The Cambridge Dictionary of Sociology

The Cambridge Dictionary of Sociology Providing an authoritative and comprehensive overview of the classical and the contemporary, this volume is an indispensable guide to the vibrant and expanding field of sociology. Featuring over 600 entries, from concise definitions to discursive essays, written by leading international academics, the Dictionary offers a truly global perspective, examining both American and European traditions and approaches. Entries cover schools, theories, theorists, and debates, with substantial articles on all key topics in the field. While recognizing the richness of historical sociological traditions, the Dictionary also looks forward to new and evolving influences such as cultural change, genetics, globalization, information technologies, new wars, and terrorism. Most entries incorporate references for further reading, and a cross-referencing system enables easy access to related areas. This Dictionary is an invaluable reference work for students and academics alike and will help to define the field of sociology in years to come. BRYAN S. TURNER is Professor of Sociology in the Asia Research Institute at the National University of Singapore, where he leads the research team for the Religion and Globalisation cluster. Prior to this, he was Professor of Sociology in the Faculty of Social and Political Sciences at the University of Cambridge. Professor Turner is the author of The New Medical Sociology (2004) and Society and Culture: Principles of Scarcity and Solidarity (with Chris Rojek, 2001), and is the founding editor of the Journal of Classical Sociology (with John O’Neill), Body & Society (with Mike Featherstone), and Citizenship Studies. He is currently writing a three-volume study on the sociology of religion for Cambridge University Press. BOARD OF EDITORIAL ADVISORS Ira Cohen, Rutgers University Jeff Manza, Northwestern University Gianfranco Poggi, Universita di Trento Beth Schneider, University of California, Santa Barbara Susan Silbey, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Carol Smart, University of Leeds The Cambridge Dictionary of SOCIOLOGY General Editor BRYAN S. TURNER CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, São Paulo Cambridge University Press The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 8RU, UK Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York www.cambridge.org Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521832908 © Cambridge University Press 2006 This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provision of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published in print format 2006 eBook (NetLibrary) ISBN-13 978-0-511-37145-5 ISBN-10 0-511-37145-4 eBook (NetLibrary) hardback ISBN-13 978-0-521-83290-8 hardback ISBN-10 0-521-83290-X paperback ISBN-13 978-0-521-54046-9 paperback ISBN-10 0-521-54046-1 Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of urls for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication, and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate. To the memory of my parents Sophia Turner (née Brookes) and Stanley W. Turner Contents List of contributors page viii Acknowledgments x Introduction xi How to use this Dictionary xix THE DICTIONARY vii List of contributors Gabriel Abend, Northwestern University Gary L. Albrecht, University of Illinois, Chicago Jeffrey Alexander, Yale University Tomas Almaguer, San Francisco State University Patrick Baert, University of Cambridge Jack Barbalet, University of Leicester James Beckford, University of Warwick Stephen Benard, Cornell University Michael Billig, Loughborough University Mildred Blaxter, University of Bristol Mick Bloor, University of Glasgow William A. Brown, University of Cambridge Brendan J. Burchell, University of Cambridge Stewart Clegg, University of Technology, Sydney Elizabeth F. Cohen, Syracuse University Ira Cohen, Rutgers University Oonagh Corrigan, University of Plymouth Rosemary Crompton, City University, London Sean Cubitt, The University of Waikato, New Zealand Tom Cushman, Wellesley College Tia DeNora, University of Exeter Peter Dickens, University of Cambridge Michele Dillon, University of New Hampshire S. N. Eisenstadt, The Jerusalem Van Leer Institute Tony Elger, University of Warwick Anthony Elliott, Flinders University of South Australia Amitai Etzioni, The Communitarian Network, Washington Mary Evans, University of Kent Ron Eyerman, Yale University James D. Faubion, Rice University Janie Filoteo, Texas A & M University Gary Alan Fine, Northwestern University David Frisby, London School of Economics Loraine Gelsthorpe, University of Cambridge Julian Go, Boston University David Good, University of Cambridge Philip Goodman, University of California, Irvine Susan Hansen, Murdoch University Bernadette Hayes, University of Aberdeen Chris Haywood, University of Newcastle upon Tyne John Heritage, University of California, Los Angeles John Hoffman, University of Leicester John Holmwood, University of Sussex Robert Holton, Trinity College, Dublin Darnell Hunt, University of California, Los Angeles Geoffrey Ingham, University of Cambridge Engin Isin, York University, Canada Andrew Jamison, Aalborg University Valerie Jenness, University of California, Irvine Bob Jessop, Lancaster University James E. Katz, Rutgers University Douglas Kellner, University of California, Los Angeles Krishan Kumar, University of Virginia John Law, Lancaster University Charles Lemert, Wesleyan University Donald N. Levine, University of Chicago Ruth Lister, Loughborough University Steven Loyal, University College, Dublin Mairtin Mac-an-Ghaill, University of Birmingham Michael Macy, Cornell University Jeff Manza, Northwestern University Robert Miller, Queen’s University, Belfast Jan Pakulski, University of Tasmania Edward Park, Loyola Marymount University Frank Pearce, Queen’s University, Canada Emile Perreau-Saussine, University of Cambridge Chris Phillipson, Keele University Gianfranco Poggi, Università di Trento, Italy Dudley L. Poston,* Texas A & M University Stephen Quilley, University College, Dublin Mark Rapley, Edith Cowan University Larry Ray, University of Kent at Canterbury Isaac Reed, Yale University Thomas Reifer, University of San Diego Derek Robbins, University of East London Chris Rojek, Nottingham Trent University Mercedes Rubio, American Sociological Association *Dudley Poston wishes to thank the following graduate students for their assistance: Mary Ann Davis, Chris Lewinski, Hua Luo, Heather Terrell and Li Zhang. viii List of contributors Rogelio Saenz, Texas A & M University Kent Sandstrom, University of Northern Iowa Cornel Sandvoss, University of Surrey Jacqueline Schneider, University of Leicester Jackie Scott, University of Cambridge Martin Shaw, University of Sussex Mark Sherry, The University of Toledo Birte Siim, Aalborg University, Denmark Susan Silbey, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Carol Smart, University of Manchester Vicki Smith, University of California, Davis Nick Stevenson, University of Nottingham Rob Stones, University of Essex Richard Swedberg, Cornell University Piotr Sztompka, Jagiellonian University, Poland Edward Tiryakian, Duke University Kenneth H. Tucker, Jr., Mount Holyoke College, MA Bryan S. Turner, National University of Singapore Jonathan Turner, University of California, Riverside Stephen P. Turner, University of South Florida Arnout van de Rijt, Cornell University Ann Vogel, University of Exeter Frederic Volpi, University of St. Andrews Alan Warde, University of Manchester Darin Weinberg, University of Cambridge Andrew Wernick, Trent University, Canada Kevin White, The Australian National University Fiona Wood, Cardiff University ix Acknowledgments I would like to thank Sarah Caro, formerly Senior Commissioning Editor in Social Sciences at Cambridge University Press, for her tireless and cheerful commitment to this Dictionary, and her enthusiasm for the project of sociology as a whole. Her quiet determination to get the job done provided me with an enduring role model. More recently, John Haslam has effectively seen this project to a conclusion. Juliet Davis-Berry of the Press worked unstintingly to get lists, entries, and authors organized. Carrie Cheek has provided generous and careful secretarial and editorial support in collecting entries, corresponding with authors, overseeing corrections, and dealing with my mistakes. Without her ongoing support, the Dictionary would not have been completed. Leigh Mueller worked with extraordinary vigilance to correct the proofs of the Dictionary and to impose some standard of excellence on often wayward English. The editorial board members – Ira Cohen, Jeff Manza, Gianfranco Poggi, Beth Schneider, Susan Silbey, and Carol Smart – contributed to the development of the list of entries, read and re-read draft entries, and made substantial contributions of their own. Ira Cohen, in particular, wrote major entries, advised authors, and recruited his daughter as a contributor. The authors kindly responded to criticism and correction of their draft submissions with considerable tolerance. Many authors struggled with major illness, family breakdown, and the sheer cussedness of everyday life to complete entries on time. The following authors wrote many additional and extensive essays, often at the last minute to fill in gaps caused by entries that were missing for a variety of reasons, and I am especially grateful to them: Stewart Clegg, Tony Elgar, Mary Evans, Susan Hansen, John Hoffman, John Holmwood, Charles Lemert, Steven Loyal, Stephen Quilley, Mark Rapley, Larry Ray, Darin Weinberg, and Kevin White. The Dictionary is, in short, a genuinely collective effort. However, any remaining errors and omissions are my responsibility. x Introduction At one level, sociology is easy to define. It is the study of social institutions – the family, religion, sport, community, and so on. We can study institutions at the micro-level by looking at interactions between family members, for example, or we can examine macro-relations such as the family and kinship system of a society as a whole. Below this level of minimal agreement, there is considerable dispute as to what sociology really is, and during the twentieth century and into this century many critics of sociology have periodically pronounced it to be in crisis or to be moribund. It is said to be prone to jargon, or it is claimed by its critics to be merely common sense. A natural scientist at my former Cambridge college, on hearing that I was editing a dictionary of sociology, inquired in all seriousness whether there would be enough concepts and terms for a whole dictionary. My problem as editor has by contrast been the question of what to leave out. In this context of lay skepticism, a dictionary of sociology is in part a defense of the discipline from its detractors, and in part a statement of its achievements and prospects. It aims to give a precise, informative, and objective account of the discipline, including both its successes and failures, and in this sense dictionaries are inherently conservative. A dictionary seeks to give an informed guide to a particular field such that both the expert and the student can benefit intellectually. In many respects, part of the problem for sociology as an academic discipline lies in its very success. An outsider to the academy at the end of the nineteenth century, sociology is now influential in archaeology, the arts, the history and philosophy of science, science and technology studies, religious studies, organizational theory, and in the teaching of general practice and community medicine in medical faculties, where the social dimension of everyday reality is now taken for granted. The study of contemporary epidemics in public health, especially the AIDS/HIV epidemic, has employed sociological insights into networks and risk taking. The management of any future pandemic will draw upon sociological research on social networks, compliance behavior, and the impact of such factors as social class, gender, and age on prevalence rates. Other areas such as art history and aesthetics often draw implicitly on sociological notions of audiences, art careers, art markets, and cultural capital. Science and technology studies more explicitly depend on the sociology of knowledge. Dance studies frequently adopt insights and perspectives from the sociology of the body. It is often difficult to distinguish between historical sociology, social history and world-systems theory. Cultural studies, women’s studies, and disability studies have drawn extensively on debates of social construction in sociology. Activists xi Introduction in social movements in support of disability groups have directly adopted sociological ideas about how disability as a social construct involves the curtailment of social rights. Ethnomethodology – the study of the methods or practices that are important in accomplishing tasks in the everyday world – has contributed to research on how people use complex machinery in workplace settings. Conversational analysis has been important in understanding how conversations take place, for example between doctor and patient. The emerging area of terrorism studies will no doubt have a substantial input from sociologists on recruitment patterns, beliefs, and social background. In short, there has been a great dispersion and proliferation of the sociological paradigm into adjacent fields and disciplines. Much of this intellectual dispersion or seepage has practical consequences. The danger is, however, that the sociological perspective will, as a result of this intellectual leakage, simply dissolve into cultural studies, film studies, media studies, and so forth. Sociological insights and approaches have been successfully dispersed through the humanities and science curricula, but the intellectual connections with sociology are not always recognized or indeed understood. The contemporary enthusiasm for multidisciplinarity and interdisciplinarity often obscures the need to preserve basic disciplines. Although this dispersal of sociology into various areas within the humanities and social science curricula is satisfying in some respects, it is important to defend a sociological core, if sociology is to survive as a coherent and valid discipline. The idea of defending a “canon” has become somewhat unfashionable. In literary studies, the problem of the canonical authority of the received great texts has been a crucial issue in English literature since the publication of, for example, F. R. Leavis’s The Great Tradition in 1948. The idea of a sociological canon has been attacked by feminism and postmodernism for being too exclusive and narrow, but a canonical tradition does not have to be unduly narrow or parochial, and students need to understand how sociology developed, who contributed to its growth, and where contemporary concepts emerged historically. I would contend further that classical sociology, when generously defined, remains relevant to understanding the contemporary world. The study of “the social” remains the basis of the discipline, where the social is constituted by institutions. Where the intellectual roots of the discipline are ignored, the strong program of sociology as an autonomous discipline is eroded. A dictionary of sociology is an attempt to (re)state the principal theories and findings of the discipline, and thereby inevitably contributes to the definition of a canon. Sociology remains, however, a critical discipline, which constantly questions its origins and its evolution. Of course, in many respects, sociology is not a homogeneous or seamless discipline. It has always been somewhat fragmented by different traditions, epistemologies, values, and methodologies. Sociological theories and ideas are perhaps more open to contestation and dispute, precisely because their social and political implications are radical. A dictionary of sociology has to articulate the coherence of the subject, and at the same time fully to recognize its xii Introduction diversity. For example, one major division in sociology has been between the American and the European traditions. The basic difference is that sociology in America became thoroughly professionalized with a strong association (the American Sociological Association), a variety of professional journals, a clear apprenticeship process prior to tenure, and a reward system of prizes and honors. In Europe, professional associations have not been able to establish an agreed core of theory, methods, and substantive topics. While European sociology defines its roots in the classical tradition of Marx, Durkheim, Weber, and Simmel, American sociology more often sees its origins in the applied sociology of the Chicago School, in pragmatism, and in symbolic interactionism. American sociology has favored empiricism, pragmatism, and social psychology over European sociology, which has its foundations in the Enlightenment, the humanism of Auguste Comte, the political economy of Marx, and the critical theory of Adorno and Horkheimer. We should not overstate this division. There have been important figures in sociology, who, to some extent, have bridged the gap between the two traditions – C. Wright Mills, Talcott Parsons, Peter Berger, Neil Smelser, and more recently Jeffrey Alexander and Anthony Giddens. W. E. B. Du Bois was trained in both American and European traditions. Nevertheless the divisions are real and these historical differences have been, if anything, reinforced in recent years by the fact that European sociology has been more exposed to postmodernism, deconstruction, and poststructuralism than has the American tradition. In negative terms, European sociology has been more subject to rapid changes in fashions in social theory. Pragmatism, social reform, and applied sociology in America have been seen as an alternative to the excessive theoretical nature of European thought. While Adorno and Horkheimer saw American empiricism as the worst form of traditional theory, the Marxist revival in the 1960s and 1970s in Europe had little lasting impact in America. Talcott Parsons’s sociology in fact never gained dominance in American sociology, partly because The Structure of Social Action was too European. More recently the pragmatist revival in America – for example in the social philosophy of Richard Rorty – has attempted to show once more that American social theory does not need any European inspiration. Recent European debates have not had much impact on mainstream American sociology. Two illustrations are important. The development of cultural studies that has been influential in British sociology, around the work of Richard Hoggart, Raymond Williams, Stuart Hall, and the Birmingham School, has had relatively little consequence in mainstream American sociology. The debate around Ulrich Beck’s notion of risk society and the theory of individualization has not extended much beyond Europe. In this new Cambridge Dictionary of Sociology, I have attempted to cover both American and European traditions by ensuring that the editorial board and the authors reflect these different approaches, and that the entries have afforded ample recognition of the richness of these different perspectives. Entries therefore attempt to provide a more global coverage of sociology by attending to these differences rather than obscuring or denying them. The xiii Introduction Dictionary examines key intellectual figures in both European and American sociology, and also reflects different substantive, theoretical, and methodological perspectives. Although there are important differences that are the product of separate historical developments, the Dictionary also looks forward to new influences that are the common concerns of sociologists everywhere. What are these new developments in sociology that the Cambridge Dictionary attempts to address? First, there is the debate about globalization itself. Sociologists have been concerned with two significant aspects of this process, namely the globalization of trade and finance following the collapse of the Bretton Woods agreements and the rise of the Washington consensus, and the development of technology and software that made possible global communication in an expanding economy. Sociologists have examined a variety of substantial changes relating to globalization, such as diasporic communities, global migration, fundamentalism, and the rise of the global city. Various theoretical responses to these changes are also fairly obvious. The analysis of risk society itself can be seen as a sociological response to the uncertain social consequences of economic globalization. Another development is the use of social capital theory to look at the social impact of global disorganization and economic inequality on individual health and illness. While the original foundations of globalization theory were explored in economics and politics (for example the global governance debate), sociologists have become to some extent more interested in cultural globalization in terms of mass media and cultural imperialism. As a result of globalization, sociologists have been exercised by the possibility of new forms of cosmopolitanism, and whether a cosmopolitan ethic can transform the character of sociology. These debates and concepts are fully represented in this Dictionary. One important aspect of globalization has been a revival of the sociological study of religion. In the 1960s the sociology of religion was especially dominant, partly through the influence of sociologists such as Peter Berger, Thomas Luckmann, Bryan Wilson, and David Martin. However, as the secularization thesis became dominant, the intellectual fortunes of the sociology of religion declined. In American sociology, the study of cults and new religious movements was important, but the sociology of religion was no longer influential in sociology as a whole, and it was not at the cutting edge of sociological theory. The globalization process has given rise to a revival of the sociology of religion, especially in the study of fundamentalism. In this respect, the work of Roland Robertson on (cultural and religious) globalization has been particularly influential. Here again, however, there are important differences between America and Europe, because American sociology has been much more influenced by the applications of rational choice theory to religious behavior, giving rise to the notion of a “spiritual marketplace.” Whereas European societies have experienced a history of religious decline in terms of church attendance and membership, religion in America has remained an influential aspect of public life. The “new paradigm” in American sociology of religion has taken notice of xiv Introduction the “supply side” of religion, where competition in the religious market has expanded religious choice and fostered a buoyant spiritual marketplace. It is obvious that 9/11, and the subsequent “war on terrorism,” have had and will continue to have a large impact on sociology. This political and military crisis demonstrated that the largely positive views of global society that were characteristic of the early stages of the study of globalization, for example on world democracy and governance, were somewhat one-sided, premature, and indeed utopian. The brave new world order had come to a sudden end. Global uncertainty was reinforced by the Afghan war, the war in Iraq, and the more general war on Al-Qaeda; and these world events have opened a new chapter in the history of sociological thought – the sociology of global terrorism. The bombings in Bali, Madrid, and London demonstrated the global nature of modern terrorism. We might argue that the sociology of globalization has, as it were, taken a dark turn. There is growing awareness of the need to study the global sex industry, including pornography, child sex abuse, sexual tourism, and the wider issues of slavery and the trade in women. The war on terrorism has made the sociology of the media even more prominent, but it has also demonstrated that sociology has until recently ignored such prominent social phenomena as war, terrorism and violence, money and exchange, and religion, human rights and law. There is also greater awareness of the need for a new type of medical sociology that will examine the globalization of epidemics of which HIV/AIDS, SARS and avian flu are dramatic examples. Critics have argued that the “cultural turn” in sociology that gave rise to a new interest in cultural phenomena in everyday life and to new interpretative methods, from discourse analysis to deconstruction as a method of textual analysis, has resulted in the neglect of traditional but important social phenomena – social class, poverty, inequality, power, and racial conflict. One further consequence of 9/11 and 7/7 (the bombings in London) has been a growing disillusionment with multiculturalism, and many social scientists have proclaimed “the end of multiculturalism” and have identified the rise of the “new xenophobia” in western societies. Future research on race, ethnicity, and identity will be colored by the despairing, bleak mood of the first decade of the new millennium. While sociologists have been interested in the social causes of fundamentalism in general, research on political Islam has been especially prominent in current sociological research. These recent developments have resulted in various re-evaluations of Max Weber’s comparative sociology of religion. The debate about the relevance of the Protestant Ethic Thesis to Islam continues to interest sociologists, and there has also been much interest in the revival of Confucianism in Asia. There is, however, also recognition of the fact that we need new ways of thinking about modernization, secularization, and fundamentalism. The work of S. N. Eisenstadt in developing ideas about “multiple modernities” offers innovative theoretical strategies for sociological research. Globalization is therefore stimulating a rich arena of research in modern sociology, such as George Ritzer’s work on McDonaldization, Manuel xv Introduction Castells on the media, Martin Shaw on global military conflict, Thomas Cushman on global human rights, and David Martin on global Pentecostalism. This Dictionary provides substantial coverage of these issues, theories, and authors. One major dimension of globalization is of course the expansion and transformation of media technology and information. Marshall McLuhan in the 1960s invented a variety of expressions to describe the arrival of a new age – in particular the idea of a global village. Every aspect of modern society has been revolutionized by these developments in communication and information – from “cybersex” and “telesurgery” to smart bombs. To understand the social changes that made possible the information society, there has been a revival of interest in technology. What had been rejected by Marxist sociology as “technological determinism” has become increasingly central to the sociological understanding of how the world is changing. Research on the impact of technology on spatial relationships, speed, and social networks can be seen in the growing interest in the idea of mobilities, social flows, and networks in the work of John Urry. The concern to understand technology has forced sociologists to think more creatively about how we interact with objects and networks between objects. The development of actor network theory has brought together spatial, technological, and science studies to understand the interactional relations between human beings and the world of objects. Many sociologists believe that these changes are so profound that a new type of sociology is required to analyze speed, mobility, and the compression of space. The “cultural turn” (a new emphasis on culture in modern society) was followed by the “spatial turn” (a new preoccupation with space, the global city, and urban design). In order to encompass these developments, the Dictionary has included many entries on information, communications, and mass media. Technological change in modern society often involves a combination of information, genetics, computerization, and biomedicine. These developments in society have transformed the old debate about nature and nurture, and raised new issues about surveillance, individual freedoms, eugenics, and governmentality. The relationship between the human body, technology, and society has become increasingly complex, and the emergence of the sociology of the body can be regarded as one response to these intellectual, social, and legal developments. The ownership of the human body has become a major issue in legal conflicts over patients, patents, and profits. The early stages in the evolution of the sociology of the body were closely associated with feminism, the anthropology of Mary Douglas, and the work of Maurice Merleau-Ponty and Michel Foucault, but developments in micro-biology and information sciences are beginning to change these concerns with the body “as organism” to the body as “genetic map.” These new challenges arising from the implications of genetics for human aging and reproduction have given rise to the possibility of what Francis Fukuyama has called “our posthuman future.” This new intellectual confrontation between biology, informatics, and sociology has also produced a considerable re-assessment of the legacy of Charles Darwin, social Darwinism, and evolutionary thought. The social xvi Introduction problems associated with the application of genetics have stimulated a renewed interest in the changing nature of reproduction, gender, and the family. Stem-cell research, therapeutic cloning, and regenerative medicine are changing the intellectual horizons of medical sociology, and are raising new questions (for example, can we live forever?) – for which we have no satisfactory answers. A reassessment of the relationships between sociology and biology is recasting the old debate between education and endowment, and in turn forcing us to rethink sex, sexuality, and gender. In the 1960s and 1970s mainstream sociology often neglected feminist theory and gender. The debate about how to measure social class, for example, often failed to take into account the class position of women by concentrating exclusively on the class position of men in the formal labor market. In the 1970s and 1980s, feminist analysis flourished and the work of Juliet Mitchell, Kate Millett, Germaine Greer, Ann Oakley, and Shulamith Firestone had a comprehensive impact on sociological research. Although feminist thought was often fragmented into materialist, socialist, and postmodern versions, feminism gave rise to a rich legacy of social theory and empirical work. Sociology has also been influenced by sexual politics, debates about identity, and queer theory. These debates over gender, sex, and sexuality were heavily influenced by the debate around social construction, perhaps first clearly enunciated by Simone de Beauvoir’s claim that women are created by society rather than by biology. Medical technology has transformed the conditions under which people reproduce and has produced new methods of reproduction that do not require sexual intercourse between men and women. These new reproductive technologies are forcing sociologists to re-think the social relations of biological reproduction. The emergence of gender studies, women’s studies, and gay and lesbian studies has often meant that traditional areas such as sociology of the family and marriage have been overshadowed by new questions and new foci of research. While contemporary sociologists explore gay and lesbian cultures, an older, perhaps more socially conservative, tradition, represented by the work of Peter Laslett, Peter Willmott, Michael Young, and Elizabeth Bott in Britain and by W. J. Goode in America, went into decline. This relative decline of the family as a key topic of research is ironic – given the alleged ideological dominance of heterosexuality (“heteronormativity”) in mainstream society and in conventional sociology. We can imagine, however, that current sociological views of what constitutes gender and sexuality will have to change radically with changes in how humans reproduce through new reproductive technologies, surrogacy, same-sex marriages, “designer babies,” and cloning. These developments constitute a considerable component of this Dictionary. Alongside the sociology of the body, there has been an important development of the sociology of the emotions, where the work of Jack Barbalet has been particularly innovative. By drawing on the legacy of William James, Barbalet pushed the debate about emotions away from social psychology towards seeing emotions as the link between social structure and the social xvii Introduction actor. His work reminds us of the connection between contemporary theories of emotion and the work of classical economists such as Adam Smith in The Theory of Moral Sentiments of 1759. The contemporary analysis of emotions needs to be understood as part of a legacy of classical sociology and the Enlightenment. Another way of approaching these critical debates is through the influence of postmodernism. Because conventional sociology has been associated with the Enlightenment tradition and modernity, postmodern theory was seen as an attack on classical sociology. Thinkers such as Durkheim and Weber were held up to be the epitome of modern as opposed to postmodern social theory. There are at least two problems associated with these critical evaluations of classical sociology. They often fail to distinguish between postmodernity as a state of society (for example, as illustrated by flexibility in employment, the dominance of service industries, the growth of information technologies, the rise of consumerism, and the general decline of a post-Fordist economy) and postmodernism as a type of theory (which employs textual analysis, irony, bathos, essay form, and aphorism). We can therefore understand postmodernity without difficulty via sociological concepts (that are related to the theory of postindustrial society) without having to accept postmodern theory. Postmodern theory in Europe is still influential in the sociological analysis of culture and identity, and it was influential in the expansion of new methodologies that questioned the legacies of positivism and behaviorism. In the postwar period there was initially a dominant focus on survey data and quantitative analysis, but there has been a growing interest in qualitative methodologies, ethnographies, biographical research, oral history, and discourse analysis. There is also an emerging interest in the use of electronic communication as a method of conducting research. These movements in social theory – constructionism, postmodernism, poststructuralism, and queer theory – have been somewhat eclipsed by the growing interest in globalization theory and awareness of the negative aspects of globalization such as new wars, terrorism, slavery, and crime. With the impact of globalization, new debates will emerge in sociology around the question of cosmopolitanism and global sociology. The Cambridge Dictionary of Sociology attempts therefore to cover these new, important and controversial developments in sociology, but it is also concerned not to become disconnected from the sociological tradition. In developing this modern Dictionary, I have been at pains to retain a lively and committed relationship to the diverse traditions and legacies of classical sociology, which have shaped the sociological imagination in the last century. Maintaining the core of sociology preserves a basis for further innovation and creativity. The Dictionary has been developed to recognize the continuities between classical sociology and the work of such sociologists as Ulrich Beck, Raymond Boudon, Pierre Bourdieu, James Coleman, Anthony Giddens, and Neil Smelser. The Dictionary attempts to be relevant to modern social theory and changes in contemporary society, while describing these developments in the context of the legacy of classical sociology. xviii How to use this Dictionary Sociology is a critical discipline, and its concepts are typically contested. There is no consensus over the meaning of globalization, risk, information, culture, and society. The aim of this Dictionary has therefore been discursive. Its entries are designed to illustrate and debate concepts, showing their diverse origins and contested meanings. Some entries – on culture, family, gender, genetics, globalization, health, information, mass media and communications, power, race and ethnicity, religion, science and technology studies, social movements, and work and employment – are very long (around 5,000 words). These major entries allow authors to explore these critical issues in depth. The variable length of entries is intended to reflect the complexity and importance of different topics and fields in sociology. These large entries on key aspects of society are intended to be, as it were, the intellectual backbone of the Dictionary. The Dictionary also contains a large number of entries on sociologists, both classical and contemporary. While the selection of these entries will always be somewhat arbitrary, they are intended to illustrate current debates as reflected in the work of living sociologists. This selection of contemporary sociologists will cause some degree of annoyance to those living sociologists who are not included. I hope they will accept my apologies for their absence, but these choices are unavoidably eccentric to some degree. I have if anything been overly inclusive rather than exclusive. There is no list of bibliographical references at the end of the entries. Because references are included in the text, the reader can get an immediate grasp of the key bibliographical sources. The entries also contain many cross references in bold print that allow the reader to make immediate connections to other related entries. With foreign works, the first date in round brackets refers to its original publication, while dates in square brackets refer to publication dates of titles in English translation. Where possible I have referred to the English titles of translated works rather than to the original language of the publication. There are no footnotes or endnotes. The aim throughout has been to achieve simplicity rather than clutter entries with scholarly conventions that are not necessarily helpful to the reader. Finally, the authors have been drawn from many countries in a bid to reflect the contemporary richness and cosmopolitanism of sociology. The entries are written in a simple, discursive, and accessible language that strives to avoid jargon or excessive dependence on a technical and arid xix How to use this Dictionary vocabulary. I have encouraged authors to write in business-like, clear English. There are relatively few diagrams, charts, or figures. It is intended that the Dictionary will offer a lively defense of sociology as a vibrant and expanding field of study. The more complex and difficult modern society becomes, the more we need a relevant, critical, and energetic sociological understanding of society. This Dictionary is intended to assist that understanding. Bryan S. Turner National University of Singapore xx A accounts The term account – along with the related terms accountable and accountability – is a term of art largely associated with ethnomethodology. However, it has come into wider usage as various broadly ethnomethodological insights and sensibilities have drifted into mainstream sociology. Following Marvin Scott’s and Stanford Lyman’s article “Accounts” (1968) in the American Sociological Review, some users of the term have dwelt primarily on accounts as linguistic devices used to neutralize the disapproval caused by seemingly untoward behavior. Thus, the term has been distinguished as a particular subset of the category explanation. According to this line of argument, accounts may be divided into two sub-types: excuses and justifications. The first device acknowledges an act to have been “bad, wrong, or inappropriate” but denies the apparently culpable party is fully responsible for what has occurred. The second device denies the act was bad, wrong, or inappropriate in the first place. Insofar as these devices rely for their efficacy on invoking what C. Wright Mills once called certain shared “vocabularies of motive” (1940) in the American Journal of Sociology, they may be used as empirical windows on the wider world of moral sensibilities shared by a studied social group. Ethnomethodologists use the terms accounts, accountable, and accountability in a rather more inclusive and fundamental way. Indeed, they argue that it is only by virtue of its accountability that any kind of collaborative social action is at all possible. In its specifically ethnomethodological sense, the accountability of social action is more than just a matter of linguistically excusing or justifying untoward conduct. It entails exhibiting and coordinating the orderliness and reasonability of social action in the widest sense. Hence, the terms account, accountable, and accountability are used to capture various constituent features of social action as such. Social action is accountable in this sense to the extent that its witnesses find it non-random, coherent, meaningful, and oriented to the accomplishment of practical goals. Moreover, for ethnomethodologists, the accountability of social action is much more than just a theoretical matter or one of disinterested interpretation. As social actors, we are not just accountable to one another in the sense that we can linguistically describe each other’s actions. Rather, the very fact that social action is describable in this way, or that it can be accounted for, is linked to another sense of its accountability. As social actors, we are also accountable in the sense that we may be held to account if our behavior fails to exhibit orderliness and reasonability to those with whom we find ourselves engaged. Social actors need not linguistically describe conduct in order to find it accountable in these senses. Ethnomethodologists also stress that sociologists can make use of the fact that social action is manifestly accountable to social actors themselves as a resource for making sociological sense of what is going on in social action. In principle, all of the various linguistic and non-linguistic devices through which social actors make their actions accountable to one another should also be recoverable for use as resources in the empirical sociological analysis of their actions. DARIN WEINBERG act – see action theory. action research – see action theory. action theory “Did he jump or was he pushed?” Jumping is an action. Being pushed is an event. Action theory is an approach to the study of social life that is based on the ontological premise that people jump. For example, the flow of traffic on a busy street differs from the flow of electrons on a copper wire. Electrons are pushed, drivers are not. From a structural perspective, we can learn a great deal about the flow of traffic by focusing on exogenous determinants, without ever knowing much about what drives human behavior. While few action theorists 1 action theory would disagree with the value of structural analysis, they also see the need to look beyond the constraints on action, to the intentions, purposes, and goals that motivate efforts to push back. Action theory has roots in Max Weber’s interpretative method and in Talcott Parsons’s effort to integrate this with Émile Durkheim’s macrosocial approach. In “The Place of Ultimate Values in Sociological Theory,” Parsons insisted that “man is essentially an active, creative, evaluating creature” whose behavior must be understood in terms of the ends of action, and not “in terms of ‘causes’ and ‘conditions’” (1935). His “voluntaristic theory of action” opposed the deterministic account of human behavior as “pushed,” whether by Sigmund Freud’s “unconscious” or Pavlov’s bell. Action theory informs a diverse range of contemporary sociological theorizing, including rational action, symbolic interactionism, conflict theory, and hermeneutics. Conceptually, there are two main branches – one based on interests, the other on identity. Rational-action theory posits instrumental pursuit of self-interest, which can include an interest in public as well as private goods and an interest in social approval and avoidance of sanctions. Using mathematical formalism, the theory can generate testable predictions from a relatively small number of assumptions. However, the scope of the theory is limited by heroic assumptions about perfect information and unlimited calculating ability. Even versions based on “bounded rationality” are limited to actions intended to maximize utility, which excludes expressive and enthusiastic behavior and actions motivated by normative obligation and moral righteousness. That void has been addressed by theories of action based on identity rather than interest. For identity theorists, “interests are only the surface of things. What is beneath the surface is a strong emotion, a feeling of a group of people that they are alike and belong together,” according to Randall Collins in Sociological Insight (1992: 28). Individuals order the social world by carving out cognitive categories through interaction with others, leading to stereotyping, in-group favoritism, and out-group prejudice. Social and moral boundaries are defined and affirmed by punishing deviants. Punishment is not calibrated to deter deviance; rather, it is unleashed as an expression of indignation at the violation of normative boundaries, even when this may excite opposition rather than suppress it. Interest and identity theories of action both emphasize the dynamics of interaction among 2 action theory autonomous but interdependent agents. However, they differ in how this interdependence is understood. Interest theory posits strategic interdependence, in which the consequences of individual choices depend in part on the choices of others. Game theorists (see game theory) model this interdependence as a payoff matrix defined by the intersection of all possible choices of the players, with individual payoffs assigned to each cell. For