practical" sociology. The fields you mention such as demography are only > > "practical" because policy makers can use their numbers out of context > > from the research to support their preconceived agendas. If you buy this, > > then "practical" only means useable by government and corporate elites. [...Robert Duniway wrote: ] > I am not quite so partisan. [...] > [Note: Some > ethnographers or fieldwork researchers do useful research. I am not > denying that they exist. I am merely asserting that many academic > researchers do work of little value, and that qualitative researchers > have a bad habit of acting as if their irrelevence is a sign of > intellectual purity rather than a vice. Quantitative researchers who do > useless research are also plentiful, but most of them try to argue that > they really are producing useful results. I have a few polemical > statements about that, but should reserve them for a different thread.] To revive a recently old thread, and an even older one too, I was wondering how other folks -who also use quantitative methods- justify their "usefulness" when consulting for organizations that don't care for the niceties of simple things like "standard errors" and "confidence intervals". I'm involved in doing some demographic analysis for an agency that just told me to junk a lot of my more "complex" measures (both dependency ratios and indicators of statistical uncertainty), and just give them "hard" percents and counts. I know there was a thread way back about the politics of doing this kind of work, so if anyone saved posts from that time, I'd appreciate copies if y'all could repost or send them. Thanks in advance. tha j'ster From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Sat Jun 4 17:20:05 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Sat, 4 Jun 1994 17:18:55 -0700 for socgrad-list Sat, 4 Jun 1994 17:18:53 -0700 for Date: Sat, 4 Jun 1994 17:18:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Robert Duniway Subject: Re: quant usefulness and consulting To: Jiannbin Lee Shiao On Sat, 4 Jun 1994, Jiannbin Lee Shiao wrote: > To revive a recently old thread, and an even older one too, I was > wondering how other folks -who also use quantitative methods- justify > their "usefulness" when consulting for organizations that don't care for > the niceties of simple things like "standard errors" and "confidence > intervals". I'm involved in doing some demographic analysis for an agency > that just told me to junk a lot of my more "complex" measures (both > dependency ratios and indicators of statistical uncertainty), and just > give them "hard" percents and counts. I know there was a thread way back > about the politics of doing this kind of work, so if anyone saved posts > from that time, I'd appreciate copies if y'all could repost or send > them. Thanks in advance. >From a wanting to do useful research standpoint, I would not be happy reporting numbers I had reason to suspect were misleading. I would at least run the appropriate tests and look at the results, even if I didn't report them. >From a communication standpoint, I try to take Adrian Raftery's advice and keep things reasonably simple. We tend to want credit for all the careful work we do crunching numbers, and it is easy to right a report that looks like a historical account of your analysis. The analysis is to help you figure out what is going on. The report is to let other people know what you've found, and should be as simple as possible. How simple it can be depends on what your audience wants/insists on having. If you are writing an ASR article you will need to report things like p values, Bayse factors, confidence intervals, or some other conventional indicator or the signal to noise ratio in your numbers. If your business or government clients don't want to see that sort of thing, and would prefer a report that is quick and easy to read, count your blessings. Making complex tables isn't really all that much fun. ;> If your analysis reveals that some of the straight percentages are misleading, say so in English, and give a simple explanation of the source of these misleading figures. If your client questions your conclusion you can then provide more details, but they are hiring you because you are the expert in data analysis, and they may very well not want to engage in (or even be understand) a discussion of spuriousness, correlated measurement errors, heteroskedasticity, etc. Your job is to provide them with the best possible information given the data available for analysis, and the amount of your time they are willing to pay for. If you can't stand behind teh work you do say so, and try to find a better job. But I don't think you need to hit the streets just because you can't put confidence intervals in your report. Bob "My opinions are worth at least what you pay for them" Duniway - University of Washington From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Sat Jun 4 19:27:04 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Sat, 4 Jun 1994 19:25:07 -0700 for socgrad-list Sat, 4 Jun 1994 19:25:03 -0700 for Date: Sat, 04 Jun 94 22:15:47 EDT From: Alan Subject: Sampling E-mail To: List On another list, this issue was discussed some time ago. Basically, if you sam ple E-mail you are getting a good sample of middle class to upper class white c ollar professionals (or aspiring to be in the case of interred grad persons) wh o, either have an internet connection as part of their employment or possess ho me connections, which, while expanding because of decreasing cost, is still lar gely a middle to upper class phenomena. With respect to representativeness iss ues, the reason why lit. crit/discourse people tend to sample texts such as E-m ail is because they are more interested in knowing which discourses are in circ ulation, regardless of who is stating them than the actual percentages of peopl e holding particular views. By the way, the President's computer people sample E-mail every week in order to provide the President a sample. For more details , just write some time to President@whitehouse.gov, and read their acknowledgem ent. From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Sat Jun 4 20:48:46 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Sat, 4 Jun 1994 20:47:39 -0700 for socgrad-list Sat, 4 Jun 1994 20:47:37 -0700 for From: estrayer@cats.ucsc.edu Date: Sat, 4 Jun 1994 20:47:34 -0700 To: DAVIDSON@UConnVM.UConn.Edu, socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: Re: Sampling E-mail From: Alan Subject: Sampling E-mail On another list, this issue was discussed some time ago. Basically, if you sam ple E-mail you are getting a good sample of middle class to upper class white c ollar professionals (or aspiring to be in the case of interred grad persons) wh o, either have an internet connection as part of their employment or possess ho You know, this is something I have been fiddling with for a while now. I'm beginning to find that the "beauty" of the net is that there is no real way of knowing anything about the poster or e-mailer if they don't want you to know. So polling various news groups or listservers is going to be extreeeeeemly problematic. This means that information has to be regarded without ethno/demographic reference. Wow, does that sound odd! I am hoping for more marginalized groups to utilize the net for a means of open discussion/discourse so that "they" might gain more power and voice. (Yup, I'm pretty idealistic about this.) $0.02 worth (cheap!) ======================================================================== Eric Strayer |"All that is solid melts into air" | estrayer@cats.ucsc.edu | ********** Marx | student, beggar, dilettante | "I'd never belong to a club | DoD#1120 | that would have me as a member" Marx | ======================================================================== From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Sun Jun 5 07:08:31 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Sun, 5 Jun 1994 07:04:29 -0700 for socgrad-list Sun, 5 Jun 1994 07:04:27 -0700 for Date: Sun, 05 Jun 94 10:01:35 EDT From: Alan To: estrayer@cats.ucsc.edu, socgrad@UCSD.EDU You only have to be careful if you are claiming representativeness. Depending on your epistemological approach and that of your audience, some people gave up on representative data a long time ago, even some quantoids. From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Jun 7 09:58:30 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 7 Jun 1994 04:29:55 -0700 for socgrad-list Tue, 7 Jun 1994 04:29:51 -0700 for Date: Tue, 7 Jun 1994 07:29:50 -0400 (EDT) From: James Cassell Subject: Job Announcement (Please Circulate) (fwd) To: Sociology Graduate Student Discussion FYI; please send ALL questions and comments to Matthew Taylor (IFBEM@FPSP.FAPESP.BR) Best, Jim ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Jim Cassell jwcassell@UNC.EDU Institute for Research in Social Science Phone: 919-962-0782 University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill Fax: 919-962-4777 Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3355 USA ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 6 Jun 1994 16:34:11 -0600 From:IFBEM@fpsp.fapesp.br Subject: Job Announcement (Please Circulate) ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- JOB ANNOUNCEMENT (Please Circulate) The Fernand Braudel Institute of World Economics seeks an energetic, recent college graduate to serve for 12-18 months in Sao Paulo as INTERNATIONAL COORDINATOR. Responsibilities include: -Editing of desktop publications; -Original research on topics related to Latin American economics (Recent studies include violence in Brazil, health care in Latin America, corruption in the Brazilian Congress, and economic indexation); -Active administration of correspondence with U.S. and European members and sponsors; -Active fundraising; -Coordination of international seminars and conferences, in conjunction with Brazilian colleagues. Applicants must be native speakers of English and extremely proficient in Portuguese (preferably bilingual). Position requires excellent writing ability and availability as of January 1, 1995. Inquiries, including resume, writing sample, and a list of three references (name, phone/fax, address), should be sent to: Matthew Taylor Fernand Braudel Institute of World Economics Rua Ceara 2 * 01243-010 Higienopolis * Sao Paulo, Brazil Phone: (55-11) 824-9633 * Fax: (55-11) 825-2637 Email: IFBEM@FPSP.FAPESP.BR From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Jun 7 10:00:02 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 7 Jun 1994 05:58:02 -0700 for socgrad-list Tue, 7 Jun 1994 05:58:00 -0700 for Date: Tue, 7 Jun 1994 08:43:30 -0400 (EDT) From: Bill White Subject: PhD Comprehensive Exams To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Fellow Socgrad's, I need information on how your schools organize your PhD Comprehensive Exams. At Georgia State, our faculty have given us the chance to provide input into a new examination program. Over the last two years, we have added new, energetic faculty members who see the Comps we currently have as a bit "outdated." Any help you can provide would be very appreciated. Just as background, we currently have a three-day examination, with an eight hour test given each of the three days. The three tests cover: Organization and Theory, Methods, and Social-Psychology. We do not have a "specialty area" option, though this is one option the faculty seem very open to adding, perhaps in lieu of the social-psych. You can e-mail your responses to me, or we can engage in a discussion of this subject on the network. Thanks for your help. I look forward to hearing from all of you. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Sakamoto White "All for ourselves, and nothing Georgia State University for other people, seems, in every Department of Sociology age of the world, to have been the socwawx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu vile maxim of the masters of mankind." Adam Smith ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Tue Jun 7 10:02:50 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 7 Jun 1994 09:40:51 -0700 for socgrad-list Tue, 7 Jun 1994 09:40:49 -0700 for From: PONCE%SHIRE@uthscsa.edu Date: Tue, 07 Jun 1994 11:40:27 -0600 (CST) To: socgrad@ucsd.edu Organization: University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio sub ponce@uthscsa.edu socgrad From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Jun 7 10:17:20 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 7 Jun 1994 10:13:15 -0700 for socgrad-list Tue, 7 Jun 1994 10:12:25 -0700 for From: bb05246@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu (John Hollister) Subject: ASA housing To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Tue, 7 Jun 1994 13:11:40 -0400 (EDT) Anyone interested in sharing a hotel room at ASA? If we can cram 3-4 people into a room, the price almost becomes reasonable. John -- John Hollister bb05246@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Jun 7 10:43:13 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 7 Jun 1994 10:39:55 -0700 for socgrad-list Tue, 7 Jun 1994 10:39:49 -0700 for Date: Tue, 7 Jun 1994 13:33 EDT From: SCOTT BLAKE Subject: Re: PhD Comprehensive Exams To: socwawx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu Bill- Here at Brandeis, we do not have formal exams at all. We form a Guidance and Accreditation Committee of three faculty members who steer a program of research and writing that leads to "competance" in three subfields. Completing the GAC is equivalent to advancment to candidacy. Scott From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Jun 7 12:08:45 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 7 Jun 1994 12:07:14 -0700 for socgrad-list Tue, 7 Jun 1994 12:07:11 -0700 for Date: Tue, 07 Jun 94 14:00 EST To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU From: UHOBBIT%IRISHMVS.CC.ND.EDU@uicvm.uic.edu Subject: culture area exam Has anybody out there taken or know of somebody who has taken (or given) an area exam (comprehensive exam) in the Sociology of Culture area? I am interested in reading lists, questions, exam formats, etc... anything to get my mind started thinking about this as an area. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Dave Brunsma University of Notre Dame From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Jun 7 12:36:48 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 7 Jun 1994 12:35:24 -0700 for socgrad-list Tue, 7 Jun 1994 12:35:22 -0700 for From: S-ENDER@bss1.umd.edu Tue, 7 Jun 94 15:35:21 +1100 Organization: University of Maryland,College Park To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Tue, 7 Jun 1994 15:34:49 EDT Subject: comps/specialty exams ...we have two six hour (within one week) specialty area exams at maryland...an area committee approves the reading list...grad students take their exams after completing all required course work (ideally)...generally we choose from a list of questions touching on theory, methods and substantive areas... ...assessment is interesting...it seems to include 1) pass with honors, strong pass, weak pass, pass with rewrite, fail (and the list is growing)... ...there are positives (e.g., the synthesis of an incredible amount of knowledge) and negatives (e.g., pass/fail) but i wouldn't complain if they were abolished and replaced with some type of journal article referree committee...i've found the journal manuscript rejection, revise and resubmit, acceptance process just as professionally developmental and emotionally grueling as my comps... morten From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Jun 7 12:43:46 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 7 Jun 1994 12:41:39 -0700 for socgrad-list Tue, 7 Jun 1994 12:41:29 -0700 for From: BREKHUS@zodiac.rutgers.edu Date: Tue, 07 Jun 1994 15:01:41 -0400 (EDT) Subject: what advice should I give to students who want to major in soc? To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Hi Socgradders, I'm constantly asked by my undergraduates what jobs they can get with a degree in sociology. I never have a very good answer for them. I don't know what one can do with the degree besides go to graduate school. What do I tell students who want to major in sociology, but aren't necessarily interested in becoming academics? What jobs are available to them. I usually tell them that there isn't much out there in sociology, but unless they're interested in engineering or computer science they might as well stick with their passion as there aren't any jobs in anything else either. Do I have to bethis cynical, or are their actually options out there for people with a bachelordegree in Soc? Wayne Brekhus--Rutgers brekhus@zodiac.rutgers.edu From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Jun 7 12:58:57 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 7 Jun 1994 12:53:36 -0700 for socgrad-list Tue, 7 Jun 1994 12:53:29 -0700 for From: BREKHUS@zodiac.rutgers.edu Date: Tue, 07 Jun 1994 15:35:44 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: PhD Comprehensive Exams To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Bill, Our dept. has the philosophy that comp. exams themselves are outdated. Once you become a professor no one will require you to take an exam. Likewise, when one goes on the academic job market they're evaluated by their publication record, not what exams they took. With this in mind Rutgers has moved away from exams to a "publishable paper" system. Instead of comp. exams we have to produce 3 publishable papers (1 to get the Masters and 2 more for the ABD). Students can still take an exam in lieu of 1 paper, but few choose this option. We have two people on each paper committee (a chair and a co-advisor) and no one can chair more than one committee (to ensure breadth). You must haveat least four different people serve on the three committees. At least one of the three papers must be empirical, and at least one must be theoretical. In the end result, I think the system will produce much better results than the exam system did. More students are sending stuff to be published than did under the other system, and it appears that this is leading to more grad. students actually publishing. Wayne Brekhus--Rutgers brekhus@zodiac.rutgers.edu From socgrad-relay@ucsd.edu Tue Jun 7 13:51:46 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 7 Jun 1994 13:48:13 -0700 for socgrad-list Tue, 7 Jun 1994 13:48:11 -0700 for Date: Tue, 7 Jun 1994 14:47:57 -0600 (MDT) From: "Joe Hopper, University of Colorado" Subject: Re: what advice should I give to students who want to major in soc? To: BREKHUS@zodiac.rutgers.edu Our dean of the college of arts and sciences always responds to such questions with a question of his own: "What CAN'T you do with a major in sociology?" From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Jun 7 15:59:15 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 7 Jun 1994 15:56:00 -0700 for socgrad-list Tue, 7 Jun 1994 15:55:58 -0700 for Date: Tue, 7 Jun 1994 17:54:57 -0500 (CDT) From: "Laura L. Fertwagner" Subject: Worried About Grade Inflation? Abolish Grades! (fwd) To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Hi guys! Given our recent discussion, I thought this might be of interest. Cheers! Laura ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 7 Jun 1994 12:35:34 CDT From: NY Transfer News Subject: Worried About Grade Inflation? Abolish Grades! Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit WORRIED ABOUT GRADE INFLATION? ABOLISH GRADES! by Harry Cleaver* (Stanford Ph.D., 1975) e-mail: hmcleave@mundo.eco.utexas.edu Special to the Stanford Daily AUSTIN, TEXAS., MAY 31 -- 6:30am. Bleary-eyed, I sip my caffeine and flip through the morning NEW YORK TIMES looking for inspiration, some sign of grassroots struggle, maybe even a victory to get the adrenlin flowing. Finally, on page 7, a title jumps out at me: "At Stanford, A Rebellion On Grades." All right! Something's stirring at my old alma mater! "The grade F does not exist here," I read, "The C is fast becoming extinct." Hmm! The current generation has things well in hand, I think to myself. Maybe they are pushing for the complete abolition of grades. At a place like Stanford, that would be a real change! But no, reading on I discover that instead of students in rebellion against grades, a handful of conservative faculty members are trying to crack down on students, to whip up faculty support for harder grading! So the anti- grade inflation counter-revolution has come to Stanford! It's a campaign I know well, for it has been going on here at the University of Texas where I teach for years. The arguments for harder grading, I see, are familiar, especially: "Stanford doesn't give failing grades. This penalizes good students at the expense of poor students." What such statements really mean, of course, is that employers can't identify students who do what they are told and work hard because their record of obedience and toil doesn't stand out if the grade hierarchy is too narrow. Standard ploy: mobilize the workaholics against the slackers. Use the would-be CEOs against the independently minded who resist discipline and follow their own paths of learning. Let's cut through the euphemistic rhetoric of the debate and get to the real issues. The fight over grade inflation is about the imposition of work and how much freedom students have to pursue their own studies, in the classroom and out. The harder the grading, the more students have to obey higher "authorities" (professors and the administration). The easier the grading, the more time and energy are liberated for each student (or for groups of students collectively) to think independently, to read on their own, to explore aspects of life they may have just discovered, or to delve into whatever issues their intellectual and sensual curiosities may have raised for them. Sources of Grade Inflation: the Historical Background During the counter-cultural revolution of the 1960s, many of us who were students (and a few professors) understood this. We saw that the university had been organized by business as a factory to produce both research and waged workers. We fought to sever the links with business, partly through easier grading. We fought to open space and liberate time to do the things we felt we had to do (such as research into Stanford's complicity with the war against Vietnam) and the things we wanted to do (such as all those bizarre and fun courses that thrived for a while in the Mid-Peninsula Free University we created alongside Stanford). We looked at how the university had divided up knowledge and sought to mold us into narrow disciplines and set to work overcoming the divisions and creating our own syntheses. We caught glimpses of all the drama of life the university excluded from its curriculum and set about creating the courses that weren't being taught (Black Studies, Women's studies and so on) and went outside the university to get what couldn't be brought in. At the time success on the grade front was mostly achieved indirectly rather than directly. The general atmosphere created by frequent confrontations with both administrators and professors led even those professors who were not being directly challenged to be careful about provoking their no-longer-compliant students. (Most professors, of course, deny such influences.) Less antagonistically, the combination of challenges to received academic "truth" together with the positive assertion of new values undercut some professors' certainty about what they were teaching and made them more open to recognizing that there were many more valid paths to a meaningful "university education" than they had dreamed. (Professors tend to prefer this more progressive explanation that credits their openness rather than blaming their fears.) The Wider Economic Context This history of academic struggle parallels a similar history in the economy as a whole. The conservative outrage against "grade inflation" mirrors their better known outrage against price inflation. The current campaign against "grade inflation" should be understood as directly parallel to the more than a decade-old assault on "inflation" that has characterized the last five federal administrations (Carter, Reagan {2X}, Bush, Clinton). Ever since Jimmy Carter brought Paul Volcker into the Fed to spearhead an all-out monetarist assault on prices by tightening the money supply and driving up interest rates, U.S. economic policy has been dominated by a continuing preoccupation with inflation. Current debates over Greenspan's repeated jacking up of interest rates are only the most recent manifestation of this concern. Hidden behind the distaste for price inflation of conservatives (and of policy makers more generally) has been a more profound abhorrence of wage increases that exceed productivity growth, raising costs, threatening to cut into profits and spurring companies to raise prices in order to defend their bottom line. (This the textbooks call "wage-push" inflation.) During the same period that militant students were achieving higher grades, militant workers in private industry and public service were also achieving higher wages. Partly these gains stemmed from their own struggles. Partly they stemmed from young workers bringing to their jobs militant attitudes learned earlier on the streets and in schools. Partly they stemmed from the parallel struggles of peasants in South East Asia and elsewhere in the Third World. The rise in American wages was accompanied, and partly supported, by an expansion in Federal welfare and warfare expenditure ("demand pull" inflation) and an accommodating monetary policy that made a general rise in the price level possible. Wages and Grades We are not, however, just talking about analogies here. At the heart of the clear historical parallels between grade inflation and price inflation, lies the basic homology between grades and wages. As a general rule, wages are the monies workers get in return for working for business (whether directly in industry or indirectly in the state, whether in Stanford's industrial park, or on campus). The harder they work, they are told (often fraudulently), the more wages they will earn. Grades, on the other hand, are supposed to be IOUs on future wages. Good grades now, "educators" promise, will mean good wages later. Grades, like the university diploma, are both an index of work performed and an indicator for business of an individual's willingness to work in the future. Just as business always seeks to pay out wages in an hierarchical fashion (to divide and conquer its labor force), so too does it expect schools to pay out grades in a similar manner. Effective grades are those which make it easy for business to choose low entropy workers over high entropy workers, i.e., those whose energies are available for work, over those whose energies are deployed in other ways. The current conservative attack on "phony grades" must be understood as a response to the perceived erosion in the usefulness of grades to business. The policy prescriptions for fighting price inflation and grade inflation are also similar: tight money and firings among the waged, tighter grading and more flunking among students. In both cases high unemployment is used to weed out the slackers and instill fear and a willingness to work harder among those who remain. In both cases, the opportunities for self-directed activity are squeezed by the imposition of increased authority and discipline. Along with such overall policies go the micro restructurings: the closing of plants and businesses where workers have too much power and high wages which have undermined profits, the closing of specialized study programs created by student struggles. Greater scrutiny of the work records of prospective employees in industry finds its parallel in the tightening of admission requirements in schools. It's easier to keep the slackers out to start with, than to get rid of them once they cause trouble. Traditionally, waged workers and students are thought to occupy worlds apart --especially at an institution such as Stanford where students are expected to graduate into professional and managerial jobs. However, not only are such positions merely the upper ranges of of the wage hierarchy, but in today's increasingly informational society the intellectual work of students, especially graduate students, differs little from the work they will soon be doing for a wage. Business management of the labor force today includes, more than ever, the management of the unwaged, school labor force. We professors are supposed to work in two ways: research and publish (or perish!) and oversee/manage the work of students. No wonder the problems and the conflicts are so much alike in the academy and in "the real world." Abolish Grades! The implications of all this for students should be clear. If they can do nothing more, they must fight against the conservative backlash to preserve what freedom they have. If they can get organized they should take the offensive and fight for greater freedom, in part through the abolition of grades. Abolishing grades would not only liberate more time and energy for student self-activity, it would throw the burden and cost of evaluating a persons' willingness and ability to do a waged job back where it belongs, on the would-be employer. Grades and degrees are the historical result of shifting such costs from business to the taxpayer and future employee. Why not force business to pay for what it wants! As some small liberal arts colleges (e.g., Evergreen State College) have demonstrated, the abolition of grades does not result in less learning, but more learning as students are motivated to pursue their own paths to understanding. Imagine how much fun it would be to extend those experiences to a larger institution like Stanford. Unfortunately, it should also be clear that success at any one institution will be limited by the broader context. Even places like Evergreen include evaluations in their transcripts for the benefit of employers. Battles can be won on individual campuses, but the war can only be won at the level of society as a whole. Can Allies Be Found in the Professoriat? And what of the faculty in all this? Some clearly want a restoration, even an extension, of their authority. They want the power to judge, to impose grades, ultimately to fail students, to throw the disobedient ones out of school/factory. Those are guards on The Wall Pink Floyd understood so well! Others are afraid of the consequences of a public perception that the Stanford degree is being devalued by grade inflation. They are afraid for their own status, their own job market prospects and, perhaps more generously (though rather paternalistically), for those of their students. They include those who embrace the university as factory and training ground and those who simply believe there is no alternative. Such faculty are likely to support the conservative backlash and resist further steps toward greater freedom. But there are probably many others who have come to understand how grades (and the power relations they embody) stand between professors and students. There are bound to be many who realize how the most onerous part of a professor's work is imposing tests and grades. Many, either consciously or subconsciously, know that easy grading means easy work: less anxiety in the classroom, less worry about attendance, less work of supervision during tests, fewer confrontations in the office, less guilt for having destroyed the life of someone you barely know. They also know that easier grading creates more time for them as well as for students: more time to read, to talk with colleagues or students, to reinvigorate their professional research by exploring outside their own fields, to play with their kids, to spend time with their lovers. Professors are also human, at least most of them, and the power structures of the university weigh down their lives just as they do those of students. Some have discovered, and rebel against, the way some university administrations pit professors against students by using a professor's grading record in deciding promotion: rewarding hard graders and penalizing easy ones. Does Stanford do this? It might be useful to find out. Students are also pitted against professors when student evaluations of courses and profs are used not to improve teaching but to impose more discipline. Some professors, I guarantee, can be found who dream of teaching with no grades, of a world where the only people who come to class or lab are those who are there because they want to be, who are eager to learn and curious and questioning with an enthusiasm that only comes with self-motivation. As you know, some professors shun undergraduate teaching and prefer their research and interaction with graduate students. One positive reason (there are many negative ones) behind such behavior is that they thus avoid all the hassles of grading and the imposition of discipline and enjoy the greater stimulation of being engaged with students in a joint endeavor. These kinds of feelings can be appealed to by students fighting grades who want essentially the same thing: a chance to work with professors in a common search for understanding. I don't know what will be the outcome of the Stanford Faculty Senate vote on Thursday, but one thing is certain: the struggle over grades will continue. The battle over grades is over the soul of the university. Those who cry "Fight grade inflation!" and campaign for tougher grading are choosing discipline over the freedom to choose. Those who fight against such increased discipline are choosing greater freedom for students and faculty alike. ________________ *Harry Cleaver was a graduate student in economics at Stanford from 1967 to 1971 and heavily involved in the antiwar movement. He was one of the authors of the Student Minority Report of the President's Committee on the Stanford Research Institute (1969) that challenged its role linking the university with business and the Vietnam war. He was also one of the founders of the Pacific Studies Center, a radical think-tank still operating on the peninsula. His e-mail address is hmcleave@mundo.eco.utexas.edu. The full text of this article is available from gopher mundo.eco.utexas.edu (faculty/Cleaver/"Cleaver Papers"). EPILOGUE: The proposal to crack down on grading by reinstituting the "F" and by reducing the period during which students could withdraw from courses without penalty went to the Faculty Senate on Thursday, June 2, 1994. The Senate voted 38 to 3 to accept the proposal. The struggle will indeed continue!! -- + 212-675-9690 NY TRANSFER NEWS COLLECTIVE 212-675-9663 + + Since 1985: Information for the Rest of Us + + GET INFO from ftpmail%transfr@blythe.org + + e-mail: nyt@blythe.org info: info@blythe.org + From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Jun 7 18:31:35 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 7 Jun 1994 18:29:24 -0700 for socgrad-list Tue, 7 Jun 1994 18:29:22 -0700 for by almaak.usc.edu (8.6.8.1/8.6.7+ucs) From: Matthew Jendian Subject: Re: PhD Comprehensive Exams To: socwawx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (Bill White) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 1994 18:29:16 -0700 (PDT) ...we have two six hour (within one week) specialty area exams at USC...an area committee approves the reading list...grad students take their exams after completing all required course work (ideally)...generally we choose from 2 questions in each of 4 sections touching on theory, methods and substantive areas... ...assessment is interesting...it seems to include: pass with honors, pass, need to clarify in an oral, and fail. I don't particularly like the format of our exams and find this an interesting question. I hope more students respond about how it is in their department. Matthew Jendian From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Jun 7 20:13:53 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 7 Jun 1994 20:10:49 -0700 for socgrad-list Tue, 7 Jun 1994 20:10:47 -0700 for Date: Tue, 7 Jun 1994 20:10:47 -0700 From: Laura Miller To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: Re: Worried About Grade Inflation? Are there actually any employers out there who care about a prospective employee's college grades? I always thought the only thing a college transcript is good for is getting into graduate school. And so I figured the only reason students are so grade-conscious these days is because more of them on going on to professional and graduate schools. Am I wrong? Laura Miller U.C. San Diego From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Jun 7 21:17:30 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 7 Jun 1994 21:15:28 -0700 for socgrad-list Tue, 7 Jun 1994 21:15:27 -0700 for From: estrayer@cats.ucsc.edu Date: Tue, 7 Jun 1994 21:15:24 -0700 To: lmiller@weber.ucsd.edu, socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: Re: Worried About Grade Inflation? From lmiller@weber.ucsd.edu Tue Jun 7 20:10:47 1994 From: Laura Miller To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: Re: Worried About Grade Inflation? Are there actually any employers out there who care about a prospective employee's college grades? I always thought the only thing a college transcript is good for is getting into graduate school. And so I figured the only reason students are so grade-conscious these days is because more of them on going on to professional and graduate schools. Am I wrong? Laura Miller U.C. San Diego In a glutted workforce an employer is more likely than ever to look for some means of distinguishing one candidate from another for a position. In reviewing one's qualifications on a resume' I am sure the "Honors" will generate a stir of interest. I doubt, however, that actual grades will come into play. It would be more like rank (meant here a number of ways) that could be a determinant. I really really liked the post by the Stanford grad (PhD) from a U in TX (sorry, I'm about to be in finals and haven't been saving everything in a logical fashion -- panic!) Anyway, he really made a lot of sense regarding the uslessness, and counterproductivity of grades from an academic standpoint. BTW, I was told that at Stanford that the graduates names are posted by RANK. T/F ? I've been in the business world, albeit as a prolitariate, but close enough to the big shots to know that hiring is different for differnt types of jobs. Requirements for a tech job might be very literal regarding education and experience. In management, however, it can be connections (which micht be substituted for the variable: experience!) There is a good-ol'-boys network in most large corps. 