From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 1 06:15:10 1995 Wed, 1 Feb 1995 06:12:52 -0800 for Date: Wed, 01 Feb 95 09:09:02 LCL From: "Sabrina M. Neeley" Subject: unsubscribe To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU I am trying to unsubscribe, and have been following the directions given to sen d a message to listserv@ucsd.edu and include in the body the message unsub socg rad. I have tried this numerous times. I keep getting messages from the lists erv saying either I'm not on the mailing list, or it doesn't recognize socgrad Help! From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 1 20:37:16 1995 Wed, 1 Feb 1995 20:34:11 -0800 for From: g_montoya@VENUS.TWU.EDU Date: Wed, 01 Feb 1995 22:33:43 CST To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: sub G_Montoya@twu.edu Has anyone tried applying Goffman to the business world? Am working on the concepts of face work and stigma re: vendors, shoppers, and city personnel at Dallas Farmers' Market. Ideas? J.D. Montoya From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Feb 2 13:27:52 1995 Thu, 2 Feb 1995 13:21:44 -0800 for Date: Thu, 02 Feb 95 15:11 CST From: NNRTWS1@UCHIMVS1.UCHICAGO.EDU To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: (Copy) file General Social Survey Student Paper Competition The National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago announces the first annual General Social Survey (GSS) Student Paper Competition. To be eligible papers must: 1) be based on data from the 1972-1993 GSSs or from the GSS's cross-national component, the International Social Survey Program (any year or combination of years may be used), 2) represent original and unpublished work, and 3) be written by a student or students at an accredited college or university. Both undergraduates and graduate students may enter and college graduates are eligible for one year after receiving their degree. The papers will be judged on the basis of their: a) con- tribution to expanding understanding of contemporary American society, b) development and testing of social science models and theories, c) statistical and methodological sophistication, and d) clarity of writing and organization. Papers should be less than 40 pages in length (including tables, references, appendices, etc.) and should be double spaced. Paper will be judged by the principal investigators of the GSS (James A. Davis and Tom W. Smith) with assistance from a group of leading scholars. The winner will receive a cash prize of $250 and a commemorative plaque. In addition, winning papers will be eligible for publication in the GSS Student Report Series. Honorable mentions may also be awarded by the judges. Two copies of each paper must be received by February 15, 1995. The winner will be announced in April, 1995. Send entries to: Tom W. Smith General Social Survey National Opinion Research Center 1155 East 60th St. Chicago, Il 60637 For further information: Phone: 312-753-7877 Fax: 312-753-7886 Email: NNRTWS1@UCHIMVS1  From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Feb 2 23:36:56 1995 Thu, 2 Feb 1995 23:33:22 -0800 for From: Jean Czerlinski Subject: place of sociology To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Fri, 3 Feb 95 1:33:12 CST Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] I've been quite surprised at the general discontent with sociology I've seen on socgrad. Maybe the majority of sociologists-in-training don't care, but there's certainly some sort of undercurrent of "Why doesn't sociology get as much respect as economics?" and "Why isn't sociology more mathematized so that it can make precise [that doesn't mean accurate!!] predictions?" and "Why doesn't sociology have basic principles of social behavior yet?" and even "Why has sociology failed so far?" I'm not quite sure what it means to have such discontent. Did people feel this way *before* they entered grad school? If so, did they have hopes of helping the field improve? Why didn't they just study economics instead? I would like to point out, though, that to some extent prestige may have to do with political winds. Sociology is generally more liberal and social-policy oriented than economics (though there are exceptions, of course). Likewise, when people believed big government could solve things, sociology had higher prestige. The classic Hodge, Siegel, and Rossi paper gave the following occupational prestige rankings: March, 1947 June, 1963 sociologist 26.5 26 economist 34 34.5 psychologist 22 17.5 I'm sorry I don't have the current rankings handy, but I know economist is now higher than sociologist. This coincides with a change in the political winds, a loss of belief in big government and social policy and a greater trust in the effectivenes of markets in solving problems. However, that is also confounded with the increasing mathematization of economics. However, this mathematization has *not* helped economics make much better predictions than it used to (in my opinion, especially with regard to macroeconomics. There's also been an increasing emphasis on psychology as a fix-it and personal fulfillment through personal expression (see Bellah et al.'s *Habits of the Heart*), and so I'd expect psychology to have continued its rise in prestige, at least in the 80's. In the 90's I think people have gotten a bit disgusted with things like "pet psychologists" and so on. Anyway, my point is that occupational prestige is greatly affected by political and cultural winds, by what people believe the best fix-its are. This is not to say that "objective success" (where "objective" might be called "as a science" or "as a guide to policy" or ... I don't know) is not also a factor. But how could one readily say that sociology was a bad fix-it when the post-war years and the 60's were so strong economically and had less crime than now and so on? It's not *obvious* that sociology did such a bad job, back when it had the ear of our national leaders, which economists now have. The physics-paradigm of lots of math and few basic principles is not, however, met by sociology. In my mind sociology seems closer to the science (yes, science!) of biology, with its great diversity of organisms and physiologies and anatomies and so on. Sorry this message has been a bit disorganized.... And anyway it doesn't solve the question of whether sociology can or even should try to attain more prestige. Trying to cast things in a new light, Jean (jczer@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu) From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Feb 3 08:57:15 1995 Fri, 3 Feb 1995 08:51:11 -0800 for From: SHAFER@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU (PMDF V4.3-10 #7331) id <01HMM05XZ22E9I4NFP@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU>; Fri, 03 Feb 1995 11:48:11 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 03 Feb 1995 11:48:10 -0500 (EST) Subject: prestige and sociology To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU I agree that the cultural "winds" are blowing from a different direction and can change the way individuals assess prestige to a particular discipline. I have several other questions/comments about sociology that i hope elicit some feedback from socgrad. 1. Sociology when done well illuminates common myths that are used by individuals. This can make individuals very uncomfortable, literally shaking the ground that serves as a cornerstone of their world views. This can be scary. Some individuals would perfer (including some of my students) not to go through this process. 2. Economist success lies in their willingness to work for the capitalist class and substantiate there interests. (Note not all economist work this way, just the one's that get paraded in front of the public. Watch the current debate on raising the minimum wage for a good example.) 3. My impression is that most economist are white men, while sociologist come in all colours and genders. 4. Econ and Soc both suffer from lack of definitive "answers" to problems of human behavior. 5. Sociology strength is in its ability to entertain all types of different methods, different theories (world views), and different individuals. As a result many sub-disciplines have been formed out of sociology. (criminology, african-american studies, women studies, gerontology, etc.) As these areas develope their own dept. and curriculum they weaken sociology in general. 6. Graduate students suffer from lack of confidence in their discipline because of the precarious position of being a graduate student. (not a full student, not a full teacher, not a full expert) essentially graduate students live in several simultaneous worlds and suffer the ambivalence that goes with these multiple identities. dave shafer brandeis univ. From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Feb 3 14:43:34 1995 Fri, 3 Feb 1995 14:32:00 -0800 for From: KINRABE@UWYO.EDU id <01HMM8X3V96O0011F4@ROPER.UWYO.EDU>; Fri, 03 Feb 1995 15:31:50 -0700 (MST) Date: Fri, 03 Feb 1995 15:31:50 -0700 (MST) Subject: Jean Czerlinski's comments To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Right on, Jean. Thanks for the thoughtful analysis on "the place of sociology." I was getting a little tired of the previous discussions on here concerning this subject. Enough said. Brian From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Feb 3 15:05:30 1995 Fri, 3 Feb 1995 14:59:20 -0800 for Date: Fri, 3 Feb 1995 16:59:16 -0600 (CST) From: nick mcree Subject: Re: prestige and sociolog To: socgrad Some reactions to (some of) Paul Shafer's comments: 1] Paul says that people sometimes feel uncomfortable and resist positions that shake a world-view. I couldn't agree more. Perhaps this is why **sociologists** on the whole steadfastly refuse to meaningfully consider the role that biology/ natural selection played in the development of individual behavior and social forms. To entertain this hypothesis would mean (shudder) that we might have to accept the idea that comparisons between humans and other animals are relevant and in some cases necessary; that certain behavioral predispositions may exist; that some behaviors may be influenced by what is "hardwired" in the brain, etc. 3.Paul says, "My impression is that most economist are white men, while sociologist come in all colours and genders." Even if this is true, so what? I don't believe that Paul is trying to argue that sociology is somehow _better_ than economics because a greater percentage of sociology practitioners are not white. At least, I hope not. 5. Paul says, "Sociology strength is in its ability to entertain all types of different methods, different theories (world views), and different individuals." I think that sociology is weakened precisely because sociologists do *not* propose to link their hypotheses to an underlying, verifiable proposition. If we do not act as a science, sociology will have about as much credibility as Dianne Warwick and the "Psychic Friends Network." ------------------------------------- Nick McRee Department of Sociology The University of Texas at Austin From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Feb 3 19:36:29 1995 Fri, 3 Feb 1995 19:31:30 -0800 for Date: Fri, 3 Feb 1995 21:30:19 -0600 (CST) From: Brent Myer To: nick mcree Subject: Re: prestige and sociolog On Fri, 3 Feb 1995, nick mcree wrote: > > 5. Paul says, "Sociology strength is in its ability to entertain all types > of different methods, different theories (world views), and different > individuals." I think that sociology is weakened precisely because > sociologists do *not* propose to link their hypotheses to an underlying, > verifiable proposition. If we do not act as a science, sociology will have > about as much credibility as Dianne Warwick and the "Psychic Friends > Network." Sociology is acting like a science. Should we dare believe that there is only one model of scientific proof? Or that there is only one way to verify a proposition? That is what you would like? Sociologist *do* link their theory with empirical data... but should we exclude all research that does not follow the natural science model? Your conception of the future of sociology is *extremely* limited in scope. The science that you demand of us is based on fundamental assumptions about the world, and about how we humans interact with the world; but there are other assumptions that could be made, and are. In your conception of sociology, we would not be in a position to say what the world *should* be; we would only be able to say what we have seen through our highly focused glasses of science. It would seem to me that by trying to determine what should be,and by analysing what is, we would be able to help humanity, a goal, i think, that should be a part of our field. I am not arguing that the natural science model should not be used, but that it is not the only way that we can gain knowledge (valid knowledge at that!). As for your psychic friends example. It would seem to me that the public finds such things as helpful. Certainly your science can not understand it, but those that call, may believe it actually helps, and who knows, perhaps it does. Who are we trying to impress? Other scientists? or the people? The other scientific fields, well, they have the power to decide what is called science. Are we so possitive that what we study say, bureaucratic systems, are as natural as gravity? I certainly am not, and I am not at all possitive that what the scientists call science is the only possible route towards legitimacy, a legitimacy that could be gained through action, not conformity. ------- Brent From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Sat Feb 4 09:36:32 1995 Sat, 4 Feb 1995 09:32:24 -0800 for Date: Sat, 4 Feb 1995 11:32:17 -0600 (CST) From: nick mcree To: socgrad Hello socgradders: Brent thinks that my conception of sociology is too limited. Actually, I believe that Brent and I agree on many issues. For example, if I link Brent's idea that there is more than one path to scientific knowledge with his argument that there are many different methods that can be employed to gain that knowledge, I find little to quibble about. Of course there are different methods that one may employ to get at a question. Meteorologists use inferential statistics and weather balloons; we use inferential statistics and participant observation. What I rail against is the notion that there cannot (or worse, _should not_) be an attempt to ground our inquiry in terms of a nomothetic proposition. It is for this reason that I claim sociology, in its current state, is *not* a science. We have no nomothetic proposition to explain behavior, and a proposition of this type is precisely what distinguishes scientific inquiry from other types of knowing. The logical place to start is with what influenced the behavior and development of _all_ biological organisms: maximization of inclusive fitness through natural selection. This proposition, unmodified, certainly will not explain all behavior--or even a majority of it. But of course, Newton's Laws of motion neither is a _completely_ satisfactory explanation for the motion of heavenly bodies. But the point is to begin with a fundamental statement, and then modify it. There is room for "*.studies" in our repertoire, to be sure. But shouldn't we establish what common characteristics underly behavior before we submit to evaluate the ancillary propositions? Brent says that I am making certain assumptions about the world. Yes, I am, and I alluded to them above. We are biological organisms, and our behavior has been shaped by natural selection. And yes, I do maintain that these historical events have an effect on current behavior. It seems to me that those who would disagree with this orientation would, at least, have to disagree with the idea that biological development and physiological structures and activity play no role in understanding behavior. Or, more accurately, they would have to argue that it is not necessary to come to grips with those factors in order to explain the particular phenomena they were investigating. That many do believe this, at least implicitly, is evidenced by the fact that most of our inquiry does not even attempt to examine the relationship. *This* is why we suffer the indignities of having our departments eliminated (not because we are ignored and marginalized harbingers of "the truth about social life that no one wants to face.") Finally, Brent suggests that this conception of sociology would limit the ability of its adherents to articulate the way society should be. Actually, I think that recognizing (no, not just recognizing, but coming to grips with) the relationship between biology and behavior is essential to making informed and realistic arguments about the way society "should be." Many have wondered ominously "but what would the ramifications of adopting this perspective be?" I would turn the tables: Consider the amount of damage that has been done to individual well-being and social tranquility by creating hypotheses about the world that do *not* explicitly take into account that humans are biological creatures! With respect, ------------------------------------- Nick McRee Department of Sociology The University of Texas at Austin From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Sat Feb 4 12:09:49 1995 Sat, 4 Feb 1995 12:05:50 -0800 for Date: Wed, 25 Jan 1995 16:18:06 -0600 (CST) From: Laurie Ann Drapela Subject: Statistics To: socgrad content-length: 0 Sorry to inject pragmitism and popular culture dribble into this heated debate, but I want to know statistics and programming to get a job in sociology.(e.g. the theme from Sid and Nancy " I wanna job..I wanna job..I wanna GOOD job..I wanna job...I wanna job that pays...." Those who have seen it know what I mean. LAD From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Sat Feb 4 13:11:31 1995 Sat, 4 Feb 1995 13:07:30 -0800 for Date: Sat, 4 Feb 1995 16:07:28 -0500 (EST) From: David Gibson To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: Texan sociobiologists I had heard that U. of Texas at Austin was a hotbed for sociobiology, but didn't dare believe it (I wanted to the folks there the benefit of the doubt). But having read Nick McRee's endorsement for this approach, all I can say is seeing is believing. Actually, that's not all I'll say. Firstly, sociology *has* produced nomothetic propositions: about the organization-environment connection (what kinds of organizations work under what conditions), about inequality (Blau), about the relative advantages of occupying certain network positions (Burt, Granovetter) -- and all of this in addition to the most reductionistic propositions of all from George Homans, who was fully self-consious in this respect (see _The Nature of Social Science_). Secondly, I doubt very much that we can get much purchase from Nick's natural selection take on sociology, though I'm open-minded (well, sort of), and invite him to provide us with examples. My fear is that natural selection provides an easy way out, for this approach falls too easily into story-telling: people are the way they are because at some point in time certain traits provided some reproductive advantage to their ancestors. And do we use this approach to account for human differences (e.g., in the organization of business firms in the U.S. vs. Japan)? -- or are we just trying to establish lowest-common-denominators? I'll reserve further comment until Nick further specifies his research agenda and findings to date. David Gibson Columbia From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Sat Feb 4 19:47:06 1995 Sat, 4 Feb 1995 19:42:59 -0800 for by almaak.usc.edu (8.6.8.1/8.6.7+ucs) Date: Sat, 4 Feb 1995 19:42:55 -0800 (PST) From: James Beniger To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: Request for Help I recall a particularly good passage in Durkheim's work on his "collective representations," but cannot seem to find it. Can any of you steer me to any of his better treatments of this concept? One of them just might be what I am attempting to locate. And thanks for your trouble (I'll post a summary of responses for those who might share my interest in the subject). From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Sat Feb 4 20:06:32 1995 Sat, 4 Feb 1995 20:02:40 -0800 for Date: Sat, 04 Feb 95 22:50:13 EST From: Alan Subject: Collective Representations To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU There are two good citations I know of. First, when speaking of religion, Durkheim (p. 257 in my addition, I don't know about newer editions), argues, "it is a system of ideas with which the individuals represent to themselves the society of which they are members ..... [which] .... translates everything essential in the relations which are to be explained." P. 261 -- "The virtues it (the religious) is believed to possess are not intrinsic in it, and if they come from certain sentiments which it brings to mind and symbolizes, though these originate outside of it, then, since it has no need of determined dimensions to play this role of reminder, it will have the same value whether it is entire or not. Since the part makes us think of the whole, it evokes the same sentiments as a whole." P.S., this last quote is a special favorite of those of us who like to thorns in the side of old functionalists who think Foucault has nothing to do with Durkheim and "the classic sociological tradition." From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Sun Feb 5 08:13:19 1995 Sun, 5 Feb 1995 08:06:41 -0800 for From: j_young@VENUS.TWU.EDU Date: Sun, 05 Feb 1995 10:07:17 CST To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: Postmodern Understandings of Mind and Self This is number 16 in a series of mini-lectures for graduate students in North America and elsewhere on the socgrad network. This lecture parallels a graduate seminar in postmodern social psychology at Texas Woman's University and is offered by T.R. Young of the Red Feather Institute for Advanced Studies in Sociology. INTRODUCTION. Today I want to contrast the modernist focus on reason and rationality as the essence of mind with a postmodern view that mind is a) a function of social relationships, b) multi-sensual, c) episodic and d) fractal in geometry when actually at work. A. The idea that mind is a function of social relationships is, of course, old hat in symbolic interactional theory. E. Doyle McCarthy of Fordham has a nice piece on an 'Interactionist Theory of Mind' in V. 10, Studies in Symbolic Interaction, ed. by Norm Denzin. [Sage]. But there are some important differences between the idea of self in Mead and Cooley from that, say, of Steve Pfohl. I had mentioned the polysemic self in the last lecture outline. In his wonderful multi- media presentation on 'The Terror of the Simulacra' given at Central Michigan University some five years ago, Steve related how parents, teachers, television and books 'imprinted' images of his self upon his consciousness. In the lecture, Steve used music, slides, and a lecture to talk about how his 'self' was shaped...all the time projecting socially acceptable images of the male upon his torso; and later, some not so acceptable images of self. All this was in service of making the postmodern point that simulacra [images] do violence to the autonomy of the self; that the images imprinted on consciousness are not much more than that; and that mind, at least Steve's mind, runs far out of the boundaries permitted for men, students, and sociologists. In his lecture, Steve contrasted the efficacy of imprinting male images upon his consciousness with that of Oliver North...it made a dramatic point...Oliver North had 'innocently' internalized and acted upon such masculine images and fitted them within the social structure at hand. But there is a lot more to a postmodern theory of mind than the Meadian point of its genesis in the sociology of it all. In mass society, in total institutions, in offices, shops and factories, mines and mills around the country, there is little of the rich and supportive inter- action which Mead and Cooley pre-supposed. In such a social milieu, mind is very fragmented and tentative. The thought processes one has in short role takes are fleeting and very marginally relevant to any concept of either mind or self. One must ask oneself, how much is that interaction found in the shop, store or factory oriented to the genesis and validation of a social self; how much of the interaction in a mass class of 80-200 students at Virginia Tech or U/Colorado is oriented to the Looking Glass Process of Cooley. There is a feedback routine but it is limited to two or three 'grades' over a semester in university. Neither the professor nor the student see the other as a 'significant other.' The effort to generate and imprint mind goes on, of course, but that effort has little connection to the generation of a social mind of the sort Mead meant. B. Reason and Rationality became the central focus with mind with the writings of Hobbes and later, Descartes. Both Hobbes and Descartes were of the same century as Newton. Together with Bacon, they gave rise to the Enlightenment which set Reason and rationality as the proper and exclusive pathway to knowledge. In pre-modernity visions, inspiration, meditation and trances brought sure and certain knowledge of the past and of the future. Modernity swept such extra-sensory pathways away and substituted careful observation of objects in this world for messages from the dream world as a grounding of the knowledge process. Newtonian physics, aristotlean logic, leibnizean calculus, euclidean geometry and careful reasoning became the pathways to sure and certain knowledge while formal axiomatic theory became its mission. In all this, mind was reduced to pure reason [until Hume gave us his critique of pure reason]. It was Descartes who said, 'penso, ergo sum.' But in postmodern thought, there is more to mind and to being than mere reason. Merleau-Ponty offers a much richer view of both mind and self. For Merleau-Ponty, I see, I taste, I touch, I think, I feel and I am felt...therefore I exist. M-P points out that when we caress another person, we validate both his/her existence and our own in the same moment...it is not thought which is the exclusive test of mind and being but sensuality generally. The concern in postmodernity with sexuality and sensuality contrast greatly with the modernist concern for intelligence, reasoning and ration calculability. Those of you who have been following the Herrnstein-Murray polemics will appreciate the postmodern point that I.Q. is but a tiny part of that which is important in mind, self and social status. Indeed, the pre-modern concern for compassion, love, community, and piety as a test of existence resonates with affirmative postmodern notions of self. There are, of course, nihilistic notions of self; we can never make sure and certain connection with the mind or self of another human being, therefore we are each alone on a small blue dot in an endless ocean of stars and galaxies. In such a world, one takes care of one self and uses others for a while then discards them as convenient. Mind itself is a changing, shifting kalidoscope of images, impressions, emotions and self reflexive judgments that one cannot speak of the mind as if it were a stable, measureable, knowlable thing....such is a post- modern view of the actual content of mind. There is a social base for this fleeting, fragmented, and unstable mind. In mass society, the symbolic interactional process is organized and pre-empted by mass, electronic media. The media use the best talent of artists, writers, actors, athletes [vide O.J. Simpson], editors, directors and electronics to project a convincing image of agency, of otherness, of value or of need. Marcuse spoke of this great effort as the 'colonization of desire.' Hundreds of billions of U.S. dollars are spent world wide to shape the mind to the managerial needs of corporations, governments, and now, electronic churches. An integrated and globalized economy with a vast information-flow capacity has great consequences for both mind, self and society. Mead was right but he was too parochial and much too optimistic about the mutuality of the mind and self process when he spoke of them being 'twinborn.' Then too, there is the question of power. In stratified societies, those with economic power, social power [Weber's Traditional, Legal- Rational and Charismatic authority], moral power [Durkheim's Collective Representations] as well as superior physical force have a great advantage in the shaping of mind, self and social process. When a boss or a guard or a Colonel or a thug tells one to do something, the twin- borne nature of the self process is aborted. C. The Episodic nature of mind and self parallels the kind of society in which they are found. In pre-modern society, one was defined as a significant member of a family, tribe, gender and age grade via rites of passage...mini-dramas of the Holy in which a sort of social magic worked to change mere proto-plasm into social facts. In modern societies with a complex division of labor and an economic system which reduces the concept of the individual to that which can be divided, separated, isolated and divorced from others in the mind and self process. [Raymond Williams, in his Keywords, traces the concept of the individual from the meaning of, say, John Donne who really held that no one could be an island unto oneself, divided from the main...to a meaning quite opposite today]. I had my undergrad students chart out the role-takes in which they invested mind, self, time and energy last week. Most spent most of their time in triangles [small businesses] and rectangles [local branches of large corporations] rather than circles [primary groups]. Very few of them spent more than 25% of their time in the kind of social occasion in which there was an interactionally rich and an informationally rich symbolic process oriented to elicting and affirming some social identity which lasted more than an hour or two. In modern, massified societies, the socialization process is ever more oriented to technical, job-oriented information. Pre-modern parents around the country are demanding an interactionally rich and informationally rich educational milieu oriented to a stable self system the center of which are family social identities, religious social identities and binary gender social identities. Modernists of the corporate-liberal sort want the state to bear the expense of job skills and re-education. Humanists of all sorts want the school system to expand the structure of self to include more races, classes, and genders in the inventory of each mind and self system under the purview of the school. In all this, the emergence of mind and self as a stable, measureable social fact of the sort Hobbes, Descartes, Durkheim and Mead talked about is most problematic. D. I don't want to end this lecture on a discouraging note. It is my own view that social selves do emerge out of the sociology of it all which are much more than image and impression management [Goffman]. It is my view that the divisions between pre-modern, modern and postmodern are far from time-bound; that each of us live in all three modalities more than we might think. It seems to me that most people in most societies around the world still live and work in pre-modern modalities...the self-system is centered around primary relationships which encourage a multi-sensual mind...and which provides a great many social occasions in which formal and informal dramas of the Holy can occur to activate and celebrate whatever traditional set of social identities are used in that society. At the same time, most of us live/engage in the kind of massified market system which minimizes and fragments both mind and self. Yet it is a tribute to human genius and human agency that mind and self can emerge out of such a hostile social world to encompass others as both significant and partner to the mind and self process. For most, for now, the pre-modern and postmodern critique of modern mass society is over-done. There are serious dangers to mind, self and society inherent in globalized and massified societies with a division of labor and a sub-division of labor which reduces self to the kind of behavior mocked by Charlie Chaplin in his films on the factory and the machine. The advent of electronics, computers and artificial intelligences as well as gene splitting and splicing may well be most unfriendly to the human mind and the diversity of human selves which now promise to pre- empt the mind and self process. Yet there are social movements and social measures which offer a social base for a much more affirmative postmodern mind and self. There are movements in religion which one must watch for their effects on mind and self...religion [as both community and as social justice] continues to be very important around the world...liberation theology, feminist theology, black theology and postmodern theology may well become very important as a catalyst for a semi-stable and encompassing self system. The democratization of science via several organizations continues; indeed, electronics and mass marketting facilitate that process. Internet and other electronic media offer a base for a much more engaged mind and self. Art, dance, cinema, architecture, literature and poetry have affirmative postmodern moments which should not lightly be set aside. The university continues to be repository and refuge for affirmative postmodern thought and deed. Some years ago, I wrote a book called 'New Sources of Self.' I was not very optimistic then...speaking as I was out of a quasi- modernist/pre-modernist point of view. I am a bit more optimistic now...having the benefit of the work of such as Pauline Rosenau, Norm Denzin, Doyle McCarthy, and dozens of other colleagues who will not concede the critical project to nihilistic Europeans speaking from their own isolated and fragmented social positions. In summary, postmodernity offers scope for human thought and human agency not possible in the god-hewn world of pre-modernity nor in the tightly connected and inexorably rational world of Newton, Descartes or LaPlace. Chaos theory teaches us that the end of history will never come; that the stabilities of the day can change drama- tically to entirely new social forms; that there is room for human agency at key points even in deterministic dynamics of the sort imagined at eternal by modern philosophers of science. There is much to learn; much to think; much to do as we move into the 21st century...I'm glad to have such a seat and to watch the turns and twists of the social process. I expect it will be interesting. T. R. Young From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Sun Feb 5 08:54:10 1995 Sun, 5 Feb 1995 08:47:44 -0800 for Date: Sun, 05 Feb 95 11:47:19 EST From: lan To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Perhaps due to writing late at night, the Durkheim cites are from the Elementary Forms of Religious Life From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Sun Feb 5 11:26:41 1995 Sun, 5 Feb 1995 11:21:40 -0800 for Date: Sun, 5 Feb 1995 13:21:36 -0600 (CST) From: nick mcree Subject: Re: Texan sociobiologists To: socgrad On the subject of UT-Austin being a hotbed for sociobiology: I believe David Gibson has been receiving grossly inaccurate information. It is definitely *not* a popular subject here. I believe that most students here regard the perspective with extreme skepticism. Hell, so did I when I first got here. So rest easy. There are plenty of folks in my department who believe that when humans developed distinctive cultures it spelled the end to whatever relationship we might infer between biology and behavior. Oh, by the way, I'm not from Texas, and I can't stand the state, either. I'm from Oregon. But the school is great, the tuition is cheap, and fortunately it is at least 2000 miles or so from New York City. Touche', David. "Texan sociobiologists," indeed. :) Three points: [1] My understanding of a nomothetic proposition suggests the construction of a statement of relationship that serves to _systemmatize_ a given field. What David cites as evidence of nomothetic proposition crafting may be examples of (relatively) clear and unambiguous theory construction. But they are not examples of a nomothetic proposition. In fact, the whole notion that "sociology has provided nomothetic proposition's' is oxymoronic. Even Homans failed to articulate exactly _what_ people were attempting to maximize in the course of their activities. [2] I'm happy to provide a few examples of research agendas and empirical findings that I think are "interesting." But I would rather keep our discussion here "general," at least for the sake of those 3 or 4 people on this list who may not already have altered their mail _kill_ file to avoid having to read my post because they have already made up their minds. David (and others) may email me directly to continue a more specific discussion. [3] I would like to suggest, however, that my initial position was that one must either assume that biology _does_ play a determining role in individual and social behavior. or it does _not_. I do not believe that David supplied a response to this argument; perhaps I am misreading. David is arguing that he questions the role of evolution in explaining apparent differences in human organization in the modern world. But *my* question would need to be addressed first. One would first need to declare that biology did (and doe) play a role. Then, the discussion can revolve around to what extent it serves to shape individual and social behavior today. Incidentally, this confusion would be avoided by the adoption of a nomothetic proposition. If I were to break out my crystal ball (given the resistance to this idea, it's probably more like a wish-list) in fifty years, the proposition might take a form like this: "Organisms tend to behave so as to maximize their inclusive fitness, _provided_ (x), (y), (z), etc. etc." I think that is where sociology is destined to make its greatest contribution: spelling out the provisos that modify this basic statement of relationship. But in order to do that we would have to first explain (i.e., explicitly acknowledge) the basic relationship. as always, with respect ------------------------------------- Nick McRee Department of Sociology The University of Texas at Austin From list-relay@ucsd.edu Mon Feb 6 13:28:21 1995 Mon, 6 Feb 1995 12:25:56 -0800 for Date: Mon, 6 Feb 1995 15:25:54 -0500 (EST) From: James Cassell Subject: [FWD] Dissertation Research Grants (on alternative forms of contracting and business organization) To: Sociology Graduate Student Discussion Don't know whether they'll be receptive to sociologist, but it might be worth a try. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 ---------- From: "Michael Sykuta" Subject: Dissertation Research Grants Date: 5 Feb 1995 07:44:59 -0800 CENTER FOR RESEARCH ON CONTRACTS AND THE STRUCTURE OF ENTERPRISE Katz Graduate School of Business University of Pittsburgh DISSERTATION RESEARCH GRANTS FOR 1995-96 The Center for Research on Contracts and the Structure of Enterprise (CRCSE) was formed in 1991 to promote a better understanding of the causes and consequences of alternative forms of contracting and business organization. As part of the Center's efforts to encourage research on contracts, the CRCSE is awarding several dissertation research grants of up to $2,000 to support studies focusing on contracts and with corporate and/or public policy relevance. The awards will be made on a competitive basis, and are intended to assist doctoral candidates in their efforts to collect and study contracts. Papers resulting from the research may also be submitted for circulation in the Center's Working Paper Series. Recipients of awards must agree to provide the CRCSE with a copy of the collected data for its library. Applicants should have received departmental approval for their thesis research, and should submit (in duplicate) a 2-3 page summary of their proposed research, including a detailed description of the type of contracts they will collect, the sources and assurances for obtaining the contracts, and the projected costs for collecting the data. The proposal should also include a recommendation letter from the applicant's thesis advisor evaluating the proposed research. Grant proposals should be received by May 1, 1995. Initial decisions should be made by June 1, 1995. Awards will be based upon the projected data collection costs and the topic of the research. Proposals should be addressed to: Dr. Michael Sykuta Associate Director, CRCSE Katz Graduate School of Business 278A Mervis Hall University of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh, PA 15260 From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Feb 7 00:25:35 1995 Tue, 7 Feb 1995 00:23:56 -0800 for From: KINRABE@UWYO.EDU id <01HMR0GYITHC000TQH@ROPER.UWYO.EDU>; Tue, 07 Feb 1995 01:23:43 -0700 (MST) Date: Tue, 07 Feb 1995 01:23:49 -0700 (MST) Subject: Sociobiology To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU David Gibson wrote he "didn't dare believe" UT Austin was a hotbed of sociobiology. What are you talking about, Dave? Is the SB perspective a dangerous thing that's going to jump out and bite us all? Sociobiology, like any perspective, has strong and weak points. Judging by your comments, you don't really know much about sociobiology, Dave. I have an idea: read a book on it. I don't mean what Steven Gould or Erich Goode writes about it -- I mean read a SB book written by a biologist. In other words, act like a scientist. Being a scientist, or an intellectual, isn't about picking an ideology that appeals to you and defending it unto death. Just because you're a liberal sociologist or a feminist (like me) doesn't mean you have to hate sociobiology. Being a scientist means being critical AND open-minded. Does sociobiology have some weak points? Yes -- but I like it. Does Goffman or Pareto or Weber? Yes -- and I adore them too. Does feminism? Hell yes, but that's no reason to throw it away. Science isn't just the methodology I keep hearing you people debating about. Science is daring to think, and question carefully what we already think -- and it's not easy. If you're not a real scientist then you're just another faceless member of your academic institution, relying on authority to make up your mind about a particular perspective (like sociobiology). Isn't mindless obedience to authority what liberals hate so much? Brian From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Feb 7 12:40:52 1995 Tue, 7 Feb 1995 12:32:52 -0800 for Date: Tue, 7 Feb 1995 15:32:49 -0500 (EST) From: "A E. Eto" To: socgrad Subject: Q: about assistantship stipends Hi SocGradders, Here at NYU, we (the Sociology Dept. Graduate Student association) are trying to assess the generosity of the stipends given out to graduate students as teaching assistants, or research assistants and so forth. Since New York tends to rate high on the cost-of-living scale, many of us wonder whether the stipends here are competitive with other schools once the cost of living is taken into account. Teaching Assistants and Research assistants receive $9,000 a year ($470 every two weeks after taxes). Graduate assistants (TAs for Graduate statistics courses) make slightly more. Individual rent (ie. a room in an apartment share) in the immediate vicinity of NYU (Greenwich Village) averages between $500-$800/month. The lucky ones can sometimes find something for slightly less. Rents in the outer boroughs (Brooklyn, Queens, Bronx) tend to run about $100-$200 less a month (the further out, less rent as a general rule). A subway token is $1.25. I'd like to get information of this sort from graduate students at other schools. We'd like to get a sense where we stand financially against other schools. I hope you socgradders find this information useful as well. Thanks, Eric Eto NYU, Department of Sociology From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Feb 7 13:33:57 1995 Tue, 7 Feb 1995 13:23:53 -0800 for Date: Tue, 7 Feb 1995 16:23:47 -0500 (EST) From: "A E. Eto" To: socgrad Subject: Conference Announcement FOURTH ANNUAL GRADUATE STUDENT CONFERENCE on Culture, Politics and Social Change New York University Department of Sociology Graduate Student Association Saturday, April 29, 1995 Heights Alumni Lounge 24 Waverly Place, Ground Floor (in the Main Building) New York City The Graduate Students' Association of the Sociology Department at New York University is organizing a conference for graduate students in the social sciences and humanities. This conference will bring together graduate students whose research interests reflect the diverse cultural and intellectual traditions of contemporary academic fields. Students will have an opportunity to present ongoing research for review and discussion by their peers in a supportive environment. We hope that this will encourage contacts between participants sharing similar interests and lead to future scholarly collaborations. Papers should be submitted under the following broad headings: Gender and Inequality, Race and Ethnicity, Theory and Culture, Politics, Power and Protest, Law and Society The topics have been selected to encourage papers on a wide range of contemporary issues and social problems. As the conference is intended to foster constructive academic discourse, papers of any nature are welcome. Works in progress and dissertation proposals will also be accepted. Abstracts of approximately 300 words must be submitted by Monday, March 20, 1995. Send all material to: Rifat Salam Department of Sociology New York University 269 Mercer Street, 4th Floor New York, NY 10003 (212)998-8382 From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Feb 7 15:06:47 1995 Tue, 7 Feb 1995 14:53:36 -0800 for 7 Feb 95 17:53:34 +1100 From: "MORTEN G. ENDER" Organization: University of Maryland,College Park To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Tue, 7 Feb 1995 17:53:21 EDT Subject: ASGS online yo socgradders! morten ender ^ ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- The Association for Support of Graduate Students, publishers of Dissertation News and Thesis News, is going online in December. ASGS is initiating a moderated discussion list, free to all interested persons, entitled, "doc-talk." The list will provide information of value to graduate students (and faculty) involved in doing master's and doctoral theses; it will make available articles focused on how to do a thesis, reviews of resources, and answers to students' questions pertaining to their theses, as well as providing current notices of deadlines for thesis-related grants and conferences at which students can present thesis research. If you would like to receive distributions to this list, send an email message to "listserv@netcom.com" and in the body of the message (not the subject line) put the following: subscribe doc-talk. Del Tycer Executive Vice President Association for Support of Graduate Students (ASGS) 585 Fallen Leaf Way Incline Village, NV 89451 Phone (702) 831-1399 Fax (702) 831-2199 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This message |Help using the mailing lists nagps-help@dayton.stanford.edu was sent using|General discussion list nagps@dayton.stanford.edu the NAGPS |To reach NAGPS officers nagps-officers@dayton.stanford.edu email server. |Subscribe/remove/etc. nagps-request@dayton.stanford.edu |NAGPS Services Board nagps-services@dayton.stanford.edu ------------ End Forwarded Message ------------- From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Feb 7 16:04:37 1995 Tue, 7 Feb 1995 15:53:29 -0800 for From: MERIN@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU (PMDF V4.3-10 #7331) id <01HMS0QG04YO9I5O0Q@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU>; Tue, 07 Feb 1995 18:51:27 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 07 Feb 1995 18:51:27 -0500 (EST) Subject: soc and science To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU In response to Nick's comments: I wouldn't argue that there are no biological predispositions to behavior though it seems that there is little decent evidence at the moment. Too often studies cite some difference among groups apply to all the individuals in that group (ie: all women are good nurturers), futhermore the evidence for this is found in some study on how women are more attuned to details than men (woops) and this is generalized to indicate better "mothering" skills (did anyone see the 20/20 special on how men and women differ supposedly?). These problems- what Gould would call ranking and reification are major problems in sociobiology. More imptantly, I think we need to ask whether, even if biological components for social interactions were found, what the point would be. I'm mainly thinking in terms of gender, but would appreciate hearing other examples. I'm just sick of the assumption that women's different hormone levels (or men's) cannot be transcended by thought. My point is: I just don't buy that biology is such a huge component of social behavior. From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Feb 7 18:09:04 1995 Tue, 7 Feb 1995 18:04:56 -0800 for From: KINRABE@UWYO.EDU id <01HMS1IHKZM8001H8O@ROPER.UWYO.EDU>; Tue, 07 Feb 1995 19:04:46 -0700 (MST) Date: Tue, 07 Feb 1995 19:04:54 -0700 (MST) Subject: Sociobiology, again To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU That's right, Merin -- you "just don't" buy that biology is such a big component of behavior. Also, I'll bet you "just haven't" read any books on sociobiology. As I said earlier -- it's easier not to think and to just listen to what the authorities (Steven Jay Gould, most of your professors and peers) say. Hell, why should we have to start reading and thinking now that we're grad students? I'd be happy to read a thoughtful critique on any biological perspective -- they have weak points that should be criticised. Unfortunately, I'm still waiting to read such an informed critique on socgrad. It doesn't take much brains to regurgitate what Gould said. I wonder if anyone here will surprise me? Brian From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Feb 7 18:54:35 1995 Tue, 7 Feb 1995 18:52:01 -0800 for by Ra.MsState.Edu (8.6.8.1/6.0c-FWP); Date: Tue, 7 Feb 1995 20:51:52 -0600 (CST) From: "Rodney E. Cluck" To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: subscribing Hello, My name is Rodney Cluck. I am a PHD person at Mississippi State University. A fellow graduate student told me about this network, and I would like to subscribe, if that is possible. rec4@ra.msstate.edu Cheers, Rodney From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Feb 7 20:14:48 1995 Tue, 7 Feb 1995 20:13:27 -0800 for From: lichter@nicco.sscnet.ucla.edu (Michael Lichter) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 1995 20:13:20 +0000 To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: Re: Sociobiology, again I realize that the relationship between biology and behavior is a charged issue for people on all sides. Having been involved, just about a year ago, in a related socgrad exchange that turned nasty, I would like to urge people to stick to the substance and avoid belittling each other. On Feb 7, 7:04pm, KINRABE@UWYO.EDU (Brian) wrote: > That's right, Merin -- you "just don't" buy that biology is such a big > component of behavior. Also, I'll bet you "just haven't" read any books on > sociobiology. As I said earlier -- it's easier not to think and to just listen > to what the authorities (Steven Jay Gould, most of your professors and peers) > say. Hell, why should we have to start reading and thinking now that we're gra > students? I'd be happy to read a thoughtful critique on any biological > perspective -- they have weak points that should be criticised. Unfortunately, > I'm still waiting to read such an informed critique on socgrad. It doesn't tak > much brains to regurgitate what Gould said. I wonder if anyone here will > surprise me? Perhaps it would be constructive, Brian, for you to recommend key works of sociobiology. Personally, I've only read Pierre van den Berghe's THE ETHNIC PHENOMENON. I didn't find anything in vdB's book, in terms of evidence or argument, that convincingly showed that any aspect of human behavior can be better understood as partially or entirely based in biology. And that's what I think the argument is about. There are obvious biological limits to human behavior -- we can't fly, males can't bear children, we all have to eat and sleep -- but these are not in contention. More subtly, I'm sure that there are, for instance, structural features of our brains that place limits on what we are likely to think, how we are likely to perceive, and what we are likely to do in stereotypical situations (e.g. the flight-or-flight reflex). Human behavior is not, however, always "likely". And, in any case, most of us are, like Weber, interested in unique constellations of causal (or interesting) factors, rather than in universals. In any case, where the biological is not determinate, it is difficult to see how a biological explanation adds to a social explanation. As an aside, what I found interesting about vdB's book was the way he made the connection between the biological and the social. He argues first that "nepotism" is a fundamental biological principle; any higher organism protects its own close relatives against the world and against more distant relatives among its own kind. Next, he says that ethnicity is "fictive kinship", meaning that individuals treat co-ethnics as relatives. Not only is convincing someone of the familiar-ity of co-ethnics entirely social, but it also points out that humans only know their "real" kin socially, as well. That is, perhaps other species can identify relatives by a distinctive smell, but we know our families only because we grew up with them, or somebody told us we were related. Truly, *any* meaningful kind of kinship is socially constructed. That's OK, since the argument is only that we're biologically programmed to stand up for people who we *think* are our relatives. The problem is that if "the selfish gene" places this requirement upon us, then how come "familiarity breeds contempt," and how is it that we're more likely to kill or injure our close relatives than anybody else is? Besides the fact that there is more to ethnicity than is encompassed by "fictive kinship," it doesn't seem to me that there is anything in this argument about biologically based "nepotism" that illuminates aspects of ethnic formation and reproduction covered by social explanations. I'm not sure that I'm making sense. Another way to look at this is that biology presents us with two kinds of behavioral constraints and capabilities. One set is the (strong) universals, which includes things like the need to eat to survive. The other set is of (weaker) potentials and tendencies. Biology may determine the potential you have for developing your muscles, playing the piano, or developing a general unified theory in physics, but it doesn't determine to what degree these potentials become actual. Referring back to the ethnic example, it may be biology that makes humans social animals (as opposed to loners, like sharks or some big cats), and it may be biology that gives us our tendency to form groups (as some have argued), but it is us as intentional actors who decide whether to be social or isolate ourselves, whether to form this group or abandon that one. The universals are not of interest to us as sociologists -- they are the province of physiologists or whoever. Behavioral potentials and tendencies are indeed our province, but given that the variation in observed behavior is primarily accounted for by social factors, I have a difficult time conceptualizing a mode of socio-biological explanation that does not either fall into biological determinism or remain at the purely sociological level. Before I go, I must ask of Brian: what's wrong with Stephen Jay Gould? One other question, to the world in general: what do we need to know about something before we can legitimately form an opinion about it? Michael -- Michael Lichter ------------------------+ Department of Sociology | University of California, Los Angeles ----------------------------------+ From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Feb 7 20:26:41 1995 Tue, 7 Feb 1995 20:23:21 -0800 for Date: Tue, 07 Feb 1995 23:19:29 -0500 (EST) From: "Faith I.T. Ferguson" Subject: Sociobiology again, redux To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU In the interest of keeping personal flames to a minimum (you know who you are--I thought this was supposed to be a list for *professionals* in training), I'd like to submit the following thoughts on sociobiology and truth claims from Chris Weedon's book _Feminist Practice and Poststructuralist Theory_ : "Sociobiology, like much scientific discourse, assumes that knowledge is founded on the empirical observations of a neutral observer who can infer from the particular to the general. The assumption that it is possible to ascertain objective, true facts, and to be a neutral observer, implies that science is independent of particular social and moral values and interests. This position sees language as a transparent tool for expressing facts, rather than the material in which particular often conflicting, versions of facts are constructed. It relies on an autonomous and coherent observing and recording subject, rather than a subject who is herself socially constructed within specific value-laden discourses. It is on this basis that sociobiology makes its claims to truth. 'Truth' is by definition fixed, absolute and unchanging. It is the final guarantee of the way things are. It offers stability and evades questions of interest, in this case women's or men's interest. Social recognition of their truth is the strategic position to which most discourses, and the interests they represent, aspire. To achieve the status of truth they have to discredit all alternative and oppositional versions of meaning and become common sense." p.131 How about a little discussion of positivistic methods and truth claims, rather than mud-slinging and flaming? /faith t1fferguson@sallie.wellesley.edu ferguson@binah.cc.brandeis.edu --Boundary (ID 2Fneui/uJe8TngJlgKB5OA)-- From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Feb 7 22:11:50 1995 Tue, 7 Feb 1995 22:09:50 -0800 for Date: Wed, 8 Feb 1995 00:08:26 -0600 From: donnelly%eagle.DecNet@eunice.ssc.wisc.edu (It's a nike thing) To: "socgrad@ucsd.edu"@ssc.wisc.edu Subject: Re: Disability Awareness at other Campuses. Has anyone attended a disability awareness session as part of their training to be a TA/PA? Please send some info out over the list, if you have, and indicate if the training was in any way useful, fun, informative, other impressions. Patrice From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 8 00:59:51 1995 Wed, 8 Feb 1995 00:57:31 -0800 for From: KINRABE@UWYO.EDU id <01HMSFX2PQM8001POR@ROPER.UWYO.EDU>; Wed, 08 Feb 1995 01:57:23 -0700 (MST) Date: Wed, 08 Feb 1995 01:57:32 -0700 (MST) Subject: response to responses To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU I apologize for insulting Merin. Mike, there's nothing wrong with Gould. He, like you, at least took the time to read something on sociobiology. I disagree with you both, but that's not the point. Books I recommend are "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins, "The Evolution of Cooperation" by Robert Axelrod, and "Social Evolution" by Robert Trivers. Then there's "Sociobiology" by E.O. Wilson, and more of course. "Homicide" by Daly and Wilson might answer your question about murder. As to what we need to know to form an opinion: Like I said before, I just think we should read the original rather than quoting Gould et al. Faith, you just quoted someone elses stuff. I should have never contributed to this debate, and will heretofore refrain from it. The truth is, I have no need to convince anyone anything about SB or anything else. Sadly, wherever I end up next will most likely react to SB like most sociologists do, and so I'll have to switch to another perspective to survive acedemically. Such is the nature of social "science." I guess my only point in getting into this discussion was not to defend sociobiology but to express my sorrow at the state of our discipline, that seems to be encouraging students to choose what authority they'll believe rather than deciding for themselves. I'll shut up as I had been for so long before now. Brian From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 8 02:54:10 1995 Wed, 8 Feb 1995 02:53:02 -0800 for From: lichter@nicco.sscnet.ucla.edu (Michael Lichter) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 1995 02:52:57 +0000 To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: Re: Sociobiology again, redux On Feb 7, 11:19pm, "Faith I.T. Ferguson" wrote: > [...] I'd like to submit the following thoughts on > sociobiology and truth claims from Chris Weedon's book _Feminist > Practice and Poststructuralist Theory_ : > > "Sociobiology, like much scientific discourse, assumes that > knowledge is founded on the empirical observations of a neutral > observer who can infer from the particular to the general. The > [...] Although I don't doubt that it's "guilty," it seems odd to critique sociobiology on the basis that it's like most of the rest of social science. That's kind of like condemning Satanism because it's a religion (I'm not equating sociobiology and Satanism, by the way :) rather than because it has thus-and-such unsavory practices. > How about a little discussion of positivistic methods and truth > claims, rather than mud-slinging and flaming? I'm not opposed, but it seems that conducting discussions at this level of generality are an open invitation to mud-slinging and flaming. I would prefer a more grounded discussion on a particular book, article, substantive area, case, question, etc., that has the potential of illuminating some of these questions about methods and epistemology without drowning us in nth-generation abstractions. On Feb 7, 11:45pm, KINRABE@UWYO.EDU wrote: > I should have never contributed to this debate, and will heretofore refrain > from it. The truth is, I have no need to convince anyone anything about SB or > anything else. > Sadly, wherever I end up next will most likely react to SB like most > sociologists do, and so I'll have to switch to another perspective to survive > acedemically. Such is the nature of social "science." > I guess my only point in getting into this discussion was not to defend > sociobiology but to express my sorrow at the state of our discipline, that > seems to be encouraging students to choose what authority they'll believe > rather than deciding for themselves. I'll shut up as I had been for so long > before now. Obviously, none of us can force you to talk. As to the nature of social science (or social studies, if you prefer), unless you believe that truth somehow naturally wins out (viz. Weedon above), winning a place in the sun for your perspective is a political battle, just like it is in the "hard" sciences. (It might do you some good to bone up on the sociology of science, before you come down so hard on the science of sociology.) If you want SB to become a viable niche within sociology, you can start here by trying to persuade people that it has something to offer. Believe me, most people here have only the vaguest notion of what it is, and even if you got flamed, you would be doing people a service by explaining what it is that you're talking about. Actually, most of us know very little about any part of the field besides our own, including what passes as the mainstream. (Jerry Marwell, former ASR editor, argued during a visit here last year that sociology has no mainstream, that no perspective claims a majority of scholars, that it has always been a profoundly "decentered" field.) This is why I think that instead of talking in capitalized generalities like Postivism and Sociobiology, it would be more useful to talk about specifics, like how these play out in some research -- your own being a good place to start. Those are my thoughts, anyway. Michael -- Michael Lichter ------------------------+ Department of Sociology | University of California, Los Angeles ----------------------------------+ From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 8 06:54:30 1995 Wed, 8 Feb 1995 06:53:01 -0800 for Date: Wed, 08 Feb 95 06:53:08 -0800 (PST) From: Xuan Ho Subject: Re: Help in Ethnography To: Michael Lichter Hi Michael and colleagues: I am at the dissertation stage. I am to conduct a videography of the unique family gathering that involves the reunion of the Vietnamese refugees 20 years after the Fall of Saigon. I then will interpret the findings (based on my theoretical framework) using the ethnographic approach. I am new to these components. I will appreciate any help in the methods and locating an external examiner who could be an expert in critical ethnography. Thanks. Xuan Ho Santa Rosa Junior College From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 8 06:55:46 1995 Wed, 8 Feb 1995 06:54:32 -0800 for From: Paul Frankel Subject: Disability training for TAs To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU (Sociology Grad Students) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 95 8:56:11 CST Dear Patrice & other interested socgradders: I did attend a TA training session at Tulane for all incoming TAs that included a TA manual. In the Manual, a short section was written about disabilities (e.g., LD, physical handicaps, etc.). The most helpful part of the section was a summary of rights and responsibilites, and a good paper about LD written by Tulane's official disability officer, Peter LeVinnes at Counseling & Testing. I'd call him; he will be honored (504-865-5113). Good Luck, Paul Frankel -- **********************FROM********************** Paul Frankel (frankel@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu)* Department of Psychology, 2007 Percival Stern * Tulane University * NOLA, 70118-5698 * {504} 865-5331 * FAX {504} 862-8744 * ************************************************ TTTTTTT TTT TTT UU UU "Land of the Free, TTT UU UU and Home of the Wave." TTT UU UU TTT UU UU TTT UUUUUUUU UU From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 8 07:25:33 1995 Wed, 8 Feb 1995 07:22:59 -0800 for Date: Wed, 8 Feb 1995 09:10:50 -0600 (CST) From: Michael Gibbons Subject: Re: Sociobiology, again To: Michael Lichter michael, i'm glad you put forth a little bit of caution for our fellow participants. there seems little point to me in insulting each other and driving up our bloodpressures. if i wanted that heart attack at fifty, i would have gotten a business degree! :) but your query about how much info we must have before building an opinion is more important than at first it might look. if we all waited until we were informed before we said anything, what would there be to say? how much of ANY subject do ANY of us know, including sociology? i would say that opinion building begins the moment one starts working with any ideas, regardless of how little we may know about that subject. and then to bash someone publicly for being ignorant of that subject requires something of a lifetimes' work to have the grounds for doing so. there is so much to know that none of us will ever know all there is to know in sociology, and even less of everything else. reading A book about a subject puts you not much further forward in knowledge acquisition and opinion formation than being completely ignorant. about bio-based social behavior. most other social species i can pull off the top of my head have a pecking order where all the little dogs kiss the big dog's ass. i have heard it put forward (by my brother in law) that when we as humans give all the breaks to the rich people (as in business for example) we are doing what comes naturally-we are doing what comes to us biologically as a result of our being a social species. his assertion would be then that kissing ass to those higher up is basal behavior for most folks and that treating folks decently (which is something most of our colleagues seem to spend a lot of time on) is extra. well this is getting ramblesome, and i've barely started, so i'll end it michael From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 8 10:10:43 1995 Wed, 8 Feb 1995 09:00:12 -0800 for From: SHAFER@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU (PMDF V4.3-10 #7331) id <01HMT00JZO7K9I5X9W@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU>; Wed, 08 Feb 1995 11:54:50 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 08 Feb 1995 11:54:49 -0500 (EST) Subject: ethnography To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU I can suggest some reading material on doing and writing ethnography. Fieldwork: Tales of the Field. John Van Maanen. Univ. of Chicago Press. 1988 Participant Observation. Danny L. Jorgensen. Sage Publications. 1989 On writing ethnography: Writng for Social Science. Howard S. Becker. Univ. of Chicago Press. 1986 Writing Strategies. Laurel Richardson. Sage Publications.1990 Well done ethnographies: Working Knowledge. Douglas Harper. Univ. of Chicago Press. 1987. (Also out in paperback on Univ. of California Press I believe) Crafting Selves. Dorinne K. Kondo. Univ. of Chicago Press. 1990. Deciding Who Lives. Renee R. Anspach. Univ. of California Press. 1993. Ethnography Unbound. Michael Burawoy et al. Univ. of California. 1991. Hope this helps. Also there is extensive literature about ethnography in anthropology. Since you seem interested in visual methods you might pay particular interest to writings of Doug Harper he is a visual sociologist. I believe he has a chapter in Denzin's new edited edition on qualitative methods. Feel free to contact me if you would like to discuss this further. david shafer brandeis univ. From list-relay@ucsd.edu Wed Feb 8 11:12:54 1995 Wed, 8 Feb 1995 10:16:21 -0800 for Date: Wed, 8 Feb 1995 11:59:02 -0600 (CST) From: nick mcree Subject: defending sociobiology To: socgrad I realize not all would agree, but I think we are developing an interesting thread of conversation. Michael Lichter made some comments I would like to address. Michael agrees that there are biological limits to behavior, and admits that physiological development of the brain influences cognitive processes. But I think he is entirely too dismissive of the consequences of this realization. For example, if brain physiology is related to how individuals think about themselves and relate to their social context, then this suggests that we must rethink the dichotomy that supposes an unlimited capability to "think" our way out of our biological predispositions. I think this is the dichotomy that Merin employed in making the argument that "I'm just sick of the assumption that women's different hormone levels (or men's) cannot be transcended by thought." This dichotomy is false. If the way we think is determined to a significant degree by the brain we have, and the brain we have is influenced by genetic coding, diet, hormones and neurotransmitters, etc., then this is yet another reason why we must consider that biology and behavior are related. In terms of Michael's argument that the proper domain of sociology is the investigation is discovery of unique causal factors, not universal determinants: I think that he is inaccurate to suggest that this was the intent of the Masters. Weber, Marx, Darwin, Durkheim, Pareto, Comte, Spencer and the rest were all preoccupied with discovering _universal_ determinants of behavior. They are to be forgiven for taking some wrong paths in this quest; they didn't know what a gene was, and they didn't have the detailed knowledge of brain anatomy and physiology that we do now. But make no mistake--*all* were good scientists, and worked to frame their analyses in terms of a fundamental proposition. Finally, Michael asks for an explanation for why familiarity breeds contempt, in light of Van den Berghe's argument that perceived kin relationships are what holds groups together. Actually, the answer is simple. It has to do with the avoidance of inbreeding depression. Technically, the argument is that there are two (oftentimes antagonistic) predispositions at work: homologous affiliation on the one hand, and heterologous affiliation on the other. In simpler terms, it means that humans do tend to favor individuals in terms of the perceived degree of relationship--but *also* there is a pressure to avoid inbreeding depression by creating antagonism among certain social members. Remember that for _millions_ of years our ancestors lived as hunter-gatherers, in bands of 25-50 people. Thus, they were all likely to be highly related. But it would be dangerous to allow reproduction to take place within the confines of the small group, because of the heightened risk of inbreeding depression. Thus, you take pains to protect your "kin," (homologous affiliation), but you also develop a variety of mechanisms to avoid the likelihood of inbreeding depression, such as the incest taboo, running adolescents out of the group at the age of sexual maturity, etc. (heterologous affiliation) Earlier, someone was complaining that sociobiology was unsatisfying because it seemed like a story. And so does what I just said. There is, however, _evidence_ that the "story" I suggested is highly plausible. For one thing, we see similar activity in a variety of other social animals. And some of you may be familiar with the study of mate selection in Israeli kibbutzim. Shepher (1971) found that among 2,769 marriages recorded, *none* had been contracted by couples that had been raised together by the same nursemother surrogate in the same communal children's house during the first six years of life. ------------------------------------- Nick McRee Department of Sociology The University of Texas at Austin with respect, From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 8 11:25:18 1995 Wed, 8 Feb 1995 11:10:07 -0800 for Date: Wed, 8 Feb 1995 14:08:29 -0500 (EST) From: James Cassell Subject: Rumored closing of Soc Depts at SMU, Syracuse, & Clemson To: Sociology Graduate Student Discussion A week or two ago, someone mentioned rumors of soc dept. closings at SMU, Syracuse & Clemson. I didn't save the note, so I can't contact the poster directly. If anyone has heard about these, would you please drop me a note? Thanks, Jim ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Jim Cassell jwcassell@UNC.EDU Institute for Research in Social Science Phone: 919-962-0782 University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill Fax: 919-962-4777 Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3355 USA From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 8 12:04:35 1995 Wed, 8 Feb 1995 11:45:49 -0800 for Date: Wed, 8 Feb 1995 12:21:29 -0600 (CST) From: nick mcree Subject: The strawman of postmodern discourse To: socgrad I was fascinated by Faith's citation, apparently offered as a critique of sociobiology. Actually, it was offered as a critique of all scientific discourse, on the grounds that _science_ supposedly fails to come to grips with the idea that inquiry and knowledge is embedded in a social context. 