example, the payoff for providing favors depends on whether the partner reciprocates. Peer pressure is also an example of strategic interdependence created by the application of sanctions conditional upon compliance with expected behavior. Identity theorists point instead to the cognitive interdependence of agents who influence one another in response to the influences they receive, through processes like communication, persuasion, instruction, and imitation. Action theory poses three related and perplexing puzzles: the problem of social order, the tension between structure and action, and the problem of free will and determinism. Contemporary research on complex dynamical systems has enriched action theory by providing plausible solutions to each of these puzzles, based, in turn, on the principles of selforganization, emergence, and deterministic chaos. Macrosocial theories of social order posit a structured system of institutions and norms that shape individual behavior from the top down. In contrast, action theories assume that much of social life emerges from the bottom up, more like improvisational jazz than a symphony orchestra. People do not simply play roles written by elites and directed by managers. We each chart our own course, on the fly. How then is social order possible? If every musician is free to play as they choose, why do we not end up with a nasty and brutish cacophony, a noisy war of all against all? Parsons addressed the “Hobbesian problem of order” by positing a set of shared norms and values that secure the cultural consensus necessary for social systems to function. Yet this is not a satisfactory solution. In effect, society remains a symphony orchestra in which the musicians must still learn their parts, except that now the Leviathan needs to carry only a thin baton, and not a lethal weapon. An alternative solution was anticipated by Parsons’s student, Niklas Luhmann. Luhmann bridged the gap between action theory and systems theory by placing individual actors in a web of communicative interaction with others. His rather abstruse ideas on autopoietic systems of interaction find clearer expression in complexity theory. The action theory emergence of order out of local interaction in complex systems has come to be known as “selforganization” according to S. Kaufman in Origins of Order (1993). The archetype is biological evolution, but there are parallels across the sciences, cases in which surprising (and often quite exquisite) global patterns emerge from interactions among relatively simple but interdependent processes, in the absence of central coordination, direction, or planning. These include flocks of birds, traffic jams, fads, forest fires, riots, and residential segregation. There is no leader bird who choreographs the dance-like movement of a flock of geese. There is no supervisor in charge of a riot. There is no conspiracy of banks and realtors who are assigning people to ethnically homogeneous neighborhoods. These processes are examples of complex systems in which global order emerges spontaneously out of a web of local interactions among large numbers of autonomous yet interdependent agents. Emergence is a defining feature of complex systems and is ultimately responsible for the self-organization we find beneath the apparent chaos of nature (Coveney and Highfield, Frontiers of Complexity, 1995). Emergent properties are not reducible to the properties of the individual agents. The idea of emergence was anticipated by one of the founders of sociology, who established this as a fundamental rule of the sociological method. “The hardness of bronze is not in the copper, the tin, or the lead, which are its ingredients and which are soft and malleable bodies,” Émile Durkheim wrote in The Rules of the Sociological Method, “it is in their mixture.” “Let us apply this principle to sociology,” he continued; “[Social facts] reside exclusively in the very society itself which produces them, and not in its parts, i.e., its members” (1986: xlvii). Structuralists have reified Durkheim’s theory of social facts as emergent properties, leaving individual actors as little more than the incumbents of social locations and the carriers of structural imperatives. Heterogeneity in preferences and beliefs affects only which individuals will fill which “empty slots,” the origin of which lies in processes that operate at the societal level. In The Structure of Social Action (1937), Parsons also argued for the emergent properties of social systems, but believed Durkheim went too far in concluding that these “social facts” are entirely independent of individual consciousness. Parsons corrects the hyperstructuralist interpretation of Durkheim by incorporating an essential insight of Joseph Schumpeter’s “methodological individualism,” the idea that societal patterns emerge action theory from motivated choices and not from social facts external to individuals. Methodological individualism can be taken to imply that social facts are but the aggregated expression of individual goals and intentions. For example, residential segregation reflects the preferences of individuals for living among people similar to themselves. In contrast, structuralists assume that individual differences in ethnic identity affect who will live where in segregated neighborhoods but are not the cause of neighborhood segregation, which emanates from societal processes like red-lining and patterns of urban development. Action theory is often most effective when it steers between these extremes. A classic example is Thomas Schelling’s model of neighborhood segregation in his “Dynamic Model of Segregation” in the Journal of Mathematical Sociology 1971 (1). Schelling challenged the macrosocial assumption that segregation is imposed from the top down, through institutional means like “red-lining.” At the same time, his famous experiment also challenged the microsocial assumption that segregation floats from the bottom up, through the aggregation of individual prejudices against ethnic minorities and outsiders. Schelling randomly distributed red and green chips on a large checkerboard and moved individual chips to empty locations if the number of in-group neighbors fell below an individual’s threshold of tolerance. He discovered that extreme segregation can emerge even in a population that tolerates diversity, as agents relocate to avoid being in the minority. This surprisingly strong tendency towards neighborhood segregation is an emergent property of the population, generated by local interactions among large numbers of interdependent but autonomous agents, even when every individual is tolerant of diversity. Action theory explains social life by identifying the reasons for action (whether instrumental interests or symbolic meanings). As Anthony Giddens put it in The Constitution of Society, “I propose simply to declare that reasons are causes” (1984: 345). Yet most people now accept that everything in the universe is physically determined. How can this determinism be reconciled with a voluntaristic theory of action? Consider a sunbather who moves his/her towel to fend off a late afternoon shadow. Meanwhile, next to the towel, a heliotropic plant turns to follow the sun’s trajectory, thereby maximizing its access to an essential resource. Even the most dedicated Cartesian would not suggest that a sunflower is a purposive agent whose actions can be explained by the plant’s 3 action theory need for photosynthesis. How do we know that the sunbather is any different? One answer is that the sunbather could have chosen to remain in the shadow, while the sunflower could not. However, it is trivial to construct a stochastic sunflower that “chooses” to move, based on a probability distribution given by the location of the sun. A better answer is that the sunbather can tell you that the desire for sunlight is the reason for the action, while the sunflower will tell you nothing of the kind. Plants cannot provide reasons for their behavior, humans can. But does this mean that the sunbather is right? Is it possible that the sunbather, like the sunflower, is simply responding to physical stimuli that induce heliotropic movement, and, unlike for the sunflower, this movement is accompanied by the epiphenomenal feeling of choosing? There is mounting evidence from neuroscientists and experimental psychologists that supports that possibility. In 1983, Benjamin Libet found that “cerebral neural activity (‘readiness potential’) precedes the subject’s awareness of his/her intention or wish to act by at least 350 msec” (“Commentary on ‘Free Will in the Light of Neuropsychiatry,’” 1996). More recently, in The Illusion of Conscious Will (2002), Daniel Wegner reported substantial evidence to support the hypothesis that “conscious will” is largely an illusion, useful to help us remember our authorship of actions whose causes lie elsewhere. These and other studies point to the possibility that our intentions are formed in the course of initiating action, but in a separate cognitive subsystem that assigns authorship after the fact. If so, then perhaps humans are unique in the ability to provide rational accounts for our actions, but we have no more free will than does a sunflower. The theory of complex systems suggests an alternative possibility – that free will is compatible with determinism. Even relatively simple dynamical systems can require exponential amounts of computing power for every additional input into the system, until the number of bits required to predict system behavior, even in the near term, can exceed the number of particles in the universe. Thus, a highly nonlinear deterministic system like the brain can be indeterminable, which leaves open a window for intentional choice that is not reducible to system determinants (James P. Crutchfield, “Complexity: Order Contra Chaos,” 1989). Meanwhile, a growing interest in complex adaptive systems has opened up action theory to “backward-looking” approaches in which intentionality is empirically variable rather than 4 actor network theory presupposed. In backward-looking models, the ends of action attract the behaviors that produce them, whether or not the agent intended the outcome or is even aware of its existence. From a forward-looking perspective, this idea appears hopelessly teleological since the ends of action are located in the future and cannot reach back through time to attract the choices needed to bring them about. Models of complex adaptive systems avoid this problem by pointing backward, not forward – attributing action to outcomes that have already occurred. In agent-based evolutionary models, outcomes of a given action alter the population distribution of agents who engage in that action. In learning models, outcomes of a given action alter the probability distribution of actions within the repertoire of any given agent. Either way, the link between action and outcome is a set of experiences, not intentions. Agents look forward by holding a mirror to the past. They jump when they are pushed. MICHAEL W. MACY actor network theory Actor network theory (ANT) is a family of approaches to social analysis that rests on six core assumptions. First, it treats institutions, practices, and actors as materially heterogeneous, composed not only of people but also of technologies and other materials. Second, it assumes that the elements making up practices are relational, achieving their shape and attributes only in interaction with other elements. Nothing is intrinsically fixed or has reality outside the web of interactions. Third, it assumes that the network of heterogeneous relations and practices is a process. If structures, institutions, or realities are not continuously enacted then they disappear. Fourth, it therefore assumes that realities and structures are precarious in principle, if not in practice. Fifth, this implies that the world might be different, a suggestion that opens up interesting political possibilities. And sixth, it explores how rather than why realities are generated and maintained. This is because even the most obvious social causes are relational effects and therefore themselves subject to change. ANT developed initially in the 1980s in Paris with the work of such authors as Michel Callon, Bruno Latour (Science in Action, 1987), and John Law (Organizing Modernity, 1994). It grew (and grows) through empirical studies of technologies, science practices, organizations, markets, health care, spatial practices, and the natural world. Indeed it is not possible to appreciate ANT without exploring such case studies. Philosophically, it owes adaptation much to Michel Serres (1930–5) and is generally poststructuralist in inspiration. It thus shares with the writing of Michel Foucault an empirical concern with material–semiotic patterns of relations, though the patterns that it discerns are smaller in scope than those identified by Foucault. The approach is controversial. First, since it is non-humanist it analytically privileges neither people nor the social, which sets it apart from much English-language sociology. Second, since it offers accounts of how rather than why institutions take shape, it is sometimes accused of explanatory weakness. Third, political critics have suggested that it is insensitive to the “invisible work” of low-status actors. Fourth, it has been accused in some of its earlier versions of a bias towards centering, ordering, or even managerialism. And fifth, feminists have observed that it has shown little sensitivity to embodiment (see body). Whether these complaints are now justified is a matter for debate. Indeed, ANT is probably better seen as a toolkit and a set of methodological sensibilities rather than as a single theory. Recently there has been much interchange between ANT, feminist material-semiotics (Donna J. Haraway) and postcolonial theory, and there is newer “after-ANT” work that is much more sensitive to the politics of domination, to embodiment, to “othering,” and to the possible multiplicity and non-coherence of relations. A key issue remains politics. Such “after-ANT” writers as Annemarie Mol (The Body Multiple, 2002) and Helen Verran argue that relations are non-coherent and enact overlapping but different versions of reality, so there is space for “ontics,” or an “ontological politics” about what can and should be made real. This means that alternative and preferable realities might be enacted into being or made stronger: reality is not destiny. JOHN LAW adaptation – see evolutionary theory. addiction In its original usage, addiction meant simply to be given over to someone or something. It was a term used widely to describe passionate investments in various sorts of activities, as can be seen in Shakespeare’s Othello where we read “Each man to what sport and revel his addiction leads him.” Well into the nineteenth century the concept of addiction was used to describe a diverse assortment of human fixations. But as Temperance movements grew in the mid nineteenth century, the term was increasingly considered as a medical or addiction quasi-medical term of art and its scope was delimited to describing an individual’s seeming enslavement to alcohol or drugs. A multitude of efforts have been made to provide biological explanations for some people’s apparently pathological attachment to alcohol or drug use but each has met with rather serious conceptual obstacles. In response to these difficulties, most medical lexicons have now dispensed with the term addiction in favor of the presumably less conceptually troubling concept dependence. However, the term addiction continues to be found in both clinical and popular discourse regarding alcohol and drug problems and has indeed been extended to new forms of apparently compulsive behavior including over-eating, gambling, compulsive sexual behavior, and others. In sociology, addiction has been approached from several distinct theoretical vantage points. Regrettably, the term has often been used interchangeably with other terms including deviant drug use, drug misuse, and drug abuse. Such imprecision results in a confusion of questions concerning the social approval of various sorts of alcohol or drug use with questions concerning whether this use is voluntary. Much of the history of social policy concerning alcohol and psychoactive drugs has been predicated, at least ostensibly, on the claim that these substances possess unusual powers over people and must be regulated to protect citizens from their own personal proclivities to succumb to addictive use. If we are not able to distinguish claims regarding the putative morality of alcohol or drug use from claims regarding people’s ability to control their use, we are poorly equipped to evaluate effectively the history of policies predicated on the notion that people need protection from putatively addictive substances. We are also poorly equipped to evaluate social research which either endorses or rejects this idea. If it is to have any meaning at all, the term addiction cannot be considered as synonymous with terms denoting voluntary substance use. The earliest sociological research concerned specifically with addiction was conducted by Alfred Lindesmith under the tutelage of Herbert Blumer at the University of Chicago. Lindesmith noted that, whereas users who acquired heroin on the street were often vulnerable to addictive patterns of use, those who had been administered opiates in hospital settings were not so vulnerable. He explained this by suggesting that, whereas both hospital and street users experience physiological withdrawal symptoms upon cessation of use, only street users are consciously aware 5 addiction of the fact that the source of their distress lies in their heroin deprivation. Lindesmith argued that, by using drugs specifically to alleviate withdrawal, mere drug users were transformed into genuine drug addicts. This theory was attractive to sociologists in the twentieth century because it insisted the symbolic meanings actors found in their drug experiences were essential elements of the addiction process. While Lindesmith’s theory remains the classic canonical benchmark for contemporary sociological theorizing on addiction, it has been subject to several rather serious critiques. Most fundamentally, his theory presumes that physiological withdrawal distress is a necessary prerequisite for the onset of addictive patterns of behavior. In the wake of the so-called crack cocaine “epidemic,” theories of addiction predicated on the experience of physiological withdrawal distress have been undermined. Because they do not involve gross physiological withdrawal symptoms, crack cocaine addiction, along with nicotine addiction and behavioral addictions like those to eating, gambling, and sex, have cast doubt on the generalizability of Lindesmith’s theory and have even put in question its validity with respect to opiates themselves. During the mid twentieth century, structural functionalists offered a variety of theoretical accounts for apparently addictive behavior that departed in important ways from Lindesmith’s seminal work. Seeking wholly social structural explanations, these theories shared in common a departure from Lindesmith’s presumption of a necessary physiological component to addiction. In his famous essay “Social Structure and Anomie” (1938, American Sociological Review), Robert K. Merton suggested that chronic drunkards and drug addicts might exemplify the retreatist adaptation, one of his five modes of adjustment whereby social actors adopt ostensibly deviant patterns of action. According to Merton, the addict could be understood as an individual who believes in the propriety of both cultural goals and the institutionalized procedures society affords for achieving those goals but who cannot produce the desired results by socially sanctioned means. The result of this failure is a retreat from social life into “defeatism, quietism, and resignation.” This proposition was developed by Richard Cloward and Lloyd Ohlin in their book Delinquency and Opportunity (1960) in what became their fairly influential “Double Failure” hypothesis regarding addictive behavior. In contrast to Merton, Cloward and Ohlin suggested addicts were not opposed to adopting illegitimate means of achieving legitimate 6 addiction cultural goals, but rather were incapable of using even these means for securing social rewards. Hence, addicts were double failures in the sense that they failed to achieve by either legitimate or criminal procedures. Heavy drug use was held to alienate the putative addict from both mainstream and delinquent subcultures, thus further minimizing their opportunities for social success. Some structural functionalists moved beyond explanations of the distribution of addicts across social structural positions to consider the social psychological processes that motivated addictive patterns of alcohol or drug use. The best-known of these was normative ambivalence theory, according to which dysfunctional substance use will arise when agents are bombarded with competing normative orientations to their use. According to functionalists, apparently addictive behavior patterns were to be regarded as eminently rational, if painful and socially notorious, adaptations to social structural deprivation. The functionalist approach tended to stereotype addicts as necessarily socially disadvantaged and sometimes to confuse the trappings of poverty with the trappings of addiction. But it had the virtue of freeing sociological research from the presumption of a brute biological basis for addiction and of allowing sociologists to entertain the possibility that people might experience alcohol or drug problems simply as a result of the ways they had learned to use these substances to cope with the social structural circumstances of their lives. Structural functionalist approaches were rivaled by approaches to addiction (and deviant substance use more generally) proffered by ethnographers broadly allied with symbolic interactionism. As part of a more general critical turn against structural functionalism in the second half of the twentieth century, many of these sociologists distanced themselves from what David Matza, in his book Becoming Deviant (1969) dubbed the “correctional” perspective found in structural functionalist theories of addiction and deviant substance use, and moved towards what he called an “appreciative” analytic stance towards such putatively deviant behavior. Noting that modern societies were a good deal more pluralistic and conflicted than structural functionalists had generally allowed, these researchers advocated an agnostic moral regard for putatively dysfunctional or deviant behavior and an effort to empathize with putatively deviant individuals and subcultures. No longer was it assumed that behavior reviled in mainstream culture was necessarily viewed negatively by those who themselves engaged in the behavior. Nor was it any longer addiction assumed that the social mechanisms according to which these behaviors were produced and sustained need reflect a functional breakdown of either the individual or his or her society. Indeed, many of these studies highlighted the existence of subcultural prestige hierarchies, wherein the use and sale of illicit substances was valued as a mark of adventurousness and other subculturally valued characteristics. Substance use was depicted as a source of meaning in the lives of users. Hence studies focused on such matters as drug slang or argot, the settings of drug-related activity, the norms and practices characteristic of drug and alcohol using subcultures, and the careers through which drug users passed as they moved from initiates to seasoned veterans of drug- or alcohol-using social worlds. The concept of career has also been used by researchers to emphasize the important influence exercised by labeling on putatively addictive behavior patterns. More recently, the topic of addiction has been taken up by leaders in rational choice theory who have properly recognized it as an apparent counterexample to the axiomatic proposition that social action is necessarily rational action. Some of these theorists have sought to reconcile empirical instances of addictive patterns of behavior with core propositions of rational choice theory. Others have concluded that addiction is essentially irrational and more thoroughly rooted in neurological dysfunction than micro-economic decisionmaking mechanisms. While these efforts have produced some interesting technical refinements of rational choice theory itself, they have done less to shed new sociological light on why some people seem to experience rather severe levels of difficulty refraining from the use of alcohol or drugs, even after repeated negative experiences with them. Another more recent line of theoretical work on addiction hails from attribution theory. Attribution theorists turn their attention away from why certain people fall into apparently addictive behavior patterns and instead consider social and psychological explanations for why people attribute behavior to addictions. Attribution theory properly highlights the fact that objective characteristics of social behavior and efforts to explain that behavior are intimately linked to one another. In addition to research that considers why certain activities are so addictive for certain people, fruitful insights can come from the study of why the concept of addiction is itself so compelling for certain people acting in certain social contexts. To date, sociologists have illuminated various important dimensions of problematic substance addiction use but have recurrently found it almost impossible to validate the concept of addiction without recourse to biological accounts of physiological dysfunction. Those who have taken the idea of involuntary substance use seriously have overwhelmingly incorporated reference to biological mechanisms as indispensable elements of their own sociological theories. In contrast, the vast majority of those who have not drawn from biology have found it difficult to account for the apparently involuntary aspects of addiction. In his book The Alcoholic Society (1993), Norman Denzin develops a theory of “the alcoholic self” which takes important theoretical strides towards a more thoroughly sociological explanation by incorporating his more general approach to the sociology of emotions into his theory of addiction. While an undeniably important contribution, Denzin’s research on the emotionality of addiction exhibits consequential ambiguities that make it difficult to square fully with the claim that addictive patterns of behavior are genuinely involuntary. In a series of essays including “The Embodiment of Addiction” (2002, Body and Society), Darin Weinberg has drawn upon the growing literature on the sociology of embodiment to reconcile the phenomenology of addiction as involuntary affliction with the longstanding sociological claim that people might acquire problematic patterns of substance use simply by virtue of the ways they have learned to use these substances to cope with the social structural circumstances of their lives. He argues that the sociology of embodiment allows us to appreciate more fully that not all meaningful, or socially structured, behavior is behavior that we deliberately choose or with which we self-identify. This work suggests a fruitful interface between the sociology of embodiment, the sociology of moral inclusion, and sociological work on the boundaries of human agency. Rather predictably, most contemporary sociological research on drugs and alcohol focuses on questions pertaining to the various social problems that arise from either substance use itself or the social policies in place to control substance use. No doubt these questions will, and should, continue to occupy the attentions of social scientists, whether or not they require use of a concept of addiction. But the sociology of addiction as such also holds promise as a valuable empirical test case for social theories concerned with the relationship between much more general sociological themes, including nature/culture, structure/agency, rationality, emotion, embodiment, and social exclusion. This type of research will 7 Adorno, Theodor Wiesengrund (1903–1969) certainly require a vigilant enforcement of the conceptual distinction highlighted earlier – that between addiction per se and voluntary activity that is merely deviant. DARIN WEINBERG Adorno, Theodor Wiesengrund (1903–1969) Born in Frankfurt, Germany, on September 11, 1903, into an upper-class bourgeois family, the son of a German Jewish father and Italian Catholic mother, Adorno studied philosophy, psychology, and musicology at the University of Frankfurt where he received his PhD in 1924. With the rise to power of Hitler’s fascism, Adorno first emigrated to England and then joined the Institute for Social Research in exile at Columbia University in New York. During the 1930s, he became closely connected with the Institute’s attempt to develop a critical theory of society. This involved Adorno in one of the first attempts to develop a Marxian critique of mass culture, which Adorno and the Institute discerned was becoming ever more significant as an instrument of ideological manipulation and social control in democratic capitalist, fascist, and communist societies. Working with the “father of mass communications,” Paul Lazarsfeld, at the Princeton Radio Project and then at Columbia University, Adorno participated in one of the first sustained research projects on the effects of popular music. Later, Adorno was also to work on one of the first attempts to develop a critical analysis of television, producing an article on “How to Look at Television” in 1954. Adorno was a key member of the interdisciplinary social research projects at the Institute and worked on their studies of fascism and anti-Semitism. Adorno and Institute director Max Horkheimer went to California in the early 1940s, where they worked closely on the book that became Dialectic of Enlightenment (1948 [trans. 1972]). In Minima Moralia (1974) and other essays of the period, Adorno continued the Institute’s studies of the growing hegemony of capitalism and the integration of the working class as a conservative force of the capitalist system. In such a situation, deeply influenced by his sojourn in New York and California, Adorno only saw the possibility of individual revolt. He also feared, however, the resurgence of authoritarianism in the United States and collaborated on a groundbreaking collective study of The Authoritarian Personality (1950) with a group of Berkeley researchers. The project embodied the Institute’s desire to merge theoretical construction with empirical research and produced a portrait of a 8 aesthetics disturbing authoritarian potential in the United States. Adorno was responsible for elaborating the theoretical implications and helped design the research apparatus. In the early 1950s, Adorno returned with Horkheimer to Germany to reestablish the institute in Frankfurt. Here, Adorno continued his studies in sociology and culture, though he turned primarily to philosophy in the last years of his life. During the 1950s, he participated in the Institute’s sociological studies of education, students, workers, and the potential for democracy. Adorno wrote many sociological essays at this time and participated in the debates published in The Positivist Dispute in German Sociology (1976). In these debates, Adorno defended the Institute’s conception of dialectical social theory against positivism and the “critical rationalism” defended by Karl Popper and other neopositivists. Increasingly critical of communism and skeptical of Marxism, Adorno primarily engaged in cultural criticism and studies of philosophy and aesthetics during his last decade. As he died suddenly of a heart attack in 1969, his magnum opus, Aesthetic Theory, was published posthumously (1984). DOUGLAS KELLNER aesthetics A notion invented in the eighteenth century in the German-speaking world, the term aesthetics was bequeathed to the history of ideas with philosopher Alexander Gottleib Baumgarten’s Aesthetica (1750–8). As developed by Baumgarten, aesthetics was the study of the beautiful. He conceived of this project as a science of “sensuous cognition,” and from its inception aesthetics was concerned with the effects of art works on their recipients, perhaps most famously illustrated in Immanuel Kant’s (1724–1804) concept of the sublime and the idea of purposeless, transcendental art works. In the English-speaking world, aesthetics was subsumed under a concern with the philosophy of taste and is represented in the work of John Locke (1632–1704) and David Hume (1711–76). As the century waned, British and continental theories of aesthetics were increasingly preoccupied with notions of beauty and unity in the arts, pointing to structural correlates between music and the plastic arts in terms of their effects, and fueling more general notions of unity in the arts and sciences, notions that would continue to develop in the following century. As part of the general rise of interest in aesthetics, Aristotle’s Poetics was translated into English in 1789. During the second half of the eighteenth century, an affirmative action affirmative action acquaintance with the science of aesthetics was often considered to be part of an individual’s equipment for social life, and it is here that the initial conception of aesthetics as the science of beauty and its effects began to provide seeds for subsequent critical considerations of the role of the arts in relation to social classification. Concurrently in the late eighteenth century, the arts flourished, stimulated by burgeoning publics, urbanization, and the status-seeking strategies of increasingly professionalized artistic workers in London, Paris, Vienna, and other European cities. During these years, new aesthetic hierarchies were articulated by artistic workers and appropriated by arts consumers as a resource for status creation and maintenance. Many sociologists of the arts have described how aesthetics (understood as beauty and value) and taste in the arts have been resources for social boundary work. Pierre Bourdieu, for example, sought to turn Kant on his head in Distinction (1979 [trans. 1984]), by arguing that aesthetics could never be disinterested but was rather linked to lifestyle and position in social space. More recently, scholarship in environmental and social psychology, arts sociology, and cultural geography has returned to the original focus of aesthetics, albeit from an empirical and pragmatically oriented perspective, highlighting the concept of aesthetic ecology and aesthetic agency, and developing theories of what may be afforded by art works and aesthetic materials broadly construed. TIA DENORA affirmative action Affirmative action, or positive discrimination as it is known in the United Kingdom, entails the provision of various types of advantages to members of groups who have been systematically oppressed for their membership in that group. The term stems from the legal understanding of affirmative or positive remedies which compel wrong-doers to do something in addition to merely refraining from the wrong-doing itself. Affirmative action policies can be found throughout the world. Though they can focus on any group that has suffered systematic discrimination, affirmative action policies tend most often to concern ethnic groups historically oppressed within a given society, and women. They tend to provide advantages in the domains of education, employment, health, and social welfare. Affirmative action first became a topic of serious debate in the wake of the civil rights movements of the 1960s when it was discovered that legal proscriptions against historical wrong-doings were not wholly successful in creating equal opportunities for members of historically oppressed groups. Activists began suggesting that, in addition to the negative remedies proscribing discrimination against historically oppressed groups, it would be necessary to implement affirmative or positive strategies to correct past wrongs. Various approaches have been taken to distributing affirmative action advantages. Some societies have favored quota systems that require the ratio of recipients of certain scarce resources, like state building contracts or university admissions, to resemble the ratio found in the larger society between majority and minority groups. Others have favored a less restrictive entitlement to consider issues of ethnicity and gender in deciding how best to distribute scarce resources. But, regardless of approach, affirmative action policies have very often met with rather fierce resistance, primarily from members of historically privileged groups who resent what they call reverse discrimination. Much more rarely, resistance has come from members of the groups presumed to benefit from affirmative action on the grounds that affirmative action policies sustain racial, ethnic, or gender antagonisms and/or prove demoralizing to their beneficiaries. Sometimes, particular affirmative action policies have been critiqued on the grounds that they tend to benefit only the most privileged among historically oppressed groups and fail to remedy the much more devastating hardships and inequalities suffered by what William Julius Williams (The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the Underclass, and Public Policy, 1987) has called the “truly disadvantaged.” In addition to failing to help the most disadvantaged segments of historically oppressed groups, it has been suggested that such policies discredit affirmative action as such by giving benefits to people who neither deserve nor need them. In place of ethnicity- and genderbased affirmative action policies that are insensitive to the comparative hardships suffered by their recipients, some have suggested policies more explicitly pegged to actual disadvantage. These kinds of arguments have met with vigorous counterarguments suggesting that race- and gender-based affirmative action remain crucial to the project of institutionalizing a more egalitarian society. Many high-profile former recipients of affirmative-action advantages, including former American Secretary of State Colin Powell, have come out in favor of such policies despite political pressures not to do so. DARIN WEINBERG 9 affluent society African-American studies affluent society The Affluent Society is the title of an influential book originally published by the American economist, John Kenneth Galbraith (1908–2006) in 1958 (there have been numerous subsequent editions). As a work of political economy, it begins with a critique of classical political economists (such as Adam Smith [1723–90] and David Ricardo [1771– 1823]) who had emphasized above all the primacy of increasing production and the requirement for a minimum of public consumption (that is, low taxes) if this was to be achieved. This he labeled as “conventional wisdom,” better adapted to historic conditions than to the realities of the contemporary United States, which had become, after World War II, an “affluent society,” one whose productive capacities could easily meet the needs of its citizens. Indeed, under conditions of affluence, production could be increased only through the creation of new desires and needs via advertising and marketing, which succeeds because of the development of a “culture of emulation.” Moreover, the lack of investment in public goods (schools, parks, roads and refuse disposal) had created a world of “private affluence and public squalor,” in which, for example, increasingly elaborate private cars clog increasingly inadequate public roads. Galbraith argues for increased expenditure on public goods, and that the “social balance” between the allocation of resources to private and public goods must be created by political organizations. He also identifies the emergence of a new class (see social class) of educated labor, for whom work itself is considered to be a source of recreation, and for whom the maximization of income is not a primary goal. The expansion of this class will also contribute to an improved social balance. ROSEMARY CROMPTON affluent worker The argument that sections of the working class had experienced embourgeoisement became popular in the 1950s and 1960s, to explain changing values and political allegiances among manual workers. Increasing affluence was seen to underpin a move from working-class to middle-class lifestyles and values, so that such workers became middle-class. This argument was challenged, both theoretically and empirically, by J. Goldthorpe and colleagues, in The Affluent Worker in the Class Structure (1969). They agreed that important changes had occurred in the market and work experience of affluent manual workers, but argued that related changes in lifestyles (privatism) and political attitudes (instrumentalism) remained 10 distinctively working-class. Partial convergence with white-collar workers should not be conflated with assimilation to the middle class. This neo-Weberian analysis challenged presumptions about the necessary decline of trade unions and the United Kingdom Labour Party, just as union membership was growing and the Labour Party regained electoral success. Instead, these authors portrayed a movement from a “traditional solidarity” working class to an increasingly “instrumental collectivist” working class. In turn, however, the adequacy of this contrast and projection was widely challenged, as shifts in forms of working-class class consciousness and organization were found to be more varied, uncertain, and contested, for example by F. Devine in Affluent Workers Revisited (1992). This encouraged more complex accounts of the relationships between working-class experience, forms of consciousness, and politics, undermining strong claims for links between specific class locations and forms of consciousness and action, which had been shared by many currents in British studies of social class. TONY ELGER African-American studies This field of interdisciplinary studies charts the experiences of people of African descent in black Atlantic societies including the United States, the Caribbean, and Latin America. It studies the social structures and cultures that African people in the diaspora have created. More specifically, it studies the social, cultural, and political processes that have shaped the experience of people of African ancestry. There are a large number of study centers and research institutes providing interdisciplinary programs in higher education in the United States. Many of these centers, such as the University of California Los Angeles Center for African American Studies (1969), date from the 1960s. The National Association of African American Studies was founded by Dr. Lemuel Berry Jr. at the Virginia State University at Ettrick, Virginia, in 1992 and it held its first annual conference in 1993. African-American studies draws some of its intellectual inspiration from the work of black American intellectuals such as W. E. B. Du Bois, and the Institute for Afro-American Studies at Harvard University (1975) is named after him. There are several academic journals that cater to this interdisciplinary field, including the Journal of Black Studies (1970), The Black Scholar (1969), the Western Journal of Black Studies (1977), and Womanist Theory and Research (1994) from the Womanist Studies Consortium at the University of Georgia. age African-American studies is part of a significant expansion of interdisciplinary studies since the 1960s dealing with justice issues, such as Latino studies and women’s studies. While African-American studies is not confined to sociology, sociologists have made important contributions to the field, including Paul Gilroy whose Black Atlantic (1993) has been influential. African-American studies has not had a significant impact on the study of race and ethnicity and racism in the United Kingdom or Europe. In sociology, the study of “race relations” in the United Kingdom has been critically discussed by scholars influenced by feminism or Marxism for its failure to analyze politics and power. African-American studies has not flourished in the United Kingdom for the obvious reason that black British citizens are also from India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, as well as the Caribbean and Africa. For similar reasons, critical race theory has not been a dominant paradigm in British sociology. British radical sociologists have been influenced more by Franz Fanon than by DuBois, more by Stuart Hall and Paul Gilroy than by African-American academics, and have in recent years drawn more from Pierre Bourdieu’s studies of Algeria, migration, and poverty in The Algerians (1958) [trans. 1962] and The Weight of the World (1993) [trans. 