ASA AMSS
  • About
    • Mission Statement
    • Officers & Council
    • Bylaws
  • Newsletters
    • Newsletter Archive
    • Send us your news!
  • Resources
    • AMSS Reading List
  • Awards
    • Call for Awards

Section Updates

Job Announcement - UC-Irvine

8/30/2021

0 Comments

 

Job announcement: University of California, Irvine The Department of Sociology at the University of California, Irvine, announces recruitment for two tenure-track positions at the assistant professor level. We welcome applicants in all sub-fields, especially those with expertise in gender/sexuality and race/ethnicity. We seek candidates with strong publication profiles and well-defined research agendas, who will also contribute to the university’s mission of excellence in teaching, mentoring, and inclusive excellence. This position requires a Ph.D. Priority will be given to applications completed by October 1, 2021, but the position will remain open until filled. Please upload materials at recruit.ap.uci.edu/JPF07032. For more information on the department, see www.sociology.uci.edu.
Required Materials:       
Cover letter
CV
Statement on research
Statement on teaching
Statement on previous and/or potential contributions to diversity, equity, and inclusion
Three letters of recommendation
Up to three writing samples

Optional Materials: 

Course syllabi (up to three)
Course evaluations (up to three)

Direct questions to Alysha Casado, Sociology Department Analyst, at [email protected]. 
The University of California is committed to creating and maintaining a community dedicated to the advancement, application, and transmission of knowledge and creative endeavors through academic excellence, where all individuals who participate in University programs and activities can work and learn together in a safe and secure environment, free of violence, harassment, discrimination, exploitation, or intimidation. With this commitment as well as a commitment to addressing all forms of academic misconduct, UC Irvine conducts institutional reference checks for candidates finalists to whom the department or other hiring unit would like to extend a formal offer of appointment into Ladder Rank Professor or Professor of Teaching series, at all ranks (i.e., assistant, associate, and full). The institutional reference checks involve contacting the administration of the applicant’s previous institution(s) to ask whether there have been substantiated findings of misconduct that would violate the University’s Faculty Code of Conduct. To implement this process, UC Irvine requires all candidates of Ladder Rank Professor or Professor of Teaching series, at all ranks (i.e., assistant, associate, and full) to complete, sign, and upload the form entitled “Authorization to Release Information” into AP RECRUIT as part of their application. If the candidate does not include the signed authorization to release information with the application materials, the application will be considered incomplete. As with any incomplete application, the application will not receive further consideration. Although all applicants for faculty recruitments must complete the entire application, only finalists (i.e., those to whom the department or other hiring unit would like to extend a formal offer) considered for Ladder Rank Professor or Professor of Teaching series, at all ranks (i.e., assistant, associate, and full) positions will be subject to institutional reference checks.

The University of California, Irvine is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer advancing inclusive excellence. All qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, disability, age, protected veteran status, or other protected categories covered by the UC nondiscrimination policy. A recipient of an NSF ADVANCE award for gender equity, UCI is responsive to the needs of dual career couples, supports work-life balance through an array of family-friendly policies, and is dedicated to broadening participation in higher education.

0 Comments

Civic Sociology Call for Papers. The Quest for Normativity: Challenges and New Directions in Social Research

8/8/2021

0 Comments

 
Civic Sociology Call for Papers. The Quest for Normativity: Challenges and New Directions in Social Research
www.civicsociology.org/
A number of normative turns have arguably taken place in recent decades within social research. From the capabilities approach to moral anthropology, from the anti-utilitarian movement in the social sciences to feminism, and from critical realism to the sociology and ethics of care -- numerous authors and research communities have argued for the desirability and need of bringing together social inquiry and ethical reflection. Be it through calling for a normative branch of sociology, seeing sociology as moral philosophy, or bringing practical reason to the core of sociological practice, there exist numerous ways to rethink what Albert O. Hirschman called the “durable tension” between moral argumentation and explanation in social science.
Civic Sociology aims to be a forum for the cultivation of normative inquiry within the discipline, and to offer a space for the many conversations that different ethical turns have spurred. In order to contribute to this vision, this call for papers invites contributions from across the social sciences and humanities that address questions related to the challenges and opportunities derived from these different normative turns. It also welcomes papers that reflect on the history of ethical reflection within social research, and on the possible futures opened by different forms of ethical engagement in the social sciences.
History.
How to make sense of the history of normative engagement within social research? What histories remain to be told?
Challenges and future directions.
How to respond to Andrew Abbott’s call to develop a normative branch of sociology? What are the challenges for the realization of this vision and how to address them?
Pedagogy.
How best to cultivate ethical literacy among social researchers and their students?
Politics and Praxis.
What has been the role of ethical reflection within the social research landscape during recent struggles/movements for social justice, such as Black Lives Matter? What is the link between ethical inquiry and political praxis?
Institutions.
What institutional environments have facilitated/obstructed the cultivation of normative reasoning within different social scientific disciplines and national contexts?