'Nuff said from the newbie. Later, eric ~ ======================================================================== Eric Strayer |"All that is solid melts into air" | estrayer@cats.ucsc.edu | *** Marx | | "Please accpet my resignation, I don't | student * beggar * dilettante| I don't want to belong to a club that | DoD#1120 Honda GB500| would accept me as a member" Marx | ======================================================================== From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Jun 7 22:07:12 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 7 Jun 1994 22:05:10 -0700 for socgrad-list Tue, 7 Jun 1994 22:05:08 -0700 for Date: Tue, 7 Jun 1994 22:04:52 -0700 (PDT) From: Robert Duniway Subject: Re: what advice should I give to students who want to major in soc? To: BREKHUS@zodiac.rutgers.edu Wayne, I tend to encourage undergraduates to think about developing skills that will make them more employable. That certainly doesn't mean you should prepare for a job you will hate, so if engineering doesn't turn you on don't do it. On the other hand, college doesn't turn on many undergraduates, but they insist on doing it anyway, and many of them then search for the path of least resistance to get through it. An alarming number (at the UW anyway) find that path leads through sociology. Rather than suggest that someone asking you what jobs someone can get with a sociology degree can gain nothing in college that will lead to future employment (I don't think thats exactly what you meant, but it sort of sounded like that), why not think about what students can do to gain the most benefit from sociology. Many of those skills can also be developed in other departments, but at least it would allow you to offer a constructive answer to a sincere question. I haven't thought about this in depth, but a few things are obvious. Students of sociology can learn to be alert for the ways in which members of different social groups may perceive the same situation differently. They can therefore become more responsive to members of different groups, since they aren't as hampered by thinking that their own view of the situation is the only interpretation. Sociology students can also learn a great deal about the use and abuse of evidence, particularly statistical evidence. In most departments it is possible for a sociology student to become comfortable computing and discussing statistics, which is a very employable skill. [Apparently a market research firm in Seattle gives job applicants a test, which includes computing the mean, median, and weighted mean of a set of numbers. Several UW sociology graduates cannot pass such a test despite two quarters of methods courses.] Sociology students also tend to practice collecting asn summarizing information about existing social research, or systematically collecting and reporting on their own observations. The catch with all of these skills is that they are only of value to employers if the students learn to do them well. Learning to do that will require students to take their classes seriously. If sociology is just the next best thing to not having to be a student at all that won't happen. As with most things, what you gain is positively correlated with what you invest. Bob Duniway - University of Washington, Dept. of Sociology From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Jun 8 00:01:39 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 7 Jun 1994 23:57:13 -0700 for socgrad-list Tue, 7 Jun 1994 23:57:11 -0700 for Date: Tue, 7 Jun 1994 23:49:08 -0700 (PDT) From: Jiannbin Lee Shiao Subject: Re: Worried About Grade Inflation? To: Sociology Graduate Student List On Tue, 7 Jun 1994, Laura Miller wrote: > Are there actually any employers out there who care about a prospective > employee's college grades? I always thought the only thing a college > transcript is good for is getting into graduate school. And so I figured > the only reason students are so grade-conscious these days is because more > of them on going on to professional and graduate schools. Am I wrong? Laura, this is the same sense I've gotten at UCB. Students aren't complaining about their grades *at all* for employment, but for admission to further schooling/credentials. Even "technical" jobs seem to value recommendations more. (I get _this_ sense from the engineers in my soc sections.) And before we leap off into the grand school-work correspondence theory (a la Bowles and Gintis of course) :), I think any career placement office these days will tell you upfront that 90% of jobs are filled not through job listings and such "free market" mechanisms. Certainly GPA "distinction" is part of the selection procedure, but I think we exaggerate our power as reproducers of domination and exploitation if we imply that the existence of discursive similarities between grading and wage-labor means that capitalism can be overthrown by giving up grading. In addition, for "oppressed groups", "objective" grades are sometimes the only path to recognition of some sort of achievement. Without them, folks are already judged. And even with them.... Has anyone else checked out the _Diversity Report_ by the Institute for the Study of Social Change, UCB? Great stuff on how white college students call blacks and latinos "undeserving admits" but then minutes later -when discussing Asians- trash the importance of grades to make themselves look better. I guess I can't see learning without grades. Not that grade=what.was.learned, but if education presupposes something "worth" learning about, then why pretend there are no "levels" of grasping that something? Is there an easy answer to this? Maybe I'm missing "something." :-) tha j'ster From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Jun 8 13:34:20 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 8 Jun 1994 13:31:36 -0700 for socgrad-list Wed, 8 Jun 1994 13:31:34 -0700 for Date: Wed, 8 Jun 1994 15:31:46 -0500 To: BREKHUS@zodiac.rutgers.edu, socgrad@UCSD.EDU From: ghougham@medicine.bsd.uchicago.edu (Gavin Hougham) Subject: Re: what advice should I give to students who want to major in soc? At 03:01 PM 6/7/94, BREKHUS@zodiac.rutgers.edu wrote: >Hi Socgradders, > > I'm constantly asked by my undergraduates what jobs they can get >with a degree in sociology. ... A piece in the New York Times the other day compared the occupational sector placements of recent undergrads. As I remember it, of those employed, they found that students in the health professions and those with engineering or computer degrees ended up in their chosen fields something like 80-85% of the time. Of social science recent grads about 50% of those employed ended up in their respective occupational sector. They separated out history majors as having only about a 35-40% chance of employment in "history." (There are some questions about definitions and so forth that were unclear in the article... ) So, if we assume that sociology majors fall into the social science lumpen you can tell your students they have about an even chance of getting a job "in the area." Now, as the ASA propaganda, err, ahemm, career information, will tell you, sociology training prepares you splendidly as a generalist with good analytical skills. (See the discussion last month here on the net about how great it would be if all politicians had some training in sociology). A dirty little secret that some "advanced" graduate students (and profs) will never admit, is that some undergrads are much "slicker" when it comes to the craft aspects of using computers than anyone will give them credit for. Give a job to a grad student and right away they want to be in on everything related to the whole project (which can be useful) ,but the undergrad will eagerly crunch out what you ask of them and won't be too embarassed to ask questions. OK, I'm exaggerating to make the point that undergrads have marketable skills and infectious energy levels that make them attractive to ALL KINDS of employers. Sorry I can't be more specific as to WHAT jobs, but I actually believe the party line about soc being good preparation for all manner and type of jobs that require someone who can think analytically about problems, people, issues, etc... Their own interests should be enough to steer them into market research, politics, health care, or whatever. See the recent Occupational Handbook (title?) at your placement/career office for a current summary of the occupation "sociologist." The bad news for them is, indeed, that employment as a sociologist proper requires graduate work. Gavin --------------------------------------------------------------------- Gavin Hougham University of Chicago Department of Sociology 1126 East 59th Street Chicago, IL 60637 E-mail: gwh2@midway.uchicago.edu Office: Department of General Internal Medicine (312) 702-6735 From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Jun 8 21:06:23 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 8 Jun 1994 21:03:04 -0700 for socgrad-list Wed, 8 Jun 1994 21:03:02 -0700 for From: BREKHUS@zodiac.rutgers.edu Date: Thu, 09 Jun 1994 00:02:34 -0400 (EDT) Subject: I'm forwarding this with Carla's permission (RE:advice to student) To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU From: IN%"ASANW/ASA/Carla%American_Sociological_Association@mcimail.com" "Carla" 8-JUN-1994 14:55:09.98 To: IN%"BREKHUS@zodiac.rutgers.edu" "BREKHUS" CC: Subj: RE: what advice should I give to student Return-path: GMT Date: Wed, 08 Jun 1994 13:47 -0500 (EST) From: Carla Subject: RE: what advice should I give to student To: BREKHUS The ASA has some good career materials that answer the "what can I do?" question quite well. These are very good handouts for students. Please order in bulk and pass them out. We also have data to support our generally cheerful view on the employment possibilities. Carla Howery ---------- From: BREKHUS To: carla; socgrad Subject: what advice should I give to students wh Date: Tuesday, June 07, 1994 9:14PM Hi Socgradders, I'm constantly asked by my undergraduates what jobs they can get with a degree in sociology. I never have a very good answer for them. I don't know what one can do with the degree besides go to graduate school. What do I tell students who want to major in sociology, but aren't necessarily interested in becoming academics? What jobs are available to them. I usually tell them that there isn't much out there in sociology, but unless they're interested in engineering or computer science they might as well stick with their passion as there aren't any jobs in anything else either. Do I have to bethis cynical, or are their actually options out there for people with a bachelordegree in Soc? Wayne Brekhus--Rutgers brekhus@zodiac.rutgers.edu From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Jun 9 13:22:57 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 9 Jun 1994 13:15:50 -0700 for socgrad-list Thu, 9 Jun 1994 13:15:46 -0700 for From: S-RWAG@bss1.umd.edu Thu, 9 Jun 94 16:15:43 +1100 Organization: University of Maryland,College Park To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Thu, 9 Jun 1994 16:15:26 EDT Subject: New York City Dear New York City Socgradders, I would appreciate a little friendly sociologist help. I'm transfering from the University of Maryland to the New School for Social Research, and will be looking for an apartment in the New York area soon. I am unfamiliar (once again being a midwesterner is a disadvantage) with the NYC area and appreciate any suggestions on places to look for an (semi)affordable place to live. Also, are their any places I should avoid? Thanks for any help you can offer. Bob Wagmiller From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Jun 10 13:30:14 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 10 Jun 1994 13:25:57 -0700 for socgrad-list Fri, 10 Jun 1994 13:25:54 -0700 for Subject: Re: Worried About Grade Inflation? To: pachinko@uclink.berkeley.edu (Jiannbin Lee Shiao) Date: Fri, 10 Jun 1994 15:25:45 -0500 (CDT) From: "John J. Maurer" > > > On Tue, 7 Jun 1994, Laura Miller wrote: > > > Are there actually any employers out there who care about a prospective > > employee's college grades? I always thought the only thing a college > > transcript is good for is getting into graduate school. And so I figured > > the only reason students are so grade-conscious these days is because more > > of them on going on to professional and graduate schools. Am I wrong? > > Laura, this is the same sense I've gotten at UCB. Students aren't > complaining about their grades *at all* for employment, but for admission > to further schooling/credentials. Even "technical" jobs seem to value > recommendations more. (I get _this_ sense from the engineers in my soc > sections.) > > And before we leap off into the grand school-work correspondence theory (a > la Bowles and Gintis of course) :), I think any career placement office > these days will tell you upfront that 90% of jobs are filled not through > job listings and such "free market" mechanisms. Certainly GPA > "distinction" is part of the selection procedure, but I think we > exaggerate our power as reproducers of domination and exploitation if we > imply that the existence of discursive similarities between grading and > wage-labor means that capitalism can be overthrown by giving up grading. > > In addition, for "oppressed groups", "objective" grades are sometimes the > only path to recognition of some sort of achievement. Without them, folks > are already judged. And even with them.... Has anyone else checked out > the _Diversity Report_ by the Institute for the Study of Social Change, > UCB? Great stuff on how white college students call blacks and latinos > "undeserving admits" but then minutes later -when discussing Asians- trash > the importance of grades to make themselves look better. > > I guess I can't see learning without grades. Not that > grade=what.was.learned, but if education presupposes something "worth" > learning about, then why pretend there are no "levels" of grasping that > something? >If you agree grades do NOT =what.was.learned, then would you say grades represent what was learned? If they (grades) are supposed to be a measure to represent what was learned then, in a sense Grades DO =what.was.learned. This poses a problem since we have already determined grades do Not =what.was. learned. ( I am only guessing you came to this conclusion) Grades have (as mentioned earlier, somewhere) been assigned a symbolic value to be exchanged on the free market system. That is, in theory, you can buy yourself a job exchanging alphabetical characters (grades) for numerical ones (salary). But, grades have (for whatever reason) an artificial value and one that is highly inflated. Therefore they are not representative. This has ensured that grades do Not =what.was.learned. So what is the point of having them? It seems that in most job markets the mere fact of having achieved a higher level of education seems to be enough. Besides, knowing what you achieved and the knowledge you obtain ARE enough to find value in oneself, not a grade. Especially so if you know that one way or another the actual grades really don't matter! >As far as the argument to have grades for minorities' sake, since you have even stated that they are judged if they do or don't have high grades. This seems to show that grades here are not worth one thing or another either. > > > > From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Sun Jun 12 17:43:46 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Sun, 12 Jun 1994 17:40:55 -0700 for socgrad-list Sun, 12 Jun 1994 17:40:54 -0700 for To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: Sexual Harassment Education on Campus Date: Sun, 12 Jun 1994 17:40:54 -0700 From: DENISE M DALAIMO Hi there - I'm interested in hearing what types of sexual harassment education, information, or training that fellow students have had at their universities. Our Women's Center at UNLV is updating policies and programs, and I hoped I could get a sampling of what's going on at other universities thru the net. It might be best to send any info to me off-net: neese@nevada.edu Thanks for the input! Denise From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Jun 13 05:41:20 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 13 Jun 1994 05:37:25 -0700 for socgrad-list Mon, 13 Jun 1994 05:37:24 -0700 for Date: Mon, 13 Jun 1994 08:42:54 -0400 From: wkosinsk@ultrix.ramapo.edu (wanda kosinski) To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Please add me to your list. Thanks. Wanda Kosinski Ramapo College 505 Ramapo Valley Road Mahwah NJ 07430 email: wkosinsk@ultrix.ramapo.edu From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Jun 13 11:13:54 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 13 Jun 1994 11:12:37 -0700 for socgrad-list Mon, 13 Jun 1994 11:12:35 -0700 for From: EATMANRD@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu #3899) id <01HDHTFS9D3K8WXB16@ctrvax.Vanderbilt.Edu>; Mon, Date: Mon, 13 Jun 1994 13:09:20 -0500 (CDT) To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU sub socgrad From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Jun 13 18:46:03 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 13 Jun 1994 18:44:32 -0700 for socgrad-list Mon, 13 Jun 1994 18:44:31 -0700 for by raphael.acpub.duke.edu (8.6.8.1/Duke-2.0) id VAA08060; Date: Mon, 13 Jun 1994 21:40:50 -0400 (EDT) From: Lesa Morrison Subject: november meeting on power and conflict/flagstaff To: sociology grad network Hi anybody, A couple of months ago, someone sent out information on a conference on power and conflict to be held the first week of November at ASU in Flagstaff. It looked really great, only. . .I've lost the information. Could someone forward it to me again? Thanks! Lesa Morrison From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Jun 14 13:19:53 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 14 Jun 1994 13:17:53 -0700 for socgrad-list Tue, 14 Jun 1994 13:17:50 -0700 for Date: Tue, 14 Jun 1994 13:10:59 -0700 (PDT) From: Jiannbin Lee Shiao Subject: Regarding: "Grading, what's the purpose?" To: Sociology Graduate Student List On Fri, 10 Jun 1994, John J. Maurer wrote: > > On Tue, 7 Jun 1994, Laura Miller wrote: > > > > > Are there actually any employers out there who care about a prospective > > > employee's college grades? I always thought the only thing a college > > > transcript is good for is getting into graduate school. And so I figured > > > the only reason students are so grade-conscious these days is because more > > > of them on going on to professional and graduate schools. Am I wrong? [....] > >If you agree grades do NOT =what.was.learned, then would you say grades > represent what was learned? If they (grades) are supposed to be a measure > to represent what was learned then, in a sense Grades DO =what.was.learned. --------------------------------------- > This poses a problem since we have already determined grades do Not =what.was. > learned. ( I am only guessing you came to this conclusion) "In a sense", sure, but in what sense? All I can think of is that students learn either that their work in the course was "C" work, that they are "C" students, or that they are "C" people. I think students too often come away with the latter two. Since there is no such thing as a pure assessment, especially in the social sciences, I agree (with whoever made the really good point) that it's really important to let students know that grading is inevitably based on expectations first, and personal learning second. > Grades have (as mentioned earlier, somewhere) been assigned a symbolic value > to be exchanged on the free market system. That is, in theory, you can buy > yourself a job exchanging alphabetical characters (grades) for numerical ones > (salary). But, grades have (for whatever reason) an artificial value and > one that is highly inflated. Therefore they are not representative. > This has ensured that grades do Not =what.was.learned. John, I'm unclear about this argument here. Are you saying that because "grades don't guarantee jobs", therefore "grades do not equal what was learned"? I agree with both your statements separately, but how does the first support the second? > So what is the point of having them? It seems that in most job > markets the mere fact of having achieved a higher level of education seems > to be enough. Besides, knowing what you achieved and the knowledge you obtain > ARE enough to find value in oneself, not a grade. Especially so if you > know that one way or another the actual grades really don't matter! Is "finding value in oneself" the purpose of schooling? I find myself thinking of John Meyers' (right reference?) writings on how schooling acts to legitimize social stratification, not merely by supposedly inculcating the right social roles to play, or by dividing students by grades as they are to be divided by job distinctions, but more importantly by making them "realize" that there is a structured and "heavy" world out there, and one quite independent of their personal likings or choices. Thus, they may sit bored in Sociology class, but they know there are people out there (few as they may be :) ) who will judge them on "competency" in that subject. In this sense, grades matter very much regardless of which grade is received. > >As far as the argument to have grades for minorities' sake, since you have > even stated that they are judged if they do or don't have high grades. This > seems to show that grades here are not worth one thing or another either. I didn't mean to give an impression that it was an either/or situation of "either" minorities are judged by grades alone, "or" minorities are judged according to contemporary racial discourses and ideologies. In fact, I was saying that the two exist simultaneously but that sometimes the former can help to counter the latter to some degree. Well, John, you're begging to be asked this question. :) What would school look like without grades? tha j'ster From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Jun 14 14:33:58 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 14 Jun 1994 14:32:08 -0700 for socgrad-list Tue, 14 Jun 1994 14:32:05 -0700 for by KUHUB.CC.UKANS.EDU (PMDF V4.3-8 #5489) Date: Tue, 14 Jun 1994 16:31:35 -0500 (CDT) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by KUHUB.CC.UKANS.EDU From: 1k1mgm@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Christopher Gunn) Subject: Re: Regarding: "Grading, what's the purpose?" To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU >[....] Is "finding value in oneself" the purpose of schooling? I find myself >thinking of John Meyers' (right reference?) writings on how schooling acts >to legitimize social stratification, not merely by supposedly inculcating >the right social roles to play, or by dividing students by grades as they >are to be divided by job distinctions, but more importantly by making them >"realize" that there is a structured and "heavy" world out there, and one >quite independent of their personal likings or choices. [....] He might not be the author you had in mind, but it was John Holt who wrote that one of the main functions of schools-as-institutions was to separate winners from losers, and convince the losers that they deserved it. >Well, John, you're begging to be asked this question. :) What would >school look like without grades? > >tha j'ster There was an administrator here at the University of Kansas--I think I remember his name but I'm hazy on it so I won't use it; he's long- retired--who during the height of the '60s turmoil proposed (probably 95% in jest) that universities take students' money, give them their diplomas, and let those who wanted to learn something hang around to do so. I was struck at the time by how closely this right-veering, frustrated-Establishment quip meshed with then-current New Left proposals for removing the certificational/'sorting' functions from higher education. Non-certifying, grade-free higher education has always had emotional appeal for me and has some precedent in the 'Free University' efforts of the '60s and early '70s, but I've recently become aware (don't know why) of the extent to which it is elitist. Completely apart from practical considerations (like who would pay for such a system), there is the issue of who would have the luxury of participating as students in a 'free university' setting. That is--to flip the matter around--one could argue that universities' dreary function of certifying that their graduates can stand in straight lines for hours on end and humiliate themselves on command provides social justification for sending so many people through a process that at least for *some* has broadening, liberating potential. I used to think that an ideal hybrid was a 'free university' setting with credentialing by special examination; my fantasies had a sort of Oxford/Cambridge flavor to them. However, it's awfully easy to see an examination-based system taking a Mandarin or even Kafkaesque turn. It certainly seems to me that we're in the middle of an uptick in meritocracy that could lead in that direction.... Christopher Gunn, Univ. of Kansas Christopher Gunn Molecular Graphics and Modeling Laboratory 1k1mgm@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu University of Kansas Phone: 913-864-4428 or -4495 Malott Hall Lawrence, KS 66045 From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Jun 15 12:18:58 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 15 Jun 1994 12:16:56 -0700 for socgrad-list Wed, 15 Jun 1994 12:16:51 -0700 for Date: Wed, 15 Jun 1994 13:25:44 -0400 Originator: sos-data@gibbs.oit.unc.edu From: cooper@ssc.wisc.edu (Anne L. Cooper) Subject: virus alert -- forward Please foward to other lists. ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- I'm forwarding this to these lists: eunice::"iassist@pucc.princeton.edu" ! IASSIST data librarians eunice::"sos-data@gibbs.oit.unc.edu" ! soc sci data interests eunice::"SASPAC-L@UMSLVMA.BITNET" !SAS Public Access Consortium eunice::"govdoc-l@PSUVM.PSU.EDU" ! govdocs Please excuse any duplication. From: WIRCS2::IN%"ATKINS@macc.wisc.edu" "David P. Atkins" 15-JUN-1994 Subj: virus alert--fyi ---------------------- Information from the mail header ----------------------- Poster: "Janet E. Roberts" Subject: Virus alert ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hard copy of this was given to me by a Museum colleague, who pulled it off the Museum List. I can't quite follow the header trail, but it may have originated at International Conference on Information Systems. The following is copied directly from that message (except for the typos!): A Virus has been discovered on Internet that is desguised as CD-ROM shareware. Unknown hackers have illegally put the Chinon name on a destructive shareware file and released it on the Internet. This catatrophic virus in named "CD-IT". -- DO NOT DOWNLOAD. IT WILL CORRUPT YOUR HARD DRIVE. The program, allegedly a shareware PC utility that will convert an ordinary CD-ROM drive into a CD-Recordable (CD-R) device, which is technically impossible, instead destroys critical system files on a user's hard drive. The program also immediately crashes the CPU, forces the user to reboot and stays in memory. Widest dissemination is requested. Frank Potter CSSO All mail list enquiries to hci-members-request@EuroPARC.Xerox.Com [end of copied message - JR] ----- reforwarded by cooper@ssc.wisc.edu From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Jun 15 16:01:51 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 15 Jun 1994 15:59:05 -0700 for socgrad-list Wed, 15 Jun 1994 15:59:02 -0700 for Subject: Re: Regarding: "Grading, what's the purpose?" To: pachinko@uclink.berkeley.edu (Jiannbin Lee Shiao) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 1994 17:58:37 -0500 (CDT) From: "John J. Maurer" > > On Fri, 10 Jun 1994, John J. Maurer wrote: > > > > On Tue, 7 Jun 1994, Laura Miller wrote: > > > > > > > Are there actually any employers out there who care about a prospective > > > > employee's college grades? I always thought the only thing a college > > > > transcript is good for is getting into graduate school. And so I figured > > > > the only reason students are so grade-conscious these days is because more > > > > of them on going on to professional and graduate schools. Am I wrong? > [....] > > >If you agree grades do NOT =what.was.learned, then would you say grades > > represent what was learned? If they (grades) are supposed to be a measure > > to represent what was learned then, in a sense Grades DO =what.was.learned. > --------------------------------------- > > This poses a problem since we have already determined grades do Not =what.was. > > learned. ( I am only guessing you came to this conclusion) > > "In a sense", sure, but in what sense? All I can think of is that > students learn either that their work in the course was "C" work, that > they are "C" students, or that they are "C" people. I think students too > often come away with the latter two. Since there is no such thing as a > pure assessment, especially in the social sciences, I agree (with whoever > made the really good point) that it's really important to let students > know that grading is inevitably based on expectations first, and personal > learning second. > John Maurer: What I meant by "in a sense..." was that it seemed that you were stating that grades don't equal what was learned but that they represent what was learned. I was merely stating that these are one in the same. I'm of the opinion that grades are quickly losing any representative value of "what is learned" , therefore why do we feel we must maintain a grading system? > > Grades have (as mentioned earlier, somewhere) been assigned a symbolic value > > to be exchanged on the free market system. That is, in theory, you can buy > > yourself a job exchanging alphabetical characters (grades) for numerical ones > > (salary). But, grades have (for whatever reason) an artificial value and > > one that is highly inflated. Therefore they are not representative. > > This has ensured that grades do Not =what.was.learned. > > John, I'm unclear about this argument here. Are you saying that because > "grades don't guarantee jobs", therefore "grades do not equal what was > learned"? I agree with both your statements separately, but how does the > first support the second? John Maurer: The point I am trying to get across here is that since grades are so inflated and nonrepresentative of the package of knowledge an applicant has, prospective employers will not use a students grades (at least with not as much fervor) to determined their employability. Since you can't purchase a job with grades (once again, because they are not a reliable measure of the applicant's capabilities) then, what is the purpose of keeping a grading system? > > So what is the point of having them? It seems that in most job > > markets the mere fact of having achieved a higher level of education seems > > to be enough. Besides, knowing what you achieved and the knowledge you obtain > > ARE enough to find value in oneself, not a grade. Especially so if you > > know that one way or another the actual grades really don't matter! > > Is "finding value in oneself" the purpose of schooling? John Maurer: Yes! Being self assured and having a good self esteem because of the confidence in your own intelligence makes you very employable (if that is the main purpose of seeking a higher education). You can create your own job, instead of basing your education on some bogus report of future high paying, highly employable, career fields. I find myself > thinking of John Meyers' (right reference?) writings on how schooling acts > to legitimize social stratification, not merely by supposedly inculcating > the right social roles to play, or by dividing students by grades as they > are to be divided by job distinctions, but more importantly by making them > "realize" that there is a structured and "heavy" world out there, and one > quite independent of their personal likings or choices. Thus, they may > sit bored in Sociology class, but they know there are people out there > (few as they may be :) ) who will judge them on "competency" in that > subject. In this sense, grades matter very much regardless of which grade > is received. > John Maurer:" Regardless of what they received" is the key point here. Grades are only looked at (that is When they're looked at) because they exist, even though the actual grade received is Regardless of the student's effort and comprehension. > > >As far as the argument to have grades for minorities' sake, since you have > > even stated that they are judged if they do or don't have high grades. This > > seems to show that grades here are not worth one thing or another either. > > I didn't mean to give an impression that it was an either/or situation of > "either" minorities are judged by grades alone, "or" minorities are judged > according to contemporary racial discourses and ideologies. In fact, I > was saying that the two exist simultaneously but that sometimes the former > can help to counter the latter to some degree. > > Well, John, you're begging to be asked this question. :) What would > school look like without grades? > > It would have brick buildings with people inside, doing the same things they did before. Of course there would be some method changes. No time to get into that. I just feel either grades should have a high correlation to what was learned or should be eliminated. bye, John > > From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Sun Jun 19 05:44:38 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Sun, 19 Jun 1994 05:43:01 -0700 for socgrad-list Sun, 19 Jun 1994 05:42:59 -0700 for Date: Sun, 19 Jun 94 08:07:25 EDT From: "T.R.YOUNG" <34LPF6T@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU> Organization: Central Michigan University Subject: SURVIVING MODERN SCIENCE AND POLITICALLY SAFE SOC/SCIENCE To: GRADUATE STUDENTS IN SOCIOLOGY ONE OF THE GRAD STUDENTS ON SOC GRAD WROTE TO ASK HOW ONE DEALT WITH 'CAREERIST, DETACHED, AND APATHETIC' FACULTY...HOW TO DO BE TRULY CRITICAL AND WORK IN A UNIVERSITY SYSTEM THAT IS AT THE FOREFRONT OF INSTITUTIONS REPRO- DUCING RACE, CLASS AND GENDER INEQUALITIES. THIS SUNDAY, MY MINI-SERMON WILL BE JUST THAT...HOW TO SURVIVE IN A DEPOLITICIZED AND SUBSERVIENT ACADEMIC/ SCHOLARLY DISCIPLINE...SOME OBSERVATIONS MADE AFTER BEING FIRED IN MY FIRST SIX TEACHING POSITION FOR DOING VERY MILD AND MOSTLY LIBERAL THINGS: A. PERSONAL STYLE IS VERY IMPORTANT: FACULTY OFFER TENURE AND PROMOTION TO THOSE WITH WHOM THEY FIND CONGENIAL...JUST COMMON COURTESY TO ONE AND ALL. B. PUBLIC STYLE IS VERY IMPORTANT: I SELDOM USE THE 'F' WORD, PAY MY BILLS ON TIME, MOW THE LAWN, CUT MY HAIR AND POLITELY DECLINE POT WHEN MY STUDENTS OFFER IT...NEVER, NEVER EXPLOIT STUDENTS SEXUALLY OR ABUSE THEM VERBALLY. C. SCHOLARSHIP IS VERY IMPORTANT...DO THE BASIC HOMEWORK...KNOW THE LIT IN FIELD AND, AS A MATTER OF SIMPLE COURTESY, SHARE IT WITH COLLEAGUES EVEN IF YOU FIND THEM COLD AND OFF-PUTTING. D. PUBLISHING IS IMPORTANT: SEND PAPERS TO MEETINGS, SEND PAPERS OUT WHEN YOU SEE 'CALLS' FOR ARTICLES...ALWAYS HAVE TWO OR THREE READY SO YOU CAN GET THEM OUT FAST. E. WRITE, POLISH AND PRINT OUT TEN COPIES BEFORE! THE MEETINGS...IT IS MOST DISTRESSING TO THOSE WHO INVITE ONE AND THOSE WHO COME TO LISTEN TO ONE TO HEAR YOU APOLOGIZE FOR NOT HAVING PAPERS TO PASS OUT OR TO SEE YOU READ FROM NOTES SCRIBBLED IN HASTE THE NIGHT BEFORE. F. TEACHING IS FAR MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE SYSTEM ALLOWS...BE CREATIVE IN THE CLASSROOM; HAVE FUN WITH THE COURSE MATERIALS; SET UP INTERACTIONALLY RICH LEARNING SYSTEMS; ORGANIZE THE LEARNING PROCESS SO THAT STUDENTS ARE TEACH- ING EACH OTHER; USE MOVIE LABS, POPULAR SONGS, ACCEPT POETIC AND FICTIONAL, DRAMATIZED VIGNETTES [IN THE GREAT FLYING CHAOS LEARNING CIRCUS, I HAD FOUR CONTINUING SOAPS WITH WHICH STUDENTS COULD EARN POINTS: CAPTAIN SCIENCE, THE STORY OF HOW SOCIOLOGY SAVED THE DAY WHEN COMMON SENSE FAILED; THE LIFE AND TIMES OF MARY MERRITT: THE STORY OF A YOUNG WOMEN TRYING TO SURVIVE IN AMONG MEN INFECTED BY ANDROGEN; AND 'FUN WITH DICK AND JANE: THE STORY OF HOW TWO YOUNG PEOPLE CAME INTO THE FULLNESS OF THEIR MORALITY IN A TIME OF TROUBLES...YOU CAN GET GUIDE SHEETS FOR THESE IF YOU LIKE. ALSO WORKSHEET FOR MOVIE LABS ON THE 'BOYZ'NTHEHOOD,' 'NEW JACK CITY,' 'MY FAIR LADY' AND OTHERS BY SENDING A P.O. ADDRESS. G. THE ONLY THING I DID TO PUT MYSELF IN JEOPARDY OF THE WRATH OF ADMIN/OTHER COLLEAGUES WAS TO HELP ORGANIZE ON CAMPUS AND IN THE COMMUNITY...THIS IS A DOUBLE NO-NO SINCE THE ADMIN HAS TO DEAL WITH BOARD MEMBERS AND STATE LEG- ISLATORS...AFTER BEING FIRED SO OFTEN, I FINALLY GOT SMART...I ORGANIZED A SOCIAL BASE AND TOOK THE HIGH MORAL GROUND IN VERY PUBLIC WAYS IN EVERY ONE OF THE MANY CONFRONTATIONS WITH ADMIN OR LOCAL OFFICIALS...I ORGANIZED FACULTY SUPPORT GROUPS...WROTE COLUMNS FOR THE UNIV NEWSPAPER [USUALLY HAD FORMER STUDENTS ON IT]; WORKED CLOSELY WITH STUDENT GOV'T; SET UP LEGAL DEFENSE FUNDS; ASKED FOR HELP FROM BLACK TEACHERS ASSOC, FROM THE LEGAL FUND OF THE AM FED OF TEACHERS; HAD GOOD CONNECTIONS WITH THE CATHOLIC NUNS AND PRIESTS; KNEW THE DIRECTOR OF THE COLO CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION PERSONALLY; JOINED THE ACLU; AND, IN ALL THIS, NEVER, NEVER TOOK THINGS PERSONALLY...NEVER DEFINED PEOPLE AS THE 'ENEMY' ONLY RELATIONSHIPS AND DEMEANING PRACTICES. BEING A RADICAL IS EASY IF YOU DO IT WITH SOME WIT, GOOD GRACE, AND ARE VERY, VERY WELL ORGANIZED...NICE IDEA TO HAVE A GAME PLAN WITH A FEW GOOD PROPOSALS TO REMEDY THINGS AS WELL. LOTS OF STORIES IN MY JOURNAL ABOUT THESE STRUGGLES BUT THE SHORT VERSION IS THAT I SUR- VIVED A VERY HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT WHILE A LOT OF GOOD PEOPLE DID NOT. From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Sun Jun 19 09:31:26 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Sun, 19 Jun 1994 09:30:09 -0700 for socgrad-list Sun, 19 Jun 1994 09:30:08 -0700 for To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: Looking for particular profs Date: Sun, 19 Jun 1994 09:30:07 -0700 From: DENISE M DALAIMO Hi gang - Does anyone happen to have an e-mail address for any of the following profs? Deborah Tannen - Georgetown Linguist and author of *You Just Don't Understand: women and men in conversation* Susan Herring - UT Arlington Linguist Lauren Sutton - UT Arlington Linguist I would appreciate any assistance. Thanks in advance, Denise From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Jun 20 13:11:57 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 20 Jun 1994 13:09:43 -0700 for socgrad-list Mon, 20 Jun 1994 13:09:40 -0700 for Date: Mon, 20 Jun 1994 15:05:43 -0500 (CDT) From: "Deborah R. Bronson" Subject: e-mail address To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU I am trying to obtain the e-mail address for Dr. Joy B. Reeves at Steven B. Austin State University, TX, regarding MSSA sessions and dead lines for papers. If anyone could provide me with this information I would appreciate it. From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Jun 21 05:05:15 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 21 Jun 1994 04:56:07 -0700 for socgrad-list Tue, 21 Jun 1994 04:56:04 -0700 for Date: Tue, 21 Jun 1994 07:55:32 -0400 (EDT) From: James Cassell Subject: (FWD) Undercurrent To: "Progressive Sociologist's Network" , Sociology Graduate Student Discussion , Forum on Labor in the North American Economy , Social Politics List , Family Science Discussion Some of you might be interested in this new electronic journal. I have no affiliation with this publication, so please direct ALL questions to the editor, Erick Heroux (heroux@darkwing.uoregon.edu). Best, Jim ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Jim Cassell jwcassell@UNC.EDU Institute for Research in Social Science Phone: 919-962-0782 University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill Fax: 919-962-4777 Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3355 USA ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 15 Jun 1994 23:03:58 -0500 (CDT) From: Gleason Sackman To: net-happenings Subject: EJOUR> Undercurrent (fwd) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 15 Jun 94 21:09:01 -0400 From: Ann Okerson Subject: [NEWJOUR-L:134] Undercurrent FORWARDED by: Michael Strangelove, Publisher The Internet Business Journal TITLE: UNDERCURRENT ISSN #: (not yet) Description: An interdisciplinary journal for analysis of the present. Articles aimed at a generally educated audience interested in the currents beneath current events. Essays come out of various academic specialties, but are accessible to outsiders. To subscribe: by e-mail for free: send the following command to: mailserv@oregon.uoregon.edu "subscribe UNDERCURRENT yourid@domain.uwhere.edu" [your e-mail address & without the quotation marks] Submissions: heroux@darkwing.uoregon.edu e-mail preferred U N D E R C U R R E N T Call for Manuscripts [Please post] UNDERCURRENT is a free journal available on the Internet through e-mail subscriptions. (See end of this message for how to subscribe for free.) We are seeking article submissions or queries with abstracts providing an analysis of the present in terms of discourses, events, representations, classes, or cultures. We seek to publish analysis of the present from diverse intellectual perspectives--feminist, historical, ethnological, sociological, literary, political, semiotic, philosophical, cultural studies, and so forth. We seek applied analysis rather than theory. Any theoretical orientation ought instead to be apparent and immanent in your particular focus on the present. We especially encourage interdisciplinary work. Article length varies according to your needs, anywhere from "short-takes" of 500-1000 words to "feature" of up to 7500 words. As its audience is potentially much broader than that of academic journals held only in university libraries, the style must account for an educated audience which is not necessarily familiar with either the jargon or the debates in a special field. UNDERCURRENT wishes to publish articles that address this broader audience while also conveying a vivid sense of how current academic scholarship can contribute to our understanding of the present. We are attempting to bridge the gulf between academia and the general reading public, a gulf which has allowed various misperceptions about academia to become politically overcharged in the popular media. UNDERCURRENT is founded on four editorial principles which together make it unique among journals. It is interdisciplinary, applied, accessible, and focussed on the present. What do we mean by these four principles? 1. "Interdisciplinary" means that it begins with academic disciplines and works through/with/against them in new combinations either within articles or between articles--in order to see what might be revealed by crossing or fusing disciplinary borders and/or creating new hybrids as tools of analysis. 2. "Applied" means that it publishes only articles which perform an actual analysis rather than explore theoretical issues. Theoretical discussions already have plenty of journals devoting space to them in every discipline. This is not the same as saying that theory is banished from UNDERCURRENT, but rather that it is only theory in action that we wish to publish. 3. "Accessible" means that the articles are aware of an audience which is not privy to specialized terminology, proper names, and the recent history of your discipline. This is not the same as saying that the articles thereby lose rigor, but rather that they prove to be capable of interest and comprehension by any intelligent, educated reader. 4. "The present" means that our articles demonstrate an awareness of who we are now. (We includes any group of people alive.) An analysis of the present highlights a force, trend, limit, idea, custom, event, or structure which exerts some contemporary influence. The "present" can be either "residual," "dominant," or "emergent"--to use Raymond Williams' terms. All submissions will receive a reply, however no copies can be returned. Any major citation format is acceptable, although endnotes must be used rather than footnotes due to the contingencies of various platforms for viewing electronic text. Submissions and queries can be sent in any of the following ways, in order of preference: 1.> e-mail to "heroux@darkwing.uoregon.edu" and note in the subject field that this is a submission to UNDERCURRENT 2.> Mail a floppy diskette with your text in ASCII or WordPerfect (address below). 3.> Mail two copies of your essay by traditional post to: UNDERCURRENT Erick Heroux Dept. of English University of Oregon Eugene, OR 97403 ABOUT FREE SUBSCRIPTIONS: You can subscribe yourself to UNDERCURRENT by sending a one-line e-mail message: SUBSCRIBE UNDERCURRENT YOURNAME@DOMAIN.WHERE Address it to: mailserv@oregon.uoregon.edu PERIODICITY: 3 times per year. >From heroux@darkwing Fri May 13 00:02:06 1994 Date: Fri, 13 May 1994 00:00:19 -0700 (PDT) From: unlisted To: undercurrent-post@oregon.uoregon.edu Subject: UNDERCURRENT 1.0 U N D E R C U R R E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Vol. 1, No. 1 Copyright May, 1994 Erick Heroux, Editor PO Box 3724 Eugene, OR 97403 (heroux@darkwing.uoregon.edu) Copyrights for contents revert to the authors upon publication. Downloading, copying, and printing of this text for personal use is allowed and encouraged. However, no republication or commercial use in any form is permitted without prior arrangements with the authors. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ CONTENTS 1.0 FOREWORD BY EDITOR: HOW TO E-MAIL FOR A COPY 1.1 AMERICA, DISNEYLAND, OR VIRTUAL REALITY: WILL THE REAL REALITY PLEASE STAND UP? -- Tony Kerstan, University of Tasmania, Australia 1.2 ART IN THE NET: A FEW POLICY PROPOSALS -- Sandra Braman, Institute of Communications Research, University of Illinois, Urbana 1.3 GENIUS OR MADNESS: CREATIVITY AS HEREDITARY FLAW. (A Critique of Sociobiology as a Rational Superstition) -- Steve Mizrach 1.4 NATIONAL LANDSCAPES AND THEIR MAKING IN FINLAND -- Maunu Ha"yrynen, Helsinki University of Technology, Finland 1.5 "Short-Takes" NINE LIES ABOUT THE DIGITAL REVOLUTION -- Sam McMillan, Senior Producer, Vivid Publishing, Inc. TV's STEALTH ATTACK ON THE WOODSTOCK GENERATION -- Wally Bowen, Citizens for Media Literacy ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Note: Additional information about the authors, including how to reach them by e-mail, can be found at the beginning and/or end of each article. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ --- 1.0 FOREWORD & DIRECTIONS FOR USE This is the inaugural issue of UNDERCURRENT, an intrepid experiment in publishing thoughtful and informed analysis of the present, distributed freely over the Internet. The articles here appeal to those who are weary of "infotainment" and those ubiquitous forms of empty excitement which leave us unenlightened and even misinformed. Instead, our appeal is to the delight in the work of discernment. Another experiment in these electronic "pages" is to make accessible a fairly wide range of analysis which otherwise remains buried in the little backyards of a few dozen specialists. While the articles here are intelligent and show the results of certain research, they are written with a wide audience in mind: a generally educated audience, rather than the specialist. This is to say, UNDERCURRENT is not for everyone, but it has already discovered a vital tribe which seems to grow daily. The contributors to this issue hail from Australia to Finland and around the U.S. And we are sorry that more of the submissions could not be published. We plan to continue linking together articles not only across disciplines, but also across geopolitical boundaries. We hope you will join us in this experiment. After all, each of us is inundated by the enigmas and mystifications of current "events," a consideration which calls for the kinds of studied indifference to fanfare, and the patient dwelling beneath the surface demonstrated here. WHAT'S HERE. Tony Kerstan's analysis of the virtual reality experienced in Disney as a version of a simulated America--and/or of America as a "simulation"-- disrupts our sense of the reality of everyday life. Beyond the nostalgia that prevents us from recognizing this lies a great unknown, both disorienting and free. Sandra Braman, after a well-informed survey of the function of art, proposes a few smart policies for the emerging uses of the Internet by artists. She takes into consideration economics, cultural development, the proliferation of new public spheres on the net, intellectual property rights, and research on how people access and produce these newer artforms. Steve Mizrach critiques the surprising return of an old folk belief about the mad genius in a contemporary science: sociobiology. This is a peculiar instance of a discourse which wants to "explain" who we all are by biological abnormalities... Maunu Ha"yrynen illustrates the nationalist construction of an ideal landscape, using research about Finland as a case history. The promotion of a nostalgic image of a special landscape as national identity is used by certain governing administrations to bolster their popularity. And two "short-takes," first Sam McMillan's witty skewering of nine familiar myths about the promised land of the computer information revolution, and finally, Wally Bowen exposes the tacit ideological propaganda that accompanies a Pepsi Generation ad. We believe that this is an auspicious beginning, and look forward to seeing more in future issues. --Erick Heroux Editor HOW TO OBTAIN SECTIONS OF UNDERCURRENT Send the following commands by e-mail to: mailserv@oregon.uoregon.edu For entire issue: "send [undercurrent]1.*" For an article: "send [undercurrent]1.1" (or 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, etc. See the number next to the articles in the table of contents above.) That's it. Do not type the quotation marks, and do not leave a space between the bracket and the number. Mail only this command line by itself. For example, if I wanted only the two "short-takes" for now, I would e-mail to mailserv@oregon.uoregon.edu this command line: send [undercurrent]1.5 And if instead I wanted only the article "Arts in the Net," I would e-mail to mailserv@oregon.uoregon.edu this command line: send [undercurrent]1.2 BY GOPHER The issue is also available on a gopher menu under the English Department at the University of Oregon. You can gopher over to the root menu: gopher.uoregon.edu >From there select menu options in this sequence: #2, #2, #6. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ CONTACT: Problems or questions can be e-mailed to Erick Heroux Editor UNDERCURRENT (heroux@darkwing.uoregon.edu) From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Jun 21 08:00:16 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 21 Jun 1994 07:56:49 -0700 for socgrad-list Tue, 21 Jun 1994 07:56:42 -0700 for Date: Tue, 21 Jun 1994 08:37:52 -0600 (MDT) From: "M. Sosteric" Subject: Re: (FWD) Undercurrent To: James Cassell Sociology Graduate Student Discussion , Forum on Labor in the North American Economy , Social Politics List , Family Science Discussion From: Mike Sosteric RE: Electronic Journal -------------------------------------- The Electronic Journal of Sociology (C) ISSN 1198 3655 Demonstration Subscriptions=DC =DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF The EJS is published as a plain ASCII text file, a Windows and Mac=20 compatible help file, and as a collection of Windows and Mac compatible=20 HTML files. These files are available for anonymous ftp from=20 ftp.srv.ualberta.ca in the directory pub/documents/e-journal.=20 The plain text, Windows, and HTML versions have the file extensions=20 ascii, win, and HTML respectively. The EJS is also available for=20 anonymous ftp from coombs.anu.edu.au in the directory coombspapers/otherpapers/sociology-archives/electronic-sociology-l. The EJS is also published on the World Wide Web (WWW). Point your URL at http://gpu.srv.ualberta.ca/~msosteri/EJS/home.htm. NCSA Mosaic is the recommended WWW browser.=20 You may also obtain disks of The EJS for a fee of $15 Canadian per year. Please see the section on submissions for where to send your subscription request. .=20 Masthead=DC =DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF The Electronic Journal of Sociology (ISSN 1198-3655) =20 EDITOR Mike Sosteric =20 Department of Sociology University of Alberta, Canada Edmonton, Alberta. Canada msosteri@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca =20 CO-EDITOR Guy Germain Department of Sociology University of Alberta, Canada Edmonton, Alberta. Canada ggermain@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD Ted Cohen Dave Odynak Sociology/Anthropology Department of Sociology Ohio Wesleyan University University of Alberta Delaware, Ohio. USA Edmonton, Alberta. Canada tfcohen@cc.owu.edu dodynak@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca Carl Cuneo Rupen Pandya Department of Sociology Department of Sociology McMaster University University of Regina Hamilton, Ontario. Canada Regina, Saskatchewan. Canada cuneo@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca pandyaru@max.cc.uregina.ca =20 Roger Deacon Timothy Ulrich Faculty of Education Department of Sociology University of Natal University of Nebraska Durban, South Africa Lincoln, NB. 68588-0324 deacon@mtb.unc.ac.za tulrich@unlinfo.unl.edu =20 Laura Hargrave David V. Waller Department of Sociology Dep. of Sociology/Anthropology University of Alberta University of Texas Edmonton, Alberta. Canada Arlington, TX. USA userlstt@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca wallerd@vtarlg.vta.edu =20 Bradley Nash, Jr. Reference/ Internet Services Blacksburg Area Branch Library Blacksburg, Virginia, USA bnash@leo.vsla.edu =20 Instructions for Authors=DC =DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF The Electronic Journal of Sociology is a refereed electronic journal. The EJS specializes in publishing articles and commentaries=20 for those wishing to solicit rapid feedback about current or proposed projects, while retaining high standards of scholarly content. The EJS also publishes review essays, reviews of books, reviews of software, and direction statements.=20 Publication Formats=DC =DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF The EJS is published in a number of formats including a=20 hypertext version. Authors should follow the EJS style guidelines when submitting papers for consideration. Authors do not need to concern themselves over the translation from plain text to hypertext. However, if you wish, you may explore a hypertext/hypermedia presentation. Hypertext presentations should be submitted in Rich Text Format (RTF).=20 If you chose a hypertext presentation, keep the following=20 guidelines in mind. The title page, abstract, main text, appendices, footnotes, and references must be linear. That is, do not compose hypertext links to the main sections of the text. Confine links to pop up definitions, sounds files and graphic images. Hypertext compositions must be submitted in uncompiled format. You may tar or zip the files to aid in transmission.=20 Submissions=DC =DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF Articles can be sent directly over the Internet in encoded=20 form or mailed on a 3 1/2 inch disk. You may submit your article as a plain WP5.1 or Word file, or as a hypermedia document in Rich Text Format. Address all subscription requests, advertising, and submissions to Mike Sosteric Department of Sociology =20 Editor University of Alberta Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2H4 Canada =20 msosteri@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca =20 Guy Germain, Department of Sociology = =20 Co-editor, University of Alberta =20 Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2H4 Canada =20 ggermain@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca =20 Style =DC =DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF All target articles, commentaries, and responses must have=20 1) a short abstract, 2) an indexable title, 3) the authors' full name(s), institutional and E-mail address(es), and 4) 6-8 indexable keywords.=20 Articles should not exceed 20 double spaced typed pages (excluding tables, figures, appendices, notes, and bibliography). Commentaries and responses should not exceed 8 double spaced typed pages. In addition, for target articles only 5) a list of potential commentators. Headings=DC =DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF There are four levels of headings that you may use.=20 =20 =C9=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD= =CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD= =CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=BB =BA CENTERED AND CAPITALIZED <--level one =BA =BA =BA =BA Centered with Upper Case and Lower Case <--level two =BA =BA =BA =BA LEFT JUSTIFIED UPPER CASE <-- level three =BA =BA =BA =BA Left Justified Upper and Lower Case <--level four =BA =C8=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD= =CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD= =CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=BC If you only need to use two levels of headings, use levels one and three.=20 Footnotes, Appendices and References=DC =DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF= =DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF Footnotes should precede the appendices and references. Do not link footnotes, appendices, or references in a hypertext document. These should be part of the main text. Chodorow, N. (1989) _Feminism and Psychoanalysis._ Cambridge: Polity Press. Smith, D.H. (1975) `Voluntary Action and Voluntary=20 Groups.' _Annual Review of Sociology,_ 1: 247-70. Reckman, B. (1979) `Carpentry: The Craft and Trade,' in A. Zimbalist (ed.) _Case Studies on the Labor Process._ New York: Monthly Review Press: 73-103. *note: Words surrounded by underscores (_italics_) are in italics.=20 Title Page=DC =DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF =C9=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD= =CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD= =CD=CD=CD=CD=BB =BA =BA =BA Title: =BA =BA Sub Title =BA =BA =BA =BA Name =BA =BA Department of Sociology =BA =BA University of Alberta =BA =BA Edmonton, Alberta. Canada =BA =BA T6H-2H4 =BA =BA =BA =BA Internet: Address =BA =BA Bitnet: Address =BA =BA =BA =BA KEYWORDS: =BA =BA =BA =C8=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD= =CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD=CD= =CD=CD=CD=CD=BC Tables=DC =DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF Number tables consecutively. Each table should have a=20 number, a heading, and labels. Tables should appear in the main text of the document immediately following their reference in the text. When constructing tables, please do so as simply as possible.=20 Do use tabs to align columns. Do not use spaces and do not use the special functions provided by word processing packages to=20 construct tables. =20 Table (Example)=DC =DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF Table 1 =20 =20 Japanese Auto Industry Wages by Firm Size, 1983 =20 (as a percentage of wages in the largest firms) =20 =20 Size of Number Number of =20 Firm of Firms Employees Wages =20 4-9 31,972 31,972 42% =20 10-19 27,697 27,697 52% =20 20-29 27,301 27,301 54% =20 30-49 645 25,261 59% =20 50-99 689 47,644 61% =20 100-199 384 52,364 68% =20 200-299 151 36,812 64% =20 300-499 125 47,975 81% =20 500-999 119 83,525 83% =20 1000+ 95 318,139 100% =20 =20 Source: Adapted from Smitka 1991: 101. =20 Peer Review Process=DC =DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF The role of the peer assessor is to tell the academic publisher what he should do his best to publish, and how to publish it in the best possible form. The assessment provides for both publisher and author the critical book review before publication, while there is still time to take account of the criticisms. There is no one else who can do this job for us and we cannot publish without this assistance. And we would not want it any other way: what makes scholarly publishing ultimately so satisfying is the consciousness of being a part of a community which is engaged in a common endeavour. Ms. Prudence Tracy Senior Humanities Editor University of Toronto Press The EJS incorporates an extended peer review process. Target=20 articles are first reviewed anonymously and recommendations are made to either 1) publish the paper as is, 2) publish pending revision, 3) request that the author revise and re-submit the paper, 4) or reject the paper. In the case of a request to revise and re-submit, the paper is treated as a new submission and enters the process at its beginning.=20 Recommendations take the form of a 200 word summary and evaluation outlining the main argument of the submission, its location in a current discourse or research tradition, and an evaluation of its suitability for publication. Recommendations are submitted to members of The EJS (board and other reviewers) for consideration. In most cases, the recommendations of the anonymous reviewers are followed. However, members of The EJS who disagree strongly with a recommendation may request that the process be opened for further consideration. In this event, other members of The EJS may argue in favor or against inclusion of the submission.=20 When reviewing articles, reviewers ask themselves the following questions. Is the research and analysis sound? Is the topic important (Is it too narrow? Does it lack vision?). Is it available in other forms (e.g., Ph.D. theses)? Reviewers are expected to reduce or eliminate sources of personal bias including, but not limited to, support for pet paradigms, support for currently fashionable paradigms, and methodological bias (e.g., support for quantitative over qualitative research or vice versa).=20 Upon being accepted for publication, the author may or may not provide The EJS with a list of commentators and their E-mail addresses. If the author chooses this option, the final paper is published along with the commentaries. The primary benefit of having the paper published with commentary is that this compresses=20 the academic discourse by providing an immediate and articulated response.=20 Copyright Notice=DC =DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF Authors of accepted manuscripts assign to The EJS the right=20 to publish and distribute their text electronically and to archive and make it permanently retrievable electronically. The EJS does not accept works that have been published elsewhere. It is the author's sole responsibility to ensure that copyright has not been violated. Credits=DC =DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF MSDOS, Windows, Word, and Microsoft are registered trademarks of Microsoft Corp. Mac and Macintosh are registered trademarks of Apple. WP51 and Word Perfect are registered trademarks of Word Perfect Corp.=20 EJS logo by Carl Cuneo. EJS programming by Mike Sosteric. Tutorial=DC =DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF The EJS breaks new ground in sociology by being the first scholarly journal to be published exclusively in electronic form. While in general conception, The EJS is similar to paper based publication, it implements a number of enhancements and innovations that are simply not possible when publishing in paper format. However, making use of these enhancements and innovations requires a certain level of facility with the new technologies. This tutorial is designed for the novice to intermediate user.=20 It is not intended as a full blown introduction to network technologies or the Internet but rather as a basic guide to some of the services available. It is up to the individual reader to discover more about the incredible potential of electronic publication.=20 Electronic Mail=DC =DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF Most individuals have had some experience with electronic mail. So, there is little need to go into great detail concerning its functioning here aside from detailing its application in the process of electronic publication. E-mail is the primary utility which The EJS utilizes to speed the production process. Instead of mailing submissions through the postal service, authors may (and are encouraged to)=20 send their submissions via E-mail. This eliminates the lengthy turnaround time that accumulates when submissions are mailed between author, editor, and reviewers.=20 Basic E-mail, however, is not always suited to transmitting files that contain binary data (such as word processed documents). While some mail utilities provide the ability to send binary data, others do not. To overcome this difficulty, programmers have developed a utility knows as uuencode/decode. The EJS also uses E-mail to enhance the formal organizational=20 structure of The EJS. A mailing list is maintained of all members of The EJS board. Board members are kept informed of EJS business and "meet" on an ongoing basis to discuss any issues that arise as a result of the publication process. The discussion process, and the decisions that arise, take very little time.=20 Finally, The EJS maintains a wide area mailing list. Individuals who are interested in following the development of electronic publication may subscribe to this list by sending a message to majordomo@coombs.anu.edu.au. In the body of the message, type subscribe electronic-sociology-l [your email address]. Members of the board regularly post updates concerning the progress of the journal or anything else that may be of interest to the general readership. Subscribers are also encouraged to communicate with members of the board any suggestions or criticisms they may have of The EJS.=20 Taken together, the functionality provided by E-mail greatly enhances the process of scholarly communication. Not only does it speed the process considerably, it facilitates wider community participation.=20 Encoding=DC =DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF Word processor documents embed control codes in the text in order to handle formatting, font, and pagination. These control codes cannot be transmitted via electronic mail. However, a Unix program called uuencode translates the binary information of the control codes into standard ASCII, thus enabling binary information to be transmitted via E-mail. The system used by the EJS supports the transmission of binary files. However, unless you are quite sure that your mailer supports binary file attachments, you should encode your data prior to sending.=20 Uuencode and decode are simple to use. To encode a file, simply type uuencode [file.name]. The file will be converted to an encoded copy with the extension .uue. This encoded version can then be submitted to the editorial board of The EJS.=20 When your submission is returned to you, it will most likely be shipped in encoded form. In order to decode this you simply type uudecode [file.name] =20 Dos and Mac versions of this program are available via=20 anonymous ftp from coombs.anu.edu.au in the directory /coombspapers/otherpapers/sociology-archives /electronic-sociology-journal File Transfer Protocol=DC =DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF FTP is the protocol used by Internet sites to enable binary and text file transmission between different platforms. It is available on main frame and Unix boxes with direct connections to the Internet. FTP may be invoked by typing ftp [remote.system.address]. Once connected to the remote computer system, a username and password will be requested. At the username prompt type anonymous. At the password prompt type YOUR@email.address. Once logged on, you may search the remote computer for files. of interest. The commands for searching the remote system are ls, dir, and cd. Both ls and dir are directory commands. Typing ls provides a basic listing of the remote directories contents. You may type ls -l for a listing of directory contents that includes the size of the files. Type=20 cd [directory name] to change directories. You may type=20 cd .. to go back one level in the directory hierarchy. Note=20 the space between the cd command and the two periods. It is required.=20 Normally, the remote administrator provides README and INDEX files of material available. These are usually found in the /pub directory. These may be retrieved and read on your local system. Files may be retrieved by issuing the get or mget command. If you are retrieving a binary file (for example, .exe or .zip) you must issue the binary command prior to retrieving the files. To download text files, issue the ascii command=20 prior to retrieving the files. Once the files are on your system, they may be downloaded to your home or office computer by using the Kermit program.=20 Hypertext=DC =DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF For most people, electronic publication means poorly formatted and hard to read documents printed out on single sheet paper without proper indexing or tables of contents. The bundle of loose leaf paper produced by this manner of publishing is unwieldy, difficult to sort through, and impossible to organize in and efficient and aesthetic manner. The EJS changes this scenario by publishing in hypertext. This eliminates the problems associated with low-tech electronic publication by fully exploiting the available technology.=20 Hypertext documents are created with hypertext engines. These engines allow the author to create non-linear text. Links can be embedded in the text and the reader can jump to topics anywhere in the document. Because the document is part of a larger data-base structure, hypertext engines allow for the creation of tables of contents, cumulative indexes, and word and topic searches.=20 Most individuals have had experience with hypertext. If you use a Macintosh or Dos machine with Windows, you have read a hypertext document whenever you have called up the help utility for information about a program.=20 The EJS is archived at the University of Alberta at ftp.srv.ualberta.ca in the directory /pub/docs/e-journal.=20 World Wide Web=DC =DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF The World Wide Web (WWW) is a hypertext document that spans the entire world. Individual authors or publishers create hypertext documents. These documents may contain links to other documents archived on machines half way across the world.=20 In this manner, a seamless and global data base/document is created. While the Web is a fairly recent development, new document links are added to it everyday. It is currently possible to browse real estate listing, purchase electronic books, browse on-line libraries, retrieve government documents, etc.=20 When publishing on the WWW, there is no need to wait until sufficient material has accumulated for an entire issue of The EJS. Accepted manuscripts will be published as soon as they have passed the review process. Thus, instead of having to wait for an entire issue to be composed, authors and readers can share the benefits of continuous publication by simply accessing the home page of The EJS periodically to check for new articles.=20 This ability to add documents as they become available brings to a culmination the potential of electronic publication. Having already virtually eliminated the snail mail bottleneck, The EJS obliterates the last manacle of paper publication leaving a scholarly journal that extends far beyond the traditional limits of paper publication.=20 See the Mosaic Installation Guide for instructions of how to set up a WWW browser.=20 Installation Guide (Mosaic)=DC =DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF= =DF=DF=DF Mosiac is one of several browsers which interface=20 with a wide variety of electronic resources scattered around the world. This collection of data is usually called the World Wide Web (a.k.a. WWW and W3). With Mosaic, it is possible to retrieve and display a variety of document formats including hypertext, plain text and postscript. Mosaic also displays graphics and movies, plays sound files, and interfaces with search software such as archie and veronica. Finally, Mosaic is able to access news services and ftp sites.=20 Note: The installation of Mosaic can be a complicated procedure. Should you experience difficulties, contact your local computing services department for assistance. =20 WINDOWS INSTALLATION PROCEDURES For the purposes of this installation guide, it is assumed that the reader has a working knowledge of Windows and is able to transfer files using ftp.=20 1) Pkunzip=20 Most of the mosaic and supporting program files on the ftp server are in .zip (compressed format). If you do not have Pkunzip, retrieve a copy of pkz204g.exe and place it in an empty directory.=20 Once you have pkz204g.exe, start it either from the Windows file manager or in a dos window. It will expand into a full set of programs. Move these to another directory and copy back pkunzip.exe to your working directory (i.e., a directory that is included in your path statement).=20 To use Pkunzip, type at the dos prompt cd\xxxx where xxxx is the directory name containing the files that need unzipping. Type pkunzip [file.nam].=20 2) Windows upgrade If you are running Windows 3.1, retrieve a copy of win32ext.zip. Unzip and move the resulting files to a suitable directory.=20 (e.g., \win32s) Using the Windows file manager, start the program setup.exe and follow the directions given. To free up space on your hard drive the file win32ext.zip can be deleted after you unzip it.=20 3) Mosaic Install Retrieve a copy of the Windows socket, twsk10a.zip. It is available at bode.ee.ualberta.ca in the directory /pub/dos/win3/winsock/ You need this file to enable slip connections on your home system. Retrieve wmos20a2.zip and unzip it. Move the resulting files to a directory named \mosaic. You can delete the .zip file if you wish. Retrieve the mosaic.ini file, replacing the one which you unzipped. Copy mosaic.ini to your Windows directory. This file is pre-configured=20 for a standard implementation at the University of Alberta so you will need to make a couple of adjustments. See the notes on tailoring Mosaic, below.=20 4) Ghostscript Install=20 Retrieve the following files: gs261exe.zip, gs260fnt.zip,=20 gs26wgui.zip, vbrun200.dll, and threed.vbx. Unzip the files and move=20 the results to a directory named \ghost. Vbrun200.dll and=20 threed.vbx must be moved to the same directory. Delete the .zip=20 files.=20 5) LView Install Retrieve lview31.zip and unzip. Move the results to \lview.=20 6) Mpeg install Retrieve mpegw32c.zip and unzip. Move the results to \mpeg 7) Wham Install Retrieve wham131.zip and unzip. Move the results to \wham. 8) Mosaic Icon You can now start Mosaic from the file manager. To start from an icon, use the program manager file menu to add a new program. The working= =20 directory should be set to \mosaic.=20 Lview, Mpeg, Ghostview and Wham can all be added as new programs=20 to Windows using the program manager facilities. All are fairly simple except for Ghostscript which has several .exe files. The one to add is gs26wgui.exe.=20 You now have a working set for mosaic.=20 TAILORING MOSAIC =20 The manner in which Mosaic looks and acts is controlled by=20 the file mosaic.ini which you placed in the Windows directory.=20 Before changing anything, take the time to read the .wri and .txt files which came with the programs. Two lines will definitely need tailoring for your personal needs. Your email address must be included, and the path to your telnet program must be entered. Mosaic will start without these modifications but will not be fully functional. Read the documentation with mosaic before changing anything.=20 For Ghostscript read the documentation which came with the file=20 gs26wgui.zip.=20 Copyright Statement=DC =DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF=DF The EJS is an academic publication. Its sole purpose is the dissemination of knowledge to as wide an audience as possible.=20 Individuals may contribute donations to support publication in the form of cheques made payable to the Electronic Journal of Sociology. Cheques may be sent c/o The Electronic Journal of Sociology, University of Alberta. Edmonton. Canada. T6G-2H4. Academic and commercial institutions may make arrangements to=20 provide access to the EJS. The fee for institutional use, which gives the institution the right to make as many copies of the EJS as they wish provided that they do not allow other libraries to access the EJS without a subscription, is $30.00 Canadian per year.=20 Copies of this journal or articles in this journal may be distributed for research or educational purposes free of charge and without permission. For all other uses, permission must be granted by the publisher.=20 From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Jun 21 21:45:00 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 21 Jun 1994 21:37:18 -0700 for socgrad-list Tue, 21 Jun 1994 21:37:15 -0700 for Date: Tue, 21 Jun 1994 21:36:43 -0700 (PDT) From: Jiannbin Lee Shiao Subject: Grades....finale? To: Sociology Graduate Student List Just to beat the grading horse to death.... :) John Maurer on Grading: > John Maurer: What I meant by "in a sense..." was that it seemed that you were > stating that grades don't equal what was learned but that they represent what > was learned. I was merely stating that these are one in the same. I'm of the > opinion that grades are quickly losing any representative value of "what is > learned" , therefore why do we feel we must maintain a grading system? > John Maurer: The point I am trying to get across here is that since grades > are so inflated and nonrepresentative of the package of knowledge an applicant > has, prospective employers will not use a students grades (at least with not > as much fervor) to determined their employability. Since you can't purchase > a job with grades (once again, because they are not a reliable measure of > the applicant's capabilities) then, what is the purpose of keeping a grading > system? > John Maurer: Yes! Being self assured and having a good self esteem because > of the confidence in your own intelligence makes you very employable (if that > is the main purpose of seeking a higher education). You can create your > own job, instead of basing your education on some bogus report of future > high paying, highly employable, career fields. > John Maurer:" Regardless of what they received" is the key point here. > Grades are only looked at (that is When they're looked at) because they > exist, even though the actual grade received is Regardless of the student's > effort and comprehension. John, I feel like we're talking past each other. I also don't think we disagree that much. :) To sum up my 0.02, schooling is both for obtaining greater social status and for learning. Any system of grading performs the stratification function regardless of how accurately it gauges the actual performance of the students. Even if it did, the correspondence between academic performance and job skills or trainability would also need to be tight. But again, it need not be in order to provide some people with greater status (however "undeserved") in social life. Likewise, learning exists in relation to grades but is not exhausted by them. Despite the imperfections in most any grading system, I see grades as inextricable from schooling. On the most basic level, teaching and learning is impossible without some way of recognizing mastery of the subject matter. Get rid of assessment, and you get rid of learning. On a more pragmatic level, everyone else is giving grades, so unless your students are already very privileged like Stanford or Brown students, you would hurt your students by not giving grades or only giving "Pass". Of course, you could give all of your students A's, but that's not fair to students who have other TAs. Of course, this point is moot if you think the system is intrinsically unfair. I think our discussion boils down to one question: Do we improve grading or do we junk it entirely? > I just feel either grades should have a high correlation to what was learned > or should be eliminated. Exactly. I don't think we're disagreeing that much. I *think* that John is arguing to junk it all, and that I'm arguing that eliminating grading is pedagogically impossible on the grand level as well as impractical and unfair on the local level. We also disagree on whether attendance should count as part of the grade devoted to participation in discussion section (the beginning discussion). John, am I correct that you felt that No Grading would have been preferable to the way I had graded the performance of that student who later harassed me in the gym? If so, all I can say is "oh, well" cause we just seem to have an irreconcilable difference about "attendance". You don't have to answer this post, but I just didn't want you to think I was blowing off your post. tha j'ster From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Jun 22 15:43:51 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 22 Jun 1994 15:40:56 -0700 for socgrad-list Wed, 22 Jun 1994 15:40:54 -0700 for From: XGWALTERS@ccvax.fullerton.edu Date: 22 Jun 1994 15:38:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: media circus To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU it is my considered opinion that every bit of news media is a circus. is all news related to o.j. simpson? you would think so by viewing the news out here in southern cal. what is it about the media that they harangue you with stories like this to death. are people in society that hungry for the minutest(sp) detail. the news media is a joke. greg. From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Jun 22 16:06:55 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 22 Jun 1994 16:05:57 -0700 for socgrad-list Wed, 22 Jun 1994 16:05:54 -0700 for Date: Wed, 22 Jun 94 19:03:38 EDT From: Alan To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU What I don't like about the O.J. coverage, besides originally being from Buffal o, is since when do Hard Copy and Inside Edition constitute news sources to be cited by newspapers? From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Jun 22 16:44:00 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 22 Jun 1994 16:42:36 -0700 for socgrad-list Wed, 22 Jun 1994 16:42:32 -0700 for Date: Wed, 22 Jun 94 19:41 EDT From: "I don't think this will reduce confusion" Subject: media circus/Greek Tragedy To: XGWALTERS@ccvax.fullerton.edu -- 22 Jun 1994 15:38:16 -0800 (PST) >it is my considered opinion that every bit of news media is a circus. >is all news related to o.j. simpson? you would think so by viewing the >news out here in southern cal. what is it about the media that they >harangue you with stories like this to death. are people in society >that hungry for the minutest(sp) detail. >the news media is a joke. This seems to be a relatively common feeling among by colleagues. I find it disappointing and to some extent incomprehesible. Couldn't you feel it? Couldn't you just sense that the Simpson chase will go down as a defining moment in the American psyche? Didn't you feel that everyone who was awake and conscious was watching this surreal parade of police cars following a plain Bronco carrying the fallen shell of an American God? My wife did. I did, perhaps in spite of my 'education' as a sociologist. This was big people. Very big. Wake up! Jetaway Dave >greg. From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Jun 22 17:13:02 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 22 Jun 1994 17:11:24 -0700 for socgrad-list Wed, 22 Jun 1994 17:11:22 -0700 for Date: Wed, 22 Jun 1994 18:11:00 -0600 (MDT) From: rebel alm aitchison Subject: Re: media circus To: XGWALTERS@ccvax.fullerton.edu I think it has to do with two things: one is heroes, there is a surfeit of them in this society, and when one falls, it shatters what little confidence we all have in heroes in general. We could be cynical about heroes but I think it's a natural human trait to want to have heroes to look up to and set standards for us. OJ has been a hero to many. The other thing is that gossip and rumor fill a need--the media has just become a new method for transmission of rumor and gossip--if you consider it a "news" source, yes, you will be disappointed. But look at it as a way of transmitting rumor and gossip. And what is rumor and gossip? Neither one contain "facts" but they are a way we can find out the norms of our society. Whether a story is "true" or not is not as important to us as finding out how certain actions are regarded by our fellow citizens--in that way we find out guidelines for behavior and what our neighbors' attitudes are toward certain behaviors. Rumor and gossip are society's methods for spreading norms. What is odd to me is that (in my observation of rumor/gossip) people tend to consider what they hear on rumor lines as "facts" and what they read in newspapers as "gossip", i.e. they are less likely to believe the "facts" they get through the media than they are to believe what they hear about somebody on a rumor line. I've seen graduate students in sociology here actually makes decisions about what professor to take classes from on no more data than rumor line, and not on what the professor's training and experience is or his/her syllabus or what they might actually learn. On 22 Jun 1994 XGWALTERS@ccvax.fullerton.edu wrote: > it is my considered opinion that every bit of news media is a circus. > > is all news related to o.j. simpson? you would think so by viewing the > news out here in southern cal. what is it about the media that they > harangue you with stories like this to death. are people in society > that hungry for the minutest(sp) detail. > the news media is a joke. > > greg. > From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Jun 22 18:02:23 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 22 Jun 1994 18:00:40 -0700 for socgrad-list Wed, 22 Jun 1994 18:00:37 -0700 for From: tombrown@cats.ucsc.edu Date: Wed, 22 Jun 1994 18:00:04 -0700 To: rpalm@unm.edu, XGWALTERS@ccvax.fullerton.edu Subject: Re: media circus What is odd to me is that (in my observation of rumor/gossip) people tend to consider what they hear on rumor lines as "facts" and what they read in newspapers as "gossip", i.e. they are less likely to believe the "facts" they get through the media than they are to believe what they hear about somebody on a rumor line. I've seen graduate students in sociology here actually makes decisions about what professor to take classes from on no more data than rumor line, and not on what the professor's training and experience is or his/her syllabus or what they might actually learn. ===================================================== This doesn't strike me as irrational. "Official" sources are constructed by individuals every bit as biased as anyone else. Personally, I would also rather base my decisions on what course to take upon personal recommendations than upon official sources. Fortunately, however, one does not have to choose one or the other--we can take it all in before deciding. From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Jun 22 19:05:13 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 22 Jun 1994 19:04:06 -0700 for socgrad-list Wed, 22 Jun 1994 19:04:05 -0700 for From: estrayer@cats.ucsc.edu Date: Wed, 22 Jun 1994 19:03:30 -0700 To: rpalm@unm.edu, tombrown@cats.ucsc.edu, XGWALTERS@ccvax.fullerton.edu Subject: Re: media circus From tombrown@cats.ucsc.edu Wed Jun 22 18:00:04 1994 Cc: socgrad@UCSD.EDU What is odd to me is that (in my observation of rumor/gossip) people tend to consider what they hear on rumor lines as "facts" and what they read in newspapers as "gossip", i.e. they are less likely to believe the "facts" they get through the media than they are to believe what they hear about somebody on a rumor line. I've seen graduate students in sociology here actually makes decisions about what professor to take classes from on no more data than rumor line, and not on what the professor's training and experience is or his/her syllabus or what they might actually learn. ===================================================== This doesn't strike me as irrational. "Official" sources are constructed by individuals every bit as biased as anyone else. Personally, I would also rather base my decisions on what course to take upon personal recommendations than upon official sources. Fortunately, however, one does not have to choose one or the other--we can take it all in before deciding. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I agree regarding the credibility issue as well. The exception would be rumors out of context. So I think I would be likely to trust one of you regarding the abilities of a professor to "communicat," or "teach," more than I would a syllabus or list of credentials. (Of course, the best idea is talking to the prof -- if you can find her/him!) But in the OJ thing, we are talking real rumors, not personal experience per se. Somebody tells somebody else who tells... Like the game where you sit several people around a table and someone writes down a short message and it is whispered all around the room. It generally comes back quite distorted. RE the media being a circus, yup, it's carnival time! It was a mesmerizing moment, to say the least. It was almost hypnotic! I got into it by chance, and couldn't let go for a long time. When the car was at the house and it was getting darker and the newscasters began getting desperate for something to say I finally turned it off. I figured something dramatic would happen, or it wouldn't. But for a while, I was THERE. I was not HERE. Weird. THe carnival concept is interesting. People flocked from all around to be as near the house as they could. They began partying. I don't think that "they" were celebrating anything in particular, nor do I think that there was a great deal of genuine bonding either. I believe that an incident like this serves to interrupt the usual, the boring, the day-to-day, and as a thing of spontanaety, "becomes" a carnival. The only really funny part to this sad tale is how the kettle black," one woman announcer said. A poor choice of words perhaps, but I think meant well. So now the press can perform like the ultimate Rocky Movie: by putting on some white trunks and beating themselves to a pulp! This is the real weird part. Like reality TV, I am reminded time and again a scene from the old SF flick THX-1138 where Robert Duval chooses of several holo-channels to watch a repeated iimage of a robot policeman beating a human for some unknown social infraction. Man.... it's all here now! Enough. Naturally I am curious if a) OJ really is guilty, and b)if so, then why, and conversely, if not, then why? c) How much attention will be payed to the idea of societies influence on the individual as opposed to simply "blaming the victim," even when the victim is guilty of a henious crime. I recently read an exerpt in the SJ Mercury on the Gary GIllman story written by a surviving brother. Man, we just keep doing it to each other...... Peace! Eric ======================================================================== Eric Strayer |"All that is solid melts into air" | estrayer@cats.ucsc.edu | *** Marx | | "Please accpet my resignation, I don't | student * beggar * dilettante| I don't want to belong to a club that | DoD#1120 Honda GB500| would accept me as a member" Marx | ======================================================================== From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Jun 22 20:43:41 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 22 Jun 1994 20:42:37 -0700 for socgrad-list Wed, 22 Jun 1994 20:42:36 -0700 for From: XCHUFF@ccvax.fullerton.edu Date: 22 Jun 1994 20:38:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: The Media Circus To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU I just had an interesting story/observation to add to the whole OJ media circus storyline... I just spent last weekend camping at the beach and it was amazing to see everyone huddled aroud their cars listening to the "big chase". The whole visual media is a joke, but the humor is compounded when people are "watching" a car chase for hours on end via the radio. Here were people supposedly getting away from it all, glued to their stereos at the beach. Isn't it interesting how the general public seems to immediatly assume that OJ is guilty based on media rumors and leaks that are being proven false at an alarming rate all of the sudden? What ever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? It seems the media has taken over as judge and jury. It sure will make a great movie or book though... -TODD- From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Jun 22 21:03:24 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 22 Jun 1994 21:02:25 -0700 for socgrad-list Wed, 22 Jun 1994 21:02:24 -0700 for From: estrayer@cats.ucsc.edu Date: Wed, 22 Jun 1994 21:02:21 -0700 To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: Re: The Media Circus From XCHUFF@ccvax.fullerton.edu Wed Jun 22 21:38:10 1994 Subject: The Media Circus I just had an interesting story/observation to add to the whole OJ media circus storyline... I just spent last weekend camping at the beach and it was amazing to see everyone huddled aroud their cars listening to the "big chase". The whole visual media is a joke, but the humor is compounded when people are "watching" a car chase for hours on end via the radio. Here were people supposedly getting away from it all, glued to their stereos at the beach. Isn't it interesting how the general public seems to immediatly assume that OJ is guilty based on media rumors and leaks that are being proven false at an alarming rate all of the sudden? What ever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? It seems the media has taken over as judge and jury. It sure will make a great movie or book though... -TODD- ================== The media as the jury. Great movie? Hmmmmmmmm. If this isn't the PM nightmare or what!? Odd how we have shows like COPS and a situation like the OJ tragedy, all displayed throughout the country for "viewers like you" to watch, identify with (with authority in the case of COPS) but when it comes to public punishment, where someone is actually tried and convicted (and maybe even guilty), everthing becomes suddenly "private." I'm no advocate of public punishment (at least not yet!), but if the accusation and trial is public, it seems that the punishment should be too. Neither should be hidden. Gross thought, I know, but one worth pondering. There was an historical article recently about old Santa Cruz, or San Jose, where public punishment was the only kind available because there were no jails (a problem CA faces today -- or doesn't face today, depending upon your viewpoint). I suspect that public punishment is probably more effectual than hidden punishment. But punishment in general doesn't seem to be the solution to crime anyway. It's more complex, and y'all are soicologists so no point in preaching to the choir! I suppose that public punishment that actually involved the public, deeply, and responsibly, might be a good idea. But only in that last tiny gap before utopia. Bummer. eric ======================================================================== Eric Strayer |"All that is solid melts into air" | estrayer@cats.ucsc.edu | *** Marx | | "Please accpet my resignation, I don't | student * beggar * dilettante| I don't want to belong to a club that | DoD#1120 Honda GB500| would accept me as a member" Marx | ======================================================================== From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Jun 22 23:29:08 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 22 Jun 1994 23:24:58 -0700 for socgrad-list Wed, 22 Jun 1994 23:24:56 -0700 for Date: Thu, 23 Jun 1994 01:16:02 -0500 (CDT) From: Andrew Regan Subject: Re: The Media Circus To: estrayer@cats.ucsc.edu I found this whole O.J. thing an extremely sad commentary on our American society. What really interests me about this whole thing is our definition of what a hero is in our society. All OJ really did was carry a football efficiently. Talk well, and look nice. What did he really do for our society? A hero to me is all the soldiers from WW II who helped us maintain our "so called freedoms." Or simply those who have stood by their beliefs so that we all may have our own beliefs. On another tangent, I think it will be interesting to see how all the conservative death penalty supporters turn 180 degrees and become liberals on the death penalty issue, in regards to this whole ordeal. I have always loved OJ, but he really shouldn't be treated differently than any other tax paying amercian citizen. My two cents worth... Drew From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Jun 23 06:08:43 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 23 Jun 1994 06:07:36 -0700 for socgrad-list Thu, 23 Jun 1994 06:07:33 -0700 for Date: Thu, 23 Jun 94 09:06 EDT From: "I don't think this will reduce confusion" Subject: Re: media circus/Greek Tragedy To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU >> >the news media is a joke. >> >> This seems to be a relatively common feeling among by colleagues. I find >it >> disappointing and to some extent incomprehesible. >> >> Couldn't you feel it? Couldn't you just sense that the Simpson chase will o >g >> down as a defining moment in the American psyche? Didn't you feel that >> everyone who was awake and conscious was watching this surreal parade of > police >> cars following a plain Bronco carrying the fallen shell of an American God? >> My wife did. I did, perhaps in spite of my 'education' as a sociologist. >> >> This was big people. >> >> Very big. >> >> Wake up! >> >> Jetaway Dave >> >greg. >> >But why, Dave? (Forgive my tone of familiarity.) Isn't the fallen hero bit >just shallow sensationalism? No, I don't think so. Amy Fisher and Joey Buttafusco, yes. The Bobbits, yes. O.J. Simpson, no. Througout recorded time the masses and the elite have been moved and affected by both fictional and real classical tragedy. I don't pretend to understand why we (in the collective sense) care so deeply about individuals who occupy the upper reaches of society and our myths when in reality 'we' and they have very little in common. But it happens. The Juice personified the Horatio Alger myth. Born into difficult circumstances, he overcame them, not just with physical gifts (hell, he had rickets as a child) but with force of will and personality. Unlike many sport stars he parlyed his moment in the athletic sun into being a fixture on the American media, entertainment, and social scene. Even more amazingly, he did despite inspite of the fact that he is a black male in America. Then, amazingly and suddenly, through hubris, through a dark streak in his personality he is brought down. O.j.'s story is of classic dimensions. The fact that the chase and capture was captured live and broadcast to the nation is more a matter of technological capabilities and less the creation of a 'media circus.' In ancient Greece the story would be told in poem. In the middle ages, scultped and painted in public and private spaces. In the 19th century, newspapers and other printed material. Earlier this century, on radio. >Isn't the real issue what has been emphasized more recently: that spousal >abuse is committed by otherwise nice people at times, and that >battered women have a very difficult time obtaining adequate protection >or counseling before it's too late? Where the hero part comes in, I >would suggest, is in that it takes a baby-faced, rags-to-riches >idol from our youth, who eventually shows the more sinister side of >his humanity, to call the nation's attention to the epidemic of domestic >violence. Isn't this what we need to wake up to? And, finally, I would I would not be so bold as to say that the 'real' issue is this or that. The Simpson drama has the potential to bring forth a plurality of issues, some of which may or may not be realized. If it starts and continues a national discussion of spousal violence, good. On the death penalty, good. On celebrity worship, good. On the tension between the public's right to 'know' and privacy, good. And I'm sure there are more. >hypothesize that this is a side of the story we are only ready to hear >now, after nearly two decades of consciousness-raising by those vocal >few determined to do for the issue of family violence what has only >recently been done for the seriousness of the AIDS crisis and the >hypocrisy of the tabacco industry--bring it to the public's attention. >Evidently, it took, in this case, an eerie 75-minute ride in a Bronco >to accomplish this. in the press, not here yet On the domestic violence issue. !!! What scares me so far is that most of the discussion has focused on the laughably light, and it was, legal sanctions imposed on Simpson after pleading guilty to battering. The implication is that had O.J. been imprisoned for a period of time, he would have understood the seriousness of his offense, that spousal battering is not 'OK.' Also, it appears as if the police, who were called to the Simpson household at least 1 other time (I've heard 8, but so far there is only a confirmation of 1) took no action. Again, the implication is that they should have done something, in this case arrested Simpson. As little as four months ago, I would have agreed. However after recently finishing 'Policing Domestic Violence' by Lawrence W. Sherman, I am not so sure. Sherman, for you non-crimin folk designed the Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment, where the police response to domestic violence cases was randomly assigned between talking to the man (very few cases of the woman doing the battering), ordering him out of the house for 8 hours, and arrest. In short, the experiment indicated that arrest was the best police responce. The results of this experiment led to mandatory arrest laws in 15 states and many cities. This may not have been wise. To briefly summarize 'Policing Domestic Violence,' the best or optimal legal response is contextually based and we don't exactly have a handle on what factors should lead to what responce . 