2000] than from American social science. While racism is a common problem in the United States and Europe, the sociological study of race has taken rather different directions. BRYAN S. TURNER age The study of age in sociology covers influences affecting individuals across all phases of the lifecourse, as well as the specific period known as old age. In practice, although findings on the longterm impact of changes in early and middle age have begun to emerge, most research focuses still on “older” or “elderly” people. Matilda White Riley, an influential figure in American sociological research, refers to the interdependence of aging on the one side and society on the other. She argues in On the Significance of Age in Society (1987) that, in studying age, we not only bring people back into society, but recognize that both people and society undergo process and change: “The aim is to understand each of the two dynamisms: (1) the aging of people in successive cohorts who grow up, grow old, die, and are replaced by other people; and (2) the changes in society as people of different ages pass through the social institutions that are organized by age.” age Sociological perspectives on age adopt a contrasting approach to other social science disciplines. The sociologist starts from the view that old age is interesting because – although it is an enduring human phenomenon handled differently by different societies – it is at the same time changing and influencing human behavior. The sociologist is concerned to explore the processes involved and how they are being interpreted by men and women, from different social classes, ethnic groups, and cultural settings. This approach contrasts with social policy and government interests in old age. In these contexts, old age is often regarded as a problem (for the economy or the health service, to take two examples), hence the need for some analysis and collection of data. This approach has its own validity and justification but may lead to a distorted view of social aging, together with a limited selection of topics to be analyzed and discussed. The experience of aging has been influenced by shifts in the patterning of the life-course over the past 100 years. Changes in the demography of aging and in patterns of work and retirement have been especially important in shaping contemporary aspects of later life. On the first of these, improvements in life expectancy have been crucial in creating “middle” and “old” age as significant phases in the life-course. In 1901, life expectancy at birth was around forty-five years (for men) and forty-nine years (for women), with many people (especially those from working-class backgrounds) dying before they reached what would now be recognized as old age. With life expectancy at birth in the United Kingdom (in 2001) seventy-six years for men and eighty-one years for women, survival past middle age is normal, even if frequently accompanied by heightened awareness of the aging process and of future mortality. Changes in the organization of work and employment have also been consequential in reshaping the life-course. In general terms, the period from 1945 to the mid-1970s confirmed the emergence of a “standardized” life-course built around initial education, work, and leisure. This period is associated with the creation of retirement as a major social institution, with the growth of entitlements to pensions and the gradual acceptance of an extended period of leisure following the ending of full-time work. In fact this model of the life-course lasted a relatively short span of time in historical terms, with the period from 1945 to 1975 defining its outer limits. 11 age From the late 1970s a number of changes can be identified, arising from the development of more flexible patterns of work and the impact of high levels of unemployment. These produced what may be termed the reconstruction of middle and old age, with the identification of a “third age” in between the period of work and employment (“the second age”) and a period of mental and physical decline (“the fourth age”). An aspect of these new features of social aging is the ambiguity and flexibility of the boundaries of the third age, at both its lower and upper ends. Both of these now involve complex periods of transition, with the move away from employment, and with the blurring of dependence and independence in late old age. Age is a marker of a number of changes affecting older people – these reflecting a mix of physiological, social, and biographical factors. First, changes associated with poor health are highly significant for many older people. For example, it is estimated that, among those people aged eightyfive and over, one in five will have dementia and three in five a limiting longstanding illness such as osteoarthritis or osteoporosis. Second, changes in social relationships are also substantial, with the loss of close friends and relations a striking feature of later life. Third, age may exacerbate rather than reduce inequalities experienced earlier in the life-course. Social class remains a stronger predictor of lifestyle than age, and older people are likely to have more in common with younger people of their own class than they will with older people from other classes. As well as social class, age is also affected by social divisions associated with gender and race and ethnicity. The gender imbalances of later life are now well established. Because women outlive men by an average of five years, there are around 50 percent more women than men among those sixty-five and over. The gender imbalance is even more marked in late old age: among those aged eighty-five and over, women outnumber men by three to one. Sara Arber and Jay Ginn in Connecting Gender and Aging (1995) conclude that: “The fact that over half of older women are widowed, whereas three-quarters of older men are married, has consequences for gender, identity, relationships, and roles in later life.” Race and ethnicity are another important division running through age-based relationships. In the early part of the twenty-first century, there will be a significant aging of the black community as the cohorts of migrants of the late 1950s and 1960s reach retirement age. Older people from minority ethnic groups are likely to have 12 age distinctive experiences in old age, these including: first, increased susceptibility to physical ill-health because of past experiences, such as heavy manual work and poor housing; second, great vulnerability to mental health problems, a product of racism and cultural pressures; third, acute financial problems, with evidence of elderly Asians being at a particular disadvantage. The problems faced by ethnic elders have been defined as a form of “triple jeopardy.” This refers to the fact that ethnic elders not only face discrimination because they are old; in addition, many of them live in disadvantaged physical and economic circumstances; finally, they may also face discrimination because of their culture, language, skin color, or religious affiliation. The above divisions have led Joe Hendricks in Structure and Identity (2003) to conclude that: “People do not become more alike with age; in fact the opposite may well be the case . . . Their heterogeneity is entrenched in disparate master status characteristics, including membership groups and socioeconomic circumstances, race, ethnicity, gender, subcultural, or structural conditions on the one hand, and personal attributes on the other.” Research on social aspects of age focus on the norms, values, and social roles associated with a particular chronological age. Sociologists emphasize the way in which ideas about different phases in the life-course – such as childhood, mid-life, and old age – change over time and across cultures. John Vincent in Old Age (2003) suggests that even if the experience of a life-cycle in which an individual feels a sense of loss when they have passed their “prime” is a universal, it says nothing about the timing, meaning, and cultural content of the social category of old age: “The variety of ways of being ‘old’ are as different as the ways of being in one’s ‘prime’. A re-evaluation of old age in the West requires an appreciation of the variety of ways it is possible to live one’s ‘old age’ and an escape from culturally bound stereotypes.” From a social perspective, age may be viewed as constructed around various social practices and institutions. It is associated in particular with the regulation of movement through the life-course. Western societies standardize many aspects of public life on the basis of chronological age. Social institutions control access and prescribe and proscribe certain behaviors by age. In consequence, birthdays have social as well as individual significance. Legal rights and duties are commonly associated with particular ages, with access to a range of institutions moderated through age-based age criteria. The various responsibilities associated with citizenship are strongly associated with age, notable examples including the right to vote, military service, and duty to serve on a jury. Age is also constructed through the phases associated with pre-work, work, and post-work. Western societies have come to define old age as starting at sixty or sixty-five, ages associated with receipt of a pension following retirement. This development can be seen as a twentieth-century invention, consolidated with the rise of the welfare state. Other markers of old age are, however, possible and increasingly likely, given further extensions in life expectancy. With pressures to extend working life, retirement at seventy would, for example, present a new boundary at which “old age” would begin. Social relationships built around family and friends remain crucial for understanding many aspects of the lives of older people. Most older people are connected to family-based networks, which provide (and receive from the older person) different types of support. Relationships with peers, and friendship in particular, has also been shown to be central to well-being in later life, with research pointing to the value of a “special relationship” or confidant in adjusting to the stresses and strains of later life. Overall, the research evidence would point to an increase in the importance of friends in the lives of older people. In the early phase of retirement, and even (or especially) into late old age, friends will be significant in maintaining morale and self-identity. For many older people, faced with reduced income and poor health, the loss of close friends may pose acute problems of adjustment and threats to the integrity of the self. Processes and experiences associated with age have been examined in a number of sociological theories drawing on functionalist, symbolic interactionist, and neo-Marxist perspectives. Functionalist approaches to the study of age such as role theory (formulated in the early 1950s) focused on the impact of losing work-based ties – this producing, it was argued, a crisis of adjustment following retirement. Advocates of this view, such as Ruth Cavan and Robert Havighurst, took the position that morale in old age was enhanced through involvement in new roles and activities, notably in relation to work and leisure. “Disengagement theory” (as developed by Elaine Cumming and William Henry) was another functionalist perspective (developed in the late 1950s) that took an opposing view, suggesting that withdrawal from mainstream social responsibilities was a natural age correlate of growing old. Old age was viewed as a period in which the aging individual and society both simultaneously engage in mutual separation, with retirement in the case of men and widowhood in respect of women. Through the 1960s, and for a period in the 1970s, activity and disengagement theory set the parameters of debates within social gerontology. “Activity theory” stimulated the development of several social psychological theories of aging, including “continuity theory” (by Robert Atchley) and theories of “successful aging” (by Rowe and Kahn). Drawn from “developmental” or “life-cycle theory,” continuity theory asserts that aging persons have the need and the tendency to maintain the same personalities, habits, and perspectives that they developed over their life-course. An individual who is successfully aging maintains a mature integrated personality, which also is the basis of life satisfaction. As such, decreases in activity or social interaction are viewed as related more to changes in health and physical function than to an inherent need for a shift in or relinquishment of previous roles. Increasingly, however, through the 1970s, concern came to be expressed about the individuallevel focus of theories of aging and their failure to address the impact of social and economic factors on the lives of older people. Riley’s “age stratification theory” was an early example, exploring the role and influence of social structures on the process of individual aging and the stratification of age in society. One dimension of this theory is the concept of “structural lag,” which denotes that social structures (for example policies of retirement at age sixty-five) do not keep pace with changes in population dynamic and individual lives (such as increasing life expectancy). The implications of the theory are that human resources in the oldest – and also the youngest – age strata are underutilized, and that excess burdens of care and other responsibilities are placed upon groups in the middle years. Another important approach which moved beyond individual adjustment to aging, and which was also influenced by the age stratification model, has been the life-course approach (as initially developed by Glen Elder). Here, aging individuals and cohorts are examined as one phase of the entire lifetime and seen as shaped by historical, social, economic, and environmental factors that occur at earlier ages. Life-course theory bridges macro–micro levels of analysis by considering the relationships among social structure, social processes, and social psychological states. 13 age Passuth and Bengston in Sociological Theories of Aging (1996) suggest that the key elements of the approach are that: “(1) aging occurs from birth to death (thereby distinguishing this theory from those that focus exclusively on the elderly); (2) aging involves social, psychological and biological processes; and (3) aging experiences are shaped by cohort-historical factors.” From the early 1980s, neo-Marxist perspectives such as political economy theory became influential within studies of aging. Beginning in the late 1970s and early 1980s with the work of Carroll Estes and Alan Walker, these theorists initiated the task of describing the respective roles of capitalism and the state in contributing to systems of domination and marginalization of older people. The political economy perspective is distinguished from the dominant liberal-pluralist theory in political science and sociology in that political economists focus on the role of economic and political systems and other social structures and social forces in shaping and reproducing the prevailing power arrangements and inequalities in society. In the political economy perspective, social policies pertaining to retirement income, health, and social service benefits and entitlements are examined as products of economic, political, and socio-cultural processes and institutional and individual forces that coalesce in any given sociohistorical period. Social policy is an outcome of the social struggles, the conflicts, and the dominant power relations of the period. Policy reflects the structure and culture of advantage and disadvantage as enacted through class, race/ethnicity, gender, and age relations. Social policy is itself a powerful determinant of the life chances and conditions of individuals and population groups such as older people. Another important approach is that of cultural and humanistic gerontology, sometimes referred to as moral economy or more broadly as cultural gerontology. This perspective, first developed by Thomas Cole and Harry Moody, has gained popularity, as the classical theoretical opposition of structure versus agency and culture versus structure has given way to an appreciation of the interplay and “recursive” relationships of culture, and agency and structure. Cultural gerontology is part of the trend towards theories that reject the sole determinacy of economics in explaining social institutions such as the state and old age policy. The approach provides a re-formulation of the unidirectional causality implied in the classical base/ superstructure (see ideology) model of Marxism. What has followed is an intensified focus on 14 age addressing issues relating to meaning and experience in later life, with critical questions raised about the efficacy of western culture in providing adequate moral resources to sustain the lives of older people. Biographical perspectives have also emerged as a significant stream of work within gerontology. Biographical or “life history” research has an extensive pedigree in the social sciences (building on the work of W. I. Thomas and Florian Znaniecki, The Polish Peasant in Europe and America, 1918–20). Some of the key researchers in the field of aging using biographical and life history techniques have included James Birren, Joanna Bornat, Peter Coleman, Paul Thompson, and Gary Kenyon. Birren’s influential edited collection Aging and Biography (1996) took the view that biographical approaches could contribute towards understanding both individual and shared aspects of aging over the life-course. Examining reactions to personal crises and turning points could, it was argued, provide researchers with unique insights into the way individuals construct their lives. Equally, however, studying lives provides a perspective on the influence of social institutions such as work and the employment and the family. Biographical data thus help in understanding what Ruth and Kenyon (Biography in Adult Development and Aging, 1996) refer to as the possibilities and limits set by the historical period in which people live. Finally, theories of aging drawn around issues relating to identity and the self have also gained in importance. Mike Hepworth and Mike Featherstone in The Body (1991) have developed the view that aging can be best explained as a mask. Here, physical processes of aging, as reflected in outward appearance, are contrasted to a real self that remains young. This theory, which has come to be known as the “mask of aging,” holds that over time the aging body becomes a cage from which a younger self-identity cannot escape. The body, while it is malleable, can still provide access to a variety of consumer identities. However, as aging gathers pace, it becomes increasingly difficult to “re-cycle” the failing body, which simultaneously denies access to that world of choice. Simon Biggs in The Mature Imagination (1999) suggests that the struggle between inner and external worlds may result in older people being at war with themselves, in a battle between a desire for youthful expression and the frailties generated by an aging body. Globalization is another significant issue affecting both theories of aging and the daily lives age differentiation of older people. An important development at a macro-level arises from the interplay between demographic change (notably longer life expectancy) and the trends associated with political and cultural globalization. Awareness of living in an interconnected world brings to the fore questions of cultural diversity, different understandings about what it means to grow old, and the issue of who we take to be an older person. The tendency in studies of aging has been to use western models of development to define old age, these taking sixty or sixty-five as the boundary set by conventional retirement and pension systems. But in some continents (notably sub-Saharan Africa), old age may be more meaningfully defined as starting from fifty (or even earlier). Access to pension systems to mark the onset of old age is itself a culturally specific process. Relevant to western contexts (though changing even here with privatization), it has little resonance in countries such as China where, out of 90 million people aged sixty-five plus, just one-quarter have entitlement to a pension. In a number of senses the traditional formulation of “aging societies” is unhelpful, given global inequalities. Global society contains numerous demographic realities – aging Europe, to take one example, as compared with increasingly youthful United States, and falling life expectancy in Russia and sub-Saharan Africa. Such contrasts create significant variations in the construction of growing old – national, transnational, subcultural – producing, as a result, new questions and perspectives for research in the field of aging. CHRIS PHILLIPSON age differentiation – see age. age group – see age. ageism – see age. agency and structure Beginning in the 1970s, the expression “agency and structure” has been employed to thematize the relationship between the enactment of social practices on the one hand and large-scale and historically enduring social phenomena on the other. Language is often used to illustrate several important issues in agency–structure relations. On the one hand, language exists as an observable reality only when actors use language (converse, read, or write) in specific ways at particular agency and structure moments in local settings. On the other hand, from a structural point of view, a given language exhibits general patterns (for example, syntax, semantics, grammar) that are never fully realized in any single conversation or piece of writing, although they are presupposed by all of them. In the case of language, the problem of agency and structure focuses on the relationship between the enactment of linguistic practices on the one hand and the large-scale structure of language on the other. In terms of the agency–structure problem, agency implies enactment rather than autonomy or empowerment, which in other contexts the term sometimes implies. The term structure is used in several different ways. Language is only one example of cultural structures, a category that also comprises culinary cultures, religious cultures, cultures of dominant and subaltern groups, and so on. Material structures are relevant as well. For example, a capitalist market, no matter how extensive and dynamic it may be, exists only so long as traders engage in acts of exchange of material resources. If acts of exchange were to cease, say following the collapse of the value of instruments of credit, then even the most massive and structured market would come to a halt and ultimately cease to exist. Fields of the distribution of scarce resources can be framed in terms of the agency–structure problem as well. For example, the practice of continuous reinvestment of profits, about which Max Weber wrote, enables entrepreneurs and investors to accumulate large quantities of capital. Skillful reinvestment can ultimately concentrate large amounts of capital under the control of a very small group while the majority of a population is not very prosperous. But if profits are not skillfully reinvested in practice, then the structure of inequality may change. Finally, social networks and other patterns of articulated social relationships may be understood in terms of the agency–structure problem as well. For example, the networks of weak ties at the center of Mark Granovetter’s well-known research may be understood as a set of casual, intermittent interactions among acquaintances, during which useful information is discussed and thus transmitted. Each link in the network is an enacted set of conversational practices, and the form of the network is produced one link at a time as these conversations occur. To appreciate the specificity of the agency– structure problem, it must be understood in contrast to the problem of the relationship between the individual and the collectivity. This second 15 agency and structure problem, which is one of the oldest and most intractable dilemmas in social theory, restates in sociological terms the philosophical conundrum of free will versus determinism. Are individuals so constituted and constrained by their structural circumstances that they have little or no free will at all, as Émile Durkheim, for example, maintained? Or are social structures merely the epiphenomenal consequences of what actors do as they each pursue their personal interests and desires, as can be inferred, for example, from the writings of Adam Smith (1723–90)? The dilemma here is that the sociologist is virtually compelled to assume a reductionist position. Either individuals are epiphenomenal to structures or structures are epiphenomenal to individuals. The agency–structure problem does not compel the sociologist to reduce one phenomenon to another. This is because, from an agency–structure point of view, the individual is no longer a counterpoint to structure. Instead, the counterpoint to structure is social praxis, that is, the enactment of forms of social conduct or behavior. Enacted forms of behavior generate (that is, construct or produce) the realities of social life, whether they be cultural, economic, distributional, or network patterns. The same cannot be said of individuals. Individuals may want to act in certain ways in order to achieve their interests or wants, but they may lack the competence or resources to do so. In other words, individuals in a given setting may not be able to enact certain practices, even if motivated to do so. Conversely, actors may generate aspects of social reality (for example, cultural domination as Pierre Bourdieu suggests) though they are unaware they exercise agency in this regard. How is the agency–structure problem amenable to non-reductive solutions? To begin, consider not a single locally enacted practice, but rather a single form of practice, which is to say a form of practice that may be enacted each day by numerous actors in different settings and may be enacted as well by successive generations of actors. Now we can introduce the idea of social reproduction, which is to say the recurrent reenactment of similar forms of practice. Of course, no two instances of enactment are entirely the same: for example, when conversing, people make grammatical and syntactical mistakes, or engage in creative wordplay rather than speaking in conventional forms. Nonetheless, over many instances, people use language in broadly similar ways, and this is what it means to say that forms of linguistic practice are reproduced. But, as previously mentioned, no single form of practice can generate a large-scale 16 agency and structure structure such as an entire language or market. Large-scale structures are generated when many different forms of practice are reproduced. Since this reproduction takes place over some duration of time in a variety of different locales, sociologists can analyze structures best by abstracting structural properties of praxis they find to be associated with one another. Indeed, the same set of interactions may help to generate a number of different structures. For example, a capitalist market is generated in ongoing sequences of commercial practices and economic exchange. But the same practices generate a network of business acquaintances. Practices may also result from the use of a common language or dialect, and so on. Which of these structures is of interest is an analytical choice on the part of the sociologist. We now can see how structured practices (practices that are reproduced in broadly similar forms) can sustain large-scale structures, but what part do these structures play in the enactment of practices? The issue here turns on social competencies. Babies and newcomers to a culture or society do not arrive knowing how to speak a given language or how to execute a market trade. Individuals gain agency (the ability to enact given practices) as they learn how to perform the forms of conduct that are a matter of routine in a given group. From this point of view, the structured form of social practices precedes and shapes how that practice is performed. Looked at from a broader perspective, the set of practices that form a language or a capitalist market or a network of weak ties precedes any given round of social reproduction. In the end what we have is what Anthony Giddens terms in The Constitution of Society (1984) a “duality of structure.” That is to say, there is an ongoing reciprocal relationship between structure and agency. Structural circumstances provide the means to reproduce social practices, but when social practices are reproduced they perpetuate the structure, making it a social reality in a new historical moment. In very stable social groups, for example tradition-bound villages, this reciprocal relation between structure and agency in social reproduction may go on for generations. Reductionism may not be inevitable when social life is conceived in terms of the connection between agency and structure, but it is still a potential pitfall. Symbolic interactionists, for example, sometimes reduce structures of all kinds to the practices through which they are produced without regard for the structural properties of practices that have been reproduced many times over in the past. Structure, in effect, is reduced to agency and structure enactment. It is symptomatic of this problem that symbolic interactionism stresses the prospect of creativity in interaction and other social processes. In a more balanced view, the structural conditions of praxis, including all necessary competencies and resources needed to engage in social conduct, both enable actors to perform actions in certain ways and thereby also limit actors to performing according to their competencies. However, creativity and resistance to established ways of doing things are not thereby ruled out. Indeed, many practices, especially those found in the modern era, permit and sometimes require some degree of innovation. This is vividly illustrated in the fine arts, where structured practices (for example, techniques for painting, musical composition, dancing, and so forth) are employed to produce novel works, or, more radically, new artistic genres. Similar possibilities exist in many walks of life, including, of course, politics, where resistors and rebels may resist oppressive practices to oppose and replace the powers that be. It is also possible to reduce agency to structure. This happens when practices are conceived as so completely derived from structural conditions that their social reproduction is inevitable. This form of reductionism can be observed in the works of Bourdieu. Bourdieu often investigated how it happens that groups of actors who are disadvantaged and subordinated to others somehow participate in the reproduction of their own disadvantages and subordination. He conceives the practices in which they engage (key elements of their habitus; see habitus and field) as unselfconsciously reproducing a field of inequality. It is symptomatic of Bourdieu’s structural reductionism that he conceives very few opportunities for actors to resist or rebel or, for that matter, even to recognize the ways in which they reproduce the structural conditions of their own inequality. While agency only denotes the enactment of practices in the agency–structure duality, it leaves open the possibility, given the proper situation, that actors may seize the moment to devise new practices that improve the conditions in which they live. Giddens’s structuration theory as expressed in The Constitution of Society (1984) and discussed in Ira Cohen’s Structuration Theory (1989) is widely regarded as the most thoroughly developed set of sociological concepts that pivots on the relationship between agency and structure. Giddens’s work has influenced numerous empirical works, and new, substantively oriented innovations in structuration theory are currently under development alienation by the British sociologist, Rob Stones. Giddens’s structuration theory has also attracted a great deal of criticism, most extensively from another British sociologist, Margaret Archer. She argues, inter alia, that Giddens is guilty of a peculiar form of reductionism in which structure and praxis are inextricably linked. She believes that structure and practices must be distinct objects of sociological analysis. However, in her main criticisms, in Realist Social Theory (1995), Archer appears to misconstrue the level of analysis on which Giddens addresses the agency–structure link. Giddens writes in ontological terms, that is, in terms of how the duality of structure and agency generates social life at large. Archer seems to make an epistemological argument in which she calls for separate sociological analyses on the structural and praxiological levels. If this is taken into account, Archer’s position may differ from those of Giddens’s less than may at first appear. A more difficult problem, for Giddens and others who theorize in terms of agency and structure, is what to do about the individual’s wants and interests that they originally set aside. Giddens and Bourdieu, along with most others who theorize along these lines, rely on tacit and unconscious motives to account for social reproduction. But it is empirically demonstrable that at least some segments of social actions are consciously driven by actors’ interests, desires, and attachments to others. Where do these motives come from? Are they freely chosen or are desires and interests socially derived and reproduced? Here the problem of individual versus collectivity reemerges. In the future, theorists may feel challenged to find a way to address the problem of agency and structure and the problem of individualism and collectivism from an integrated point of IRA COHEN view. aging – see age. alienation The process whereby people become estranged from the world in which they are living, the concept is associated with Karl Marx’s early works, especially Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts (1844) and his critique of W. G. F. Hegel and Ludwig Feuerbach (1804–72). For Hegel, people created a culture, which then confronted them as an alien, objectified force. Human activity was the expression of Spirit, of Geist, whose creations were not self-transparent to their creators, 17 alienation although they would become so at the end of history. The work of Feuerbach, a “Young Hegelian” was also significant. Ludwig Feuerbach (1804–72) criticized what he called Hegel’s reduction of Man’s Essence to Self-consciousness, and developed a critique of religion as “self-alienation.” Rejecting Hegel’s idealistic philosophy and advocating materialism, Feuerbach emphasized the individual, purely “biological” nature of humans, in which thought was a purely reflective, contemplative process. But in religion, the human potential for love, creativity, and power were alienated into the mythical deities to which such powers were attributed. In The Essence of Christianity (1843), Feuerbach claimed that God is the manifestation of human inner nature; religion is the “solemn unveiling” of human hidden treasures, the avowal of innermost thoughts, the open confession of the secrets of human love. But this image of perfection becomes the source of rules that are reimposed on people’s lives as regulations and self-denial. Both the Hegelian and Feuerbachian use of alienation were important for Marx. He accepted much of Feuerbach’s critique, but took issue with the notion of a human essence projected onto God. Human self-alienation is not psychological, but social and historical, and specifically arises from the system of production. Marx’s use of the concept was critical and in some ways ironic, in that he was taking a term that was widely used by Hegelian philosophers and subjecting it to parody (a point generally missed in debates about whether the concept continues to inform Marx’s later works). Marx insisted that it was human labor that created culture and history but that Hegel had substituted a mystical substance – Mind – for the real subject of history. For Marx it was practice rather than thought that changes the material world and practice is a process of objectification, whereby the products of labor are manifest in material forms. This process is part of human “species being,” that is, a potential creativity essential to being human. This enables people to affirm themselves by objectifying their individuality in objects and enabling others to enjoy the products of their labor. It is thus a social and affirmative process. However, in conditions of commodity production, this becomes distorted – no longer a free affirmation of life but, on the contrary, an alienation of life, since workers must work in order to live. What could be the basis of creative human self-expression is reduced in bourgeois society to the most profound form of alienation in wage labor. Wage-workers sell their labor (in Capital this is refined to labor power, the 18 alienation capacity to work for a determinate period) to satisfy basic needs for food, shelter, and clothing, while capitalists own the labor process and dispose of the products of labor for profit. In The Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts, Marx discussed four types of alienation. The first was alienation from the product, where the means of production are owned by capitalists who appropriate and exchange the products of labor. These then take on a life of their own, separate from the needs and wishes of the producers; thus, workers “build palaces but live in hovels.” Second was alienation from productive activity, where work becomes external to the lives of workers, who “feel freely active” only when eating, drinking, and procreating – activities that humans share with animals. Third was alienation from “speciesbeing”, such that creativity, an essentially human capacity for objectifying ourselves through work, is degraded in systems of production that are exploitative and where work becomes drudgery. Finally, there was alienation of “man from man” where community is dislocated, all social relations are dominated by economics, and hostile classes are formed. The fundamental injustice of capitalism is that it targets for exploitation precisely what differentiates humans from other animals, namely our capacity for productive creativity, which will be fulfilled in a future, emancipated society. In later works the concept of alienation appears less often, although similar ideas are found in Marx’s theory of commodity fetishism. The domination of commodities in our society is so pervasive that it seems to be an inevitable, natural state of affairs. All our achievements, everything we produce, appear as commodities. Capitalism is the first system of generalized commodity production, in which the commodity has become a universal category of society as a whole. Yet the commodity is “mysterious” in that value and price appear to be properties arising from the process of circulation on the market (as relationships between things rather than people). Commodities acquire social characteristics because individuals enter the productive process only as the owners of commodities. It appears as if the market itself causes the rise and fall of prices, and pushes workers into one branch of production or out of another, independent of human agency. The impact of society on the individual is mediated through the social form of things. However, Marxist analysis attempts to show that these apparent relations between things are really social relations of production in which value is created through the exploitation of wage laborers. Althusser, Louis (1918–1990) Marx’s theory seems to assume a relatively timeless “human nature,” although this was a concept he elsewhere rejected. He did, however, assume that people would be most fulfilled when engaging freely in creative labor, famously depicting in The German Ideology (1845) non-alienated existence in a future communist society as one “where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, . . . to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, . . . without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.” But this does raise the question of whether alienation can be eliminated in modern societies characterized by complex divisions of labor and inequalities. In later works, Marx was more circumspect, suggesting that the co-ordination and division of labor probably cannot be eliminated. Similarly, there is the question of the extent to which social processes in complex societies can be self-transparent or whether opacity is inevitable. With the decline of interest in Marxist theory since the collapse of Soviet Communism, interest in the concept of alienation has waned too. LARRY RAY Althusser, Louis (1918–1990) Althusser was one of the best-known Communist Party theoreticians of the twentieth century, who latterly became associated with Eurocommunism. Three influential works were For Marx (1965 [trans. 1969]), Lenin and Philosophy (1965), and Reading Capital (1967 [trans. 1970]). Key concepts associated with his philosophy are “the problematic” (texts were understood as effects of an underlying matrix of concepts that could be revealed through “symptomatic reading”), “epistemological break” (between humanism and science), “overdetermination” of a “conjuncture” in which revolutionary change might occur, and interpellation. He attempted to reconcile Marxism with structuralism, an intellectual fashion with which Althusser and his student Michel Foucault were associated. This theory stressed the persistence of “deep structures” that underlie all human cultures, leaving little room for either historical change or human initiative. Althusser rejected the positive content of empirical knowledge entirely. Althusser asserted that Essence is not to be found in Appearance, but must be discovered through “theoretical practice,” in which objects appear not as real-concrete objects but as abstract-conceptual objects. Althusser further rejected the concept of contradiction in Karl Marx and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, which he saw in structuralist terms as “over-determination” – where ancient society outcomes have multiple simultaneous causes that together create a “conjuncture”, the resolution of which is unpredictable. This is part of a wider rejection of much of Marx’s work, which had to be read critically and rigorously to separate the “humanism” from scientific theorization of capitalist society. “Humanism” in this context referred to belief in the self-realization of the human species through creative agency. In 1980 Althusser murdered his wife and was confined to a psychiatric unit until his death. LARRY RAY ancient society This term has a broader and a more restrictive denotation, the two of which are analytically distinct, though deployed so much together and so much in the same context that they are often confused. The former is almost as old as Christian reflection on the Old Testament, but it has its first official social scientific usage as the nineteenthcentury register of an anthropological and evolutionist distinction between human society from its primitive beginnings forward to the advent of industrialism and human society as it had come to be in the aftermath of industrialization. In just such a usage, it can serve as the title of the compendious treatment (Ancient Society, 1877) by Henry Lewis Morgan (1818–81) of material cultural evolution from the foraging band to the alphabetically literate city-states of pre-Christian Greece and Rome. The crucial divide that lay for Morgan between ancient society and its counterpart – the “modern society” – was the divide between a preindustrial and an industrial economy. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were the most notable of classical social theorists explicitly to engage Morgan’s theorization of the “savage,” “barbaric,” and “civilized” stages of social evolution, but Spencer, Weber, and Durkheim could agree that the great divide between the ancient and the modern was as Morgan would have it be. The lexical and theoretical tradition of a distinction between “ancient preindustrial” and “modern industrial” society survives today, but, like the distinction between the “primitive” and the “modern,” is vulnerable to Johannes Fabian’s critique of the “denial of coevalness” in Time and The Other (1983). In its more restrictive usage, the term is a philological-historical category. Its exemplary denotata are precisely the city-states of pre-Christian Greece and Rome. It is the fulcrum of a debate dating from the Renaissance over the extent to which the ancient past is culturally continuous with the modern present (and, if not continuous, 19 Annales School the extent to which it is more or less virtuous than the modern present). Since the later nineteenth century, social theorists have consistently emphasized the discontinuities between the two, if to incompatible critical ends. Champions of progress such as Spencer, for example, construe the gap as that between a form of society whose survival and growth depend essentially on war and a higher form whose survival and growth can at last rest in cooperation and the increasingly universal pursuit of enlightened self-interest. Such occasional Romantics as Weber, in contrast, might construe the gap instead as that between a form of society still capable of sustaining a public sphere unified in its commitment to a common store of transcendent values and a depleted form in which the gods themselves are perpetually at war and Homo economicus reigns in their stead. The spirit, if not the letter, of Spencer’s position has more contemporary representatives in both Jürgen Habermas and Niklas Luhmann. Echoes of the Weberian position continued in the twentieth century in the anti-populist republicanism of such political theorists as Hannah Arendt. JAMES D. FAUBION Annales School A movement of French historians founded by Lucien Febvre (1878–1956) and Marc Bloch (1886–1944) with their journal, Annales: Economies, Societies, Civilizations, the school reacted to the prevailing narrative method of history and its concentration on political and diplomatic events – whose exemplary exponent was Leopold von Ranke (1795–1886) – by broadening both the content and the methodological approach of history. This included: (1) extending the historian’s purview to broad areas of human behavior and activity generally neglected by traditional historians, by drawing on a variety of other disciplines including sociology, anthropology, psychology, linguistics, and geography; (2) the use and development of new methods of historical investigation, including qualitative and quantitative methodological approaches in addition to standard archival resources; (3) examining the longue durée or broad long-term persistence of structures within history. The Annales approach was in no way unified and included a number of divergent standpoints within the group. According to Peter Burke in The French Historical Revolution (1990), the school can be divided into three phases covering three successive generations of historians. The first generation, which existed from the 1920s to 1945, included Bloch and Febvre. Heavily influenced by 20 anomie Émile Durkheim’s sociology, Bloch examined the prevalence of the medieval belief that the king could cure scrofula by touching people afflicted by this skin disease in The Royal Touch (1924). However, his most influential work is undoubtedly his two-volume study Feudal Society (1939–40), which dealt not only with the juridical and political dynamics of medieval society, but with its whole worldview and culture. These books showed Bloch’s concern with characteristic features of the Annales movement: collective representations, the history of mentalities, and long-term problem-based comparative historical analysis. In contrast to the influence of sociology on Bloch, Febvre was heavily influenced by the historical geographical approach of Paul Vidal de la Blanche (1845–1918), but he also focused on collective mentalities. In his major work, The Problem of Unbelief in the Sixteenth Century: The Religion of Rabelais (1939), he argued for the impossibility of atheism in the sixteenth century. The emphasis on geographical factors continued in the work of the second generation of writers, whose most prominent representative, and perhaps the most influential of all the Annales scholars, was Fernand Braudel (1902–85). In his doctoral dissertation, later published as The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World, in the Age of Philip II (1949), Braudel pursues a “total history” in which he examined the geography and economic, social, and political structures of the Mediterranean world, as well as outlining its political, diplomatic, and military history. He stressed the important effect that geohistorical structural constraints had on shaping states and economies, as well as events and individuals. Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie (1929– ), whose most noted work is Montaillou (1975 [trans. 1979]), and Jacques Le Goff (1924– ), who has written widely on the Middle Ages, most acutely in Medieval Civilization 400–1500 (1988), were the most prominent of the third generation of historians who emerged after 1968. The writings of the Annales movement provided an important intellectual resource for many Marxist historians, as well as having a bearing on the work of Michel Foucault. Its work continues in the Fernand Braudel Center at Binghampton, which was founded in 1976 and whose director is Immanuel Wallerstein. STEVEN LOYAL anomie From the Greek a-nomos, meaning without laws, mores, and traditions, in sociology, the concept refers to absence of norms and of the constraints antiglobalization movements these provide. In The Division of Labor in Society (1893 [trans. 1960]) Émile Durkheim describes how the division of labor fails to produce solidarity or social cohesion through an absence of proper regulation of relations or a type of regulation not in keeping with the development of the division of labor. He calls this condition the anomic division of labor. In Suicide (1897 [trans. 1951]), anomic suicide results from inappropriately low levels of social regulation. Economic crises, both depression and excessive growth, are held to be a source of anomie. Curiously, the regulation of marriage has contrasting consequences for men and women, according to Durkheim: unmarried men are susceptible to anomic suicide, whereas the regulation of marriage has the reverse effect on women (married women are more likely to commit suicide than unmarried ones). For Durkheim, anomie is a feature of social structure not of individual persons. David Riesman in The Lonely Crowd (1950), on the other hand, regards anomie as a psychological feature of individuals. Robert K. Merton, though, distinguishes in Social Theory and Social Structure (1968) between the source and the experience of anomie, acknowledging the psychological impact of anomie but denying it has a psychological source. Merton advances Durkheim’s account in two ways: he sees the conflict of norms and not merely their absence as a source of anomie, and he recognizes the creative potential of anomie as well as its destructive side. JACK BARBALET antiglobalization movements – see globalization. Archer, Margaret (1943– ) Professor of Sociology at the University of Warwick and Co-director of the Centre for Critical Realism, Archer is best known for her contributions to sociological theory. She was President of the International Sociological Association (1986– 90). Her early work was on the development of educational systems in Social Origins of Educational Systems (1974). She developed the analysis of human agency through a study in cultural sociology in Culture and Agency: The Place of Culture in Social Theory (1988), in which she defends the separate causal importance of culture and social structure. Her work is closely associated with a realist epistemology which she has explored in Realist Social Theory: The Morphogenetic Approach (1995). She has therefore contributed to the analysis of agency and structure, where she has been critical of the absence of any causal account of Arendt, Hannah (1906–1975) structure in the work of Anthony Giddens. There are broadly two versions of the notion of “structure.” The first, favored by Giddens, treats structure as generative rules and resources, and emphasizes the voluntary nature of social action. The second version defines structure as organized patterns of social relationships that are causally efficacious. Archer supports this second interpretation, which incorporates the idea of the causal priority of structure over agency, but she defends the importance of the reflexivity of social actors in Structure, Agency and the Internal Conversation (2003). She has, with Jonathan Tritter, also brought her perspective into the debate about rational choice in Rational Choice Theory (2000). BRYAN S. TURNER Arendt, Hannah (1906–1975) Born in Hanover, Germany, Arendt was, from 1967 until her death, a university professor of the Graduate School at the New School for Social Research in New York, and editor of Schocken Books (1946–48). Arendt was one of the leading political philosophers of her time and a critic of the social sciences, whose language she found pretentious and obfuscating. In an important debate with David Riesman, starting in 1947, she argued that sociology had failed to explain the unprecedented rise of totalitarianism. Riesman countered that Arendt exaggerated the capacities and competencies of totalitarian leaders and their bureaucracies, and that no adequate political theory could be developed without an adequate sociological theory of society. This debate was seminal in defining the relationship between the concepts of the social and the political. Having completed her thesis on Love and St Augustine (1929 [trans. 1996]) under the supervision of Karl Jaspers (1883–1969), she escaped from Germany to work with Zionist organizations in France and eventually settled in the United States, becoming a citizen in 1951. She became famous initially for her work on The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951). Although this work is clearly a contribution to political theory, it has important implications for sociologists, because she argued that people in modern society are forced out of a shared public life into a lonely, isolated, and interior existence. In their isolation, there are pressures towards uniformity that undermine their autonomy, and as a result they are psychologically exposed to the totalitarian social forces of a mass society. The clear distinction between private and public life in the classical world has been confused in modern times by the emergence of “the social.” In contemporary society, people are connected 21 Aron, Raymond (1905–1983) together, but these common threads are, paradoxically, their private consumer desires. In a mass society, the social becomes the basis of mass conformity and the ethical calling of the political sinks into mundane petty politics. Her most influential philosophical work was The Human Condition (1958) in which she divided human activities into labor, work, and action. She argued that human life can only be meaningful if people can engage effectively in the public sphere. This view of politics and her critique of the social were further expanded in On Revolution (1963), Between Past and Future (1961), and Men in Dark Times (1970). In her report on the trial of Adolf Eichmann in 1961 in Eichmann in Jerusalem (1963), she coined the expression “banality of evil” to describe the impact of bureaucratic norms on personal responsibility for the Holocaust. Her essays on personal morality and collective responsibility were edited as Responsibility and Judgement (2003). BRYAN S. TURNER Aron, Raymond (1905–1983) A French journalist, political philosopher, and sociologist, Raymond Aron studied at the École Normale Supérieure and spent some time in Cologne and Berlin. He was Professor in Sociology at the Sorbonne from 1954 until 1968. In 1970 he was elected to a Chair at the Collège de France. Amongst his many publications are German Sociology (1935 [trans. 1957], Introduction to the Philosophy of History (1938 [trans. 1961]), and two volumes of Main Currents in Sociological Thought (1960, 1962 [trans. 1965, 1967]). He contributed to the study of industrial society in Eighteen Lectures on Industrial Society (1963), and to the sociology of war in Peace and War; A Theory of International Relations (1961), The Century of Total War (1951), and Clausewitz; Philosopher of War (1976). He positioned himself in the French liberal tradition, stretching back to Baron Charles de Montesquieu and Alexis de Tocqueville. Aron introduced Max Weber to French sociology and political science. He was particularly sympathetic towards Weber’s political stance and his methodology of history. Aron insisted that the positivist view was inapplicable to the analysis of social phenomena. He took issue with the tendency of Émile Durkheim and some Marxists to embrace holism and to explain social processes by a “prime mover.” For Aron, the search for a single primary cause, whether it is economic or cultural, does not do justice to the complexity of social life. An opponent to Marxism, Aron insisted that we should never abandon our aim for objectivity in the social sciences, even if it can never be 22 arts obtained. He was highly critical of utopianism and regarded Marxism as a dangerous route to totalitarianism. These views made him unpopular amongst the generation of May, 1968, but he has since been rehabilitated. Jon Elster and Raymond Boudon worked under his supervision. PATRICK BAERT arts The field of (the sociology of the arts) deals with art works, forms, and genres in social, political, and historical context. It has shifted, over the past five decades, from a concern with the arts and society, to a concern with the social shaping of the arts, to, more recently, a focus on how the arts may provide conditions for action and organization in various social milieux. In all of these projects, notions of the autonomy of the arts, of absolute artistic worth, and of the isolated genius creator are replaced by considerations of arts occupations, organizations, and institutions, by a focus on material and technical resources, and by studies of reception and use of the arts. This empirical focus has distinguished arts sociology since the mid-1970s from earlier theoretical and philosophical approaches (most notably the perspective of Theodor Wiesengrund Adorno) that adopt an evaluative stance in relation to styles, genres, or epochs within the arts. It is also different from semiotic readings of art works characteristic of scholarly research on the arts within literature, and from art and music history, in that it tends either to evade the question of meaning or to explore that question through the responses and actions of artistic consumers. Various surveys of the field have detailed this shift, such as Vera L. Zolberg’s Constructing a Sociology of the Arts (1990) and, more recently, Victoria Alexander’s Sociology of the Arts (2003). During the 1980s, arts sociology centered on three main foci – the production of culture or art worlds perspective, a focus on taste-as-classification, and the study of individual and collective arts consumption. Within the first area, Howard Becker’s Art Worlds (1982), Janet Wolff’s Production of Art (1981), and Richard A. Peterson’s edited collection The Production of Culture helped set the agenda. These works described perspectives for grounding arts sociology, albeit at different levels, in empirical research and drew it away from earlier models of arts sociology, most prevalent in the classical canon (for example, Max Weber’s essay on The Rational Foundations of Music, 1958, or Pitrim Sorokin’s study of Social and Cultural Dynamics, 1937, in arts which he contrasted the vision of ideational with sensate cultures). These contributions emphasized abstract parallels between form or structure in art works and social structures writ large. While the concept of the art world drew upon Howard Becker’s classic American Sociological Review article “Art as Collective Action” (1974), and conceptualized the arts in terms of networks and conventions, the approach associated with the term production of culture brings into relief institutional arrangements and contextual factors that shape individual art works, styles, and patterns of distribution/reception. The focus on the connection between taste in and for the arts and social status has been most closely associated with the work of Pierre Bourdieu, such as Distinction (1979 [trans. 1984]). In Bourdieu’s vision, the arts function as signs of social location and, owing to the various codes of artistic appropriation associated with arts consumption, as boundary tools. This perspective has been developed through various studies of arts patronage and cultural entrepreneurship, for example by William Weber (Music and the Middle Class, 1974) and Paul DiMaggio (“Cultural Entrepreneurship in Nineteenth-Century Boston,” 1982, in Media, Culture and Society), and criticized through comparative and empirical studies of geographical regions outside France, most notably in the United States, where high socioeconomic status has been associated with broad cultural and artistic consumption (the “omnivore” concept) as opposed to a concern for exclusive distinction, as in Richard A. Peterson and Albert Simkus’s work on taste and social status (“How Musical Tastes Mark Occupational Status,” 1992, in Cultivating Differences). Beginning in the late 1970s with, most notably, work by members or associates of the Birmingham Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies, focus on the arts was used as a means for understanding the social mechanisms of group membership and identity formation. Here was one of the first explicit attempts to focus on the links between the arts, the meanings that the arts hold for their recipients (here conceived as consumers), and social formation. Equally significantly, the focus on artistic works or products dispensed with the high/ popular distinction in favor of eclectic, user-driven classification systems, via, for example, the concept of articulation first developed by Stuart Hall. This perspective, illustrated in work by Paul Willis and Simon Frith, and by Dick Hebdige’s Subculture and the Meaning of Style (1979), bound together anthropological attention to collective Asian-American studies representation, identity formation, and arts sociology, whether focused on fashion, decoration, or music consumption, in ways that have bequeathed important methodological tools to more recent work in arts sociology. In the early 1990s, the call for a “return to meaning” in arts sociology began, taking various forms, from a concern with cultural structures, cognition, repertoires, and new institutionalism, to a focus on situated contentions of artistic meaning and value. More recently, work in sociology of the arts, once somewhat marginal to the discipline of sociology as a whole, has been linked to a range of areas. In the work of Tia DeNora (After Adorno, 2003) and Antoine Hennion (“Taste as Performance,” 2001, in Theory, Culture and Society), music has been explored as an exemplar for various forms of identification work, from self-identity to emotional work. It has also been explored by Ron Eyerman and Andrew Jamieson (Music and Social Movements, 1998) as a social movement activity. Depictions of the body in the plastic arts have been examined in connection with gender politics and sculpture, in particular high-profile public works, and have been considered in relation to the formation and stabilization of collective memory and from the perspective of “technologies of memory” (Robin Wagner-Pacifici, “Memories in the Making,” 1996, in Qualitative Sociology). New work, at the interstices of sociology and social psychology, is emerging on aesthetic agency and environmental aesthetics, in organizational contexts and in the public sphere; and studies of arts production and arts distribution technologies have been linked to the historical and situated formation of subjectivity. Boundaries between “arts sociology,” other sociologies, and work in cultural geography, community music therapy, social psychology, philosophy, and work in the arts and performing arts are continuing to blur, in ways that decant the once specialist concern with the arts into the realm of everyday life and social institutions and bring to the fore a concern with the aesthetic dimension in areas seemingly far removed from the arts, traditionally conceived. TIA DENORA Asian-American studies From their historical roots as one of the smallest and most geographically concentrated racial groups, massive international migration since the passage of the Immigration Act of 1965 has made Asian Americans the fastest-growing segment of the United States population. According 23 Asian-American studies to the US Census (2000), from 1960 to 2000 the population of Asian Americans grew from fewer than 1 million to over 10 million, raising their share of the US population from less than 1 percent to over 4 percent. While Chinese, Japanese, and Filipinos made up the overwhelming share of the Asian-American population before the 1960s, the Asian-American population today is characterized by tremendous ethnic diversity, resulting from massive migration from nearly all parts of Asia. The ethnic diversity of Asian Americans has been matched by their class diversity. While laborers dominated the earliest waves of Asian immigration before the 1920s, contemporary Asian immigration has been characterized by significant class diversity, including large numbers of highly trained and educated professionals as well as unskilled workers, political refugees, and undocumented immigrants who face severe economic disadvantage and social marginalization. For the Asian-American poor and the working class, the prevailing “model minority” image that depicts all Asian-Americans as economically successful and highly educated functions to mask their plight. In addition to these social characteristics, Asian Americans, as a racial term, represents one of the most important and instructive lessons on American race relations and racial categorization. On the one hand, as Michael Omi and Howard Winant show in Racial Formations in the United States (1994), the term Asian American highlights the dominant role of the state in the creation of racial categories. Most notably, through successive federal legislations and court decisions, the term Asian American found its most politically powerful meaning as an externally imposed legal category to deny Asians from South and East Asia the right to become citizens under the Naturalization Act of 1790 that originally limited naturalized citizenship only to “free whites.” The denial of naturalized citizenship was joined through various state laws to exclude Asian Americans from ownership of land, to subject them to anti-miscegenation laws, and to justify exclusion from immigration. This de jure discrimination did not end until the civil rights movement of the 1960s. On the other hand, the term Asian American has served to organiz internally the political activities and social life of this group in powerful ways. In electoral politics, as Yen Le Espiritu demonstrates in Asian American Panethnicity (1992), the Asian-American banner creates a much more potent political presence than can be achieved through ethnic-specific organizing. In this sense, Asian American has 24 assimilation become a category of empowerment. In addition to strategic deployment in politics, Asian American is increasingly becoming an important term for explaining a wide range of social behaviors and cultural formations, ranging from residential and marriage patterns to literary and cultural productions that shape collective action and personal identity. Perhaps the most important sociological lesson of Asian American is to show that all racial categories are socially constructed and their significance and meaning are constantly undergoing change and transformation. EDWARD PARK Asiatic mode of production – see Karl Marx. assimilation Originally developed by the Chicago School, assimilation refers to the process by which outsiders (especially migrants) give up their distinctive culture and adopt the cultural norms of the host society. This was typically thought to occur among second-generation migrants. There is no single model of assimilation but the concept was closely related to the “melting pot” metaphor used by Robert Park in relation to the United States, an anticipated result of which was a diminution of ethnic and racial divisions. Although often regarded as a “one-way” process, assimilation actually attempted to understand how heterogeneous societies develop though the reciprocal cultural interpenetration and adaptation of many different groups. The end result would then be a society in which a uniform cultural identity (for example “the American”) would reflect the merging of diverse cultural and religious ingredients. Modern forms of organization, including urbanization, the market, mass culture, and universal education, were driving assimilation. Later theories in the 1960s developed more nuanced models. Gunnar Myrdal emphasized the contrast between American ideals of equality and the practice of racial discrimination, which he hoped would be overcome through the democratic political process. Milton Gordon developed a model of seven types of assimilation (cultural, structural, marital, identificational, attitudinal, behavioral, and civic) that need not always coincide. More recently the theory has been criticized on many grounds. These include failing to address structural racism, a deterministic and unilinear evolutionary logic, the persistence of religious and ethnic differences in modern societies, and existence of globalized transnational communities. LARRY RAY associative democracy associative democracy The relationship between voluntary associations and democracy is one of the most enduring issues in social theory. While modernity is often defined as the process which eliminates all intermediate associations and affiliations between the individual and state or society, the actual unfolding of modernization has been much more complicated than this image implies. Rather, voluntary associations were the fundamental elements of the vitality of democratic life without which modern democratic states could not function. That this is the case is the starting point of theories of “associative democracy,” especially as put forward by Paul Q. Hirst in Associative Democracy: New Forms of Economic and Social Governance (1994) and Can Secondary Associations Enhance Democratic Governance? (1995). Hirst argued that an associative democracy model would address the recurring dilemmas of social democratic models that rely on the state, which create forms of dependency and pluralist democratic models that rely on voluntary initiatives, which create individualism. That such theories were put forward clearly indicates that those social theorists in the nineteenth century, notably Émile Durkheim in The Division of Labor in Society (1894 [trans. 1984]), who had foreseen the increased polarization of democratic life between the individual and the state, were indeed prescient. Throughout the twentieth century, the rise of the social welfare state and then its rapid retrenchment and withdrawal have illustrated these intractable dilemmas of the right measure of balance between individual and social responsibility. Those who argued for associative forms of democracy highlighted the importance of voluntary associations and social groups in democratic life, fostering both individual and social responsibility. Others have argued more generally that, without fostering an associative culture, democratic states would become increasingly dominated by politics as professional expertise and the society as professional administration. The possibilities of associative democracy remain one of the most vital and lively questions of social and political theory. ENGIN ISIN attitude This concept has a long, if sometimes controversial, history in sociological research. An attitude is generally defined as a learned disposition or belief that allows us to predict behavior. If, for example, we discover that an individual holds a positive attitude (learned disposition or belief) towards a presidential candidate we should, all other things audience being equal, be entitled to predict s/he will vote (behavior) for that candidate. Research based on assessments of people’s attitudes is sometimes held in higher scientific esteem than other types of survey research on the grounds that well-established attitude scales are said to have a higher level of validity and reliability than other types of survey research instruments. Attitudes are usually understood to occur on several different measurement continua, including those moving from highly favorable to highly unfavorable; stronger to weaker levels of intensity; and higher to lower levels of resolution or stability. Hence, we may hold a highly favorable attitude towards a presidential candidate, more or less intensely. If our attitude is less intense we may be less likely to act on it than if it is more intense. Likewise we may hold a highly favorable attitude towards a presidential candidate, more or less resolutely. This means that our attitude might be both highly favorable and highly intense but also highly subject to change based on new evidence. Attitudes that are held with high levels of intensity and high levels of stability are said to be those that offer the best grounds for predicting behavior. DARIN WEINBERG attitude scales – see scales. audience While earlier forms of cultural studies focused on textual analysis and the production of culture, beginning in the 1960s a variety of individuals associated with the Birmingham Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies began paying close attention to audience use of media, and the concept of audience studies became a key part of Cultural studies. The Birmingham group argued for an active audience that was able to dissect critically and make use of media material, arguing against the media manipulation perspective. Rooted in a classic article by Stuart Hall entitled “Encoding/Decoding” (1980), British Cultural studies began studying how different groups read television news and magazines, engaged in consumption, and made use of a broad range of media. In Everyday Television: Nationwide (1978), Charlotte Brunsdon and David Morley studied how different audiences consumed TV news; Ien Ang (Watching Dallas, 1985) and Tamar Liebes and Elihu Katz (A World Connected, 1990) investigated how varying audiences in the Netherlands, Israel, and elsewhere consumed and made use of the US TV series Dallas; and John Fiske (Understanding Popular 25 audience research authoritarian personality Culture, 1989; Power Plays, Power Works, 1993) wrote a series of books celebrating the active audience and consumer in a wide range of domains. Some critics believed that audience studies went too far in valorizing an active audience and called for mediation between theories like those of the Frankfurt School that posited that the media were all-powerful instruments of manipulation, and theories like those of Fiske that emphasized the autonomy of audiences and their power of resistance. Since the mid-1980s, there has been a proliferation of how different audiences in various parts of the world use media according to their gender, race and ethnicity, social class, and ideology. In addition, media industries have always been interested in audience studies, and so the audience has entered the center of a wide range of communication, cultural, and social theories in the contemporary moment. DOUGLAS KELLNER audience research – see audience. Austro-Marxism The term Austro-Marxism was coined before World War I to describe a group of young Marxist theorists in Vienna – the most prominent being Max Adler, Otto Bauer, Rudolf Hilferding, and Karl Renner. They expounded a form of Marxism that was rigorous yet undogmatic and that (unlike the revisionism of the German Social Democratic Party) remained revolutionary. Most had been involved in the Austrian socialist student movement and remained politically active in the Austrian Social Democratic Party. Their influence declined after the annexation of Austria to Nazi Germany in 1934, although neglect of their ideas underestimates their significance for Marxist theory. Austro-Marxists were interested in the development of Marxism as an empirical social science and were influenced by other intellectual currents in Vienna at the time, notably logical positivism and neo-Kantianism. The specific ideas of the AustroMarxists are illustrated by the four major studies undertaken by Adler on the philosophy of science, Bauer on nationality and nationalism, Hilferding on finance capitalism, and Renner on social functions of law (see law and society). Much of Adler’s work was devoted to the clarification of the theoretical foundations of Marxism and to its re-presentation as an empirical social science. He drew on both neo-Kantian and positivist philosophies to claim that the Marxist concept of “socialized humanity” was a conceptual a priori that made 26 the investigation of causal regularity possible. Adler’s view of Marxism as a sociological theory was broadly shared by other Austro-Marxists and in turn influenced the development of sociology in Austria up to 1934. Over three decades AustroMarxists analyzed the profound changes in capitalism the most significant of which is characterized by Hilferding as Finance Capital (1910). This work was concerned with problems of circulation and capitalist production and addressed the theory of money, growth of joint-stock companies, monopoly capital, economic crises, and imperialism. Hilferding argued that there had been a structural change in capitalism with the separation of ownership from control in the joint-stock company. This enabled small numbers of people to acquire control over a large number of companies in which a central role was played by the credit system and banks (“finance capital”). But technological progress makes ever-larger quantities of capital necessary, so the volume of fixed assets increases, the rate of profit falls and competition is curtailed through the formation of cartels and monopolies. This in turn changes the role of the state, which increasingly engages in conscious rational organization of society. The aim of socialist politics is, then, not the abolition of the state but the seizing of state power in order to bring this rationalization and direction of social life to fruition. However, a further aspect of this closer relationship between state and cartels is the emergence of imperialist politics, involving a struggle over world markets and raw materials. In this context, socialism will not arise from any inevitable breakdown of capitalism but through the political organization of working-class political parties creating a rational economic system. These ideas are reflected in Renner’s theory of the relative autonomy of law and Bauer’s theory of nationalism as the ideology of imperialism. LARRY RAY authoritarian personality World War II was followed by the rapid development of social scientific analyses of prejudice and racism. One of the most influential but controversial of these was The Authoritarian Personality (1950), the result of research undertaken by Theodor Adorno, Else Frenkel-Brunswick, Daniel Levinson, and R. Nevitt Sanford as part of the Berkeley Public Opinion Study and for the Institute of Social Research, also known as the Frankfurt School. The Authoritarian Personality used two psychodynamic tests, the A (authoritarianism) and F (fascism) scales, and was based on interviews with authoritarianism authority émigré Germans in the postwar United States. It examined the connection between deep-rooted personality traits and prejudice, and analyzed the formation of the “potentially fascistic individual.” This authoritarian personality type displayed characteristics of “authoritarian submission” – disliked giving orders but had an uncritical attitude towards idealized moral authorities of the ingroup; “authoritarian aggression” – a tendency to seek out and condemn people who violate conventional attitudes; anti-intraception – opposition to imagination and creativity; superstition and stereotyping – would believe in superstition and think in rigid categories; power and toughness – identification with powerful figures; cynicism – generalized hostility and belief in conspiracies; projectivity – projecting onto stigmatized groups unconscious emotional impulses; and preoccupation with sex and concern with “goings-on.” This personality type will become anxious and insecure when events upset their previously existing worldview. The personality type was associated particularly with (what the authors saw as) the highly sexually repressed lower middle class, a group that felt threatened by both large corporations and socialism and was predisposed to support authoritarian politics. LARRY RAY authoritarianism The term authoritarianism indicates a political regime in which government is distinguished by high-level state power without legitimate, routine intervention by the populace governed, for example through binding procedures and practices of popular consent-formation, public opinion, free speech, and government accountability. Citizens’ appeal against the decisions of the ruler is discouraged and, eventually, repressed by coercive means. A wide array of nation-state societies have historically been governed by such regimes. Although authoritarian rule is usually deployed as a shorthand for oppressive measures, it can also (but not wholly without coercion at some point) feature as paternalistic benevolence. Authoritarian rulers hold themselves responsible (but not accountable) for the ruled subjects’ well-being and may enforce strict conformity “for the subjects’ own good.” In the political sociology of Max Weber, the term also occurs in the characterization of the transition between authority systems in the West. Traditional differs from modern (that is rational-legal) authority in that, by character, law in the authoritarian regime is particularistic, both formal and substantive inequality before the law exist, and the ultimate purpose of law as coherent body is not well elaborated. According to Weber’s differentiation of ideal-typical regimetype activity, non-authoritarian regimes are characterized by adjudication (highly rationalized law) rather than administration. They emphasize rights, including social rights, and political authority is impersonal and impartial, with sovereigns serving citizens to maintain and develop their rights. In comparative-historical method and macrosociology, the authoritarian regime-type is commonly differentiated from totalitarian and democratic systems. Whereas there is wide consensus over the general distinction between democratic regimes on one hand and authoritarian and totalitarian on the other, there is much disagreement over the difference between authoritarian and totalitarian regimes in history. There are two camps, one arguing that totalitarianism is a more extreme form of authoritarianism, and a second arguing a categorical difference between the two. The regime-type distinction became particularly important in a practical sense to international relations during and following the Cold War period, because it allowed governments to argue it would be ethically unproblematic for them to interact with authoritarian nations charged with human-rights violations, because these nationstates would be capable of political reform and therefore should not be isolated – unlike totalitarian ones. Authoritarian and totalitarian regimes are usually compared with regard to their degree of subordination of their political subjects’ lives. The full control of the citizenry and the enforcement by terror under both fascism and Stalinism are two well-documented examples of totalitarian regimes in the twentieth century. One outstanding analysis of the parallels of these two regimes was delivered by Hannah Arendt in The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951), in which she emphasized that totalitarian ideologies are marked by the purposeful, radical liquidation of any freedom, thereby denying any space for action and thought, as well as aiming at changing human nature. Another defining criterion is the extent to which regimes are revolutionary or conservative – authoritarian regimes are argued to be the latter, while totalitarian regimes are said to transform the basic structure of society. ANN VOGEL authority The concept of authority has a long and rich history within western political philosophy, where it 27 authority has been often coupled and contrasted with liberty and other significant concepts. It has not had the same resonance within sociology, where it often appears in the same context as the power concept. The relationship between the two concepts, however, is construed in rather different ways. Sometimes authority is categorically contrasted with power. For instance, Robert Nisbet, in his influential work The Sociological Tradition (1967), has argued that, with the advent of modernity, the power phenomenon has displaced authority. This displacement has happened in a particularly dramatic manner in the course of the second of the “twin revolutions” – the industrial one with its main site in England, and the political one breaking through in France. Much in the sociological tradition, he suggests, constitutes a critical reflection on the power phenomenon, and compares it unfavorably with “authority.” The latter was a very significant aspect of pre-modern European society, where it was enmeshed in, and structured, magnified, justified, and bounded by, such forces as religion, the family, law, and tradition. Power, instead, de-coupled itself from these phenomena, and sought to control and modify society through sheer, factual force, first and most signally exhibited in all its brutality in the “terror” phase of the French Revolution. The nostalgia for the premodern order which Nisbet considers intrinsic to the whole sociological tradition expressed itself also in its reverence for authority. This is much in evidence in the response of Edmund Burke (1729–97) to the revolutionary events themselves, in the proto-sociology of French Restoration thinkers, and later in Alexis de Tocqueville’s worried reflections on the penchant of democratic societies for a new form of despotism. Among later social theorists, Nisbet emphasized Émile Durkheim’s hankering for authority, especially in the form of laws and other public arrangements which would restrain the ruthless greed of the over-individualized, atomized members of modern society. In these conceptualizations, authority is characterized by the sense that it speaks from above individuals, with a voice at the same time forbidding and benevolent, whose commands evoke respect and create in their addressees a sense of obligation. But if here authority is contrasted with power, other sociological renderings of the concept juxtapose it to power. For instance, in the context of recurrent arguments about the respective conceptual provinces of power, force, coercion, influence, manipulation, and authority, 28 authority the latter is sometimes seen as exemplified by the phenomenon banally characterized as “doctor’s orders.” Here, authority typically seeks to induce subjects to actions they would not engage in on their own, but does so because it is grounded on another subject’s superior knowledge of the circumstances and expresses its concern with the interests of the former subjects. The benevolence component of the first understanding is strongly stressed. To simplify these complex conceptual relations, we might say that a further use of “authority” subordinates it conceptually to “power.” This variant needs closer reflection, because it has lent itself to much elaboration by social theorists. Let us begin with Max Weber’s concept of power (Macht) which sees power present, within a social relationship, if and to the extent that one party to it is in a position to realize its own interests, even against the (actual or virtual) opposition of the other party. Weber himself remarks on certain liabilities of this understanding of power, such as the fact that it can be applied to relations of no great significance, and that within a given relation “power” so understood may easily shift from one party to the other, and then vice versa, as the issues vary. Given this difficulty, it is preferable, in sociological discourse, to make use chiefly of a concept narrower than power, characterizing situations where power asymmetries are particularly marked, and affect and structure larger and relatively durable contexts of interaction. This may happen, in particular, when power is “legitimate.” For legitimate power, Weber proposes the concept Herrschaft. This term means literally “lordship,” but it has seemed appropriate, to the English translators of Weber, to employ a different expression. One of the alternative translations proposed, besides “rule,” “rulership,” and “domination,” is “authority.” In this capacity, that is in its conceptualization as “legitimate power,” authority has acquired much currency in English sociological discourse. It was put forward in 1947 as the translation of Herrschaft by Talcott Parsons and A. M. Henderson in The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, their edition in English of the first part of Weber’s Economy and Society (1922 [trans. 