Submission of papers
If you are interested in contributing to this call, please submit an abstracts of around 250 words to Rubén Flores [email protected] and Elisabeth Becker at [email protected] no later than 30 November 2021. Articles will be peer reviewed. Accepted contributions will become part of a special collection on normative reasoning within the journal. It is expected that papers will appear in the course of 2022 and the first half of 2023. Please note: Papers accepted for publication before mid-2022 will be exempt from article processing charges (APC) and will be open access free of charge.
0 Comments

Social Psychology Quarterly Call for Papers

8/8/2021

0 Comments

 
Social Psychology Quarterly Call for Papers
Special Issue on Race, Racism, and Discrimination to be edited by: Corey D. Fields, Verna M. Keith, and Justine E. Tinkler

In 2003, SPQ published a special issue edited by Dr. Lawrence Bobo on the social psychology of race, racism, and discrimination. We are organizing a 20th anniversary special issue on the same topic to appear in 2023. This special issue calls for papers that seek to understand the social psychological processes that shape and are shaped by racialized social structures. We understand race to be a social construction and are open to papers that conceive of race as an independent or dependent variable. We invite empirical articles that employ quantitative and/or qualitative methods as well as theoretical articles that make important contributions to social psychological knowledge. Data collection may be conducted in the field, online, or in the laboratory, and investigations can occur at one or multiple levels of analysis. We are particularly interested in research that includes groups that have been historically underrepresented in research on race and racism (e.g., indigenous populations) and that examines social psychological processes in racialized institutions like the family, criminal justice system, education system, and in healthcare. The social psychology of race, racism, and discrimination includes but is not limited to the following topics:
  • Discrimination and bias Identity
  • Intergroup relations Social cognition
  • Implicit and explicit racial attitudes Power and status
  • Social networks and social capital Intersectionality
  • Processes underlying health disparities Health and well-being
  • Emotions Interaction
  • Trust and social cohesion Collective action
Full papers should be submitted at http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/spq by January 15, 2022. See ‘‘Notice for Contributors’’ for the submission requirements. Please indicate in a cover letter that the paper is to be considered for the special issue on “Race,Racism, and Discrimination”.

For more information on the special issue, please feel free to contact our editorial office ([email protected]) or the special issue editors, Corey D. Fields ([email protected]), Verna M. Keith ([email protected]), and Justine Tinkler ([email protected]).
0 Comments