2 Arguments: First, the argument underlies a gross misunderstanding of what science is all about. Science is *not* about determining Truth, despite Faith's attempt to categorize the endeavor as such. The cardinal rule of science is that a particular relationship can never be proven True. Rather, the attempt is to establish a degree of reliability, through inquiry which can be independently verified. Even Newton's Laws of Motion cannot be proven True... it is accepted because it can been (and has been) _verified_ many, many times. Who is to say the ninth grade science student in her physical science class tomorrow won't get a completely unexpected result? ;) My money bets no, but I can't "prove" she wouldn't. Second, this whole postmodern position is highly, highly ironic. The Credo seems to be "One can't make universal statements about phenomena because of x, y, z, etc." But this statement is in effect a *universal statement*, is it not?! Postmoderninsts have painted themselves into a corner... The only argument against the possibility of determining universal propositions is *itself* a universal proposition claiming that it cannot be done. Hmmm.... ------------------------------------- Nick McRee Department of Sociology The University of Texas at Austin From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 8 14:12:35 1995 Wed, 8 Feb 1995 14:03:21 -0800 for From: KINRABE@UWYO.EDU id <01HMT7CH3QB40024WL@ROPER.UWYO.EDU>; Wed, 08 Feb 1995 15:02:30 -0700 (MST) Date: Wed, 08 Feb 1995 15:02:39 -0700 (MST) Subject: apology;theory;ideology To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU To all you socgradders, a big apology to any I may have offended with recent messages. Your responses, public and private, have been sobering and have encouraged me to continue opening my big mouth. I'm new to this system and the etiquette has now been made clear. I've also decided it may be worthwhile to keep up the discussion rather than cop out, thanks to some of your comments. This muddled apology made, I'll start writing what will turn out to be a book (where do you all find the TIME to write and read so much?!). Forgive me, but I love theory and not research -- it bores the hell out of me. Some scientist, eh? But theories are so ethereal -- they're just in our minds and they're such a tiny slice of what's out there. They can explain so little and be so incapable of addressing what they were not specifically geared for. Any particular one can get mutilated by a well-trained social scientist, based only on what the theory didn't cover. Theories, just in our minds, understood a little differently by each person who learns one, and tainted and biased by each individual mind. Are authors of theories trying to show us a way to find the truth? We were talking about "truth" on here awhile ago, and we hear a lot about how there is none. What's out there? What's true? I like to think that we'll never know, and you may agree. I love to think about the lense humans have to look through -- being just human -- and especially I love to wonder what can be known that we just weren't designed to be able to ask or understand. Society and human behavior is like that. We social scientists have taken on one killer of a task trying to explain it. Can we reduce it and start with biology? Is human behavior qualitatively different? It seems we each live in a different, personalized world, and what we believe is based at least as much on what feels good as what the facts have led us to. Some scholars get steamed at religious fundamentalists -- "How can they BELIEVE that bullshit?" But it seems such a simple answer: facts sometimes mean nothing in the face of things like acceptance, the security of "knowing" the simple answers to everything: "The Bible says it. I believe it. That settles it." It's hard to be objective -- to be a scientist. Critical and postmodern theory have an excellent point when they say objective positivism is a joke. We're human! We have personal, selfish, sometimes idiotic motives and that makes real science a ridiculous possibility indeed. The key's not to abandon the possibility. I'm not going to defend science against critical theory. It seems to me that critical theory is the best thing that ever happened to science -- because it makes us so aware of the limitations. I could say the same thing about feminism's "contribution" to sociobiology. The key to a more complete understanding is, I think, synthesizing contradictory theories -- there is great wisdom in contradiciton and even hypocrisy! We have to ask WHY two ideas can make sense and contradict at the same time. The key may be in the assumptions we have about reality, not in the text of the theories. Nick and Laurie -- tell us more about synthesis theory. Sometimes I see sociological writing and I get mad at the lack of open-mindedness -- but open-mindedness is hard! I said I wanted to read some good critiques of sociobiolgy, but they're HARD to read, because some of the comments are good, and some are just ignorant. So often we read a text with an agenda in our mind. The goal is not to understand or integrate the new idea with what we know -- the goal is to DESTROY it often, isn't it? I guess we can make the comparison between radical and value-free sociology (sorry if radical is the wrong term -- is activist better?). Anyway, some sociologists know they have an agenda and say so. Their goals may be noble, but the ideas they support may be twisted in order to support those goals. But look deeper -- question even the nobility of those goals. Similarly question the alleged "value-free" scientist. Can it be that they simply want to "know?" There is selfishness within the liberal and ideology within the scientist. How different are these two types? And are the religious fanatic and the scientist all that different either? More on this later. Think on, Brian From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 8 17:15:31 1995 Wed, 8 Feb 1995 17:00:31 -0800 for From: Jean Czerlinski Subject: crime example To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Wed, 8 Feb 95 19:00:17 CST Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] Hopefully this will be a quickie. Michael Lichter had mentioned: > relatives. The problem is that if "the selfish gene" places this > requirement upon us, then how come "familiarity breeds contempt," and > how is it that we're more likely to kill or injure our close relatives > than anybody else is? First of all, in terms of murder (I don't know for injuries), Michael is no longer correct. Beginning in the '90's, a majority of murders were committed on strangers. (I don't have a good reference handy, but I did check and confirm this claim in an article in the Jan. 30, 1995, issue of *Time*.) Second, what could this change mean? I find it very disheartening, as an indication of social breakdown. One kills someone one knows out of anger, jealousy, revenge, or other passions that can make one "lose control" for a while, though of course they can also be premeditated. Also, one may very well feel regret later, and in any case one probably still believes in society as a whole. But in murders of strangers, the motives seem emptier and arbitrary. A kid guns down another because s/he (usually he) needs to kill someone to be a part of the gang. Or someone gets in the way, killed accidentally. (Gang revenge killings would have been under the *first* category.) Maybe there is regret, but I also just read an article about judges who don't know what to make of the many murderers these days who don't seem to show any regret. And arbitrary murders seem to signal not anger with a specific person but anger against society-- but of course one can't shoot "society" itself, so an arbitrary target is picked. These are, of course, just speculations. I wouldn't be surprised, though, if they were related to the lack of shame in what people say on some talk shows. Anyway, how does this relate to the sociobiology discussion? Well, I don't remember quite so clearly what I wanted to say, but it was something about how the environment, in this case the social environment, can make a huge difference. Since I don't have differential data for people with different genes, though (e.g. for African Americans vs. Caucasians), I can't recall what the biological side of my argument was supposed to be. Perhaps I was just confused. Anyway, the change in murders is interesting in its own right. Jean (jczer@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu) From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 8 17:15:51 1995 Wed, 8 Feb 1995 17:02:58 -0800 for From: Jean Czerlinski Subject: inextricable To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Wed, 8 Feb 95 18:43:44 CST Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] Socgradders, In this message I argue that biological and other influences are often inextricable, just as individual personality and socialization are often inextricable. (Often of course doesn't mean always.) I will offer some more biological examples here and in my next message address Michael Lichter slightly-outdated (and the fact that it's outdated is the point) crime example. The best example (that I know of) of the sort of stance I argue here is presented in "The Biological Evidence Challenged" (a title I think is a misnomer, though) by William Byne in the May '94 issue of Scientific American. For those of you who don't have time to read several books, this article might be a less time-consuming place to start. But I present the key ideas here, anyway, I hope. Byne gives the example of a species of plant (I forgot which one, and I don't have the article in front of me, so I'll be making up the details) which was carefully studied and found to grow to a height that depended in a complex way both on its genes and on the altitude at which it grew. (It is believed the findings could be extended to other properties of the plant and other species, if anyone bothered to look.) For example, imagine that a plant could have either gene A or gene B (a sociological version would be A=Caucasian, B= African American). The chart below gives a chart of the respective heights of plants with the given gene at a given altitude (I made up the specifics here since I can't remember): A B sea level 7 inches 12 in. mid-altitude 16 in. 15 in. high-altitude 21 in. 18 in. Given this data, could we say that A is a gene "for tallness"? Or would we say B was the gene "for tallness"? Obviously the effect of the gene also depends on the environment. To return to the sociological example of A=Caucasian and B=African American, say that instead of altitude we have family's income when growing up, so the lower altitudes are lower class backgrounds and higher altitudes are higher class backgrounds. Then the numbers (heights in plants) could be average scores on a math exam, for example. Would we say Caucasians are then "smarter" then African-Americans or vice-versa? And what about all the other variables we haven't controlled, such as amount and quality of schooling? The policy implications should also be clear. Even if someone has a certain gene or genes (and in actuality race is determined by hundreds or possibly thousands of genes), changing their environment can change how the gene(s) are expressed. Even if Murray and Herrnstein are right that, on the average across their current respective environments, African Americans get lower IQ scores than Caucasians, this does not mean blacks are dumber than whites or that there's no point in investing in education for blacks, etc.. (I must confess, though, to not having read their book yet, though I've read a lot *about* it.) On the other hand, the genetic information might be useful in finding the most appropriate environment for a given person. Along similar lines, some people have argued that men and women learn differently and so could use different teaching styles. By the way, Another clever critique of the Murray & Herrnstein book by a professor of genetics, Steve Jones, is a half-page article in the Dec 26 '94/ Jan 2 '95 (double issue) of Newsweek (p. 111). Jones constructs a measure called "RQ", the Republicanism Quotient, and shows how whites have a higher RQ, how higher RQs correlate highly with greater incomes, etc.. Hopefully this has made the point that it can be useful to consider *both* biology and sociology, for some cases at least. I certainly don't think this is true in all cases. For those interested in more, I came across an interesting book by economist Robert H. Frank, *Choosing the Right Pond: Human Behavior and the Quest for Status*. He begins with the biological observation and evolutionary justification for the idea that it's *local* and *relative* status that matters. The quest for this sort of status has all sorts of implications for understanding and developing policies for wages, redistributive taxation, occupational safety, health unions, forced savings programs (e.g. social security), and whether education should be publicly or privately provided. Basically, he uses his observation about the biology of human behavior to argue about what things should and shouldn't be left to market forces. Of course, one could have observed that people strive for relative local status just by observing people and without the biological evidence; that's not always the case, though. So, what do y'all think? Jean (jczer@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu) From CGH2@PSUVM.PSU.EDU Wed Feb 8 20:12:31 1995 Wed, 8 Feb 1995 17:54:23 -0800 for Date: Wed, 8 Feb 95 20:54 EST From: "Jetaway Dave" Subject: Re: crime example To: jczer@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu >Hopefully this will be a quickie. >Michael Lichter had mentioned: >> relatives. The problem is that if "the selfish gene" places this >> requirement upon us, then how come "familiarity breeds contempt," and >> how is it that we're more likely to kill or injure our close relatives >> than anybody else is? Well, one reason is exposure. The more time spent in the company of another, the greater the probability of any given behavior being expressed, so that's part of it. In (timid, partial) support of the 'selfish gene' theory, rates of assault, child abuse, and murder, are higher among non-blood family than in blood-tied families. Personally, I prefer social processes such as selection as an explanation, but can't entirely rule out genetics at the margins. >First of all, in terms of murder (I don't know for injuries), Michael is >no longer correct. Beginning in the '90's, a majority of murders were >committed on strangers. (I don't have a good reference handy, but I did >check and confirm this claim in an article in the Jan. 30, 1995, >issue of *Time*.) >Second, what could this change mean? I find it very disheartening, as I wondered about this also. Part of the explantion lies in how murders are classifed. If the case is not solved, it is usually, and especially in the popular press classifed as a 'stranger' killing. At the same time, the proportion of murder's solved has been steadily declining, which drives up the 'stranger' classification. [Pure speculation mode on] I suspect that the inner cities are increasingly populated by 'anonoymous' young men. School drop outs, unemployed, not on welfare (which is predominatly female), unlicenced (driver), no medicial insurance, etc. In short, the clues of relations which homicide detectives use to solve cases are increasingly missing in inner city areas. The murder's may in fact have known the victim, but because they are existing outside of 'mainstream' society, lacking the flotsam and jetsam of identification that we, for example, have picked up, the cases end up unsolved, and classifed as 'stranger.' Jetaway Dave From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 8 20:31:32 1995 Wed, 8 Feb 1995 20:29:55 -0800 for From: CBROWN@SIUCVMB.SIU.EDU Date: Wed, 8 Feb 95 22:28:25 CST To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: Stipends Eric: I am a grad student at Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. The Stipends for Ph.D. are $7,792 for 9 months. Rent is of course, much cheaper here then in NY. Aprts. run anywhere from $250-400. We also receive full tuition waivers. Chuck- From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 8 22:16:46 1995 Wed, 8 Feb 1995 22:07:35 -0800 for From: BATES@zodiac.rutgers.edu Date: Thu, 09 Feb 1995 01:07:14 -0500 (EST) Subject: Stipends To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU I am a grad student at Rutgers... when I started as a TA, the stipend was $9,950 with minor increases each year. Rent is quite variable, but I suppose the range is about $700 to $1000 for a 2-bedroom apt. in the area. The majority of the funded students here, however, earn nowhere near this amount because Rutgers hires grad students as part-time lecturers. Hope this helps di From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Feb 9 03:59:14 1995 Thu, 9 Feb 1995 03:54:54 -0800 for From: lichter@nicco.sscnet.ucla.edu (Michael Lichter) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 1995 03:54:48 +0000 To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: more thoughts on biology and behavior Here are too many comments from me on comments from other people. |Date: Wed, 8 Feb 1995 09:10:50 -0600 (CST) |From: Michael Gibbons | |about bio-based social behavior. most other social species i can pull off |the top of my head have a pecking order where all the little dogs kiss the |big dog's ass. i have heard it put forward (by my brother in law) that |when we as humans give all the breaks to the rich people (as in business |for example) we are doing what comes naturally-we are doing what comes to |us biologically as a result of our being a social species. his assertion |would be then that kissing ass to those higher up is basal behavior for |most folks and that treating folks decently (which is something most of |our colleagues seem to spend a lot of time on) is extra. Hierarchy is quite common among higher organisms, at least those who are fundamentally social. Among humans, it is nearly ubiquitous, so that what we normally study is the degree and structure of hierarchy, rather than its existence or non-existence. Who has the power? Who has what kind of power, and why? How did this come into being? What's the gap between those on top and those who are not? Is authority legitimate or not, and if legitimate, how is it legitimated? Biology does not enter into these questsions. Biology may put limits on the possible answers to these questions, but how can we know that the limits we observe today are biological and not merely historical? |Date: Wed, 8 Feb 1995 11:59:02 -0600 (CST) |From: nick mcree | |Michael Lichter made some comments I would like to address. Michael |agrees that there are biological limits to behavior, and admits that |physiological development of the brain influences cognitive processes. |But I think he is entirely too dismissive of the consequences of this |realization. For example, if brain physiology is related to how |individuals think about themselves and relate to their social context, |then this suggests that we must rethink the dichotomy that supposes |an unlimited capability to "think" our way out of our biological |predispositions. I think this is the dichotomy that Merin employed in |making the argument that "I'm just sick of the assumption that women's |different hormone levels (or men's) cannot be transcended by thought." |This dichotomy is false. If the way we think is determined to a |significant degree by the brain we have, and the brain we have is |influenced by genetic coding, diet, hormones and neurotransmitters, etc., |then this is yet another reason why we must consider that biology |and behavior are related. If the biological and the social are inseperable, then attributing observed phenomena to one or the other is, by definition, both impossible and incorrect. This contradicts in a big way what I see sociobiologists genearlly doing, which is making sweeping statements about how biological imperatives determine our behavior. It also ignores the point Jean makes in talking about those plants -- even though the genetics don't change with environment, the expression of genes does, so that the biology (as the expression of genes) and the social enviroment are interactive (we create society as biological beings, and society in return changes our biological being). Perhaps Sarah's mind-over-matter formulation is unfelicitous, but what she is saying, is not essentially in contradiction with the inseperability of the biological and the social. What our horomones do to us is not terribly specific. If an increase in testosterone leads to an increase in aggressiveness and riskiness, those two tendencies are still pretty general and can have a wide variety of possibly contradictory consequences. The biological in interaction with the social determines (or at least patterns) what results. |In terms of Michael's argument that the proper domain of sociology is the |investigation is discovery of unique causal factors, not universal |determinants: I think that he is inaccurate to suggest that this |was the intent of the Masters. Weber, Marx, Darwin, Durkheim, Pareto, |Comte, Spencer and the rest were all preoccupied with discovering |_universal_ determinants of behavior. They are to be forgiven for taking |some wrong paths in this quest; they didn't know what a gene was, and |they didn't have the detailed knowledge of brain anatomy and physiology |that we do now. But make no mistake--*all* were good scientists, and |worked to frame their analyses in terms of a fundamental proposition. Weber states explicitly (in "Science as a vocation"?) that he is not interested in universals. Marx was interested in historically specific generalizations -- which I see as different than a search for "universals" -- as well as in sources of variation. I don't think of Darwin as a sociologist, and as for the rest I don't know enough to say. Maybe we are just miscommunicating about what "universal" means? Can you give me a good example of work by any of these people that uncover "universal determinants of behavior"? |Finally, Michael asks for an explanation for why familiarity breeds |contempt, in light of Van den Berghe's argument that perceived kin |relationships are what holds groups together. Actually, the answer is |simple. It has to do with the avoidance of inbreeding depression. |Technically, the argument is that there are two (oftentimes antagonistic) |predispositions at work: homologous affiliation on the one hand, and |heterologous affiliation on the other. In simpler terms, it means |that humans do tend to favor individuals in terms of the perceived degree |of relationship--but *also* there is a pressure to avoid inbreeding |depression by creating antagonism among certain social members. | |Remember that for _millions_ of years our ancestors lived as |hunter-gatherers, in bands of 25-50 people. Thus, they were all likely |to be highly related. But it would be dangerous to allow reproduction to |take place within the confines of the small group, because of the |heightened risk of inbreeding depression. Thus, you take pains to protect |your "kin," (homologous affiliation), but you also develop a variety of |mechanisms to avoid the likelihood of inbreeding depression, such as the |incest taboo, running adolescents out of the group at the age of sexual |maturity, etc. (heterologous affiliation) This line of reasoning is precisely what I criticize above, and I don't find it very compelling. Instinctual or not, there are clear reasons to avoid in-breeding that human societies are bound to discover over the years. This leads either to the incest taboo, if you're socially inclined, or to a innate repulsion against incest if you're biologically inclined. If the innate repulsion is only a *tendency*, then the fact that incest is widespread (though, fortunately, not too common) makes this biological tendency *consistent* with an explanation that relies only on (say) historically developed social norms. If instinct (which is what we mean here by biology, right? -- I mean, incest is certainly possible physiologically) is involved, how do we disentangle the biological prohibition from the social? This is Jean's point about them being inextricable. Furthermore, unless we're willing to assume that genetics account for variations in the level of incest and the sanctions against it, the social variations are what are of interest. If all you're interested in is the *fact* of general aversion to incest, how does it matter whether the basis is instinctual or social; the empirical evidence is the same: all existing societies that we've researched have taboos against incest. The rejection of incest, however, tells us nothing about familial violence. Because person X isn't supposed to breed with his children, he beats them instead? And, given that his spouse isn't a close relative, he gains something by beating her up or killing her? What is it, anyway, that adjudicates between biological imperatives? By the way, a recent article in TIME quoted an anthropologist as saying that the genetic diversity of the original Americans was very limited; in fact, this person said, all native Americans may trace their ancestry through as few as five females who were among the original migrants to this continent. Does this contradict the anti-incest principle? |Date: Wed, 8 Feb 1995 12:21:29 -0600 (CST) |From: nick mcree | |I was fascinated by Faith's citation, apparently offered as a critique of |sociobiology. Actually, it was offered as a critique of all scientific |discourse, on the grounds that _science_ supposedly fails to come to |grips with the idea that inquiry and knowledge is embedded in a social |context. 2 Arguments: | |First, the argument underlies a gross misunderstanding of what science is |all about. Science is *not* about determining Truth, despite Faith's |attempt to categorize the endeavor as such. The cardinal rule of science |is that a particular relationship can never be proven True. Rather, the |attempt is to establish a degree of reliability, through inquiry which can |be independently verified. Even Newton's Laws of Motion cannot be proven |True... it is accepted because it can been (and has been) _verified_ many, |many times. Who is to say the ninth grade science student in her |physical science class tomorrow won't get a completely unexpected |result? ;) My money bets no, but I can't "prove" she wouldn't. Science is a social system, not some absolute thing off in the heavens that has rules like Scrabble. Newtonian mechanics have been shown to be false (remember relativity?). Why do we still use them? |Second, this whole postmodern position is highly, highly ironic. The |Credo seems to be "One can't make universal statements about phenomena |because of x, y, z, etc." But this statement is in effect a *universal |statement*, is it not?! Postmoderninsts have painted themselves into a |corner... The only argument against the possibility of determining |universal propositions is *itself* a universal proposition claiming that |it cannot be done. Hmmm.... You're saying that this position is paradoxical. Maybe someone familiar with formal logic can clarify, but I think that the postmodern position is logically self-consistent. |From: Jean Czerlinski |Subject: inextricable | |To return to the sociological example of A=Caucasian and B=African |American, say that instead of altitude we have family's income when |growing up, so the lower altitudes are lower class backgrounds and |higher altitudes are higher class backgrounds. Then the numbers |(heights in plants) could be average scores on a math exam, for example. |Would we say Caucasians are then "smarter" then African-Americans or |vice-versa? And what about all the other variables we haven't |controlled, such as amount and quality of schooling? The expression of genetic traits is a different discussion than the the acting out of biological imperatives. You and Nick are not talking about precisely the same things. |The policy implications should also be clear. Even if someone has a |certain gene or genes (and in actuality race is determined by hundreds |or possibly thousands of genes), changing their environment can change |how the gene(s) are expressed. Even if Murray and Herrnstein are right |that, on the average across their current respective environments, |African Americans get lower IQ scores than Caucasians, this does not |mean blacks are dumber than whites or that there's no point in investing |in education for blacks, etc.. (I must confess, though, to not having |read their book yet, though I've read a lot *about* it.) On the other |hand, the genetic information might be useful in finding the most |appropriate environment for a given person. Along similar lines, some |people have argued that men and women learn differently and so could use |different teaching styles. The policy implications are only clear once you've established your goals. H&M are not interested in establishing a just society, but in maximizing the attainments of the "haves" -- something they hide behind their desire for "efficiency". H&M argue that the enviornmental conditions faced by contemporary Americans are *equal enough* that genetic differences are clearly expressed. They have an argument about the improvement of schools, access to greater resources, etc. They argue that (a) showing that blacks have lower IQ scores relative to whites *controlling for social class* supports their theory, and that (b) low scores from parts of Africa where blacks have long been in power (and thus have not suffered discriminatory treatment) also support their theory. Are the differences in the environments experienced by upper middle class blacks sufficiently different from those experienced by upper middle class whites to account for the discrepancies in IQ scores? (given that we accept that IQ measures the expression of genetically coded intelligence). What do we really know about the equivalence of environments in reference to the expression of complex sets of genetic traits? Do we have any way of deciding whether H&M are right that conditions are "equal enough", given that we accept the validity of their comparison? (which many do not). |Hopefully this has made the point that it can be useful to consider |*both* biology and sociology, for some cases at least. I certainly |don't think this is true in all cases. But what do you *do* with biology? That is the question. Despite what I've said above, I tend to think of biology as "buried" under the social. I suppose if I was an evolutionary biologist, I'd think of the social as an icky encrustation on top of biology. I have a difficult time seeing how to talk about humanity without holding one or the other constant or relegating it to the background. |For those interested in more, I came across an interesting book by |economist Robert H. Frank, *Choosing the Right Pond: Human Behavior and |the Quest for Status*. He begins with the biological observation and |evolutionary justification for the idea that it's *local* and *relative* |status that matters. The quest for this sort of status has all sorts |of implications for understanding and developing policies for wages, |redistributive taxation, occupational safety, health unions, forced |savings programs (e.g. social security), and whether education should be |publicly or privately provided. Basically, he uses his observation |about the biology of human behavior to argue about what things should |and shouldn't be left to market forces. Of course, one could have |observed that people strive for relative local status just by observing |people and without the biological evidence; that's not always the case, |though. What's not always the case? This comment about stutus is essentially about hierarchy. My feelings are that wherever humans form groups, hierarchy is inevitable. People who want to maximize equality in their own groups, and who are conscious of hierarchy as a problem, should be able to construct arrangements which minimize the extent of hierarchy and mitigate some of its coercive effects, possibly by creating cross-cutting hierarchies. They cannot eliminate hierarchy, however, even though they may ignore it and claim to have gotten rid of it. James Sidanius, a UCLA psychology professor, has developed what he calls "Social Dominance Theory" based on two insights coming from Tajfel's minimal group experiments. Tajfel randomly divided experimental subjects into two groups, telling them that they were actually being divided by some essential quality. The two groups were to compete for points in a quiz or something. He found that, based on nothing, these small groups were able to form in-group solidarity. Not only did he find that they ascribed positive characteristics to their own arbitrarily selected group and negative characteristics to the others, but he also found that they were willing to forgo sharing high absolute rewards with their rivals in favor of lower rewards that relatively higher than the out-group. (This is NOT an endorsement). Along the same lines, the African American science fiction writer Octavia Butler has written a trilogy about a human-alien encounter, comprised of the three books _Dawn_, _Adulthood Rites_ and _Imago_. The protagonist of the first book is Lilith Iyapo, an African American woman (depicted as a white woman on the book cover!). After nuclear holocaust envelops earth and threatens immanent destruction to all remaining life, aliens called the Oankali remove humans from the earth and set to restoring its ecology. In _Dawn_, Lilith is told by an Oankali that humans are fatally flawed, and were destined to destroy themselves. The alien says that humans have two contradictory characteristics which they can never reconcile, but can force to coexist if they recognize the problem. "You are intelligent," he said. "That's the newer of the two characteristics, and the one you might have put to work to save yourselves. You are potentially one of the most intelligent species we've found, though your focus is different than ours. Still you had a good start in the life sciences, and even in genetics." "What's the second characteristic?" "You are hierarchical. That's the older and more entrenched characteristic. We saw it in your closest animal relatives and in your most distant ones. It's a terrestrial characteristic. When human intelligence served it rather than guiding it, when human intelligence did not even acknowledge it as a problem, but took pride in it or did not notice it at all... That was like ignoring cancer. I think your people did not recognize what a dangerous thing they were doing." "I don't think most of us thought of it as a genetic problem. I didn't. I'm not sure I do now." ... "Yes," he said, "intelligence does allow you to deny facts you dislike. But denial doesn't matter. A cancer growing in someone's body will go on in spite of denial. And a complex combination of genes that work together to make you intelligent as well as hierarchical will still handicap you whether you acknowledge it or not." "I just don't believe it's that simple. Just a bad gene or two." "It isn't simple, and it isn't a gene or two. It's many--the result of a tangled combination of factors that only begins with genes." I just had to sneak Butler in somehow :). |Date: Wed, 8 Feb 95 20:54 EST |From: "Jetaway Dave" | |>> relatives. The problem is that if "the selfish gene" places this |>> requirement upon us, then how come "familiarity breeds contempt," and |>> how is it that we're more likely to kill or injure our close relatives |>> than anybody else is? | | In (timid, partial) support of the 'selfish gene' theory, rates of assault, |child abuse, and murder, are higher among non-blood family than in blood-tied |families. Personally, I prefer social processes such as selection as an |explanation, but can't entirely rule out genetics at the margins. OK, but is there any explanation for how we overrule the "selfish gene" that is not ad hoc? Oh, well. Enough rambling for now. Good night. Michael -- Michael Lichter ------------------------+ Department of Sociology | University of California, Los Angeles ----------------------------------+ From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Feb 9 07:53:07 1995 Thu, 9 Feb 1995 07:51:29 -0800 for Date: Thu, 09 Feb 95 10:47:06 EST From: Alan Subject: stipends To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU Here at The University of Connecticut, most graduate students receive something for the course of their graduate training thus far, and stipends range from $5500 annually up to $11,000, with or without benefits. Generally, students who have completed coursework don't get tuition waivers and up until this year, have not received health benefits, although in an attempt to eliminate the routine use of outside lecturers, the University either before or after the fact has converted graduate student lecturers into T.A.'s, with a correspon ding reduction in the total number of lectureships. The downside is, not being in a city rents are high, and a car is a necessity if you are going to have a social life beyond 20 year olds, and if you want to research beyond number crunching. From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Feb 9 10:24:45 1995 Thu, 9 Feb 1995 10:20:30 -0800 for Date: Thu, 09 Feb 95 13:19 EST To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU From: MINLIU@irishmvs.cc.nd.edu Subject: stipends Grad students here at U. of Notre Dame are funded for only 4 years, regardless of whether people came with a B.A. or M.A.. Is this the case elsewhere? Min From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Feb 9 10:37:40 1995 Thu, 9 Feb 1995 10:28:07 -0800 for Date: Thu, 09 Feb 95 13:27:18 EST From: Alan To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Here at The University of Connecticut, we are guaranteed funding for 4 years with a B.A., and 2 years with a M.A., but often teaching needs lead to people being funded longer. From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Feb 9 15:49:14 1995 Thu, 9 Feb 1995 15:34:54 -0800 for From: CBROWN@SIUCVMB.SIU.EDU Date: Thu, 9 Feb 95 17:33:24 CST To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: Funding Southern Illinois provides funding for two years for MA students and four years for Ph.D. students. I have heard rumors of students being picked up by faculty grants when their "official" time runs out however. Chuck- From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Feb 9 18:31:33 1995 Thu, 9 Feb 1995 18:29:38 -0800 for Date: Thu, 09 Feb 95 21:24:21 EST From: Alan To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Here at The University of Connecticut, people get picked up by faculty grants along the way. There is a formal timeline, and then there is a need-based timeline. We teach most of the courses faculty either don't have the expertise to teach, or don't have the desire (such as 100 level "W" courses). From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Feb 9 18:49:56 1995 Thu, 9 Feb 1995 18:48:30 -0800 for (PMDF V4.3-10 #7331) id <01HMUZOP9LUO9I6GXX@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU>; Thu, 09 Feb 1995 21:46:37 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 09 Feb 1995 21:46:37 -0500 (EST) From: SCOTT BLAKE Subject: Funding To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Here at Brandeis, most PhD students are funded for 3 years (8000 plus tuition waiver). MA students are not funded. At the end of three years (normal residency, should be ABD), we are pretty much on our own as we have little to no grant income. From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Feb 10 06:47:22 1995 Fri, 10 Feb 1995 06:39:20 -0800 for From: "Vincent J. Roscigno" To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU, psn@csf.colorado.edu Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 09:39:11 EST Subject: (Fwd) Job Opportunity The following advertisement has been placed in the ASA Employment Bulletin. If you might be interested in the position please apply or contact me with any questions you may have. If you are not interested but know of anyone who might be a promising candidate please contact them and suggest they apply, or give me their name and I will invite them to apply. The NC State Sociology program is an exciting, growing one. We have had very talented graduate students and a lively intellectual environment. Please feel free to take the advertisement and send it to appropriate email lists you are a participant on. ***************************************************************** North Carolina State University. As part of North Carolina State University's commitment to fostering racial diversity, the Department of Sociology and Anthropology invites applications for a tenure track position in Sociology. The appointment is most likely to be made at the Assistant Professor level. Areas of specialty are open. Qualified applicants should have the Ph.D. by time of appointment. Growing department, attractive salaries, excellent research support and outstanding local amenities. There is no deadline for applications, however, review of applications will begin March 1 and, contingent upon funding , we anticipate that successful candidates will join the faculty in the Fall of 1995 or the Spring of 1996. Inquiries welcome at 919-515-3291 or Don_Tomaskovic- Devey@ncsu.edu. Send letter of application, vitae, and names, addressees and telephone numbers of three references to: Donald Tomaskovic-Devey, Chair Recruitment Committee, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-8107. Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer. Donald Tomaskovic-Devey don@server.sasw.ncsu.edu Department of Sociology 919 515-3291 (voice) North Carolina State University 919 515-2610 (fax) Raleigh, NC 27695-8107 ********************************************************************** Vinnie Roscigno Box 8107, Department of Sociology North Carolina State University Raleigh, N.C. 27695-8107 Vincent@server.sasw.ncsu.edu (919) 515-3143 ext. 65 ********************************************************************** From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Feb 10 09:06:22 1995 Fri, 10 Feb 1995 08:57:01 -0800 for Date: Fri, 10 Feb 95 11:56 EST From: "Jetaway Dave" Subject: Re: more thoughts on biology and behavior To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU >| >|>> relatives. The problem is that if "the selfish gene" places this >|>> requirement upon us, then how come "familiarity breeds contempt," and >|>> how is it that we're more likely to kill or injure our close relatives >|>> than anybody else is? >| >| In (timid, partial) support of the 'selfish gene' theory, rates of assault, >|child abuse, and murder, are higher among non-blood family than in blood-tied >|families. Personally, I prefer social processes such as selection as an >|explanation, but can't entirely rule out genetics at the margins. >OK, but is there any explanation for how we overrule the "selfish gene" >that is not ad hoc? Theoretical imperialism? A little woolgathering leads to some experimental designs which could effectively 'get at' the genetic/social question, but getting it past human subjects would be difficult.;-) More later, Jetaway Dave From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Feb 10 11:36:21 1995 Fri, 10 Feb 1995 11:28:54 -0800 for Date: Fri, 10 Feb 95 11:17:55 PST From: "S. Zavestoski" <09996190@WSUVM1.CSC.WSU.EDU> Subject: new take on socbio To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU I am new to the list, but may not stay on long if the length of the postings over the last week is indicative of the average. I do wish to contribute this brief, yet informed, I believe, take on the sociobiology debate: Humans are indeed biological beings, and it thereby follows (through a much more complex process of reasoning than I can include here) that the social life process, being that it is a function of biological beings, emerges out of the physical reality that exists. AS someone else noted, society is the production of biological beings that can take on a life of its own and even act back on those biological beings, as well as on the physical environment in which those biological beings live. The interplay between biology and society is complex, multi-dimensional, and no small bit to chew. I think the greatest contribution sociologists can make is to broaden the core of the discipline to take into account the biophysical/ecological im- pacts the physical reality (or biological reality, if you prefer) on human social systems, and the equally significant impacts of human social systems on the biophysical/ecological reality of the physical environment. One last note: debate can be productive, but too often there is a tendency to be so passionately immersed in one's own perspective that we fail to see the value in other perspectives. Rather than trying to diminish other theoretical or even methodological approaches, we should try to understand alternative approaches and discover how they can be made relevant to our own. Peace in the Earth, S. Zavestoski 09996190@wsuvm1.csc.wsu.edu From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Feb 10 16:12:10 1995 Fri, 10 Feb 1995 16:06:34 -0800 for From: KINRABE@UWYO.EDU id <01HMW49WY8V4003R7R@ROPER.UWYO.EDU>; Fri, 10 Feb 1995 17:06:31 -0700 (MST) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 17:06:39 -0700 (MST) Subject: Jean C's plant and race example To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Someone may have already responded to this, but I will too, briefly and succinctly. The term "canalization" has been used, not necessarily by sociobiologists, to describe how nature and nurture combine. We know that, for instance, body size is determined by both genes and environment -- specifically by diet, of course. If we were to assume something that could be labeled "intelligence" exists, then we can understand it by assuming that genetics determines a *range* of IQ, and the exact spot in that range will be determined by environment -- again, by diet and mental stimulation, among other things. We imagine a "canal" in which something can very greatly but cannot leave. Not only do genes determine the range a trait can fall into, genes can create structures that *allow* adaptabilty in a structure. For instance, the rate at which one consumes calories depends in part upon how much one eats. Our bodies have *evolved* to allow this change to occur. If we stop using a muscle, our body stops providing as much nutrients to that muscle, and so it shrinks and requires even less -- this is efficiency that has helped us survive. Also, Jean -- please don't compare sociobiologists to the Social Darwinists of the 19th C. that assumed a racial hierarchy. They were stinkers. Sociobiologists understand and elabrate on the complex relationship between genes and environment -- including social environment. No competent sociobiologist would waste time arguing whites are best, and I've never read any such garbage in SB literature -- though it abounds in the writings of the old 19th C. Social Darwinists, who were very poor scientists indeed. Besides, according to evolutionary thinking, there is no "better" or "best" organism. Am I better than a squirrel because I can type and it can't? A squirrel is designed for its environment, as I am for mine. I'd die trying to live a squirrels life, and it would die trying to be me. How "good" an organism is is a meaningless term. We can only ask, how well is the organism adapted to its environment? Enough for now. Again, I encourage the reading of SB literature -- today's stuff, not that written by Spencer or Lombroso (SP?) Thanks for listening, Brian From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Sat Feb 11 09:46:42 1995 Sat, 11 Feb 1995 09:38:54 -0800 for From: Jean Czerlinski Subject: socbio: reply to Brian To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Sat, 11 Feb 95 11:38:06 CST Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] Oh, Brian, I'm afraid you've now exposed your soft underbelly. After complaining to everyone that they shouldn't discuss biology, sociobiology, evolution, etc. without being familiar with the literature, you've made some factual errors of your own (in the first paragraph of your last message). > The term "canalization" has been used, not necessarily by sociobiologists, to > describe how nature and nurture combine. Flatly wrong. Canalization refers to the situation where development "channels" (hence the term "canalization) the organism into having a certain (phenotypic) with little variation. Some, but not most, traits are "robust" in this way, where neither changes in the genome nor in the environment produce much change in the organism (i.e. its phenotype). (See J. M. Rendel, *Canalisation and Gene Control*, 1967.) One example of a canalized trait is the number of hairs on the back of a fruit fly (Drosophila). This trait has evolved to be canalized because the hairs are crucial for the aerodynamics of the fly's flight. However, as already mentioned, most traits are not canalized; after all, canalization eliminates most of the variation necessary for evolution. I have to confess to getting a special delight out of pointing out your mistake after all your accusations that others hadn't read enough. > We know that, for instance, body size is determined by both genes and > environment -- specifically by diet, of course. This expresses only a simplistic view of the interaction of genes and environment. This is the view that "most of the responses to the environment which are manifestations of phenotypic plasticity are a natural and mechanistic outcome of the immutable properties of [the organism's] organisation. Thus lack of nitrogen causes plants to grow small just because nitrogen is an essential component of substances which are the basis of living material." This view is soundly drubbed for example by A.D. Bradshaw in "Basic Mechanisms in Plant Morphogenesis" (1973, where the quote is from). Instead, he argues that phenotypic plasticity (i.e. the variety of trait outcomes from a single set of genes when placed in a variety of environments) is an adaptive feature; there is a menagerie of responses to environments which natural selection can then start to fine-tune. A qualification to the "fine-tuning" mentioned above: since environments change in time and space, selection usually doesn't eliminate all the phenotypic variability even for a given environment, leading to "mixed" strategies, as Richard Levins points out in his book, *Evolution in Changing Environments*. Furthermore, I would like to echo S. Zavestoski's (and others') point a few messages ago that a large part of humans' environment is the social environment, which we help create. Your reply had been that our brains, too, are under genetic control. I agree, but you are backing yourself up against the wall if you push this assertion too far: if biological tendencies prevent us from ever reasoning logically or thinking of certain ideas, then it would be impossible for you to logically prove this. (It would be akin to "scientifically" proving that science is unscientific.) And some brief examples of the menagerie (from Bradshaw's paper): Many clover species hold the laminas of their leaves at the level of the accompanying vegetation, within quite remarkable height ranges of the surrounding vegetation. In water buttercups, two types of leaf are produced, the "dissected" leaf which occurs under water, and, as the stem approaches the surface (detected by amount of sunlight), the "entire" leaf is produced, which by its bouyant properties then floats to the surface. In that case, a quantitative change in amount of sunlight triggered a qualitative change. > If we were to assume something that could be labeled "intelligence" exists, > then we can understand it by assuming that genetics determines a *range* of IQ , > and the exact spot in that range will be determined by environment -- again, b y > diet and mental stimulation, among other things. > We imagine a "canal" in which something can very greatly but cannot leave. > The explanation above is meant to show that a narrow "canal" is a rare case, e.g. the hairs on the fruit flies. A broad "canal" is somewhat more common. But in many cases we have more of a "menagerie", especially as we consider more and more possible environmental variables rather than just one or two. I assume you have, for instance, considered that there are many different *kinds* of intelligence (was it Gardner who wrote a book about this?). > Not only do genes determine the range a trait can fall into, genes can create > structures that *allow* adaptabilty in a structure. For instance, the rate at > which one consumes calories depends in part upon how much one eats. Our bodies > have *evolved* to allow this change to occur. If we stop using a muscle, our > body stops providing as much nutrients to that muscle, and so it shrinks and > requires even less -- this is efficiency that has helped us survive. > Sure, I agree with this. Just as canalization can evolve, so can un-canalization, i.e. adaptability. (I'm being loose with terms here.) > Also, Jean -- please don't compare sociobiologists to the Social Darwinists of > the 19th C. that assumed a racial hierarchy. They were stinkers. > Sociobiologists understand and elabrate on the complex relationship between > genes and environment -- including social environment. No competent > sociobiologist would waste time arguing whites are best, and I've never read > any such garbage in SB literature -- though it abounds in the writings of the > old 19th C. Social Darwinists, who were very poor scientists indeed. > I did not mention the social darwinists, nor did I really mean to direct my argument especially agaist them, though they're included. I agree that the good SB literature is not so simplistic. However, some of the pop literature today still is socially darwinistic, and also some very complex and rigorous SB studies have had socially darwinistic findings-- which, in a sense, is confirmation that this is a difficult question, not confirmation that it was a bad study. > Besides, according to evolutionary thinking, there is no "better" or "best" > organism. Am I better than a squirrel because I can type and it can't? A > squirrel is designed for its environment, as I am for mine. I'd die trying to > live a squirrels life, and it would die trying to be me. > > How "good" an organism is is a meaningless term. We can only ask, how well is > the organism adapted to its environment? I agree. Though within a given niche we might make some comparisons. > Enough for now. Again, I encourage the reading of SB literature -- today's > stuff, not that written by Spencer or Lombroso (SP?) Were my references recent enough for you? However, I'm not sure everyone should bother to read it. Actually, I find it odd that you leveled the criticisms you did because I consider myself something of a sociobiologist, though perhaps not a "full-blown" one. Remember, I did suggest that different people might learn best from different learning environments. So I prefer to straddle the fence, so to speak, though you might say that's "cheating" or "indecisive." Sorry for yet again being excessively verbose. Jean (jczer@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu) From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Sat Feb 11 21:28:36 1995 Sat, 11 Feb 1995 21:25:31 -0800 for Date: Sat, 11 Feb 1995 21:25:29 -0800 From: Laura Miller To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: call for papers forwarded message******************************************* ************************************************************ Subject: ASA: Call for Student Paper Newsgroups: alt.sci.sociology Summary: Keywords: >From slmarshall@uccs.edu Date: Thu, 09 Feb 1995 08:12:14 MST >From: slmarshall@uccs.edu To: SMARSHAL@SERF.UCCS.EDU The following is a list of areas where we as students can participate in or be supportive of student involvement at the American Sociological Society, August 19-23, 1995 in Washington, D.C., CALL FOR PAPERS: HPSA ROUNDTABLE SESSIONS Student papers are being accepted for HPSA Roundtable Session to be held at the ASA Annual Meeting in Washington, DC., August 19-23,1995. Roundtables provide an informal atmosphere for students to present and discuss a work in progress or a completed research project. The Roundtables are organized around a theme with a presider and at least 3 paper presenters. Students interested need to submit an abstract by March 1st, 1995. Please send all submission to the individual listed below prior to the deadline date. CULTURE I Todd Robbins, University of Massachusettes, Department of Sociology, Amherst, MA 01003; trobbins@soc.umass.edu ENVIRONMENTAL SOCIOLOGY John Michael Oakes, University of Massachusettes, Social & Demographic Research Institute, PO Box 34830, Amherst, MA 01003 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH & METHODOLOGY Michael Fraser, University of Massachusettes, Social & Demographic Research Institute, Box 34830, Amherst, MA 01003; fraser@soc.umass.edu SOCIOLOGY OF EMOTION Lisa Rashotte, Department of Sociology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85719; (602)884-0371; rashotte@aruba.ccit.arizona.edu THESES IN PROGRESS Sherry Marshall, Department of Sociology, University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, PO Box 7150, Colorado Springs, CO 80933; (719)575-9092; slmarshall@uccs.edu DEVIANCE Ann Walawander, 755 LaSalle Ave., Buffalo, NY 14215; walawand@karloff.fstrf.org SOCIAL MOVEMENTS AND COLLECTIVE BEHAVIOR Spencer D. Wood; 350 Agriculture Hall; 1450 Linden Dr, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706; (608)238-4490; wood@ssc.wisc.edu QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH & METHODOLOGY Jay Powell, Patapsco Hall, Room 123, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD 21228; hpowel1@gl.umbc.edu UNDERGRADUATE ONLY Joy Burkholder, 270 Langdon St., Madison, WI 53703; (608-259-0785 jburkhol@students.wisc.edu SEXUALITY Kelly Nelson, 2020 Walnut St. #25J, Philadelphia, PA 19103; (215)569-1397 GENDER COMMUNICATIONS Robert McCracken, 104 Grise Hall, Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY 42101; (502)685-5059; mccrarl@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU MEDICAL SOCIOLOGY John T. Lang, Institute for Health, Health Care Policy & Aging Research, 30 College Ave., PO Box 5070, New Brunswick, NJ 08903; (903)932-8597; JLANG@zodiac.rutgers.edu MASS COMMUNICATION Shawna Hudson, Department of Sociology, Rutgers University, Lucy Stone Hall, PO Box 5072, New Brunswick, NJ 08903; (908)572-0566; SHUDSON@zodiac.rutgers.edu DEMOGRAPHY HyeSook Chung and Julie Plaut; Dept. of Sociology, 96-100 Cummington St., Boston, MA 02215; (617)266-6416; sookie@acs.bu.edu jrplaut@acs.bu.edu COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION Terrell Walker, University of North Texas, Department of Sociology, 1800 Jason Dr. #330, Denton, TX 76205; (817)566-6334 SOCIOLOGY OF THE FAMILY Susan Malone, 1111-164 SW 16th Ave, Gainesville, FL 32601 (904)371-5990 Home/Fax; (904)395-8035 Work; (904)3958047 Work Fax CULTURE AND COGNITION II Wayne Brekhus, Rutgers University, LPO 16287, PO Box 5064 New Brunswick, NJ 08903-5064; (908)878-2908; BREKHUS@zodiac.rutgers.edu Papers which are not encompassed by the categories above should be sent to: Sherry Marshall, University of Colorado, Dept. of Sociology, PO Box 7150, Colorado Springs, CO 80933 (719)575-9092; SLMARSHALL@uccs.edu We will do our best to great additional sessions as the need arises so that all quality student research may be presented. From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Sun Feb 12 08:00:18 1995 Sun, 12 Feb 1995 07:56:23 -0800 for From: j_young@VENUS.TWU.EDU Date: Sun, 12 Feb 1995 09:56:56 CST To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: The Social Base of Postmodern Sensibility This is No. 17 in a series of mini-lectures. Today, I will preview a lecture on the social sources of postmodern thought which I will give grad students at TWU/UNT in Denton, Texas. In brief, there are four differing sources which have, in the past 50 years or so, converged to support a far-reaching transformation of the knowledge process in general and academic life in particular. These four bases for postmodern thought/critique/sensibility include: 1. The social base: Gender, Race, Class, and people in the 3rd world. 2. The Artistic base: an avant garde in art, music, poetry, architecture and dance. 3. French Intelligensia: Merleau-Ponty, Foucault, Derrida, Lyotard, Bourdieu, Baudrillard and others. 4. The Academic base: Cultural Marxism, the Frankfurt School, and here in the USA, political correctness. Each of these sources have different problematics and differing ways to speak of their dis-enchantment with modern science and its concern with absolutes, finalities, universalities and rationalities. They have in common with pre-modern sensibility, a concern with that which is excluded, that which is omitted, that which is mysterious and that which is emotional and sensual. A. The social base. In the past 200 years, women have been gathering a sustained critique of what is now called euro-centric male pre-occu- pation with control and domination. The critique begins as rebellion and resistence to patriarchy and the subordination of women to male hegemony in home, office, shop, factory and church. It goes on to a powerful critique of those canons of science which require human beings fit themselves into neat and tidy hierarchies of thought, human devel- opment, or agency. There are any number of good places to start to look at postmodern feminism. Bryan Turner's book, (Sage) Theories of Modernity and Postmodernity has a section on Politics, Women and Postmodernity which sets out some of the problematics and offers references to a lot more. Afro-Americans, Native American Indians, Chicanos and other minorities in North America have long resisted the arrogant assumptions of White European Christains that native beliefs, native religions, native family arrangements and native communal organizations are primitive, savage, barbaric, or inferior to 'modern,' scientific, developed ways to do social life. Workers around the world resist and reject modernist efforts to rationalize, segment and sub-divide the work process. Taylorism is the pejorative label given to the efforts to fit workers into a machine like modality of precision, predictability and perfection [as defined by bosses, managers, owners and government officials]. The points of dissent also include division of 'surplus' profits; fringe benefits such as health care, pensions, vacation, job security and status; kind of product or service to be offered as well as the role of the worker in management of the work process itself. B. The artistic base: I have read that the term, postmodern, first appeared in the 1950's as part of a critique of modern architecture with its straight lines, flat planes, and solid squares, spheres and pyramids. Scott Lash offers a summary critique in the Turner book mentioned. He says that modern architect does not fit human forms, human scales or human social forms. Norm Denzin has done several pieces on postmodern cinema which help one understand the politics of pre- modern, modernist cinema. In his lecture at TCU three years ago, Denzin spoke of the many films of Woody Allen; in particular, his 'Crimes and Misdeamors.' In the Allen films, it is difficult to insert oneself into the role of the protagonist [male or female] in that such roles have too many contrarities and moral ambiguities for most of the viewers. My colleague here at TWU, Mahmoud Sadri, says that 'Pulp Fiction' is the flick of the present 20 something cohort since it catches the difficulty of discerning between that which is 'real' and that which is 'fictional.' Postmodern dance and music do not follow the perfectly orchestrated, pre-planned, rehearsed and controlled flow of form and melody of ballet or, say, Beethovan. The mathematical rigor of Haydn, Beethovan or Mozart is lost in the loose, spontaneous and surprizing variations in jazz....especially New Orleans jazz. Postmodern poetry does not rhyme, follow a meter nor yeild the same thoughts, feelings and behaviors each time it is said, sung or read. Those of you who have seen the movie, Dead Poet's Society, will remember that the teacher began the class on poetry by having the students rip out that part of the introduction which said that 'good' poetry can be scaled in cartesian phase-space. Raymond Williams and L.R. Leavis at Cambridge have been the center of the contention between modern and post- modern understandings of prose and poetry. Four years ago, at U-Mich- Flint, I had my undergrad students each bring in three poems on Valentine's Day; one a pre-modern, one a modern and one a post-modern celebration of love and couple-ness. You may want to do that Tuesday with your own celebration with your most significant other. C. French Intelligensia. In a review of a book by the Merleau-Ponty Circle in 'Phenomenology and the Human Sciences, [V.19;Sept, 1994], I made the point that most American readers have to move through four or five shells of meaning/speech in order to understand M-P, Bourdieu, Baudrillard et. al.; first there are the taken-for-granted assumptions of modern science which are under critique. Since these assumptions are taken for granted, few graduate students in sociology will immediately understand the grounds for critique. Aristotlean logic, euclidean geometry, newtonian dynamics, leibnizean calculus, carnapian reasoning and hegelian/husserlian phenomenology all have to be re-examined for the politics which are embedded in them. Then there is the rich and deep tradition of speculation on knowledge and being centered in Europe which is encoded in its own special linguistics which must be understood, not to mention the special encodings of the French intellectuals. At that point, Foucault, Merleau-Ponty and other writers begin to make a great deal of sense. Fortunately, there are many bridges between these traditions among which Turner and Pauline Rosenau are the most accesible. Why the French in particular should take the lead in a scholarly critique of modernism is of some interest but they have in common with all the rest of us the refusal to be boxed, labelled, categorized, explained, predicted, written off, ignored, discarded or understood by equations, theories, propositions, tables, charts, or smug, self satified managers, bosses, pundits or preachers. One need not center one's postmodern critique on french/european terms. I have told the grad students in our seminar on postmodern social psychology that they can use any of the bases mentioned above as a point of departure for their papers in this modality. D. Or one can use the Frankfurt School and/or critical theory. David Held has a nice overview/social history of the Frankfurt School. In brief, its members, reflecting on the failures of class theory in the 30s, 40s and 50s, began to look at the social sources of ideological hegemony; they looked at radio, art, newspapers, magazines, cinema and science itself for the roots of fascism/totalitarianism. They looked at the Dialectics of the Enlightenment and found some of the sources of fascism [in the assumption that the modern state claimed to be the repository of rationality and that modern societies rationalized the institutions of socialization, health care, punishment and production. They looked at the family structure and found the sees of author- itarianism in gender relations and in child rearing practices. They looked at art and cinema for its veneration of stratification and authority. For those interested in the sociology of sports, I have an article in my book on 'The Drama of Social Life' which deconstructs professional sports using the ideas and approaches of critical theory. For those interested in the sociology of religion, there is an article on 'The Typifications of Christ at Christmas and Easter Time' which locates such typifications in the mass, electronic media and gauges their utility for the colonization of desire. Those who want to look at some of my other work can use gopher on internet to gain access to the Red Feather Institute Archives set up on the Progressive Scholars Network. There are 20 or so such articles I have made available including a lot of stuff on Chaos/Complexity theory and their implications for a postmodern philosophy of science and sociology. The PSN address is: Authors/Young.TR@CSF.COLORADO.EDU For those interested in Political Correctness, there is an article in the Wisconsin Sociologist [V.30, No.1, 1993] in which I set the prob- lematics of p.c. in its larger, socio-historical context...some like it. Until next time. T. R. Young From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Sun Feb 12 17:48:06 1995 Sun, 12 Feb 1995 17:46:27 -0800 for From: KINRABE@UWYO.EDU id <01HMZ0CGCYDS004L6C@ROPER.UWYO.EDU>; Sun, 12 Feb 1995 18:46:25 -0700 (MST) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 1995 18:46:36 -0700 (MST) Subject: Confused about Jean's response To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Jean -- Well, I guess I learned a different definition of "canalization" than you did. If you've noticed, a lot of words have different meanings depending on what discipline they're used in. I'm glad you're taking so much pleasure in pointing out my semantic error -- if it really is one. However, I don't really see the need for you to keep pointing out that I was unfair in some of my previous criticisms here on socgrad. I conceded I was being a jerk and am trying to be civil. Can we all play nice now? :) I'm looking forward to future discussions with you. I would like a little better explanation of what you say canalization means -- I honestly couldn't follow what you were writing. Are you saying that a canalized trait is one that is relatively unresponsive to a change in the genes or the environment? How can a trait be "unresponsive" to the genes that created it when it is built according to the information in those genes? Also, a trait that needs to respond to the environment that doesn't respond to the environment will be selected against by the environment. "Canalization" as you've defined it makes no sense. My simplistic example of height was to make a simple point. I understand phenotypic plasticity and I thought I alluded to it in the "Shrinking muscle" example. I tried to use a simple example to be clear. I specifically mentioned that genes can create structures that allow adaptability by an expressed phenotype. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. I am incredibly aware that the social environment constitutes part of the natural environment. In an earlier message I mentioned that it is interesting to wonder how much our brain limits us. You mentioned that I can't logically prove the existance of such a biological limitation. Well, in science nothing is considered proveable... I was just philosophizing here. I think you're trying a little too hard to slam me, Jean. The menagerie example was interesting. I thought I mentioned a similar example (the muscle one) though it wasn't a qualitative change. I understand the existance of such traits, but thanks for citing the Bradshaw paper -- looks good. I realize that there are probably *millions* of kinds of intelligence. The canalization example of variable IQ represents not the unknowable "real intelligence" but whatever aspect of the "real" that IQ measures. I concede that I should have elaborated on that, as I went from saying "intelligence" to saying IQ. Ok, looks like you're familiar with concept canalization as defined by biologists. Funny, the canalization I learned, as you say, means the opposite! Oh well, I learned the term in a psyc class! I admit I was a bit hesitant about using that term, since it has been awhile. Thanks for enlightening me. Good point about "socially darwinistic" findings -- what if some studies do conclude such things but seem to be sound studies? What do we do with them? I think it's a fine idea to "straddle the fence" as you say you do -- I think that a scientist should not be fanatical about one perspective. Respectfully, Brian From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Sun Feb 12 18:11:03 1995 Sun, 12 Feb 1995 18:09:45 -0800 for Date: Sun, 12 Feb 95 21:09 EST From: "Jetaway Dave" Subject: Re: more thoughts on biology and behavior To: CGH2@PSUVM.PSU.EDU >>| >>|>> relatives. The problem is that if "the selfish gene" places this >>|>> requirement upon us, then how come "familiarity breeds contempt," and >>|>> how is it that we're more likely to kill or injure our close relatives >>|>> than anybody else is? >>| >>| In (timid, partial) support of the 'selfish gene' theory, rates of assault, >>|child abuse, and murder, are higher among non-blood family than in >blood-tied >>|families. Personally, I prefer social processes such as selection as an >>|explanation, but can't entirely rule out genetics at the margins. >>OK, but is there any explanation for how we overrule the "selfish gene" >>that is not ad hoc? > Theoretical imperialism? > A little woolgathering leads to some experimental designs which could >effectively 'get at' the genetic/social question, but getting it past human >subjects would be difficult.;-) > More later, >Jetaway Dave On second thought, none later. Jetaway Dave From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Sun Feb 12 18:52:35 1995 Sun, 12 Feb 1995 18:51:33 -0800 for Date: Sun, 12 Feb 95 21:48:40 EST From: Alan Subject: What if .....? To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU With respect to the question of what if some well orchestrated study confirmed social darwinistic pablum, are we so wedded to a classically empiricist view of social science that the most recent finding is a new paradigm. If so, we need mandatory SOCIOLOGICAL theory courses for everybody earning a Ph.D. in the discipline, and those teaching them how science supposedly operates. After all, going back to the early days of socgrad, what if Coleman's bounties for children has empirical support? Or Newt's orphanages? From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Feb 14 04:15:57 1995 Tue, 14 Feb 1995 04:13:58 -0800 for Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 07:13:57 -0500 (EST) From: James Cassell Subject: Explore Public Policy in Washington DC (fwd) To: Sociology Graduate Student Discussion FYI, without endorsement or condemnation. -- 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, 13 Feb 1995 13:38:05 -0500 From: Lori Lovejoy Subject: Explore Public Policy in Washington DC ***EXPLORE PUBLIC POLICY IN WASHINGTON, DC*** ***ACT NOW; DEADLINE 03/01/95*** The Center for Market Processes invites students to apply to its Charles G. Koch Summer Fellow Program in market-based public policy. The ten-week program, running from June 10 through August 18, will bring together 30 students from around the world to study market-based solutions to public policy problems and effective methods for implementing those solutions. Through research and writing projects, mentoring by policy professionals, work with experienced policy analysts, readings, and seminars, Fellows will learn about the issues, institutions, and skills of professional policy analysis. Fellowships include round-trip airfare to Washington, furnished summer housing, seminar room and board, and a $1500 stipend. Past Fellows have worked with analysts at think tanks, law firms, research organizations, and periodicals, including Cato Institute, Citizens for a Sound Economy, Institute for Justice, Reason magazine, Media Institute, Federalist Society, and National Taxpayers Union. As well, Fellows have heard from policy experts on telecommunications, transportation, education, foreign relations, urban development, environmentalism, welfare, and health care. They have also learned to write, publish, speak, interview, and appear before the media from professional editors, public speakers, career counselors, and journalists. Students interested in applying market ideas to society's most pressing economic and social problems should contact the Center for Market Processes immediately for a brochure and application. Deadline for application is March 1. To request a brochure and application or to recommend qualified students, write Charles G. Koch Summer Fellow Program, Center for Market Processes, 4084 University Dr., Suite 208, Fairfax, VA 22030; call (703)934-6970; or fax (703)934-1578; or e-mail cmp@gmu.edu. Center for Market Processes _____________________________________________ PLEASE FORWARD _____________________________________________ From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 15 08:26:05 1995 Wed, 15 Feb 1995 08:14:25 -0800 for Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 11:14:23 -0500 (EST) From: alan bruce Subject: Stats Help. To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU I am in the process of writing my masters thesis and Iam looking for some help locating any text which gives an interpretable description of the Chow Test. This is a stats test to compare a model across 2 samples of unequal size and provides a significance test for this. m I have the original source (Chow, 1960) but it is written in notation only to be understood by math majors and so I am trying to locate any source which would provide a description of it in terms that a sociologist will understand. Any help would be much appreciated, then again, maybe I should do a qualitative study to solve the problem...:-) Thanks, Alan. Alan S.Bruce,++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Department of Sociology, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio,43402.+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 15 16:04:10 1995 Wed, 15 Feb 1995 15:42:49 -0800 for From: Jean Czerlinski Subject: chow-chow test To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Wed, 15 Feb 95 17:42:32 CST Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] (interpretable version, as requested) 1. Take two grocery carts, sit in one yourself and have a friend sit in the other. Then race. 2. The winner of the race selects two items of food from the grocery store in which the race was conducted, e.g. Hamburger Helper, Wonder bread, Kibbles and Bits, pizza pockets, carrots, soy sauce, liver. 3. The loser selects which item of the two items of food s/he will eat; the winner must then eat the other. 4. Eating of respective items commences. 5. Each person rates their gustatory pleasure on a scale of 1-6, 1 being highest. 6. Wait two days. 7. Each person rates their digestive pleasure on a scale of 1-6, 1 being highest. 8. Calculate the CHOW-value as follows. Multiply your gustatory pleasure by two and add it to your friend's digestive pleasure. Now take the mean of your and your friend's gustatory pleasures and multiply this by 6; then add this number to the previous number. Finally, divide the result by 10. This is the CHOW-value. 9. To test for significance, compare the CHOW-value calculated above with the t-distribution with degrees of freedom equal to your friend's digestive pleasure times the birthday (day of the month) of your favorite actor. IF YOU USE SOME STUPID ACTOR/ACTRESS LIKE RONALD REAGAN, YOU LOSE-- GO BACK TO GO, DO NOT COLLECT $200. 