1968]), which for about two decades held sway in the English-speaking world. Furthermore, even the later, complete, and much better edition of Economy and Society by Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich (1968), while making some use of an alternative version of Herrschaft (domination) continued to use “authority” in rendering Weber’s authority final statement of his typology of Herrschaft – widely recognized as one of his most significant contributions to sociology and political science. What follows refers chiefly to that typology. First, what does “legitimacy” mean? According to Weber, it constitutes a significant qualification of a relationship where commands are routinely issued which evoke obedience. They can do so, however, on rather different grounds: because the addressees of commands are totally accustomed to automatic, unreflected submission; as a result of those addressees’ calculation of the respective probabilities and effects of obedience versus non-obedience; finally, because the addressees sense that, as moral beings, they owe obedience to those commands, that these ought to be obeyed because they have been duly issued by people entitled to issue them. In this last case, commands can be said to be legitimate. This entails that they are more willingly and reliably obeyed, that sanctions (see norm[s]) for disobedience are less likely to be called for, that the whole relationship – while remaining, at bottom, a relationship of power – is rendered more stable, durable, wide-ranging, and effective. These advantages of authority, that is of power endowed with legitimacy, have long been recognized – for instance, in a statement from JeanJacques Rousseau (1712–78) in his Social Contract (1762): “the strongest person is never sufficiently strong to be always master unless he converts his strength into right, and obedience into duty.” Weber imparts an original twist to this generalization. If a power relationship turns into one of authority insofar as it is grounded on an argument, however implicit, to the effect that those in power are entitled to issue commands, and those receiving commands are duty-bound to obey, then one may differentiate the various types of authority by referring to the contents of that implicit argument. Weber then argues that, at a high level of abstraction, where the whole range of historical reality can be encompassed conceptually by few ideal-typical constructs, that argument has always had one or the other of three contents, each characterizing a distinctive kind of authority. Traditional authority. This rests on reverence for the past, on the assumption that what has always been the case is sacred and deserves to persist. Thus, what makes a command rightful is the extent to which it echoes previous, time-hallowed commands; the rightful power holder is the descendant of a former power holder (typically, a patriarch); the appropriate sentiment towards authority him of those subject to his power is that of filial devotion; and so on. Charismatic authority. Here, the commands are issued by a person to whom transcendent forces have imparted a “gift of grace,” enabling that person to perform extraordinary feats that bear witness to the power of those forces and benefit those who follow the person in question. These feats may be victories obtained through unprecedented military action and leading to wide-ranging conquest and much booty; or the proclamation of new beliefs and values, opening up novel understandings of the meaning of existence and avenues to after-worldly salvation. Accordingly, those commands are intrinsically innovative, break with tradition instead of reasserting it, and are to be obeyed because they express the unchallengeable will of the person in question. Legal authority. Here, single commands constitute correct instantiations of rules of lesser or greater generality, valid in turn because they have been formed and enacted according to certain procedural rules. These establish which individuals are entitled to issue which commands in which circumstances, and thus constrain the impact of the personal interests of those individuals on the content of the commands. In turn, obedience does not express the personal subjection of those practicing it to those issuing the commands, but constitutes, however implicitly, the dutiful observance of an entire system of rules which justifies and orients those commands. What Weber thus typifies are at bottom cultural realities, sets of understandings, and justifications which can be, and sometimes actually are, advanced in the context of discourses. On this account, his typology has sometimes been interpreted idealistically, as if in Weber’s mind the nature of its legitimacy determined all significant features of an authority relation. This is not an acceptable interpretation. As we have seen, the reference to legitimacy serves to differentiate conceptually a phenomenon which presents aspects of a very material nature, in particular those relating to the exercise or the threat of violence as the ultimate sanction of commands, or the arrangements made to provide those in command with material resources. Furthermore, legitimacy itself often emerges, in one configuration or another, only over time, as a byproduct of those or other material aspects of the authority relationship. Figuratively, one might say that authority develops as naked power, over time, clothes itself in legitimacy – a development that in turn has considerable consequences 29 authority for the nature and the effects of those very aspects. For instance, the extraction from the economy of resources to be made available to those in a position of power, can be facilitated by the emergence and the consolidation of a feeling, within the collectivity, that the commands through which such extraction is carried out appeal to the dutiful submission of subordinates to their legitimate superiors. Furthermore, the extraction process will vary in its forms, tempo, intensity, predictability, according to the nature of the legitimacy vested in those superiors. Those features of it will in turn have distinctive effects on other aspects, both of the authority relation and of social life in general. In fact, Weber’s typology of authority, while privileging the varying nature of the legitimacy as a way of partitioning conceptually that phenomenon, subsumes under the resulting partitions a whole range of further components, such as the arrangements for the judicial settlement of disputes and punishment of crime, the typical ways in which those in authority present and represent themselves and those subject to their commands, and above all the arrangements made for administration. In other terms, some of the most significant concepts produced by Weber’s thinking about politics, such as those of patriarchalism, patrimonialism, feudalism, administration by notables, or bureaucracy, are framed within his typology of authority, and are among his most important legacies. They convey the expressly sociological nature of that thinking, for in his judgment other approaches to the concept of authority, particularly philosophical and juridical ones, had not paid sufficient attention to the day-to-day aspect of authority, such as administration itself. It seemed very important, to him, to create typologies of the ways in which administrators are recruited, trained, instructed, deployed, monitored, controlled, or rewarded, as well as the “strategies of independence” vis-à-vis the rest of the polity which these very arrangements made possible for the administrators themselves. In this manner 30 autopoiesis Weber’s treatment of authority and its variants opens itself to a consideration of the dynamics of the whole authority phenomenon. GIANFRANCO POGGI automation This concept indicates machinery-driven processes of production in which human intervention is intentionally minimized to ensure predictable and standardized outcomes. Automation can refer to linkages between different machine devices (robot machine tools) to produce a continuous intervention-free flow of production, to automatic control over production, or to the full computerization of production. Historically, automation has been associated with assembly-line production and Taylorism but it is not exclusive to the economies of scale and mass production connected to Fordism (see postFordism). The post-Fordist era of capitalism is characterized by a refinement of automated processes in the area of assembly-line and off-line assembly production. Automation can be part of the integration, via the computerization of the total production chain, that also reaches into areas of distribution. As a result of the historical development of the automobile industry, and later of a broad range of consumer goods industries, automation is mainly associated with manufacturing, but in the service sector of the economy it can also be observed in the form of technologies and ideologies that are deployed to minimize human intervention. Automation is a key phenomenon in industrial sociology because it not only affects relations between workers and their production tools, and thus the intrinsic meaning of human work, but also influences social relations in work organizations and thus participation in the production process. Automation has been an empirical referent in sociological theory with respect to such prominent themes as alienation, deskilling, and ANN VOGEL the labor process. autopoiesis – see Niklas Luhmann. B Bales, Robert Freed (1916–2004) Barthes, Roland (1915–1980) An important figure in the growth of the study of group dynamics, Bales received his PhD from Harvard University, becoming Harvard Professor of Social Relations (1945–86). He spent the entirety of his academic career at that institution. During the 1950s and 1960s when the study of small groups was at its height, Bales was a major figure in exploring the dynamics of group life. His 1950 book, Interaction Process Analysis: A Method for the Study of Small Groups, is considered a classic work, particularly in its development of a twelvecategory coding scheme for direct observation and coding of verbal statements and nonverbal acts in both natural and laboratory groups. This method permitted social psychologists to explore systematically behavior in collective settings. Bales was a close associate of the Harvard social theorist Talcott Parsons, and was one of the contributors to Parsons’s project for the development of a general theory of social action. Consistent with the interests of many of his Harvard colleagues, Bales maintained a lively involvement in psychoanalysis, a theory that affected both his research and his teaching. Later in Bales’s career, he extended the model of interaction process analysis into a threedimensional coding system, eventually termed SYMLOG (SYstem for the Multiple Level Observation of Groups). Towards the end of his career, Bales became more involved in consulting, applying his models of group life to social problems, and eventually created a consulting group for his SYMLOG system. Bales may have been particularly well known for the self-analytic group course that he ran at Harvard for over a quarter-century, which became a model for similar courses throughout the United States. In these courses, students were trained to analyze their own group communication, while simultaneously learning theories of group dynamics. These groups also served as a training tool for graduate students under Bales’s direction. Widely hailed as one of the most important French intellectuals of the postwar years, Roland Barthes’s semiological approach to the study of society sought to demonstrate how cultural production reproduces itself through the signs it creates (see cultural reproduction). We live in a world pulsating with signs; and each sign in the system of cultural production has meaning, according to Barthes, only by virtue of its difference from other signs. In elaborating this semiological vision of society, Barthes drew from an eclectic range of theorists, including Ferdinand de Saussure, Roman Jakobson, Émile Benveniste, Mikhail Bakhtin, and Jacques Lacan. His entire theoretical edifice (less a coherent system than a kind of ongoing conceptual crossreferencing) sought to decode the signs our society generates. Barthes made two principal contributions to sociological categories of analysis. First, in Writing Degree Zero (1953), he inverted Saussure’s claim that linguistics is part of the broader discipline of semiotics, through demonstrating that the field of signs is, in fact, part of the more general domain of linguistics; the language of signs, says Barthes, always overflows with meaning, exhausts itself. Second, in Mythologies (1957), he demonstrated how cultural production is always veiled by its signifiers, through penetrating readings of, for instance, wrestling, the Tour de France, as well as a celebrated cover of Paris-Match. Among his other works are Elements of Semiology (1965), The Fashion System (1967), Roland Barthes by Roland Barthes (1977), Empire of Signs (1983), and The Pleasure of the Text (1990). ANTHONY ELLIOTT GARY ALAN FINE AND KENT SANDSTROM base/superstructure – see ideology. Baudrillard, Jean (1929– ) Currently Professor of the Philosophy of Culture and Media, European Graduate School, Saas-Fée, Switzerland, Baudrillard taught at the University of Nanterre, Paris, between 1966 and 1987. He is 31 Bauman, Zygmunt (1925– ) closely associated with postmodernism. He moved from an early political involvement with Marxism and the situationists to focus on symbolic forms of exchange in The Object System (1968). His work on simulation argued that consumer culture is dominated by hyperreality and the cultural elevation of irony and fatality in The Mirror of Production (1973), Simulacra and Simulation (1994), and America (1989). The notion of intrinsic value that was the inspiration of radicalism was portrayed as defunct and the conventional distinction between reality and illusion was compromised. He held that there are no historical agents capable of transforming history. Consumption and sign value were portrayed as replacing production and use value. Baudrillard’s fascination with the United States reflected his assessment of it as the most fully developed consumer culture in the world in America. Reception of his work was assisted by globalization, the internet, and deregulation. Each provided metaphors for the virtual universe that Baudrillard’s theoretical work postulated. His theory of simulation renewed the specter of AdMass world produced by mass society theory in the 1950s and 1960s. But it dehumanized the notions of control and manipulation by proposing that no social formation is capable of authoritative engagement with simulation. His work was important for exposing the dogma of many fossilized positions in social theory between the 1970s and 1990s. However, his epigrammatic style and provocative theses are subject to the law of diminishing returns. Analytically, his thought is best seen as a colorful contribution to the renewal of the sociology of fate. C H R I S R O J E K Bauman, Zygmunt (1925– ) Born in Poland and educated in the Soviet Union, Bauman held academic posts in various countries (including Poland, Israel, and Australia) before taking up the chair of sociology at the University of Leeds – where he is now Emeritus Professor. A leader of the cultural turn in sociology as far back as the 1970s, his first book in English, Between Class and Elite (1972), took the British labor movement as its field of investigation. In following years, in books such as Culture as Praxis (1973), Socialism: The Active Utopia (1976), and Memories of Class (1982), he established himself as an erudite analyst of the connections between social class and culture. His master work, Modernity and the Holocaust (1989), is a dark, dramatic study of Enlightenment reason and its possible deathly consequences. Auschwitz, in Bauman’s view, was a 32 de Beauvoir, Simone (1908–1986) result of the “civilizing” mission of modernity; the Final Solution was not a dysfunction of Enlightenment rationality but its shocking product. Various intellectual spinoffs followed, including Modernity and Ambivalence (1991), Life in Fragments (1995), Liquid Modernity (2000), and Wasted Lives (2004). In these books, Bauman moved from a concern with the historical fortunes of the Jews in conditions of modernity to an analysis of the complex ways in which postmodern culture increasingly cultivates us all as outsiders, others, or strangers. As a result of this provocative critique, Bauman’s sociology on the traumas of contemporary life has become renowned. ANTHONY ELLIOTT de Beauvoir, Simone (1908–1986) Born in Paris, the elder of two daughters of bourgeois parents, de Beauvoir’s intellectual abilities were apparent from an early age; the loss of her family’s secure economic status allowed her to follow a career as a secondary-school teacher of philosophy. This radical departure from bourgeois convention was accompanied by de Beauvoir’s long partnership with Jean-Paul Sartre, documented in the four volumes of de Beauvoir’s autobiography (Memoirs of a Dutiful Daughter, 1958; The Prime of Life, 1960; Force of Circumstance, 1963; and All Said and Done, 1972). De Beauvoir worked with Sartre on the articulation of the philosophical movement which was to become known as existentialism; de Beauvoir, in her essays Pyrrhus and Cineas (1944) and The Ethics of Ambiguity (1948), discussed the implications for individuals of existential tenets. The same theme informed de Beauvoir’s first published novel (She Came to Stay, 1943). These works, in which philosophical ideas are illustrated through literature, were overshadowed by the publication, in 1949, of The Second Sex, the work for which de Beauvoir became world-famous. The study developed out of de Beauvoir’s previous preoccupations, in particular the status of the other in human relationships. For de Beauvoir, women are the other in all aspects of social life; men are the norm of human existence and women are judged in terms of how they are not men. The most famous dictum of The Second Sex is “women are made and not born.” This comment opened numerous theoretical possibilities for the study of gender differences, from ideas about sexual socialization to the thesis of Judith Butler about the “performance” of gender. But this specifically feminist interest in de Beauvoir’s work was to emerge some years after the initial publication Beck, Ulrich (1944– ) of The Second Sex; it was second-wave feminism that encouraged a rethinking of de Beauvoir’s work. Throughout the decades following the publication of The Second Sex, de Beauvoir continued to publish novels (the best-known of which, The Mandarins, won the Prix Goncourt in 1955), volumes of autobiography, and a lengthy study of old age. From the end of World War II, de Beauvoir had taken a prominent part in left-wing politics in France and was a vehement critic of French policy in Algeria and that of the United States in Vietnam. In the last two decades of her life, as a younger generation of readers discovered her work, she became closely associated with feminist campaigns (especially around issues of reproductive rights) but consistently rejected the position of other French feminists on the essential difference of male and female thinking and language. Although the concept of the binary difference of male and female was central to de Beauvoir’s work, she remained consistent in the view that the process of the accumulation of knowledge was not gendered. Nevertheless, a recurrent theme in her work is that of loss, a theme she elaborated in her account of the death of her mother (A Very Easy Death) and the short stories published under the collective title A Woman Destroyed. De Beauvoir increasingly identified with feminism in the last years of her life, and she retains iconic stature as a person who chose, entirely self-consciously, to devote herself to intellectual life and, in so doing, helped to shape our understanding, and the politics, of gender difference. MARY EVANS Beck, Ulrich (1944– ) Professor of Sociology at the University of Munich, Beck is famous for developing the notion of risk society and reflexive modernization in his Risk Society. Towards a New Modernity (1986 [trans. 1992]). His argument is that late modernity increases uncertainty, hazard, and risk. The result is a new type of society involving reflection, expert opinion, knowledge systems, and internal critique. Beck has criticized mainstream sociology for retaining an implicitly utopian or at least optimistic view of modernization without examining its unintended, negative consequences. In his Ecological Politics in an Age of Risk (1995), he applied this approach to the problems of environmental pollution and green politics. In his more recent work, he has more closely associated his analysis of risk to theories of globalization in The Reinvention of Politics. Rethinking Modernity in the Age Becker, Howard S. (1928– ) of Global Social Order (1997) and World Risk Society (1999). Although Beck is now specifically identified with the debate about risk and environmental politics, his theory of individualization examines the breakdown and fragmentation of the institutions that were integral to industrial capitalism, such as the family and love, in The Normal Chaos of Love (Beck and Elisabeth Beck-Gernsheim, 1990 [trans. 1995]). Individualization should not be confused with neo-liberal individualism but with the “disembedding” of individuals from social structures. Individual identities are no longer defined by the secure structures of social class, social status, family, and neighborhood. This perspective is applied to a variety of social phenomena in Beck and Beck-Gernsheim, Individualization (2002). In his most recent work, he has considered the possibility of cosmopolitanism in relation to globalization. BRYAN S. TURNER Becker, Howard S. (1928– ) Becker’s work has spanned symbolic interactionism, deviance, sociology of the arts, occupations, education, medical work, and the techniques of writing. Perhaps most popularly known for his work on deviance in Outsiders (1963), Becker’s studies were conducted at the University of Chicago where, taught by Everett Hughes (1897– 1983), he was part of the second generation of the Chicago School. Taking inspiration from Georg Simmel, as well as Robert E. Park and Hughes, Becker’s perspective treats social life as the result of the work people do. This focus deals with learning, cooperation, and convention. In his article “On Becoming a Marijuana User” (1953, American Journal of Sociology), Becker pushed this approach into the study of embodied perception, emphasizing the role that learning plays in structuring the psychosomatic experience of a drug’s effects and perceived value. His 1982 work, Art Worlds, tapped his own experience as a jazz pianist and applied the focus on collective action to the making and valuing of artistic products, proposing artworks and their reputations as the outcome of networks of personnel, conventions, organizational patterns of distribution, funding and consumption, materials and technologies. In emphasizing this middle level of social organization – networks – Art Worlds inaugurated a new mode of inquiry in arts sociology and simultaneously provided a model for how to investigate creative work in other areas such as science. In these respects Becker’s work has affinities with Bruno Latour’s work on science, such as Science in Action (1987). TIA DENORA 33 behaviorism behaviorism An explanation of behavior, this perspective goes back at least to René Descartes (1596–1650), for whom animals were machines responding automatically to pleasurable or painful stimuli. Similarly, David Hartley (1705–57) noted, in Observations on Man (1749), that “the fingers of young children bend upon almost every impression made upon the palm of the hand, this performing the act of grasping, in the original automatic manner.” In the modern era, behaviorism is classically associated with lvan Pavlov’s (1849–1936) dogs salivating at the sound of a bell. They are responding, machine-like, to a stimulus associated with food. This view of behaviorism has been challenged. Burrhus Frederic Skinner (1904–90), the psychologist most associated with behaviorism, argued that the study of observed behavior needed to penetrate beyond mere reflexes. A person is a “locus,” a point at which biological and environmental conditions combine to produce a behavioral effect. Factors within the organism (including, most importantly, learning processes) combine with environmental stimuli to generate behavior. George Herbert Mead (1863–1931) is usually considered the prime social behaviorist. He insisted on recognizing social interactions and the distinctive mental and linguistic capacities of humans. Language and gestures within a social group intervene between stimulus and response, interaction making human identity. Behaviorism has therefore moved beyond a simple stimulus–response model to include learning behaviors, interaction, and internal behavioral propensities. It remains, however, an example of empiricism, resisting theories seen as speculative and insufficiently based on evidence. For these reasons, it resists theories of the self (for example, those of Sigmund Freud) which argue for underlying, but not directly experienced, structures to human nature. Similarly, behaviorism underplays the influence of social structure and power on individual behavior. PETER DICKENS Bell, Daniel (1919– ) Bell’s extensive body of work has made a major contribution to many areas of sociological inquiry, including social change and modernity, the evolution of capitalism, and the dynamics and conflicts within western culture. Born in New York, he is a graduate of City College, and became a prominent Harvard academic and social commentator. He is probably best known as a theorist of postindustrial society, and as someone 34 Bell, Daniel (1919– ) who anticipated many contemporary economic and cultural trends associated with postmodernism. His best-known works are The End of Ideology (1960), The Coming of Post-Industrial Society (1973), and The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism (1976). The End of Ideology advanced the notion that a historical epoch dominated by grand ideological conflict had come to an end as a result of the successes of western democratic politics and capitalism. This reflected an epoch of optimistic confidence that seemingly intractable conflicts that had dominated the nineteenth and much of the twentieth century could and had been overcome. Neither Karl Marx’s prognosis of endemic class conflict (see social class) nor Max Weber’s discussion of the iron cage of rationalized bureaucratic domination had come about. Criticized for complacency and exclusion of Third World perspectives, Bell responded to the social changes and upheavals of the late 1960s and early 1970s with two more critical contributions to sociological analysis. In The Coming of Post-Industrial Society, subtitled A Venture in Social Forecasting, he diagnosed a shift from an industrially based to an information-driven, serviceoriented postindustrial society. This elevated the role of knowledge and knowledge-holders as new and dominant elements within structures of power and social stratification. Professionals rather than entrepreneurs occupied the key positions in the new social order. This argument marked an early and influential statement of what became known as new class theory. Bell did not invent the idea of postindustrial society, which had been around throughout the twentieth century; rather he gave this concept a greater focus and analytical rigor. Similarly, his emphasis on knowledge and social structure, while drawing on earlier thinkers like C.-H. Saint-Simon and Weber, was less speculative and better grounded in empirical complexities than that of his predecessors. The newly emerging postindustrial structure, investigated further by Bell in The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism, pursued the theme of the evolving social structure and cultural formations of western nations. A key idea here was that of a profound cultural cleavage between the realms of production and consumption. While the former depended on the work ethic and deferred gratification, the latter elevated hedonism and personal fulfillment as the overriding values. This argument disputed the contention, associated with Talcott Parsons, that western social systems could bell curve be integrated around a relatively stable set of normative frameworks. For Bell, by contrast, the moral foundations of capitalism would remain shaky and uncertain. In this way, Bell anticipated certain postmodern arguments against the unitary nature of social order. ROBERT HOLTON bell curve – see intelligence. Bellah, Robert N. (1927– ) Elliott Professor of Sociology Emeritus at the University of California, Berkeley, and born in Los Angeles, Bellah attended undergraduate and graduate school at Harvard University, receiving his PhD in Sociology in 1955. He taught at Harvard in 1957–67, moving thereafter to his position at Berkeley. Bellah’s work has centered on the sociology of religion and cultural sociology. His earliest book, Tokugawa Religion (1955), explored Japanese religion in a comparative framework. In Beyond Belief (1970), he wrote on a variety of religious traditions, viewing religion not as an objective set of timeless truths, but as an attempt to find meaning in the modern world. In The Broken Covenant (1975), a very controversial work, Bellah discussed the idea of civic religion in the United States. He argued that abstract but shared religious values give American ideas such as the republic and liberty a sacred dimension. Critics accused him of collapsing the distinction between religion and politics, a criticism rejected by Bellah. Bellah has continued his concern with the moral life of Americans in his recent works, Habits of the Heart (1985) and The Good Society (1991), both written with Richard Madsen, William Sullivan, Ann Swidler, and Steven Tipton. Bellah finds that American democratic institutions are threatened by a powerful and widespread belief that selfinterest and self-expression are the essence of freedom. He thinks that Americans have difficulty grasping the interdependency of the contemporary world and the complexity of many of their basic values, including the meaning of success, freedom, and justice. Bellah states that many Americans have trouble conceptualizing and acting on these issues because they assume that individuals are isolated from their social and cultural contexts. For Bellah, this is a fiction. Most Americans are profoundly involved in social relationships that entail community and caring, yet they lack a language that articulates the richness of their commitments to one another. Bendix, Reinhard (1916–1991) Bellah states that Americans lack such insight into their communal obligations and experience because they have privileged their individualistic cultural beliefs over other aspects of their cultural life and traditions. Yet these communal themes run deep in American history. He labels these communal traditions republicanism – which advocates a society based on political equality and participatory self-government – and the biblical tradition – which posits a good society as a community in which a genuinely ethical and spiritual life can be lived. Bellah calls for a resurrection and rethinking of the biblical and republican traditions, which he sees manifested in Americans’ desire for meaningful work, their wish to make a difference in the world, and their devotion to family and friends which often overshadows their commitments to work. For Bellah, these traditions represent an ideal of a community of participatory individuals who have strong ethical bonds with one another. American institutions, from work to government, must change so that people do not view them as hindrances to self-development. Individuals must be able to grasp the interconnection of personal and public welfare, so that they can actively participate in shaping their lives. KENNETH H. TUCKER Bendix, Reinhard (1916–1991) A German-born sociologist who emigrated to the United States in 1938, Bendix taught at the University of Chicago from 1943 to 1946, and then, following a short stint at Colorado, at Berkeley. Bendix’s work on political theory and historical and comparative sociology fused theoretical depth with expansive empirical detail. He wrote three major historical-comparative books: Work and Authority in Industry (1956), which examined the role of bureaucracy; Nation Building and Citizenship (1964), which followed T. H. Marshall’s arguments concerning working-class incorporation into modern society; and Kings and People (1978), which expanded on Weber’s famous distinction between feudal and patrimonial authority. He was, however, most well known for his penetrating intellectual biography of Max Weber (1960), which provided an alternative reading to the then dominant Parsonian interpretation of the German thinker. In Social Science and the Distrust of Reason (1951) and later works such as the two-volume Embattled Reason (1988–9) and From Berlin to Berkeley (1986), he advocated responsible partisanship which balanced scientific scholarship with humanistic ideals. He also edited two influential books with 35 Benjamin, Walter (1892–1940) Berger, Peter L. (1929– ) Seymour M. Lipset: Class, Status and Power (1953) and Social Mobility in Industrial Society (1959). masses, the phenomenal life of the commodity, and the transformations in perception of things. STEVEN LOYAL DAVID FRISBY Benjamin, Walter (1892–1940) Berger, Peter L. (1929– ) Although not a sociologist and initially recognized more as literary critic and philosopher, the German theorist Walter Benjamin has had a significant impact upon aspects of sociology in recent decades. Perhaps most widespread has been the debate upon and extension of his reflections on “the work of art in the age of its mechanical reproducibility.” In his essay of that title (1969; 2002) [1936] and elsewhere, Benjamin argued that, whereas the traditional work of art possessed auratic qualities, the result of its uniqueness and authenticity, mechanical reproduction of images and art works removed their auratic qualities and potentially opened up democratic possibilities. Benjamin’s interest in the technologies of image and art work reproduction led him to explore the media of film, photography, radio, and new modes of operating with existing media such as modern drama and the press. This interest in images accords with his assertion that an important feature of modernity is the huge proliferation of images. More recently, the translation of his massive, unfinished prehistory of modernity, the Arcades Project (1999), on which he worked for over a decade collecting images, descriptions and evidence, has been influential. This project focused in a radical manner upon Paris as capital of the nineteenth century and was intended as an excavation of modernity that would be crucially relevant to our contemporary experience. Defining modernity as a world dominated by illusion and fantasy (“phantasmagorias”), and especially the illusion of the “new,” Benjamin maintained that the origins of modernity lay embedded in the nineteenth century. Their excavation was to be approached methodologically through attention to the fragments, the refuse of the past in our present, through the construction of dialectical images that would force the past into our present, through a critique of the dream-world of historicism, and through awakening from the illusions of modernity. The investigation of the origins of modernity were to be undertaken by the partly metaphorical figures of the archaeologist / critical allegorist, the collector/ragpicker, and the flâneur/ detective. The new reading of the city as text revealed the transformations in experience of modernity through a rich construction of the city, commencing with its arcades, and moving through to its streets, the bourgeois interior, the Born in Vienna, Berger moved to the United States after World War II and is currently a professor at Boston University. Berger’s contribution to sociology is prolific and extensive but he is most renowned for his writings on religion and secularization, and for the phenomenological understanding of social life articulated in The Social Construction of Reality (1966), coauthored with Thomas Luckmann. In this highly influential book, Berger emphasized what today might seem an obvious point – that society is a product of human design – but which in the 1960s, a time when sociologists primarily emphasized the determining power of large-scale impersonal social structures (for example, capitalism) and processes (for example, modernization), was highly innovative. Berger’s focus on everyday life and the pragmatic constraints of living in the “here and now” was quite radical. It made scholars and students alike pay attention to the small but potent ways in which ordinary people get on with, make sense of, organize, and find meaning in the everyday reality that confronts them. Berger’s emphasis on the thoroughly social foundation of institutions, and the possibility that institutional and social change emerges when the taken-for-granted institutional routines no longer make sense in a particular social context, opened up an emancipatory view of human (social) agency, but one, clearly, that recognized that humans as social beings – the products too of society – are always in interaction with socially institutionalized ways of organizing collective life, for example, language. The dialectic by which humans engage the objective, socially created external world, and in turn internalize and act on that external reality provides a highly dynamic model of the interactive power of institutional structures and individual consciousness and meaning in the construction of social life. One of Berger’s core interests has been how the religious domain, itself the product of human design rather than divine blueprint, allows individuals to impose order on the chaos of everyday reality. Religion provides like-minded individuals who interact together within a symbolic universe of shared beliefs, symbols, and meanings with an overarching Sacred Canopy (1967), which facilitates the plausibility of their sense-making and thus enhances their social integration. But, as Berger noted, in modern society – with its rationally 36 Bernstein, Basil (1924–2000) differentiated institutional spheres and cultural processes – religion is but one of many competing universes of meaning; science and art, for example, are other (often conflicting) sources of shared meaning in society. Within the religious sphere, moreover, Berger argued, the plurality of denominations and choices available reduces the plausibility or the certainty of any one individual’s beliefs (or choices). Berger was a leading proponent of secularization, seeing it as an inevitable and global phenomenon of modernization and the necessary loss of domination of religious institutions and symbols over social institutions, culture, and individual consciousness. Although he acknowledged that secularization did not proceed uniformly across all societies or across all sectors of society, he nonetheless argued that any continuing symbolic power of churches would necessarily rest on churches becoming more secularized themselves. In recent years, however, Berger has revised his earlier thesis in Christian Century (1997), stating that most of the world today is not secular but very religious. Berger’s Invitation to Sociology (1963) remains an influential and accessible introduction to sociology. MICHELE DILLON Bernstein, Basil (1924–2000) Within the British tradition of empirical sociology, Bernstein was unusual in being open to the philosophical currents in “continental” thought. His early reading of Ernst Cassirer (1874–1945), Benjamin Whorf (1877–1957), Lev Vygotsky (1896–1934), and Alexander Luria (1902–77), and his knowledge of the work of Émile Durkheim, caused him to become primarily concerned with how cultural and linguistic frames of thinking mold our experience of the world. Before and after studying at the London School of Economics after World War II, Bernstein had experience of working and teaching in socially deprived parts of east London. His combination of theoretical interest with concrete experience of non-traditional or non-academic contexts fostered the research which he undertook and inspired at the Sociological Research Unit at the Institute of Education of the University of London from 1963 until his death. During this period he was responsible for the production of a series of studies under the general title of Class, Codes and Control (1971, 1973, 1975). Both the first and the third volumes of this series reprinted his seminal article entitled: “On the Classification and Framing of Educational Knowledge.” Bernstein was responsible for drawing attention to the correlation between class difference and the biologism capacity of people to draw upon “restricted” or “extended” linguistic codes. He was necessarily interested in pedagogical practices, and it is significant that his research provided a basis for examining sociologically the function of schooling, at a time when thinking about education was still dominated in the United Kingdom by philosophers, and when opposition to schooling was expressed in the de-schooling movement. DEREK ROBBINS bias Bias refers to those aspects of the social research process that may skew the findings in some way. The main identified sources of bias concern the researcher or informant, the measurement instruments or methods, and the sampling procedures. Biased measures fail to do a good job of measuring the things they are purported to measure and therefore lack validity. Biased samples are not representative of the relevant population or set of cases they are meant to reflect. The issue of whether or not one can eliminate bias is contested. Some argue that to eliminate all sources of bias is to purge research of human life. From this viewpoint, the task of the researcher is not to eliminate bias but to be reflexive about potential distortions of accounts. Others disagree and stress that it is the researcher’s duty to make every effort to eliminate or minimize distortion in the research process. The dispute arises because the meaning of bias is ambiguous. The notion that bias is a systematic deviation from a true score is problematic because concepts such as “truth” or “objectivity” sit uneasily with the study of the social world, where “truths” differ across time and place. It is less problematic to define bias as systematic errors that distort the research process. The main safeguard against such systematic distortions is that others in the community of scholars will challenge biased research. For example, feminist scholars have played an invaluable role in challenging pervasive sexism in sociological concepts and JACKIE SCOTT measures. biological reductionism – see biologism. biologism In its strongest form, this perspective suggests that the social position of social classes or ethnic groups (see ethnicity) largely stems from genetically inherited levels of intelligence. Similarly, the high levels of child-care or domestic work 37 biopolitics conducted by women are an expression of their innate caring capacities. As with social Darwinism, such arguments clearly suggest that power and inequality are mainly a product of an inherent human nature. Criminality too is sometimes seen as a product of biological inheritance. Biologism, in its crudest forms, is a thinly veiled ideology in which white males have exercised power over women, nonwhites, and others. Such pseudoscience is clearly unacceptable. On the other hand, blank rejection of the natural sciences by sociologists runs the risk of throwing out the biological baby with the bathwater. Humans, like all animals, remain a natural datum. Their biological structures and potentials must be related, however loosely and distantly, to their behaviors, social positions, and identities. Biological and psychic mechanisms are certainly overlaid with, or “overdetermined” by, social relations, but this cannot mean that biological mechanisms can never offer explanatory purchase. Social institutions and social structures may be realizing or suppressing biologically based structures and capacities in complex and varied ways which are not well understood. Sociologists are therefore right to criticize extreme forms of biologism. But they must also guard against charges of “sociologism,” a denial of biological or psychic bases to human behavior and/or crude assumptions about the plasticity of the human body and human nature. Neither sociology nor biology can offer total explanations, and dogmatic charges of “biologism” could result in the premature closure of transdisciplinary analysis. Despite a legacy of suspicion, sociology must remain open to contributions from the natural sciences. PETER DICKENS biopolitics A general term referring to the way biology intersects with politics, commerce, the law, and morality; more specifically, the term refers to the contentious politics and conflicts concerned with nature and the environment. Environmentalism and animal rights are two social movements whose cognitive and political praxis can be characterized as forms of biopolitics. The term has a more specified meaning in what is called the “transhumanist movement.” The phrase was first coined by James Hughes, an American professor, to refer to a pro-technological outlook which takes the Luddites as its polar opposite. As a form of biopolitics, transhumanism is a movement towards a posthuman or cyborg society. Leading social theorists associated with the 38 biotechnology concept are Michel Foucault, Donna Haraway, and Peter Singer. RON EYERMAN biotechnology This term is used to describe a process through which biological materials are modified. Specifically, it refers to the use or development of techniques employing living organisms, such as cells and bacteria, in industrial or commercial processes. The field of biotechnology not only integrates a number of disciplines, drawing on molecular biology, biochemistry, cell biology, microbiology, genetics, immunology, and bioinformatics, it also employs a range of different techniques and technologies including, among others, DNA sequencing, the polymerase chain reaction, and microand macro-injection. Although interventions such as the selective breeding of plants and animals and the use of yeast to make bread have been taking place for centuries, the term biotechnology is associated with more recent developments, such as the late twentieth-century breakthroughs in molecular biology, genetic engineering, and the current convergence of science and technology aided by bioinformatics. The birth of modern biotechnology is generally dated to the early 1970s when American scientists developed recombinant DNA techniques. This is a method for transferring genes from one organism to another unrelated organism. Since then, a number of other technologies have been developed leading to innovations such as genetically modified foods, stem cell research, and gene therapy. A new industry sector has been built up around biotechnology. This sector is playing a critical role in knowledge transfer, where knowledge from universities is transferred into commercial applications, and contributing to the emerging, global knowledge-based economy. Biotechnology companies tend to be recent start-ups established by researchers from universities or research institutes, funded by venture capitalists, and having extensive networks of research alliances and collaborators. They are usually built up around a single idea backed up by patents, with few, if any, products on the market. Biotech firms often initiate drug development, selling their products to large pharmaceutical companies which continue with the process of bringing the drug to market. In drug development, biotech firms commonly rely on continual investments from venture capitalists and bankers for an eight- to ten-year period before the products are realized or larger pharmaceutical companies acquire the firm. biotechnology Since the first biotech firms were established in the late 1970s, the industry has expanded rapidly. The subsequent successful production of cloned genes for producing proteins that enabled the production of new pharmaceutical drugs and agricultural applications prompted massive governmental investments in the United States, Europe, and emerging markets around the world. As with recent developments in genetics, biotechnology has been heralded by scientists, policymakers, and the business world as having the potential to bring about new and revolutionary changes for both society and the global economy. A system of intellectual property rights, and global regimes to protect them, has been deployed in relation to biotech discoveries. A number of sociologists have drawn attention to both the ever-increasing blurring of boundaries between the private and public sectors, and the propensity for biotechnological development to be subject to excessive hyperbole. Notions of a biotechnology revolution underpinned by scientific, governmental, and regional policy initiatives designed to bring about the twin objectives of wealth and health creation have generated widespread expectations about the rapid impact of biotechnology. Sociologists highlight the ways in which promoters of new technologies build expectations through the creation and citation of technological visions. Social scientists Paul Nightingale and Paul Martin demonstrate in their article “The Myth of the Biotech Revolution” (2004, Trends in Biotechnology), that, counter to expectations of a revolutionary model of innovation, biotechnology innovation is instead following a historically well-established process of slow and incremental change. These commentators note that most research fields can be seen to move through various cycles of hype and disappointment, expressing tensions between generative visions on the one hand and the material “messiness” of innovation on the other. While governments worldwide are pursuing ambitious and competitive programs to foster bioscience-based industries, the prominence of biotechnological processes and innovation has prompted sociologists to grapple with the associated myriad social, political, and ethical issues. Issues such as the impact of biotechnologies on individuals and society, the altering of boundaries between nature and culture, and questions about human nature have all captured sociologists’ attention. Risk in the form of the consequences of genetic engineering or genetic modification of human and other living organisms has also been biotechnology a subject of substantial debate for scholars. The concept of a risk society, as argued by Ulrich Beck, has been drawn on by some sociologists analyzing such risks. There is also concern that genetic engineering of humans in the form of gene therapy, where faulty genes are either repaired or replaced, might alter the germline cells (those cells that have genetic material that may be passed on via reproduction to a child) and irreversibly change the genetic make-up of future generations. In The Future of Human Nature (2001), Jürgen Habermas, for example, argues that genetic engineering, along with other forms of genetic enhancements, should be forbidden, as such alterations undermine what it is to be human. Other scholars have argued that decisions about whether or not to pursue such developments should be premised on democratically accountable mechanisms. Others again have been more optimistic about the potential biotechnology provides to move beyond a nature/culture opposition and develop life-enhancing reconfigurations that provide the means to overcome our biological, neurological, and psychological limitations. Controversies over genetically modified foods, cloning, and stem cell research have become major flashpoints in the political and public arenas. Sociologists, particularly those specializing in science and technology studies, have drawn attention to the contested and uncertain nature of science. Public opposition to genetically modified foods has furthered debates on public understanding of science, the role of democracy, and the necessity for governance and regulation. While policymakers and scientists frequently suggest such opposition is based on a public deficit of scientific knowledge, social scientists refute this. For example, Brian Wynne in his article “Public Uptake of Science: A Case for Institutional Reflexivity” (1993, Public Understanding of Science), claims that the public understands only too well the provisional nature of scientific knowledge and are aware that problems can emerge in the future that are in the present unknown. More recently, in response to a perceived breakdown in the public’s trust in science, attempts have been made by science-funding agencies, policymakers, and governmental bodies to adopt public engagement strategies. These strategies are often presented as part of a more inclusive democratic process of government and entail such activities as setting up citizens’ juries and carrying out surveys and public consultation exercises. Such work is often undertaken by sociologists and other social 39 Birmingham Centre scientists. Some scholars suggest that this is evidence of the emergence of new forms of biological or scientific citizenship and represents a more participatory or deliberative form of democracy. Others are more skeptical and claim that such exercises are designed to stave off the kind of public opposition that has thwarted the deployment of genetically modified foodstuffs in Europe and other western countries. O O N A G H C O R R I G A N Birmingham Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies Opened in 1964, the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies (CCCS) was founded at the University of Birmingham by Richard Hoggart. Stuart Hall was recruited as Hoggart’s partner to manage the day-to-day affairs of the Centre. His contribution rapidly made the climate of work in the Centre more theoretical and political. CCCS was an anti-elitist, postgraduate teaching and research institution. Initially, it was organized intellectually around a tripartite division between literary, historical-philosophical, and sociological research. However, the historical–philosophical and sociological elements soon took precedence, especially after 1970 when Hoggart left to take up a post in UNESCO. Under Hall’s leadership, work gravitated towards the central issue of the articulation of power. This was chiefly examined at the cultural level by the attempt to fuse native traditions of “culturalism” with continental “structuralism.” Culturalism was a version of cultural materialism committed to examining “the whole way of life” of a social class. In contrast to elitist approaches, it emphasized the “ordinary” character of culture. Politically, it was a variant of left-wing humanism. During the Birmingham heyday, while their work differed in many important particulars, the chief representatives of this tradition were recognized as Raymond Williams, Edward Thompson, and Richard Hoggart. Hall’s reservations about culturalism centered on its tendency to privilege agency over structure, its neglect of questions of reflexivity, its under-developed interest in the positioning of agency, and its general anti-theoreticism. The most ambitious and defining project in Birmingham lay in the attempt to graft continental structuralism, embodied above all in the work of Antonio Gramsci, Louis Althusser, and Karl Marx, on to the native tradition of culturalism. Structuralism was held to offer theoretical determinacy, an emphasis on totality, and a recurring interest in the articulation of ideology through praxis. 