Book Review and Author Response: Work, Love, And learning in utopia

8/5/2021

0 Comments

 
Picture
Book Review Submitted by 
Matthew Lee, Harvard University
The caring relation is perhaps the core “existential activity through which we most fully realize our humanity” (Kleinman, 2020:4) and connect with a life-giving “presence” involving the “fullness of being” (Kleinman, 2020:3). It might be seen as the “the ultimate reality of life” (Noddings, 1992:15). Caring can be defined as attending to the well-being of another (Erickson and Stacey, 2013:178). Acts of care offer us the possibility of transcending the self-preservation mode of existence—which is grounded in a fundamental experience of scarcity—by engaging us with a healthy and meaningful process of self-expansion rooted in a perception of abundance (Baugher, 2019:42; Ritchie-Dunham, 2014). In other words, by genuinely caring for others we relate to them not as objects but as sacred subjects, and in the process experience the sacredness of ourselves and our world (Buber, 1923/1970). 
Yet care often seems in short supply, as intimacy is intentionally and effectively “organized out” of social contexts (Latimer and Gomez, 2019:250). Many individual interactions and broad social policies are fundamentally uncaring. Caring often involves “hard, sometimes tedious, unglamourous work” (Kleinman, 2020:4; Erickson and Stacey, 2013). It is therefore little surprise that carework is not evenly distributed. That, for example, “boys are raised to be careless, girls to be careful” (Kleinman, 2020:3). Carework inequality has significant implications for altruism, a sense of purpose in life, and many other aspects of flourishing (Xi et al., 2018). Work, Love, and Learning in Utopiacontinues a long tradition that exalts caring as a preeminent value. In this book, psychological anthropologist Martin Schoenhals boldly declares that “human happiness derives from, and even is tantamount to, mutual nurture” (p. 17). But his book makes a more provocative—and admittedly Utopian—claim that an equality of love (p. 241) can be achieved through a restructuring of society in ways that minimize hierarchies of all kinds: “Utopia must equalize wealth, but it also must equalize love and attention” (p. 3). To put it bluntly, “Hierarchy precludes happiness” (p. 18).
Utopian thinking in social science is relatively rare these days, and Schoenhals book offers a refreshingly creative and playful spirit, grounded in serious scholarship such as the anthropologist Victor Turner’s conception of an egalitarian, altruistic communitas. I appreciated the book’s assertion of the primacy of love and care—and even joy!—in human relations of all kinds, including education, politics, and culture. I recalled that natural disasters, in addition to causing dreadful suffering and often death, also sometimes release people from the social disaster of an alienated daily life by creating liminal space of a temporarily egalitarian communitas born of the need for mutual care for survival (Solnit, 2013). Schoenhals explores the possibility of sustaining communitas through social engineering. Like other members of the ASA Section on Altruism, Morality, and Social Solidarity, I am keenly interested in the topics he covers, such as the types of solidarity that infuse inclusive communities, the location of love and compassion within a group’s hierarchy of values, and a consideration of the cultural and structural factors that shape durable forms of equality and happiness. The book argues that an ideal love is at the heart of Utopia and that this love is fundamentally altruistic: “pleasing the other pleases the self” (p. 26). I appreciated how Schoenhals advanced the thesis that prosociality and pleasure are therefore not contradictory. In addition: “The basic goal of Utopia [is] to maximize happiness” (p. 7).
But what kind of happiness? This is a central question in many academic disciplines in the social sciences and humanities, and it continues to generate much debate (Lee, Kubzansky, and VanderWeele, 2021). This is also the point where audiences are likely to diverge in their appreciation for some of the positions developed in the book. Schoenhals highlights both “positive emotions” and “general well-being” (p. 5). But in a deeply divided world, the generation of positive emotions and subsequent well-being is dependent on frameworks of meaning that vary across interpretive communities. Schoenhals’s Utopia is primarily therapeutic, rather than charismatic (Rieff, 2008). Dichotomies always oversimplify, but they can be instructive. Briefly, charismatic social orders are founded on interdicts: “divinely given cultural norms that impose limits on behavior and demand unqualified obedience” (Lee, Poloma, and Post, 2013:204). The myriad rules of Judaism’s creedal order provide the paradigm case. Socrates, to take an example from a different cultural context, heard an inner voice that stopped him from doing some things that might have brought pleasure but were not for him to do. This voice “always forbids” (Jaspers, 1962:10) and it provided a moral compass when reason failed. For Socrates, “it is better to suffer than to commit injustice” (Jaspers, 1962:10), in spite of the absence of positive emotions. On the other hand, therapeutic orders free individuals from the many constraints of charismatic orders. Freedom to self-actualize is paramount and therapeutic culture is a “releaser from the interdicts” (Rieff, 2008:5). When interdicts say “no,” therapeutic norms often say “yes,” as long as positive emotions are generated. For Schoenhals, “positive emotions are what Utopia should be all about” (p. 5). 
This is where religious readers—who represent a clear majority of the world’s population—and those who are spiritual but not religious, may begin to sense some cultural imperialism in Schoenhals’ Utopian project. For such people, happiness is not primarily defined in terms of penultimate ends such as positive emotions or happiness (Lee, Kubzansky, and VanderWeele, 2021). Rather, “well-being is redefined in terms of doing God’s will and being the face of God for others” (Lee, Poloma, and Post, 2013:97). This does not mean that such people are joyless. Far from it. Rather, they perceive a divine calling to engage with the problems of the world in a manner that integrates joy and suffering (Lee et al., 2013). Such transformative engagements are not limited to the religious, but the meaning of “happiness” is constructed with different cultural materials depending on immersion in a social order that is more or less charismatic or therapeutic. What counts as “prosociality” will differ across these groups. In addition, for many religious people, the “real essence” of marriage is not a “bonding mechanism for making non-kin into kin” (p. 87); it is instead a divine covenant. 
The enforcement of social norms is not frictionless, even in Utopia. Schoenhals states that “the central purpose of Utopia’s judiciary… will be to preserve equality in all forms” (p. 240) and the “equality of love will be regarded as seriously as equality of wealth and power. Courts will play an important role in enforcing this equality” (p. 241). Utopian courts are tasked with enforcing the equality of love “non-coercively” (p. 242). Schoenhals points out that “You can’t legislate love” (p. 241). But if a person feels “socially neglected” by “friends or family members, or coworkers,” and the parties cannot “devise their own mutually agreeable solution,” then the “court may devise its own solution” (p. 243), including the employment of “protectors” armed with “tranquilizer weapons.” The recalcitrant will ultimately be “required to leave Utopia for another society willing to take them or to establish their own society” (p. 241), although they are permitted to “come back to Utopia periodically to visit” (p. 241).
An important goal of some religious traditions is to find a way to promote harmonious relations without resorting to such separations. The vision of a Beloved Community promoted by many in the U.S. Civil Rights Movement is just one manifestation of such a unifying vision. I appreciate Schoenhals’ contributions to a Utopian vision grounded in caring relations and I found much of value in the book. My own Utopian dream involves active love transforming suffering into flourishing in a manner that fosters greater unity. We can find abundant inspiration and practical guidance for this work in contemporary, non-Utopian, restorative/transformative justice and peacemaking communities (Braithwaite, 2005; Gready and Robins, 2014; Helmick & Petersen, 2001; Lederach, 2015). But it is also good to dream of even more Utopian arrangements.