'Policing Domestic Violence' reports on follow up studies in six other cities. In some cases mandatory arrest reduces both short and long term risk to the woman. In others, it decreases short term, but increases long term risk. Most disturbing to me, it seems class - linked. Among the middle class, arrest has a clear detterent effect. Among the lower classes, espcially among the unemployed, arrest appears to increase both short and long term risk to women. Because most reported cases, and there is no reason to suspect, unreported cases, occur within the lower, predominatly minority, lower classes, the net effect of mandatory arrest laws may well be to _increase_ domestic violence, providing some protection to middle and upper class (whites) while creating an even worse situation among the lower classes. As is this case with most law enforcement 'problems,' the solutions lie not primarily within the realm of legal responces, but in the broader sphere of social and economic policy. Jetaway Dave From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Jun 23 06:48:18 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 23 Jun 1994 06:47:19 -0700 for socgrad-list Thu, 23 Jun 1994 06:47:17 -0700 for Date: Thu, 23 Jun 94 09:23:23 EDT From: Steve Harvey Subject: sensationalism v. the sanitization of life To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU I'm not loaded with opinions on this OJ thing. I was watching the "chase" too, and thought both "How bizarre!" (which means it was a proper news event), and "90 minutes of watching a white Bronco roll down a California freeway, hoping that something is going to happen, may be a bit over the top." What strikes me in the conversation is the eagerness on the part of some to debunk the "value" of human drama. This has always worried me about many (not all) of the social activists I've met in my life, and about many of the sociologists I know. The concerns are often defined in the negative, that is, *overcoming* injustice, inequality, racism, sexism, etc., and this creates a tendency toward sanitization of life, a constant attempt to "scrub life clean" of its odious elements. In many ways, it's another example of Weber's "iron cage," for in each instance it is rational to create new constraints on human expression and action to address these problems, but the logical end result is a Huxlian "brave new world." I'm not suggesting that racism, sexism, etc, aren't problems to be addressed, but that we need to remember that life is a messy business, and the ultimate goal is to continually create more opportunities for more people to enjoy of the pleasurable possibilities it has to offer. The very reason for addressing such problems is to do just that, but reframing it in these positive terms helps us to "keep our eye on the ball," and not always want to cleanse life of, well, life. So, the OJ saga was sensationalized. And, in a very real sense of human drama, it was *sensational* to begin with. Its value isn't just the sparking of a dialogue which will help us to rid the world of an evil (spousal abuse), but also the enactment of a human drama which moves people and invokes their wonder. -steve From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Jun 23 07:25:02 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 23 Jun 1994 07:24:02 -0700 for socgrad-list Thu, 23 Jun 1994 07:24:01 -0700 for From: S-ENDER@bss1.umd.edu Thu, 23 Jun 94 10:23:56 +1100 Organization: University of Maryland,College Park To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Thu, 23 Jun 1994 10:23:45 EDT Subject: the media circ us >What is odd to me is that (in my observation of rumor/gossip) people >tend to consider what they hear on rumor lines as "facts" and what >they read in newspapers as "gossip", i.e. they are less likely to >believe the "facts" they get through the media than they are to >believe what they hear about somebody on a rumor line. tomatsu shibutani defined extemporanous rumors as information excepted as fact during times of extreme social control when traditional and diversified media are supplanted by limited and auxillary media channels...the o.j. case shows me that even with "freedom" of the press and hundreds of channels of information we ironically opt for confining and cramming ourselves into a single, electronic cage...but for the record, i too was fixed on that bronco-- it was live and it was unpredictable and the symbolism was powerful...here we had o.j. as an entertainment, outlaw, icon who ran from the confines of poverty, ran for america when he played college football, ran for a pro team called the buffalo bills, ran in the airports for hertz (even his mother ran in the hertz commercial) and was now running west, toward a california sunset on a white bronco with guns drawn accompanied by his faithful companion--a.c.-- pursued by a posey of cavalry (infamous for their brutality against black men)...it doesn't get much more american than this... morten "wondering-where-all-the-soccer-hooligans-have-gone?" ender From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Jun 23 07:44:30 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 23 Jun 1994 07:43:06 -0700 for socgrad-list Thu, 23 Jun 1994 07:43:04 -0700 for Date: Thu, 23 Jun 1994 08:41:56 -0600 (MDT) From: rebel alm aitchison Subject: Re: media circus To: tombrown@cats.ucsc.edu I also would make a decision based on "personal recommendation", but Tom, I am not talking about personal recommendation here, I am talking about RUMOR LINE. I do not consider them the same thing at all. On a rumor line, what started out as a personal recommendation takes on a life of its own and loses whatever the original recommendation may have been. I have given personal recommendations to people who have asked, and it's based, yes, on my personal experience, but it's not based on what I've heard on the rumor line, and if I relay what I hear on a rumor line, I always clarify it as such. "I heard a rumor that so-and-so teaches such-and-sch a way, but my personal experience is this-and such". The grad students I've observed make their decisions based on rumor line, NOT personal recommendation. And I've even seen a couple of them, recently an incident took place lack semester that caused a shift in dept policy and a few students are making a course choice based on rumors about that professor, not any personal experience OR personal recommendation. Rebel, UNM Dept of Soc, and cat lover On Wed, 22 Jun 1994 tombrown@cats.ucsc.edu wrote: > What is odd to me is that (in my observation of rumor/gossip) people tend > to consider what they hear on rumor lines as "facts" and what they read > in newspapers as "gossip", i.e. they are less likely to believe the > "facts" they get through the media than they are to believe what they > hear about somebody on a rumor line. I've seen graduate students in > sociology here actually makes decisions about what professor to take > classes from on no more data than rumor line, and not on what the > professor's training and experience is or his/her syllabus or what they > might actually learn. > ===================================================== > > This doesn't strike me as irrational. "Official" sources > are constructed by individuals every bit as biased as > anyone else. > > Personally, I would also rather base my decisions on > what course to take upon personal recommendations > than upon official sources. Fortunately, however, > one does not have to choose one or the other--we > can take it all in before deciding. > > From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Jun 23 08:35:46 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 23 Jun 1994 08:34:22 -0700 for socgrad-list Thu, 23 Jun 1994 08:34:21 -0700 for Date: Thu, 23 Jun 1994 08:34:09 -0700 (PDT) From: Jill Thomas Subject: Re: media circus To: estrayer@cats.ucsc.edu socgrad@UCSD.EDU Blame the victim? Is O.J. the victim? What about Nicole? What about Goldman? What about those children? What about the countless women in this country who are battered and receive little if any help? What about the preference given to rich/famous convicts (O.J. WAS convicted of battery, given probation and allowed to receive his "counseling" over the phone)? Who benefitted from this? If he did kill Nicole, the system let her down horribly. I'm am saddened by the lack of focus on battery and wife/woman killing as a pattern in this and other patriarchal societies. As we treat these cases as anomolies we lose our power to see them and deal with them systematically. We forfeit our ability to unite. We have focussed more on O.J.'s treatment by the press than on the substantive issue involved. By the way, how come Tanya Harding--also "convicted" by the media before the courts (for the comparatively inocuous crime of conspiracy to injure rather than a double homicide)--wasn't afforded this same sympathy? Seems to me the patriarchal, woman-hating media had a field day crucifying her and too few of us even noticed. I am sick to death of poor O.J. He's a man in a male-biased legal system. He's wealthy and powerful in a society that adores wealth and power. If he didn't kill Nicole, I'm sure he'll have ample, perhaps excessive, opportunity to prove that. If he did, count on the ability of his resources to mitigate the consequences. artemis From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Jun 23 08:48:33 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 23 Jun 1994 08:47:29 -0700 for socgrad-list Thu, 23 Jun 1994 08:47:27 -0700 for by Isis.MsState.Edu (8.6.8.1/6.0c-FWP); Date: Thu, 23 Jun 1994 10:47:19 -0500 (CDT) From: "Neil R. White" Subject: Sociology of Sport- Soccer To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Disclaimer There was already a lengthy discussion concerning the validity of discussing the sociology of sport on Socgrad (Around the time of the Florida State vs. Notre Dame football game). Therefore, I don't want any posts on whether or not a sociological discussion of sports is a relevant topic to this network to come from this post. __________________________________________________________________________ I could barely stay in my seat while watching team U.S.A. win possibly its greatest soccer match ever. I wanted to get a team jersey and a pseudo punk haircut for team identity. I think that this match may be looked at in the future as a turning point for the sport of soccer in America. There are already around eighteen million American kids playing the sport today and I believe that its future in America is great. Basketball is my sport of choice, for both study and entertainment, but watching the Knicks vs. Houston game felt like a let down after World Cup soccer. I am curious how other people (especially non-Americans) think the sport of soccer will progress in America, and how important the win over Colombia (a pre tournament favorite) was in this progression. I felt that the announcers (saw the game on ESPN) for the game weren't quite up to par. I've seen some of the other matches and feel that there are better announcers out there than the two who were picked for this game. Especially the former U.S. coach (forget his name, but he has a British accent and announced the Ireland vs. Germany upset). It seems that he would have been a better choice for obvious reasons. O.K. this may sound nit-picky, but we need something more than the U.S.A. chant. It seems that all of the other teams have these great songs that bring the fans together, and our national anthem just ain't gonna cut it. Any suggestions? Neil R. White From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Jun 23 08:50:05 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 23 Jun 1994 08:48:56 -0700 for socgrad-list Thu, 23 Jun 1994 08:48:54 -0700 for From: S-ENDER@bss1.umd.edu Thu, 23 Jun 94 11:48:50 +1100 Organization: University of Maryland,College Park To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Thu, 23 Jun 1994 11:48:37 EDT Subject: Re: media continue to circ us >I am sick to death of poor O.J. He's a man in a male-biased legal >system. artemis, i don't think mike tyson would agree with you...morten From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Jun 23 09:07:59 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 23 Jun 1994 09:06:56 -0700 for socgrad-list Thu, 23 Jun 1994 09:06:55 -0700 for Date: Thu, 23 Jun 1994 09:06:50 -0700 (PDT) From: Jill Thomas Subject: Re: media continue to circ us To: S-ENDER@bss1.umd.edu On Thu, 23 Jun 1994 S-ENDER@bss1.umd.edu wrote: > > >I am sick to death of poor O.J. He's a man in a male-biased legal > >system. > > artemis, > > i don't think mike tyson would agree with you...morten > Exceptions don't consitute rules, and Tyson too was given ample opportunity to acquit himself. He was guilty. However, the Tyson case does bring up another pattern: black men ARE convicted at a higher rate than white men, regardless of guilt. Thanks for the reminder, morten......art From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Jun 23 09:20:08 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 23 Jun 1994 09:18:20 -0700 for socgrad-list Thu, 23 Jun 1994 09:18:17 -0700 for From: estrayer@cats.ucsc.edu Date: Thu, 23 Jun 1994 09:18:14 -0700 To: CGH2@psuvm.psu.edu, socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: Re: media circus/Greek Tragedy From CGH2@psuvm.psu.edu Thu Jun 23 06:06:00 1994 From: "I don't think this will reduce confusion" Subject: Re: media circus/Greek Tragedy To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU On the domestic violence issue. !!! --------- snip ---------- guilty to battering. The implication is that had O.J. been imprisoned for a period of time, he would have understood the seriousness of his offense, that spousal battering is not 'OK.' Also, it appears as if the police, who were called to the Simpson household at least 1 other time (I've heard 8, but so ---------snip again ------------ As little as four months ago, I would have agreed. However after recently finishing 'Policing Domestic Violence' by Lawrence W. Sherman, I am not so sure. Sherman, for you non-crimin folk designed the Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment, where the police response to domestic violence cases was randomly assigned between talking to the man (very few cases of the woman doing the battering), ordering him out of the house for 8 hours, and arrest. In short, the experiment indicated that arrest was the best police responce. ---- cut, hack ------ 'Policing Domestic Violence' reports on follow up studies in six other cities. In some cases mandatory arrest reduces both short and long term risk to the woman. In others, it decreases short term, but increases long term risk. Most disturbing to me, it seems class - linked. Among the middle class, arrest has a clear detterent effect. Among the lower classes, espcially among the unemployed, arrest appears to increase both short and long term risk to women. ----- more cut ------ Jetaway Dave +++++++++++++++++++++++ Yo! I like the call you made on the possible "long-term" effects of arrest of accused spouse. This issue is weird, and very scary! Essentially we are taking a domestic issue, something that occurs "in the home," and putting it in the hands of the "state." Now, I sure can agree that if I were a battered, threatened, abused partner in a relationship I would certainly want some kind of help. And authoritative help would probably be called for. But the problems, naturally, go much deeper than any means of police intervention can cure. Plus, the idea of taking yet one more piece of responsibility out of the personal domaine and giving it to the state authority scares the hell out of me. I think of W. Reich, Horkheimer, etc. The guys really knew about how the "state" and "home" could be combined in an authoritarian society. I think one of the main issues is that battered women (in spousal-type relationships) have no where else but the police and maybe a shelter to go to in times of a crisis. Often they are dependent upon the relationship -- often financially, but also in less tangible ways, especially with children involved. I don't know how the Simpson case is going to help in this instance since (as Jetaway Dave noted) the attention is now on using arrest as a deterent, and that this has possible long-term dangerous potential. Anyway, I'm not much into crim. but I am certainly alarmed by the ways in which the state and the police can combine synergetically to make for a very scary police-state. best eric ======================================================================== Eric Strayer |"All that is solid melts into air" | estrayer@cats.ucsc.edu | *** Marx | | "Please accpet my resignation, I don't | student * beggar * dilettante| I don't want to belong to a club that | DoD#1120 Honda GB500| would accept me as a member" Marx | ======================================================================== From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Jun 23 10:07:57 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 23 Jun 1994 10:04:14 -0700 for socgrad-list Thu, 23 Jun 1994 10:04:10 -0700 for From: S-ENDER@bss1.umd.edu Thu, 23 Jun 94 13:03:58 +1100 Organization: University of Maryland,College Park To: "Neil R. White" , socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Thu, 23 Jun 1994 13:03:35 EDT Subject: Re: Sociology of Sport - Soccer & the media circ us yo neil, i was waiting for someone to bring this up... i attended two games at rfk in washington (mexico vs norge, saudi arabia vs holland) and sat in the middle of thousands of norwegian and dutch fans, who brought their own bands, colors and enthusiasm...after each game, i walked out feeling nationalistically aliented in my own country (although the norwegian fans were hugging me and patting me on the back because i was wearing a sombrero and they thought i was a mexican fan)... ...i too freaked when the u.s won last night but i don't think last night's game will be a turning point for the sport of soccer in america...remember the u.s. women actually won the world cup in china last year against norway and that got no media coverage...i don't think it will ever catch on...i'm not a conspiracy theorist, but the nba, nhl, nfl are all probably conspiring against it and the media become the medium for reinforcing their anti-soccer bias...for example, most of the sports coverage of soccer over last year leading up to the world cup has focused on fan violence in places like liverpool, england (they eventaully erected fences at two venues) and how funny the guy on the mexican channel sounds when he says, "goooooooooooooooool" over and over...indeed, americans seem to mock his enthusiasm for the game; yet, the hogs (a bunch of cross- dressing, washington redskin fans are so embraced here that they do ford commercials)...you can even read a degree of cyncism in today's washington post newspaper coverage of last night's game...the reporters seemed preoccuppied with the death threat and eventual substitution of one of the colombian players as a contribution to the u.s. win...there was no mention of the unusual strategy adopted by the u.s. coach that relied on a heavy defense and a kick and run offense that really won the game for the quick footed american lads... ...i recommend watching your local mexican channel (if you have one)...i don't understand spanish, but i prefer the tone of the mexican announcers over the drone of the inarticulate american announcers... ...back to social issues, i think soccer will never catch on in the u.s. until the americans learn to post-pone their pre- occupation with the immediate gratification of scoring, and appreciate that scoring, like winning, is not everything...but what do you expect from a country where individual credit card debt is the norm rather than the exception? ...by the way, the dutch fans were chanting rock and roll tunes during the game and doing the wave (an american invention)... morten "if a soccer ball was your brain, a football would be your brain on drugs" a t-shirt From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Jun 23 10:17:10 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 23 Jun 1994 10:15:03 -0700 for socgrad-list Thu, 23 Jun 1994 10:15:00 -0700 for From: S-ENDER@bss1.umd.edu Thu, 23 Jun 94 13:14:57 +1100 Organization: University of Maryland,College Park To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Thu, 23 Jun 1994 13:14:32 EDT Subject: Re: media circus/Greek Tragedy >Anyway, I'm not much into crim. but I am certainly >alarmed by the ways in which the state and the >police can combine synergetically to make for >a very scary police-state. i'm not into crim either, but i once read a very interesting statistic...in the u.s. police officers are most likely to be killed on domestic violence calls... morten From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Jun 23 13:01:13 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 23 Jun 1994 12:58:25 -0700 for socgrad-list Thu, 23 Jun 1994 12:58:21 -0700 for From: NISAACSON@zodiac.rutgers.edu Date: Thu, 23 Jun 1994 15:56:05 -0400 (EDT) Subject: jumping into the fray To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU I usually just read these things but Eric Strayer's comments prompted me to join in. It seems that there is a false split being made between the public and the private in his argument. One of the reasons why domestic violence has not been taken seriously is because it is seen as belonging to the realm of the "private" domestic sphere and thus is a personal matter between two individuals. O.J. Simpson's remarks bear this fallacy out. He said in an interview several months after pleading no contest to beating Nicole Simpson that it was simply a private matter between the two of them in which the police or legal system should refrain from interfering. The problem here is that violence in the home is part of a much larger institutionalized pattern of violence against women which takes place in both "private" and "public" contexts. We need to look beyond prison as a deterrent for men who beat their wives and examine the larger societal acceptance of violence against women and try to change that as well as figuring out appropriate sanctions for batterers. Where did O.J. Simpson learn that violence against women was an appropriate response in the first place. I bet in wasn't in only a "private" context but in the public worlds of sport and corporate America where a kill or be killed mentality prevails. -Nicky Rutgers University From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Jun 23 14:14:35 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 23 Jun 1994 14:10:46 -0700 for socgrad-list Thu, 23 Jun 1994 14:10:42 -0700 for Date: Thu, 23 Jun 94 16:52:22 EDT From: Steve Harvey Subject: frays To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU I think Nicky makes a good point: The "public" and the "private" are intertwined in sometimes counter-conventionally-conceived ways. But there are two clarifications that bear hearing out: 1) the distinction between state (i.e., governmental) jurisdiction over human affairs, and the limits to state jurisdiction is very real and very salient. There is no "right" answer: the civil war was a dispute between two levels of state authority, with the political and moral loser's position being that of the more local against that of the more global ("state's rights" v. "federal authority"). How and when to use the apparatus of the state, and how to curtail its possible abuses by state agents, remains an open question. But it *is* a question. 2) The distinction between legitimate public concerns and local or individual matters is also real and salient. It is the tension which I have often tried to bring into the discourse on this list, that is, the tension between social control and individual liberty (or local autonomy). Until relatively recently, domastic violence was considered a "local" matter, mostly within familial jurisdiction (which made tyrannies of abusive households), and to some limited extent within community jurisdiction (I'm guessing here, but I imagine that some degree of informal social disapproval from neighbors and friends may have had some effect, however negligable and insufficient). We may all agree that it is rightfully of broader public concern, but Eric is right that it is worth a moment's consideration what unintended implications are smuggled in with such a redistribution of authority. It is a small step to many policies with which many of us might less heartily agree, such as publically funded propaganda encouraging children to turn in their dope smoking parents. From my point of view, there are some issues in which state intervention in domestic scenes is desirable, and some in which it is not. I think it's important to keep such issues in mind. -steve From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Jun 23 15:00:22 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 23 Jun 1994 14:57:33 -0700 for socgrad-list Thu, 23 Jun 1994 14:57:31 -0700 for From: XGWALTERS@ccvax.fullerton.edu Date: 23 Jun 1994 14:54:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: circus/fray To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU I admit to categorizing all news media into one lump. There are some good writings and news casts out there that really present a good story. however, how can a Tv news program report all day on one subject and say this is news. the point is, are journalists limited to one news story when an event such as this comes up? And yes the Rumor mill runs rampant. The show "Frontline" did a story on just this type of thing(RE: the Michael Jackson Debacle). A movie comes to mind "Le Dolce Vita". The Paparazzi in this movie are a perfect comparison of the journalists who worked on the O.j. simpson story. Regarding the rumor mill and personal references, when one takes a personal reference to a professor for example, doesn't that reference usually come from a reliable source? from someone we are likely to have respect for? or from someone who has actually experienced a professor's lectures? The news media report on stories like this and still call it news(not rumor or gossip), and of course, it may be actual news to many people. I admit myself that I did watch this spectacle. As a matter of fact I could have seen Al Cowlings drive by on the freeway if I wanted to. Did anyone happen to see the picture in Sports Illustrated? Quite a sight and if one thinks it to be surreal then it is a very surreal picture.(taken from behind all the police cars chasing the White Bronco and people actually running out into the middle of the freeway). I wonder if journalists think that people want to know all these details, or if they are just looking at a story like this as extra work and thus the making of money. The media has already crucified O.J. Simpson. O.J. is in my opinion a great athlete. if convicted, a murderer and abuser as well. plain and simple. He may have brought to the forefront the issue of domestic violence, as Magic Johnson did the AIDS issue. but we have a problem with the issue-attention cycle, will both these issues eventually be overcome by other issues? I think the fact that the media pounds the public with such events, may hurt the continued attention an issue gets. I actually(and I may regret saying this)think that as far as news writers go Sports writers write the best and most interesting news. It just seems to be that they tell the facts as they are. its funny though, I rag on the media about getting into too much detail, and here I am in sociology however, sociology doesn't(as far as I have experienced it) rely too much on rumor. any way. didn't expect such a response on something that could be considered so tabloidish. greg From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Jun 23 15:11:59 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 23 Jun 1994 15:07:54 -0700 for socgrad-list Thu, 23 Jun 1994 15:07:52 -0700 for From: estrayer@cats.ucsc.edu Date: Thu, 23 Jun 1994 15:07:48 -0700 To: NISAACSON@zodiac.rutgers.edu, socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: Re: jumping into the fray From: NISAACSON@zodiac.rutgers.edu Date: Thu, 23 Jun 1994 15:56:05 -0400 (EDT) Subject: jumping into the fray I usually just read these things but Eric Strayer's comments prompted me to join in. It seems that there is a false split being made between the public and the private in his argument. One of the reasons why domestic violence has not been taken seriously is because it is seen as belonging to the realm of the "private" domestic sphere and thus is a personal matter between two individuals. O.J. Simpson's remarks bear this fallacy out. He said in an interview several months after pleading no contest to beating Nicole Simpson that it was simply a private matter between the two of them in which the police or legal system should refrain from interfering. The problem here is that violence in the home is part of a much larger institutionalized pattern of violence against women which takes place in both "private" and "public" contexts. ----------- Hmmmmm. What I _thought_ I was saying was that this is an issue to consider, to not leave out of the discursive analysis of the OJ incident and the greater issue of domestic violence. I believe that there IS a paradox, or at least a tangible contradiction in that domestic issues are, and speaking for myself, should remain, private. There is a line that is crossed when someone feel/thinks/knows she or he is threatened. What alarms me is something that Dave brought up regarding the rapid increase in police using arrest as a solution. This does not have anything to do with "police as a solution," at least in immediate cases -- especially when the battered one has called the police herself (sorry, tired of the him/her thing -- getting sappy). I was trying to underscore the point that social ills are not solved by the police, just the immediate incident. Use, if you like, the example of curing the symptoms versus the illness. We will still have to use police. But I fear that we on the one hand, turn to institutions too frequently for detention and not enough for prevention. (Bare in mind that WE are potentially those institutions.) +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ We need to look beyond prison as a deterrent for men who beat their wives and examine the larger societal acceptance of violence against women and try to change that as well as figuring out appropriate sanctions for batterers. Where did O.J. Simpson learn that violence against women was an appropriate response in the first place. I bet in wasn't in only a "private" context but in the public worlds of sport and corporate America where a kill or be killed mentality prevails. -Nicky Rutgers University +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Yup. Thought that was what I was talkin' about. Regarding the "false split" between the public and the private, well, ya got me! True enough, it is awfully easy to use the argument that "this is a family/private affair" in a spousal abuse case. Same thing goes for child abuse. And we have seen how that has backfired insofar as the STATE (yes, Jeremy, that's a dig...) takes children away from poor families many times to the detriment of the child. (Bummer I can't cite a case here. Give me a few more years ;-). Oh yea, on the police-state-reactionary issue. I don't know how old you are Jeremy, but when Tricky Dick was on the throne I was scared shitless. Really. Hai Phong harbor; Cambodia; Kent State; Watergate... Man, it was bad! And before my time (barely) there were the McCarthy hearings (again, Tricky Dicky on the scene!). So don't call me paranoid please. I'm just chicken! Thanks for the discussion! Eric From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Jun 23 15:21:06 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 23 Jun 1994 15:15:54 -0700 for socgrad-list Thu, 23 Jun 1994 15:15:48 -0700 for Date: Thu, 23 Jun 94 18:14 EDT From: "I don't think this will reduce confusion" Subject: Re: media continue to circ us To: thomasji@ucs.orst.edu >On Thu, 23 Jun 1994 S-ENDER@bss1.umd.edu wrote: >> >> >I am sick to death of poor O.J. He's a man in a male-biased legal >> >system. >> >> artemis, >> >> i don't think mike tyson would agree with you...morten >> >Exceptions don't consitute rules, and Tyson too was given ample >opportunity to acquit himself. He was guilty. He was found guilty. Probably was. Maybe not. >However, the Tyson case does bring up another pattern: black men ARE >convicted at a higher rate than white men, regardless of guilt. Not according to any study covering the last 30 years that I've read. Which would only be 80 or so. Jetaway Dave From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Jun 23 15:41:45 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 23 Jun 1994 15:39:37 -0700 for socgrad-list Thu, 23 Jun 1994 15:39:32 -0700 for Date: Thu, 23 Jun 94 18:38 EDT From: "I don't think this will reduce confusion" Subject: Re: jumping into the fray To: NISAACSON@zodiac.rutgers.edu -- Thu, 23 Jun 1994 15:56:05 -0400 (EDT) >I usually just read these things but Eric Strayer's comments prompted >me to join in. It seems that there is a false split being made between >the public and the private in his argument. One of the reasons why >domestic violence has not been taken seriously is because it is seen >as belonging to the realm of the "private" domestic sphere and thus >is a personal matter between two individuals. O.J. Simpson's remarks >bear this fallacy out. He said in an interview several months after >pleading no contest to beating Nicole Simpson that it was simply a >private matter between the two of them in which the police or legal >system should refrain from interfering. The problem here is that violence >in the home is part of a much larger institutionalized pattern of violence >against women which takes place in both "private" and "public" contexts. Public violence against women? Except for rape, rates of public violence against men are 6 to 12 times that of women. Tossing out a few questions Does violence have the same function in private and public contexts? If so, what? Problem-solving mechanism? Expression? Instrumental? Expression of control? Can violence be subsumed under a more encompassing concept? Is it necessary to consider violence against women seperatly from violence against men? Jetaway Dave From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Jun 23 16:52:29 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 23 Jun 1994 16:50:22 -0700 for socgrad-list Thu, 23 Jun 1994 16:50:20 -0700 for From: estrayer@cats.ucsc.edu Date: Thu, 23 Jun 1994 16:49:52 -0700 To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU, XGWALTERS@ccvax.fullerton.edu Subject: Re: circus/fray From: XGWALTERS@ccvax.fullerton.edu Date: 23 Jun 1994 14:54:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: circus/fray Greg said: I admit to categorizing all news media into one lump. There are some good writings and news casts out there that really present a good story. however, how can a Tv news program report all day on one subject and say this is news. the point is, are journalists limited to one news story ---------- cut, snip ----------------- I wonder if journalists think that people want to know all these details, or if they are just looking at a story like this as extra work and thus the making of money. ++++++++++++++++++++ ES: The media is in competition to get the most of any story. They simply don't want to be left out. Reporters don't last long letting the competition not only scoop them, but blitz them. It's a capitalist thing. Competition. There are really no moral considerations other than profit. That there was discussion on the topic by some of the newscasters regarding "their part" in the frenzy was great, if probably ineffectual. I would guess it is self propelling at this point. I remember taking a picture of a woman dying from an auto accident. I worked for a small paper. This was a great shot from an over-enthusiatic journalistic perspective, but it was finally cropped to keep the deceased's face from view so as not to offend the community. (They were right. I was confused.) I mention this to say that there is also more than the "job" and "money" element to journalism. There is a rush, or a "high" from getting way in on gross or dangerous stuff. But ultimately, in this case, the overextended coverage was purely fear that the "other" station, broadcaster, whatever would not let go and get something more by doing so. Regarding news, well, sounds like it's time to discuss some definitions. I think from a functional standpoint, news is mostly entertainment. Real information is harder to get, harder to understand, and generally requires critical thought. No time for that with all the competition for entertainment. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ He may have brought to the forefront the issue of domestic violence, as Magic Johnson did the AIDS issue. but we have a problem with the issue-attention cycle, will both these issues eventually be overcome by other issues? I think the fact that the media pounds the public with such events, may hurt the continued attention an issue gets. ---------------------------- ES: Maybe. But what is news today is for wrapping fish tomorrow. Notice how the Korea stories got burried in a hurry!? This will blow over for something else quite soon, if not tomorrow. So as NEWS, it will slip away to the bottom of the front page, and finally to the middle of the paper, and probably pop up during the trial(s) from time to time. I suppose it COULD become a catalyst for a race issue too. None of this is THAT predictable. BUt meanwhile, the underlying problems continue. The real problems just aren't news. They need more entertainment, or even shock value. That's why we read the hard stuff. I guess that's why we're here! :-) eric From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Jun 23 17:20:06 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 23 Jun 1994 17:18:46 -0700 for socgrad-list Thu, 23 Jun 1994 17:18:45 -0700 for From: estrayer@cats.ucsc.edu Date: Thu, 23 Jun 1994 17:18:42 -0700 To: CGH2@psuvm.psu.edu, NISAACSON@zodiac.rutgers.edu Subject: Re: jumping into the fray From CGH2@psuvm.psu.edu Thu Jun 23 15:38:00 1994 From: "I don't think this will reduce confusion" Subject: Re: jumping into the fray Public violence against women? Except for rape, rates of public violence against men are 6 to 12 times that of women. Tossing out a few questions Does violence have the same function in private and public contexts? If so, what? Problem-solving mechanism? Expression? Instrumental? Expression of control? Can violence be subsumed under a more encompassing concept? Is it necessary to consider violence against women seperatly from violence against men? Jetaway Dave -------------------------- Regarding the notion of violence against women being considered separatly from that against men, I'd have to say that women are nearly always at the disadvantage to defend themselves against men. Men often have size on their side. Also there is the historical precedent of a patriarchal society. Women also tend to consider the welfare of their children more than men do in violent situations (I'm on thin ice here). Also, nobody likes to admit that someone else can and does "beat them up." Being beaten is also to be shamed, which while applicapable to all genders is going to just add to the problem for a woman who is being physically dominated by a man. So yes, it IS necessary to consider violence against women separately from violence against men. Your reference to "public" violence agains men being 12 times greater than against women does not actually address the issue here. Violence against men is almost always perpetrated by other men. Certainly we need to address all aspects of violence separately as well as in multiple contexts. But violence of men against their spouses is a biggie all by itself, and needs specail attention. As far as your question on violence in the private versus the public context, well, I'd guess that as far as problem solving, sure, the same purpose. Different results however, will result from different venues. I'll let the crim folk work on that one. Later, Eric From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Jun 23 23:11:26 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 23 Jun 1994 23:10:00 -0700 for socgrad-list Thu, 23 Jun 1994 23:09:58 -0700 for From: BREKHUS@zodiac.rutgers.edu Date: Fri, 24 Jun 1994 02:09:45 -0400 (EDT) Subject: state intervention in "private matters" To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU When people say that domestic violence is a private matter I think its important to keep in mind that the private matter of domestic violence refers to such things as battery, aggravated assault, and rape. Even most murders are technically "private, domestic affairs" conducted between two adults in the privacy of their own home. Yet, I think most everyone agrees that the state should intervene in the case of murders conducted in the privacy of one's home. So, why is it so controversial to add assault and battery to the list of crimes that we won't tolerate even when conducted in the privacy of one's home? I think we can draw the line and say violent crimes because they directly injure an *unwilling* victim are the responsibility of the state even if conducted in the privacy of one's home. "Victimless" crimes confined to the privacy of one's home, on the other hand, should not be subject to state intervention. While it's important to be wary of too much state power, we also need to recognize that other concentrations of power can be just as dangerous. It seems to me that one of the few useful roles the state can perform is to protect the underdog against extreme abuses of power. Protecting spouses and children from abusive family leaders seems to me no less the obligation of the state than protecting workers and consumers from abusive corporations. As threatening and ominous as expanding the power of the American state might be, there are times when state power is less frigtening than a laissez faire approach that allows extreme power differentials to be exploited and abused, unchecked by state intervention. I wouldn't want the state to say that they respect the privacy of corporations and their consumers to work things out on their own if consumers were being directly harmed by abusive corporate practices. Likewise, if abusive family practices like domestic violence are directly harming someone in the family the state should intervene on behalf of the victim if they've been called to do so. If the state were randomly searching houses looking for abuse that would be another issue, but in most cases the state is responding to complaints by victims or neighbors/friends of the victim. concentration of power in violent family heads as somehow less ominous than the state extending its powers into "private affairs." When people talk of the public/private split they often make it seem like the private sphere is inherently good and therefore any public intrusion must be bad. But I think the public harm of "private violence" may be no less harmful than that of "public violence," so it makes sense to consider domestic violence a public issue rather than a private matter. Wayne Brekhus--Rutgers From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Jun 23 23:59:21 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 23 Jun 1994 23:58:01 -0700 for socgrad-list Thu, 23 Jun 1994 23:57:59 -0700 for From: BREKHUS@zodiac.rutgers.edu Date: Fri, 24 Jun 1994 02:57:30 -0400 (EDT) Subject: sorry about cut off text To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU For some reason not all of my last post made it through. My apologies for the break near the end of the test. The point that got cut off was that "libertarian" arguments against state intervention in family matters are quick to acknowledge the dangers of concentrating power in the state, but they often downplay the dangers of allowing families with abusive heads to maintain his/her uncontested rule of force over "their own private domain." Wayne From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Jun 24 00:58:12 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 24 Jun 1994 00:57:12 -0700 for socgrad-list Fri, 24 Jun 1994 00:57:10 -0700 for From: tombrown@cats.ucsc.edu Date: Fri, 24 Jun 1994 00:57:08 -0700 To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: employability What are the subfields of sociology most in demand? (Don't snigger, I'm serious!) What areas are most newhires in academia specializing in? What is the outlook for the near future (5-10 years) for the various specialties? What about non-academic jobs? What should a new socgrad student specialize in to maximize his or her employability, both in academia and the real world? I'm most interested in world systems and global development theory, but I wonder if I might be more employable specializing in urban studies, regional development, medical soc, criminology, quantitative methodology, or...? thanks for any input, and sorry if this is a cliche thread. From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Jun 24 05:20:33 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 24 Jun 1994 05:19:29 -0700 for socgrad-list Fri, 24 Jun 1994 05:19:27 -0700 for Date: Fri, 24 Jun 94 08:19 EDT From: "I don't think this will reduce confusion" Subject: Re: jumping into the fray To: estrayer@cats.ucsc.edu > Public violence against women? Except for rape, rates of public violence >against men are 6 to 12 times that of women. >Tossing out a few questions > Does violence have the same function in private and public contexts? >If so, what? Problem-solving mechanism? Expression? Instrumental? >Expression of control? > Can violence be subsumed under a more encompassing concept? > Is it necessary to consider violence against women seperatly from violence >against men? >Jetaway Dave >-------------------------- >Regarding the notion of violence against women being considered >separatly from that against men, I'd have to say that women are >nearly always at the disadvantage to defend themselves against >men. Men often have size on their side. Also there is the >historical precedent of a patriarchal society. Women also >tend to consider the welfare of their children more than >men do in violent situations (I'm on thin ice here). >Also, nobody likes to admit that someone else can and does >"beat them up." Being beaten is also to be shamed, which >while applicapable to all genders is going to just add to >the problem for a woman who is being physically dominated >by a man. >So yes, it IS necessary to consider violence against women >separately from violence against men. This is strange. I could have written the paragraph above (which I mostly agree with) but would have concluded that it _is not_ necessary to consider violence against women separtely from violence against men. Male / Female differences in strength are more pervasive than male / male differences, but in each case, the one receiving the beating is usually the weaker or less skilled. In most cases of public violence, the 'strength' of the attacker is augmented by either weapons or numbers. But it is a strength difference none the same. Regarding the thin ice. In the private sphere, I tend to agree. On average (in general? / in cases where there is a difference? ) women care more for the welfare of their children than do men. In public though, I would disagree. Assuming that there are any bonds of affection or instrumental relationships, a father is just as, if not more, likely to take action to protect their children. Which seems to be steering us back to the (false?) public / private dichotomy. >Your reference to "public" violence agains men being >12 times greater than against women does not >actually address the issue here. >Violence against men is almost always perpetrated by >other men. Certainly we need to address all aspects >of violence separately as well as in multiple >contexts. But violence of men against their spouses >is a biggie all by itself, and needs specail attention. Well (and I could have been clearer) I think it does address some of the issues addressed in this string, if not your post. Someone (paraphrase) had written that creating a public / private dichotomy serves to obscure and fragment our ability to see the totality of violence against women. I was merely trying to point out that not all violence in society is directed against women, that in fact, most is directed against men. The purpose of the observation was to raise the question of whether it is necessary to consider violence against women seperatly from violence against men. Or / and, is it necessary to consider differences between public and private violence? Just thought of something. What about gay couple battering? Many gay males are 'trapped' in abusive relationships with their gay lovers. Where does this fit in? Maybe we should bring back the public / private dichotomy and drop the male / female? >Eric Jetaway Dave From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Jun 24 06:32:35 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 24 Jun 1994 06:29:03 -0700 for socgrad-list Fri, 24 Jun 1994 06:29:01 -0700 for Date: Fri, 24 Jun 94 09:09:10 EDT From: Steve Harvey Subject: public/private To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU I think Wayne makes some good points, but I still don't think it's quite so cut and dry. It's not just a matter of state v. private, but also a matter of jurisdiction. For instance, we can agree that violence by one person against another is the proper concern of government authority, but that the UN has no jurisdiction over street crime in any given member nation. I am *emphatically not* arguing that domestic violence is a domestic issue; I am using the topic to discuss more abstract issues which are implicated by it. I am also not suggesting that the state is "evil" and the private "good" (funny that Wayne characterizes earlier posts as expressing this dualism: I thought I was very explicit in my rejection of it). The fact is that the state, for good or ill, takes over increasing areas of social control and coordination. I only suggest that we not dismiss any given moment in this process according to the "obvious appropriateness" of it, and fail to be aware of the process itself. Wayne seems to think that there is a clear distinction between intervening in domestic violence and intervening in "victimless crimes." He says something to the effect of "if it poses a clear threat to others in the household...." Do you really think that the example of encouraging kids to turn in their dope smoking parents is so unambiguously different from domestic violence in this regard? Do you think it's obvious to everyone that domestic violence involves a victim, and private dope use *in a household with young children* is victimless? It may be obvious to YOU (it certainly is to me), but that's not quite good enough. My point wasn't to argue the virtues of the private and the horrors of the public, but rather to point out the subtleties, and accompanying issues, that are involved. While I think Wayne expressed a solid perspective, I wouldn't want the dismissive tone to prevail. Things are rarely cut-and-dry, and it is rarely useful to say, "see? It's simple. No problem." I agree with the conclusion on policy; I disagree with the trivialization of the issues of at what level social control is enacted in any given circumstance, and to what extent formal v. informal means are used. Again, neither is universally right or universally wrong. But the choices of the balances among these *are* consequential. -steve From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Jun 24 07:03:05 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 24 Jun 1994 06:59:40 -0700 for socgrad-list Fri, 24 Jun 1994 06:59:36 -0700 for Date: Fri, 24 Jun 94 09:50:38 EDT From: Marni Hancock Organization: Emory University - Atlanta, Georgia, USA Subject: PUBLIC/PRIVATE AND VIOLENCE To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU I don't know whether this is really applicable here, but -- In something I read for an anthro class there was a description of a "hunter-gatherer" society which was making the transition to a "farmer" society (I think). Part of this transition was a change from living in small, open-to-the- communal-center-of-the-village-huts to more closed in dwellings on streets. A side-effect of this change seemed to be an increase in domestic violence. Is it possible that the perception of something as "private" or "public" could have major implications for how the behavior is viewed by the participants? If so, could that idea be used to begin changing societal expectations in regard to some behaviors? Just wondering. Marni Hancock SOCAW059@EMUVM1.CC.EMORY.EDU From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Jun 24 07:26:07 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 24 Jun 1994 07:22:47 -0700 for socgrad-list Fri, 24 Jun 1994 07:22:43 -0700 for Date: Fri, 24 Jun 94 09:20 EST To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU From: UHOBBIT%IRISHMVS.CC.ND.EDU@uicvm.uic.edu Subject: OJ... One thing's for sure, the police sure would've pulled OJ's Bronco over sooner had he been going to the airport or anywhere near one because once OJ Simpson steps foot in an airport, we all know how efficiently he can move through one of those! :) (bet he wished he could fly now) Dave Brunsma From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Jun 24 08:00:04 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 24 Jun 1994 07:58:45 -0700 for socgrad-list Fri, 24 Jun 1994 07:58:30 -0700 for Date: Fri, 24 Jun 94 10:55 EDT From: "Pamela Paxton" To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: Re: Re: jumping into the fray ______________________ Jetaway Dave wrote: Just thought of something. What about gay couple battering? Many gay males are 'trapped' in abusive relationships with their gay lovers. Where does this fit in? Maybe we should bring back the public / private dichotomy and drop the male / female? ______________________ I would respond by noting that many women are 'trapped' in abusive (private) relationships because they have less opportunity to support themselves in a (public) system that discriminates against them. They can often not economically support themselves without the abuser. In addition, they often have the added responsibility of children. Even if they could support themselves, they often can't support their children as well. They are thus also often 'trapped' by childcare constraints in a (public) system that assumes that children are the woman's responsibility. These are issues that have to do with gender, in the private and the public. (A gay man would most likely not face the same 'trapping' constraints.) Thus, the female/male dichotomy is salient and important. Pam Paxton UPAM00@unc.oit.unc.edu From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Jun 24 08:36:58 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 24 Jun 1994 08:35:38 -0700 for socgrad-list Fri, 24 Jun 1994 08:35:36 -0700 for From: JREISSAT@ucbeh.san.uc.edu id <01HDX34INOAOQO7IP2@UCBEH.SAN.UC.EDU>; Fri, 24 Jun 1994 11:34:30 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 1994 11:34:30 -0500 (EST) Subject: seeking assistance! To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Hello everyone, Not to change the momentum that news-media discussion of the OJ Simpson saga has generated here on SOCGRAD, but I really need help. ;-) Is anyone on this net a student at carnegie-Mellon University? If not, does anyone here know of the internet address for Carnegie-Mellon university? I have tried the gopher to look up the university on it, but it does not seem to be part of the internet. I am specifically looking for the internet address or phone number for Prof. Kathleen Carley at carnegie-Mellon univ. Thank a million in advance.. cordially yours george jreissaty P.S. Keep the critical thinking alive, and let sociology rise from the ashes of dogma, linear thinking, and the gohst of functionalism....... I had to say that I am sorry. ;-) From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Jun 24 11:28:38 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 24 Jun 1994 11:24:59 -0700 for socgrad-list Fri, 24 Jun 1994 11:24:56 -0700 for (5.65+UW94.4/UW-NDC Revision: 2.30 ) id AA06616; Date: Fri, 24 Jun 1994 11:24:50 -0700 (PDT) From: Robert Duniway Subject: Re: jumping into the fray To: "I don't think this will reduce confusion" On Fri, 24 Jun 1994, I don't think this will reduce confusion wrote: > Male / Female differences in strength are more pervasive than male / male > differences, but in each case, the one receiving the beating is usually the > weaker or less skilled. In most cases of public violence, the > 'strength' of the attacker is augmented by either weapons or numbers. But it > is a strength difference none the same. > > >Your reference to "public" violence agains men being > >12 times greater than against women does not > >actually address the issue here. > >Violence against men is almost always perpetrated by > >other men. Certainly we need to address all aspects > >of violence separately as well as in multiple > >contexts. But violence of men against their spouses > >is a biggie all by itself, and needs specail attention. There was an Aussie sociologist here who had been studying bar brawls in Australia ostensibly for the police. When he reported that these brawls were usually started by habitual bullies looking to prove their "manhood" and targets were usually smaller, younger men who were too drunk to defend themselves or get out of the way the police were not pleased. They wanted to believe that the brawls were victimless crimes where the losers derserved what they got. Just another data point for your consideration. Bob Duniway, University of Washington From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Jun 24 11:39:21 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 24 Jun 1994 11:37:06 -0700 for socgrad-list Fri, 24 Jun 1994 11:37:04 -0700 for (5.65+UW94.4/UW-NDC Revision: 2.30 ) id AA08379; Date: Fri, 24 Jun 1994 11:36:55 -0700 (PDT) From: Robert Duniway Subject: Re: Re: jumping into the fray To: Pamela Paxton > > I would respond by noting that many women are 'trapped' in abusive > (private) relationships because they have less opportunity to support > themselves in a (public) system that discriminates against them. > They can often not economically support themselves without the abuser. > In addition, they often have the added responsibility of children. > Even if they could support themselves, they often can't support their > children as well. They are thus > also often 'trapped' by childcare constraints in a (public) system > that assumes that children are the woman's responsibility. > > These are issues that have to do with gender, in the private and the > public. (A gay man would most likely not face the same 'trapping' > constraints.) Thus, the female/male dichotomy is salient > and important. Sweeping statements like these tend to raise my dental bills (i.e. my teeth grate). Not all women who stay in abusive relationships are trapped by economic constraints. Some men who stay in abusive relationships probably feel economic pressure to do so. In an effort to be sociological we shouldn't make the mistake of only seeing the modal pattern and ignoring the variations. In this case the variations suggest that violence is a class of behavior which has complex causes and consequences. I'll get off my soapbox now. Bob Duniway, University of Washington From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Jun 24 11:55:38 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 24 Jun 1994 11:53:56 -0700 for socgrad-list Fri, 24 Jun 1994 11:53:54 -0700 for Date: Fri, 24 Jun 94 13:53:21 CDT From: joanna grace farmer To: Robert Duniway Subject: Re: Ethical Sociology From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Jun 24 11:56:39 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 24 Jun 1994 11:55:07 -0700 for socgrad-list Fri, 24 Jun 1994 11:54:58 -0700 for Date: Fri, 24 Jun 94 13:54:25 CDT From: joanna grace farmer To: Robert Duniway Subject: Re: Research From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Jun 24 11:57:45 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 24 Jun 1994 11:56:14 -0700 for socgrad-list Fri, 24 Jun 1994 11:56:10 -0700 for Date: Fri, 24 Jun 94 13:55:36 CDT From: joanna grace farmer To: Robert Duniway Subject: Re: Research From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Jun 24 12:20:31 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 24 Jun 1994 12:18:10 -0700 for socgrad-list Fri, 24 Jun 1994 12:17:56 -0700 for Date: Fri, 24 Jun 94 15:11 EDT From: "Pamela Paxton" To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: (Copy) Re: Re: jumping into the fray OK, so originally I wrote: __________________________ > > I would respond by noting that many women are 'trapped' in abusive > (private) relationships because they have less opportunity to support > themselves in a (public) system that discriminates against them. > They can often not economically support themselves without the abuser. > In addition, they often have the added responsibility of children. > Even if they could support themselves, they often can't support their > children as well. They are thus > also often 'trapped' by childcare constraints in a (public) system > that assumes that children are the woman's responsibility. > > These are issues that have to do with gender, in the private and the > public. (A gay man would most likely not face the same 'trapping' > constraints.) Thus, the female/male dichotomy is salient > and important. _____________________________ Then Bob responded by saying: Sweeping statements like these tend to raise my dental bills (i.e. my teeth grate). Not all women who stay in abusive relationships are trapped by economic constraints. Some men who stay in abusive relationships probably feel economic pressure to do so. In an effort to be sociological we shouldn't make the mistake of only seeing the modal pattern and ignoring the variations. In this case the variations suggest that violence is a class of behavior which has complex causes and consequences. I'll get off my soapbox now. Bob Duniway, University of Washington _____________________________ So my reply is: I guess I should defend myself by saying that I don't feel I was making any 'sweeping' statements. If we, as sociologists, know some things to be more probable, due to structural reasons, then there is no reason for us not to discuss them as such. In this case, women ARE more likely to face economic constraints to stay in abusive relationships then men. Stating this fact does not mean that I deny individual variation. It is simply a pattern. Of course there are men that might stay in a situation due to economic constraints. There are also women that might not feel those constraints. That does not mean that ON AVERAGE one gender does not tend to feel such constraints more often. I agree that discussing variation is important, but noting the modal pattern is also very important. I should also note that I thought I had 'covered my behind' by using words such as 'many' and 'most likely' rather than 'all' and 'will.' Pam Paxton UPAM00@unc.oit.unc.edu From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Jun 24 14:03:20 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 24 Jun 1994 14:01:50 -0700 for socgrad-list Fri, 24 Jun 1994 14:01:46 -0700 for From: estrayer@cats.ucsc.edu Date: Fri, 24 Jun 1994 14:01:43 -0700 To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: Re: (Copy) Re: Re: jumping into the fray >From UPAM00@uncmvs.oit.unc.edu Fri Jun 24 12:11:00 1994 Date: Fri, 24 Jun 94 15:11 EDT From: "Pamela Paxton" To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: (Copy) Re: Re: jumping into the fray OK, so originally I wrote: __________________________ > > I would respond by noting that many women are 'trapped' in abusive > (private) relationships because they have less opportunity to support > themselves in a (public) system that discriminates against them. > They can often not economically support themselves without the abuser. > In addition, they often have the added responsibility of children. ------------ dot dot dot ------------ _____________________________ Then Bob responded by saying: Sweeping statements like these tend to raise my dental bills (i.e. my teeth grate). Not all women who stay in abusive relationships are trapped by economic constraints. Some men who stay in abusive relationships probably feel economic pressure to do so. In an effort to be sociological we shouldn't make the mistake of only seeing the modal pattern and ignoring the variations. In this case the variations suggest that violence is a class of behavior which has complex causes and consequences. I'll get off my soapbox now. _____________________________ So my reply is: I guess I should defend myself by saying that I don't feel I was making any 'sweeping' statements. If we, as sociologists, know some things to be more probable, due to structural reasons, then there is no reason for us not to discuss them as such. ------------------------ cut chop etc. --------------- Pam Paxton UPAM00@unc.oit.unc.edu ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ So I thought (maybe in error) that one of the functions of sociology was to take the specific and attempt to apply it to the general. (Gernerization- you know, making definitions generalizable etc...) Especially as going the other way is called the "ecological fallacy." So "sweeping statements" based upon a multitude of specific evidence is kind of the idea isn't it? There is a little intended irony here. I agree that "sweepers" make my teeth gnash too. But I don't think that was Pam's intent or the result of her statement. I'm sure there are a lot of variables to consider in any domestic or even public display of violence. Some are more psychological in nature, but I think that all will have sociological relevance too, and that we as a society share a lot more influences than we don't. This thing is getting to become compulsive. I think I'd better drop out and shut up for a while. Best, Eric From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Jun 24 15:03:50 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 24 Jun 1994 14:59:31 -0700 for socgrad-list Fri, 24 Jun 1994 14:59:28 -0700 for Date: Fri, 24 Jun 94 17:58 EDT From: "I don't think this will reduce confusion" Subject: Re: Ethical Sociology To: jgfarmer@midway.uchicago.edu Somehow I found the note included above (really) and the subject line amusing. Jetaway (Realtiy Soldier) Dave From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Jun 24 18:45:12 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Fri, 24 Jun 1994 18:42:42 -0700 for socgrad-list Fri, 24 Jun 1994 18:42:38 -0700 for From: BREKHUS@zodiac.rutgers.edu Date: Fri, 24 Jun 1994 21:41:31 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Public/Private To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Steve, You've always been rather explicit against people characterizing the state as inherently "evil," so I think it goes without saying that it wasn't you I was referring to when I said that people often use the private/public dichotomy as if the "private" was somehow inherently good and the public (especially the state) as necessarily bad. Instead, I was referring in part to another poster that said "taking responsibility away from the personal domain and putting it in the hands of the state scares the hell out of me" in referenceto the new push for mandatory jail terms for domestic abusers, and I was also referring to the general cultural ideology expressed by O.J. Simpson which Nicky eluded to that "the state ought not to meddle in private family matters, and even domestic abuse should be between the abuser and his (in most cases) spouse." The real issue which Eric brought up, and you elaborated upon was "How do we reconcile a desire to prevent family violence with a need to keep state jurisdiction out of private homes?" I was trying to balance Eric's legitimate concer with expanding state power with the equally legitimate concern that Nicky expressed about allowing the ideology that "what's done in private, is o.k." to serve as a justification for spouse abuse in the home. Given the severity of domestic assault I'm not content with a "hands off" policy, but since I generally share Eric's wary view of the state I was suggesting that we ought to allow state intervention to expand slightly and allow the line to be drawn between "violent crimes" and "victimless crimes" There were other issues in both Eric's post and your post but it wasn't my intent to respond to all of them. I don't think it's so much that I'm trivializing some of the broader issues you raised about proper jurisdiction etc., as it is that I was more interested in keeping the debate at the practical level of how to reconcile state responses to domestic violence with the right to privacy. I think our disagreement is more over what directions of this latest debate most interest us individually, than in any major differences on substance. As for the issue of the "harm" done by "victimless" crimes vs. violent crimes. Yes the distinction between victimless crimes and crimes that harm others is ambiguous and somewhat arbitrary. But just about all distinctions are arbitrary and ambiguous, rather than clear-cut and natural so it would be hard to draw a line where we could avoid such problems. Nonetheless, social policy requires the drawing of arbitrary lines and so my point was to suggest that the most reasonable line in my opinion is to draw the line between crimes with victims and "victimless crimes." The distinction between "victimless crimes" and other crimes, arbitrary as it is, already exists among criminologists etc. and I'm willing to accept their classification as appropriate enough for guiding social policy. As for the second question you ask about whether or not I think it's obvious to everyone that domestic violence involves a victim and private dope use in front of children doesn't? The answer, of course, is no. In fact, I'm quite afraid that more people would see the latter as a problem than the former. Hopefully the high profile of the Simpson case will change this. So I'll conceed your point that where I draw the line will not satisfy everyone. Wayne Brekhus Rutgers University From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Sat Jun 25 11:36:00 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Sat, 25 Jun 1994 11:34:44 -0700 for socgrad-list Sat, 25 Jun 1994 11:34:42 -0700 for Date: Sat, 25 Jun 94 14:37:31 EDT From: huang@nccu.edu (Chien Ju Huang) To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: sub sub "huang@nccu.edu" socgrad From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Sun Jun 26 08:55:39 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Sun, 26 Jun 1994 08:54:19 -0700 for socgrad-list Sun, 26 Jun 1994 08:54:17 -0700 for Date: Sun, 26 Jun 1994 10:52:17 -0500 (CDT) From: Michael Gibbons To: socgrad socgradders, never having been much of pro sports fan i was rather dismayed that the huge crowd in front of the tv set drained the dance floor at my wedding reception that evening! i didn't even know what sport he played. mike From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Sun Jun 26 10:26:38 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Sun, 26 Jun 1994 10:25:23 -0700 for socgrad-list Sun, 26 Jun 1994 10:25:21 -0700 for Date: Sun, 26 Jun 94 12:57:18 EDT From: "T R. Young" <34LPF6T@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU> Organization: Central Michigan University Subject: GENDER OPPRESSION AND GENDER VIOLENCE To: GRADUATE STUDENTS IN SOCIOLOGY THIS IS #4 IN A SERIES OF MINI-TUTORIALS SPONSORED BY THE RED FEATHER INSTITUTE FOR ADVANCED STUDIES IN SOCIOLOGY FOR GRADUATE STUDENTS AROUND THE COUNTRY. T.R.YOUNG IS FOUNDER AND DIRECTOR OF THE INSTITUTE. IN 1992 HE WAS SCHOLAR IN RESIDENCE AT TEXAS WOMAN'S UNIVERSITY; IN 1993, SENIOR DISTINGUISHED VISITING PROF AT VIRGINIA POLYTECH; IN 1994, HE TAUGHT SOC/LAW AT UMICH-FLINT. THIS TUTORIAL SPEAKS TO THE KIND OF GENDER VIOLENCE IN THE SIMPSON CASE...IT GIVES SOCGRAD MEMBERS A WAY TO CONNECT PERSONAL TROUBLES TO SOCIAL PRACTICES...MILL'S SOCIOLOGICAL IMAGINATION REVISITED: SOCIAL SOURCES OF GENDER DOMINATION: 1. Rape: young men have been allowed to rape women and children as reward for their part in predatory raids; tools, food, weapons, herds taken home to share out in kin units of senior males. 2. Birth Control: in low-tech societies, the sexuality of women is used for population control. Women are required to produce children in good times and sacrifice them in bad times. 3. property transfer: in settled agriculture [ca. 4000 b.c.] male primo- geniture rule means that female sexuality closely controlled to ensure property remains in kin group: rule of virginity, fidelity, chastity reduce probability of union outside of marriage/kinship structure. 4. Social Security: in low tech societies, elderly people need large family to ensure security in old age. Women are required to produce six, eight children: in patri-lineal societies, girls leave home; four males remain. Two die in childhood; one dies in pred warfare. One left to inherit farm/herd...and to shelter aged parents 5. Energy accumulation: in low tech societies, children are net energy accumulators by age six or so...in high tech societies children are energy 'sinks' until age 20-25...size of family and female sexuality is regulated by norms, values, soc control in either case. 6. Solidarity and the Drama of the Holy: in societies in which each male is in competition with every other male for land, water, herds, jobs various solidarity supplies are used to sanctify male solidarities; female sexuality is ofter in service to such solidarity activities. 7. With good systems of production and good systems of distribution, human sexuality can be used for more romantic/personal purpose [as can drugs, alcohol, food, music, dance, gambling and other sacred supplies]. Men are taught that women are their property and that the sexuality of 'their' women; the labor of their women; the loyalty of their women belong to them exclusively...men are given the right to control women in such circum- stances...the form of control varies...that topic next week. T.R. Young From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Sun Jun 26 14:49:45 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Sun, 26 Jun 1994 14:48:20 -0700 for socgrad-list Sun, 26 Jun 1994 14:48:17 -0700 for From: BREKHUS@zodiac.rutgers.edu Date: Sun, 26 Jun 1994 17:47:20 -0400 (EDT) Subject: public/private debate (fwd w/ Jeremy's permission) To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU From: IN%"strau@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu" "Jeremy Straughn" 24-JUN-1994 23:23:01.94 To: IN%"BREKHUS@zodiac.rutgers.edu" CC: Subj: Thanks for the debate ;-) Return-path: #5212) id <01HDXS3KHEHC9OJRP3@zodiac.rutgers.edu>; Fri, Date: Fri, 24 Jun 1994 22:22:28 -0500 (CDT) From: Jeremy Straughn Subject: Thanks for the debate ;-) "BREKHUS@zodiac.rutgers.edu" at Jun 24, 94 2:09 am To: BREKHUS@zodiac.rutgers.edu Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] Recent contributors: As a spectator most of the time on this list, I am glad to see such thoughtful, sometimes biting, debate about domestic violence. (Tipping the conversation in this direction was the hope behind my jabs earlier this week.) Having tried to absorb of the arguments as I could, I find myself drawn most to those of Wayne, who was the first of us to point out the importance of protecting the weak against the strong. Perhaps this function suggests a helpful way of thinking about the legitimate role of the "state" (problematic because it conflates many distinct bodies whose relationship with each other is complex) in the "private" versus the "public" sphere. It occurs to me that this public-private distinction is always relative. First of all, "private" in any situation is defined as "not-public," that is, not susceptible to legitimate meddling by the "outside" society. Thus, a space is always only *relatively* private. If the Simpson household is private (I'll stop using the scare-quotes now), it is because the police, his neighbors, etc. are not allowed in uninvited, not because of anything intrinsic about it (i.e. it's only private by convention). The whole house is not equally private. The parental bedroom is more private than the kitchen because the kids aren't allowed in without being invited. This relativity applieds equally well to such distinctions as local-federal, as they arise in such debates. Brentwood is private insofar as there are matters its residents would consider off-limits to the state of California . . . unless someone who was being victimized called in the state to intervene and protect their rights. In sum, the question of what is private and what is public cannot be decided prior to answering the question of when a body that has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force in a particular space (i.e. has jurisdiction) may intervene into that space on behalf of a party being victimized by a stronger party. To operate in the reverse direction would involve us in a tautology. My use of lots of loaded terms like "victimize" and "legitimate" was not inadvertent. I am aware that it is equally circular to decide the second question before the first, at least from a strictly logical standpoint. (At root, they are the same question.) I am operating on the theory that an interesting (normative) conception of legitimacy is one which attributes it to a body that, among other things, has superior means of coercion but uses them to prevent acts of domination (naturally, we need a good practical definition of this word, but I think we all have an ideal-typical idea of when someone is being victimized, even though it can be mighty ambiguous in the real world). It would follow from such a definition that someone in an otherwise private sphere could call on the legitimate powers that be to intervene whenever she OR he is a victim. We could add the corrolary that the autonomy of the lower-order sphere should be honored, whether this is a private space or a private individual, by the legitimate power-holding body (we could call it the "state," in an ideal-typic sense, not a natural-type sense). At this abstract level, the question of victimless crimes is not the same as that of victim-related ones. In the former case, the "victim" is usually thought of as either the perpretrator him/herself (as in suicide) or "society." When society is said to be the victim, this is either because the harm is to property owned by the public or because the perpetrator, in harming his/herself, is depriving society of something-- perhaps the perpetrator-victim's labor (voluntary unemployment is sometimes viewed as harming society in this way, as when Clinton, inspired by Robert Reich among others, asserts that "everybody must work"). In both cases, however, we seem to be eliminating the distinction between victimless and victim-ful crimes, since at least some of the _members_ of society are supposed to experience harm or deprivation as a result of the perpetrator's action. Thus, once again, I believe we involve ourselves in a tautology if we try to make an a priori distinction between victimless and other crimes, since that distinction depends on whether society has a right to the body of the individual or its products. (That is a quite interesting question in its own right, but can't be resolved by my present line of argument.) Now, getting back to reality: It should now be clear that if we were to adopt the proposed definition of legimitate state violence as serving the function of defending the weak against the strong, while exercising self-restraint so that the state itself does not infringe on the rights of its relatively weaker citizens, then the case of the police arresting a man whose wife has asked for their intervention does not seem to me to be the slippery slope that so many of you fear. There are really two fears here (as I noted in my last post). One is that whenever a governmental body intervenes in an otherwise (relatively) private affair, it risks being ineffectual or even making things worse (the automatic-arrest example). The other is that whenever a governmental body intervenes in such a case, the "state" has taken one more step in the direction of becoming a "police state" (as one of our colleagues called it). The first fear does not, in principle, address the question of whether the state *should* intervene, only that it should do so in an effective way if at all. A reasonable response to this fear would have to demonstrate that some public agent was able in practice to ameliorate the problem in question, rather than make it worse or waste the citizens' money by minimal effect. The second fear is more difficult to address, since its empirical foundation is as difficult to identify as it is to assess. At the abstract level, one merely has to point out that a state that takes advantage of its citizens by using its power to intrude unnecessarily would no longer be legitimate. In practice, such a claim is obviously laughable, since the question is always "what constitutes unnecessary intrustion" (or what are the boundaries of the right to privacy, if there is one). (Note: Another point I tried to make is that people express Fear #1, about the "state's" proclivity to foul things up, when what they really feel is Fear #2, that the state is always poking its nose where it doesn't belong, which is characteristic of "libertarians" of various stripes, whether those who want to smoke pot, those who want to shoot machine guns, and those who want to pollute the environment--three empirically somewhat separate groups). To sum things up, then, the foregoing line of reasoning suggests a way to think of state power that grants it legitimacy in many cases of victimization that really bother us, like domestic violence. Crucial is the distinction between abstract theory and empirical practice. In principle, for example, there is no distinction between violence by or against women and violence by or against men. Empirically, however, men both experience and commit the preponderance of violent acts, while women are victims of considerably more violence at the hands of adult men than the dish out. Similarly, I just read in the NYT that girls under 18 make up half of all rape victims and that most of them are raped by people known to them--now there's an empirical distinction for you! (i.e. child vs. adult). Exceptions, outliers, etc. are just that: surely we have to consider the *prevalence* of a type of violent act, not merely its existence! Thus, if the state does not protect those who experience the most violence, then there is no