40 Birmingham Centre This project was developed along several fronts. Arguably, the work on British state formation, the formation of ideology, schooling as cultural resistance, policing and the drift to the law and order society, encoding and decoding in mass communications, and the politics of hegemony was of most enduring influence. In 1979 Hall left to become Professor of Sociology at the Open University. Although the Centre continued, it never regained the public profile or intellectual prominence that it achieved under his leadership. Despite maintaining a sound record of student recruitment, it was closed by the University in 2002, allegedly in response to a disappointing performance in the national Research Assessment Exercise. The principal achievements of the Centre are threefold. At the theoretical level, it synthesized a rich range of native and continental traditions to examine cultural articulations of power. In doing so, it broke decisively with elitist perspectives on culture and related the question of articulation to divisions of class, gender, and race and ethnicity. The sophisticated use of culture to elucidate praxis was seminal in the emergence of cultural studies. At the political level, it twinned culture with politics. Hall’s model of intellectual labor was borrowed from Gramsci’s concept of the organic intellectual, that is, an individual who set out to operate as a switch-point between cutting-edge ideas and political activism. Following Althusser, the state was identified as the pre-eminent institution of normative coercion. The analysis of the historical role of the British state in managing dissent and the consistent analytic relation of the state’s “war of maneuver” to ordinary cultural forms and practice was compelling and moldbreaking. This work was crucial in developing the model of authoritarian populism that Hall developed in the 1980s to explain working-class support for Thatcherism. At the pedagogic level, the emphasis on collaborative research between staff and postgraduates, and the self-image of developing the curriculum of Cultural studies, provided a compelling nonhierarchical, dialogic model of teaching and research. The Centre was one of the major training grounds for the study of culture in the twentieth century and has some claim to be regarded as pivotal in the development of Cultural studies and the cultural turn in sociology. Among its alumni are Charlotte Brundson, Paul Gilroy, Lawrence Grossberg, Dick Hebdige, Gregor McLennan, Angela McRobbie, David Morley, and Paul Willis. black economy The major figures in the Birmingham diaspora retain a powerful global influence in protecting and enhancing the heritage and perspectives developed in the 1960s and 1970s. The weaknesses of the Birmingham tradition inversely reflect its achievements. Conceived as a series of projects located at the periphery of the academy and elite culture, the work of the Centre gradually migrated to the core. It set agendas of discourse and research rather than critically responding to them. This exposed underlying faults in the project. First, in opening up the subjects of culture and articulation to serious academic enquiry, the Centre progressively surrendered a tenable political focus. Tensions with feminist students in the late 1970s raised awkward questions about the limitations of reflexivity and persistence of ideology in the Centre’s ordinary activities. The reaction was to be more responsive to feminist and psychoanalytic traditions. This invited criticism that the Centre was over-willing to embrace intellectual fashion and added to the confusion about the practical political objectives of the Birmingham project. Second, the engagement with popular culture became so entwined with questions of theoretical relevance that the analysis became forbiddingly abstract. Key concepts, such as articulation, conjuncture, enunciation, hegemony, and ideology, were often used inconsistently and with different inflections. The Centre’s work became vulnerable to the charge of conceptual slippage and intellectual incoherence. These criticisms were intensified by Hall’s work after the 1980s, in which the notion of unity in difference became prominent. Many commentators have found this to be elusive and obscure. Third, the balance of cultural articulation was heavily skewed to the roles of the state and social divisions of class, race, and gender. The Centre evinced a remarkable failure to investigate the culture of the corporation, and its analysis of the mass media never extended beyond encoding, decoding, and media amplification. Although Hall and his associates accurately predicted the rise of the New Right in Britain, they failed to anticipate the significance of globalization for critical analysis. CHRIS ROJEK black economy – see informal economy. black studies – see African-American Studies. Blumer, Herbert (1900–1987) Blau, Peter M. (1918–2002) A prolific sociological theorist and researcher, Blau made important contributions to exchange theory, and to the study of complex organizations and social stratification. Born in Vienna, he narrowly escaped Nazi Europe on the last civilian boat to leave France, arriving penniless in New York in 1939. Blau studied for a doctorate at Columbia University with Robert Merton. He was professor at the University of Chicago from 1953 to 1970, then at Columbia University from 1970 to 1988. He held numerous distinguished visiting positions and was President of the American Sociological Association in 1974. Blau’s Dynamics of Bureaucracy (1955) developed Merton’s approach to functionalism, showing how innovation occurred in the enactment of rules of formal organizations. This was followed by a major work in the comparative theory of organizations, coauthored with Richard Scott, Formal Organizations (1963). With functionalism under criticism for its neglect of concrete individual actors, Blau turned to the micro-foundations of structural analyses in Exchange and Power in Social Life (1964). He acknowledged the criticism that exchange theory was frequently narrowly utilitarian, elaborating normative principles of reciprocity and justice alongside rationality and marginal utility in order to understand both conflict and integration within social relationships. Together with Otis Dudley Duncan, he produced a landmark study of stratification, American Occupational Structure (1967). This combined a sophisticated theoretical model of social status attainment with innovative techniques of data analysis to study trends in social mobility; it is a classic of American empirical sociology. He continued to work on micro–macro theory in the later part of his career, publishing Structural Contexts of Opportunities (1994), in which he reformulated exchange theory to allow emergent properties of social structures that constrained opportunities. JOHN HOLMWOOD Blumer, Herbert (1900–1987) Though Blumer was theoretically a symbolic interactionist, his major writings were in the areas of race relations (see race and ethnicity), labor and management conflict, urbanization, and popular culture, represented in his Selected Works (2000), which were appropriately subtitled A Public Philosophy for Mass Society. Empirically, he remained true to the Chicago style of ethnographic study (see Chicago School): his forte was the detailed empirical observation of the ways in which 41 body body whatever subjects were under scrutiny went about sustaining and negotiating meaning. For Blumer, people act on the basis of the meanings that they impute to situations, which they build up over time by the use of language in social interaction with others. In this way, they develop a sense both of their self and the other, often through the process of seeing themselves as the other might – taking the role of the other. Just as social interaction is processual, the sense of the self that one has is also built and changed processually: there is no inherent identity – only that which the self makes up in interactions with others. Blumer did not see the meaning of any act as inherent in the act itself but as socially constructed by the responses that such acts elicit and the flow of interaction in anticipation of future acts. Thus, while meaning may attach to quite tangible phenomena, such as a building or a river, or to something quite intangible, such as justice or discrimination, what that meaning is constituted as being is always an effect of the meanings that society sustains, contests, and frames over time. STEWART CLEGG body From the 1980s, there has been growing interest in the sociology of the body as illustrated by B. Turner in The Body and Society (1984), M. Featherstone, M. Hepworth, and B. Turner in The Body. Social Process and Cultural Theory (1991), and C. Shilling in The Body and Social Theory (1993). Over a longer period, there was an erratic interest in the body among sociologists such as Erving Goffman in Stigma (1964), and Norbert Elias in The Civilizing Process (1939 [trans. 1978]) in which Elias explored the regulation of bodily practices. However, contemporary interest appears to be driven by significant changes in society relating to consumption, cultural representations, medical science, and health. Scientific and technological advances, particularly the new reproductive technologies (see reproduction), cloning techniques, and stem-cell research have given the human body a problematic legal and social status. The social world is being transformed by genetic and medical technologies that reconstruct social, especially kinship, relationships, and create the possibility of genetically modified bodies and “designer babies.” In particular, assisted reproduction is changing the generative connections between parents and children, and reconstructing the family as an institution of reproduction. In addition, aging (see age), disease, and death and dying no longer appear to be immutable facts about the human 42 condition, but contingent possibilities that are constantly transformed by medical sciences. The development of regenerative medicine and the use of stem cell research to offset the negative side-effects of aging and chronic disease hold out the utopian promise of living forever, or at least extending life expectancy considerably. The emergence of the body as a research topic in the humanities and social sciences is a response to these technological and scientific changes, and to the diverse social movements that are associated with them, such as gay and lesbian movements, environmentalism, and anti-globalism on the one side, and religious fundamentalism, pro-life movements, and conservative cultural politics on the other. More importantly, the human body, or more specifically its genetic code, is now a key factor in economic growth in a wide range of biotech industries. In a paradoxical manner, the pathology of the human body is itself a productive factor in the new economy. Disease is no longer simply a constraint on the productivity of labor, but an actual factor of production. The body is increasingly a code or system of information from which economic profits can be extracted through patents, rather than merely a natural organism. In his Our Posthuman Future, Francis Fukuyama (2002) has claimed that the biotechnology revolution will transform the nature of politics by changing human life. Different philosophical and sociological traditions have shaped contemporary approaches to the body. Firstly, the body is often discussed as a cultural representation of social organization. For example, the head is often used as a metaphor of government, and the word “corporation” to describe the modern company has its origins in such bodily metaphors. In this sociological tradition, research on the body is concerned to understand how the body enters into political discourse as a representation of power, and how power is exercised over the body. This approach to the body is associated with Michel Foucault, whose work on the discipline of the body in Discipline and Punish. The Birth of the Prison (1975 [trans. 1977]) gave rise to research on the government of the body in schools, prisons, and factories. This approach to the body was therefore concerned with questions of representation and regulation in which diet, for example, is a method used in Turner’s Regulating Bodies (1992). The Foucauldian perspective is not concerned with understanding our experiences of embodiment; it is not concerned with grasping the lived experience of the body in terms of a phenomenology of the body. The starting point body for the study of the “lived body” has been the research of the French philosopher Maurice Merleau-Ponty in Phenomenology of Perception (1945 [trans. 1982]), which examined how the perception of reality always occurs from the particular location of our body. Merleau-Ponty showed how our cognition of the world is always an embodied perception. In short, phenomenology was a critique of the dualism of the mind and body, in which the body is passive and inert. Research inspired by this idea of the lived body has been important in showing the intimate connections between body, experience and identity. In addition, there is an influential anthropological tradition, which examines the body as a symbolic system. The dominant figure in this tradition is the British anthropologist Mary Douglas, whose Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo (1966) shaped subsequent research. Douglas showed how notions of pollution were associated with uncertainty and danger. The body provides human society with metaphors of social stability and order by defining areas of ambiguity. In this sense, we use the body as a method of thinking about society. In anthropology, there is another tradition, however, that has examined how human beings are embodied and how they acquire a variety of cultural practices that are necessary for walking, sitting, dancing, and so forth. The study of embodiment has been the concern of anthropologists who have been influenced, in particular, by the work of Marcel Mauss, who invented the concept of “body techniques” in the Journal de Psychologie Normale et Pathologique (1935). This anthropological legacy encourages us to think about the body as a multitude of performances. These anthropological assumptions have been developed in contemporary sociology by Pierre Bourdieu in terms of the concepts of hexis and habitus, by which our dispositions and tastes are organized. For example, within the everyday habitus of social classes, Bourdieu showed in Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste (1979 [trans. 1984]) that the body is invested with symbolic capital (see social capital) whereby the body is an expression of the hierarchies of social power. The body is cultivated within the particular habitus of social classes, and it thus expresses the aesthetic preferences of different class positions. This form of distinction is illustrated by the different types of sport which are supported by different social classes, and which require different types of embodiment. Obviously bodies that are developed for rugby may be inappropriate for tennis, and these bodies express body the taste (the organization of preferences in a habitus) of different social strata. This development of interest in the body has also involved a recovery of philosophical anthropology, especially the work of Arnold Gehlen (1904–76). In Man: His Nature and Place in the World, Gehlen (1940 [trans. 1988]) argued that human beings are “not yet finished animals.” By this notion, he meant that human beings are biologically poorly equipped to cope with the world into which they are involuntarily born. They have no finite or specific instinctual equipment for a given environment, and therefore require a long period of socialization in order to adapt themselves to their social world. Human incompleteness provides an anthropological explanation for the human origins of social institutions. Gehlen’s work has been important in the development of contemporary sociology, especially in, for example, Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann’s The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge (1966). The contemporary sociology of the body has been further influenced by twentieth-century feminism. Simone de Beauvoir’s The Second Sex (1949 [trans. 1972]) was indirectly a major contribution to the study of the body, and in particular to the patriarchal regulation of the female body. She argued that women are not born, but become women through social and psychological processes that construct them as essentially female. Her research on human aging in Old Age (1970 [trans. 1977]) drew attention to the social invisibility and powerlessness of older women. Her work inaugurated a tradition of research on the social production of differences in gender and sexuality. Feminist theories of the body have been associated with social constructionism, which posits that the differences between male and female (bodies), that we take for granted as if they were facts of nature, are socially produced. Germaine Greer’s The Female Eunuch (1971), Kate Millett’s Sexual Politics (1971), and Ann Oakley’s Sex, Gender and Society (1972) were important in demonstrating the difference between biologically determined sex and the social construction of gender roles and sexual identities. The underlying theory of gender inequalities was the idea of patriarchy, and much empirical research in sociology has subsequently explored how the social and political subordination of women is expressed somatically in psychological depression and physical illness. Much of the creative work in this field went into research on anorexia nervosa, obesity, and eating disorders, such as Susan Bordo’s Unbearable Weight: Feminism, Western 43 body Culture and the Body (1993). The popular literature on this issue was influenced by Susan Orbach’s Fat is a Feminist Issue (1984). More recently, there has been increasing interest in the question of men’s bodies and masculinity, for example in R. W. Connell’s Masculinities (1995). Critics argue that one paradoxical consequence of this feminist legacy has been that the emphasis on the social construction of women’s bodies has led to the absence of any concern with the lived body and embodiment. For example, Judith Butler, drawing on the work of the Marxist philosopher Louis Althusser, has argued in Bodies That Matter (1993) that, in a social world dominated by heterosexuality, bodies that matter are ones that materialize in terms of this regulatory norm. She argues that we must pay attention then to the dominant discourses that interpellate men and women into hierarchical positions in society. In this approach, the body becomes merely an element in the rhetorical construction of gender relations in which the lived experience of embodiment in daily practices is neglected. The basic notion that the “naturalness” of the human body is a social product has been applied to an increasingly large array of topics. For example, the sociological analysis of the body has played a major role in the development of the “social model” in disability studies in order to make a distinction between disability and impairment in W. Seymour, Remaking the Body (1998) and C. Barnes, G. Mercer, and T. Shakespeare, Exploring Disability (1999). The sociological focus on the body has also begun to transform the sociology of aging, in, for example, C. A. Faircloth, Aging Bodies: Images and Everyday Experience (2003). The sociology of the body has also influenced dance studies, theories of popular culture, and the study of sport, where ethnographic studies have produced a rich collection of empirical studies of the body in society in, for example, H. Thomas and J. Ahmed, Cultural Bodies: Ethnography and Theory (2004). By treating the body as a representation, discourse, or text, it becomes difficult to develop an adequate sociology of performance. For example, where dance studies have been influenced by postmodernism and by the French philosopher Gilles Deleuze (1925–95), there is little interest in the ethnographic study of movement and performance, despite Deleuze’s emphasis on movement and event. From the perspective of postmodern theory, bodily practice and action become irrelevant to the understanding of the body as cultural sign. For example, if sociologists wanted to study ballet as performance rather than 44 Boudon, Raymond (1934– ) as representation, they would need to pay attention to the performing body. Richard Shusterman in Performing Live (2000), drawing on the work of Bourdieu and developing a pragmatist aesthetics (see pragmatism and aesthetics) has argued that an aesthetic understanding of performance such as hip hop cannot neglect the embodied features of artistic activity. The need for an understanding of embodiment and lived experience is crucial in understanding performing arts, but also for the study of the body in sport. While choreography is in one sense the text of the dance, performance takes place outside the strict directions of the choreographic work, and has an immediacy, which cannot be captured by the idea of the body as text. It is important to re-capture the intellectual contribution of the phenomenology of human embodiment in order to avoid the reduction of bodies to cultural texts. The social differences between men and women are consequences of culture, but understanding two people doing the tango requires some attention to bodily performances. We might conclude therefore that there are two dominant but separate traditions in the anthropology and sociological study of the body. There is either the cultural decoding of the body as a system of meaning that has a definite structure existing separately from the intentions and conceptions of social actors, or there is the phenomenological study of embodiment that attempts to understand human practices, and is concerned to understand the body in relation to the life-course (of birth, maturation, reproduction, and death). Bourdieu’s theory of practice offers a possible solution to this persistent tension between meaning and experience, or between representation and practice. Bourdieu’s notions of habitus and practice in Outline of a Theory of Practice (1972 [trans. 1977]) and Logic of Practice (1980 [trans. 1990]) provide robust research strategies for looking simultaneously at how social status differences are inscribed on the body and how we experience the world through our bodies that are ranked in terms of their cultural capital. The analytical reconciliation of these traditions can be assisted by distinguishing between, first, the idea of the body as representation, and, second, embodiment as BRYAN S. TURNER practice and experience. Bogardus scale – see scales. Boudon, Raymond (1934– ) A professor at the University of Paris, with François Bourricaud, Boudon edited the Critical Bourdieu, Pierre (1930–2002) Dictionary of Sociology (1982 [trans. 1989]), and made important contributions to rational choice theory in The Logic of Social Action (1979 [trans. 1981]) and (with Tom Burns) The Logic of Sociological Explanation (1974). He worked with Paul Lazarsfeld and they edited a collection of essays on the empirical problem of causal mechanisms in sociological explanations in L’analyse empirique de la causalité (1966). One of his key interests is the exploration of The Unintended Consequences of Action (1977 [trans. 1982]). He has written extensively on the classical tradition in sociology (with Mohamed Cherkaoui) in The Classical Tradition in Sociology (1997). He has also examined inequality, social mobility, and educational opportunity in Mathematical Structures of Social Mobility (1973) and Education, Opportunity and Social Inequality (1974). He has consistently addressed the question of social change, for example in Theories of Social Change (1984 [trans. 1986]). He has been a critic of cultural relativism in The Origin of Values (2000) and The Poverty of Relativism (2005). His study of Alexis de Tocqueville has appeared as Tocqueville for Today (2006). BRYAN S. TURNER Bourdieu, Pierre (1930–2002) Bourdieu’s work was always concerned with the relationship between the ordinary behavior of people in everyday life and the discourses constructed by social scientists to explain that behavior. Bourdieu made important contributions to the philosophy of the social sciences, but he insisted that these were meant to be practically useful rather than abstract. Methodologically, he argued for a dialectic between theory and practice, claiming that, too often, social theory was divorced from social enquiry and, equally, that too much empirical research proceeded as if it were possible to operate a-theoretically. The titles of some of his texts are indicative of this orientation: The Craft of Sociology with J.-C. Passeron and J.-C. Chamboredon (1968 [trans. 1991]), Outline of a Theory of Practice (1972 [trans. 1977]), The Logic of Practice (1980 [trans. 1990]), and Practical Reason. On the Theory of Action (1994 [trans. 1998]). Born in southwestern France, Bourdieu studied in 1950–4 at the Ecole Normale Supérieure, Paris. His early social trajectory embodied a tension between the indigenous cultural influences of his family (what he was to call habitus) and the culture which he needed to acquire (what he was to call cultural capital, allied to social capital) in order to communicate successfully in the field of Parisian intellectual exchange. As a student, he was influenced by phenomenology, historians Bourdieu, Pierre (1930–2002) and philosophers of science, and Maurice MerleauPonty. He served as a conscript in the French Army in Algeria in the early years of the Algerian War of Independence (1956–8) before gaining a post as an assistant at the University of Algiers. He wrote three books in which he presented the findings of research carried out in Algeria. These showed evidence of the influence of Claude Lévi-Strauss but, on returning to France in 1961, he became secretary to the research group that had been established by Raymond Aron. He ceased to present himself as a social anthropologist and became initiated as a “sociologist” in the 1960s, but he always retained the sense that scientific explanation, offered in whichever discourses, ran the risk of being conceptually colonialist in a way which was analogous with the French presence in North Africa. During the 1960s, he carried out research in relation to education and university life. Working with J.-C. Passeron, this led to the publication of The Inheritors (1964 [trans. 1979]) and Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture (1970 [trans. 1977]). In the same decade, he also carried out research on cultural production and reception, leading to the publication of Photography: A Middle-Brow Art (1965 [trans. 1990]) and The Love of Art: European Art Museums and their Public (1966 [trans. 1990]). As a result of the translations into English of his educational research, he was at first primarily associated with the sociology of education, but the analyses of photography and art museums were the prelude to work on aesthetics and taste which was most clearly presented in his Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste (1979 [trans. 1986]). It was in the early 1970s that Bourdieu began to define his intellectual position most clearly. He revisited his Algerian fieldwork and reinterpreted it in Outline of a Theory of Practice (1972 [trans. 1977]). The original French text offered a critique of the structuralism of his earliest articles, whilst the English “translation” modified the original in order to point towards the benefits of poststructuralism. Bourdieu outlined a working epistemology by suggesting that there should be three forms of theoretical knowledge. The primary form corresponds with the knowledge of their situations held unreflectingly by social agents. It could be said to be pre-logical or pre-predicative knowledge. This category is explicable in terms of the ontology of Martin Heidegger (1889–1976), as well as of the phenomenology of Edmund Husserl (1859–1938). It is the kind of taken-for-granted knowledge which ethnomethodology endeavored to elicit. Following the historical epistemology of 45 Bourdieu, Pierre (1930–2002) Gaston Bachelard (1884–1962), Bourdieu argued that scientific knowledge has to be deliberately differentiated from such primary knowledge. If primary knowledge is subjective, scientific knowledge is a form of constructed objectivism. It operates in accordance with rules of explanation which are socially and historically contingent. So that contingent explanations should not be taken to be absolutely true, Bourdieu contended that there had to be a second “epistemological break,” whereby the conditions of production of objectivist structuralism should be subjected to a secondlevel sociological analysis. This was the origin of Bourdieu’s commitment to “reflexive sociology,” outlined in An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology (1992 [trans. 1992]). For Bourdieu, poststructuralism was not anti-structuralism. Poststructuralism was able to derive benefit systematically from the insights of both ethnomethodology and structuralism. Bourdieu did not advocate an armchair reflexivity. By encouraging everyone to reflect on their own situations and to analyze the provenance of the conceptual framework within which they undertook that reflection, Bourdieu believed that he was encouraging a form of “socio-analytic encounter” which would enable people to become equal, participating members of social democracies. After publishing his Homo Academicus (1984 [trans. 1988]) in which he analyzed the social conditions of production of the field of Parisian higher education and of his own work within that field, Bourdieu began to deploy his accumulated “cultural capital” within the political sphere. Responding tacitly to the work of Louis Althusser, Bourdieu analyzed sociologically the construction of a “state apparatus” in his The State Nobility (1989 [trans. 1996]) so as to encourage, in contrast, the emergence of new sources of political power, located in social movements. From the mid-1990s until his death, Bourdieu was an influential public figure in France, and his disposition to favor the cause of the underprivileged gained for him a following in an international political context as well as in the field of international social science. His socio-analytical method and his political engagement were both demonstrated in the project which he directed that was published as The Weight of the World: Social Suffering in Contemporary Society (1993 [trans. 1999]). To these last years belong engaged texts such as Acts of Resistance (1998 [trans. 1998]), but it was his last course of lectures as professor at the Collège de France, Science de la science et réflexivité (2003), which best represents the balance of his intellectual and 46 British Marxist historians social project. His work has been influential across a variety of sociological subjects, irrespective of the canonical status of areas of research enquiry. His Pascalian Meditations (1997 [trans. 2000]), for example, contributed importantly to the sociology of the body. DEREK ROBBINS British Marxist historians This label refers to a diverse cohort of Marxist writers who, from the 1930s onwards, individually and collectively contributed to the development of social history and historical materialism. There are a number of disparate members within the group, working in a number of distinct fields of historical inquiry – ancient, medieval, and from the sixteenth to the nineteenth century. The core of the group includes: Maurice Dobb, whose Studies in the Development of Capitalism (1946) began a protracted debate on the transition from feudalism to capitalism; Rodney Hilton, whose analysis of feudalism in The Decline of Serfdom in Medieval England (1969) focused on the English experience of the peasantry; Christopher Hill, who, in The World Turned Upside Down (1972), examined the English Revolution and the ideas which arose from it; E. P. Thompson, whose The Making of the English Working Class (1963) outlines the historical importance of working-class agency (see social class), experience, and the processual nature of class; and Eric Hobsbawm, who, in a monumental four-volume study, the Age of Revolution (1962), the Age of Industry (1968), the Age of Capital (1975), and the Age of Empire (2000), provided an expansive survey of social and political changes throughout the world. Other, more peripheral figures within the category include John Saville, V. G. Kiernan, Geoffrey Ste. de Croix, George Rudé, and Perry Anderson. Many of these thinkers developed their political commitments during the rise of fascism and after the onset of World War II. Their related intellectual perspective arose in response to Whig and non-Marxist interpretations, including those of Max Weber, R. H. Tawney, and Werner Sombart, as well as against Soviet-sanctioned readings of Marxism. With reference to the latter, they maintained an ambiguous and tense relationship with the British Communist Party, especially after the Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956. Despite their internal differences, as a collective entity their work, as Harvey Kaye in The British Marxist Historians (1984) shows, shares a number of characteristics. First, there is a rejection of economic and technological determinism: all these scholars, though to different degrees, have seen burden of dependency the Marxist explanatory use of the theory of base/ superstructure (see ideology) as highly restrictive and problematic. Instead, they argued for the important and irreducible role that culture, ideas, and beliefs played in shaping the historical process without, however, relapsing into idealism. Second, a number of them were concerned with the transition from feudalism to capitalism. Third, drawing on a tradition of people’s history, they consistently emphasized the actions, struggles, and point of view of the lower classes; that is, they wrote from a “history-from-below” perspective. Finally, they reasserted the importance of class struggle, experience, and consciousness as crucial factors in understanding the historical process. Both individually and collectively, their work has had an important influence on the interpretation of historical materialism, of the political implications of history, and how history is taught and understood. It also had a bearing on the development of cultural studies. A number of the group’s theoretical and empirical contributions to history are contained in the journal Past & Present, which they founded. STEVEN LOYAL burden of dependency – see age. bureaucracy While bureaucracy as a practice stretches back into antiquity (especially the Confucian bureaucracy of the Han dynasty), and while Max Weber in Economy and Society (1922 [trans. 1978]) explored its traditional origins (see tradition), the modern rational-legal conception of bureaucracy emerged in France in the eighteenth century. Indeed, the word is French in origin: it compounds the French word for an office – a bureau – with the Greek word for rule. In the nineteenth century, Germany provided the clearest examples of its success. Weber realized that the modern German state’s success had been possible only because of the development of a disciplined bureaucracy and standing army – inventions that became the envy of Europe. In the military, nothing exhibited bureaucratic discipline better than goose-stepping, which the Prussians invented in the seventeenth century. The body language of goose-stepping transmitted a clear set of messages. For the generals, it demonstrated the absolute obedience of their recruits to orders, no matter how painful or ludicrous these might be. For civilians, the message was that men drilled as a collective machine would ruthlessly crush insubordination and eliminate individualism. Not surprisingly, bureaucracy nineteenth-century German industrial organizations incorporated some of the forms of rule whose success was everywhere around them. While the workers did not goose-step into the factory, they were drilled in obedience to rules. Bureaucratic organization depended, above all else, on the application of what Weber termed “rational” means for the achievement of specific ends. Techniques would be most rational where they were designed purely from the point of view of fitness for purpose. Weber’s conception of rationality was not purely instrumental: relating a set of means as mechanisms to achieve a given end was only one version of rationality, albeit one which Weber believed would become dominant in the twentieth century. Weber defined bureaucracy in terms of fifteen major characteristics: (1) power belongs to an office and not the officeholder; (2) authority is specified by the rules of the organization; (3) organizational action is impersonal, involving the execution of official policies; (4) disciplinary systems of knowledge frame organizational action; (5) rules are formally codified; (6) precedent and abstract rule serve as standards for organizational action; (7) there is a tendency towards specialization; (8) a sharp boundary between bureaucratic and particularistic action defines the limits of legitimacy; (9) the functional separation of tasks is accompanied by a formal authority structure; (10) powers are precisely delegated in a hierarchy; (11) the delegation of powers is expressed in terms of duties, rights, obligations, and responsibilities, specified in contracts; (12) qualities required for organizational positions are increasingly measured in terms of formal credentials; (13) there is a career structure with promotion by either seniority or merit; (14) different positions in the hierarchy are differentially paid and otherwise stratified; and, finally, (15) communication, coordination, and control are centralized in the organization. Weber identified authority, based on rationallegal precepts, as the heart of bureaucratic organizations. Members of an organization will obey its rules as general principles that can be applied to particular cases, and that apply to those exercising authority as much as to others. People will obey not the person but the officeholder. Members of the organization should “bracket” the personal characteristics of the officeholder and respond purely to the demands of office. Weber’s view of bureaucracy in From Max Weber was that “Precision, speed and unambiguity, knowledge of the files, continuity, discretion, unity, strict 47 bureaucracy subordination, reduction of friction, and of material and personal cost . . . are raised to the optimum point in the strictly bureaucratic administration” (1948). Weber saw modern bureaucratic organizations as resting on a number of “rational” foundations. These include the existence of a “formally free” labor force; the appropriation and concentration of the physical means of production as disposable private property; the representation of share rights in organizations and property ownership; and the rationalization of various institutional areas such as the market, technology, and the law. The outcome of processes of rationalization will be the production of a new type of person: the specialist or technical expert. Such experts will master reality by means of increasingly precise and abstract concepts. Statistics, for example, began in the nineteenth century as a form of expert codified knowledge of everyday life and death, which could inform public policy. The statistician became a paradigm of the new kind of expert, dealing with everyday things but in a way that was far removed from everyday understandings. Weber sometimes referred to the results of this process as disenchantment, meaning the process whereby all forms of magical, mystical, traditional explanation are stripped from the world, open and amenable to the calculations of technical reason. Bureaucracy is an organizational form consisting of differentiated knowledge and many different forms of expertise, with their rules and disciplines arranged not only hierarchically in regard to each other, but also in parallel. If you moved through one track, in theory, you need not know anything about how things were done in the other tracks. Whether the bureaucracy was a public- or privatesector organization would be largely immaterial. Private ownership might enable you to control the revenue stream but day-to-day control would, however, be maintained through the intermediation of 48 Burgess, Ernest W. (1886–1966) experts. And expertise is always fragmented. This enables the bureaucracy to be captured by expert administrators, however democratic its mandate might be, as Roberto Michels argued in Political Parties in his famous “iron law of oligarchy” (1911 [trans. 