References
Baugher, J. (2019). Contemplative caregiving: Finding healing, compassion & spiritual growth through end-of-life care. Boulder, CO: Shambhala.
Braithwaite, J. (2005). Between Proportionality & Impunity: Confrontation⇒ Truth⇒ Prevention. Criminology, 43(2), 283-306.
Buber, M. (1970). I and Thou. Scribner’s. (Original work published 1923).
Erickson, B. J. & Stacey, C. L. (2013). Attending to Body and Mind: Engaging the Complexity of Emotion Practice Among Caring Professionals.” Pp. 175-196 in A. A. Grandey, J. M. Diefendorff, & D. E. Rupp (Eds.), Emotional Labor in the 21st Century: Diverse Perspective on Emotion Regulation at Work. Routledge. 
Helmick, R. G., & Petersen, R. (Eds.). (2001). Forgiveness & Reconciliation: Public Policy & Conflict Transformation. Templeton Foundation Press. 
Gready, P., & Robins, S. (2014). From transitional to transformative justice: A new agenda for practice. International Journal of Transitional Justice, 8(3), 339-361.
Jaspers, K. (1962). Socrates, Buddha, Confucius, Jesus: The Paradigmatic Individuals. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. (Original work published 1957).
Kleinman, A. (2020). The Soul of Care: The Moral Education of a Husband and a Doctor. Penguin.
Latimer, J., & Gomez, D. L. (2019). Intimate entanglements: Affects, more-than-human intimacies and the politics of relations in science and technology. The Sociological Review Monographs, 67, 247–263.
Lederach, J. (2015). Little Book of Conflict Transformation: Clear Articulation of the Guiding Principles by a Pioneer in the Field. Simon and Schuster.
Lee, M. T., Kubzansky, L. D., VanderWeele, T. J. (Eds.). (2021) Measuring Well-Being: Interdisciplinary Perspectives from the Social Sciences and the Humanities. Oxford University.
Lee, M. T., Poloma, M. M., & Post, S. G. (2013). The Heart of Religion: Spiritual Empowerment, Benevolence, and the Experience of God’s Love. Oxford University.
Noddings, N. (2005). The Challenge to Care in Schools: An Alternative Approach to Education. Columbia.
Rieff, P. (2008). Charisma: The Gift of Grace, and How It Has Been Taken Away from Us. Vintage.
Ritchie-Dunham, J. (2014). Ecosynomics: The Science of Abundance. Vibrancy.
Solnit, R. (2010). A Paradise Built in Hell: The Extraordinary Communities that Arise in Disaster. Penguin.
​
Xi, J., Lee, M. T., Carter, J., & Delgado, D. (2018). Gender differences in purpose in life: The mediation effect of altruism. Journal of Humanistic Psychology. DOI: 10.1177/0022167 818777658









Author Response Submitted by 
Martin Schoenhals, Appalachian State University

​In his review of my book, Work, Love, and Learning in Utopia: Equality Reimagined, Matt Lee writes: “I appreciated how Schoenhals advanced the thesis that prosociality and pleasure are…not contradictory.” The lack of a contradiction between prosociality and pleasure is an important point I make in my book, and one that is especially critical for altruism theorists. In what follows I elaborate on the prosociality/pleasure conflation and then describe its importance for understanding altruism. 
In my book I write: “…the human capacity for pleasure is not a selfish one at all, but is precisely the opposite. Because humans feel empathy for others, a capacity most other animals lack, our pleasure sets up a virtuous cycle in which our pleasure and the pleasure of those we please are mutually reinforcing” (Schoenhals 2019: 4). 
My assertions are supported by the realities of human nature. We may follow our linguistic and cultural models and intuit a pleasure/prosociality opposition, but intuition does not adequately map reality. Consider the evidence from neuroscience. Klimecki (2015) argues that there are two different and antagonistic neural systems, one for pleasant events and social connectedness and another system for unpleasant events and social disconnectedness, so that prosociality, social connectedness, is conjoined with, not opposed to, pleasure. Further, while the unpleasurable system can motivate empathy, it often leads to withdrawal, aggression and burnout among caregivers. The author describes research she and colleagues have carried out to train individuals to strengthen the pleasurable and socially connected response. Pleasure may be an insufficient word to describe what is happening neurologically but so are other words—love, devotion, etc. We really need a word that combines the notion of pleasure with that of prosociality. I will let the reader think of suitable candidates.
For theorists of altruism, it is especially important to recognize that pleasure and prosociality are related, and not opposed. The reason this is important is because this relationship helps resolve the altruism paradox, as it exists among humans. Some biologists apply non-human explanations to humans to overcome the paradox, but this is problematic. A common explanation for how altruism can be adaptive among non-humans, given that it entails sacrifice by an individual, is that the target of benevolence is often a relative, hence altruism is a way to help our own genetic endowment. Altruism is genetically self-interested.