10. Send your credit card number with a note of thanks to the above e-mail address. Clear enough? Jean (jczer@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu) From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Feb 16 04:00:31 1995 Thu, 16 Feb 1995 03:20:46 -0800 for From: JWL3697@UTARLG.UTA.EDU id <01HN3S9O8YVK00255S@UTARLG.UTA.EDU>; Thu, 16 Feb 1995 05:20:17 -0600 (CST) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 05:14:53 -0600 (CST) Subject: "help needed" To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Hello, socgradders: Have any one used data files directly bought from NCES, ie. National Center of Educational Statistics? If you do, do you have the names of their technical advisors and their contact, either e-mail or tel number? Appreciate any info :) _________________________________________________________________ Julia Lam - grad student Department of Sociology University of Texas at Arlington P.O. Box 19599 Arlington, TX 76016 From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Feb 16 05:39:24 1995 Thu, 16 Feb 1995 05:07:10 -0800 for Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 08:06:56 -0500 (EST) From: James Cassell Subject: Re: "help needed" To: JWL3697@utarlg.uta.edu On Thu, 16 Feb 1995 JWL3697@UTARLG.UTA.EDU wrote: > > Hello, socgradders: > > Have any one used data files directly bought from NCES, ie. National Center > of Educational Statistics? If you do, do you have the names of their technical > advisors and their contact, either e-mail or tel number? > > Appreciate any info :) > > _________________________________________________________________ > > Julia Lam - grad student check out gopher.ed.gov NCES has some info (and DATA) on that server. Best, Jim ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Jim Cassell jwcassell@UNC.EDU Institute for Research in Social Science Phone: 919-962-0782 University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill Fax: 919-962-4777 Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3355 USA From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Feb 16 06:12:08 1995 Thu, 16 Feb 1995 05:38:58 -0800 for Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 08:38:46 -0500 (EST) From: James Cassell Subject: Announce: German Mailinglist for Sociology (fwd) To: Sociology Graduate Student Discussion Saw this in alt.sci.sociology and thought someone might be interested. I assume the language of the list will be German. 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, 16 Feb 1995 08:18:37 From: James W. Cassell To: CASSELL@gibbs.oit.unc.edu Subject: Announce: German Mailinglist for Sociology --- Forwarded message follows --- From: ml-soz@maroki.toppoint.de (Soziologie-Mailinglist-Verwaltung) Subject: Announce: German Mailinglist for Sociology Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 11:12:19 GMT A german mailinglist for sociology is opened. To become a member of the list, please write to: ml-soz@maroki.toppoint.de Regards, Martin Rost -- Martin Rost / Germany, Kiel / maro@toppoint.de From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Feb 17 16:12:57 1995 Fri, 17 Feb 1995 16:06:11 -0800 for From: BREKHUS@zodiac.rutgers.edu Date: Fri, 17 Feb 1995 18:55:26 -0500 (EST) Subject: Republicans vote down 4th ammendment (fwd) To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU From: IN%"fries@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu" 17-FEB-1995 01:05:41.14 CC: Subj: Republicans Vote Down 4th Amendment in Bill of Rights (fwd) Return-path: Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 22:58:11 -0700 From: Frank Fries Subject: Republicans Vote Down 4th Amendment in Bill of Rights (fwd) Originator: psn@csf.colorado.edu X-Comment: PROGRESSIVE SOCIOLOGISTS NETWORK Here is a little tidbit that should cause everyone on this list to say Hmmm. It was forwarded to me through a fellow colleague. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ * Frank Fries * * University of Hawaii at Manoa * * Honlulu, Hawaii 96822 * * Phone (808) 395-7936 * * Page (808) 289-6731 * \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ Subject: [Joanna Hicks : Republicans Vote Down 4th Amendment in Bill of Rights (fwd)] a funny (as in "disturbing," not "hilarious") anecdote: i didn't hear about this when it happened. ========== February 7, 1995 - House Republicans Vote Down Fourth Amendment Once again, here I go including something not strictly Newt. Gingrich is however the leader of the House Republicans so ... During the debate today over the House Republicans' bill about the Exclusionary Rule, the House Black Caucus introduced an amendment to the bill that the Republicans promptly voted down. The amendment turned out to be the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, verbatim. The House Republicans were "chagrined." The vote was 303-121, meaning that a number of Democrats joined the Republicans. Here's the Fourth Amendment: Amendment Article 4 Right of Search and Seizure Regulated. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. ======= Hard to believe they didn't recognize the language. I hope they were all thouroughly embarassed. Dan From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Feb 17 16:14:29 1995 Fri, 17 Feb 1995 16:06:14 -0800 for From: BREKHUS@zodiac.rutgers.edu Date: Fri, 17 Feb 1995 18:58:23 -0500 (EST) Subject: The new PBS?? : ) (fwd) To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU From: IN%"JSOSS@polisci.wisc.edu" 17-FEB-1995 13:51:00.38 CC: Subj: PBS schedule of the future? Return-path: Date: Fri, 17 Feb 1995 11:07:33 -0700 From: Joe Soss Subject: PBS schedule of the future? Originator: psn@csf.colorado.edu X-Comment: PROGRESSIVE SOCIOLOGISTS NETWORK This came from someone in my department. Since it has been forwarded many times already, some of you mahe seen it before. But I thought someone out there might find it humorous and scary enough to be worth sending... joe soss. >> > >> > A TYPICAL DAILY PBS SCHEDULE IF THE PUBLIC BROADCASTING LEADERS CAVE IN >> > TO REPUBLICAN PRESSURE >> > >> > 8:00 am Morning Stretch: Arnold Schwarzenegger does squats while >> > reciting passages of "Atlas Shrugged." >> > >> > 9:00 am Mr. Rogers' Segregated Neighborhood: King Friday sings >> > "Elitism is neat." The House Un-American Activities investigation of >> > Mr. McFeely continues. Mr. Rogers explains why certain kids can't be >> > his neighbor. >> > >> > 10:00 am Sesame Street: Jerry Falwell teaches Big Bird to be more >> > judgemental. Oscar the Grouch plays substitute for Rush Limbaugh. Bert >> > and Ernie are kicked out of the military. Jesse Helms bleaches all the >> > Muppets white. >> > >> > 11:00 am Square One: A MathNet episode "Ernest Does Trickle-Down." >> > Jim Varney explains how cutting taxes for the rich and spending more on >> > defense will balance the budget. >> > >> > Noon Washington Week in Review: Special guest Senator Bob Dole, >> > explaining why the current pension crisis, budget deficit, bank >> > closings, farm foreclosures, S & L bailouts, inflation, recession, job >> > loss, and trade deficit can all be blamed on someone else. >> > >> > 1:00 pm Where in the world is Carmen San Diego? Guest detective Pat >> > Buchanan helps kids build a wall around the U.S. >> > >> > 2:00 pm William F. Buckley's Firing Line: Guests George Will, Rush >> > Limbaugh, John Sununu, Pat Buchanan, James Kilpatrick, Mona Charen, G. >> > Gordon Liddy, Robert Novak, Bay Buchanan, Pat Robertson, Joseph Sobran, >> > Paul Harvey, Phyllis Schafly, Maureen Reagan, and John McLaughlin bemoan >> > the need for more conservative media voices. >> > >> > 3:00 pm Nature: Join James Watt and Charlton Heston as they use >> > machine guns to bag endangered species. >> > >> > 4:00 pm NOVA: "Creationism: Discredited, but what the hell?" >> > >> > 5:00 pm Newt Ginrich News Hour: Clarence Thomas and Bob Packwood >> > present in-depth personal reports on sexual harassment. Pat Buchanan >> > says he is being shut out from national exposure. >> > >> > 6:00 pm Mystery Theater: Hercule Poirot, Jane Marple, and Sherlock >> > Holmes team up to investigate Whitewater. >> > >> > 7:00 pm Great Performances: Pat Buchanan is a guest conductor of >> > Wagner's "Prelude to a Cultural War." >> > >> > 8:00 pm Masterpiece Theater: Ibsen's "A Doll's House." Phyllis >> > Schafly adds to this classic with an added scene ehere Nora gladly gives >> > up her independence while her husband chains her to the stove. >> > >> > 9:30 pm Washington Week in Review: Guests George Will, Rush Limbaugh, >> > John Sununu, Pat Buchanan, James Kilpatrick, Mona Charen, G. Gordon >> > Liddy, Robert Novak, Bay Buchanan, Pat Robertson, Joseph Sobran, Paul >> > Harvey, Phyllis Schafly, Maureen Reagan, and John McLaughlin discuss >> > liberal media bias. >> > >> > 10:00 pm Adam Smith's Money World: How to Profit from Ozone Depletion >> > >> > 10:30 pm Nightly Business Report: Wall Street celebrates the end of >> > all laws regarding antitrust, consumer protection, work-place safety, >> > environmental protection, minimum wage and child labor. >> > >> > 11:00 pm Insights of Dan Quayle >> > >> > 11:01 pm Sign-Off >> >> Mark Harmon (the guy who wrote this) is an associate professor @ Texas >> Tech @~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@ @ "Decisions concerning the value and the use of science are not scientific @ @ decisions; they are what one might call 'existential'decisions; they are @ @ decisions to live, think, feel, behave in a certain way. ...[This] @ @ is the main reason why the *products* of science (TV sets; atomic bombs; @ @ penicillin) are not ultimately decisive. They are good or bad, helpful @ @ or destructive, *depending on what kind of life one wants to live*." @ @ --Paul K. Feyerabend, Farewell To Reason, p.30 @ @---joe soss--------jsoss@polisci.wisc.edu---------jsoss@wiscps.bitnet------@ From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Sun Feb 19 08:29:18 1995 Sun, 19 Feb 1995 08:16:22 -0800 for From: j_young@VENUS.TWU.EDU Date: Sun, 19 Feb 1995 10:16:51 CST To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: The Technical Base for Postmodern Sensibility Number 18 in a Series of Mini-lectures for grad students in sociology. In the last lecture, I laid out several social bases for postmodern critique/transcendence of both modern and pre-modern understandings of the missions and methods of the knowledge process. I want to make the point that sociologists may use/depart/work from any one of these; feminist theory, cultural marxism, critical theory, french post-structuralist, third world re-capture of culture and social philosophy or postmodern religious sensibility among which are both New Age Religion and Liberation Theology. Today, I want to lay out the tecnical bases for postmodern tactics/texts/practices. All this oriented to the point made by Fredric Jameson that postmodernity grows out of the logics of late, advanced capitalism. Jameson makes the point again but the short version is that, more than any other form of political economy, capitalism has a built in logic for the improvement of the means of production. Jameson assumes that most people know the history of capitalism so goes on to more esoteric considerations. Slavery, Feudality, Primitive communism, hydraulic agrarian societies use human labor and have the ideologies to justify domination. Capitalism, oriented to profit, needs to improve technology in order to a) lower labor costs, b) integrate the market process, and c) generate demand. New technologies have been developed in the past 200 years which, together, serve as the technical base for the production of images which may or may not have any great connection to the underlying realities they purport to describe, reproduce or interpret. There are five technologies I want to trace; all of them converge in a globalized, massified market system to help a) connect the sectors in production with those in distribution of goods and services. The technical bases of postmodernity are: 1. Electronic: Telegraphy, teletype, telephone, radio, television, and the electronic satellite system. All these enhance the flow of information...and, the production of imagery. 2. Dramaturgy: Scripts, props, staging, rehearsals, actors, directors, writers, musicians, stage managers, audiences and performances combine to create the dramaturgical impression of value, need, agency or efficacy in massified and globalized markets. 3. Social Science: Psychology, Sociology, Economics and Political science combine to generate the information needed to increase the rate of production of surplus value as well as the legitimacy for this form of political economy. 4. Advertizing and Public Relations. Today, a trillion dollar industry brings these technologies together to generate demand, colonize desire, manage consciousness and legitimize an economic system in which some 1000 or so firms [300 or so in the USA] orchestrate the production and distribution of goods and services. 5. The Political Economy Itself. I will start with the technical features of capitalism itself since, in the Jameson writing, postmodern is the child of this economic formation. a. The exchange of goods for other goods goes back to the beginning of human time...however, most economists note capitalism became dominant over other economic formulations in the last 400 years or so. One can note three general eras in capitalism: 1) commodity capitalism...trade routes from Africa and China to Europe are ancient. The Crusades saw Venice and Florence arise as the center of commodity capitalism. That center moved to Brussels in the 15th century; to London in the 17th Century; to New York in the 19th century; to Japan in the 20th century. The center of capitalism moves to whereever profits are higher, labor costs lower, the state most supportive and the dangers of loss lesser. In the 21st century, the center of capitalism might move to Hong-Kong/China; to Brazil; to Bombay/ Calcutta; or to the old Soviet Bloc...or it might fragment into some 10 or 12 economic blocs...very interesting time to be alive and to think about these things. 2) Industrial capitalism...sometime in the 1700s [some say in Huddersfield, England], steam power was linked to machines and cottage production, as a technology, was displaced by factory production. The history of the mechanization of production in mines, shops, farms and warfare is well known...all these provide the technical base for a mode of being and believing that we know as postmodernity. 3) Finance capitalism...By the middle of the 19th century, great banks replaced great industrial firms as the most dynamic part of capitalism. There is more profit and less effort in credit than in the production of cereals, automobiles, computers or houses. Today, Sears pushes its credit cards more agressively than its mechandize. Today, MasterCard goes every where, snuggles everywhere and buys everything. Every day, the technical base for finance capital improves. Now one can get cash from one's checking account in every point on the earth. This is made possible by A. An Electronic information flow technology. In human history, information has been encoded in smoke signals, knots, whistles, arm and semophore signals, glyphics, cuniforms, alpha-bets and now, in the 21st century, on the changing pulses of light through silicon wires. With the advent of trans-national markets, the need for accurate and quick information flow increased...in France, Napoleon established a series of semophore stations to send messages to and from the coast quickly. In Brussels, pigeons were use to tranfer information about the cost of goods, exchange rates or the demand for credit. Marconi invented the telegraph and made the pony express archiac. Seimens developed the teletype out of it to send the letters of the alphabet instead of dots and dashes. Bell, interested in helping deaf children hear, developed the telephone but it was the wireless radio which served as base for the transfer of sound; it was television which served as the base for the transfer of images. The network of satellites which now girdle the earth to transfer images everywhere arose out of the first and second world wars...each fought to garner markets and raw materials for differing blocs of capitalist nations; and to prevent the spread of economic systems more concerned with improvement in the means of distribution than in the means of production and marketting. B. Dramaturgy. For most of human history, dramaturgy and the artful staging of impressions; the contrived effort to shape feelings and thinking, these were oriented to various Dramas of the Holy in which existing social relations were clarified and sanctified. Until the time of Shakespeare, whoever said theatre, said theology. Indeed, our word for theatre, theology and theory all come from the same word, thea, meaning to look at, to gaze, to contemplate. One can see the beginnings of the postmodern concern with the simulacra in the premodern concern for the dramaturgical semblence of that which is evil and that which is holy. Photography developed out of a movement in art to reproduct the natural and social world with precsion...in order to get the necessary perspective, a little box was used with cartesian lines so an artist could pin-point an image on a gird. The image imprinted itself if a light shone on a piece of paper...and the camera [little room] was invented. By the Civil War, photo- graphy was a thriving business...by the turn of the century, 'moving' pictures were developed; that is, a series of still images which appeared to move. Now we have a picture of a thing which is assembled in a series of pictures which gives the dramaturgical impression that an image moves. Hollywood was invented as movie makers sought a place where wages were low, lighting was good and the weather dependable. By the 1920's, Hollywood was invented; it re-produced socially acceptable forms of love and war, of family and friendship, of patriarchy and racism. It also produced a critique of power and wealth in a series of films, among which was 'The Wizard of Oz.' That movie shows every March on CBS; I will give you my lecture on it in a couple weeks...as a teaser, you will like to know that the Wicked Witch from the East was finance capital; the Yellow Brick road was a symbol of the gold Standard and the Silver [not ruby or garnet] slippers were emblematic of low interest rates and the Silver standard. I will tell you who the Wizard really was and what the tornado signified...all this coming in March...stay tuned. Shakespeare serves as a turning point in the history of theatre; his plays were thinly disguised critiques of feudalism [Hamlet, Lear, Richard] and celebrations of modernity [The Tempest hurled contempt on pre-modern sensi- bility in the image of Caliban and Setabos] and praise for reason and ration- ality which was the center piece of the Enlightenment. His plays did not serve to reproduce the society in which they were located but rather to transform them to a new and, presumably, more egalitarian social life world that was emerging out of the findings of Kepler, Copernicus and Galileo. Later Bacon would formalize this new sensibility in his de Novum Organum while Newton would validate it in his Principia Mathematica. The technology of the theatre also serves well to create the dramaturgical products with which both market demand and ideological hegemony are created. Enclosed within the information needs of industrial and finance capital, dramaturgy is combined with communications technology and C. The social sciences. The first systematic study designed to serve the interest of the state in managing an occupied country and to determine the potential of the economy to bear exploitation was commmissioned by Oliver Cromwell as Lord Protector of England. He sent a team of social scientists to Ireland to study rebellion and resistence as well as the capacity of the land to provide food and meat to the English table. Thus was sociology born. Psychology has a similar history...Freud may have intended his new science to be liberative from the anxieties and neuroses we develop as infants and children but, by 1935, Depth Psychology was being used to suggest ways those same neuroses and anxieties could be used as envelopes within which to generate demand for the endless stream of goods and services in a market system which now reached beyond the village and beyond the state to encompass whole nations. On the shop floor, psychologists and sociologists were trying to taylorize production or to illuminate it. Economics turned from the dismal science of Malthus, Smith and Marx to become the happy science of Keynes and the neo-keynsians in Chicago...all the flaws and failings of capitalism could be overcome by judicious inter- vention by the state or the Federal Reserve or the World Bank or the C.I.A. In classrooms and managment symposia, economic priniciples were reified and deified in a drama curiously reminiscent of the morality plays which pre-ceded Shakespeare. D. Conclusion. By the end of the 20th century, all these technologies were in place and with the new computer base for storing data, making images and generating graphics, the technical capacity to generate images was in place...your generation is heir to this new technology and the new sensibility which rides upon it. Many in the postmodern camp and in the pre-modern camp will excoriate such uses of technology; most universities will continue to produce the technicians to serve. But there are affirmative dimensions to post-modernity and to the capacity to create artful images. This technology can be used to re-sanctify the human project or to commodify it. It can be used to critique the deceptive and managerial uses of imagery or it can be used to solidify hegemony and domination. Whatever the case, it will not go away; one must learn to understand its uses and, perchance, re-assemble them. Two footnotes: first, it is good to remember that but a small portion of the population of the world use or abuse such technology. Most people still use more human media with which to build symbols, to use the symbolic interactional process and to create social life worlds which bear adequate connection to that they depict. In Europe and in North America, such uses of the media; of symbolic activity, of dramaturgical imagery are pushing themselves forward to displace more democratic uses of the media. But we have not yet met the end of history nor had the final chapter been written on the central meaning of art, music, dance, drama, sociology and economics. We all will be both audience and actors in that drama of human knowledge. Second, it is my considered and frequently voiced opinion that the human project requires the contributions made to the knowledge process by pre-modern, modern and postmodern theorists. Pre-modernity gave us the capacity to believe, to trust, to hope and to have faith that that which is prophesied will, in the consequence, become true. We cannot have the lovely or the ugly forms of social reality [whatever degree of facticity they carry] without the social psychological capacities developed in pre-modern times...and without society, we cannot have modern science with all its many contributions to medicine, transport, communications, housing and food production. Postmodernity is enabling and enlivening in that it puts responsibility for the good and evil we do on human beings instead of gods, devils, the iron laws of society or of nature. Postmodern critique shows the human hand and the political agenda in the uses of science and technology; in the search for this or that kind of knowledge and the dismissal of that or this other kind of knowledge. Postmodern critique unravels and demystifies those models of madness, of good and evil, of governance and economics, of science itself and of postmodernity too. It shows us that all science, all religion, all law and all morality are both a politics and a poetics. The most inter- esting question remaining is what kind of politics and what kind of poetry will we write in the 21st century. More next time. T.R.Y. From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Feb 20 17:27:34 1995 Mon, 20 Feb 1995 17:26:10 -0800 for From: MmeKeene@aol.com Date: Mon, 20 Feb 1995 20:25:39 -0500 To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: Midwest Grad Schools I'm a cultural anthro. major, finishing up my bachelor's in the next year or so. I'm interested in getting a master's in either sociology or cultural anthropology in the Midwest, beginning in the Fall of 1996. I'm primarily interested in children, gender, and cultural relations, but I'm still "finding myself." With this little bit of information, can anyone recommend some good schools to look into? I have been told to look into Roosevelt, Univ. of Chicago, Univ. of Illinois in Chicago, and Northeastern (?). Rachel Keene MmeKeene@aol.com or rkeene@academic.csubak.edu From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Feb 20 19:07:56 1995 Mon, 20 Feb 1995 19:06:10 -0800 for From: g_dawkins@VENUS.TWU.EDU Date: Mon, 20 Feb 1995 21:06:00 CST To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU sub vivian dawkins From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Feb 20 19:08:22 1995 Mon, 20 Feb 1995 19:07:15 -0800 for From: g_sethuraju@VENUS.TWU.EDU Date: Mon, 20 Feb 1995 21:07:45 CST To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU sub Raj Sethuraju From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Feb 20 19:12:18 1995 Mon, 20 Feb 1995 19:11:27 -0800 for From: g_2yarbrough@VENUS.TWU.EDU Date: Mon, 20 Feb 1995 21:12:04 CST To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU sub James Yarbrough From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Feb 21 07:30:21 1995 Tue, 21 Feb 1995 07:28:05 -0800 for (PMDF V4.3-10 #7331) id <01HNB3D243RA94FSW6@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU>; Tue, 21 Feb 1995 10:23:57 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 1995 10:23:57 -0500 (EST) From: SCOTT BLAKE Subject: Here They Come Again! (fwd) To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU, rockers@medisg.stanford.edu, T1FFERGUSON@WELLESLEY.EDU From: BINAH::DICKERT "Jillian Dickert" 20-FEB-1995 13:36:53.85 To: BLAKE Subj: thought you'd find this interesting... (fwd) From: IN%"femecon-l@bucknell.edu" 20-FEB-1995 10:18:33.41 Subj: Forwarded message... BILL S314 INTRODUCED WHICH WOULD CURTAIL FREEDOMS ON INTERNET IF YOU WISH TO SIGN ON THE PETITION OPPOSING S314 (WHICH WILL BE SENT IN LATER MESSAGE), send your e-mail message containing your signature tothe following Internet e-mail address and not to me: =========================== s314-petition@netcom.com =========================== >From an analysis of s314 provided by the Center for Democracy and Technology.....( For more information on CDT, ask Jonah Seiger .] S. 314 would expand current law restricting indecency andharassment on telephone services to all telecommunications providers and expand criminal liability to *all* content carried by *all* forms of telecommunications networks. S. 314 would make telecommunication carriers (including telephone companies, commercial online services, the Internet, and BBS's) liable for every message, file, or other content carried on its network -- including the private conversations or messages exchanged between two consenting individuals. $100,000 or two years in prison (Section (2)(a)). In order to avoid liability under this provision, carriers would be forced to pre-screen all messages, files, or other content before transmitting it to the intended recipient. Carriers would also be forced to prevent or severely restrict their subscribers from communicating with individuals and accessing content available on other networks. Placing the onus, and criminal liability, on the carrier as opposed to the originator of the content, would make the carrier legally responsible not only for the conduct of its own subscribers, but also for content generated by subscribers of other services. This regulatory scheme clearly poses serious threats to the free flow of information throughout the online world and the free speech and privacy rights of individual users. Forcing carriers to pre-screen content would not only be impossible due to the sheer volume of messages, it would also violate current legal protections. Moreover, in the online world, most content (with the exception of private communications initiated by consenting individuals) is transmitted by request. In other words, users must seek out the content they receive, whether it is by joining a discussion or accessing a file archive. By its nature, this technology provides ample control at the user level. Carriers (such as commercial online services, Internet service providers) in most cases act only as "carriers" of electronic transmissions initiated by individual subscribers. CDT believes that the First Amendment will be better served by giving parents and other users the tools to select which information they (and their children) should have access to. In the case of criminal content the originator of the content, not the carriers, should be responsible for their crimes. And, users (especially parents) should be empowered to determine what information they and their children have access to. If all carriers of electronic communications are forced restrict content in order to avoid criminal liability proposed by S. 314, the First Amendment would be threatened and the usefulness of digital media for communications and information dissemination would be drastically limited. OmniMedia | The Electronic Bookstore. Come in and browse! Two 1312 Carlton Place | locations: ftp.netcom.com /pub/Om/OmniMedia/books Livermore, CA 94550 | and ftp.awa.com /pub/softlock/pc/products/OmniMedia 510-294-8153 | E-book publishing service follows NWU recommendations. ___________________Kenneth Chisholm ______________ Guelph, Ontario, Canada Love is a temple Love, the higher law. -from One by U2 _______________________________________________________________________ via PNEWS [To subscribe send request to ] ----- forwarded message ends here ----- From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Feb 21 12:19:20 1995 Tue, 21 Feb 1995 11:56:18 -0800 for Date: Tue, 21 Feb 95 13:35:36 CST From: James Yarbrough To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU sub James Yarbrough From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Feb 21 15:07:27 1995 Tue, 21 Feb 1995 14:42:10 -0800 for 21 Feb 95 17:42:06 +1100 From: "MORTEN G. ENDER" Organization: University of Maryland,College Park To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Tue, 21 Feb 1995 17:41:55 EDT Subject: Re: eastern sociological meetings hey socgradders! anyone attending the ess meetings in philly, pa? a female collegue from arizona is looking to split the costs of a room...she's staying from wednesday night til sunday...she's in communication studies but don't hold that against her... morten ^ From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Feb 21 20:34:12 1995 Tue, 21 Feb 1995 20:25:13 -0800 for From: perrella@ERE.UMontreal.CA (Perrella Andre) Subject: teaching careers To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Tue, 21 Feb 1995 23:23:36 -0500 (EST) Being new at this discussion group, I would like to ask a question that must have been posted numerous times. I would like to know what the job prospects are in sociology? I know things are bad in university departments.. but are they THAT bad? Are sociology PhDs that underemployed? Thanks in advance! -andre From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Feb 21 21:05:07 1995 Tue, 21 Feb 1995 20:59:13 -0800 for Date: Tue, 21 Feb 1995 22:59:02 -0600 (CST) From: nick mcree Subject: Re: teaching careers To: socgrad I believe "sucks" is an appropriate term to describe the job prospects. A factoid... I went to a small private liberal arts school around Portland, Oregon. A fine place, but probably not the best choice for a career move if one hopes to leapfrog from there to a "top ten" institution. Nevertheless, they had 140 (yes, 140) applicants for one position. If this is any indication of what is in store... Oh god. [And *I* want to study evolution and behavior!] :) ------------------------------------- Nick McRee Department of Sociology The University of Texas at Austin From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 22 06:29:29 1995 Wed, 22 Feb 1995 06:26:44 -0800 for From: Paul Frankel Subject: Teaching careers reply To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU (Sociology Grad Students) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 95 8:28:33 CST Socgraders: With respect to competition for jobs, I applied to Depaul University's program in Educational Leadership & Administration. Depaul's reply indicated that over 400 (400!