one else who can (vigilante justice could be considered a body competing for state-status). If we fear the state overreaching its legitimate bounds, let us consider the alternatives. Someone mentioned the scenario of corporate domination of individuals. When Standard Oil held a near monopoly on petroleum fuel, who would have stopped them if not the federal government? Sure, it would be scary if kids were reporting their parents to the police for things the kids themselves didn't care about, like tax evasion or something, but doesn't this prospect seem kind of ridiculous when we consider the barrage of subliminal, behavior modifying stimuli that bombard us every day courtesy of Big Business (I'll fear this guy over Big Brother any day, at least in the West). To me, the really scary thing is that it's precisely in the interest of the capitalist robber barons (oops, my agenda is showing) that we argue about whether the LAPD arresting O.J. Simpson is Orwellian, rather than whether letting the Disney corporation write history for us or letting big business school our kids (okay, I don't have any yet) is the likelier threat to the autonomy of the private sphere (I like Habermas's analysis of this situation). I apologize profusely for the length of this post, which was unintended. (Of course, you didn't have to read it.) Many thanks for allowing me to contribute. Jeremy - Univ. of Chicago From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Sun Jun 26 16:51:37 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Sun, 26 Jun 1994 16:50:02 -0700 for socgrad-list Sun, 26 Jun 1994 16:49:58 -0700 for Date: Sun, 26 Jun 94 19:32:51 EDT From: Marni Hancock Organization: Emory University - Atlanta, Georgia, USA Subject: PUBLIC/PRIVATE/VIOLENCE To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU I've been following the discussion but have contributed only once. At this point I want to ask what we're asking of the state in these situations. I THINK that some contributors to the discussion would expect a great deal of insight into human behavior on the part of ordinary police officers. My concern is in areas of decision-making-- surely each call by a woman to the police complaining of battery by a spouse or significant other is not legitimate--I don't want to be in a society where one person can have another arrested simply by accusing that person of a specific crime. How then are the officers who respond to such calls expected to decide what intervention, if any, they need to make? We've gone through time periods where essentially no men were ever arrested to a time where in at least some areas every man thought to be abusive is to be arrested. Could someone make an effort to write guidelines/criteria to be used by the police officer who responds to a 911 call where there is no evidence of a crime visible to the officer upon arrival at the scene? How about what the court should do when the accused pleads nolo contendre (spelling?), the alleged victim has reconciled with the accused, and there is no compelling evidence of physical abuse? (ie, no injuries that are not compatible with other causes--trips, falls, etc.). It seems to me that these are complex issues--especially in an urban society where cultures meet and sometimes clash. Theoretically, I am all in favor of society protecting the weak from abuse by the strong. Realistically, I'm not at all sure I can always identify who's weak and who's strong. Marni Hancock SOCAW059@EMUVM1.CC.EMORY.EDU From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Sun Jun 26 19:46:11 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Sun, 26 Jun 1994 19:44:47 -0700 for socgrad-list Sun, 26 Jun 1994 19:44:45 -0700 for Subject: Re: Sociology of Sport - Soccer To: S-ENDER@bss1.umd.edu Date: Sun, 26 Jun 1994 21:44:41 -0500 (CDT) From: "John J. Maurer" I would like to suggest a book for those who are football (soccer) fans, which is appropriate for sociological evaluation. It is titled, _Among The Thugs_ , by Bill Buford. It doesn't provide much in the way of theory but it does give some quite descriptive details of the author's experience with "football" fans. Incidentally it makes quite a great read for those who are not necessarily sports fans either. The author himself admittedly was not a huge fan (at first) either, but rather, was curious of the accounts of violence at soccer games and the amount of passion fans carry for the sport and specifically their home teams. This book would enlighten readers of why the American soccer experience isn't and probably never will be even close to that in Europe. It would also be interesting for criminology buffs and provide important information on the aspects of qualitative research. For example does ingratiating oneself into the study group work? How difficult is this? How far is too far when trying to maintain objectivity? Anyways, if you read it or have read it, let me know what your thoughts are of it. John Maurer From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Jun 27 12:04:15 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 27 Jun 1994 12:02:35 -0700 for socgrad-list Mon, 27 Jun 1994 12:02:25 -0700 for From: BREKHUS@zodiac.rutgers.edu Date: Mon, 27 Jun 1994 15:02:03 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: PUBLIC/PRIVATE/VIOLENCE To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Marni, I don't know how to answer the question, but it might help to extend the question to public crimes, as well. For instance, how should the police respond to a 911 call where an individual says she/he has just been robbed at gunpoint. There's not likely to be any evidence in this type of armedrobbery, and thus, its theoretically possible that one could set up someone theydidn't like and claim to have been robbed at gunpoint. At least with assaults there's likely to be cuts, bruises and other evidence. With armed robberies, unless done in front of a camera, the police really only have the victims word to go on. Wayne Brekhus--Rutgers From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Jun 27 14:17:52 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 27 Jun 1994 14:16:09 -0700 for socgrad-list Mon, 27 Jun 1994 14:16:07 -0700 for From: XGWALTERS@ccvax.fullerton.edu Date: 27 Jun 1994 14:13:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: RE:public/private violence To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU wayne brekhus stated: With armed robberies, unless done in front of a camera, the police really only have the victims word to go on. would you suggest wayne, that we all be issued video cameras to avoid this "Boy cries wolf syndrome"? Because of the lack of domestic violence reporting I think it important that police react to each kind of call. And seeing that these calls seem to be most dangerous to police officers they use a lot of discretion. I happened to come upon a man throwing his at least 6 month pregnant wife around in the street one night. Since I was with friends we walked up to this couple to find out the problem. (complete silence from both of them). so... we called the police. the police came, and the woman would not say anything to them about the incident and the police left. We sat outside wondering what would happen but could not do anything. I suppose what I am trying to get at is the importance of community policing(i.e. neigborhood watch). this private/public issue is too touchy and definitely frustrating when you know things like this are happening. do we teach all weaker spouses the art of self defense to prevent domestic violence? thats all, greg From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Jun 27 16:20:37 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 27 Jun 1994 16:10:36 -0700 for socgrad-list Mon, 27 Jun 1994 16:10:30 -0700 for Date: Mon, 27 Jun 94 18:13:00 EDT From: Steve Harvey Subject: problems and solutions To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU Underneath the discussion of private v. public, domestic v. state, etc, and underneath most (if not all) of our discussions, there lies the more essential (i.e., more abstract) issue of "problems" and "solutions". In some ways, our social reality *is* the ongoing solution(s) to ongoing (and emerging) problems. But old solutions create new problems: the "problemness" is endemic (not any particular problem, just the social "problematique"). Sometimes, sociologists (like political commentators in general) assume a standard against which they measure present realities. Conservative sociologists assume a Hobbesian standard of total mutual destructiveness, against which any convention or contract weighs in as a triumph to be lauded. Radical sociologists often assume a Rousseauian standard (though many who do are not explicitly aware of it), in which any institutional form short of utopia is an odious failure, and a mere instrument of oppression. I think neither of these positions are reasonable. We should start with an attitude of "what is, is." There are many places to go from that starting point, and I'm not against using sociology to inform political agendas. But, unfortunately, too may people put the cart before the horse, and use political agendas to inform sociology. This is a debilitating mistake, because it militates against the credibility of the discipline, and its potential as a positive analytical tool. We have disenabled ourselves from discussing the most heated issues in non-heated terms. Since the discussion surrounding domestic violence posits, above all else, its prevalence, we cannot treat it as an anomoly. Since it is not an anomoly, we should be asking how it fits into the total social reality. One way of doing this is to characterize the "total social reality" as patriarchal, but, aside from many strong points in favor of such an approach, it errs on the side of assuming a quasi-Rousseauian standard of comparison (i.e., "patriarchy" is by no means intended as a value-neutral term). "Patriarchy" is a distortion of the "good" social reality that could exist in its absence. This is a fatal flaw, for patriarchy (to the extent that the term is useful) is itself a matrix of solutions to problems, and not, as ideologues would have it, a purely imposed and onesided solution. Such discussions as this are always dangerous (and always get me in grave trouble), because any attempt to suspend valuation is seen by some as a defense of the status quo. Actually, my own agenda is most closely associated with what Burrel and Morgen characterize as "Radical Humanism," which includes radical feminism and Frankfurt School sociology. But, I firmly believe that sometimes you have to exit East to go West, and the old scientistic philosophy of *attempting* to do value-free *research* has been too quickly discarded by many sociologists. One will never fully succeed, and one will always have values (that may be more fully expressed in other endeavors), but I lament the fact that we start our discussions with our value-commitments, and go from there. There are many things that we are capable of "seeing", but that we fail to, as a result. The cost in this case is that no attempt to address the subject at hand in any way that is not self-consciously condemnatory will be tolerated. If one tries to *explain* domestic violence, a lot of people will go balistic over what they will see as the attempt to *justify* it. The only explanations that are admissible are those which identify domestic violence as a special case of villainry. Well, it *is* a case of villainry, but there's nothing all that special (or exceptional) about villainry. More people (of all genders and races and ethnicities) have more of it in common than most of us are willing to acknowledge. That, above all else, is the potentially great lesson of the O.J. Simpson case. Someone who was quintessentially *not* a villain, after all, is. Not so much because he had us fooled, but because we, in a deep and abiding way, have ourselves fooled. This is not as cynical as it sounds. In fact, I'm more often accused (by intimates) of being an idealist than of being a cynic. I also believe that humans are well-endowed with imagination, compassion, and other traits we have come to consider "noble" or admirable. It's hard to realize that the two are intertwined, and that we are not each a combination of "good" and "evil", but rather something which is simultaneously both and neither, and that these concepts have been developed by most cultures in some form or another as a tool to help exercise a collective will to coexist happily and fruitfully. This may all seem irrelevant, too obscure and abstract to have any meaning for real problems in the real world. But I think how we frame these issues has direct consequences for how we tackle them. And, obviously, I think that framing them in this way would allow us to tackle them more effectively. But that can be a discussion for another time.... Steve harvey@uconnvm From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Jun 27 16:24:38 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 27 Jun 1994 16:18:57 -0700 for socgrad-list Mon, 27 Jun 1994 16:18:55 -0700 for From: estrayer@cats.ucsc.edu Date: Mon, 27 Jun 1994 16:18:52 -0700 To: SOCAW059@emuvm1.cc.emory.edu, SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU Subject: Re: PUBLIC/PRIVATE/VIOLENCE Organization: Emory University - Atlanta, Georgia, USA Subject: PUBLIC/PRIVATE/VIOLENCE To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU I've been following the discussion but have contributed only once. At this point I want to ask what we're asking of the state in these situations. I THINK that some contributors to the discussion would expect a great deal of insight into human behavior on the part of ordinary police officers. My concern is in areas of decision-making-- -------------------- ES Boy, that's another topic! I really fry when I read/hear/ see how vicious, unthinking, chauvinistic, ethnocentric, and on and on, police officers can be. (RE: COPS, personal experience, etc.) I don't see why the police can't be sociologicsts. I don't mean graduate level per se, but trained to understand problems from a subject-position standpoint, and to be sensitive to social reproduction, internalized racism, etc. I have also thought that police might be enticed from the local community in lieu of military servce (benefits etc) as a means of integration and reducing barriers between police and the general public. This would be complex, but I think has a lot of potential. Recently a government figure made the same kind of statement -- don't recall who :-( [Of course, I also get a haunting vision of Clockwork Orange from this too!] But the upshot is, that I think that the police CAN be sensitive and aware enough to much improve decision making upon domestic intervention and matters of arrest etc. --------------------- Thoughts? eric From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Jun 27 17:28:43 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 27 Jun 1994 17:27:27 -0700 for socgrad-list Mon, 27 Jun 1994 17:27:25 -0700 for From: estrayer@cats.ucsc.edu Date: Mon, 27 Jun 1994 17:27:20 -0700 To: HARVEY@UConnVM.UConn.Edu, SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU Subject: Re: problems and solutions From: Steve Harvey Subject: problems and solutions To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU ---------- SH's stuff seriously cut for convience of response ------------ SH...measure present realities. Conservative sociologists assume a Hobbesian standard of total mutual destructiveness, against which any convention or contract weighs in as a triumph to be lauded. Radical sociologists often assume a Rousseauian standard (though many who do are not explicitly aware of it), in which any institutional form short of utopia is an odious failure, and a mere instrument of oppression. I think neither of these positions are reasonable. We should start with an attitude of "what is, is." There are many ----------- ES As I'm still an undergrad I'll have to take your word for it re the Hobbesians versus the Rousseauians, but sounds like an unliklihood to me. Anyway, my take on Rousseau was that his General Will ended up resembling an autocracy. He mentions that the unwilling will be brought in kicking and screaming. If ya want I'll cite it, but I think you know what I mean. I doubt anyone in socy these days could be reduced to cranky old Hobbes and idealistic JJR's perspectives. ----------- SH...We have disenabled ourselves from discussing the most heated issues in non-heated terms. Since the discussion surrounding domestic violence posits, above all else, its prevalence, we cannot treat it as an anomoly. Since it is not an anomoly, we should be asking how it fits into the total social reality. One way of doing this is to characterize the "total social reality" as patriarchal, but, aside from many strong points in favor of such an approach, it errs on the side of assuming a quasi-Rousseauian standard of comparison (i.e., "patriarchy" is by no means intended as a value-neutral term). "Patriarchy" is a distortion of the "good" social reality that could exist in its absence. This is a fatal flaw, for patriarchy (to the extent that the term is useful) is itself a matrix of solutions to problems, and not, as ideologues would have it, a purely imposed and onesided solution. ------------ ES Why don't we leave partriarchy as a description of a male dominated society and move on? Trying to make the term imply its opposite by tender usage only confuses the hell out of me. ------------ SH...associated with what Burrel and Morgen characterize as "Radical Humanism," which includes radical feminism and Frankfurt School sociology. But, I firmly believe that sometimes you have to exit East to go West, and the old scientistic philosophy of *attempting* to do value-free *research* has been too quickly discarded by many sociologists. One will never fully succeed, and one will always have values (that may be more fully expressed in other endeavors), but I lament the fact that we start our discussions with our value-commitments, and go from there. There are many things that we are capable of "seeing", but that we fail to, as a result. ------------- ES Don't sweat it. But don't you think it is time to either move beyond the Frankfurter School or at least brink it up to date (PM F_School???)? That whole thing about "high art" and "low art" is very lame at this point (pretty neat when it was posited though). Don't be afraid to play with PM. And Black-Feminism may really be the best place to look for ideological grounds for pragmatic solutions to current social probs as have been discussed. (Yo, I'm no expert -- just noting my "read" of your stuff. I love this place!) ------------- SH... If one tries to *explain* domestic violence, a lot of people will go balistic over what they will see as the attempt to *justify* it. The only explanations that are admissible are those which identify domestic violence as a special case of villainry. Well, it *is* a case of villainry, but there's nothing all that --- cut ------------ ES People are going balistic overy everything anyway. BUt I haven't seen much of that here. Nobody has flamed me yet, and I am sort of an interloper being undergrad. If you don't shoot your mouth off once in a while, how will you know what you want to say? If you piss someone off, no biggie. If they are mindful, then they will probably be polite about it anyway. -------------- special (or exceptional) about villainry. More people (of all genders and races and ethnicities) have more of it in common than most of us are willing to acknowledge. That, above all else, is the potentially great lesson of the O.J. Simpson case. Someone who was quintessentially *not* a villain, after all, is. Not so much because he had us fooled, but because we, in a deep and abiding way, have ourselves fooled. -------------- ES Are you saying that OJ "was quintessentially NOT a villain, but NOW is?" I kind of prefer some other guy's take on the Greek Tragedy issue. OJ was a HERO, and has fallen in tragedy. But for practical purposes, he is an accused public figure, a man of color, and accused of a crime that challenges many of the fundamental ways our society thinks and acts regarding women, victims in general, what is and is not private, and how much control government should have regarding such. I can't think of OJ as a villain. Not yet anyway. My take on such violence is that it is a) usually learned behavior, b) often a depricating and debilitating for the perpritator And other members of family and friends, if not as much so for the actual victim (especially in the OJ case where fatalities resulted). ------------ cut cut cut ----------- SH: This may all seem irrelevant, too obscure and abstract to have any meaning for real problems in the real world. But I think how we frame these issues has direct consequences for how we tackle them. And, obviously, I think that framing them in this way would allow us to tackle them more effectively. But that can be a discussion for another time.... ----------- ES Well, nothing ventured, nothing gained! :-) ----------- Steve harvey@uconnvm ===================================================================== Eric Strayer DoD#1120 | I've been wrong before | estrayer@cats.ucsc.edu | & I'll be wrong again. | student, beggar, dilettante | * All in a day's work! * | ===================================================================== From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Jun 27 18:47:02 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 27 Jun 1994 18:45:47 -0700 for socgrad-list Mon, 27 Jun 1994 18:45:45 -0700 for Date: Mon, 27 Jun 1994 19:09:51 -0600 (MDT) From: rebel alm aitchison Subject: Re: circus/fray To: estrayer@cats.ucsc.edu On Thu, 23 Jun 1994 estrayer@cats.ucsc.edu wrote: ---------------snip, snip XGWALTERS message--------------- > ES: The media is in competition to get the most of any > story. They simply don't want to be left out. Reporters > don't last long letting the competition not only scoop > them, but blitz them. It's a capitalist thing. Competition. > There are really no moral considerations other than profit. > > eric Eeeuuw, it's those evil capitalists again, all their fault!! Really Eric, are you trying to tell me that before capitalism (and, granted, the need to sell more of something, anything, to make money to stay alive) nobody ever competed at anything or wanted to better at something than somebody else?? Writers didn't want to have more people read their work than somebody else's? You think Marx didn't work real hard (probably Engels did it for him so poor old Karl wouldn't have to soil his hands at *selling* (eeeuuuw!) his work) to have more people read his work than were reading whoever had competing historical theories?? You think hunters and gatherers don't want to get more of the berries than their neighboring tribe? Getting there first is an instinct as old as life itself. So let's give that tired old refrain about evil old capitalists bringing competition into an otherwise pristine world a break, okay? From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Jun 27 18:48:00 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 27 Jun 1994 18:47:03 -0700 for socgrad-list Mon, 27 Jun 1994 18:47:02 -0700 for Date: Mon, 27 Jun 1994 19:25:51 -0600 (MDT) From: rebel alm aitchison Subject: Re: jumping into the fray To: estrayer@cats.ucsc.edu On Thu, 23 Jun 1994 estrayer@cats.ucsc.edu wrote: > Subject: Re: jumping into the fray > Public violence against women? Except for rape, rates of public violence > against men are 6 to 12 times that of women. --------snip, snip some of Jetaway Dave's comments------> > Regarding the notion of violence against women being considered > separatly from that against men, I'd have to say that women are > nearly always at the disadvantage to defend themselves against > men. Men often have size on their side. Also there is the > historical precedent of a patriarchal society. Women also > tend to consider the welfare of their children more than > men do in violent situations (I'm on thin ice here). > Also, nobody likes to admit that someone else can and does > "beat them up." Being beaten is also to be shamed, which > while applicapable to all genders is going to just add to > the problem for a woman who is being physically dominated > by a man. > So yes, it IS necessary to consider violence against women > separately from violence against men. Sorry Eric, I'm female and half-a-century old, and I disagree with you, not just for myself, but from an historical perspective. Women have always had power that emanates from their very sexuality. If modern woman, especially Western woman, has lost the knowledge of how to use that power, that's a problem, but it doesn't mean that she has always been helpless in her relations with men. Physical size aside, she has a pheromonic power that can, when she knows how to use it, exceeds the physical size of a man. It's a lost art and it's too bad. Latin women have known how to use it until they started getting Westernized. I agree that the situation now is bad, but the answer is not to browbeat, invalidate, casitage, flagellate, and otherwsie demean men as unfair, unthinking brutes. Many good things in this world have come from the male sex, and besides that, I happen to like them. I think a better "answer" (if an answer is what we need) would be to find the dignity and goodness in all people, of all genders as well as all ethnicities, and stop this nah-nah-nah-nah-nah level of recrimination. > > Your reference to "public" violence agains men being > 12 times greater than against women does not > actually address the issue here. Maybe...depends on whether the issue is really an "Issue" with a capital I, or is it just conveniently defined as such for the pcs. >Violence against men is almost always perpetrated by > other men. Certainly we need to address all aspects > of violence separately as well as in multiple > contexts. But violence of men against their spouses > is a biggie all by itself, and needs specail attention. > Eric Violence of any kind, black-against-black, male-against-female, Serbian-against-Croatian, or whatever has roots in a human need for dignity and respect. Denigrating people of whatever specification for being violent exacerbates the problem, then the solution becomes a problem in itself. Rebel, Univ New Mexico, Dept of Soc From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Jun 27 19:05:16 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 27 Jun 1994 19:03:52 -0700 for socgrad-list Mon, 27 Jun 1994 19:03:49 -0700 for Date: Mon, 27 Jun 1994 20:03:47 -0600 (MDT) From: rebel alm aitchison Subject: Re: Re: jumping into the fray To: Robert Duniway On Fri, 24 Jun 1994, Robert Duniway wrote: Thank you Bob. I'm female and I agree with you. Almost ruins my beautiful crown work. What we as sociologistsshouldn't forget but always seem to (I face the same issue in causal attributions around juvenile delinquency), many women DO get out of abusive relationships, with or without children, they tell their abusive mates to f*** off and they get on with their lives. However, these women do not make it into the system to get counted in these statistics that we lean on as if they were truth, because they don't need any help. (Same goes with attributions of dysfunctional families as causes of delinquency etc., there are lots of resilient people from incredibly dysfunctional backgrounds who don't become delinquent but also don't get counted.) I told my first husband to go to hell, raised two children by myself with NO public assitance, made a career for myself, found myself a nice man for a second husband (I was not doomed to repeat my first error), have now started the liberating half of my lifetime (menopause) which includes graduate school, and never made it into the rolls in any way. Not that my one case makes the truth, but I have met plenty of women who have also just "done it" and not whined and whimpered about it. So please, don't generalize and lump all women who've been abused as coming from the same cloth, or think that the modal descriptives fit enough of the cases to worth hedging your probabilistic bets on. Some *human beings* tend to get into abusive relationships because of some factor that's much harder to discover than ethnicity or gender which is very obvious and so easier to use as an explanation. If we could find out why some people need to be abused, we'll probably get a lot farther than attaching solutions on the most easily identified factor which may or may not have anything to do with things. > > Sweeping statements like these tend to raise my dental bills (i.e. my > teeth grate). Not all women who stay in abusive relationships are > trapped by economic constraints. Some men who stay in abusive > relationships probably feel economic pressure to do so. In an effort to > be sociological we shouldn't make the mistake of only seeing the modal > pattern and ignoring the variations. In this case the variations suggest > that violence is a class of behavior which has complex causes and > consequences. I'll get off my soapbox now. > > Bob Duniway, University of Washington > > From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Jun 27 19:17:42 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 27 Jun 1994 19:16:45 -0700 for socgrad-list Mon, 27 Jun 1994 19:16:44 -0700 for From: estrayer@cats.ucsc.edu Date: Mon, 27 Jun 1994 19:15:20 -0700 To: estrayer@cats.ucsc.edu, rpalm@unm.edu Subject: Re: circus/fray From rpalm@unm.edu Mon Jun 27 18:09:51 1994 Date: Mon, 27 Jun 1994 19:09:51 -0600 (MDT) To: estrayer@cats.ucsc.edu On Thu, 23 Jun 1994 estrayer@cats.ucsc.edu wrote: ---------------snip, snip XGWALTERS message--------------- > ES: The media is in competition to get the most of any > story. They simply don't want to be left out. Reporters > don't last long letting the competition not only scoop > them, but blitz them. It's a capitalist thing. Competition. > There are really no moral considerations other than profit. > > eric Eeeuuw, it's those evil capitalists again, all their fault!! Really Eric, are you trying to tell me that before capitalism (and, granted, the need to sell more of something, anything, to make money to stay alive) nobody ever competed at anything or wanted to better at something than somebody else?? Writers didn't want to have more people read their work than somebody else's? You think Marx didn't work real hard (probably Engels did it for him so poor old Karl wouldn't have to soil his hands at *selling* (eeeuuuw!) his work) to have more people read his work than were reading whoever had competing historical theories?? You think hunters and gatherers don't want to get more of the berries than their neighboring tribe? Getting there first is an instinct as old as life itself. So let's give that tired old refrain about evil old capitalists bringing competition into an otherwise pristine world a break, okay? ================== Why should I? Competition is NOT an instinct. H/G (better G/H) societies have come and gone and exist in a variety of forms. I don't recall anthropology presenting any a priori one way or another really. Actually Marx worked as a journalist for the NY/London Times. Engles owned a mill I believe. What has that got to do with my argument that journalists are in a position to get stories via pressure from capital? And please, no making funny noises while someone else is writing. :-) (eeeuuuw! indeed!) es From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Jun 27 19:37:53 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 27 Jun 1994 19:36:52 -0700 for socgrad-list Mon, 27 Jun 1994 19:36:50 -0700 for Date: Mon, 27 Jun 94 22:21:20 EDT From: Steve Harvey Subject: competition To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU Eric- It remains an open question (and a largely conceptual one) whether "competi- tion" is or is not an "instinct" (i.e., a transhistorical, transcultural characteristic). One can interpret tribal societies as having mobilized the competitive "instinct" (i.e., non-cooperative strategic interaction for self-benefit) to intergroup rather than intragroup level. And it is entirely possible to explain the levels of solidarity found in such societies as a function of self-interested behavior. The mechanisms by which self-interest is harnessed to collective interests are as evident in such highly solidary "tribal" societies as they are in the more "competitive" capitalistic societies. Furthermore, ecologists and biologists have forged the most analytically powerful paradigms in the life sciences (as, arguably, economists have forged the most analytically powerful paradigms in the social sciences -"analytically powerful" being the key phrase) extending that assumption not just to *humans* in general, but to *life* in general. It would be rather species-centric of us to exempt ourselves, don't you think? Steve harvey@uconnvm From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Jun 27 20:00:25 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 27 Jun 1994 19:58:09 -0700 for socgrad-list Mon, 27 Jun 1994 19:58:07 -0700 for From: Jeremy Straughn Subject: problems and solutions (fwd) To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Mon, 27 Jun 94 21:58:04 CDT Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] Steve H. writes: > > Underneath the discussion of private v. public, domestic v. state, etc, and > underneath most (if not all) of our discussions, there lies the more essential > (i.e., more abstract) issue of "problems" and "solutions". In some ways, our > social reality *is* the ongoing solution(s) to ongoing (and emerging) problems. > But old solutions create new problems: the "problemness" is endemic (not any > particular problem, just the social "problematique"). Sometimes, sociologists > (like political commentators in general) assume a standard against which they > measure present realities. Conservative sociologists assume a Hobbesian > standard of total mutual destructiveness, against which any convention or > contract weighs in as a triumph to be lauded. Radical sociologists often > assume a Rousseauian standard (though many who do are not explicitly aware of > it), in which any institutional form short of utopia is an odious failure, > and a mere instrument of oppression. I think neither of these positions are > reasonable. We should start with an attitude of "what is, is." There are many > places to go from that starting point, and I'm not against using sociology to > inform political agendas. But, unfortunately, too may people put the cart > before the horse, and use political agendas to inform sociology. This is a > debilitating mistake, because it militates against the credibility of the > discipline, and its potential as a positive analytical tool. > > The cost in this case is that no attempt to address the subject at hand in > any way that is not self-consciously condemnatory will be tolerated. If one > tries to *explain* domestic violence, a lot of people will go balistic over > what they will see as the attempt to *justify* it. The only explanations that > are admissible are those which identify domestic violence as a special case of > villainry. Well, it *is* a case of villainry, but there's nothing all that > special (or exceptional) about villainry. More people (of all genders and > races and ethnicities) have more of it in common than most of us are willing > to acknowledge. That, above all else, is the potentially great lesson of the > O.J. Simpson case. Someone who was quintessentially *not* a villain, after all, > is. Not so much because he had us fooled, but because we, in a deep and > abiding way, have ourselves fooled. > > This is not as cynical as it sounds. In fact, I'm more often accused (by > intimates) of being an idealist than of being a cynic. I also believe that > humans are well-endowed with imagination, compassion, and other traits we > have come to consider "noble" or admirable. It's hard to realize that the > two are intertwined, and that we are not each a combination of "good" and > "evil", but rather something which is simultaneously both and neither, and > that these concepts have been developed by most cultures in some form or > another as a tool to help exercise a collective will to coexist happily > and fruitfully. Good and evil Response to Steve's post: Steve raises the issue of value neutrality in social science as it relates to the sociological discussion of domestic violence (and a particular historical case--O.J. and Nicole Simpson). He is concerned about the tendency of social scientists to presuppose that sociological problems are also social problems, e.g. they regard domestic violence before the fact as something to be *solved*, rather than starting from the standpoint that "what is, is" and that such phenomena are part of the social totality, rather than anomalies. He is especially troubled by standards that require one to state one's value presuppositions in advance and that, moreover, revile anyone who fails to deplore the problem at the outset (which sounds like what has come to be called "political correctness"--has there been discussion of what that is recently?). In concluding, he cautions us against leaping to the conclusion that O.J. is a villain and suggests that villainy or "evil" is a more general phenomenon that is more "intertwined" with good than we like to believe (each of us has both tendencies). Obviously, this is a long-standing (theoretical) problem, usually associated with Weber, among others. Is value-free science possible? Or do our values as human being inescapably bias the results of social scientific research? It seems to me that Weber is helpful in pointing out that no science can explain everything that our senses encounter in its totality; we have to choose what we're going to study, and we necessarily assume that what we are studying is important for some reason that makes sense to us (the very concept of totality reflects a way of understanding society, or the universe, in a manner that is in no way inescapable--and has discernable implications for the kind of questions its adherents will pose). In some cases, we choose "problems" precisely because they are _problems_. Does anyone study domestic violence who either condones it or is indifferent to its consequences? Where the "objectivity" (Weber usually used quotation marks) comes in is in our adherence to conventional standards of logical and methodological rigor, including refraining from working backward from a preferred conclusion to the data that support it. Too often we exclude possible conclusions in advance in a way not warranted by the problem (e.g. that the police should be involved in reducing the incidence of domestic violence, or that the police should *not* be involved...). When this happens, the "best" solution (according to whatever standards) from among those we would otherwise arrive at may not be discovered. On the other side, it is also possible to constrain, for ideological purposes, the range of *problems* that can be investigated. Steve's allusion to P.C. is apropos. So long as a set of norms prevails that rules some problems off limits, or requires their solution to fall within established parameters, the humanistic objectives of science will probably not be served. We conduct social science inside a community of our peers, and this community lies within a society and a world to which we all belong and to which our individual interests are inescapably linked. The manner in which we conduct our research must meet standards shared by others besides ourselves, standards which embody values such as logical consistency, thoroughness, fairness, professional ethics, and the like. These form what Kuhn called the "disciplinary matrix" of all scientific inquiry, and something like it permeates all our work (though there is in sociology no *single* community or set of standards). Because of our placement in a society and a world, social scientific research often pertains to values prevalent in social contexts larger than that of the disclipline. This is what Weber called "cultural relevance." I see no conflict between these two types of values (discplinary and social) with acceptable social scientific research. (I would submit that they characterize what is regarded as legitimate research in the "natural" sciences as well). Interestingly, Steve ends up making what could be called a moral exhortation when he, in effect, calls on us to examine ourselves to find both the hero and the villain within. Weber studied how such categories arose and functioned differently in different societies and periods with considerable (if not impeccable) methodological rigor. It is not always easy to tell how Weber himself was personally affected by the conclusions of his research--a tribute to him. At the end of his Protestant Ethic, he judgment of rationalized, bureaucratized modernity as an "iron cage" is as unmistakeable as it is unanticipated. Similarly with Steve's reflections. Perhaps it is not so inappropriate after all to mix our scientific and our ethical pursuits, so long as we combine them in a way that does not undermine either or both. If anything, I am struck by the taboo on reflecting about ethics at the philosophical level in sociology. In light of the domestic violence discussion we've been having, this seems a little absurd. Are there any sociologists out there who don't care a lick about society, or about people? If we try to determine what kinds of approaches to violence against domestic partners will be effective (and there seems to be very little discussion about it that does not in some way lead in that direction)--if we wonder whether the local police should be sociologists, whether they should have more intimate ties to the community they serve, or whether citizens should take things into "their own" hands more through community policing, vigilante justice, or some other measure, or whether domestic violence ultimately is not just a problem of law enforcement or even social norms but of a tangled web of forces that make each of us who we are and some of us more likely to explode violently at our loved ones that others are-- then it is because of something like moral conviction that this is a *problem* that needs to be solved--somehow--and we want to be a part of the solution and not part of the problem. Jeremy S. strau@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Jun 27 20:07:52 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 27 Jun 1994 20:04:45 -0700 for socgrad-list Mon, 27 Jun 1994 20:04:42 -0700 for Date: Mon, 27 Jun 94 22:49:59 EDT From: Steve Harvey Subject: addendum to "competition" To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU I make this mistake too often: I was not arguing that "competition" clearly *is* an "instinct" (i.e., transhistorical, transcultural human characteristic), but rather that the opposite is far from an incontrovertable truth. Every discipline has a tendancy to balkanize itself within its particular takes on these very open questions, and since Eric came down very neatly on the side of sociological dogma, I felt it appropriate to point out that it's simply a conceptual preference on the part of sociologists. Wisdom begins with the fewest possible assumptions, and the greatest possible admission of ignorance. Steve From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Jun 27 20:13:44 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 27 Jun 1994 20:12:23 -0700 for socgrad-list Mon, 27 Jun 1994 20:12:20 -0700 for Date: Mon, 27 Jun 94 23:08:10 EDT From: Steve Harvey Subject: quick response to Jeremy To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU I didn't posit that value free sociology is possible, and, if it is impossible, it is moot to question whether it is desirable. I said that *attempting to* conduct value free sociology may be desirable, because in the attempt we can better avoid the tendency to pollute conclusions with predispositions. I also mentioned the value of informing our political passions with our knowledge and insight: How then am I paraphrased as recommending a separation of the two? -steve From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Jun 27 20:18:18 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 27 Jun 1994 20:17:07 -0700 for socgrad-list Mon, 27 Jun 1994 20:17:05 -0700 for From: Jeremy Straughn Subject: oops To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Mon, 27 Jun 94 22:17:02 CDT Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] Socgradders, I meant to delete Steve's text from my last post before sending sending it. If you got fed up with how long it is, try starting half-way down (where my text begins). Sorry. Thanks, Jeremy S. (the verbose, lately) strau@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Jun 27 20:32:19 