The problem among humans is that even in forager camps there are many individuals present to whom one shares little or no genetic relatedness, so the help within the residence group is often going to non-kin (Hill et al. 2011). This situation becomes even more evident in agricultural societies, since one’s patrilineage mates are the ones whom one defines as “family” and hence are the targets of the greatest altruistic help while very close matrikin, though genetically closely related to ego, are often ignored when it comes to those ego will help. Thus how did human altruism evolve when human culture so often defines “family” in a way orthogonal to, if not opposed to, genetic relatedness?
Some economists and others, drawing on forager studies, have suggested that if X is a good giver, others will often give to X. In this formulation, reciprocity and altruism are mutually beneficial to both members of a giving-receiving dyad. The problem with this formulation is that humans help those outside their own community and hence we are often altruistic toward those we may never meet. This form of disinterested generosity is evident in the poor Dalit (Untouchable) women I met in southern India, who sent some of their meager incomes to help coastal Indians victimized by the tsunami of 2004, people they would never meet and who were highly unlikely to ever reciprocate their kindness. 
So how do we explain such actions? I would suggest that it must be the case that pleasure and prosociality are conjoined. We feel some reward when we help another human, even someone we do not know. Thus human compassion perhaps uniquely solves the altruism paradox because “sacrificing” to help others’ well-being is not a full sacrifice, because helping others is rewarding for them and for us, with the nature of our reward being emotional, something scholars too easily overlook with their/our instrumental and pragmatic way of thinking. And, isn’t pleasure from pleasing another individual a prime human desire, tantamount to love itself, where the beloved’s happiness redounds—at least in principle—to our own happiness? In that case pleasure and human connectedness are reinforcing and pleasure is not the narrowly self-interested notion that the English word would lead us to believe is the case. 
I hope the reader will read my book, Work, Love, and Learning in Utopia: Equality Reimagined. It is a book that attempts to do what many of us who are social scientists so often fail to do—to use our knowledge about societies and biology to prescribe a humanly possible alternative world. When we leave it to economists alone to advocate broad policy, we are implicitly endorsing the view that money is all that matters. I know prescription has many pitfalls but we need to engage in thinking that is both imaginative and fact-based about alternative worlds. Doing so, social scientists can contribute to the discussion about how society could be refashioned, to the significant benefit of all of us. 

References
Hill, Kim R., Robert S. Walker, Miran Božičević, James Eder, Thomas Headland,
Barry Hewlett, A. Magdalena Hurtado, Frank Marlowe, Polly Wiessner, Brian Wood. 2011. Co-Residence Patterns in Hunter-Gatherer Societies Show Unique Human Social Structure. 
Science, v. 331: 1286-1289.
Klimecki, Olga M. 2015. The plasticity of social emotions. 
Social Neuroscience v. 10, no. 5: 466-473. 
Schoenhals, Martin. 2019. Work, Love, and Learning in Utopia: Equality Reimagined. New York: Routledge.







0 Comments

New Section officers '21

8/3/2021

0 Comments

 

​

​Chair-Elect (3-Year term begins in '21 as Chair elect) Penny Edgell, University of Minnesota is a professor of Sociology at the University of Minnesota and identifies as a cultural sociologist who studies religion and non-religion in the United States and strives to understand how religion, non-religion, and spirituality influence moral culture. She is the author of Congregations in Conflict and Religion and Family in a Changing Society and co-editor of Religion is Raced. She is currently working on two NSF funded research projects. One related to religion and understanding controversial social issues and the second utilizes the American Mosaic Project to discover how religion is both a source of inclusion and exclusion in the United States.

Counsel Member (2-Year term begins in '21)
Monica Whitham, Oklahoma State University is an associate professor at Oklahoma State University and specializes in social psychology, urban and community sociology, and social networks. Broadly, her work examines processes through which social actors form, maintain, and utilize social connections in order to achieve individual and collective goals. Her research has been funded by the National Science Foundation and been published in top sociology journals, including the American Sociological Review, Social Psychology Quarterly, and City & Community.

Lijun Song, Vanderbilt University is an associate professor of sociology at Vanderbilt University. Her overarching research question is “what are the causes and consequences of social networks across society and time?” Her recent ASA awardwinning research contributes and examines a new theoretical framework on the double-edged (protective and detrimental) role of social networks across culture and society. Her work has appeared in journals such as Social Forces, Journal of Health and Social Behavior, Society and Mental Health, Social Psychology Quarterly, Social Science & Medicine, Social Networks, Sociological Perspectives, American Behavioral Scientist, Chinese Sociological Review, and Research in the Sociology of Work.

Michaela DeSoucey, North Carolina State University is an associate professor of sociology at North Carolina State University. Her research interests include culture, food politics, moral markets, consumption, and more recently the cultural intersections of risk, trust, and responsibility. She is the author of Contested Tastes: Foie Gras and the Politics of Food (Princeton University Press, 2016), and other recent work has appeared in Poetics, Organization Studies, and is forthcoming in Strategy Science.

Secretary Treasurer (3-Year term begins in '21)
Daniel Shank, Missouri University of Science & Technology is an assistant professor in the Department of Psychological Science at Missouri Science & Technology. He has an MS in Artificial Intelligence and a PhD in Sociology from the University of Georgia. His research interests involve social psychological approaches to interaction with and perception of artificial intelligence (AI) agents. Current projects include investigating how people differently judge morality, mind, uncertainty, and affective impressions of actions, recommendations, and creations of AIs compared to those of humans. He currently has grants from the Army Research Office, the Leonard Wood Institute, and the National Science Foundation.