@#$) applicants applied for the _SINGLE_ position. No disrespect to Depaul, but it's not exactly top 10 (in fact they accepted me as a graduate student in 1989--I declined). It's not a pretty picture, and at this time I've sent more than 60 applications all over the country, from Hawaii to Connecicut, and every reply indicates more than 75 applicants per position. p.s. My specialty is social psychology **********************FROM********************** Paul Frankel (frankel@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu)* Department of Psychology, 2007 Percival Stern * Tulane University * NOLA, 70118-5698 * {504} 865-5331 * FAX {504} 862-8744 * ************************************************ TTTTTTT TTT TTT UU UU "Land of the Free, TTT UU UU and Home of the Wave." TTT UU UU TTT UU UU TTT UUUUUUUU UU From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 22 06:47:57 1995 Wed, 22 Feb 1995 06:43:42 -0800 for From: "Julian B. Dierkes" Date: Wed, 22 Feb 95 09:25:59 EST To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: sociology on the internet friends- i haven't seen much discussion or mention of sociology resources on the internet on this group. granted, i have a vested interest, for i maintain the web-server at the department of sociology at princeton. check out our pages at url http://www.princeton.edu:80/~sociolog and send me comments and links that i haven't included yet! for those without web-access, i could send you a text version of the links lists as well... cheers, julian ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ | julian b. dierkes | | O jdierkes@eworld.com | | / \ jdierkes@princeton.edu | | / /\ url:http://www.princeton.edu:80/~jdierkes/ | | . \/ \ \ dept. of sociology | | princeton university | | | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 22 07:06:34 1995 Wed, 22 Feb 1995 07:02:52 -0800 for id <01HNCGQJWH408ZE5R8@Citadel.edu>; Wed, 22 Feb 1995 10:03:07 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 1995 09:59:19 -0500 (EST) From: "Del Rounds, (803) 953-5072, 953-5066" Subject: Teaching Careers To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Another sad reply to the list about academic jobs--the market sucks and it has for several years. I think the entire academic market, for many disciplines, is in trouble. That is, trouble for candidates but not for colleges. Colleges are having a field day with selecting candidates who have the very highest credentials, numerous published articles and even books. Will it ever improve? You tell me. :( Del P.S. Can any one provide anything optimistic?! From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 22 07:34:40 1995 Wed, 22 Feb 1995 07:31:29 -0800 for 22 Feb 95 10:31:21 +1100 From: "MORTEN G. ENDER" Organization: University of Maryland,College Park To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU, "Del Rounds, (803) 953-5072, 953-5066" Date: Wed, 22 Feb 1995 10:31:08 EDT Subject: Re: Teaching Careers Date sent: Wed, 22 Feb 1995 09:59:19 -0500 (EST) From: "Del Rounds, (803) 953-5072, 953-5066" Subject: Teaching Careers To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Another sad reply to the list about academic jobs--the market sucks and it has for several years. I think the entire academic market, for many disciplines, is in trouble. That is, trouble for candidates but not for colleges. Colleges are having a field day with selecting candidates who have the very highest credentials, numerous published articles and even books. Will it ever improve? You tell me. :( Del P.S. Can any one provide anything optimistic?! does this help... the students are getting more bang for their buck in the classroom morten ^ From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 22 07:43:26 1995 Wed, 22 Feb 1995 07:40:41 -0800 for id <01HNCI0N65TC8ZE6QX@Citadel.edu>; Wed, 22 Feb 1995 10:40:54 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 1995 10:33:41 -0500 (EST) From: "Del Rounds, (803) 953-5072, 953-5066" Subject: Re: Teaching Careers <6610B27341A@bss1.umd.edu> To: "MORTEN G. ENDER" "Del Rounds, (803) 953-5072, 953-5066" I love the internet...nearly instant answers to my questions and comments. Gotta love it. Anyway, I asked the question and Morten provided one possible answer, but I think it is an answer that the "system" and "those in power" would like us to buy into--"the students are getting more bang for their buck in the classroom." Really? I don't see teaching improving in our colleges. I know of one doctoral student who does nothing but publish and he can't teach worth a damn. More bang for the buck? I don't see it. Just out of curiosity I have one other question for the list (that I'm sure has been asked before): How many of you have been taught how to teach? How many of you think it is important to be taught how to teach? (I think it is vital that we are taught how to teach...I don't buy into the idea that some are "natural born teachers." I wasn't taught how to teach, but it is how I make my living. How many other occupations/professions can claim that they've not been trained, but that is how they make their living?!) From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 22 08:09:28 1995 Wed, 22 Feb 1995 08:06:32 -0800 for Date: Wed, 22 Feb 1995 11:06:24 -0500 (EST) From: "Int'l Center/New Forests Project" To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: how about non-academic careers? Dear Socgrad Folks: I find it interesting to read about the prospects of finding academic jobs in the field of Sociology. However, as someone who is planning to enter a Sociology PhD program in order to work in a NON-academic setting...I'd like to know how tough it is to find a job as a Sociologist outside of academia?? (FYI, my main interests lie with rural sociology, social change and international development.) Jessica (ic-nfp@clark.net) future sociology grad student From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 22 08:28:01 1995 Wed, 22 Feb 1995 08:24:36 -0800 for (PMDF V4.3-10 #7331) id <01HNCJ49A0S094G7A9@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU>; Wed, 22 Feb 1995 11:15:32 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 1995 11:15:32 -0500 (EST) From: SCOTT BLAKE Subject: Getting a job To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Hi folks. I have a little bit of insight on this one because, in addition to being a graduate student, I work in the local Career Center. (Point your web browser to http://www.brandeis.edu/hiatt/hiatt_home.html). The stuff that I have read indicates that there has been a boom in employment opportunities for academics predicted every year for about the past ten. These predictions are based on the demographics of current faculty, ie, they are getting old and expected to retire. As many of us could observe, they are not. This, coupled with an increase in new PhDs and a decrease in faculty positions means that things are pretty tough. In my own department, 30% of the full-time faculty are over 60 -- with no plans to retire. The advice that I give to people to all discplines that I counsel in the career center is this: Don't get too stuck on the idea of getting an academic job. There are other opportunities out there that may be just as if not more rewarding than the academy. Look into teaching private high school, crunching #s for the government. Consulting jobs, marketing, and other industry-type things are there for us. We can all (I hope) write fairly well...check out publishing or editing. I'm hedging my bets with a small computer consulting business that I run on the side, not so much for money (I hardly make any) as for experience that I can potentially translate into a job when my funding runs out. (I also do web design work...anybody need a page?) This is getting kind of long...so I'll sign off for now. Keep your options open. Scott Blake Brandeis University From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 22 08:30:12 1995 Wed, 22 Feb 1995 08:27:11 -0800 for 22 Feb 95 11:27:02 +1100 From: "MORTEN G. ENDER" Organization: University of Maryland,College Park To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Wed, 22 Feb 1995 11:26:22 EDT Subject: Re: Teaching Careers not to toot our horn, but we do a pretty damn good job of teaching here at maryland...somewhere between 30-40% of undergrad courses are taught by graduate students...grad student teaching evaluations are way above the mean of other faculty throughout the university...we received some university $$$ to establish a teaching resource center in the department to enhance teaching and we try to keep the class size down...some grad students have even won teaching awards...there are problems (e.g., parents upset that grad students teach courses; undergrads `approaching' grad instructors more....but with a little ingenuity, we'll work through them...although, i must agree, i'm not completely convinced teaching is improving...but i think this might reflect market needs and demands, but talking about it and being critical is a first step.... morten "hire-me...please" ender ^ From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 22 08:58:39 1995 Wed, 22 Feb 1995 08:52:28 -0800 for Date: Wed, 22 Feb 1995 11:45:47 -0500 (EST) From: thomas conroy Subject: Re: Teaching Careers To: "Del Rounds, (803) 953-5072, 953-5066" "Del Rounds, (803) 953-5072, 953-5066" On Wed, 22 Feb 1995, Del Rounds, (803) 953-5072, 953-5066 wrote: > > Just out of curiosity I have one other question for the list (that I'm sure has > been asked before): How many of you have been taught how to teach? How many > of you think it is important to be taught how to teach? (I think it is vital > that we are taught how to teach...I don't buy into the idea that some are > "natural born teachers." I wasn't taught how to teach, but it is how I make my > living. How many other occupations/professions can claim that they've not been > trained, but that is how they make their living?!) > In my case, I first got my M.A., then got hired as a lecturer by my undergrad alma mater (by my advisor with whom I had maintained contact). I basically just started to do something, I'm not sure I want to call it teaching, exactly; in fact, I don't think I really knew what I was doing. I just developed things as I went along. I then entered a different Ph.D. program and was eventually hired as a T.F. The degree of direction I got from the profs teaching these courses has varied, but I've come to enjoy the flexibility that teaching offers. But in answer to the question, no I don't really think that anyone taught me how to teach. I've more or less learned what I need to do from a variety of sources, including talking with various others and recognizing what works and what doesn't. From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 22 09:25:01 1995 Wed, 22 Feb 1995 09:16:29 -0800 for id <01HNCKQZH0TCHVIBPU@UCBEH.SAN.UC.EDU>; Wed, 22 Feb 1995 11:51:14 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 1995 11:51:14 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by UCBEH.SAN.UC.EDU From: purcelda@UCBEH.SAN.UC.EDU (David Purcell) Subject: Re: Teaching Careers To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU >Just out of curiosity I have one other question for the list (that I'm sure has >been asked before): How many of you have been taught how to teach? How many >of you think it is important to be taught how to teach? (I think it is vital >that we are taught how to teach...I don't buy into the idea that some are >"natural born teachers." I wasn't taught how to teach, but it is how I make my >living. How many other occupations/professions can claim that they've not been >trained, but that is how they make their living?!) The University of Cincinnati's graduate Soc department has just recently begun to put an emphasis on teaching grad students to teach. We have an ongoing Teaching Practicum, in which we are supposed to cover the nitty-gritty details of teaching (syllabi, grading, etc), as well as some more holistic teaching issues. Unfortunately, after a couple of quarters, the practicum has already lost some steam, as it has been reduced to an independent study course. We have increased our number of graduates teaching undergrad classes, however... Dave ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dave Purcell/Sociology Dept/University of Cincinnati internet: purcelda@ucbeh.san.uc.edu Random things that matter: human rights/Jason & The Scorchers Rick 360's/Australian Shepherds/coffee/Ginsberg "Hell's Gates are open real wide..." -- Jason ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 22 10:43:38 1995 Wed, 22 Feb 1995 10:40:43 -0800 for From: estrayer@cats.ucsc.edu Date: Wed, 22 Feb 1995 10:40:38 -0800 To: BLAKE@binah.cc.brandeis.edu, socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: Re: Getting a job Regarding Scott's discussion on so many profs continuing past the expected time of retirement (and the decreasing job market in academia) here at UCSC many profs were encouraged to retire "early" because the retirement fund had more bucks than the regular budget. So positions kind of opened up in a predicted manner, but with reduced funding I haven't really seen any positions opened up. I think the plan is to just work the TAs harder! ;-) best, eric From list-relay@nothing.ucsd.edu Wed Feb 22 11:19:42 1995 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2.2-sun Wed, 22 Feb 1995 07:27:23 -0800 for socgrad@ucsd.edu Date: Wed, 22 Feb 1995 07:27:23 -0800 From: Listserv@UCSD.EDU (Mailing List Processor) To: roundsd@citadel.edu Subject: Re: your LISTSERV request "list socgrad@ucsd.edu" Per request by roundsd@citadel.edu "list socgrad@ucsd.edu" 'socgrad@ucsd.edu' is not subscribed to any mailing lists. From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 22 11:32:22 1995 Wed, 22 Feb 1995 11:09:59 -0800 for From: SHAFER@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU (PMDF V4.3-10 #7331) id <01HNCOYL33R894GRWD@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU>; Wed, 22 Feb 1995 14:04:53 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 1995 14:04:52 -0500 (EST) Subject: job chances To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Two years ago I had the opportunity to observe a national job search for an ast. prof at a large public university in Florida. They received over 150 applications for this job. However, looking closer at the applications received changes the picture considerably. Over half of the individuals who applied had full time employment (most in academia). Fully two thirds of the applicants did not work in the areas advertised for (in this case qualitative, interpretive work). many others did not complete the application process. the end result is that less than 20 individuals out of the 150 applicants were seriously considered for the position. unfortunately one out of twenty is still not good odds. the process from there gets even murkier. individuals are chosen from a host of other reasons to be interviewed. these include gender, self identified race, perceived quality of writing, published material etc. This experience both alerted me to the difficulty of obtaining academic employment and also gave me hope. the three final candidates were all excellent sociologists, new ph.d.'s, and all found employment in academia that year. dave shafer brandeis univ. From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 22 14:23:14 1995 Wed, 22 Feb 1995 14:10:47 -0800 for Date: Wed, 22 Feb 1995 17:10:43 -0500 To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU From: danryan@minerva.cis.yale.edu (Dan Ryan) Subject: academic job market Comrades, Aren't there any hard core empiricists amongst us? I've been watching the employment bulletin for several years now and it seems like there are more pages now than a few years back. Why doesn't somebody put together a little time series (simplest would be avg number of pages each issue over last 10 years or so). Better still count the jobs. An trend that I've noticed (this is just impressionistic) is that what varies interestingly over time is the areas that are being sought. Big rise in race/ethnicity/multicult of late and especially big rise in criminology and such. Easily tied to enormous expenditures on incarceration, need to offer more crim.just. BA programs and so forth. I bet somebody could get a few bucks from ASA to put together a quick little study (they might even have the stuff in electronic form). Of course, that might taint it a bit as they have a vested interest in painting a particular kind of picture of the job market. Another thing is that the number of applicants for a particular job is probably more a measure of people's perceptions of the job market than the actual state of the market. If people think things are bleak they probably apply to more places. In the end, of course, you only need one job. I can see an interesting little bit of modeling to be done here. How does number of applicants (and number of "quality" applicants) get used as a market signal by employers. How much does anecdotal experience (I was on a job committee and we got X applicants...) get generalized and affect the strategies one employs oneself? While toying with the employment service a few years back I was struck by the amount of hearsay that was taken as gospel truth (e.g., My advisor said no one gets a job without their dissertation done. My advisor said that the only way to get a job is to get on the market as soon as you have three chapters done. My sources tell me that without teaching experience you don't have a chance on the small college market. etc etc.). What kinds and mixes of individual strategies will produce what kinds of overall numbers? Etc. But, back to work... Cheers, Dan From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 22 15:12:03 1995 Wed, 22 Feb 1995 15:06:27 -0800 for Date: Wed, 22 Feb 1995 18:06:08 -0500 (EST) From: Dale Albers To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Would someone be so kind as to send me the listserv address and instructions for signing on this list. With thanks. D Albers From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 22 16:36:28 1995 Wed, 22 Feb 1995 16:21:36 -0800 for Date: Wed, 22 Feb 95 19:21 EST From: "Jetaway Dave" Subject: Re: academic job market To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU >Comrades, >over time is the areas that are being sought. Big rise in >race/ethnicity/multicult of late and especially big rise in criminology and >such. Easily tied to enormous expenditures on incarceration, need to offer >more crim.just. BA programs and so forth. I bet somebody could get a few >bucks from ASA to put together a quick little study (they might even have I'm doing a criminology concentration myself, and while I think the current hysteria over crime and the resulting public funding for more cops, correctional officers, etc., has had some effect on the demand for criminologists, I also think there is an academic cohort replacement effect. Crime, law, delinquency is one of the core areas of the discipline (even if we are way off to the side of a Venn diagram published in ASR? a couple of years back :)) and there is a steady demand for crime courses at the undergraduate level. [Bucks to the department here]. Anyway, my thinking, which may well be wrong, is that universities have basically failed to hire specialists in criminology during the last 20 - 30 years as the disicpline opened up and became more diverse in its interests and research agendas. Thus, a relatively higher proportion of crim. professors are nearing the end of their careers, retiring, and opening up opportunities for new graduates. Jetaway Dave From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 22 16:44:09 1995 Wed, 22 Feb 1995 16:33:09 -0800 for From: lichter@nicco.sscnet.ucla.edu (Michael Lichter) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 1995 16:33:04 +0000 To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: Re: Teaching Careers The pool of potential college students is now increasing and will continue to grow for at least a decade (if I remember correctly). If state governments and the federal government are willing to support the level of university access that prevailed in the early 1980's, then the demand for faculty should increase, holding constant class sizes and levels of graduate student teaching. Indications are that governments are unwilling to continue past levels of access, and are willing to restrict it by (a) not providing funding for needed capital construction or more faculty, (b) raising student fees, (c) decreasing the availability of need-based (and quasi-need-based) financial aid, (d) using a variety of methods to decrease time-to-degree (although most of these will probably backfire), (e) cutting graduate student enrollments in favor of undergraduate enrollments, (f) substituting adjunct faculty or faculty in other casual statuses for full-time tenure track faculty, and (g) increasing faculty teaching loads. Increasing entry requirements is also a possibility, but is more politically costly than such "invisible" methods as increasing fees. Another "invisible" method that seems to be gaining currency nationally is to refuse admittance to students who need remedial courses, referring them to community colleges. Since community colleges seem to act primarily as death traps (with regard to university education), this change would also reduce enrollments and therefore the demand for university faculty (while increasing the demand for community college facutly, but primarily in basic English and mathematics). Finally, the final assasination of affirmative action, if it comes to pass, will probably have a small but noticeable affect on the number of students applying for a university education. My guess is that we will see (and are now seeing) some of this increase in demand for faculty, but that most of it will be swamped by the "lean and mean" government stance towards higher education. Regarding teaching, UCLA does have a basic program in place. New TA's (assistantships, by the way, are "awards" and are thus neither mandatory nor universally available to students) are required to take a two-quarter teaching seminar concurrent with their first two quarters teaching. Additionally, ABD's who have had training as TA's can apply to teach their own lower division courses; I think that only 2-3 of us are able to do this each quarter. Michael -- Michael Lichter ------------------------+ Department of Sociology | University of California, Los Angeles ----------------------------------+ From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 22 17:09:52 1995 Wed, 22 Feb 1995 16:48:44 -0800 for Date: Wed, 22 Feb 95 19:47:35 EST From: DAVIDSON@UConnVM.UConn.Edu To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Are community colleges death traps for the students, or for the faculty in term s of lack of incentive for people from decent programs (if they are "properly socialized") to go there b/c of lack of mobility and support. Alan Davidson From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 22 17:12:00 1995 Wed, 22 Feb 1995 16:52:58 -0800 for Date: Wed, 22 Feb 95 19:50:24 EST From: Alan Subject: Student aid cuts To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU If The University of Connecticut is in any ways representative, need-based funding people have to work for or pay back seems to be relatively safe. Tuition remissions and grants, on the other hand. But then again, expand work-study and you need fewer state employees. Meanwhile, there is a student movement to eliminate tuition and the faculty voted to recommend getting rid of ROTC, so progressiveness in academe is not dead yet. From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 22 18:16:19 1995 Wed, 22 Feb 1995 18:11:24 -0800 for From: lichter@nicco.sscnet.ucla.edu (Michael Lichter) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 1995 18:11:05 +0000 To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: Re: Student aid cuts Alan Davidson asked: |Are community colleges death traps for the students, or for the faculty in term |s of lack of incentive for people from decent programs (if they are "properly |socialized") to go there b/c of lack of mobility and support. I was talking about the students, but I suppose you could say the same about the faculty. The word around my department is that "the only kind of job mobility we have is downward". In an absolute sense, this is clearly untrue, but it seems to hold true that it is difficult to get a first job at a highly ranked school if you started at a poorly ranked school, and it is difficult to move from a job at any school to a better ranked school. Having a community college job is not only a stigma, but, as you say, there is little opportunity to do research (which gets into the question of how people are evaluated ...) because of a high workload and scarce resources. |If The University of Connecticut is in any ways representative, need-based |funding people have to work for or pay back seems to be relatively safe. |Tuition remissions and grants, on the other hand. But then again, expand |work-study and you need fewer state employees. Meanwhile, there is a student |movement to eliminate tuition and the faculty voted to recommend getting rid |of ROTC, so progressiveness in academe is not dead yet. The Gingrichites have targetted government-subsidized student loans, and there seems to be a movment afoot from those folks plus many in academia to eliminate all need-based aid in favor of "merit" based aid. Only people who really truly deserve it because of their high test scores should get money. Screw the marginal poor. I'm not saying that they will be successful, but the threat is there. California has steadily decreased the funding of its own need and merit-based programs over the past ten years. Michael -- Michael Lichter ------------------------+ Department of Sociology | University of California, Los Angeles ----------------------------------+ From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 22 18:27:21 1995 Wed, 22 Feb 1995 18:24:59 -0800 for Date: Wed, 22 Feb 95 21:23:58 EST From: Alan Davidson To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Then again, there is always the realization that Newt took out a student loan to complete his Ph.D. at Tulane. Also, if he is so concerned with reforming America, why doesn't he give financial aid for his TV lectures? From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Wed Feb 22 18:48:11 1995 Wed, 22 Feb 1995 18:46:04 -0800 for Date: Wed, 22 Feb 1995 18:45:58 -0800 From: Laura Miller To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: academic job market A good way to keep track of the job prospects (or non-prospects as the case may be) in academia is to read the Chronicle of Higher Education. I've learned to trust what it has to say about academic trends more than the boosterism you get from your own university officials. And the job market does seem incredibly grim, for many of the reasons Michael listed. I would just add the continuing pressures public (and indirectly, private) universities face from the continuing anti-tax sentiment among both politicians and the general public. Tax revenue is declining, and higher education finds itself low on the list of spending priorities. Which is really something, considering that so many people still see a college education as the ticket to upward mobility. But then in a lot of states, higher education is directly competing with prisons & law enforcement for public money, and jails are a whole lot more popular these days. I also find it intersting that colleges & universities are trying to reshape themselves along a business model, valuing efficiency and quantifiable measures of productivity. What that means for sociology as a disciplne is a sobering thought. On that cheerful note... Laura Miller From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Feb 23 07:00:59 1995 Thu, 23 Feb 1995 06:57:52 -0800 for From: Paul Frankel Subject: Alternative opportunities To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU (Sociology Grad Students) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 95 8:59:38 CST Colleagues: If you don't mind crunching numbers for a living, the National Council of Education Statistics has an opening for a survey statistician (in DC). Also, the CIA has been advertising for at least a year in the APA Monitor--Looking for a good scout to design, conduct, and analyze survey data. Lastly, I went to a talk by Jennifer Friday of the CDC in Atlanta, and she indicated that med soc types or epidemiologists are desired highly to evaluate programs, etc. Good Luck! Paul **********************FROM********************** Paul Frankel (frankel@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu)* Department of Psychology, 2007 Percival Stern * Tulane University * NOLA, 70118-5698 * {504} 865-5331 * FAX {504} 862-8744 * ************************************************ TTTTTTT TTT TTT UU UU "Land of the Free, TTT UU UU and Home of the Wave." TTT UU UU TTT UU UU TTT UUUUUUUU UU From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Feb 23 09:13:09 1995 Thu, 23 Feb 1995 08:56:15 -0800 for by KUHUB.CC.UKANS.EDU (PMDF V4.3-11 #9008) id <01HNDX439NU88X4PBL@KUHUB.CC.UKANS.EDU>; Thu, 23 Feb 1995 10:56:06 -0600 (CST) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 1995 10:56:06 -0600 (CST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by KUHUB.CC.UKANS.EDU From: 1k1mgm@KUHUB.CC.UKANS.EDU (Christopher Gunn) Subject: Re: Teaching Careers To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU lichter@nicco.sscnet.ucla.edu (Michael Lichter) writes: >[....] Since community colleges seem to act primarily as death >traps (with regard to university education), this change would also >reduce enrollments and therefore the demand for university faculty [....] >-- >Michael Lichter ------------------------+ >Department of Sociology | >University of California, Los Angeles ----------------------------------+ I'm curious about this interpretation of the role of community colleges. I'd always felt that way, but my wife has been arguing in their behalf, especially in terms of service to older, working-class or otherwise non-traditional students. I don't have much quarrel with the rest of the analysis. Wasn't it John Holt who said the basic point of 'education' was to separate the 'winners' from the 'losers' and convince the 'losers' that they deserved it? The Newt-onians *like* that aspect of the process, and will do everything they can to increase the variance. They think there are far too many nominal 'winners.' 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 list-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Feb 23 12:53:48 1995 Thu, 23 Feb 1995 12:42:33 -0800 for Subject: Re: this word "empowerment" To: ROPER@zodiac.rutgers.edu Date: Thu, 23 Feb 1995 15:39:29 -0500 (EST) From: Karen T Farquharson Hi Jill, I still haven't been to my office, but as I was typing away here I thought you might look up empowerment as a keyword in the Harvard library database, HOLLIS. I believe anyone can get into hollis if they have net access. One sure way is to gopher to "hplus.harvard.edu". Another way might be to telnet to "hollis.harvard.edu". The reason I suggest this is that Harvard has an enormous library, and also has ERIC online. I did a keyword search using empowerment and got almost 200 titles of books. They use empowerment differently that I do, which might interest you. I also did an ERIC search, and got over 250 titles. I hope this is not too self-evident for you. Best, Karen From list-relay@ucsd.edu Thu Feb 23 14:11:21 1995 Thu, 23 Feb 1995 09:34:55 -0800 for by Ra.MsState.Edu (8.6.8.1/6.0c-FWP); Date: Thu, 23 Feb 1995 11:34:40 -0600 (CST) From: "Rodney E. Cluck" To: "Int'l Center/New Forests Project" Subject: Re: how about non-academic careers? On Wed, 22 Feb 1995, Int'l Center/New Forests Project wrote: > Dear Socgrad Folks: > > I find it interesting to read about the prospects of finding academic jobs > in the field of Sociology. However, as someone who is planning to enter a > Sociology PhD program in order to work in a NON-academic setting...I'd > like to know how tough it is to find a job as a Sociologist outside of > academia?? (FYI, my main interests lie with rural sociology, social > change and international development.) > > Jessica (ic-nfp@clark.net) > future sociology grad student > I am also looking for work in non-academic settings. Our interest are the same. Work in the US is easier to find than international work. There are several CDC's out there that will employ rural sociologists. This market is not great but easier to enter than the academic market. As for internartional work, good luck. I am presently working on a grant to look at human rights and deforestation issues in Kalimantan, however I have not closed the deal yet. If I do get this grant it will put me in a position to work with internationl development in the future. Everybody needs an angle. Good luck! Cheers, Rodney From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Feb 23 15:00:54 1995 Thu, 23 Feb 1995 14:58:55 -0800 for From: lichter@nicco.sscnet.ucla.edu (Michael Lichter) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 1995 14:58:48 +0000 To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: Re: Teaching Careers On Feb 23, 10:56am, Christopher Gunn wrote: > lichter@nicco.sscnet.ucla.edu (Michael Lichter) writes: > > >[....] Since community colleges seem to act primarily as death > >traps (with regard to university education), this change would also > >reduce enrollments and therefore the demand for university faculty [....] > > I'm curious about this interpretation of the role of community > colleges. I'd always felt that way, but my wife has been arguing > in their behalf, especially in terms of service to older, working-class > or otherwise non-traditional students. Oh, I think that the community colleges are a valuable resource for everyone. There are many people who are uninterested in a university education who benefit immensely from CCs. Futher, for those who are unready psychologically, or who are officially unqualified to attend a university CC's *can* be a good place to start. > I don't have much quarrel with the rest of the analysis. Wasn't > it John Holt who said the basic point of 'education' was to > separate the 'winners' from the 'losers' and convince the 'losers' > that they deserved it? The Newt-onians *like* that aspect of > the process, and will do everything they can to increase the > variance. They think there are far too many nominal 'winners.' Bowles and Gintis say the same thing in SCHOOLING IN CAPITALIST AMERICA. Tiered school systems like we have here in California and are prevalent across the nation are clearly meant to sort people, although that is not the only reason for the tiering. As to why it works -- why most of those who start at CC's in hopes of transferring to a university do not do so -- I think there are two reasons. The first is that potentially college bound CC students are drawn disproportionately from segments of the population who already have strikes against them in terms of at least one of the following: resources, preparation, race, age, or, frankly, ability. This means that the transfer rate is lower than it would be if the average CC student had the resources, preparation, etc., of the average university student. The "trap", however, is both social and cultural. This may just be white middle class bias, but I think that getting a university education is very difficult if you can't break away from old ties and patterns of living. This is tied up with socialization and adulthood rites, of course. I am assuming here that CC attendance means "staying at home", while university education usually means moving away. Especially for less mature students, responsibilities to parents and ties to friends who are either not in school or not taking it seriously are a serious drag on academic achievement. They can also be a de-motivator. Since CC's are not taken very seriously in the first place, the pressure to be casual is strong. I would like to suggest that these two things -- the relatively poor prospects of most CC students, and external pressures against academic success -- contribute to a culture of failure at the CC's. I don't think that this culture in itself is the main cause of failure, but it does make failing -- not moving on to the university -- easier to do and easier to take. Not that I have any idea what I'm talking about :). Michael -- Michael Lichter ------------------------+ Department of Sociology | University of California, Los Angeles ----------------------------------+ From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Feb 23 16:28:56 1995 Thu, 23 Feb 1995 16:20:15 -0800 for Date: Thu, 23 Feb 1995 19:16:05 -0500 (EST) From: thomas conroy Subject: Re: Teaching Careers To: Michael Lichter I have been thinking about the class base of different higher educational institutions and the stratification of rich (kid) schools and poor (kid) schools. I'm at Boston University, very much a rich kid school, with more than our share of students who drive around in sports cars (meanwhile, I can't, nor have I ever been able to afford my own car), take weekend flights to all over, and tend to have an upper class suburban mentality (no matter what their ethnicity, or even national origin). Meanwhile, I'm currently teaching a required theory course to a group of somewhat older, decidedly blue collar, law enforcement personnel, for a continuing ed. program outside of Boston. Perhaps I'm over generalizing, but I find that there is pleasure in working with students who can afford the luxury of a liberal arts based education and who often take sociology courses out of curiosity (or because they're interested a bit more in the substantive topic than in the fact that it's a SOCIOLOGY course, only occasionally do I see students becoming really inspired; ultimately, given their class background, they tend to move on to business and professional careers and are looking at whatever gives them the edge toward that. Unfortunately, I also see them becoming more sophisticated at playing things safe and doing work that, while careful and adequate, is often lacking in voice or vision (or is beginning to speak in the voice of the corporate order). With the older, blue collar students, while I find them often refreshing and in some ways rather sophisticated in their common sense analyses of social order, I also find them struggling with abstract ideas and with not really wanting to give up the comforts of familiar viewpoints. I find them perhaps wanting to learn but not really being sure how, but I also detect in them a fair amount of resentment toward the more theoretical aspects of sociology; I'm trying to overcome this attitude but it's a struggle for me. Ideally, I'd like to have a mixture of student types, so that the students can, in some senses, teach each other (through truly different points of view) but it doesn't seem like it's about to happen; As I look ahead, and also consider points made in previous posts, it seems that the stratification of higher education, like the stratification of society, is perhaps here to stay. I am discouraged by this. From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Thu Feb 23 17:42:50 1995 Thu, 23 Feb 1995 17:40:28 -0800 for Date: Thu, 23 Feb 95 20:34:48 EST From: Alan Subject: Community colleges To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU There is also a kind of elitism against community college transfers at many research Universities and even ultimately when applying to graduate school (for those schools who base admission on more than the Junior and Senior years) which can work against them, even if admission is usually guaranteed at more elite state Universities. Here in Connecticut, for instance , we have far more people who have attended branches or state colleges transferring to The University of Connecticut than we do community college transfers. Alan Davidson (81 High School average) (860 SAT's) (Somehow, contrary to the predictions of "experts" completing a Ph.D.) From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Feb 24 03:28:32 1995 Fri, 24 Feb 1995 03:27:35 -0800 for From: JWL3697@UTARLG.UTA.EDU id <01HNEYJT23W0006328@UTARLG.UTA.EDU>; Fri, 24 Feb 1995 05:27:27 -0600 (CST) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 1995 05:16:00 -0600 (CST) Subject: THANKS To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU _ Hello, socgradders: About 10 days ago, I posted for some help regarding names and # from NCES. Although replies were scant, I like to thank those who have responded. Thank you again, and I shall return your favor when the time comes.