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 27 Jun 1994 20:31:13 -0700 for socgrad-list Mon, 27 Jun 1994 20:31:10 -0700 for From: Jeremy Straughn Subject: competition To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Mon, 27 Jun 94 22:31:07 CDT Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] Eric had argued that competition is not inherent in people. Steve replies: > > Eric- > > It remains an open question (and a largely conceptual one) whether "competi- > tion" is or is not an "instinct" (i.e., a transhistorical, transcultural > characteristic). One can interpret tribal societies as having mobilized > the competitive "instinct" (i.e., non-cooperative strategic interaction for > self-benefit) to intergroup rather than intragroup level. And it is entirely > possible to explain the levels of solidarity found in such societies as a > function of self-interested behavior. The mechanisms by which self-interest > is harnessed to collective interests are as evident in such highly solidary > "tribal" societies as they are in the more "competitive" > capitalistic societies. Furthermore, ecologists and biologists have forged > the most analytically powerful paradigms in the life sciences (as, arguably, > economists have forged the most analytically powerful paradigms in the > social sciences -"analytically powerful" being the key phrase) extending that > assumption not just to *humans* in general, but to *life* in general. It > would be rather species-centric of us to exempt ourselves, don't you think? > > Steve > harvey@uconnvm > Eric and Steve, Whether or not there was something we can gain analytic power by applying the concept of competition to earlier or other societies, one thing seems certain: the proverbial hunter-gatherer societies did not call it that. Whatever they were doing, the thought of it in different terms than we are using now and *how* they thought of what they were doing (their "theory," we could call it) was related to *what* they were doing (their "practices") in a different way. If nothing else, we could start an analysis of modern societies by asking what the consequences are of having well-developed theories or ideologies floating around that link concepts like competition, struggle to survive, efficiency, equilibrium, etc. to each other in a way that sets norms for legitimate behavior and policy in such societies. In short, what is new about modernity is the kind of theory we have of it and how that theory relates to our actions. JS strau@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Jun 27 20:33:33 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 27 Jun 1994 20:32:30 -0700 for socgrad-list Mon, 27 Jun 1994 20:32:27 -0700 for Date: Mon, 27 Jun 94 23:25:22 EDT From: Steve Harvey Subject: respnse to ? To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU Response to whoever paraphrased me as having said that OJ was once a hero, and is no longer: that invokes the very duality I renounced. Reread my post. I didn't refer to a temporal succession, but to simultaneous aspects of being. And even the reference to those "simultaneous aspects" was a stepping stone to a sense of a single, integrated nature, which we have since conceptually disected into "good" and "evil". From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Jun 27 20:37:25 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 27 Jun 1994 20:36:05 -0700 for socgrad-list Mon, 27 Jun 1994 20:36:03 -0700 for From: Jeremy Straughn Subject: quick response to Jeremy To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Mon, 27 Jun 94 22:36:00 CDT Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] > > I didn't posit that value free sociology is possible, and, if it is impossible, > it is moot to question whether it is desirable. I said that *attempting to* > conduct value free sociology may be desirable, because in the attempt we can > better avoid the tendency to pollute conclusions with predispositions. I also > mentioned the value of informing our political passions with our knowledge and > insight: How then am I paraphrased as recommending a separation of the two? > > -steve > Steve, What's the difference between avoiding "polluting conclusions with predispositions" and "recommending a separation of the two"? Can something pollute another thing that is not distinct from itself? Jeremy From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Jun 27 22:51:11 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Mon, 27 Jun 1994 22:50:05 -0700 for socgrad-list Mon, 27 Jun 1994 22:50:03 -0700 for From: BREKHUS@zodiac.rutgers.edu Date: Tue, 28 Jun 1994 01:49:51 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: public/private violence To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU In response to Marni's concern with the police acting on spousal complaints of domestic violence where all they have to go on is the victim's word, I said: "With armed robberies, unless done in front of a camera, the police really only have the victims word to go on." Greg replied: "would you suggest wayne, that we all be issued video cameras to avoid this "Boy cries wolf syndrome"? Thanks Greg, it was a humorous reply. I asked to have the question of "crying wolf" to be examined in the context of armed robbery rather than just in the case of domestic violence in order to illustrate a couple points. The answer is that I don't see a problem with the police initially accepting the victim's word on faith as a way of directing how to intervene/investigate. This is true whether the claim is that one was assaulted by their spouse, a stranger, or robbed by an acquaintence at gunpoint (unless their's reason for the police to believe the claim is "fishy" they should proceed with the assumption that most armed robbery victims and most domestic assault victims aren't crying wolf). Marni said "surely each call by a woman to the police complaining of battery by a spouse or significant other is not legitimate" so there's always a risk of arresting someone who didn't commit the crime, if the police act to hastily an accepting the victim's story as truth. I used the armed robbery example to suggest that sometimes the police should act even if the victim's word is their only evidence. I also used it to suggest that guiding police responses around the assumption that the victim might be "crying wolf" seems absurd if we're talking about armed robbery. It's probably true that some very very tiny fraction of people who call saying they've been robbed are lying, and that some really, really, timy fraction of people fake being assaulted, but I think it would be a bad idea to suggest to the police that they should go into the case under the assumption that the victim might be "crying wolf." I guess I just have a hard time believing that there are many people getting arrested because of bogus calls about assaults. And here's why: First, the number of bogus domestic assault calls is probably as ridiculously low (or at least nearly so) as the number of bogus robbery calls. That it seems plausible to view bogus calls as a legitimatconcern in one and not the other may have less to do with statistical probability than cultural ideology. Second, since assault is usually evidenced by cuts, bruises, torn hair etc, the odds that there will be no evidence isn't that high. And if there is no physical evidence and the accused batterer denies guilt, I suspect that there are very few cases where he (or she) will be arrested. Sometimes the police have trouble deciding who is at fault when both parties have cuts etc. but this is a different question. In the end I don't think determining whether or not an assault really occurred is very difficult in most cases. Wayne Brekhus, Rutgers From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Jun 28 05:08:45 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 28 Jun 1994 05:07:16 -0700 for socgrad-list Tue, 28 Jun 1994 05:07:14 -0700 for Date: Tue, 28 Jun 1994 08:07:13 -0400 (EDT) From: James Cassell Subject: 12-Month Faculty Research Assistant Position Available (fwd) To: Sociology Graduate Student Discussion Saw this on the FAMLYSCI list and thought someone out there might be interested. Please send all questions to walkera@ccmail.orst.edu Best, Jim ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Jim Cassell jwcassell@UNC.EDU Institute for Research in Social Science Phone: 919-962-0782 University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill Fax: 919-962-4777 Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3355 USA ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 23 Jun 1994 10:00:43 PST From:walkera@CCMAIL.ORST.EDU Subject: 12-Month Faculty Research Assistant Position Available I recently came into some grant money, and have thus far been unable to hire someone locally with the specific skills I need. I'm circulating the position announcement on the list in hopes that someone with the right background is still looking for a position for 1994-1995. The specific data set the person would be working with includes four- waves of data from middle-aged, caregiving daughters and their care-receiving, widowed mothers. Please contact me directly rather than reply to the list if you have questions or an interest in the position. My phone number and e-mail address appear below. Alexis Walker ____________________________________ RESEARCH ASSISTANT POSITION Faculty Research Assistant, Department of Human Development and Family Sciences. Half-time to full-time position August 1, 1994 or shortly thereafter through June 30, 1995, with renewal at the discretion of the principal investigator. Funding is limited to July 31, 1995. RESPONSIBILITIES Perform data analyses on longitudinal, paired-data set using repeated-measures multivariate analysis of variance, multiple regression, and structural equation modeling (LISREL). Participate in weekly project team meetings. Possible supervision of graduate research assistant if supplemental application is funded (appears likely). Beyond half-time, the position involves reviewing literature and writing manuscripts for publication. QUALIFICATIONS Ph.D. candidate or Ph.D. in one of the behavioral sciences (e.g., human development and family sciences, gerontology, psychology, sociology, or related field); thorough background in statistical methods, including longitudinal techniques and structural equation modeling. Applications from women and people of color are particularly encouraged. SALARY Based on $26,500 for 12-month, full-time position. APPLICATION Deadline is July 29, 1994, or until position is filled. Submit letter of application detailing statistical expertise and experience, curriculum vitae, and the names and addresses of three persons to provide references to: Alexis Walker Research Assistant Search Committee Department of Human Development and Family Sciences Milam 322 Oregon State University Corvallis OR 97331-5102 503/737-1083 503/737-1076 (FAX) walkera@ccmail.orst.edu (INTERNET) OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY IS AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION/EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER AND HAS A POLICY OF BEING RESPONSIVE TO THE NEEDS OF DUAL-CAREER COUPLES. From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Jun 28 06:21:54 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 28 Jun 1994 06:19:46 -0700 for socgrad-list Tue, 28 Jun 1994 06:19:44 -0700 for Date: Tue, 28 Jun 94 09:08:47 EDT From: Steve Harvey Subject: second response to Jeremy To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU By "separation", I meant separation of two distinct aspects joined by an interrelationship, not the transformation of an indivisible unit into a set of components. A married couple can "separate", even though they were always two distinct people. Or, they can stay together. If you are suggesting that analysis and the values which drive it (and hopeful- ly are informed by it) are conceptually inseparable, then I wholeheartedly disagree. So, yes, analysis can be (and perhaps to some extent always is) poluted by value-driven predispositions. the history of science, and pre-science is rife with examples. The question is, can this dilemma be mitigated? Philosophers of science, from Popper to Kuhn, would seem to suggest that it can be. From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Jun 28 06:29:51 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 28 Jun 1994 06:28:04 -0700 for socgrad-list Tue, 28 Jun 1994 06:27:59 -0700 for Date: Tue, 28 Jun 94 09:26 EDT From: "I don't think this will reduce confusion" Subject: Re: circus/fray To: estrayer@cats.ucsc.edu >================== Eric writes... >Why should I? Competition is NOT an instinct. >H/G (better G/H) societies have come and gone and exist in >a variety of forms. I don't recall anthropology presenting >any a priori one way or another really. Capitalizing a word has NO effect on the truth-value of a statement. 'Competition,' broadly construed is an essential part of all life forms from bacteria and virus, through plants, birds, mammalls and humans. In one way or the other competition for the resources needed to survive occurs, whether it is a slightly faster amoeba which can get to a nutrient supply, plants crowding out (or poisioning) other plants, carnivore's killing slower and or weaker prey. I would not be so glib to assume that a couple of thousand years, an eyeblink really, of human 'civilization' has wiped out all vestiges of a genetic predisposition towards competition. Yes, compared with the lower animials, we have the marvelous capacity of self - reflection (and self-delusion) and a far greater ability to control instinctial responses, but just because we have this ability, does not mean that we always use this ability, nor that we are incapable of assigning higher, 'purer' motives (i.e. capitalist competition results in the greatest good for the greatest number) to flat out self-interest. >Actually Marx worked as a journalist for the NY/London Times. >Engles owned a mill I believe. What has that got to do with >my argument that journalists are in a position to >get stories via pressure from capital? 'Mr. Marx, Have you every been a member of the capitalist party?' Talk about a witchunt. Marx wrote for the New York Daily Tribune from 1851 to 1862. He was a correspondent, which in modern venacular would be a free-lance journalist, paid only on delivery and acceptance of the articles. Engels apparently wrote many of the articles under Marx's name. Believe it or not, but in the 19th century newspapers were where the big issues of the day were discussed and argued. Being published in a newspaper then wouldn't bring on the gasp!!! the horror!!! that academics (smugly) ascribe to being published in the 'popular press' today. Jetaway Dave From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Jun 28 07:19:19 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 28 Jun 1994 07:18:12 -0700 for socgrad-list Tue, 28 Jun 1994 07:18:10 -0700 for Date: Tue, 28 Jun 1994 10:14 EDT From: SCOTT BLAKE Subject: Re: circus/fray To: CGH2@psuvm.psu.edu Before we get too carried away on bilogical arguments, please allow me to quote Stephen Jay Gould: "The equation of competition with success in natural selection is merely a cultural prejudice....Success defined as leaving more offspring can be attained by a large variety of strategies -- including mutualism and symbiosis -- that would be considered cooperative. There is no a priori preference in the general statement of naturlal selection for either competitive or cooperative behavior." One could go on in this vein for some time. Suffice it to say that there is an incredible amount of evidence to show that there is nothing genetic or other- wise biological in humans that makes us compete. We do it to ourselves. Scott Blake Brandeis University ps - Citattions available upon request From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Jun 28 07:49:52 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 28 Jun 1994 07:48:48 -0700 for socgrad-list Tue, 28 Jun 1994 07:48:46 -0700 for Date: Tue, 28 Jun 94 10:38:07 EDT From: Steve Harvey Subject: self-interest v. competition To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU Ah! Thank you, Scott. That's why I put "competition" in quotes, and parenthetically retermed it "strategic interaction." The biological "imperative" of creatures being selected (individually) by virtue of their ability to pass on their genes does not necessarily imply competition, but it *does* imply self-interest (theories of altruism which posit that sacrificing for kin helps to pass on one's genes are very limited, in that one's gene-representation diminishes exponentially as kinship becomes less immediate). Thomas Schelling's _The Strategy of Conflict_ offers one of the most cogent analysis of the interaction of conflict and cooperation as vehicles for self-interest. Again, however, this does not provide the neat distinction between modernity and "traditionalism" that many folks seem to be looking for. My point was that this dynamic, which is neither pure "competition" nor pure "cooperation", but rather simply strategic interaction which manifests in both, is find in all times and places (and not just among humans). -steve harvey@uconnvm From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Jun 28 07:54:01 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 28 Jun 1994 07:53:03 -0700 for socgrad-list Tue, 28 Jun 1994 07:52:59 -0700 for Date: Tue, 28 Jun 94 10:47 EDT From: "I don't think this will reduce confusion" Subject: Re: circus/fray To: BLAKE@binah.cc.brandeis.edu >Before we get too carried away on bilogical arguments, please allow me to >quote >Stephen Jay Gould: >"The equation of competition with success in natural selection is merely a >cultural prejudice....Success defined as leaving more offspring can be >attained >by a large variety of strategies -- including mutualism and symbiosis -- that >would be considered cooperative. There is no a priori preference in the >general statement of naturlal selection for either competitive or >cooperative behavior." Could just as easily state that equating success with cooperation is a cultural prejudice. In many cases, the choice of whether we choose to use the terms 'competition,' 'mutualism,' and 'symbiosis' is a reflection of our own prejudices concerning how we view the world. Symbiosis can be viewed as mutual cooperation between 2 or more species in competition with innumerable other species for resources needed for reproduction. Jetaway Dave >ps - Citattions available upon request Okay. From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Jun 28 08:03:48 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 28 Jun 1994 08:02:20 -0700 for socgrad-list Tue, 28 Jun 1994 08:02:16 -0700 for Date: Tue, 28 Jun 94 10:59 EDT From: "Pamela Paxton" To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: Re: Re: jumping into the fray ________ rebel, in responding to my post about domestic violence, writes: I told my first husband to go to hell, raised two children by myself with NO public assitance, made a career for myself, found myself a nice man for a second husband (I was not doomed to repeat my first error), have now started the liberating half of my lifetime (menopause) which includes graduate school, and never made it into the rolls in any way. Not that my one case makes the truth, but I have met plenty of women who have also just "done it" and not whined and whimpered about it. So please, don't generalize and lump all women who've been abused as coming from the same cloth, or think that the modal descriptives fit enough of the cases to worth hedging your probabilistic bets on. Some *human beings* tend to get into abusive relationships because of some factor that's much harder to discover than ethnicity or gender which is very obvious and so easier to use as an explanation. If we could find out why some people need to be abused, we'll probably get a lot farther than attaching solutions on the most easily identified factor which may or may not have anything to do with things. _____________ In undergraduate sociology courses, often the first thing students want to do is say "all men this," or "all whites that." the next thing they want to do is refute all probabilistic statements by saying "well my aunt isn't like that" or other such things. I think graduate students should try to move beyond both types of problematic statements. Neither is indicative of good sociology. The point of statistics IS to be able to "hedge your bets" on certain social phenonmenon. MANY WOMEN DO FACE ECONOMIC CONSTRAINTS THAT MANY MEN DO NOT. Whether some women are able to get rid of an abusive spouse without being killed, be economically stable and raise a number of children does not change the fact that many can not do these things. If my mother makes more money than my best friend's uncle, that does not mean that gender differences in earnings do not exist. Also, I'm not really sure what to make of your alternative explanation - that abuse is due to some people's desire to be abused. That explanation certainly ignores a myriad of important power differentials. Psychological explanations are not going to get us where we want to go when facing a social phenomenon. I guess, if my comments make your teeth grate, yours help me realize why some people don't respect sociology. Pamela Paxton UPAM00@unc.oit.unc.edu From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Jun 28 08:57:51 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 28 Jun 1994 08:56:42 -0700 for socgrad-list Tue, 28 Jun 1994 08:56:18 -0700 for Date: Tue, 28 Jun 1994 17:00:22 +0000 To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU From: Jon Hindmarsh (Jon Hindmarsh) Subject: Re: circus/fray >"I don't think.." writes: >>I would not be so glib to assume that a couple of thousand years, an eyeblink >>really, of human 'civilization' has wiped out all vestiges of a genetic >>predisposition towards competition. > >Wasn't the Darwinian concept of competition drawn from a metaphor used by >Russian social scientists to explain human social behaviour? >Thus to suggest that humans have a "generic predisposition towards >competition" >because other living organisms do, is somewhat problematic? > >Yours tentatively, >Jon. > From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Jun 28 10:02:25 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 28 Jun 1994 10:00:54 -0700 for socgrad-list Tue, 28 Jun 1994 10:00:50 -0700 for Date: Tue, 28 Jun 94 12:56:38 EDT From: Steve Harvey Subject: Darwin's inspiration To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU Jon- My understanding is that Darwin drew his inspiration from Malthus and Smith. No matter. The point is that it has proven to be a robust paradigm. If he had drawn the inspiration from a totally discredited predecessor, that would not ipso facto discredit the product. Steve From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Jun 28 10:20:44 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 28 Jun 1994 10:16:01 -0700 for socgrad-list Tue, 28 Jun 1994 10:15:58 -0700 for Date: Tue, 28 Jun 1994 10:15:50 -0700 (PDT) From: Robert Duniway Subject: Re: Re: jumping into the fray To: rebel alm aitchison On Mon, 27 Jun 1994, rebel alm aitchison wrote: > On Fri, 24 Jun 1994, Robert Duniway wrote: Thank you Bob. I'm female and > I agree with you. Almost ruins my beautiful crown work. What we as > sociologistsshouldn't forget but always seem to (I face the same issue in > causal attributions around juvenile delinquency), many women DO get out of > abusive relationships, with or without children, they tell their abusive > mates to f*** off and they get on with their lives. However, these women > do not make it into the system to get counted in these statistics that we > lean on as if they were truth, because they don't need any help. Thanks for the voice of support. I think you've done a better job than I did of questioning the assumption that a sociological/modal/statistical description of patterns of interaction is the appropriate level of analysis. Howie Becker here at the UW tends to emphasize looking for the cases that don't fit the pattern and trying to learn something from them. Thanks for sharing your case with the participants in this discussion. > Some *human beings* tend to get > into abusive relationships because of some factor that's much harder to > discover than ethnicity or gender which is very obvious and so easier to > use as an explanation. If we could find out why some people need to be > abused, we'll probably get a lot farther than attaching solutions on the > most easily identified factor which may or may not have anything to do > with things. Exactly! The original post bothered me in part because by focusing on the relative economic position of men and women it ignores the fact that it is not just economically disadvantaged women who are in abusive relationships, and many economically disadvantaged women do get out of abusive relationships. Understanding domestic violence is far too important to dismiss with a description of modal patterns. What we as a society ought to be seeking is an understanding of how abusive relationships develop and how they can be discouraged. Greater economic opportunity for women might be one factor, but I doubt it is the most significant. Bob Duniway, University of Washington From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Jun 28 10:24:33 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 28 Jun 1994 10:20:47 -0700 for socgrad-list Tue, 28 Jun 1994 10:20:44 -0700 for Date: Tue, 28 Jun 1994 12:03:24 -0500 (CDT) From: "Laura L. Fertwagner" Subject: Re: Re: jumping into the fray To: Pamela Paxton Hi all! I've been following this thread with much interest and my teeth hurt, too!!! However, Pamela's comments are not the cause of my teeth gnashing; Rebel has provided my aggravation. How on earth can we, as sociologist-wannabes give such an individualistic explanation for a problem? So what if YOU were able to make it on your own and didn't need any assistance. Does that mean that those who do are any less than you? How can you place total blame on the person who is abused and unable to leave? I think those of us who have the education and strength to get out of bad situations have no right to judge those that cannot. I am in the process of divorcing right now and it took me a long time to come to the decision (and I wasn't abused); I can understand how someone who has endured the psychological trauma of abuse would have an even harder time leaving. I have my self-esteem intact and the means for economic self-sufficiency, but I know others who don't and your "blame the victim" rhetoric only serves to make it even harder for them to leave. It provides a basis for embarassment and shame. I'm sorry if I sound harsh, but it really bothers me that an intelligent woman would fall for the conservative, Horatio Alger rhetoric so prevalent these days. peace, Laura From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Jun 28 10:44:48 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 28 Jun 1994 10:42:27 -0700 for socgrad-list Tue, 28 Jun 1994 10:42:25 -0700 for Date: Tue, 28 Jun 1994 10:42:02 -0700 (PDT) From: Robert Duniway Subject: Re: Re: jumping into the fray To: Pamela Paxton On Tue, 28 Jun 1994, Pamela Paxton wrote: > > The point of statistics IS to be able to "hedge your bets" on certain > social phenonmenon. Hmmm. Isn't "the point" of statistics dependent on what you are trying to learn? If the objective is creating a predictive model of who will be a victim of domestic violence, then gender would certainly be a significant predictor, and economic indepence might be. If the point is to understand why domestic violence takes place I think you want to examine the variations a bit more, and an emphasis on one modal feature of victims would not be all that informative. > MANY WOMEN DO FACE ECONOMIC CONSTRAINTS THAT MANY > MEN DO NOT. Whether some women are able to get rid of an abusive > spouse without being killed, be economically stable and raise a number > of children does not change the fact that many can not do these things. > If my mother makes more money than my best friend's uncle, that does > not mean that gender differences in earnings do not exist. But if you want to understand what contributes to this gender difference you would need to fill in the picture a bit more. Why are some women high earners? Why are some men victims of domestic abuse? Why are some poor women not victims of domestic abuse? > Also, I'm not really sure what to make of your alternative explanation - > that abuse is due to some people's desire to be abused. That > explanation certainly ignores a myriad of important power > differentials. Psychological explanations are not going to get us > where we want to go when facing a social phenomenon. So aggression cannot be explained by psychologists, only sociologists with statistically hedged bets? I think we can drop the disciplinary dispute and frankly admit that currently no discipline has a clear understanding of what leads to domestic abuse. > I guess, if my comments make your teeth grate, yours help me realize > why some people don't respect sociology. I think people don't respect any discipline which offers platitudes to account for obviously complex situations. I think all of the social sciences could benefit from a little humility, and sociology should not go the way of economics and feign knowledge we do not have. Bob Duniway, University of Washington From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Jun 28 11:19:38 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 28 Jun 1994 11:14:09 -0700 for socgrad-list Tue, 28 Jun 1994 11:14:06 -0700 for Date: Tue, 28 Jun 94 14:07:58 EDT From: Steve Harvey Subject: blaming the victim...? To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU I think neither extreme -be it the "Horatio Algier" myth of individual self-reliance, or the contemporary sociological myth that people are not responsible for their own choices- really captures the nuances of the matter. This harks back to many old friends (free will v. determinism, structure v. agency, etc.), and some day we'll start to see past these obscuring dualities. -steve From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Jun 28 11:35:34 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 28 Jun 1994 11:31:42 -0700 for socgrad-list Tue, 28 Jun 1994 11:31:39 -0700 for Date: Tue, 28 Jun 1994 13:24:28 -0500 (CDT) From: "Laura L. Fertwagner" Subject: Re: blaming the victim...? To: Steve Harvey Steve, Hello. I hope I wasn't coming off as seeing the issue in dualistic terms. I certainly don't!!!!! My point was that I believe this "If I did it, everyone should be able to do it" attitude is harmful and perpetuates the individualistic mythology that further abuses the abused. I think we (even me) are all aware that nothing in life can truly be put into good/evil dichotomous relationships. Sorry if I wasn't clear. Laura From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Jun 28 11:53:09 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 28 Jun 1994 11:52:03 -0700 for socgrad-list Tue, 28 Jun 1994 11:52:01 -0700 for Date: Tue, 28 Jun 94 14:46:41 EDT From: Steve Harvey Subject: bugaboos To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU Laura- Hello, to you too! I was reacting somewhat to the phrase "blaming the victim", which I think was a useful debunker of previous mythologies, but has become an unfortunate mythology of its own. Similarly, I think an "individualistic" mythology is no more or less mystifying than a "collectivistic" mythology. Just as in the sciences, neither holism nor reductionism work in isolation, but form a wonderful team, so too do "individualistic" and "collectivistic" orientations in social science. -Steve From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Jun 28 11:59:02 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 28 Jun 1994 11:57:39 -0700 for socgrad-list Tue, 28 Jun 1994 11:57:38 -0700 for From: EATMANRD@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu #3899) id <01HE2TFLELPC8X19XF@ctrvax.Vanderbilt.Edu>; Tue, Date: Tue, 28 Jun 1994 13:55:25 -0500 (CDT) To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU unsub socgrad From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Jun 28 15:12:27 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 28 Jun 1994 15:09:27 -0700 for socgrad-list Tue, 28 Jun 1994 15:09:23 -0700 for Date: Tue, 28 Jun 1994 16:09:19 -0600 (MDT) From: rebel alm aitchison Subject: Re: Re: jumping into the fray To: "Laura L. Fertwagner" If you'd read my *whole* message, you will not that I said exactly that I did not expect that my single case invalidated all others. I was providing it as anecdotal evidence, for those of you who are qualitative researchers. My point was that in the course of moving through life I have met many women who also suffered abuse and got out of the situation WITHOUT EVER MAKING INTO THE SYSTEM TO BE COUNTED IN THE STATISTICS! If we're going to talk about abused women, or abused anybodies, shouldn't we be taking into the equation, those people who have been in the same situation but behaved differently?? If we want to understand abuse, shouldn't those women be accounted for also? Why are they different? Is there something that can be learned from them to help the ones who can't make it out of the abusive relationship for whatever reason?? (By the way, I had no economic advantages when I left my first husband.) The same thing comes up in studying juvenile delinquency--causal attributions have been made that dysfunctional families, poverty, abusive parents, etc. lead to juvenile delinquency. But these attributions are made in a closed population--i.e., it's almost true by definition. What is not explained is those people who suffered the same dysfunctional childhoods, but DID NOT become delinquents? Why didn't they? What was different for them that they were able to become "functional" (I don't particularly like that word and use it advisedly) adults? It seems to be that if we're going to use our "science" to help people and not just "explain" things, we should be finding out about all the different ways people have of responding to the same situations. That's why I stopped studying delinquency and started studying resilience. I'd like to see the same thing happen in studies of *people* in abusive relationships. How about studying the "successes" and see what we can learn from them?? And excuse me, Laura, I don't see anywhere that I laid "blame" or "judgment" on those who didn't survive the situation as well as I did. Maybe that was your inference, not my implication. On Tue, 28 Jun 1994, Laura L. Fertwagner wrote: > Hi all! > > I've been following this thread with much interest and my teeth hurt, > too!!! However, Pamela's comments are not the cause of my teeth gnashing; > Rebel has provided my aggravation. How on earth can we, as > sociologist-wannabes give such an individualistic explanation for a > problem? So what if YOU were able to make it on your own and didn't need > any assistance. Does that mean that those who do are any less than you? > How can you place total blame on the person who is abused and unable to leave? > > I think those of us who have the education and strength to get out of bad > situations have no right to judge those that cannot. I am in the process > of divorcing right now and it took me a long time to come to the decision > (and I wasn't abused); I can understand how someone who has endured the > psychological trauma of abuse would have an even harder time leaving. I > have my self-esteem intact and the means for economic self-sufficiency, > but I know others who don't and your "blame the victim" rhetoric only > serves to make it even harder for them to leave. It provides a basis for > embarassment and shame. > > I'm sorry if I sound harsh, but it really bothers me that an intelligent > woman would fall for the conservative, Horatio Alger rhetoric so prevalent > these days. > > peace, > > Laura > > From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Jun 28 15:18:44 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 28 Jun 1994 15:17:07 -0700 for socgrad-list Tue, 28 Jun 1994 15:17:05 -0700 for Date: Tue, 28 Jun 1994 16:17:02 -0600 (MDT) From: rebel alm aitchison Subject: Re: Re: jumping into the fray To: "Laura L. Fertwagner" On Tue, 28 Jun 1994, Laura L. Fertwagner wrote: > > I think those of us who have the education and strength to get out of bad > situations have no right to judge those that cannot. I am in the process > of divorcing right now and it took me a long time to come to the decision > (and I wasn't abused); I can understand how someone who has endured the > psychological trauma of abuse would have an even harder time leaving. I > have my self-esteem intact and the means for economic self-sufficiency, > but I know others who don't and your "blame the victim" rhetoric only > serves to make it even harder for them to leave. It provides a basis for > embarassment and shame. Divorce is not easy. I've worked for several divorce attorneys during my pre-graduate school career, and I've seen really nasty things go on. As nasty as I thought mine was, the behavior of both men and women and the lengths they will go to, even at the expense of their children, to make themselves right and the other wrong has never ceased to appall me. If you have children, I hope you and your ex can keep them out of it. The joint custody rules in themselves, regardless of parental behavior, are incredibly insensitive to the children. I wish you well, and congratulate you on leaving with your self-esteem intact. Sometimes it's all we have. I repeat, I don't think I was blaming the victim but just offering myself and other women I've known as alternatives from which, maybe, something could be learned. > > I'm sorry if I sound harsh, but it really bothers me that an intelligent > woman would fall for the conservative, Horatio Alger rhetoric so prevalent > these days. >peace, Laura Whether your tone is "harsh" or not, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. Thank you for assuming that I'm intelligent. From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Jun 28 16:52:45 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 28 Jun 1994 16:50:56 -0700 for socgrad-list Tue, 28 Jun 1994 16:50:52 -0700 for Date: Tue, 28 Jun 94 19:36:48 EDT From: Marni Hancock Organization: Emory University - Atlanta, Georgia, USA Subject: VIOLENCE To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU In support of rebel, I too, prefer a focus on resilience. Changing the "world view" of adults, regardless of how uncomfortable they are in the "world" they currently occupy, is EXTREMELY difficult. It seems to me that a more rational approach is to study those who "succeed" in spite of the odds to see whether they "know" something that we might "teach" others so that others could avoid pitfalls and find "success" would be more productive. Is there something we could teach in day care or Head Start that would "arm" future men and women against the hazards of violence (especially in personal relationships)? And lest you wonder, I've never been in an abusive relationship and I've never been poor (ie--never worried about having enough to eat, a roof over my head, or sufficient clothing to cover my body), although I think between them my older sisters have tried all the problems from abusive relationships to poverty. I don't understand why some folks avoid this junk in their lives while others seem to be in it all the time. Is it luck? I hope not--I'd like to learn enough about those who have (by their own definitions) triumphed to be able to design a milieu or a training course or some intervention to be able to help every child in the world learn how to avoid those problems in the future. Keep writing! Marni Hancock SOCAW059@EMUVM1.CC.EMORY.EDU From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Jun 28 23:36:29 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Tue, 28 Jun 1994 23:34:42 -0700 for socgrad-list Tue, 28 Jun 1994 23:34:40 -0700 for From: Jeremy Straughn Subject: more on values & analysis To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Wed, 29 Jun 94 1:34:33 CDT Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Jun 29 00:02:53 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 29 Jun 1994 00:01:00 -0700 for socgrad-list Wed, 29 Jun 1994 00:00:57 -0700 for From: Jeremy Straughn Subject: let me try that again To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Wed, 29 Jun 94 2:00:52 CDT Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] [The empty post was supposed to contain the following:] In response to Steve's response: > > By "separation", I meant separation of two distinct aspects joined by an > interrelationship, not the transformation of an indivisible unit into a > set of components. A married couple can "separate", even though they were > always two distinct people. Or, they can stay together. > > If you are suggesting that analysis and the values which drive it (and hopeful - > ly are informed by it) are conceptually inseparable, then I wholeheartedly > disagree. So, yes, analysis can be (and perhaps to some extent always is) > poluted by value-driven predispositions. the history of science, and > pre-science is rife with examples. The question is, can this dilemma be > mitigated? Philosophers of science, from Popper to Kuhn, would seem to suggest > that it can be. > Steve, I couldn't have put the first sentence better. In fact, biasing research. I simply disagree, as far as I can tell, with how to correct the problem. It seems to me that since decisions about what to study and how to study it are guided by principles, norms, standards, etc. that are not only unavoidable but indispensable (I cite Kuhn here) in genuinely scientific research of all kinds, the question for me is not how to keep values out of science but how to relate them in a way that meets the objectives of scienctific inquiry as such. (Our dedication to such objectives is itself, as Weber rightly noted, a distinct value, inasmuch as it arises only under socio-historical conditions that provide the requisite value components--such as an emphasis on precise calculation (requiring measurement), the desire to control, the rise of demystificatory thought, this-worldly asceticism, etc.) So "separation of two distinct aspects joined by a relationship" is a great formulation, *if* we note that the term "aspects" implies that we are dealing with a single entity viewed from different perspectives-- here, perhaps, the scientific research process. Kuhn espoused a similar view, though Popper (in what little I've read) sounds more like your position and thinks that thinks that an individual researcher's subjective values bias his research, which however, if conducted correctly and subjected to further, potentially disconfirmatory studies, will do no harm as biased results will eventually be refuted. There are questions about whether the falsificationist view (which you did not espouse explicitly) describes real scientific practice, but I don't disagree with the above as far as it My point is simply that the scientific process as Popper (as well as Hempel, Nagel, and others who agree on that point) is not--and should not be--value free. EXCEPT in the two senses that I identified in my first response: they should not restrict the range of (a) valid conclusions or (b) valid topics. Jeremy S. strau@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Jun 29 00:02:57 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 29 Jun 1994 00:01:03 -0700 for socgrad-list Wed, 29 Jun 1994 00:01:00 -0700 for From: Jeremy Straughn Subject: let me try that again To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Wed, 29 Jun 94 2:00:52 CDT Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Jun 29 06:22:09 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 29 Jun 1994 06:20:52 -0700 for socgrad-list Wed, 29 Jun 1994 06:20:49 -0700 for Date: Wed, 29 Jun 1994 08:12:07 -0500 (CDT) From: Mary Burbach Subject: Re: Re: jumping into the fray To: rebel alm aitchison Pamela Paxton , socgrad@UCSD.EDU Rebel wrote this: >My point was that in the course of moving through life I >have met many women who also suffered abuse and got out of the situation >WITHOUT EVER MAKING INTO THE SYSTEM TO BE COUNTED IN THE STATISTICS! If >we're going to talk about abused women, or abused anybodies, shouldn't we >be taking into the equation, those people who have been in the same >situation but behaved differently?? If we want to understand abuse, >shouldn't those women be accounted for also? Why are they different? It seems to me that those women who get out *are* the ones we understand. After all, what is the first