Student Council Representatives (term begins in '21)
Rebeca Herrero Sáenz, University at Albany (SUNY) (1-year term) is a PhD candidate interested in the intersection between health and medicine, culture, and media. She is currently working on her dissertation, where she is examineing the public discourse on organ donation and transplantation in Spain and its implications for Spanish nationalism.

Rachel Underwood, Vanderbilt University (2-year term) is a PhD candidate with research interests examining the experiences of women, mental health, and poverty. She is a research advocate and has recently been awarded a Mellon Digital Humanities fellowship at Vanderbuilt University. Her dissertation focuses

0 Comments

the tension between social capital and meritocracy by Laura Adler and Elena Ayala-Hurtado

8/3/2021

0 Comments

 


From the beginning of our careers, we’re taught the value of social capital. Parents encourage young adult children to “ask around” about potential openings. Self-help books tell us that who you know is just as valuable as what you know. University career offices entreat students to work on “networking,” positing this as its own skill worth cultivating. What started as academic knowledge—in Mark Granovetter’s dissertation, which found that white collar workers often find their jobs through people they know informally—has become mainstream axiom: social ties provide access to information about job opening and personal relationships can influence whether you get hired by providing a referral. Whether you’re hoping to move up within your company or “job-hop” your way to a stellar salary, leveraging your social capital is key.

But as social capital has become a taken-for-granted way of understanding the world of work, our culture also clings to the idea of meritocracy. The meritocratic principle—that people deserve to be rewarded in proportion to their efforts and talents—is a deeply held belief in many countries. With roots in the Protestant Ethic, it has played a prominent role in social debates in the United States over the last century, employed by both social conservatives to justify the gains of the few and liberals to advocate for expanding access to opportunities. While recent books by social commentators have drawn attention to the shortcomings of meritocracy—both in practice and as an ideal—we have yet to coalesce around an alternative framework for understanding what makes for an equitable society.

These two prominent social beliefs—in the value of social capital and the justness of meritocracy—are fundamentally in conflict, including in the realm of the labor market. From the social capital perspective, a job-seeker should use every social connection to get the best job available, regardless of their qualifications. From the meritocratic perspective, a job-seeker should earn their own position, based on their qualifications alone. Whether social ties exert influence over the process of selecting candidates, offer a referral to boost the chances of being considered, or simply provide information about job openings, they are providing unearned benefits to the socially-connected over equally qualified—or more qualified—but less connected applicants. 

How do people navigate the tension between these conflicting imperatives in the process of looking for a job? That’s the question we take up in our paper. We explore this question in the context of Spain, which offers several advantages as a site for understanding this tension. Spain has seen extraordinary levels of unemployment, making jobs highly sought-after and hard to obtain. As the value of jobs rises, using social connections becomes both more rational for individual job-seekers and more subject to moral condemnation of others, who might be passed over for a less qualified but more connected applicant. In this context, the tension between social capital and meritocracy is especially acute, bringing it to the fore and allowing us to understand how people make sense of their own behavior. 

Based on an inductive analysis of in-depth interviews with young Spaniards, we argue that people make sense of these conflicting imperatives by drawing what we call “situational boundaries”: boundaries between legitimate situations, in which the use of social connections is deemed acceptable, and illegitimate situations, which are condemned as nepotism. Situations are characterized primarily by the actor (job-seeker), their objective (the job in question), and the behavior (the type of help provided by their connections). Where the actor is perceived to be well-matched for the objective—where the job-seeker has appropriate qualifications for the job—and where the type of help provided allows the employer to evaluate those qualifications—as in a job interview—our respondents describe the use of connections as sufficiently aligned with the tenets of meritocracy so as to be acceptable. Where any component is mismatched, however, the use of connections is likely to be condemned. In a new survey experiment, we test this theory on a broader population of Spanish respondents, conceptualizing situational boundaries as responding to a three-way interaction between job-seeker, job, and type of help provided by connections.

This argument contributes to central discourses in the sociology of culture. Contemporary approaches to culture indicate that “we have more culture than we use.” In other words, culture does not have a one-to-one relationship with behavior. It is instead conceptualized as a toolkit, which we can draw from under different circumstances. But what if we have multiple cultural tools that prescribe conflicting behavior in a given context? What if a meritocratic schema tells us to go it alone while a social capital schema tells us to leverage our networks? Or in another domain: what if a religious schema tells us to condemn abortion in general, but a social support schema tells us to help a friend in need? In cases like these, how do we act on one schema without violating the other? We propose situational boundaries are an important cultural tool for making sense of our actions and upholding a sense of self in this complicated cultural terrain.