________________________________________________________________ Julia Lam - grad student Department of Sociology University of Texas at Arlington P.O. Box 19599 Arlington, TX 76016 From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Feb 24 06:26:29 1995 Fri, 24 Feb 1995 06:22:39 -0800 for Date: Fri, 24 Feb 95 09:18:43 EST From: "Bob G." To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Help! I'm stuck on SOCGRAD and can't get off! ;) Actually, I'm moving from one machine to another. Unfortunately, any of the addresses I send to the list server are invalid, and it can't parse my address either. And, my e-mail address for Laura is invalid. So, would someone please unsubscribe me? Thanks and see you on the other side... Bob G. From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Feb 24 08:53:52 1995 Fri, 24 Feb 1995 08:28:59 -0800 for Date: Fri, 24 Feb 95 09:11:14 CST From: Tony Martin Subject: Community colleges To: Socgrad There appears to be a number of outdated attitudes regarding the role of the community college in the modern system of higher education. Granted, at one time community colleges afforded an option for students in pursuit of a four year degree. A number of the reasons cited by a number of "socgraders" were quite valid in years past, including financial considerations, location, and the length of time that a person has been away from the educational system. In the past, it was possible to make the transition from the community college to the conventional college system but those avenues have disintegrated with the changing goals of the educational system in supplying trained workers for the labor force. For example, the state of Louisiana has revised its higher education system with a distinct focus that is quite different from the past. With the tremendous growth in the technical trades with its ever-increasing complexity, many consider the community college as the primary player in training a work force with the essential educational tools to compete in current labor markets. This becomes quite clear when you look at the curriculums offered at these community colleges. Most community colleges are now focusing on such areas of concentration as respiratory therapy, electronic technology (technicians), vocational nursing, and office and clerical skills. Similarly, vocational schools have seen a resurgence as contemporary workers can no longer simply walk onto the job site and learn a skill; the job has become too complex. The vocational schools supply the majority of workers in such areas as heating and air conditioning, automobile mechanics, and electronic repair. While these are not jobs that I would care to pursue, they are vital to the successful maintenance of the economic system as a whole. I liked the reference Alan made to "elitism" but I would like to expand that idea to include our attitudes towards those who pursue an education in either the community college or the vocational school. There is a tendency for some in academia to look down our noses at these people and that points to an even greater problem. The entire higher educational system is tied to the concept that it is through the colleges and universities that we are ensuring the future by supplying the leaders for tomorrow. We are the ones who are expected to have the vision to understand the complexities that are continually emerging and to help maintain our ability to meet the needs that these changes bring. If anyone should understand the importance of the community college (and the vocational school) I would like to think that it would be us. After all, our daily focus is on the changing nature of our society which has to include the challenge of meeting the needs of tomorrow. The "trap" is not in the community college but in our own way of thinking that places ourselves somehow above those who have elected to pursue a vocational education. The "elitism" is an attitude that we carry forth when we downplay the importance of those persons and institutions that do indeed perform an intergal task in contemporary society. As sociologists, we have committed ourselves to a path that hopes to somehow unravel the complexities of contemporary society and to try and make sense of the "mysteries" around us. As society changes, we are expected to understand, as well as anticipate, the needs of society as dictated by those changes. I don't want to appear to beat this topic to death and I apologize if that has been the case. I feel that trying to portray the community college as a means (or lack of) into the traditional system of higher education fails to take into account the changing nature of society and it is precisely that change that we need to focus on. The community college does meet a contemporary need that is not met by the traditional university and we need to acknowledge that first. Tony Martin Louisiana State University Baton Rouge, Louisiana AMARTIN@LSUVM.SNCC.LSU.EDU From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Feb 24 09:39:55 1995 Fri, 24 Feb 1995 09:34:33 -0800 for From: g_henrickson@VENUS.TWU.EDU Date: Fri, 24 Feb 1995 11:34:12 CST To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU sub Heidi Henrickson From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Feb 24 09:42:37 1995 Fri, 24 Feb 1995 09:39:37 -0800 for Date: Fri, 24 Feb 1995 12:39:38 -0500 (EST) From: Robert S Gossweiler <55465@brahms.udel.edu> To: SOCGRAD Subject: ESS If you're a criminologist/sociologist and specializing in Family violence or victimology, and are going to or interest in going to the ESS meetings please send me a note, there's a possibility of an opportunity to get involved in a session. Thanks, Bob G. From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Feb 24 11:14:11 1995 Fri, 24 Feb 1995 11:10:41 -0800 for From: Jean Czerlinski Subject: cc's can work To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Fri, 24 Feb 95 13:10:19 CST Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] I just wanted to point out that there are cases where community colleges work. The case I'm most familiar with is Florida, where I did my undergrad work. First of all, some of Florida's community colleges are very good; for example, Edison Community College in Ft. Myers and Miami-Dade Community College (in Miami, of course) have reputations for excellence throughout the state, and maybe even beyond. They are better than many 4-year colleges (sadly for those 4-year-colleges). Second, Florida requires its (4-year) state universities to take on qualified community college graduates, i.e. a qualified cc student is guaranteed to get in to at least one of the state universities (if they apply). (This does sometimes annoys the state universities because of the huge influx of students midway through, but I think they'd grumble less if they were given sufficient money from the state to deal with it. Overall I think it's a good idea.) (Oh, and the standards for being a "qualified" cc student seem to be about right, not too high or low.) Third, Florida also sponsors many very generous scholarships for cc transfers. It's gotten to the point where it's almost better to start out at a cc in Florida! After all, in a small cc, one often gets more personal attention than as a Freshman in a 20,000 student university. In my experience, community college transfers were not at all stigmatized when they reached the university. It had, after all, become a very popular plan for even the brightest students. In fact, our admissions office (at New College, where I was) said that the cc transfers had a higher graduation rate than students we took right out of high school; the transfers seemed to have a clearer idea of why they were going to college and what they wanted to get out of it, and they tended to work harder, etc.. Perhaps an irony of this whole story is that Florida had started its cc push in order to save money: if fewer students spent their first two years in the state universities, then the legislature could cut its spending on the universities. As well as the plan seems to work, I'm sure it could work better if there weren't such a money crunch. Jean (jczer@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu) From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Feb 24 11:46:31 1995 Fri, 24 Feb 1995 11:43:38 -0800 for (5.65+UW94.10/UW-NDC Revision: 2.32 ) id AA04742; Date: Fri, 24 Feb 1995 11:43:27 -0800 (PST) From: Robert Duniway To: "Int'l Center/New Forests Project" Subject: Re: how about non-academic careers? If you are interested in rural sociology, the job market has just gotten worse. The main employer being government agencies the anti government mood is leading to some serious bloodletting. How long this will last, and what the prospects will look like by the time you get your degree is of course hard to say, but I wouldn't take this path if your primary goal is job security. Bob "Heading for the private sector" Duniway duniway@u.washington.edu All my opinions are obviously fully endorsed by everyone associated with the University of Washington, and I have a great investment opportunity in which you should put all your money. From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Feb 24 12:44:33 1995 Fri, 24 Feb 1995 12:40:28 -0800 for Date: Fri, 24 Feb 1995 14:43:52 -0600 To: Tony Martin , Socgrad From: ghougham@medicine.bsd.uchicago.edu (Gavin Hougham) Subject: Re: Community colleges At 09:11 AM 2/24/95 CST, Tony Martin wrote:.. The entire higher educational system is tied to the concept >that it is through the colleges and universities that we are ensuring the >future by supplying the leaders for tomorrow. We are the ones who are expected >to have the vision to understand the complexities that are continually emerging >and to help maintain our ability to meet the needs that these changes bring. > >If anyone should understand the importance of the community college (and the >vocational school) I would like to think that it would be us. . [stuff deleted] I feel that trying to portray the community college as a means >(or lack of) into the traditional system of higher education fails to take into >account the changing nature of society and it is precisely that change that we >need to focus on. The community college does meet a contemporary need that is >not met by the traditional university and we need to acknowledge that first. Tony has shifted the focus of this thread a bit, and in precisely the right direction. I read Tony's remarks as essentially supporting the polarization of institutions into those that produce "knowledge workers" (graduate degree seekers) and those that produce other kinds of workers (technicians of various stripes). An economy doesn't need (in fact couldn't employ) zillions of Ph.D.s. We shouldn't forget that these different educational institutions have emerged to supply workers to different levels of the economy. The terminal degree for the Xerox machine technician doesn't need to be as "high" as that for a Washington policy hack or an oncologist. Ok, I'm fine with that, no need to be "elitist"... lets be humble, etc, etc. Two elaborations: 1) Unless you are a strict human capital acolyte, education is more than a "means" to an end; lets not get too enamored of the strictly economic models of education. Many people enjoy "consuming" education as an end in itself. They enjoy the intellectual challenge, the sociality, the exemption from normal work roles, whatever... 2) We shouldn't be too facile about how "functional" a bipolar institutional arrangement is because we know that the demands placed on workers are themselves shifting "upwards." See the endless comments on the "information society" and Labor Sect. Reich's call for greater investments in worker training, etc. Pretty soon, if it hasn't happened already, you'll see our "technician" class emerging as a bunch of pretty darn clever folks. I wouldn't tread too heavily on them as "lower status" workers (unless of course you actually DO write your own "C" compilers and you repair your air conditioner as home brewed psychotherapy). :) Cheers. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Gavin Hougham University of Chicago Department of Sociology 1126 East 59th Street Chicago, IL 60637 E-mail: ghougham@medicine.bsd.uchicago.edu gwh2@midway.uchicago.edu Office: Department of General Internal Medicine (312) 702-6735 --------------------------------------------------------------------- From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Fri Feb 24 17:40:34 1995 Fri, 24 Feb 1995 17:38:34 -0800 for Date: Fri, 24 Feb 1995 15:04:08 -0600 From: donnelly%eagle.DecNet@eunice.ssc.wisc.edu (It's a nike thing) To: "socgrad@ucsd.edu"@ssc.wisc.edu Subject: What is ESS? Thanks. :) From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Sat Feb 25 00:34:51 1995 Sat, 25 Feb 1995 00:32:01 -0800 for From: lichter@nicco.sscnet.ucla.edu (Michael Lichter) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 1995 00:31:57 +0000 To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: community colleges, etc. (long) I feel like I should comment on a few of the things that have been posted on this teaching sociology/getting a job/functions of community colleges thread. For whoever complained about long messages, delete this one now. First, (as somebody else said to me) although the job market is very tight, and there is little we can do about that (although you should consider lobbying at the state level for more money for higher education -- I've done it), there are things that you can do to make yourself more competitive on the job market. One is to publish. Another, perhaps even more key thing, is to make sure your committee (and as many other people as possible) are out there talking you up, making connnections, getting information, etc. My department has just recently decided to be more organized in promoting its students, and I think the results have been very positive. Of course, your gain is somebody else's loss, and the better prepared you-all are, the more competitive the job market is going to be. Maybe I should be promoting work-to-rule and the ostracization of rate-busters instead :). To make a big aside, this is one of the things that have always puzzled me about job training programs aimed at the low-skilled poor. For the most part, they train people for jobs that either aren't available or pay less than trainees are willing to accept, and this is well-documented. An old report by Peter Doeringer (of dual labor market fame) suggests that what is needed instead are direct incentives to firms to hire and train unskilled workers. That makes sense, except that what it does is displace people already in an occupation in favor of people who are just breaking in, presumably replicating the original problem with different people. It ignores the problem that you can't have fuller employment without more (decent) jobs. This is also why government initiatives to train the unemployed, when linked with government efforts to keep people unemployed (raising interest rates to keep unemployment at the "natural" (NAIRU) level of 6%) are so hypocritical. Back to the crowded labor market, and the role of community colleges, Tony Martin argues that the transfer mission of CC's is a thing of the past, and that these institutions are, where their leaders are savvy enough anyway, focusing on their role as producers of para-professionals. He argues essentially, that unskilled jobs are disappearing in favor of jobs that require moderate levels of education, that firms are no longer willing to train for these positions, and that it is the place of CC's and private vocational schools (also known as ripoffs -- ask your state loan board about the level of defaults among vocational school students) to fill in the gap. My point was, rather, that community colleges have never been especially good at moving people into universities. While this has been (and remains, in most places) a stated goal of most of these institutions, the CC's have largely been, as Bowles and Gintis argue, a sop for those excluded from "better" institutions for reasons of race, class, and, to be sure, lesser innate ability (remember, however, that children of the rich who could never qualify for admission to public universities can be admitted into elite private institutions like our unmentionable crosstown rival) (that's at the undergrad level only, of course :). To be sure, people do make it from CC's to universities, but if there was no mobility (as in the economic system as a whole), the legitimacy of the system of stratification would suffer greatly. Right now, the state of California says to high school graduates that they cannot enter a university unless they placed in the top one-third of all graduates and completed thus and such courses; in other words, two-thirds of all students can never be doctors, lawyers, or sociologists unless they have the money to buy a berth at at a private school. Except, says the state, you can go to a community college, and if you work hard and take the right classes you can enter the promised land. You can also win the state lottery, if you buy enough tickets. It's true that space is limited at the top. Otherwise, it wouldn't be the top. But who decides who makes it to the top? We are, most of us, beneficiaries of the current system of educational stratification that stretches all the way down to segregated elementary schools, tracking through secondary school, and tiering in higher education. Can you defend all of the systematic choices that placed you, through no action of your own, on the fast track? If I am elitist, it is because I think that a university education would be enriching for nearly anyone, and that denying it to people not because they are incapable of benefitting, but because there are only so many slots at the top, is unjust. There's nothing wrong with going to a CC for vocational training, but I think there is something wrong with having that as your only option. But getting back to this notion that corporate America is socializing its training function by giving it back to the state, and specifically to the community colleges ... Thierry Noyelle (BEYOND INDUSTRIAL DUALISM) has argued that we are moving in that direction. In some industries, like health, this trend is clear. Outside of professional services, the need is less clear. The literature on skill upgrading is equivocal. Increases in educational requirements do not necessarily represent increases in skill demands, and increases in education levels in an occupation or industry doesn't necessarily represent changes in either requirements or demands. Computerization can downskill as easily as upskill, and more often than not has no net impact. Having talked to employers in several different industries, my conclusions are that for many jobs school certification is important only as a screening device. To employers, completion of a course indicates dedication and a certain level of basic skills (reading and writing -- not job-related skills). They have no faith in the abilities of non-industry trainers, and do their own training from scratch (see, e.g. THE CREDENTIAL SOCIETY, Randall Collins). Additionally, and perhaps irrelevantly, my own human capital regressions for the LA area show no significant benefit for community college attendance over high school graduation (actually, I think the coefficient was negative but not significant). Tony says: |The entire higher educational system is tied to the concept |that it is through the colleges and universities that we are ensuring the |future by supplying the leaders for tomorrow. We are the ones who are expected |to have the vision to understand the complexities that are continually emerging |and to help maintain our ability to meet the needs that these changes bring. | |If anyone should understand the importance of the community college (and the |vocational school) I would like to think that it would be us. After all, our |daily focus is on the changing nature of our society which has to include the |challenge of meeting the needs of tomorrow. The "trap" is not in the |community college but in our own way of thinking that places ourselves somehow |above those who have elected to pursue a vocational education. The "elitism" |is an attitude that we carry forth when we downplay the importance of those |persons and institutions that do indeed perform an intergal task in |contemporary society. I really think you should read more carefully, Tony. I said that CC's are a trap for those who think they are pursuing a university education, which is a large proportion of CC students. In any case, I think you misunderstand the nature of the educational system, which is the artifact of many political struggles, not least of which was the post-WWII demand of vets for more democratic access to higher education (embodied in the GI Bill). The educational system has many contradictory functions and goals. That is why I think that functional understandings -- e.g. the primary function of the educational system is to reproduce inequality and ensure ruling class dominance; or the primary function of the education system is to meet the needs of the labor market and produce a smoothly functioning society -- are misleading. Tony continues: |As sociologists, we have committed ourselves to a path that hopes to somehow |unravel the complexities of contemporary society and to try and make sense of |the "mysteries" around us. As society changes, we are expected to understand, |as well as anticipate, the needs of society as dictated by those changes. I |don't want to appear to beat this topic to death and I apologize if that has |been the case. I feel that trying to portray the community college as a means |(or lack of) into the traditional system of higher education fails to take into |account the changing nature of society and it is precisely that change that we |need to focus on. The community college does meet a contemporary need that is |not met by the traditional university and we need to acknowledge that first. Who expects this? Sociology is largely irrelevant to the events going on around us. Barely anybody listens to us, and those who do, listen because we pound on their doors, not the other way around. Again, you miss my point. In any case the question of whether or not the university can meet the needs of all is moot, since universities -- with a few notable exceptions -- have never attempted, and probably never will attempt to enroll all comers. Further, I don't think that there is some "changing nature of society" which is independent of what we do. The real questions are about the provision of public goods, the sharing of social surplus, a fair division of educational resources. Sorry, I'm running out of steam :). One comment on Jean's post about CC's in Florida having a high transfer rate. Again, it does happen. Santa Monica City College, just about four blocks from my apartment, has a relatively high transfer rate to UCLA and other four year schools. In fact, the number of transfers from SMCC to UCLA is higher than the number of transfers from the entire eight-campus L.A. Community College District with at least eight times the enrollment. How do they do it? SMCC has more resources -- and it has a "better class of student." A large proportion of its students are upper middle class kids who don't know what to do or goofed off in high school. A couple of other tidbits ... In response to complaints that criminology positions form the largest chunk of jobs available today to sociologists, "Jetaway Dave" says: | Crime, law, delinquency is one of the core areas of the discipline (even if | we are way off to the side of a Venn diagram published in ASR? a couple of | years back :)) and there is a steady demand for crime courses at the | undergraduate level. [Bucks to the department here]. Anyway, my thinking, | which may well be wrong, is that universities have basically failed to hire | specialists in criminology during the last 20 - 30 years as the disicpline | opened up and became more diverse in its interests and research agendas. | | Thus, a relatively higher proportion of crim. professors are nearing the | end of their careers, retiring, and opening up opportunities for new | graduates. Although studies of deviance, "the problem of order", law, and other relative substantive areas do appear to be central to the discipline, I have never gotten the impression that a non-trivial number of sociologists consider themselves to be criminologists. My department has no criminologists, and offers no courses in criminology, although it does have people who study deviance, and offer courses in its study. My understanding is that criminology is an applied field, like social work, with an administrative "how to" focus. Certainly, it is the "how to" focus that is driving the increased enrollments in crim courses (not offered at UCLA, so I can't speak from direct experience) that people talk about so much. While increased demand in the field may be partially a cohort effect, I don't think the actions of sociology departments have anything much to do with it. Laura Miller said | I also find it intersting that colleges & universities are trying to reshape | themselves along a business model, valuing efficiency and quantifiable | measures of productivity. What that means for sociology as a disciplne is | a sobering thought. At SSSP last year, I spoke with someone from a small liberal arts school back East where the President wanted to merge the sociology department into the business school, since the only useful thing you can learn by studying society is how to sell products to it :). When the department refused, admissions (as undergraduate majors) to the department were suspended, and the department may be eliminated. At UCLA, the business emphasis has mainly gotten us more administrators :), and also brought in money to the departments who needed it least. Michael -- Michael Lichter ------------------------+ Department of Sociology | University of California, Los Angeles ----------------------------------+ From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Sat Feb 25 08:08:55 1995 Sat, 25 Feb 1995 08:04:43 -0800 for From: JWL3697@UTARLG.UTA.EDU id <01HNGFUT37GW006VGQ@UTARLG.UTA.EDU>; Sat, 25 Feb 1995 07:28:49 -0600 (CST) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 1995 06:59:42 -0600 (CST) Subject: cc To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Cheers to Tony and Gavin. Here in the DAL/FTW area, Tarrant County Junior College has had a very good reputation for years. In fact, it has earned itself "The Best Foreign Language Program" in North Texas. Student service is better too. For example, they have a media advising center that helps students with their presentations in terms of graphic medium, editing a video tape a student made, etc. The service is free and students only need to pay for materials. Here, at UT Arlington, there is nothing like this. And if the student can find similar service at the communication dept, I comes with a price - pretty high too! One more comment about cc's: Not only people in the academia snuff at cc, but I think the public in general do that also. Not only that they look down at cc's; but they do hold higher esteem towards those who teach/learn at a four year institution than a cc. It's unfortunate that this attitude is inherent in a stratified society like ours, or can it not be inherent? Yes, it is true that it is a personal choice in regards to cc's or four year institutions. But we have to remember that these personal choices are also the effects of social forces. _________________________________________________________________ Julia Lam - grad student Department of Sociology University of Texas at Arlington P.O. Box 19599 Arlington, TX 76016 From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Sat Feb 25 10:13:20 1995 Sat, 25 Feb 1995 10:06:33 -0800 for From: IRWIN@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU (PMDF V4.3-10 #7331) id <01HNGU4FHN4M94I9HL@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU>; Sat, 25 Feb 1995 13:02:43 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 1995 13:02:43 -0500 (EST) Subject: Hierarchy info To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU Dear Socgradders: I'd like to hear your thoughts and suggestions on the subject of hierarchy, about which I'm writing a dissertation in sociology at Brandeis. "Hierarchy in what sense?" you might ask. In all senses, I rashly answer; I'm investigating uses of this term in multiple contexts. My interest in this topic originated in my activist experience in what Barbara Epstein (1991) calls the "nonviolent direct action movement." The group I was involved in (1973-1988), a proto-Green outfit named Movement for a New Society, called itself "a network of autonomous small groups" and avoided such conventional characteristics of organizations as officers and permanent full-time staff. Part of the rationale for such structures, in MNS and other anarchist or radical feminist or pacifist groups opposing nuclear power plants, U.S. foreign policy, etc., has been that "We don't want to have a hierarchy." After a time -- reflecting on the problems and limits of the kind of politics I was involved in, and pondering the options for large-scale organization to mobilize sufficient power to make big changes in the U.S. and global society -- I became interested in understanding just what "hierarchy" meant and whether it should be shunned at all cost, or perhaps judiciously made use of. In exploring this topic as an activist and later as a graduate student, I became struck by how widely the term was used, and how vaguely and inconsistently. Exploring uses in biology, sociology, and general systems theory, I've found several categorizations of types of hierarchy -- each one using different terminology and oblivious to other discussions. I've noted the role the concept plays in non-academic authors such as Starhawk and Murray Bookchin, in humorous bestsellers such as THE PETER PRINCIPLE, and in business periodicals ("Hierarchy is dying" [BUSINESS WEEK's cover story, 12/20/93]) and management books. The first half of my dissertation does its best to sort out all the extant meanings of hierarchy, from Pseudo-Dionysius and St. Thomas Aquinas to computer programming and Tom Peters; the second half uses the concepts from the first half to analyze issues faced by activists with democratic and egalitarian values who want the power of expertise and lasting organization to serve the pursuit of their goals. I use Grant Ingle's research on "keeping alternative institutions alternative" (dissertation, 1980) and several feminist studies (Kathleen Newman, Kathy Ferguson), among other sources, and consider the influence of the needs social movement activists bring to their activism on the organizational forms they choose. I close by exploring the possibilities for positive social change (nationally and globally) that could be opened up by innovation for increased organizational effectiveness by U.S. progressive social movement activists. I would be grateful for the help of SOCGRAD participants in locating relevant uses and discussions of "hierarchy," "hierarchical," etc., and also to know what questions you would want answered (or explored) by a book on hierarchy. I've been on the lookout for material on this topic for several years, but (especially given the multi-disciplinary character of the inquiry) there may still be important, even classic, discussions I'm overlooking, both in sociology and elsewhere. 1) Within sociology I know, of course, Weber's passages defining bureaucracy with reference to hierarchy in THE THEORY OF SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ORGANIZATION and the Gerth/Mills reader. I know a passage in Durkheim's ELEMENTARY FORMS OF THE RELIGIOUS LIFE. I've read some of Peter Blau's investigations. I know Herbert Simon's "The Architecture of Complexity," Iannello's DECISIONS WITHOUT HIERARCHY, and Dumont's HOMO HIERARCHICUS. Having explored some databases (e.g., WorldCat), I'm more likely to know of things with HIERARCH* in the title, but these databases have thousands of records and I haven't examined every item, so even items with HIERARCH* in the title could be new to me. 2) I'm also interested in anything mentioning hierarchy, from any discipline and from popular usages -- things you might notice in a newspaper article, business magazine, cartoon, or newsletter. I was delighted to learn from a SOCGRAD posting by Michael Lichter earlier this month of a passage in Octavia Butler's science fiction novel DAWN (1987) in which an alien explains that the fatal flaw in humans is that "You are hierarchical." That's just the kind of thing I wouldn't have happened on on my own, but which illustrates my point in the dissertation that hierarchy is widely but vaguely used as a negative label. Please let me know of any discussion you've found valuable, or think might interest me (including in writers I've mentioned above, since I haven't examined everything by any of them, and book indexes aren't totally reliable). I'd be glad to let anyone who is interested in this subject know when my work reaches a suitable stage at which it could be shared, or in the meantime to respond to your queries on the subject (to the extent I can). To reiterate: as important to me as suggestions on where to look for information are your thoughts about hierarchy (what does it mean? what's it all about? what do others seem to dislike -- or like -- about it?) and your questions: What would you want to find out from a book or article on hierarchy? Thanks in advance for any help you can give! ---Bob Irwin, 7 Richards Road, Watertown, MA 02172-1308; (617) 923-3549; e-mail: irwin@binah.cc.brandeis.edu. From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Sat Feb 25 10:56:36 1995 Sat, 25 Feb 1995 10:49:59 -0800 for Date: Sat, 25 Feb 1995 12:31:45 -0600 From: donnelly%eagle.DecNet@eunice.ssc.wisc.edu (It's a nike thing) To: "socgrad@ucsd.edu"@ssc.wisc.edu Subject: Re: OLDER BLUE COLLAR WORKERS....just what exactly are you talking about? To the several persons who mentioned that the experienced OLDER BLUE COLLAR workers as being more practical with some sort of innate class consciousness but yet an inability to deal with the more abstract concepts, I would suggest that several things are occurring that are too abstract and subtle for you to catch. 1) You (the general you who refer to their students as "older blue collar workers") might consider that your own attitude towards the group of students which are are lumping together as a homogeneous group, might be derogatory. So the 'older blue collar workers' might be having to deal with and process the facts of your astounding ignorance, and while in awe at how an instructor with so little understanding of the social could actually claim to teach socially relevant material, also have to master the material which invalidates their own reality. If "they" were teaching you, you might be awestruck at how the words of "these people" invalidate your own reality, and you might wonder why "they" found you to be lacking in the ability to process abstract concepts. 2) The group you are referring to is NOT homogeneous. Yes, there are a number of "older" students today, and they are not all WWII vets. So how can they be described, since "they" are found to be offensive to so many people in power...after all, what gives "them" the right to return to schools, particularly our most esteemed institutions? Doesn't an older student mean that they have been "left back" due to some deficiency? Why didn't they go to school when they were the age which they were supposed to? If they want higher education why don't they settle for vocational studies, and statuses of special students, and simply behave properly? FACT: Older students are probably more dedicated and serious than other groups of students who take their education for granted, yet older students will hardly ever get recognition for their efforts, since they are assumed to be deficient, simply due to their age. If you then add insult to injury by labelling "these people" as blue collar, you are certain to expose your ignorance, and after awhile, loose your place among the esteemed liberals of the white ivory towers. 3) You can't teach an old dog new tricks. FACT: This idiotic phrase is how many of you who are teaching these "these peope" think. It simply exposes your own ignorance. If you don't get what I mean, perhaps it is not worth my time and effort to educate someone who simply can't grasp abstract concepts. Now do you get it? 4) Older students are worthless on the job market because they cannot commit to 20 years in an organization as the "rest of us" smarter more agile and able to process abstract white bred thought a lot quicker and, well just simply because we belong here and they don't. FACT: Older students are a valuable resource. They bring experience, patience and understanding, concern and a respect for authority into the workplace, provided that the authorities are not slapping them in the face for not being 22. 5) Older students are worthless because they will be more likely to take time off because they get tired easily, and they will be more likely to get sick and acquire disabilities, and eventually they will die sooner than all the rest of us. We don't want to watch them get old and grey and die before our eyes. We want young nubile bodies and minds which we can shape before our eyes, and who will make us look, think and feel young again, rather than remind us of our own insecurities about health, aging, attractiveness and ultimately power. FACT: If that's your problem, deal with it. If you believe all of #5, then you have a problem and you need to seek out educational material, perhaps some of it will be abstract so make sure you allow your self plenty of time to process it carefully. People get sick at all ages. 12 year olds get "chicken pox". 5 year olds can be diagnosed with attention defecit disorders. 60 year olds might have cataracts. These are all parts of life. 25 year olds have heart attacks and 20 year olds commit suicide. Deal with it. From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Sat Feb 25 11:19:10 1995 Sat, 25 Feb 1995 11:12:55 -0800 for From: MERIN@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU (PMDF V4.3-10 #7331) id <01HNGVGJR4M894EWXL@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU>; Sat, 25 Feb 1995 14:09:12 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 1995 14:09:12 -0500 (EST) Subject: meritocracy To: SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU Hi socgradders, Some time ago, I sent a rather glib comment aboutnot liking the meritocracy I saw in the new Star Trek. The response "what's wrong with meritocracy?" has been percolating in my mind and in reading Bourdieu this week, I wanted to float a couple of responses to that question. This also might tie in to Bob's work on hierarchy. 1) Meritocracy implies hierarchy.Granted, it's a better basis for hierarchy than say, nepotism or heredity, but I think it's still worthwhile asking just how much hierarchy of any kind is desirable. If we agree that some people should have more power than others based on merit, how do we measure merit? Are rocket scientists really more deserving of merit than day care workers? You might disagree, but then certainly this society is not a true meritocracy. Ok, so maybe we can expand the notion of what kinds of skills require merit and should be rewarded. SO who are the people without merit who should remain on the lower rungs? This may sound overly idealistic, but I'm not sure I think that the definition fo meritous behavior can ever be adequately solved and so perhaps it makes more sense to lookk for a different basis on which to structure society. 