question most of us ask when we learn of an abusive situation? "Why does she stay?" or "What in the hell is wrong with her that she would just endure such a miserable situation?" Of course there are strong women such as Rebel and Laura who can leave bad situations and I would agree that resilience is important to study. My point is that we *expect* people to be resilent, we expect people to stand on their own two feet and just leave when a situation is not tolerable in our eyes. That is why I think it is so interesting to look at the other side (i.e. the women who do stay for so long)and the myriad of social, economic and other factors that encourage women or men to stay in abusive situations. This issue is so incredibly complex! There is no *one* solution to the problem, no single domestic violence awareness program that will work for all social classes, all races, etc. This issue requires a lot of work and I think it is good that we are talking about it. Mary Burbach mburbach@cwis.unomaha.edu From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Jun 29 07:09:56 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 29 Jun 1994 07:08:30 -0700 for socgrad-list Wed, 29 Jun 1994 07:08:27 -0700 for Date: Wed, 29 Jun 94 09:51:28 EDT From: Steve Harvey Subject: philosolphy of science To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU Jeremy- I don't really understand your contentions, nor exactly how you come to attribute a Popperian argument to me. You say that values can't be removed from the scientific process. When did I say otherwise? It is *the nature of the relationship* between values and analysis that I have been discussing, and the most efficacious attitudes toward handling that relationship. To simply come back and argue, over and over again, "but values and analysis ARE related!" doesn't address anything that I've said. Once again, my position is, that when we do not take positive measures to avoid informing analysis with value judgements, we have reduced our ability to refine our understanding of the dynamics we are studying. I do not argue that such measures ever truly separate our values from our conclusions, only that they help to open up the possibility of discovering the unexpected and the counter-intuitive. If you look over the history of human thought, including science, mythology, religion, superstition, conventional wisdom, etc., you see examples of better and worse attempts to understand phenomena independently of the "prejudices" of the inquirer. It is not an "either/or" proposition, but rather one of degrees. Analysis and values are related in a variety of other ways, none of which I've addressed (in any detail) in my recent postings. Responses which refer to those other relationships between the two are not responses to anything I've said. Steve harvey@uconnvm From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Jun 29 07:45:07 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 29 Jun 1994 07:43:43 -0700 for socgrad-list Wed, 29 Jun 1994 07:43:41 -0700 for Date: Wed, 29 Jun 1994 09:33:00 -0500 (CDT) From: Michael Gibbons To: socgrad mary, your point that we already understand those who have gotten out is a good one, but i must add that resiliancy is still an important and curious phenomenon. when in Jime Makepeace's family violence class, i was impacted by the inability of the state to do much at all in situations where abuse was reported and evne documented. one side point that dr. makepeace made was about the indestructable child. these are kids who, no matter how badly they are abused, can bounce into mainstream society without some of the terrible psychological consequences that characterize such abuse. it seems that no matter how much we sociologists wish that we could get away from the myth of american individualism, a reslient and strong individual character are requisite to do well in our individualistic society. that and lots o' luck. so i suppose my point is that, without getting into the dichotomic arguments pitting individual against structure, there is something noteworthy in the resiliency of some folks. and maybe there is something that would be helpful for those who are more disadvantaged by the structure to be learned from the study of resiliency. you've already heard laura and i do this dance though :) michael From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Jun 29 07:58:15 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 29 Jun 1994 07:57:10 -0700 for socgrad-list Wed, 29 Jun 1994 07:57:09 -0700 for Date: Wed, 29 Jun 1994 09:49:50 -0500 (CDT) From: Michael Gibbons Subject: earlier post To: socgrad on thinking about that last post i think i should explain just a bit further. it seems that in a system with so little effective support for those who are on the underside of bad happenings, somethiing of a nietche-an "ubermansch"(sp?) is necessary for a vibrant survival. if the state can't help abused individuals, and we can't affect effective policy to help them, then they are left up to their own devices and resiliency would be one of teh best. if, in fact, the state always remains ineffective and policy continues to be weak, then maybe what we need to teach our children is to be strong, and resilient. this, for me, brings up a host of issues. what if humans are innately violent? what if violence is as natural to us as love (and i don't mean 20th century romantic love, but bonding amongst a social species)? then we are not going to be able to protect our fellow humans from one another. so how do we deal with THAT? strong people or seemingly strong legislation? pardon me for wandering with this post. michael From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Jun 29 09:12:41 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 29 Jun 1994 09:11:14 -0700 for socgrad-list Wed, 29 Jun 1994 09:11:12 -0700 for Date: Wed, 29 Jun 94 11:57:33 EDT From: Steve Harvey Subject: rejoinder to Michael To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU I think there are always cross-level tensions, between individuals and groups, between constituent groups and more encompassing groups. *If*, as we have recently begun to discuss, the Darwinian paradigm (in it's biological form, not as a metaphor) is relevant to sociology, then selection occurs at the individual, not the group, level. Therefore, individuals have been (and perhaps still are) "selected" by virtue of their *individual* strength. But, from whence, then, comes all of these social institutions? From whence comes all of the high moral valuation of altruism and compassion and loyalty? In game theoretic computer simulations it has been demonstrated that from a condition of "universal defection" (i.e., total atomization), those individuals who manage to form cooperative alliances are most likely to "survive". Collectivism is an expression of individual strength, for the individual draws strength from the collective. So, what works, individual strength or state intervention? Well, to the extent that the state is an expression of the collective, then individual strength can be exercised with and through the state. I don't mean to be making conclusions or positing "truths" here: I'm just openning up the question a little more fully. -steve From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Jun 29 09:18:05 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 29 Jun 1994 09:16:49 -0700 for socgrad-list Wed, 29 Jun 1994 09:16:46 -0700 for Date: Wed, 29 Jun 1994 11:01:56 -0500 (CDT) From: Mary Burbach Subject: Resiliance To: Michael Gibbons Michael, Thank you for your post. I did not mean to say that the study of resilancy was not an important one - it is. Your point is a good one, there *are* people who get out of rotten situations virtually unscathed and who then go out into the world and live "normal" lives. We admire these people for their strength and courage. All I meant was that we don't generally get a confused look on our face when we talk about a resilant person. On the contrary, people who are resiliant are admired and we understand these people's actions and behavior. There are also however, emotionally, economically and educationally crippled women out there in truly violent (physically, sexually or emotionally) relationships. I think it is important that we do not forget this when we study this problem. Our society is also still facing and fighting its belief that hitting is sometimes a necessary and logical action to a problem. You are right in that the state will do little to solve this problem. We have to do it (all of us) by educating ourselves and those around us about the realities of this problem and ways out of this behavior. By the way, now that you have thought about it for awhile, do you think we are inherently violent? Mary From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Jun 29 12:20:08 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 29 Jun 1994 12:18:48 -0700 for socgrad-list Wed, 29 Jun 1994 12:18:46 -0700 for Date: Wed, 29 Jun 1994 14:01:43 -0500 (CDT) From: Michael Gibbons Subject: Re: Resiliance To: Mary Burbach my intent in bringing up this point was more to address the questions of human nature and how those will influence other situations than to quarrel with mary. on the question of violence, i have heard it posited that violence is inherently human. just as sex could be the expression of our emotional love, violence could be an expression of our emotional hate. a further point to this comparison is to illustrate how close these emotions and actions are to each other because of their intensity. this comparison was made by a researcher of intimate violence. the question is then one that really begs thought. it goes to the root of how we practice sociology. as steve haney stated earlier, two alternative views of human, and societal nature are hobbes and rousseau. whether either of these are true is the answer to the question of humanity's innate violence. what drives this question for me is the incredible brutality of humantiy throughout history. hardly an historical period has passed that isn't earmarked by the cruelties of that era. while we may say that it is best to not mess with tribal societies, very few of the ethnographies i've read didn't contain abhorrent treatment of other humans. and our own north american past is one that while, varied and sensational, is also pockmarked with crimes against our fellow humans for just about every reason. this can be a very distressing line of thought, because if we wish to study our discipline with any optimism, i don't know where to find it. on the other hand, if i could be convinced that our species is making progress, i would be delighted. it can be even more disconcerting to compare our own species to others. no other pure predator kills more of other species than humans. no other species kills so many of its own just out of anger or spite. granted, tadpoles eat all the other tadpoles until they are the last ones left. but somehow, that sort of behavior seems qualitatively different than killing our own over property. so who knows? michael From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Jun 29 13:17:35 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 29 Jun 1994 13:16:18 -0700 for socgrad-list Wed, 29 Jun 1994 13:16:15 -0700 for Date: Wed, 29 Jun 94 16:06:34 EDT From: Steve Harvey Subject: violence and optimism To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU Michael- That's "Harvey", not "haney". Why the either/or presumption? If we start with the assumption that humans are "rational egoists", that is, they have preferences, and they do the best they can under any given circumstances to maximize their realization of these preferences, then violence is one aspect of human existence, to the extent that people's preferences are thusly satisfied. However, cooperation is also an aspect of human existence, because many preferences can only be satisfied through cooperative efforts. Actually, the assumption of absolute self-interest leads to some very optimistic conclusions, since, in spite of the costs and difficulties, forging ever more elaborate and accomodating systems of cooperation is ultimately in each individual's self-interest (it is also in each individual's self-interest to cheat whenever possible, but it is further in each individual's self-interest to help put in place mechanisms effectively curtail such cheating). This can be, and has been, used as a very parsimonious and powerful explanation for the evolution of human social institutions. Steve harvey@uconnvm From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Jun 29 16:07:58 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 29 Jun 1994 16:04:17 -0700 for socgrad-list Wed, 29 Jun 1994 16:04:13 -0700 for Date: Wed, 29 Jun 1994 17:58:58 -0500 (CDT) From: Mary Burbach Subject: violence/cooperation To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU If violence and cooperation are both mechanisms people use to better their own situation then how does one reconcile situations in which they occur together? Take the family for example - a basically cooperative unit with a division of labor and a sharing of resources. How do we explain it when persons in this unit become violent? How is it in a partner's interest to give a spouse a broken bone? After all, the recipient of such abuse can't do much work when they are in the hospital. Now, I realize the psychological intimidation and the assertion of power could be in someone's self-interest but I am failing to see beyond that. Help me out here people. Mary From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Jun 29 22:00:26 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 29 Jun 1994 21:58:59 -0700 for socgrad-list Wed, 29 Jun 1994 21:58:58 -0700 for From: Jeremy Straughn Subject: last thought on values in research To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Wed, 29 Jun 94 23:58:54 CDT Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] Steve, After reading your last post on the subject, I begin to suspect that we are making very similar arguments, but expressing them differently (i.e. our difference may be aesthetic rather than substantive). Your use of the term "pollute" in earlier posts threw me because I don't believe there is any "pure" object (such as research) to "pollute," and, further, that humanistic values play an *integral* rather than incidental, let alone corrupting, role in science. The term "prejudice" in my view would have both positive and negative connotations, and here I think we agree on what the bad ones are, since I agree with you that personal (I would say ideological) bias can prevent us from "discovering the unexpected and the counter-intuitive" (your phrase), which I take to be one hallmark of good sociology. However, I am uncomfortable with the notion that we can "understand phenomena independently of the 'prejudices' of the inquirer," if this includes prejudices common to members of the scientific community (disciplinary matrix) in which the inquiry takes place, since certain kinds of "prejudices" (the scientific values I enumerated earlier) embraced by this community and deeply ingrained in the language and socialization processes that reproduce it are prerequisites of "normal science." If, on the other hand, we mean individual, idiosyncratic biases that violate the norms of scientific procedure, such as the insistence on a particular theory in the absence of any reasonable support of whatever kind, then I would be more inclined to agree, although we must be careful that what we criticize about such practices is their violation of the collective norms governing scientific *process*, which are necessary if there is to be any conversation among scientists about each other's research, rather than simply a school of thought that seems eccentric (as Lakatos points out, it is impossible to tell when an apparently discredited theory might make a comeback). In short, if values capable of "polluting" scientific inquiry are simply those that I listed in my last post--those that restrict (a) the topics that can be explored, or (b) the results that can be obtained--then there is no disagreement (except about the appropriate metaphor to use in criticizing them). If not, then I don't know what sort of values, prejudices, etc. we are talking about. Jeremy S. strau@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu [Steve's last post: Once again, my position is, that when we do not take positive measures to avoid informing analysis with value judgements, we have reduced our ability to refine our understanding of the dynamics we are studying. I do not argue that such measures ever truly separate our values from our conclusions, only that they help to open up the possibility of discovering the unexpected and the counter-intuitive. If you look over the history of human thought, including science, mythology, religion, superstition, conventional wisdom, etc., you see examples of better and worse attempts to understand phenomena independently of the "prejudices" of the inquirer. It is not an "either/or" proposition, but rather one of degrees.] From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Jun 29 23:13:57 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 29 Jun 1994 23:11:37 -0700 for socgrad-list Wed, 29 Jun 1994 23:11:35 -0700 for From: Jeremy Straughn Subject: on "competition" To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Thu, 30 Jun 94 1:11:30 CDT Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] [I don't know why I am always responding to Steve Harvey's posts, but here goes...] In response to Steve's dialogue with Mary: Without seeing Steve's still-to-come answer to Mary's question of how giving an otherwise more productive family member a broken bone is in one's self-interest (and I, for one, would like to know how LETTING THEM DO IT time and time again can be so construed!), I would like to plead for a more conscious distinction between concepts like "rational egoism" (1) in their capacity to lead to a "parsimonious and powerful explanation" versus (2) their capacity to *describe* the actual subjective states of actors. Such a distinction makes obvious sense if, as someone was earlier, we are talking about tadpoles eating each other: In such a case, the concept "agression" or "violence" might assist us in developing a good explanatory theory of tadpole behavior, but it is useless in helping us *describe* the subjective states of the tadpoles (if they have any)--in the latter case, it can do no more than function as an analogy. In the case of human beings, things become more complex. Since we often believe that we can read the minds of other people, as when we attribute motives (goals) to their actions that can't be demonstrated empirically (whereas virtually no one makes a living reading the minds of tadpoles--cats and dogs are another story...), it is easy to forget that *convenient* categories, such as "rational egoism," are not usually meant to be descriptive but only explanatory and predictive: the phrase can be used without contradiction to characterize people who are acting cooperatively or self-sacrificially. We get into trouble when we forget this distinction. Women who "fail" to leave relationships in which they are abused are hardly "rational" or "egoistic" in the usual sense of these terms. Indeed, I think we intuitively believe that women in such situations could use MORE egoism, or at least self-esteem, determination, or whatever it takes for them to flea to, or create, a healthier environment for themselves. The problem we run into is that we risk either rejecting an otherwise meritorious theory because we don't think its terms are literally descriptive, or--and I think this is a widespread occurrence--a good theory spearheads an unwarranted normative conclusion that rides covertly on the coattails of its rhetoric, such as the VALUE claim that people SHOULD be MORE "rational" and "egoistic" (this will be familiar to those who have attended an elite business school or economics program or who someone who has). Steve has put in a plug for what U of C sociologists know as "rational choice theory" (which synthesizes game theory, microeconomics, social theory socio- and econometrics, among other things) in recent posts, along with accompanying claims for the explanatory usefulness of categories such as "competition" and "cooperation." Unfortunately, the conversation often slipped into questions of whether these terms characterize innate tendencies in human beings and even in living creatures generally. This is unfortunate not because these questions are not valid or interesting (thought they may be insoluble), but because their premise was a conflation of the theoretical and descriptive functions of the central terms. Whether a theory employing such terms--which are convenient probably because their descriptive analogues have mnemonic value--remains to be demonstrated. Steve will have to convince us that he can make accurate predictions about the behavior of family members who batter or are battered, for example, using the theoretical framework he has chosen to fight for. However, even if he succeeds, I for one will be left with the uneasy feeling that we are (ironically) anthropomorphizing human actors, that is, taking our categories too seriously. If competition as a theoretical concept is powerful in predicting behavior, there will always be those who claim this means humans are inherently competitive in quite a different sense--even when they are cooperating! That other sense--which I have yet to describe fully--involves a crucial component completely absent from the rational-choice framework: that of the actual state of mind of the actor. In real life, it is far from irrelevant whether I have a competitive ATTITUDE towards you in our interactions. This attitude has a causal influence on my behavior and it behooves you to identify this attitude on my part, if you can. (In this sense, our "theory" has a causal influence on our "practice"--I think this may have interesting consequences for distinguishing modern societies from others, but that's another story...) Similarly with cooperative attitudes (did Jimmy Carter fail to recognize that Kim Il Seung had a competitive attitude rather than a cooperative one?). For rational choice theory, this is a matter of indifference. Attributing rational egoism to every actor amounts simply to attributing an algorithm of one kind or another to the actor. It makes no claims about subjective states (one source of Weber's critique of it), let alone genetically determined tendencies. Conclusion: Let's keep our models distinct from the reality they are intended to explain! Jeremy S. strau@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Jun 30 07:41:26 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 30 Jun 1994 07:39:48 -0700 for socgrad-list Thu, 30 Jun 1994 07:39:47 -0700 for Date: Thu, 30 Jun 1994 10:36 EDT From: SCOTT BLAKE Subject: _The Bonds of Love_ To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Hi folks. There's at least one book out there that speaks to the issue of why people stay in abusive relationships. It's purpose is actually an analysis of domination in general, but it uses interpersonal dynanmics as metaphors for larger conflicts. It is at the very least interesting. Author is Jessica Benjamin. I don't have a copy right here so I can't give you publisher, etc now, but look it up. If I might be so bold as to offer a brief summary of her central theory: In essence, she recasts the initial struggle of childhood from separation to a paradoxical balancing of assertion and recognition. To oversimplfy (but still communicate a gross idea), the neurotic need to assert oneself against the power figure of infancy (usually the mother) is the root of dominance/abuse/etc and the neurotic need to be recognized as a person is the root of submission. Insofar as a book can be summarized in two sentances, this does a decent job. Obviously, the book explains this much better that I. Scott blake@binah.cc.brandeis.edu From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Jun 30 08:26:08 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 30 Jun 1994 08:24:48 -0700 for socgrad-list Thu, 30 Jun 1994 08:24:46 -0700 for Date: Thu, 30 Jun 94 10:59:06 EDT From: Steve Harvey Subject: violence and rationality To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU Mary- As is my tendency, I was speaking more abstractly, in response to Michael's query about "human nature." In general, both violence and cooperation can be understood as vehicles for satisfying preferences. But, neither, of course, must always be based on "rationality." The emotions are powerful primal guarantors of "cooperation" (or coercion), with the promise of gratitude for compliance and the threat of anger for noncompliance. It is their very "irrationality" which gives them this power, for, let's say I needed you to stick by me in some situation and you chose not to; it would not be "rational", after the fact, for me to try to "punish" you for failing me (assuming a one- shot interaction rather than a continuing relationship for the moment), since there is a cost to me for doing so, but no benefit (the deed is already done; I can't retroactively encourage you to cooperate in an event that already took place!). However, before the event, you may know me to have a violent temper, and so wish to avoid being exposed to that temper (even though, after the event, acting on that temper is "irrational", the nature of the temper is such that I will act on it anyway), and so act in compliance. Robert Frank, in _Passions within Reason_, opens with the example of the Hatfields and the McCoys. Their feud cost both families scores of lives over several generations. Acting on their emotions (a groom from one family stood up a bride from the other), they were mutually destructive. However, the appalachian region during this time had very little formal law enforcement. Social order was maintained by a constant knowledge of how volative reactions to misconduct might be, and, in general, this knowledge maintained a remarkably peaceful and cooperative coexistence in the region. Of course, this is not a *normative* explanation; it is not meant as an excuse for violence. As I mentioned in an earlier post, we have the problem of confusing explanations with exonerations. Our social order is based on a rule of law (and an ethic) which, rightly I believe, attempts to supplant this "primal" means of "order" with a less unfair and volatile variety. But, perhaps theories such as the one I've sketched above (see Frank, and also Jack Hirschleifer for elaborations. Also, Randall Collins made a brief excursion into this kind of theorizing. All three, plus Willie Jasso and a couple of brief commentaries, can be found in a special edition of _Rationality and Society_, sometime around last December or so) can help us understand the underlying, microlevel dynamics (which are not necessarily incompatible with the structural level explanations sociologists are more fond of), and so give us an added ability to address the problems of violence in our society. Steve harvey@uconnvm p.s. I lost about 17 email messages this morning by accident. If anyone has the recent socgrad postings handy, and can send them, I'd be much obliged. Also, I noticed that one from Laura F. was among them, and perhaps there were others, so if you sent me a message in the last day or so, please resend it! Thanks. (Mary's post, to which I'm now responding, was the last one I read). From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Jun 30 09:41:58 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 30 Jun 1994 09:39:35 -0700 for socgrad-list Thu, 30 Jun 1994 09:39:33 -0700 for Date: Thu, 30 Jun 1994 10:39:29 -0600 (MDT) From: rebel alm aitchison Subject: Re: Resiliance To: Michael Gibbons On Wed, 29 Jun 1994, Michael Gibbons wrote: > out of anger or spite. granted, tadpoles eat all the other tadpoles until > they are the last ones left. but somehow, that sort of behavior seems > qualitatively different than killing our own over property. > michael Why is it different? Seems pretty much the same to me...maybe it's even more arbitrary which is scarier. I mean, WHY do tadpoles eat all other tadpoles? Sounds like might makes right argument? Maybe it is about property/territory but we just can't ask them? Sounds like competition for resources at the very least, and possibly random violence at the very worst. Rebel From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Jun 30 09:57:57 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 30 Jun 1994 09:55:27 -0700 for socgrad-list Thu, 30 Jun 1994 09:55:25 -0700 for Date: Thu, 30 Jun 1994 10:55:20 -0600 (MDT) From: rebel alm aitchison Subject: Re: violence/cooperation To: Mary Burbach After years of counseling and having clients give me "reasons" for their behaviors (read as "justifications") that had nothing at all to do with Reason, I've come to the conclusion, Mary, that it is an exercise in futility which will drive you to the edge yourself, if you try to assume rational motivations for human behavior. It is not rationally in a partner's interest to give his/her partner a broken bone--if we are partnering for survival, one would think that you would want your partner to remain as healthy and intact as possible. Personally, I have given up thinking that humans are rational creatures. That we are capable of "rational thought" does mean that we think rationally very much of the time--just because we CAN do it doesn't mean we DO do it. After years of studying history and being involved intimately with others in counseling relationships (from both macro and micro viewpoints), it seems to me that we are still at the stage of evolutionary development where we (re)act instinctively/emotionally (whatever the nomer you use), it seems we use our capacity for Rational Thought more to "rationalize" than to reason. Makes the idea of rationalist objective research in the positivist mode dubious to my way of thinking. On Wed, 29 Jun 1994, Mary Burbach wrote: > If violence and cooperation are both mechanisms people use to better their > own situation then how does one reconcile situations in > which they occur together? Take the family for example - a basically > cooperative unit with a division of labor and a sharing of resources. How > do we explain it when persons in this unit become violent? How is it > in a partner's interest to give a spouse a broken bone? After all, the > recipient of such abuse can't do much work when they are in the hospital. > > Now, I realize the psychological intimidation and the assertion of power could > be in someone's self-interest but I am failing to see beyond that. Help me > out here people. > > Mary > > > > > From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Jun 30 11:24:03 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 30 Jun 1994 11:22:22 -0700 for socgrad-list Thu, 30 Jun 1994 11:22:20 -0700 for Date: Thu, 30 Jun 1994 12:22:16 -0600 (MDT) From: rebel alm aitchison Subject: Re: Resiliance To: Mary Burbach Having shifted from delinquency and deviance to the study of resilience and self-efficacy because I got so depressed from being immersed in the "down" side of human actions, there are a couple of things I think should be clarified-- 1) resilience is NOT just not being screwed up. Resilience is, in the developmental psych literature, a specific concept. See Michael Rutter, David Buchanan, Richard Jessor, Emy Werner, William Beardslee, Norman Garmezy, etc. I have a reference list a couple of hundred long. Anyway, resilience is specifically a quality of a person who has been subjected to adversity, "whose intellectual and social skills are not destroyed by the misfortunes they encounter in home and street...Were we to study the forces that move such children to survival and to adaptation, the long range benefits to our society might be far more significant than our many efforts to construct models of primary prevention...(Garmezy). We are not referring to people who in childhood had the girl he invited to the prom go with the most popular boy in school instead or who did not get the car she wanted for high school graduation, we are referring to people who come from mentally ill or affectively disordered or alcoholic or abusive parents and who, in spite of an unfavorable prognosis, defy all predictions and become adaptive, committed, achievement oriented, socially adjusted, and with no more noticeable neuroses than those with more favorable childhoods. 2) I agree that we don't get a "confused" look on our faces when we talk about a resilient person, but maybe we should. I disagree that we understand these people's actions and behavior. Just think about how most people react when they hear someone else say something like, "I was just so hurt when s/he did that. I feel so helpless. I just don't know what to do." (Sorry I can't think up better dialog on the spur of the moment.) The response of the media, what's written into entertainment scripts, and the responses I see all to often among my fellow students/coworkers/acquaintances is something like, "well, of course you don't know what to do. What can you do when somebody acts like that. You poor thing. You're only human." (I really love (=hate, sarcastic) that last line, as if the definition of human is that we are helpless.) Contrast the response to someone who says, "I just handled it. I told the bitch/jerk to f*** off and I left. The first time s/he abused me was his/her fault; the second time would be mine. No thank you!" Most likely the response will not be "of course you did", it is more likely to be something like "good for you, but where did you get the strength to do that?" My point is, I DON'T think we understand resilience. The literature is still full of exploratory studies about what makes/enables someone to be resilient and others not. I don't think it's taken for granted or understood, and I think we should work on doing that. We can try to prevent abuse, but how about promoting resilience? We can debate endlessly about whether we are or are not "naturally" violent, but in the meantime, how about teaching ourselves more positive means of dealing with problems. In mediation, mediators model for our clients other ways of communicating differences without inciting argument, that is we try to educate them that difference does not have to equal conflict. Instead of emphasizing how bad a person is for resorting to violence, how about encouraging them to try more productive modes of communication? I don't see why as sociologists we can't try to understand and educate about more positive aspects of human behavior than continually, as it seems to me, focusing on the negative. 3) Not apropos of Mary's post but of the discussion in general, it occurred to me that other night that I have been making an assumption about the research question of interest re: abusive relationships: I had been assuming that the question would be along the lines of "what kind of *people* (no presumed gender) are in abusive relationships? what are the various *alternatives* for dealing with abusive relationships? do all people in abusive relationships handle them the same way? what is the *variation in solutions* to abusive relationships?" In posing the research problem, such statements would determine the population in question as all people in abusive relations, and then one could investigate whether men and women handle these relationships differently, if there's a difference due to ethnicity, SES, religion, education, etc. and all the other usual kind of *variables* (remember, we're supposed to have _variation_!) we use as independent variables. We would also investigate the *variation* in solutions. Instead, it seems that some other people are defining as their population for their question of interest, only those people who can't get out of abusive relationships. That is one possible population, but it should be noted that if the population is *by definition* those people who stay in abusive relationships, then guess what? If your hypothesis is that people in abusive relationships can't leave those relationships, but you've defined as your population as those people who can't leave the relationships, then surprise!--your hypothesis will be supported. Anybody else besides me notice the inherent tautology in selecting a population this way? Very convenient for supporting a political agenda but not in my eyes very good research. 4) Don't you just love this medium?! Since we don't have to live with each other, either at home or in the hallways of the university or at work, don't you feel much freer to just let it all hang out? 5) Where do I find the "state" so that I can go and complain to it about how it's not handling this and other problems?? On Wed, 29 Jun 1994, Mary Burbach wrote: > Michael, > Thank you for your post. I did not mean to say that the study of > resilancy was not an important one - it is. Your point is a good one, > there *are* people who get out of rotten situations virtually unscathed > and who then go out into the world and live "normal" lives. We admire > these people for their strength and courage. All I meant was that we > don't generally get a confused look on our face when we talk about a > resilant person. On the contrary, people who are resiliant > are admired and we understand these people's actions and behavior. There > are also however, emotionally, economically and educationally > crippled women out there in truly violent (physically, sexually or > emotionally) relationships. I think it is important that we do not forget > this when we study this problem. Our society is also still facing and > fighting its belief that hitting is sometimes a necessary and logical > action to a problem. > > You are right in that the state will do little to solve this problem. We > have to do it (all of us) by educating ourselves and those around us about > the realities of this problem and ways out of this behavior. > > By the way, now that you have thought about it for awhile, do you think we > are inherently violent? > > Mary > > > > From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Jun 30 13:00:14 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 30 Jun 1994 12:52:58 -0700 for socgrad-list Thu, 30 Jun 1994 12:52:51 -0700 for Date: Thu, 30 Jun 94 15:46 EDT From: "Pamela Paxton" To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: violence It seems that a bunch of people are now interested in discussing psychological reasons for violence and acceptance of violence. In this part of her post, Rebel explains what she sees as the research agenda... _________________________ 3) Not apropos of Mary's post but of the discussion in general, it occurred to me that other night that I have been making an assumption about the research question of interest re: abusive relationships: I had been assuming that the question would be along the lines of "what kind of *people* (no presumed gender) are in abusive relationships? what are the various *alternatives* for dealing with abusive relationships? do all people in abusive relationships handle them the same way? what is the *variation in solutions* to abusive relationships?" In posing the research problem, such statements would determine the population in question as all people in abusive relations, and then one could investigate whether men and women handle these relationships differently, if there's a difference due to ethnicity, SES, religion, education, etc. and all the other usual kind of *variables* (remember, we're supposed to have _variation_!) we use as independent variables. We would also investigate the *variation* in solutions. _______________ I think we should consider the questions that rebel raises. The first question is, what kind of people are in abusive relationships? Before moving on, we have to address that issue - and we have - we have noted that many more women are in abusive domestic situations than men. We can not answer the rest of the questions without taking that into consideration, however. Also, although rebel's questions are interesting, I would like to add that the crucial question for me (and why I brought up differential economic and childcare constraints originally) is, why do we see differences in the types of people that are in abusive relationships? It is when we begin to answer that question that we can split into more psychological or structural explantions. Obviously, from my posts, I prefer structural answers there. I also find it interesting how (in general) we have moved from the more specific discussion of domestic violence against women to an abstract discussion of "abusive situations." Its much easier that way. One of the reasons that we may have abstracted to a more general *people* level is that our explanations have turned more psychological. We are indicating that there may be some types of people that are just more resilient, or who overcame early neuroses and don't stay in abusive relationships. Those explanations are much easier to swallow if we forget for the moment that more women are in those types of relationships. Otherwise, it starts to look as though we are saying women are less resilient etc. than men. And it ends up looking like becoming a 'natural' difference if we neglect to also include structural explanations. Thats why I continue to argue that we can not overlook structural factors here. Although within abusive relationships, there may be more or less benefit from a general resiliance or any other psychological explanation, we still need to consider how people are differentially placed in abusive relationships in the first place. I ALSO still argue that we need to consider the structural factors that KEEP them there (gendered economic constraints, etc.) If we keep the gender aspect in, we can also begin to look at what types of structures might decrease or increase resiliance in males, females, or both. For example, differential socialization might affect females resiliance in a different way then males. It might make them less resiliant. So, even if we want to stay with the more psychological resiliant explanations, I still argue that we should consider the structural factors that influence them. An example of how structure is (at least) intertwined with psychology, is to consider rebel's "example" of resiliance. She offers us a resiliant person as someone who can tell their abusive spouse to f*** off and leave the house/marriage/relationship/etc. What type of person is most likely to BE ABLE to make a statement like that? OR, what type of person faces more constraints in making a statement like that? Obviously (at least I think it is) structural factors that affect the different genders (not to mention races, etc.) differently are going to play a role in who has a harder time being resilient. Or, to put it another way, who would have to be EXTRA-resilient to escape? Resiliance involves more than just saying F*** off. It also involves then being able to support yourself alone, possiblily support children as well etc. These are areas where we see structural gender differences. Wow! sorry about the length, got on a role there. Pam Paxton UPAM00@unc.oit.unc.edu From socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Jun 30 13:19:38 1994 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Thu, 30 Jun 1994 13:14:20 -0700 for socgrad-list Thu, 30 Jun 1994 13:14:14 -0700 for Date: Thu, 30 Jun 94 16:01:13 EDT From: Steve Harvey Subject: Agreement! To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU Jeremy- Yes, I think our positions are much closer than either of us originally recognized. The first of your two recent posts, especially, had me saying "right on!" to myself as I was reading. I agree that the "rational egoist" conception is *not* a very good descriptor of subjective states, but rather a useful abstraction. One can argue that it approximates a stochastic learning model, which is a better (though still imperfect) descriptor. Also, in spite of my appreciation of the analytic plusses of rational choice theory, I myself prefer to use a more textually rich synthesis of approaches, including elements of the sociology of knowledge, postmodernism, critical theory, evolutionary models, and rational choice. On this list, I tend to promote rational choice, because what I find most lacking in much of the discourse on the list is an appreciation of underlying dynamics (rather than settling for structural generalizations). I find rational choice to *contribute to* a rich form of analysis of system dynamics. As my last post to Mary may indicate, I like some of the ideas on the margins of rational choice best, such as the evolutionary rationality of emotions, though (actually, *because*) they sometimes supplant rational action in given circumstances. Steve harvey@uconnvm