The argument speaks more specifically to issues in the sociology of morality. Contemporary sociology of morality is focused on exploring empirical regularities in the shared understanding of right and wrong. Our analysis highlights a fundamental tension at the heart of a social consensus: we all understand that social capital is more important than ever to finding work; at the same time, meritocracy is one of the more widely embraced principles for how we ought to distribute rewards in society (although we fall far short of the meritocratic ideal). This kind of moral tension is a common feature of social life, but we have little empirical insight into how people experience and resolve this kind of predicament. We hope our research can contribute to a growing body of work that helps to explain how people make sense of a complex and often ambiguous moral world.
​

In the process of developing the argument, we also touch briefly on fascinating points of connection with questions of altruism. We found that, once respondents accepted a match between job-seeker, job, and helping behavior, they actively promoted the idea of helping others find work as an laudable altruistic action. This reveals a new dimension of referrals, as not just instrumentally useful but also as socially valuable, contributing to a stronger sense of social cohesion. In this context, being able to draw boundaries facilitates the provision of altruistic social support—because we can separate “good” from “bad” referrals, we are empowered to help our friends without feeling that we are undermining our meritocratic ideals. At the same time, these findings also contribute to an understanding of the more negative side of altruism itself, showing that altruism can, knowingly or unknowingly, contribute to the maintenance of inequality. 

Picture

Lauren Adler is PhD candidate in Sociology at Harvard University. Her dissertation examines how organizations set pay for new employees, identifying organizational practices and moral narratives that produce and legitimize gender pay inequality.

Elena Ayala-Hurtado is a PhD student in sociology at Harvard University. Her research examines how individuals narrate and make sense of their lives within unstable social contexts, and particularly how individuals narrate their projections toward the future. 

Picture
0 Comments

Special SESSION: Black Lives Matter: The Role of Altruism, Morality, and Social Solidarity in Supporting Racial Justice Efforts

8/3/2021

0 Comments

 

In conjunction with the annual meeting theme of “Emancipatory Sociology: Rising to the Du Boisian Challenge,” the AMSS section hosts an invited session that considers the role of altruism, morality, and social solidarity in racial and social justice efforts. As the nation grapples with global pandemics, new solidarities have been mobilized for collective actions, such as Black Lives Matter. The themes of altruism, morality, and social solidarity are evident in the protests surrounding the tragic deaths of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, Trayvon Martin, Tamir Rice, Botham Jean, Atatiana Jefferson and thousands of other black men, women, and children who have been killed in fatal encounters with U.S. police. This invited session considers the role of nonprofit organizations, voluntary associations, and social movements in these efforts. For example, Fatal Encounters is a volunteer-maintained database that records a searchable record of fatal police interactions, and the Center for Justice is one among many non-profit organizations that work with community and public interest groups to protect the legal and social justice rights for vulnerable people, communities, and families.


Presider: Ashley Harrell, Duke University
Panelists: Una Okonkwo Osili, Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy D. Brian Burghart, Fatal Encounters Jennifer Wood, Center for Justice Tina Sacks, Center for Research on Social Change Candice C. Robinson, University of Pittsburgh




0 Comments

OPEN SESSION AMSS: Advocating for Morality and Prosociality in Unsettled Times by Candace Robinson

8/3/2021

0 Comments

 


Organizer Notes submitted by Candice Robinson- AMSS has been one of my favorite sections since I joined ASA in 2012. At an AMSS roundtable in 2016, I presented my solo-authored work at ASA for the first time. That year, I also served on the AMSS Graduate Student Paper Award Committee. From 2017-2018 I was one of the AMSS Student Representatives. in 2020, I served as the Presider for the 2020 ASA Annual Meeting Regular Session: "Open Session on Altruism, Morality, and Social Solidarity: Understanding the Good in a World Gone Bad." For 2021, I will serve as a Panelist on the Panel Session: "Black Lives Matter: The Role of Altruism, Morality, and Social Solidarity in Supporting Racial Justice Efforts." My most exciting contribution to the section in my career so far has been organizing the "2021 Open Session on Altruism, Morality, and Social Solidarity: Advocating for Morality and Prosociality in Unsettled Times."

As a scholar of inequality, broadly interested in race, class, civic engagement, and social movements, I understood the importance of developing a nuanced scholarship for more accurate interpretations of the social world. Furthermore, we must incorporate this year's session theme: "Advocating for Morality and Prosociality in Unsettled Times." Our session leans on the following questions: How do people develop and sustain moral commitments during times of unrest? Why and when do people seek to challenge inequalities, do good for others, and bond together amidst unsettled times? How do people seek to make collective change for the better?

We received approximately 15 phenomenal papers that more specifically fell along with the themes of prosociality as a variable, motivations for AMSS, fairness, and discussions of shared missions of individuals and organizations. We have 4* sole author papers from Ph. D.s and Ph.D. students from across the world. The papers I selected ultimately fall under a broad view of what leads to AMSS actions. In more detail, the work analyzes how scholars characterize prosociality and similar traits, how individuals account for their prosocial actions, how love sustains prosocial and activist activities, and how philanthropists market themselves. These papers broaden the field of AMSS through a variety of mixed-methodologies and push forward theories that ensure that AMSS has far reach implications beyond our subfields. Additionally, the use of qualitative data in most papers helps to add additional analytical and descriptive dimensions to our work. For more information, check out the abstracts and titles for the papers below, and be sure to tune in during our session on Sunday, August 8, from 11 am-12:25 pm Eastern. I look forward to the University of Southern California Graduate Student Demetrius Murphy presiding over the session.
​