2) More practically speaking, I think it's important the prevailing notion that meritocracy is largely operating in this society. Conservatives often argue that class mobility provides evidence that anyone can achieve rewards for meritous behavior. Plenty of working class people "make it", so obviously classes are not being reproduced in some simple way. What I think Bourdieu adds to this analysis is that capital consists not only of your economic background, but includes cultural, symbolic and social capital as well. Perhaps then, class reproduction is going on, only it has more components than are ususally examined empirically. This is not to argue for strict determinism, but only to say that more class reproduction (without the merit component) is going on than is usually assumed. In short, merit may not be a terribly meaningful category to explain where one ends up in the hierarchy and the possiblities for this changing seem to me to be slim indeed. How about a bit more compassion as at least one governing principle for government. Sure, the welfare system is not working, sure, there will always be the free rider problem, but this is not a reason to turn everything over to the invisible hand of meritocracy. Thanks for reading, Sarah Merin, Brandeis University From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Sat Feb 25 16:04:00 1995 Sat, 25 Feb 1995 15:59:38 -0800 for From: lichter@nicco.sscnet.ucla.edu (Michael Lichter) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 1995 15:59:34 +0000 To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: ADVICE>Student Imprisonment I thought this might be of interest. It's regarding a graduate student in sociology who was jailed for refusing to reveal his sources. --- Forwarded mail from asgs@netcom.com Date: Sat, 25 Feb 1995 13:09:22 -0800 From: owner-doc-talk@netcom.com Subject: ADVICE>Student Imprisonment To: doc-talk@netcom.com =============================================================================== DEAR DOC-TALK =============================================================================== In response to our recent posting from Shawnalee Whitney-Johnson on Student Imprisonment: ================================================================ From: Noel Sturgeon Your message was forwarded to me by my brother, Tim, who's in the Ph.D. geography program. The student you are referring to is Rik Scarce, author of a book called Eco-Warriors, who is a student of mine in Sociology at Washington State University (not UW) in Pullman, WA. Rik was imprisoned for refusing to testify for a grand-jury inquiry into an animal liberation action at WSU. While Rik had nothing to do with the action, and did not condone it, he had done research for his book on the animal liberation movement, and felt that any testimony he gave on the people in that movement would violate the promises of confidentiality he gave to the people he interviewed. He argued that forcing him to testify would violate his right to academic freedom, since if scholars of movements could not keep promises of confidentiality to their research subjects, they would not be able to effectively study social movements. He served about six months in jail before they finally gave up and let him out. His position caused significant controversy within the discipline of sociology, though the Assocation did publicly support him. While his dissertation does not directly deal with any of these issues (it's on the social construction of salmon in Washington salmon fisheries), his work was set back a year by his jail term, and it is possible that his success in the job market may be affected by his notoriety, especially within conservative sociology departments. Legally, his (and the ACLU's) attempt to have the case become a precendent protecting scholars from having to reveal their sources was unsuccessful. So those of us who do work on social movements still are unprotected from this kind of government invasion. My concern (which you also raise in your message) is that Rik's case could affect researchers on social movements who might engage in a kind of self-censorship for fear of encountering these kind of problems. While on the one hand the resolution of Rik's case was positive (he didn't reveal his sources, he was released from jail, and he was supported by his academic community), on the other hand, many people may feel that they could not give a year of their working lives to protect the integrity of their scholarship. Rik has had to spend a lot of energy explaining his position, since many (including many sociologists) were ready to see him as supportive of the animal liberation actions, rather than acting to protect his own integrity as a scholar. As a researcher of social movements myself, I am grateful to him for standing up for all of us on this matter. And I think the least we can do in turn is to be on the look-out for that kind of self-censorship, so that Rik's action will not go unrewarded. ============================================================================== From: Chris Golde An extensive and seemingly thorough description of this case has appeared in the "Chronicle of Higher Education." A topic search should reveal the exact dates (at least a year ago) so that you can separate fact from fiction (unless this is not a good article on the case...) =============================================================================== From: AMANDA JEANNE BRICKMAN We discussed the issues surrounding this court case in our intro course on data collection and measurement last semester. I can't find the article, but here's the citation: Eliot Marshall. 1993. "Court Orders "Sharing" of Data." SCIENCE 261:284-286. As I recall, there was also some question about the nature of the relationship between the doctoral student and one of the group members. One guy was a houseguest or something. =============================================================================== From: IRWIN@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU (Bob Irwin) The student's name was Rik Scarce, if I remember correctly. His case was covered in the American Sociological Association's monthly newsletter FOOTNOTES ca. 1993-94--again, if I remember correctly. =============================================================================== From: STANFORD%SJSUVM1.BITNET@cmsa.Berkeley.EDU (Serena Stanford) It seems to me that the federal requirements for human subjects protection are sufficient to protect the sources for whom either anonymity or confidentiality have been guaranteed. I have doubt that there will be a so-called "chilling effect" on inquiry because this one incident has happened. There are legions of parallels in the journalism fraternity. =============================================================================== From: "Jennifer L. Lambe" I am not personally aware of the case to which she refers, but I do have some information about the journalist's testimonial privilege which she mentioned. 1) The journalist's privilege is not grounded in the Federal Constitution. In a 1972 case, BRANZBURG V. HAYES, the Supreme Court specifically stated in the majority opinion: "Until now the only testimonial privilege that is rooted in the Federal Constitution is the Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination. We are asked to create another by interpreting the First Amendment to grant newsmen a testimonial privilege that other citizens do not enjoy. This we decline to do." However, the Court went on to say that Congress and/or state legislatures are free to enact a journalist's privilege through statutes or through state constitutions. No federal legislation has been passed, although a number of shield laws have been proposed. State legislatures have been more successful--by 1994, 29 states and the District of Columbia had codified a testimonial privilege for the media. 2) Even in the states that have passed shield legislation, the results are mixed. Each of the thirty laws is different, and have been interpreted inconsistently from state to state when it comes to questions of whether academics, freelancers, someone who writes a letter to the editor, etc. should be considered "journalists" when applying these laws. 3) Additionally, I belive that even those who can definitely be defined as "journalists" can be called to testify about things they witnessed in person (as opposed to things they just heard about second-hand from a confidential source). =============================================================================== From: KenO520@aol.com The resolution of Rik's case is this. First, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear it. Second, he basically served his time (until a judge was convinced that he wouldn't talk) and he was released. Theoretically, Rik could be jailed again since a new grand jury was formed after his release. The law also allows him to be taken before other grand juries and the jailing can continue. Historically, at least a version of that's happened. At this point, I consider it unlikely that Rik will be jailed again. with 159 days under his belt, his attorney has a pretty strong showing that his client won't talk. The specific details of this legend are inaccurate. I would at least be willing to refer the original writer to the resources to get the exact details of the case. Keep those ideas coming, =============================================================================== Association for Support of Graduate Students--email asgs@netcom.com =========================================================================== --- End of forwarded message from asgs@netcom.com -- Michael Lichter ------------------------+ Department of Sociology | University of California, Los Angeles ----------------------------------+ From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Sat Feb 25 17:35:13 1995 Sat, 25 Feb 1995 17:31:06 -0800 for From: Melissa R Herman Subject: admissions To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU (socgrad network) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 1995 17:31:04 -0800 (PST) Has anyone out there been a student representative on the doctoral admissions committee for his/her department? Or have accurate knowledge of the procedures and priorities the committee goes by? When I first applied to grad school I presumed that if anyone knew how unpredictive GREs are of success in academia it would be sociologists, but I now find that GRE scores are the most important criterion in admissions decisions. Not only that, but the (relatively new) analytical portion is becoming more legitimate whereas previously only the verbal and quantitative sections were considered. ETS (Educational Testing Service) has so many academics caught in its web of legitimacy, what can we do? I don't mean to sound alarmist, but it is disillusioning to me that sociologists, of all people, are misled by the GRE's ability to predict success. GRE scores predict grades in the first year of grad school, but they do not predict who will graduate, who will have a distinguished publishing career, or who will be a good teacher. -- Melissa Herman manoki@leland.stanford.edu From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Sun Feb 26 12:16:24 1995 Sun, 26 Feb 1995 12:12:23 -0800 for Date: Sun, 26 Feb 1995 14:11:15 -0600 From: donnelly%eagle.DecNet@eunice.ssc.wisc.edu (It's a nike thing) To: "socgrad@ucsd.edu"@ssc.wisc.edu Subject: Re: Occupational Prestige Info on Occupational Prestige by Gender: The Bose index for 1970: (occ prestige by gender of incumbent) sociologist xxxx Male Female sociologist 79 83 economist 86 82 psychologist 86 93 There is a greater disparity in prestige of sociologist v. economist, among men than among women. For women, the disparity lies between sociologist and psychologist. It appears that we have 'gendered' expectations for occupational status. Bose index for 1970: Post-secondary Teachers: Male Female sociology 81 85 economics 86 94 psychology 89 92 Among post secondary teachers, the disparities change slightly. For men the disparity is now greatest between sociology and psychology, and for women, between sociology and economics. A one or two point difference is not a lot, but a ten point difference is considerable, as this is on a scale from 0-100. I think it's interesting that for women, economist is 82 -- when an economist in the non-academic arena. But for a post-secondary teacher of economics, who is female, the prestige is 94. Any economists out there want to venture an educated guess as to why this might be? It's not something I've considered before, so not sure why. These are the 1970 scores.... Bose 1980: Male Female Sociologist 80 85 Economist 80 80 Psychologist 83 90 Male Female Post Secondary Teachers Sociology 81 91 Economics 85 81 Psychology 87 89 For women economics is still higher when in the academic arena, but barely. In academia, sogiology and psychology are now higer prestige for women, than economics. 1980 scores..... Psychologist is higher in both academic and non-academic arenas for men. Any ideas? Patrice From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Sun Feb 26 12:44:14 1995 Sun, 26 Feb 1995 12:40:28 -0800 for Date: Sun, 26 Feb 95 15:39:35 EST From: Alan Davidson Subject: admissions criteria To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Here at The University of Connecticut, they have taken to prefacing the admissions folders with "student profiles", which has nothing more than college(s), gpa, and GRE scores and percentiles. From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Sun Feb 26 14:26:17 1995 Sun, 26 Feb 1995 14:24:27 -0800 for From: j_young@VENUS.TWU.EDU Date: Sun, 26 Feb 1995 09:28:35 CST To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: How to Read/Decode Postmodern Speech No. 19 in a Series of Mini-Lectures. Last time, I set forth some of the social sources of postmodern critique as well as some of the technology which makes the production and re-pro duction of images such that the originals of the song, text, story, theory painting, print, or social form are impossible to find. Today, I want to share with you the effort, on the part of Ihab Hassan and Pauline Rosenau to make sense out of the very special words/terms/concepts which are the currency of postmodern speech. Those of you who have Pauline Rosenau's book will have her glossary on How to Speak Postmodern. Hassan's article, 'Towarda Concept of Post- modernism' is in the 1987 "The Postmodern Turn" put out by Ohio State U. Press. In that article, he lists some antinomies which are helpful in trying to grasp the complexity of the postmodern era. I don't agree with some of what they say, so what appear below must be charged against my bill rather than theirs. Modern Postmodern Nouns Verbs [In pomo, one is more concerned with the activity of producing knowledge and art more so than the product per se] Centers Margins [modern science, art and politics attempts to 'center/privilege/celebrate one 'ideal' form, interpretation, standard or authority while pomo looks at the margins to see what has been assumed, left out, degraded or forgotten]. Forms Anti-forms [Modernist thought tries to discover the boundaries and inclusions within a form; pomo looks at the connections/shadows/openings in the forms set forth. Hierarchy 'Anarchy' [Modernists look for stages, layers, strata and vertical rankings of power, authority, status, competence, ability, wealth, skill, talent, beauty or brains. Pomo's look for variety, diversity, multi-plexity, alternativity. Creation/Totalization Deconstruction/reconstruction The task of the modern science is to finish off history and reach the end or top of the process at hand; a final unified theory, a grand covering theory, the 'solution,' the 'answer,' or the 'last word;' pomo sensibility attempts to return to the creative process and show what was left out in that work; then to recombine the lost part(s) to show how it could have been otherwise. Reconstruction is a more affirmative dimension of the postmodern which is viewed with suspicion by the more nihilistic pomo's. Synthesis Antithesis The hegelian/marxist dialectic is a never ending process in which quantity changes into quality; a quality changes into its opposite; two or more qualities merge to produce still a new and quite different, emergent quality. Modernists are said to focus on the synthesis or the final product of two qualities while postmodernists are thought to focus upon that which still remains out there unincorporated, unexplained uninvited. Noumena Phenomena Modern science presumes there is an underlying reality which can be known given the method of successive approximations and a competent research design with which to pursue ever more adequate representations of 'that which really exists.' Postmodernists tend to think that all is phenomena; culture is so pervasive that every theory, every story, every painting, every dance is a unique creation, the sharing or knowing of which is impossible. Impossibility in this case is set by the standards of modernity itself...Roger Penrose, in his evocative, The "Emperor's New Mind" says that a SUPERB theory predicts with an accuracy of 1 part in 10 to the 14th power. Original Simulacra Baudrillard has made much of the point that, given mass and massified media, the marketplace, church, university and government offers only images for which an original does not exist; one sells the 'sizzle' instead of the steak. In all this is the midline between 'reality' and make believe is lost. In this the capacity to speak of fraud is lost; there can be a sociology of fraud only if there is an authentic form against which copies/imitations/substitutes or facsimiles can be compared. Sanity/madness Exploration/peculiarity normality/deviance Variation/rebellion Rationality Desire happiness/despair The social psychology of modernism has a model against which to measure happiness and despair; madness and sanity. Postmodernists, without overlooking the pain and problems of deviance and despair, do not overlook the pain and problems of normality and conformity. Indeed the rationality of modern governance, modern management, modern criminology and modern bureaucracy bespeaks a larger madness in which justice prevails over mercy; rules trump compassion and logic is an inexorable enemy to change and renewal...all this in the postmodern critique. Signified/writer Signifier/reader Modern criticism holds that there is an orginal thought/idea/teaching which is signified by an author/teacher and can be known by the artful, careful critic/ interpreter. Postmodernity argues that each iteration of a story, poem, painting or theory is created anew; that each critic, interpreter, teacher or theorist is reading part of her/his own politics and poetics into that 'original.' The point will not have escaped the astute reader of this lecture regarding both the mini-lecture and the on-going response of the recipients. Narrative/Grand History Anti-narrative/story The attempt of Comte, Toynbee, Marx, Freud or Parsons to offer a grand explanation of the sweep of history or the range of cultures or the variations in human endeavor are, for the postmodernists, ventures into fiction. In response to these narratives, there is an 'anti-narrative' in which that which is omitted, that which is falsified, that which is in-explicable is made visible...for Thomas Kuhn, there is an end this process at which a master paradigm will emerge; for postmodern phil of science, there is no such end; only an Ackerman Tower of Paradigms built out of the incredible complexity of the physical, natural, and social life worlds, all of which are undergoing constant change faster than the paradigms which try to catch them. Genital/Phallic Androgyny/Polymorphous 'perversity' There are several things going on when one sees this/these terms in a text. First there is the rejection of a social order oriented to domination, control and perfect predictability. Second, there is an insistence that the number of genders to be embodied in a social life world cannot be reduced to and only to two...or three or four. Then too, there is the effort to validate ways of pleasure not permitted in a given society...along with a stubborn refusal to be labelled a 'prevert' when one takes/makes or forsakes forms of pleasure. Finally, since it is a Sunday, I will conclude with a mini-discourse on: God, the Father The SuperOrganic/Society Embodied Premodern religion offers a very personal god concept which has all the righteous anger and violent discipline of the patriarchal father. Modern science offers a god concept which is very remote, very intellectual and very precise...a clock-maker if you will. Postmodern religion and theology argues that all god concepts are human products; that every iteration in every sermon offers a different version [simulacra] of that which does not exist prior to the embodiment of the god concept/teachings in the lived experience of the believer(s). Sanctification is possible as is profanation but these are human/social processes and cannot be shoved off on the gods or devils invented in pre-modernity. Such a theology places responsibility for the good and evil we do each other on our own desire; upon our own social practices and upon the ways we embody the god concept. May you go in peace with your god. T. R. Young offers a From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Sun Feb 26 18:46:09 1995 Sun, 26 Feb 1995 18:44:31 -0800 for by Ra.MsState.Edu (8.6.8.1/6.0c-FWP); Date: Sun, 26 Feb 1995 20:44:13 -0600 (CST) From: "Rodney E. Cluck" To: IRWIN@binah.cc.brandeis.edu Subject: Re: Hierarchy info When reading your message it occured to me that you may be interested in looking at societies of the past who have little or no heiarchical levels. One such egalitarian society comes to mind, The Dobe Ju/'hoansi. There is an ethnography by Richard B. Lee, an anthropologist. They are a hunting and gathering society in South Africa. It is interesting to consider that these people have been trust into modern society within the last 20 or so years. The consequences of there engagement with "modern man" has lead to disputes over various goods. Before everyone was equal. It was unheard of not to share a kill with other members of the village. It simply did not happen. However, today some of them have more than others. Some are beginning to believe they are better than others. They are becoming stratified and greedy, like the rest of us. The emergence of heiarchy, in a sense. Just a thought. Cheers, Rodney Rodney E. Cluck Mississippi State U. Department of Sociology rec4@ra.msstate.edu From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Sun Feb 26 22:00:12 1995 Sun, 26 Feb 1995 21:59:06 -0800 for Date: Sun, 26 Feb 1995 23:47:36 -0600 From: donnelly%eagle.DecNet@eunice.ssc.wisc.edu (It's a nike thing) To: "socgrad@ucsd.edu"@ssc.wisc.edu Subject: Occupational Prestige and Gender differences Several people have asked how the Bose index is constructed to provide occupational prestige scores for both men and women. The traditional scores were first calculated using a sample of male respondents who rated an essentially all male occupational distribution. Discussion back then, concerning the inclusion of women consisted mainly of how do we measure homemaking and prostitution. (no I'm not joking!). Compilation of socioeconomic status scores, derived from both the prestige scores and median income and education by occupation, was also derived using income and education from a male labor force. Occupations which were predominantly female (and there were a few besides homemaking and prostitution) were excluded, since they were considered statistically trivial. Substantively, the inclusion of women as raters and occupational incumbents is not trivial. Neither is it trivial statistically. The Bose Index is able to examine gender differences and occpational prestige by evaluating both gendered rater responses and incumbent scores. Data was available in computing these scores for both men and women as raters and as incumbents of the same occupation. For example, the Bose index computes a score for househusbands and for housewives, for policemen and for policewomen, etc. Another data set is available from the GSS, which also allows comparisons of gendered occupational prestige scores, using both gendered raters responses and prestige of occupations when the gender of the incumbent is known. This is a quick overview. If interested, please send me more e-mail, and we can discuss this further. The latest set of scores in the GSS are the Treas and Nakao et al scores, available in the 1989 GSS. Patrice From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Feb 27 07:27:24 1995 Mon, 27 Feb 1995 07:25:29 -0800 for From: blovitts@nsf.gov Date: Mon, 27 Feb 95 10:02:33 EST To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: Admissions: Input and Output With respect to the question of the impact of GRE scores on admissions decisions, I have been studying the problem of doctoral student attrition for several years and have not come across a single study that looks at the relationship between GRE scores and retention/attrition. If anybody knows of one, I'd appreciate the reference. On the other hand, if they genuinely don't exist, what does this tell us??? Below is part of a paragraph out of my dissertation that deals with the relationship of academic ability, as measured by undergraduate GPA, and Ph.D production. (Note: I hate the production metaphor and all that it implies. Just used it because it communicates quickly). "Lack of academic ability and academic failure account for only a small percent of attrition (Belt, 1976; Benkin, 1984; Berelson, 1960; Tinto, 1987; Tucker, 1964). For instance, Tucker (1964) found that for individuals admitted to doctoral programs with less than a 3.0 undergraduate grade point average (GPA), 60 percent completed the Ph.D and that this completion rate was almost identical to that of his total sample. In addition, less than 2 percent of the students in Tucker's sample who did not complete the Ph.D reported that they did not maintain a satisfactory GPA or failed required courses. Similarly, Benkin (1984) found that students with less than a 3.0 GPA were just as likely to complete the doctorate as any group except those with the highest GPAs." Note: Finances don't account for most of attrition either. A preliminary look at my incoming data support both the academic ability and finances contention, i.e., neither are primary contributing causes. Good old Durkheim and social and academic integration DO appear to be primary factors. Stay tuned for another year or so as I analyze my data. P.S. I do plan to look at GRE scores in addition to undergraduate and graduate GPAs. Barbara From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Feb 27 08:39:21 1995 Mon, 27 Feb 1995 08:32:26 -0800 for From: blovitts@nsf.gov Date: Mon, 27 Feb 95 10:11:30 EST To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Subject: Employment Thought you might find the following information interesting. Perhaps someone might do a similar analysis for Sociology. Barbara EMPLOYMENT STATS FOR S&Es ANNOUNCED The overall unemployment rate for doctoral scientists and engineers (S&Es) during 1993 was 1.6 percent, compared to nearly 7 percent for the total U.S. labor force, with small variations depending on the broad field of doctorate and the length of time in the work force. However, the low unemployment rates do not necessarily mean that all were fully employed at work of their own choosing. According to the most recent "Survey of Doctorate Recipients," conducted biennially by the National Research Council for the National Science Foundation, there were a little more than half a million doctoral S&Es in the U.S. in 1993. Slightly less than one-tenth were not in the labor force and not seeking employment. Of those available for work, 1.6 percent reported themselves unemployed. The overall underemployment rate -- reflecting those who are working part-time but seeking a full-time job, or working in a non-S&E job when an S&E job is preferred -- was slightly higher, at 4.3 percent. Comparing rates by broad field, those in the physical and related sciences reported the highest unemployment and underemployment rates (2.1 percent and 6.1 percent respectively). Computer and mathematical scientists reported the lowest unemployment rate (1.1 percent). Recent Ph.D. graduates were the most likely to be unemployed, reporting 2 percent unemployment across all fields. This rate dropped sharply to 1.4 percent for those who were from three to eight years beyond graduation. The data will be published in the forthcoming report Characteristics of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers in the United States: 1993. Because of changes in survey methodology, the employment data for 1993 are not directly comparable with available data for prior years. From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Mon Feb 27 15:35:49 1995 Mon, 27 Feb 1995 15:32:01 -0800 for From: Jean Czerlinski Subject: computing in soci sciences conference To: socgrad@UCSD.EDU Date: Mon, 27 Feb 95 17:31:29 CST Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] > > COMPUTING FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES > > CSS95: Changing Technology, Changing Society > > June 17-20, 1995 > University of California, San Diego > > > CALL FOR PAPERS > > The sixth conference on Computing for the Social Sciences, CSS95, meets > June 17-20, 1995, on the campus of the University of California at San > Diego. The theme for the conference is: > > Changing Technology, Changing Society > > This annual conference, which is the professional meeting for the Social > Science Computing Association, provides a forum for discussion of topics > in social science research in all areas, and on the impact of computers > on society. Albert F. Anderson, University of Michigan, is the > conference program chair. Doug White, University of California at > Irvine, is local arrangements chair. The University of California at > San Diego and the San Diego Supercomputing Center (SDSC) are co-hosts. > > CSS95 solicits: > > - Original papers relating to social science and computing that survey > or review emerging trends, describe innovative applications, or report > on new or proposed research. A 1-2 page abstract should be submitted > by electronic or regular mail to the program chair by March 1, 1995. > > - Suggestions for panels, short workshops, and demonstrations of > software/hardware/data applications. Persons wishing to submit > proposals should discuss them with the program chair as soon as possible by. > > - Submissions need not relate to the conference theme, but CSS95 is > especially interested in work that concerns the impact of computing > and information technology on society and the impact of technology on the > strategies and tools used for social analysis and social planning. > > - Recognition in the form of the Founders Awards will be given to > outstanding contributions to the program. > > Please note any special requirements for audio, visual, computing, > and/one network facilities to be used in conjunction with any presentation. > Please also include E-Mail addresses with any communications. > > >Hotel Accomodations >All room blocks for CSS95 will be honored until 5-26-95. Mention San Diego >Supercomputer Center/CSS95 when you make your reservation. Make your >reservations early, as CSS95 is meeting the same weekend as the UCSD >graduation ceremonies. > >Torrey Pines Inn >11480 North Torrey Pines Road >La Jolla, CA 92037 >619-453-4420 > >$25 shuttle to/from airport, transportation to CSS95, 20 min. walk to >CSS95, beautiful view of the Pacific, walking trails, golf course, simple, >scarcely furnished rooms. $65-$70/night. > >The Residence Inn >8901 Gilman Drive >La Jolla, CA 92037 >619-587-1770 > >Free airport transportation, transportation to CSS95, 20 min. walk to >CSS95, free continental breakfast & happy hour daily, convenient to >restaurants, full kitchens in rooms, modern facilities. $78-$135/night. > >Embassy Suites >4550 La Jolla Village Drive >La Jolla, CA 92122 >619-453-0400 > >10 minute drive to CSS95, $9 shuttle to airport, transportation to CSS95, >free full breakfast & happy hour daily, microwave and fridge in rooms, >modern facilities. $95-$105/night. > > > >Media > >Members of the media are welcome to attend CSS95 at no charge. Please >present your credentials at the registration desk upon arrival at CSS95. >For advance information, contact Ann Redelfs, redelfs@sdsc.edu, >619-534-5032. > > > For further information, contact the program chair: > > Albert F. Anderson Phone: (313) 998-7140 > Population Studies Center Fax: (313) 998-7415 > University of Michigan E-Mail: afa@umich.edu > 1225 South University > Ann Arbor, MI 48104-2590 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Summary of the CSS94 Meeting (June 1994) - Bruce Tonn > > The 1994 Conference on Computing for the Social Sciences (CSS94) was > held May 31-June 3 at the University of Maryland, U.S.A. The theme of CSS94 > was "Information Society: Superhighways or Gridlock?" CSS94 was extremely > exciting intellectually because spectre of the National Information > Infrastructure (NII), the Clinton Administration's term for a national > telecommunications system that synthesizes phone, cable, satellite, and > computer technologies into a multi-media digital world based on fiber > optic broadband networks and wireless, mobile personal communications > systems. The Administration has stated that "Development of the NII can > help unleash an information revolution that will change forever the way > people live, work, and interact with each other." The social science > implications of this vision were not lost on CSS94 participants. > > For example, as part of his Banquet Address, Paul Peters, Executive > Director of the Coalition for Networked Information, outlined four > challenges to the social science research community: > > 1) Study the social construction of the "information highway" as a social > artifact. Expectations for the NII will help shape its future but what > are the expectations? Where does telecommunication policy end and > economic and social policy start? > > 2) Study the social transformation potential of the NII. Will the NII > allow U.S. society to move beyond competition to collaboration? Is this > possible? What else might be in store for the U.S.? > > 3) Study the fate of science and the useful arts in cyberspace. Is > "intellectual property a waste product in cyberspace?" > > 4) Study the "Sega-Genesis Generation" and its predilection to change > and the pace of change. Will their exposure to technology give rise to a new > worldview, and if so, what will it be and what might be its consequences? > > Numerous other social science and policy issues were also raised at > CSS94. The most controversial topic concerned the pricing of NII access. > > Currently in the U.S., institutions pay a flat fee for Internet access > and the federal government subsidizes the major telecommunications > backbone. Economists view this arrangement as economically inefficient. > Users should be charged a fee for every use of the Internet. Supporters > of the current arrangement countered that the economic model would > stiffle use of the Internet, make it more commercial, and destroy the > "let a thousand flowers bloom" aura around the Internet. > > Other presenters questioned whether the NII will ultimately result in > increases in the quality of life, although there was little dissent on > the resolution that the NII ought be be built. Other social policy issues > discussed included: ownership and regulation of the NII physical > infrastructure; universal access to the NII; health care; education; and > protection of privacy. > > Continuing in the tradition of the previous four conferences, there were > numerous presentations about and demonstrations of computing for social > science. Presentation topics included: H-NET, a networking service run > by the University of Illinois at Chicago for historians; new technologies > for survey data collection; using the high performance computing > resources at the National Center for Supercomputing Applications (NCSA), > University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, for social science research; > and access to very large social science databases over the Internet. > Demonstrations were given of: NCSA MOSAIC; Explore, a University of > Michigan System that employs high performance computing solutions to the > processing of U.S. Census data; and the Great American History Machine, > a multi-media system developed at the University of Maryland. A > particularly interesting session probed the art of software reviewing > and included the software review editors from the American Statistician and > PC Magazine and a marketing representative from SPSS. > > CSS94 represents a turning point for SSCA. In the past, its major focus > was on the use of computing to support social science. With the NII on > the horizon, SSCA now has a second foci, the role of information > technology in society. Social science now finds itself in a unique > position of being user of technology, and an evaluator of technology. To > make the vision of NII a reality, social scientists also need to assist > in the development of the technology that will support education, health > care, employment, and the delivery of social services. Given that the > development of the NII and associated applications has been the domain > of technologists in the U.S., social science faces an extreme challenge to > becoming substantively involved. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > The Social Science Computing Association > (SSCA) > > The Social Science Computing Association (SSCA)was founded at the 1990 > Conference on Computing for the Social Sciences (CSS90), Williamsburg, > Virginia, which was co-sponsored by the U.S. Bureau of the Census and > Oak Ridge National Laboratory. CSS91, CSS92, CSS93, and CSS94 were held > at the University of Georgia, the University of Michigan, the University > of Illinois, and the University of Maryland, respectively. The theme > for the Maryland conference was "Information Society: Superhighway or > Gridlock?" > > The current president of SSCA is William Bainbridge, National Science > Foundation. Albert Anderson is the president elect. Past presidents are > Ed Carpenter, University of Arizona; Doug White, University of > California, Irvine; and Bruce Tonn, Oak Ridge National Laboratory. > The purpose of SSCA, an interdisciplinary organization, is to promote > the development of computing within the social sciences through > organized activities and the interchange of ideas, data, teaching > materials, experiences, research results, and other resources. The term > "computing" is interpreted in a broad sense encompassing information > technology and electronic networks using computers, and the term "social > sciences" includes all rigorous approaches to understanding human > society and all applied disciplines involving social science and > behavioral research. > > SSCA has a professional publication, the Social Science Computer Review > (SSCORE). G. David Garson, North Carolina State University, is the > editor, and Ronald Anderson, University of Minnesota, is the co- editor. > Membership dues for SSCA and a subscription to SSCORE are: > individuals--$48; libraries and institutions--$80; and students--$24. > Contact: > > Duke University Press Phone: (919) 684-6837 > Journals Division Fax: (919) 683-8644 > Box 90660 > Durham, NC 27708-0660 > > Duke will accept personal checks and credit cards (Visa, MasterCard). > Please add $8 for postage outside the U.S. and Canadian residents please > add 7% GST. > > SSCA also has a list-serve for sharing information about social science > computing. To subscribe to the SSCA list-serve, send E-Mail to: > > majordomo@ag.arizona.edu > > Because the system is automated, all you have to send in the e-mail > message is the line below -- please do not attach any signatures or > other material. > > subscribe ssca > > For further information about Social Science Computing Association, > please contact: > > Bruce Tonn Phone: (615) 574-4041 > Energy Division Fax: (615) 574-3895 > Oak Ridge National Laboratory E-Mail: bet@ornl.gov > 4500N, MS 6207 > Bethel Valley Road > PO Box 2008 > Oak Ridge TN 37831-6207 > > > > > From list-relay@UCSD.EDU Tue Feb 28 18:52:45 1995 Tue, 28 Feb 1995 18:50:26 -0800 for Date: Tue, 28 Feb 1995 21:50:23 -0500 (EST) From: alan bruce Subject: Thanks... To: socgrad I'd just like to thank everyone who replied to my request for information regarding the Chow test. I have found a number of very useful sources which explain things in a way I am able to understand without a math background, so once again, thanks all :-) Alan. Alan S.Bruce,++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Department of Sociology, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio,43402.+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++