1962]). STEWART CLEGG bureaucratization – see bureaucracy. Burgess, Ernest W. (1886–1966) A member of the Chicago School of sociology, urban sociologist, and sponsor of community action programs, Burgess was born in Tilbury, Ontario, Canada. He received his PhD from the University of Chicago in 1913, where the Department of Sociology under Albion Small had pioneered the idea of social research in pursuit of reform. He returned to the department in 1916, where he spent the rest of his academic career, becoming its chair in 1946. He was elected president of the American Sociological Society (the forerunner of the American Sociological Association) in 1934. Cautious and meticulous, he came under the influence of the charismatic Robert Park, with whom he wrote An Introduction to the Science of Society (1921). His early research focused on the urban ecology of Chicago. Together with Park, he developed the concentric zone theory of spatial organization in The City (1925). They pioneered research into race and ethnicity, supporting a large number of doctoral students in this area. Burgess’s research interests included the spatial distribution of social problems and led to his involvement with a number of community programs, especially those concerned with the family and young people. His papers have been collected in Donald Bogue (ed.), Basic Writings of E. W. Burgess (1974). JOHN HOLMWOOD C Canguilhem, Georges (1904–1995) He is known mainly as the intellectual éminence grise lurking behind some of the most influential post-World War II French social theorists, notably Michel Foucault and Pierre Bourdieu. Although he was an influential teacher and thinker, he published few major texts and, to date, these are not readily accessible in English translation. Born in southwest France, he was taught in Paris by the philosopher Émile Cartier (1868–1951), otherwise known as Alain, before entering the École Normale Supérieure in the same year, 1924, as Raymond Aron, Jean-Paul Sartre (1905–80), and Paul Nizan (1905–40). He wrote a postgraduate thesis on Auguste Comte under the supervision of Célestin Bouglé (1870–1940) and taught philosophy at Toulouse from 1936 to 1940 while commencing medical studies. He was active in the Resistance in the Auvergne during the Vichy regime and resumed teaching at Strasbourg in 1944. He submitted his doctoral dissertation in medicine in 1943. This was published in 1950, and republished many times after 1966 as On the Normal and the Pathological – famously, in 1978, with an introduction by Foucault (whose dissertation on madness and unreason had been examined by Canguilhem in 1960). He succeeded Gaston Bachelard (1884– 1962) as Professor of Philosophy at the Sorbonne in 1955 and retired in 1971. He specialized in the history and philosophy of science, with particular reference to the life sciences, publishing Ideology and Rationality in the History of the Life Sciences (1977 [trans. 1988]). He made important contributions to epistemology and his discussions of health and disease relate as pertinently to the societal as to DEREK ROBBINS the individual condition. capitalism The study of capitalism represents a classical topic in sociology. Both Karl Marx and Max Weber were, for example, deeply interested in capitalism and made it their main focus of research. During much of the twentieth century, on the other hand, sociologists have tended to take capitalism for granted, often neglecting to discuss it in their analyses of society. Exceptions exist, and there are also some signs that capitalism is currently enjoying a comeback as a central topic in sociology. We are, for example, witnessing an increasing number of studies on the theme of “varieties of capitalism.” This revival of the study of capitalism will be reviewed later on in this entry. First, however, the question “What is capitalism?” needs to be addressed. There will also be a presentation of what the classics have to say about capitalism (Marx, Weber, and Joseph Alois Schumpeter). Their works are still unsurpassed, and they also constitute the foundation for much of the current discussion. In order for human beings and societies to survive, the economy has to be organized in a special manner, of which capitalism is only one. There has to be production; what is produced has to be distributed; and what has been distributed has to be consumed. There exist different ways of organizing these three processes of production, distribution, and consumption. According to a wellknown argument, the key distinction when it comes to economic organization is between “housekeeping” (Haushalten) and “profit-making” (Erwerben). As Weber argued in his General Economic History (1922 [trans. 1978]), you either produce for consumption or for profit. Marx in Capital (1867 [trans. 1996]) referred to the same distinction when he spoke of “use value” versus “exchange value,” and so did Aristotle when he contrasted oekonomia (household management) to chrematistika (money making). Karl Polanyi in Trade and Market in the Early Empires (1957) further elaborated the distinction between housekeeping and profit-making when he introduced his well-known typology of the three different ways in which an economy can acquire unity and stability: reciprocity, redistribution, and exchange. Each of these three terms, Polanyi explains, expresses a form of social action, but also answers to an institution. For exchange, the equivalent institution is the market; for redistribution, it may be the state 49 capitalism capitalism Figure 1 Ways of organizing economic process, including capitalism or a political ruler; and for reciprocity, the tribe, the kin group, or the family. While exchange and the market answer to the category of profit-making, it should be noted that Polanyi’s real innovation was to introduce two categories for housekeeping: reciprocity, and redistribution. Based on this idea by Polanyi, we see that the process of the economy can actually be organized in primarily three different ways. First of all, we have the kind of economies where redistribution is central; and where what is produced is distributed via, for example, the state, before it is consumed. Second, there are economies where reciprocity constitutes the social mechanism through which production is distributed for 50 consumption. Here we may think of the way that the economy of a modern family is organized. Last – and this is where we come to capitalism – there is the situation which is characterized by the fact that what is being produced is distributed via the market. Here, however, all does not go to consumption; and what drives the process just as much as consumption, is the search for profit (see Fig. 1). Capitalism, in brief, can be defined as an economy which is organized in such a way that what is being produced for consumption is distributed via exchange in the market and where some portion of what is being produced also goes to profit. The more of the economy that gets drawn into this capitalism type of organization, the more the economic system can be characterized as capitalistic. There also has to be a constant reinvestment of the profit into production, for the capitalist process to become permanent. From this model, we also understand why it is valuable not only to study middle-range phenomena in sociology, as mainstream sociology tends to do today, but also to look at the macro level. In a capitalist economy, the three processes of production, distribution, and consumption are all closely linked to one another. What is being produced has to be sold, which means that production and consumption are deeply influenced by the market. Consumption and production, to phrase it differently, cannot be studied in isolation from the profit motive and its organization. We may also take a concept such as production and further subdivide it into, say, factors of production (land, labor, capital, technology, organization). If we do this, we soon see how these are all oriented to the market and the necessity to produce profit. Labor, for example, needs to be socialized and educated in order to survive on the labor market. Technology cannot simply be developed according to the criteria of what is the most efficient, but has to be produced in such a way that it can be sold on the market, and so on. While such important institutions in modern society as law (see law and society), politics, and culture are not included in the model of capitalism that has just been presented, it can be suggested that each of them will either speed up, slow down, or block the process of accumulation in the capitalist economy. One may, for example, argue that certain types of legislation (say bankruptcy law, corporate law, and contractual law) are important for an advanced capitalist system to exist. The same is true for certain types of political institutions, such as the rational state. That a country’s general culture can be important for its development was something that Charles-Louis Montesquieu and Alexis de Tocqueville had already commented on. Polanyi’s categories of reciprocity, redistribution, and exchange also allow us to capture the phenomenon that all real economies consist of a mixture of different sectors. A modern capitalist economy, for example, usually has a considerable state sector that operates via redistribution (pensions, subsidies, welfare, and so on). Households are often organized according to the principle of reciprocity (even if we also know that this reciprocity is closely influenced by stratification (see social stratification) according to gender and age). capitalism We may therefore speak of three main economic sectors in modern capitalist society: the market economy, the state economy, and the household economy. Some countries also have a developed non-profit economy (foundations, private universities, voluntary associations, and so on). This sector operates according to a mixture of Polanyi’s three types of distribution. While sociologists hold that the notion of a single inventor is something of a myth and that all discoveries tend to be “multiple discoveries,” it is nonetheless possible to single out Marx as the one who invented the theory of capitalism. In Capital and related writings, Marx was also the first to theorize capitalism in analytical terms as a distinct system of its own. This system is socioeconomic as well as dynamic in nature. What characterizes capitalism as a distinct socioeconomic system, according to Marx, is that money is used as capital and not simply as money. In the latter case, we have the situation where an individual sells a commodity (C) in order to buy some other commodity with the money (M). This process Marx writes as C-M-C. The capitalist, in contrast, uses money to produce commodities that are sold for profit; and here we have instead M-C-M1 (where M1 equals M plus some fraction of M). According to Marx, it is crucial to understand how money can become something more than itself (M1), and instead of ascribing this process to the successful selling of some commodity on the market (as economists tend to do), Marx suggests that there exists one very special commodity that has the capacity to produce more value than it costs. This is human labor, and the extra value that it creates Marx terms surplus value. Marx’s theory of surplus value consequently stands at the very center of his theory of capitalism as well as his theory of exploitation. To Marx, in other words, what happens in production (where surplus value is created) is more important than what happens in the market (where surplus value is just given a monetary form). The market, Marx specifies, is indeed central to capitalism – but its key role in capitalist society is primarily one of mystification since it is precisely the fact that commodities are bought and sold on the market, at what seems to be their “right” price, that makes it so hard for those who are exploited in capitalism to understand that labor is always underpaid in capitalism. While Marx presented an analytical model of the capitalist process and, on the basis of this model, theorized how the economy would develop 51 capitalism in the future, he also pioneered a deeply historical and empirical study of capitalism. Few readers of Capital will fail to have noticed this, and one may cite Marx’s powerful descriptions of life in the factories or the process of enclosures that set off capitalism in England. Capitalism, as Marx sees it, is not restricted to some special area or sphere of society, as economists see it today, but constitutes its very foundation. The economy, as a result, influences not only what goes on in the workplace but also a host of other phenomena, such as law, politics, literature, philosophy, the household, and the relations between the sexes. There is, in brief, no separate economic sector, according to Marx. It may finally be mentioned that Marx also criticizes past and present economists for their view of capitalism. They often do not mention the existence of classes (see social class), and, if they do, they do not see exploitation. Most importantly, however, according to Marx, economists simply take capitalism for granted and think that categories such as “capital,” “labor,” “profit,” and so on are universal and given, once and for all. They fail, in brief, to understand that capitalism is a deeply historical phenomenon. And as a result, they produce ideology rather than a scientific theory about capitalism. There exist many critiques of Marx’s theory of capitalism and little needs to be added to these. It is, for example, clear that capitalism does not operate according to “Natural Laws” which “work with iron necessity towards inevitable results,” to cite the preface to Capital. There is much controversy over what is alive and dead in Marx’s analysis, for example, in Jon Elster’s An Introduction to Karl Marx (1986). It deserves nonetheless to be emphasized, when one discusses Marx’s view of capitalism, that Marx has relatively little to say about corporations and other key capitalist institutions, such as the market, the stock exchange, and so on. For Marx, capitalism was grounded in production, and since production typically takes place inside the modern factory, this is also where it primarily should be studied. Weber was deeply influenced by Marx and his analysis of capitalism. Like Marx, Weber, for example, saw capitalism as the defining feature of contemporary society and also as an ominous force for humanity. While Weber was well aware of capitalism’s capacity to advance the material aspects of civilization, he also – like Marx – felt that there was something deeply non-ethical and inhuman about the system. The reader may recall Weber’s famous metaphor of “the iron cage” 52 capitalism (stalwarts Ghettoes), which has taken on a life of its own in contemporary social science. Weber himself, however, used this metaphor to indicate that life in modern capitalist society is unbearably harsh. One reason for this has to do with the unrelenting demand that everybody works all the time; there is also the fact that life in modern capitalist society lacks a deeper meaning. But even if there exist parallels between the views of Marx and Weber on capitalism, they also differ on several important points. One may single out five such points of profound difference. First of all, while Marx saw capitalism as centered around production, Weber saw it as centered around the market. Second, while Marx argued that there only exists one type of capitalism, Weber disagreed and suggested that there are several such types. Third, Marx and Weber differed in the way that they conceptualized the role that law, politics, and culture play in modern capitalism. Fourth, Weber’s theory of the origin of capitalism differed from that of Marx. And finally, Weber introduced the concept of meaning into the analysis of capitalism – a concept that does not exist in Marx. That Weber saw capitalism as centered on the market, as opposed to production, comes out very clearly in his general view of capitalism. From Weber’s The Agrarian Sociology of Ancient Civilizations (1909 [trans. 1976]), one may cite what is probably the most succinct definition of capitalism that can be found in his work: “where we find that property is an object of trade and is utilized by individuals for profit-making enterprise in a market economy, there we have capitalism.” Second, while Marx argued that there was no capitalism in Antiquity and that capitalism could only be found in the West, Weber sharply disagreed. As opposed to Marx, Weber in Economy and Society (1921–2 [trans. 1978]) suggested that there are three major types of capitalism: political capitalism, rational capitalism, and traditional-commercial capitalism. Political capitalism can be found where profit-making is directly dependent on politics, say where merchants operate under the direct protection of an imperialist power or where business contracts can only be secured through the mediation of state officials. Political capitalism, according to Weber, existed in Antiquity, in the West, and elsewhere, and can also be found in modern society. Rational capitalism, in contrast, is a uniquely western product, and first came into full being from the time of the Reformation and onwards. It is characterized by a strongly methodical approach to all economic matters and by the capitalism use of institutions such as the modern firm, rational technology, and capital accounting. Traditional-commercial capitalism can be found in all societies, far back in history as well as today, and it consists of small trade in goods and currencies. Third, while Marx conceptualized the role of law, politics, and culture in capitalism as all being influenced by economic forces in a decisive manner, Weber had a different approach. In principle, the causality can go both ways. He also argued that, as society develops, so do its various spheres – such as the economic sphere, the political sphere, the religious sphere, and so on. Each of these spheres has its own internal dynamic and autonomy vis-à-vis society as a whole (Eigengesetzlichkeit). How clashes between spheres will be solved is an empirical question and cannot be predicted in advance. Basically, however, politics and law need to be predictable and reliable for rational capitalism to thrive. Fourth, Weber and Marx differed on the historical origin of western capitalism. Both saw capitalism as the result of a long evolutionary history and not as the result of one critical event or factor (for Marx on this point, see Capital; for Weber, General Economic History). Still, while Marx singled out the enclosures in England as extra important in this development, Weber did the same with the creation of “the spirit of capitalism” during the Reformation and onwards. Whether Weber was correct or not in his thesis that certain Protestant ideas (especially the notion of work as a vocation), helped to jumpstart modern capitalism is still a much-debated question as Gordon Marshall demonstrates in his In Search of the Spirit of Capitalism (1982). The last point on which Marx’s and Weber’s analyses of capitalism differ importantly from one another has to do with the concept of meaning (Sinn). While Marx was very interested in understanding the relationship between capitalism and culture, he nonetheless never addressed the issue of the meaning that the actor attaches to his or her actions. By explicitly including this aspect, Weber can be said to have opened up the analysis of capitalism in many directions that remained closed to Marx. Schumpeter was deeply influenced by the works of Marx and Weber, including their analyses of capitalism. While he admired both authors, he also regarded Capital, as well as The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1905 [trans. 2002]), as having serious flaws. He was not impressed by Weber’s argument that a qualitative change had capitalism somehow taken place in the mentality of western capitalists at the time of the Reformation, and he disapproved of most of the economics that Marx had used in his argument. Schumpeter in his Essays (1961) saw capitalism as gradually evolving from Antiquity or “early capitalism” to contemporary times or “the modern phase,” that is, “1898 and today,” traversing in the process “mercantile capitalism,” from the sixteenth century till the end of the eighteenth century, and “intact capitalism,” during the nineteenth century. He emphasized continuity, and he saw no reason to refer to primitive accumulation or Luther’s ideas about Beruf (vocation). Schumpeter nonetheless deeply admired Marx’s idea that the economy is not something that only responds to influences from the outside, as in conventional equilibrium analysis. He also tried to construct his own theory of capitalism on this insight by Marx, although he picked a different central actor: the entrepreneur rather than the capitalist. The entrepreneur, Schumpeter argues, can be defined as an economic actor who, by piecing together a new combination of already existing factors, creates innovations and economic change. Stimulated by the huge profit that an entrepreneur makes, a number of imitators will appear, till there is no more room for making a profit, and the economy starts to slide downwards. The business cycles that always accompany capitalism are, according to Schumpeter, basically caused by the entrepreneur and the wave of imitators that follows in his or her footsteps. Something must also be said about Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (1942) when it comes to Schumpeter’s analysis of capitalism. He here comments on a period of the history of capitalism when Marx and Weber were not alive, namely the interwar period. Like Weber, however, Schumpeter singles out the giant corporations with their huge bureaucracies as the key actors – and also as being deeply problematic. Indeed, Schumpeter was so fearful of these giant corporations that he saw them as a major reason why capitalism was bound to go under and be replaced by socialism. Like Marx, Schumpeter was convinced that capitalism one day would disappear, but in contrast to Marx he thought that this would be caused by its success and not by its failure. Many factors were involved in this process, including the quality of the capitalists. With the success of capitalism, he argued, capitalists would eventually turn complacent and lose their desire to counter the attacks of socialists and intellectuals – and this failure to respond would slowly undo “the 53 capitalism capitalist civilization,” including its otherwise well-functioning economic system. Socialists more or less monopolized the use of the term capitalism from around 1900 – when Werner Sombart (1863–1941) popularized it in Der moderne Kapitalismus (1903) – till something like the 1970s. From this point on, however, it has been as much embraced by economists, liberals, and the right wing as by social democrats and the left wing. The theory of capitalism that can be found among economists today is also no longer restricted to theories of how prices are set through the interplay of demand and supply; it also includes reflections on the institutions that give structure to capitalism, including the state. To discuss the various models of capitalism that can be found among twentieth-century economists would demand a longer essay than this, and the reader is referred to the works of people from J. M. Keynes to Milton Friedman (1912– ), and John Kenneth Galbraith (1908–2006). A few words must nonetheless be said about the economists’ creation of what may be termed the neo-liberal theory of capitalism, since it is this way of looking at capitalism that has come to dominate the current discourse on this subject. The neo-liberal theory of capitalism has deep roots in the nineteenth century and was given an early and theoretically sophisticated expression in the works of Austrian economists Ludwig von Mises (1881–1973) and Friedrich von Hayek (1899– 1992). These two thinkers insisted on the decentralized, spontaneous nature of capitalism and that the state must stay out of the economy – for example, Friedrich von Hayek, Individualism and Economic Order (1948), and Ludwig von Mises, The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality (1956). Prices carry enough information for the entrepreneur to know what to do; and while legal and political institutions are necessary for the market to work properly, they must under no circumstances be allowed to interfere with its workings or to counter its results through welfare measures. The market will produce liberty and wealth if it is left alone; and this is what matters. Since the 1980s, when Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan came to power, this vision of neoliberal capitalism has become the official economic ideology of the West, and it is still as strong, if not stronger. As applied to the situation of the economy in developing countries, neoliberalism is known as “the Washington consensus” and has come to expression in official statements by the International Monetary Fund, the US president, and so on. 54 capitalism Other academics besides liberal economists have produced important scholarship on capitalism during the post-World War II period. Leaving aside Andrew Shonfield’s pioneering Modern Capitalism (1965) in order to continue with the theme of the neo-liberal vision, a mention should be made of the idea of disorganized capitalism which emerged in the 1980s. It is here argued that the attempt to organize capitalism at the top (via cartels, monopolies, and the like) and at the bottom (via trade unions, cooperatives, and so on) is about to come to an end – for example in Scott Lash and John Urry, The End of Organized Capitalism (1987). The result of this process will be strife and disorganization, and will work out differently depending on the country in question. During the 1990s a novel approach to the study of capitalism emerged, which also is opposed to neoliberalism. This is the school of varieties of capitalism, which is close in spirit to the French regulation school (see regulation theory) and the so-called economics of conventions. All of these approaches work in the tradition of political economy and draw on a mixture of heterodox economics and political science. Their focus is on capitalism in individual countries, and comparisons are often made between various countries, as well as between groups of countries. A central task that the varieties-of-capitalism approach has set for itself is to show that non-liberal and heavily regulated economies work just as well as neoliberal and de-regulated economies. Sweden and Germany, for example, have capitalist economies that are as efficient as, say, the United Kingdom and the United States (see, for example, Colin Crouch and Wolfgang Streeck, Political Economy of Modern Capitalism, (1997) or Peter Hall and David Soskice, Varieties of Capitalism, (2001). In analyzing the way that capitalism is organized in different countries, much emphasis in this type of literature is also laid on the mode of governance. And in doing so, many more actors are usually taken into account than in conventional economics, including chambers of commerce and other business associations. Much attention is finally also paid to different types of regulations, from legal systems to the many rules that are produced in modern society. An attempt has also recently been made to draw on the tradition of economic sociology in analyzing capitalism (for example Victor Nee and Richard Swedberg, The Economic Sociology of Capitalism, 2005). This approach is heavily indebted to Weber and Schumpeter and primarily attempts to outline the social structure of the various economic capitalist mode of production institutions that are at the core of capitalism, from firms and markets to entrepreneurship more generally. Proponents of this approach are closer to New Institutional Economics than to the tradition of political economy. They also center their analyses around the notion of interest, and view institutions as embodying interests or as channeling interests rather than as a set of rules – for example, in Richard Swedberg, The Concept of Interest (2005). It may finally be noted that, according to Marx, capitalism is always revolutionizing itself in its attempts to seek new profits. This means that the analysts of capitalism are looking at a target that is moving very rapidly, something that tends to cast them in the unhappy role of the famous owl of Minerva, always arriving too late. Nonetheless, since capitalism is at the center of modern society, and since it constitutes “the most fateful force in our modern life” (Weber), it is absolutely crucial that it also remains at the center of social science. RICHARD SWEDBERG capitalist mode of production – see Karl Marx. carceral society – see Michel Foucault. care The social implications of care have been highlighted by sociologists whose work has emphasized the often unseen work that is performed (largely in the household). The study of care has been responsible for the “denaturalization” of those responsibilities (looking after children, the ill, the infirm, and the elderly) which were once, if not assumed to fall to, then at least assigned to, women. A generation of sociologists (including Hilary Graham, Miriam David, Clare Ungerson, and Hilary Land) asked questions about who cared for those not able to function as independent and autonomous adults and found that the answer was largely, although not exclusively, women. As a result of these studies, “caring work” has been recognized in much of Europe as work that merits economic payment. There is another sense, however, in which the extension of the understanding of the term work has enlarged our perception of care. It lies in the development of what has become known as the “ethic of care.” In 1982, Carol Gilligan (1936– ) argued, in A Different Voice, that women approached moral choices in terms of the implications of their actions for others. Gilligan – and career other later writers – have defined this attitude as that of an ethic of care which prioritizes the needs of others, rather than abstract and ideal moral systems, in making moral and ethical choices. The recognition of the giving of care has also created the social recognition of “carers,” those millions of people (largely female) whose lives are ruled by the dependence of others. For aging societies, the issue of care and carers has become central to welfare policies, since for many people the traditional expectations surrounding care have become unacceptable, not least in the assumption that caring for others will always be willingly, and voluntarily, accepted. M A R Y E V A N S career In commonsense usage, this is the progression of an individual through an occupation via a series of predefined institutional gateways which secure standing in the community, increasing levels of seniority within the occupation, and increasing levels of pay. The hierarchal structure of a university career provides a good example: from tutor, to lecturer, senior lecturer, associate professor, and, finally, professor. Max Weber argued in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1905 [trans. 2002]) that the development of the career as a calling or vocation was a secular solution to the problem of salvation in Protestantism, providing a secular form of salvation through service to the community. Sociologists, particularly those in the symbolic interactionist tradition, have focused on the temporal sequencing of a career and particularly the problems that arise for organizations when individuals become blocked in their career aspirations. More broadly then, the concept of career can be applied to any ongoing sequences of changes of social status over time. Thus, the sequencing of the events that go to make a family can be conceptualized as a career. While careers are usually taken to be positive life experiences, as in a career in the professions, they can also be negatively evaluated. Erving Goffman drew attention to the negatively evaluated “moral career” of the mentally ill patient, who through a series of degradation ceremonies – the loss of an autonomous adult identity, the replacement of street clothing with institutional garments, and boundaries around their ability to interact with others – experienced a stigmatizing career. In criminology, there is also the notion of a “criminal career” in which an offender passes through a series of stages towards full-time criminal activities. Contemporary sociologists have focused on the changing nature of work in postindustrial society, 55 case study which makes the possibility of a life-long career increasingly unlikely as work becomes more fragmented and discontinuous, because companies downsize and outsource functions previously undertaken by long-term employees: such as, for example, IBM outsourcing its computing functions to India. Under the impact of neoliberalism in the state sector, the idea of a career in the public or civil service is also on the wane as the state out-sources many of its functions to the private market. Richard Sennett has, in The Corrosion of Character (1998) and Respect (2003), claimed that, with the decline of career in the modern economy, there is a corresponding transformation of personality, namely an erosion of KEVIN WHITE character. case study The term case study refers both to methodological strategy and subject of study. Social scientists use the case-study approach as a methodological strategy when they wish to provide rich descriptions and analyses of a single case, or a small number of cases. This approach allows researchers to develop a detailed view of processes, interactions, and meaning systems in a way they would find difficult if they were examining dozens or hundreds of cases. A case-study research project is limited in its capacity to support universalizing sociological generalizations but its advantage is that it can reveal more meaningful data about a case. Case-study data can yield specific insights that form the bases for hypothesis testing (see hypothetico-deductive method) in studies that use large datasets. Many researchers in this tradition use the comparative method, wherein close examination of two or three targeted cases allows them to isolate the causes and consequences of particular case features and dynamics. Qualitative field researchers, and historical, comparative, and quantitative methodologists all use the case study approach. A case-study project might take as its subject work organizations, social movements, communities, political regimes, schools, and myriad other case types. The particular population from which a researcher draws his or her case follows from the theoretical and substantive goal. For example, if a sociologist wishes to know whether and why social inequality persists in organizations that are committed to democratic, progressive social change, she or he might study workerowned cooperatives or feminist, peace, and other VICKI SMITH social movement organizations. 56 Castells, Manuel (1942– ) Castells, Manuel (1942– ) A Spanish-born sociologist, Castells has roots in urban sociology and the sociology of social movements, which are examined in his The Urban Question (1977), City, Class and Power (1978), and The City and the Grassroots (1983). Between 1967 and 1979 he taught at the University of Paris, first on the Nanterre campus and, after 1970, at the École des Études en Sciences Sociales. In 1979 he was appointed Professor of Sociology and Professor of City and Regional Planning at the University of California, Berkeley. In 2001 he became a research professor at the Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, Barcelona. In 2003 he joined the University of Southern California, Anneberg School of Communication as Professor of Communication and Technology. Castells’s work climaxed with a number of cross-cultural studies on the information age and global (see globalization) network society that Anthony Giddens compared in significance to Max Weber’s Economy and Society. These were The Rise of Network Society (1996), The Power of Identity (1997), and The End of the Millennium (2000). A more telling comparison might have been with Karl Marx’s Capital (1867). For Castells operates in the neo-Marxist tradition to explore the theme of the perpetual revolutions under capitalism, technology, production, power, and experience. He ultimately links the purpose of sociology to the goal of human liberation. Employing powerful comparative and historical methods of analysis (see comparative method), he demonstrates how a new type of production has emerged in the West (based around information), with a new type of society (network society) and a new form of identity politics (critical pluralist/ virtual). Castells demonstrates how “replaceable generic labor” has been repositioned through the casualization of employment, with considerable discontinuity in careers and personal crises, illnesses, drug/alcohol addiction, loss of assets, and negation of distinction. He posits three fateful cleavages in network society: (1) skills-based divisions between information and communication workers and deskilled labor; (2) obsolescent citizens, divided between laborers who are defined as surplus to the requirements of the system and what might be called the “stakeholders” in civil society; and (3) intensified alienated labor, divided from stakeholders. His work constitutes a magisterial account of the many-sided restructuring of capitalism in the twenty-first century. CHRIS ROJEK causal explanation causal explanation – see explanation. causal inference – see explanation. causal modeling – see modeling. causality In sociology, disputes over the notion of “causality” reflect deep divisions in the discipline. With the success of eighteenth-century Newtonian science – and the postulation that there are laws of nature which can be discovered through empirical research – came the ideal of a science of society with its own laws. This was the inspiration for Auguste Comte to propose a wholly secular explanation of social life, through what he called the positive method (hence positivism) that restricted explanation to observable facts. Combined with the development of evolutionism – of the idea of the development of complex social forms from preceding primitive ones, and the idea of social structure (developing out of the analysis of the state in the work of Thomas Hobbes [1588–1679], John Locke [1632–1704], and JeanJacques Rousseau [1712–78]) – the scene was set for postulating the lawful progression of societal types based on empirically observable facts. Émile Durkheim defined the subject of sociology as the study of social facts. These are objective, existing independently of any individual’s consciousness of them, are external to the individual, and coerce the individual to behave in specific ways. As Durkheim puts it, social facts such as the family, the legal system, or marriage, for example, “will be felt to be real, living active forces, which because of the way they determine the individual, prove their independence of him” (Suicide, 1897 [trans. 1951]). Thus in Durkheim’s approach society is a causal factor in determining how individuals act. Durkheim’s approach, which claims that the social sciences are pursuing general knowledge of society, is, nomothetic, in seeking to produce causal-explanatory knowledge. However, the position that there are causal relationships in social life was hotly disputed in the Methodenstreit – the debate over whether the methods of the natural sciences were useful in the social sciences – in German history at the end of the nineteenth century. Wilhelm Dilthey (1833–1911) and Wilhelm Windelband (1848–1915) both argued that because the subject matter of the social sciences was the conscious causality subject – unlike the inert nature studied in the natural sciences – the social sciences had to develop their own unique methods of study in which the goal was interpretation and understanding rather than explanation and prediction. Furthermore, the social sciences are idiographic, because they could only ever provide knowledge of the specific situation. To achieve this, the social science researcher had to be able to understand empathically the subjective meanings attributed by social agents to their actions. This method was called Verstehen, or interpretive sociology. However, it was also a form of intuitionism, and according to Max Weber we could never be secure in our knowledge of whether we had got our subject’s position “right.” He proposed to resolve the antimony between the objective search for the laws of society and the subjectively driven origins of social action in the individual actor. As Weber put it in Economy and Society (1922 [trans. 1968]), “sociology is a science concerning itself with the interpretive understanding of social action and thereby with a causal explanation of its course and consequences.” He (in Roscher and Knies: The Logical Problems of Historical Economics, 1903–6 [trans. 1975]) defines causality in the same way as David Hume (1711–76): “the idea of an effect, the idea of a dynamic bond . . . between phenomena qualitatively different from each other . . . [and] the idea of subordination to rules.” Like Hume he rejects empirical correlation as evidence of causal relationships. A causal claim is that an event x, coming first, will cause an outcome y on every occasion. According to Hume, in his famous critique of causality, a causal link cannot be demonstrated between x and y. Rather, the most that can be said is that x and y are a succession of occurrences which, because they always follow each other, we come to expect to be together. However, in Hume’s argument, we cannot prove that they cause each other. Unlike Hume, Weber argues that a form of causal explanation is achievable in the social sciences, that is, to establish the elective affinity between events. This causal explanation is to be produced not by empathy (as in Dilthey) but through understanding why it is that an actor gives meaning to what they do in the context of a culturally specific situation. Thus, in his account of the Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1905 [trans. 2002]), Weber does not seek to “enter” the mind of his subjects, but, through constructing an ideal type of how someone faced with the metaphysical impact of Protestantism would make sense of their situation and act, provides a causal account of their attempts to 57 cause establish for themselves that they were saved (to save wealth as a sign of salvation) and an explanation of the empirical correlation with the development of capitalism (the accumulation of capital) in Protestant countries. Later debates in the social sciences about causality have been rendered under the rubric of the agency and structure debate, that is the relationship between intentional action and social structures. In the works of Roy Bhaskar, A Realist Theory of Science (1975), Rom Harré and E. Madden, Causal Powers (1975), and Anthony Giddens, The Constitution of Society (1984), the task is to examine how enduring social structures, which predate the individual, and in which s/he has no choice but to participate, can at the same time be transformed in social practices. While these debates have had echoes in American sociology, particularly in the European-originated works of Alfred Schutz and his development of phenomenological sociology, in general it has been dominated by a simple integration of Durkheimian ontology (social facts exist and have the force to make individuals act in specific ways) with a naive positivistic empiricism (that these social facts are demonstrated by probabilistic statistics and evidenced in correlations). KEVIN WHITE cause – see causality. census The process of collecting demographic, social, and economic data from all members of a population, censuses are distinct from surveys, which are focused on data from a subset, or sample, of a population. Censuses have a long history, and were first used in ancient Rome. In their modern form, censuses are used to justify the allocation of resources by the state. Thus, the ways in which censuses categorize and count ethnic and other minority groups, including transient and indigent populations, has become a matter of some concern and debate – as these may have a direct bearing on the resources available to members of these groups. This controversy has been the catalyst for the introduction of sampling methods in order to achieve a more accurate census of the true numbers of such systematically undercounted groups. Samples of anonymized records (SARs) are samples of de-identified individual-level data extracted from censuses. SARs are distinct from 58 charisma commonly available census outputs in that they have not been aggregated into pre-determined tables. In fact, SARs more closely resemble survey data, in that they contain a separate record for each individual. The very large sample sizes of SARs distinguish them from most surveys, as SARs allow for the analysis of data by sub-groups and by regional areas. As microdata sets, SARs permit multivariate statistical analysis at the individual level. SARs may be used in the investigation of a broad range of social issues including the composition of households, ethnicity, health, education, and employment. MARK RAPLEY AND SUSAN HANSEN charisma For Max Weber charisma is first a matter of authority and its legitimacy. A charismatic leader is not, as he explains in Economy and Society (1921 [trans. 