*I want to make a special note to say we had a 5th paper from Saugher Nojan (University of California-Santa Cruz) for this session that incorporated race and religion in understanding prosociality. Unfortunately, the author was no longer available. For those who are interested, the paper submitted builds on theory and data from another one of her recently published articles: Nojan, S. (2021). Racialized Religion and Civic Engagement: Insights into Intra-Muslim Racial Diversity on University Campuses. Sociology of Religion. I hope we can incorporate her critical scholarship in future panels. 
​

0 Comments

Member Publications and Publications of Interest

8/3/2021

0 Comments

 

Mijs, Jonathan J.B. and Christopher Hoy. 2021. "How Information about Inequality Impacts Belief in Meritocracy: Evidence from a Randomized Survey Experiment in Australia, Indonesia and Mexico." Social Problems doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/socpro/spaa059

Koch, Insa. 2021."The Guardians of the Welfare State: Universal Credit, Welfare Control and the Moral Economy of Frontline Work in Austerity Britain.” Sociology 55, no. 2: 243-262. doi:10.1177/0038038520936981

Aarons, Haydn. 2021. “Moral Distinction: Religion, Musical Taste and the Moral Cultural Consumer.” Journal of Consumer Culture 21, no. 2: 296–316. doi:10.1177/1469540518787584

Broom, Alex, and Katherine Kenny. 2021. “The Moral Cosmology of Cancer: Making Disease Meaningful.” The Sociological Review 69, no. 2: 468–83. doi:10.1177/0038026120962912

Rotolo, Michael. 2021. "Moral Religiosities: How Morality Structures Religious Understandings during the Transition to Adulthood." Sociology of Religion 82, no. 1: 63–84. doi:10.1093/socrel/sraa025
​

Cipriani, Roberto. 2021. "The Other, Altruism and Empathy. Variety of Prosocial Behavior.” The American Sociologist.. doi:10.1007/s12108-021-09496-y

0 Comments

Outgoing Officers

8/3/2021

0 Comments

 

Brad R. Fulton is an assistant professor at Indiana University in the O’Neill School of Public and Environmental Affairs. His research draws on organizational theory and network analysis to examine the social, political, and economic impact of community-based organizations. Fulton is the PI for the National Study of Community Organizing—a multi-level study that examines the causes and consequences of racial, socioeconomic, and religious diversity within grassroots advocacy organizations. He is also the Co-PI for the Observing Civic Engagement project and the National Study of Congregations’ Economic Practices.

Sarah K. Harkness is an Assistant Professor of Sociology at the University of Iowa. Her work centers on the social psychology of inequality, specifically related to the study of morality, status, health stigma, and intersectionality. She is currently building a research program with Steven Hitlin (professor, University of Iowa) arguing that the level of inequality of a society deeply affects the moral reactions felt by its members, with those in more unequal societies experiencing more negative, sanctioning moral emotions, while those in more equal societies are more likely to feel positive, binding moral emotions. She is the co-author of Unequal Foundations: Inequality, Morality, and Emotions across Cultures (Oxford University Press).

Mary R. Rose, is an Associate Professor at University of Texas at Austin,. She teaches courses on social science and law as well as social psychology and research methods. Her research examines lay participation in the legal system and perceptions of justice. She writes on the effects of jury selection practices on jury representativeness, citizens’ views of justice, jury decision making, and public views of court practices. She has served on the editorial boards of Criminology, Law & Social Inquiry, Law & Society Review, and Law & Human Behavior. In 2005, her research on the peremptory challenge was cited in the U.S. Supreme Court decision, Miller-el v. Dretke (Breyer, J., concurring) and her work on punitive damages was cited in the 2008 decision Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker.
​
Bin Xu is an Associate Professor of Sociology at Emory University. His research interests lie at the intersection of politics and culture, including collective memory, civil society, cultural sociology, and social theory. He is the author of The Politics of Compassion: The Sichuan Earthquake and Civic Engagement in China (Stanford University Press, 2017), which won the 2018 Best Book Prize for Culture and Honorable Mention for Asia from the American Sociological Association. He is currently finishing a book and a few related articles on the collective memory of China’s “educated youth” (zhiqing) generation—the 17 million youth sent down to the countryside in the 1960s and 1970s. His research has appeared in leading sociological and China studies journals.

​

0 Comments

    The latest

    Updates and News
    from AMSS

    Archives

    March 2023
    August 2022
    May 2022
    March 2022
    October 2021
    August 2021

    Categories

    All
    2021 Vol-1
    Awards
    Book Review
    CfP
    Jobs
    Newsletter
    Opportunity
    Podcast

    RSS Feed

Header photos by Jan van der Wolf
Proudly powered by Weebly
  • About
    • Mission Statement
    • Officers & Council
    • Bylaws
  • Newsletters
    • Newsletter Archive
    • Send us your news!
  • Resources
    • AMSS Reading List
  • Awards
    • Call for Awards