1968]), merely forceful and strong but one whose authority is based on supporters’ “devotion to the exceptional sanctity, heroism or exemplary character of an individual person, and on the normative patterns or order revealed or ordained by him.” This Weber contrasts with rational and also traditional grounds of authority, in which obedience is respectively owed to the impersonal order and to the person occupying a traditionally sanctioned position. Charismatic authority, then, unlike rational and traditional authority, is particularly vulnerable to attack: a challenge to the incumbent of charismatic authority necessarily brings the legitimacy of the authority of the social order into doubt. This situation does not arise with either rational or traditional authority. An additional element of charismatic authority contributes further to its instability. What is decisive for the validity of charisma, according to Weber, is recognition from those subject to it that the charismatic individual possesses exceptional powers or qualities. Such extraordinary powers can be revealed to followers or disciples only by their demonstrable exercise. Thus, in the necessarily emotional relationship between authority incumbent and followers, it is necessary that the leader constantly prove that his divine, magical, or heroic powers have not deserted him. The charismatic leader is thus compelled constantly to reaffirm the legitimacy of his authority in order that he may continue to hold it. One consequence of this noted by Weber is the incompatibility of charismatic authority and continuous economic activity devoted to regular income and Chicago School of Sociology economizing. Plunder and extortion, Weber says, are typical means of provision under charismatic rule. Because it is based on the personal qualities of the individual incumbent, charismatic authority is contrary to routine and offers no solutions to the problem of succession or the movement from one leader to another. Within charismatic communities that persist there is therefore a tendency towards routinization of charisma. Weber treats routinization in terms of the development of both succession mechanisms and means to appropriate or select charismatic staff. Mechanisms of succession include: (1) search for a new leader possessing certain qualities; (2) revelation by oracle or priestly technique; (3) designation by prior charismatic leader or by his administrative staff; (4) hereditary; and (5) ritual transmission of charisma from one person to another. The transformation of the charismatic mission into an office, by routinizing charismatic staff, is also achieved through a number of possibilities associated with different bases of selection and remuneration. Elements of charismatic authority may be found with other forms of rule. Weber mentions plebiscitary presidential regimes and cabinet government as two instances in which charisma and legal rational authority may coexist. Edward Shils in The Constitution of Society (1982) developed a non-Weberian account of charisma. Charismatic properties of central institutions satisfy a need for order, and roles that are associated with such institutions enjoy derivative charisma, leading to relations of deference, even in egalitarian societies. JACK BARBALET Chicago School of Sociology The Chicago School of Sociology was a body of social research associated with a group of professors and their students affiliated with the Sociology Department of the University of Chicago. The School emerged around 1915, and lasted until about 1935. Its most prominent members included Robert Park and W. I. Thomas, alongside such figures as Ernest Burgess and Ellsworth Faris. In the later period of the School, the sociologists Herbert Blumer and Louis Wirth continued its research tradition. The School was the first group of sociologists to practice a systematic research agenda in the United States. It influenced the development of the symbolic interactionist tradition, and the emphasis on social psychology, qualitative research, participant observation, and ethnography associated with this theoretical orientation. Chicago School of Sociology The Chicago School focused on a wide variety of social processes, such as social organization and disorganization, urban sociology, social change, immigration, deviance, race relations, and social movements. It often analyzed these processes in the context of the city of Chicago, developing a lasting influence in urban sociology through such concepts as ecology and succession. Its researchers helped establish the importance of empirical investigation into social issues through analyzing documents and conducting interviews, as well as engaging in first-hand observation of various groups. Two of its most important studies include The City (1925), a selection of essays by Park, Burgess, and R. D. McKenzie, and The Polish Peasant in Europe and America (1918–20), a five-volume work by Thomas and Florian Znaniecki. Other works include Nel Anderson’s The Hobo (1923), Wirth’s The Ghetto (1928), Harvey Zorbaugh’s The Gold Coast and the Slum (1929), E. Franklin Frazier’s The Negro Family in Chicago (1931), and Paul Cressy’s The TaxiDance Hall (1932). Park and Burgess also wrote an introductory text, Introduction to the Science of Sociology (1921), which helped popularize the School’s approach. The Chicago School linked thought and action, positing that ideas and attitudes are tied to the social and historical conditions in which they arise and are situated. The School’s focus on social issues such as crime and deviance was tied to the reformist impulse of many of its researchers, who were concerned with solving social problems in the pre-World War I Progressive era in the United States. Its reformist orientation was strengthened by the ties to journalism of one of its members, Robert Park. Yet the Chicago School advocated an objective and scientific study of society, and its members attempted to implement a disinterested sociology. The Chicago School supported the use of the ethnographic methods of anthropologists, arguing that the same methods could be employed to investigate social processes within the United States as were used to study non-western cultures. But the School was much more diverse than this characterization. Its researchers did assume that individuals could not be studied in isolation from one another and were influenced by the groups that encompassed them, and that social change developed through the interaction of individuals and groups with one another. Yet many of the School’s scholars, such as William Ogburn, embraced versions of quantitative analysis, such as survey research. Researchers did not engage in mindless empiricism, however. They 59 Chicago School of Sociology always approached their data with a theoretical interest in mind. The Chicago School emphasized that the social and historical context in which one lived dramatically influenced social processes. But individuals were not passive products of their environment. Social structure and individual agency could not be separated from one another. People could change the social structures in which they lived, but these economic, social, and cultural conditions influenced their attitudes and actions. Indeed, the actions of individuals often had unintended consequences. Social structure and geographic location accounted for much of social behavior. Researchers often wrote of natural, relatively predictable processes of history and geography, shaped by the similar social location and traditions that groups shared, and the arrangement of commercial establishments and residential housing in a particular area. Such concerns led to the study of social organization and disorganization, the latter considered to be the main cause of social problems. Much of their work focused on Chicago. In Park, Burgess, and McKenzie’s The City, Park encouraged his students to engage the denizens of the city, “become acquainted with people,” to “nose around” those groups that they were interested in studying. For Park, one could only be impartial by understanding the point of view, the subjective experience, of other people. Thus, the social life of the city could be understood through intense fieldwork in particular neighborhoods. The study of urban life should investigate a city’s culture, occupational structure, and physical organization. The social profile of the city was conditioned by structural factors such as its economic and geographical conditions, including its location on transportation and trade routes. The sociological imagination must combine these two dimensions, the structural and the subjective, into a coherent study. For Park, integrated city neighborhoods progressively broke down as secondary, impersonal relationships increasingly based on the market and law (see law and society) replaced the primary relationships of family and ethnicity. Cities created more contacts for individuals, and offered them an array of different lifestyles, but these contacts tended to be transitory. The city also allowed deviant individuals, from the genius to the criminal, to flourish in its heterogeneous environment. Burgess took a somewhat different approach to the study of urban life. He too saw cities as 60 Chicago School of Sociology characterized by heterogeneous, diverse occupations, employing a large percentage of young and middle-aged individuals, and occupied by a high percentage of foreign-born immigrants. Burgess focused on processes of growth and expansion in the cities, viewing them as natural adaptations to new types of social organization. He analyzed urban expansion through his theory of concentric zones. An inner industrial zone was surrounded by zones consisting of the ghetto, working-men’s homes, and at the outmost region more suburban residential areas. Each inner zone expands as it invades an outer zone, a process Burgess labeled succession. This expansion involves simultaneous processes of decentralization and concentration of people and industries. Burgess also utilized the notion of urban ecology to study the social life of cities. Drawn from biology, the concept of ecology emphasizes the interdependence of urban life, and how an individual relates to his or her environment. Processes of competition and accommodation influence the development of the urban milieu, as a community expands or declines as economic development waxes or wanes. The differentiation and segmentation of urban populations accompany such social changes. Park and Burgess contended that the American city could not be understood apart from immigration. The major work on immigration produced by this School, and the study that contributed most prominently to its research reputation, was Thomas and Znaniecki’s The Polish Peasant in Europe and America. The Polish Peasant examined Polish immigrant adaptation to the United States, focusing on their experiences in Chicago. Thomas and Znaniecki’s study encompassed much more than an examination of Polish immigrants. They explored immigration within the context of modernization, utilizing systematic qualitative methods (see qualitative research). Their research emphasized the social psychological needs of the peasant immigrant, how his attitudes and values interacted with those of the larger society, and the ways in which the ethnic community helped shape the immigrant experience. They placed immigrant experiences with social change at the center of their analysis. Thomas and Znaniecki focused on the formation of the Polish ethnic community rather than on individual assimilation. They viewed the Polish community as tightly integrated and insular, its economic and social life characterized more by shared, reciprocal values than the profit motive. The ethnic community was a novel American creation, and it was a positive development which Chicago School of Sociology encouraged adaptation to American society. The ethnic community emerged in a particular geographical environment, its development influenced by processes of segregation and integration within the city. The immigrant community inherited from Europe could not survive intact in its new American context, however. Over time, the ethnic community began slowly to disintegrate, and its resulting social disorganization diminished the influence of shared social rules on individuals. More contacts with the world outside of the community and increases in individual decisionmaking and freedom overshadowed the importance of family and traditional ethnic ties in shaping individual identity. There were clear limitations on the Polish peasant studies as an exemplar for the study of immigrant communities. The authors concentrated on the urban experience of immigrants, and did not examine how immigrants fared outside of cities. They also downplayed the roles of religion and discrimination in the formation of the ethnic community. Workplace issues and questions of political power also did not occupy a central place in the study. The Polish Peasant helped popularize the assimilation thesis that, over time, immigrant ethnic groups became incorporated into the Anglo mainstream. Yet the study demonstrated the problems associated with assimilation, including the difficulties that an ethnic community faces in adapting to American mores, the complex process of the loss of immigrant ethnic solidarity and its reconstitution in the American context, and the continued importance of the family and other primary groups as ethnic groups assimilated into the American mainstream. In criticizing any simple assimilationist model, The Polish Peasant posited that distinctive ethnic communities contribute to the pluralism of the United States. The Polish Peasant was influential in the subsequent history of the sociology of immigration. Early American research on immigration had an assimilationist bias, interpreting The Polish Peasant as an argument for assimilation to an Anglo community. This was a misinterpretation, as Thomas and Znaniecki’s study emphasized the reshaping of the mainstream as new ethnic communities became part of American society. Moreover, Thomas and Znaniecki studied the perceptions of the United States developed by the immigrant, stressing an active view of the immigrant experience. They also emphasized that both material and cultural factors were important in the formation and maintenance of ethnic communities. Chicago School of Sociology Contemporary pluralist studies which celebrate ethnic communities have returned to Thomas and Znaniecki’s emphasis on immigrant agency, but with a greater awareness of the power of, and constraints on, immigrant communities. The most recent and influential book on US immigration, Remaking the American Mainstream: Assimilation and Contemporary Immigration (2003), by Richard Alba and Victor Nee, returns to The Polish Peasant’s emphasis on the active immigrant who seeks a better life in the United States. Alba and Nee see assimilation resulting from the interaction of different ethnic groups, which transforms and blurs any simple notion of a mainstream culture. They also argue that geographic context is central to processes of immigration and assimilation, which are also constrained by the power of existing institutions. By the 1930s, the influence of the Chicago School was in decline, replaced by the new fascination with statistical methods associated with Paul Lazarsfeld of Columbia University, who engaged in opinion polling and market research. His concern with predicting consumer and voting behavior left little room for theory and the vagaries of history and social interaction. Yet after World War II a “second Chicago School” emerged, as researchers such as Howard Becker and Erving Goffman continued the qualitative and theoretical orientation of the School, examining issues from deviance to the rituals of everyday life from complex ethnographic angles. The Chicago School remains an important influence on sociology. Contemporary sociologists and studies influenced by this tradition include Herbert Gans, The Urban Villagers (1962), Gary Alan Fine, Gifted Tongues: High School Debate and Adolescent Culture (2001), and Kitchens: The Culture of Restaurant Work (1996), and more theoretical works by authors such as Andrew Abbott, in his Time Matters: On Theory and Method (2001), among many others. Though its researchers are known primarily as ethnographically inclined, its proponents advocated a variety of research methods, depending on the particular problem under study. The School also offers a distinctive interactionist theoretical alternative to the quantitative research position that views people as isolated individuals whose ideas and attitudes can be captured through statistical instruments such as surveys. For the Chicago School, social interaction shapes group and individual identity. Researchers must immerse themselves in the group that they are studying in order to grasp how perceptions of self and society arise within these complex 61 Chicano studies social relations, and in turn are impacted by social structure. KENNETH H. TUCKER Chicano studies These studies had their origins in the student activism, identity politics, and intellectual foment of the civil rights movement of the 1960s. Like the other nationalist movements of the era, it emerged as a field of scholarly inquiry that placed special emphasis on linking academic research with the politics of social justice. It made explicit that link between activism and scholarship through terms like action research and consciously sought to improve the educational, social, and political status of the Mexican-origin population in the United States. The founding moment of Chicano studies occurred in spring 1969 when a group of Chicano/ Chicana activists and educators met at the University of California, Santa Barbara, to draft El Plan de Santa Barbara. This foundation document called for the creation of Chicano studies departments devoted to a curriculum and scholarship that addressed the unique historical experiences and contemporary condition of people of Mexican descent. It recognized the central role of knowledge in the reproduction of social inequality within our communities but also in producing meaningful strategies of social change and community empowerment. The initial focus of the emerging field was on recovering the historical experience of the Chicano population in the southwestern United States and contesting previous interpretations of that history. Special emphasis was placed on the legacy of community organizing and labor activism in various industries in which the Mexican American population had toiled under onerous working conditions. Rodolfo Acuna’s Occupied American: The Chicano’s Struggle Toward Liberation (1972) and Mario Barerra’s Race and Class in the Southwest: A Theory of Racial Inequality (1979) were emblematic of this early historical recovery project. Both works drew upon various theoretical perspectives – Marxism, political economy, internal colonialism, and labor market segmentation – to advance a revisionist Chicano history in the American southwest. Professional associations such as the National Association for Chicano and Chicana Studies, founded in 1972, further advanced the explicit connection between scholarship and activism and the importance of ideological struggle in the academy. 62 Chicano studies From the very beginning, Chicana activists and scholars ensured that the experience of women of Mexican descent was central to both the scholarship and activism in Chicano studies. The male-centered, masculinist, and “heteronormative” underpinnings of early works in the field were rapidly accompanied by a more complex rendering of those experiences and the multiplicity of social identities within the Chicano population. Cherrie Moraga’s Loving in the War Years (1983) and Gloria Anzaldua’s Borderlands / La Frontera: The New Mestiza (1987) were emblematic of this de-centering of the Chicano male subject and the move towards a more complex and nuanced construction of the Chicana subject. While revisionist histories continued in importance, works such as these were more interdisciplinary and literary in approach and drew upon feminism, postmodernism, poststructuralism, and cultural studies in reframing the Chicana subject and other marginalized identities. They challenged not only the masculinist production of knowledge in the field, but also the paradigms, methodologies, and pedagogy inherited from traditional academic disciplines and area studies. More recently, issues pertaining to the social construction of gender, sexuality, gay/lesbian subjectivities through literature and popular culture, as well as globalization, transnationalization, and migration processes, have reached center stage in Chicano studies. The field is increasingly constructing a more complex and situated rendering of the Chicano/Chicana subject and, in the process, exploring the multiplicity of identities in all their myriad and hybrid forms. At the present time, there are over 35 million Latinos in the United States (65 percent of whom are Chicano or of Mexican descent). Latinos have now surpassed African Americans as the largest minority group in the United States and play an increasing and undeniably important role. For example, one-third of California’s population is of Mexican descent and nearly one-half of the school-age children in the state are from this background. For these demographic reasons alone, Chicano studies will increasingly become an important area of academic inquiry for anyone interested in race relations and the diversity of modern life in the United States. As in its inception, political activism and the ongoing struggle for social justice will continue to play a central role in the evolution of Chicano studies in the future. TOMAS ALMAGUER childhood/children childhood/children Sociology as a discipline did not display much interest in children until the end of the twentieth century (A. James and A. Prout, Constructing and Reconstructing Childhood, 1990). Childhood was perceived as being mainly in the domain of psychology, education, or perhaps history, and children themselves rarely appeared as sociological actors who could influence events or who might matter particularly. Traditionally, the sociological interest in children was embedded in the notion of socialization. Thus, one of the main functions of the family was seen to be the socialization of children into the next generation of workers, or parents, or even criminals. The experience of being a child was not an issue of sociological enquiry, although the question of what children might become when they reached adolescence or adulthood was important. Thus children were important in terms of their future as adults, not in terms of what they might “be” or “do” as children. It is perhaps accurate to suggest that, while sociology had little interest in children per se, it did have more of an interest in childhood because, like parenthood, or the family, or the education system, childhood was conceptualized as a social institution rather than a naturally occurring phenomenon. The work of the social historian Philippe Ariès in his Centuries of Childhood (1962) was highly significant in challenging any naturalistic assumptions about childhood by showing how the institution changed at different moments in history, and by revealing how our ideas of what a child might be (including what a child could and should do) have changed dramatically according to time and place. Other historical studies which have compared nineteenth-century childhood with contemporary childhood, or working-class childhood with middle-class childhood, have managed to show that there can be a huge variation in cultural expectations of children (for example Eric Hopkins, Childhood Transformed, 1994). Even defining what a child is, or when childhood starts and finishes, is open to contestation. The boundaries between the infant, the toddler, the child, the adolescent, the teenager, and the young adult blur as cultural norms and material circumstances change. For example, it was traditionally assumed that a child became an adult on reaching puberty (for girls in nineteenth-century England this might have been as late as sixteen or eighteen). However, modern lifestyles and diets (in the West at least) have affected physical rates of childhood/children growth so that puberty comes earlier (for example ten or eleven years for girls). This means that traditional indicators of maturity become less relevant and it is less sensible to rely on the body to act as the visible marker of transition from childhood to adulthood. Ariès pointed to the lack of differentiation between “the adult” and “the child” under the ancien régime, and the very strict differentiation between the generations that grew up in the Victorian era – especially for middle-class children. For Ariès childhood is a modern invention. This challenge to the idea of childhood as a natural state has given rise to sociological debates about whether contemporary cultures are now molding childhood in problematic ways. For example, some recent work on childhood has started to document the end of childhood, and to argue that modern society is truncating childhood. The endof-childhood thesis points to such factors as the premature sexualization of children, the growth of children’s fashions and styles of dress which are similar to adult styles, the rise of the child as a consumer in capitalist societies, and of course the impact on children of the media, which are seen to introduce them to adult realities such as violence long before it is necessary. Ranged against the end-of-childhood thesis is an alternative perspective which points to the way in which developed welfare states now almost refuse to let children become adults. This is achieved through policies which enforce prolonged economic dependence on parents, extend full-time education to eighteen or even twenty-one years, and apply restrictions on access to such things as paid employment, birth control, abortion, or alcohol. These policies which keep young adults in a state of dependency are, it is argued, exacerbated by an over-protectiveness in parents which means that children are escorted by an adult wherever they go (for example school, friends’ houses, playgrounds, and so on). Modern children, it is argued, are kept in a state of emotional and economic dependency for longer than previous generations. These analyses of childhood are, of course, derived mainly from wealthy industrialized societies. They do not reflect the material realities, nor social meanings, of childhood as it may be experienced in countries such as Thailand, China, or Japan, or in African countries. Moreover, they may not even reflect all childhoods found in western societies because of the tendency to overlook the different forms that childhood might take in minority ethnic or religious communities, 63 Chodorow, Nancy (1944– ) or among refugees, or among traveler families. For this reason, it has become increasingly important to think in terms of the diversity of childhoods which may co-exist locally and globally. Alongside this expansion in sociological understandings of childhood(s) (for example Chris Jencks, Childhood, 1996) we have witnessed the growth of what is increasingly referred to as the “standpoint” of children (Berry Mayall, Towards a Sociology for Childhood, 2002). There is an interest in the experience of being a child and a parallel concern to try to appreciate social reality from the point of view of children themselves. This has given rise to many empirical projects which allow children to express their own understandings of the social world – rather than relying on teachers or parents to convey what children might think or feel. This shift towards including the standpoint of children has started to produce a conceptual change in the discipline, comparable to the way in which the introduction of the standpoint of women transformed sociology in the 1980s. As a discipline, sociology is starting to appreciate how “adultist” it has been and, just as it has had to come to terms with other neglected aspects of power relations, such as racism, sexism, ageism, and heteronormativity, so it has started to analyze more systematically power that is exercised between the generations. CAROL SMART Chodorow, Nancy (1944– ) Obtaining her BA from Radcliffe College and then, in 1975, her PhD from Brandeis University, Nancy Chodorow is currently Professor of Sociology at the University of California, Berkeley. Chodorow’s The Reproduction of Mothering (1978), was a feminist rethinking of Sigmund Freud’s version of childhood development. Because of his patriarchal environment, Freud did not understand how females develop a gender identity. Chodorow reformulates Freud’s theory of female socialization. She argues that the infant’s relationship to the mother, rather than the father, is the crucial bond in an infant’s life. Gender identity is rooted in the infant’s relationship to the mother because in most families mothers have responsibility for child rearing. Girls have a more continuous relationship with their mother than do boys. Accordingly, they develop a more complex gender identity in which nurturing, caring, and sensitivity are more important than the rigid ego boundaries and competition important to males. Chodorow contends that most societies value these male traits more than female values, so 64 church–sect typology that women’s distinctive psychology and culture are undervalued. Chodorow’s work has influenced the work of many feminist thinkers, from Lillian Rubin’s Intimate Strangers (1983) to Carol Gilligan’s In a Different Voice (1982). Chodorow has been criticized for generalizing the experience of middle-class white women to all women, and neglecting cultural factors in psychological development. In her most recent work, Femininities, Masculinities, Sexualities (1994) and The Power of Feelings (1999), she addresses these criticisms, arguing that culture intersects with psychological development in complex ways, and that researchers should be wary of universal generalizations about gender differences. KENNETH H. TUCKER, JR. church–sect typology This typology derives from Max Weber and was also popularized by the Christian theologian, Ernst Troeltsch, who was interested in elaborating different types of religious experiences. Weber’s ideal-typical distinction in Economy and Society (1922 [trans. 1978]) between church and sect was part of his theoretical analysis of the rationalization of different forms of legitimation and authority. Weber identified four characteristics of a church: (1) a professional priesthood; (2) claims to universal domination, such as the elimination of ethnic or national barriers; (3) the rationalization of doctrine and rites; and (4) compulsory membership by birth, all of whom (whether believers or not) are subject to the church’s charisma and discipline. Distinctive to a church is the separation of charisma from the person and its linkage instead to the institutional office (hierocracy), an office charisma (or grace) of which the church is the universal expression and trustee. By contrast, a sect is a voluntary association or community of personally charismatic individuals whose charisma or qualification must be publicly demonstrated (for example through rebaptism for Baptists). In Weber’s definition, a sect is a select group whose associational claims in essence preclude universality and require the free consent of its qualified members; it is not a group that splits off from another because of persecution or condemnation. Sects typically reject office charisma, adhering instead to a democratic model whereby authority lies in the congregation, who, through daily knowledge of the individuals in the community, are qualified to determine who among them is visibly deserving of sect membership. Although sect membership is voluntary, based on individual Cicourel, Aaron Victor (1928– ) choice rather than ascribed by birth, admission and continued participation is contingent on the individual’s consistent adherence in everyday life to the sect’s religious beliefs and moral standards. The sect community functions as a selection apparatus for separating the qualified from the unqualified, and for ensuring that qualified members interact with each other rather than with nonmembers. Although a negative consequence of this boundary maintenance is that it encourages withdrawal from, rather than engagement or accommodation with, the nonqualified, a positive function is the solidarity and social integration that sects provide their members, especially necessary for blunting the anomie and alienation found in highly mobile modern societies and among diasporic religions (such as Judaism). Moreover, Weber argued, the high moral and ascetic standards typically associated with sects means that their business interests thrive, because members and nonmembers alike trust their economic security to them. Although the small congregation is best suited to monitoring sect members’ behavior, Weber emphasized that a sect is not a small group; as he noted, the Baptists are one of the most typical sects and also one of the largest Protestant denominations in the world. The contrasting universal and compulsory claims of a church against the selective and voluntary nature of a sect are particularly useful in understanding how different emphases on freedom and especially on freedom of conscience filter into public debates and assumptions about the relation between church and state. Whereas a church would typically argue for the universal applicability of its moral teachings to human society, a sect would typically argue in favor of a differentiation between religious and political matters. MICHELE DILLON Cicourel, Aaron Victor (1928– ) An American sociologist, who contributed seminal work to cognitive sociology and ethnomethodology, Cicourel received his BA and MA from the University of California, Los Angeles, in 1951 and 1953 respectively, and his PhD from Cornell University in 1957. Cicourel has taught all over the world but primarily within the University of California system, and is currently Research Professor of Cognitive Science, Pediatrics, and Sociology at the University of California, San Diego. Cicourel has made important contributions to the sociology of education, law and citizenship society, medical sociology, methodology, and sociological theory. The bulk of his research has focused on the nature and function of tacit knowledge in social interaction, particularly in institutional settings. His fundamental interest has been to reveal the internalized interpretive schema that govern how social actors assign meaning and relevance to objects in their environments and how they discern the relevance of social norms and social roles in specific practical situations. More specifically, his research explored how tacit knowledge and tacit social competences underlie and inform language use, practical inference, and the application of standardized procedures in different social organizational contexts. Cicourel is particularly well known for a series of groundbreaking articles and books including “The Use of Official Statistics” (1963, Social Problems, with John Kitsuse), Method and Measurement in Sociology (1964), and Cognitive Sociology (1974), wherein he articulates a foundational critique of sociological research methodologies that fail to attend adequately to the tacit presuppositions and social competences that underlie their application in actual instances of empirical research. DARIN WEINBERG citizenship The notion of citizenship can be traced back to the Greek polis that tied rights to membership of the city, excluding women and slaves. The modern version of citizenship is connected to the twin processes of nation building and industrialization following the American and French Revolutions. Freedom of contract and protection of property rights were important elements, and the growth of markets contributed to breaking down traditional hierarchies and to fostering equality and opportunity. Citizenship has become a key concept at the center of policy debates within and across national borders. T. H. Marshall, in Citizenship and Social Class (1950), first developed a modern framework for the notion of citizenship based upon principles of freedom, equality, and solidarity. Since then citizenship has had a double focus: as a vision of equal rights and respect, and as a tool to analyze the social and political development of modern societies. In social science, citizenship has become a key concept, and studies have focused both on social rights (in sociology) and on participation (in political science). Citizenship has different meanings, institutional designs, and patterns 65 citizenship cross-nationally. The definition includes three different dimensions: (1) individual rights and obligations; (2) political participation including the right to vote; and (3) belonging to a nation-state. Modern citizenship has proved to be Janus-faced: it can express both exclusionary and inclusionary state practices and be a basis for discipline as well as resistance. Today immigration, globalization, and Europeanization have challenged the meaning and practice of citizenship and new forms of claimsmaking by minority groups have widened the content of citizenship. This has raised questions about what a good citizen is, whether citizenship can be transferred from the nation-state to the transnational level, and whether it is possible to combine citizenship rights tied to the nation-state to global citizenship and human rights? In Marshall’s seminal work, citizenship was defined as “a status bestowed on those who are full members of a community.” All citizens should have the same rights and duties. Marshall’s work was based on a vision of equal rights for the working class in capitalist society inspired by the evolution of civil, political, and social rights in Britain from the eighteenth to the twentieth century. Citizenship is part of the two major political traditions of civic republicanism and liberalism. Liberalism has been preoccupied with the defense of the freedom of individuals and civil rights vis-àvis the state, and has given priority to the private virtues of individuals over public virtues. This understanding has been criticized, because it tends to underestimate the need for an active state to defend political liberty and for a political community that can defend individual freedom. Civic republicanism has been preoccupied with the creation of a just society, and it has given priority to the creation of solidarity between citizens tied together in a political community. This understanding has been criticized because it underestimates civil rights and tends to subsume individuals under the needs of the political community. Communitarianism has a strong emphasis on belonging to the political community and can be understood either as a form of civic republicanism or as a separate tradition. Marshall’s framework has become a key reference for analysis of contemporary citizenship from a cross-national context and has also been taken up by marginalized social groups. It has been criticized for its Anglo- and Eurocentric bias as well as for its male bias, because it was premised upon the reality and vision of a British model 66 citizenship and on the second-class citizenship of women and minorities. A number of scholars have tried to rethink the framework of citizenship from a historical and comparative perspective. One example is Bryan Turner who, in his article “Outline of a Theory of Citizenship” in Sociology (1990), introduced a model that aims to identify political dynamics as well as variations in citizenship regimes: (1) an active/passive dimension that expresses how citizenship rights became institutionalized in modern democracies “from above” by the involvement of the monarchy or “from below” through revolutionary movements; (2) a public/private dimension that expresses whether citizenship rights and norm(s) are associated with the public or private arena. The first differentiates between an active, participatory republican model and a model with institutionalization “from above.” The second differentiates between a liberal model – with an emphasis on private, individual rights and a passive state – and a model that emphasizes public virtues and an active state. Another example is Richard Bellamy, Dario Castiglione and Emilio Santoro’s recent study, Lineages of Citizenship: Rights, Belonging and Participation in Eleven Nation States (2004). It gives an overview of the different legal traditions and historical contexts which have contributed to creating various liberalisms and republicanisms. This study differentiates between a “polity” dimension, which specifies the territorial and functional spheres – seeing the subjects either as passive or active – and a “regime” dimension, which refers to the political arrangements and styles of governance, the scope of intervention in private life. The three main European traditions – the German, the French, and the British – correspond to some extent to the three legal citizenship traditions: the ethno-cultural definition of nationality (jus sanguinis), the romantic definition of nationality (jus soli) and the English common law. Since the 1990s, political developments in relation to immigration and asylum have moved the three closer together. Marshall’s focus was on the social and political inclusion of the working class in society, while post-Marshallian frameworks raise new issues and debates. Gender and marginalized social groups represent a major challenge for the universal framework of citizenship to respect diversity. This tension between equality and difference/diversity has inspired alternative frameworks, models, and designs. citizenship Carole Pateman, in The Sexual Contract (1988), presented one of the first feminist approaches to citizenship. She analyzed the dilemma of Mary Wollstonecraft (1759–97) that illustrates that women in modern societies are caught between a strategy focusing on equality and inclusion of women as equal citizens that tends to deny their particularity “as women,” and a strategy focusing on inclusion of their difference and particularity that tends to reproduce inequality. Ruth Lister, in Citizenship: Feminist Perspectives (1997), has noticed that the tension between the universalistic ethic of justice and the particularistic ethic of care that gives equal status to women and men in their diversity is a creative tension that can be overcome by a “differentiated universalism.” Another influential approach has introduced models that link the inclusion of women with marginal social groups. One example is Iris Young, who, in Justice and the Political Difference (1990), emphasizes inclusion and empowerment “from below.” Another example is Anne Phillips, who, in The Politics of Presence (1995), emphasizes inclusion “from above” through a change of the institutional design. In the development towards multicultural societies, ethnicity tends to become an independent factor explaining differentiation in citizenship rights. Ruud Koopman and Paul Statham, editors of Challenging Immigration and Ethnic Relations Politics. Comparative European Perspectives (2000), have introduced an institutional model with two dimensions that is used in comparisons between different ethnicity regimes. One is the formal and legal basis for citizenship – the vertical dimension – that places a regime between an ethno-cultural – jus sanguinis – and a territorial – jus soli – pole. The other is a political-cultural – horizontal – dimension, that places a regime between cultural monism (assimilation) and cultural pluralism. Multiculturalism has also inspired normative models that stress minority rights. One example is in Will Kymlicka’s Multicultural Citizenship (1995), which introduced the notion of multicultural citizenship based on group rights of minorities. He differentiates between rights of autonomy for national minorities, for example aboriginals; poly-ethnic rights such as financial support and legal protection of ethnic and religious groups; and rights of representation involving, for instance, guaranteed seats to ethnic and national minorities. The multicultural approach has initiated a debate about multiculturalism and gender equality, and, in a famous article, Susan Moller Okin (1999), in the volume edited by J. Cohen, citizenship M. Howard and M. C. Neusbaum on Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women?, considers whether multiculturalism is incompatible with gender equality. Sexual and ecological citizenship are examples of new meanings of citizenship. In Citizenship: Feminist Perspectives, Lister defines sexual citizenship as the claims for sexual autonomy by women, lesbians, and gays. The politics of citizenship thus promotes the citizenship status of sexual minorities and articulates new claims to “sexual rights,” understood as “a set of rights to sexual expression and consumption.” Ecological citizenship refers both to rights and responsibilities of citizens and to their relationship to nature and the wider environment, for example green activism. Finally, globalization and European integration have inspired a notion of post-national citizenship. Marshall’s framework was tied to the nation-state, but membership of a community allows for a broader discourse about local and global levels of citizenship. It is contested whether the vision of a global citizenship can become a reality and what kind of model of global citizen should indeed prevail. Skeptics argue that the state has the power to exclude outsiders through the policing of the boundaries of citizenship and residence. Optimists (such as Derek Heater in World Citizenship, 2003) have argued that globalization could become the basis for a multi-layered conceptualization of citizenships that would embrace the notion of global citizenship and the use of international human rights law. One key issue in the current debate about cosmopolitanism is whether it is possible to transform the values of responsibility, individual rights, and democracy associated with nationstate citizenship to the international level? The globalization of rights and responsibilities can be seen as the essence of a globalization of citizenship. David Held and Anthony McGrew in Globalization/Anti-globalization (2002) differentiate between a strategy for cosmopolitan democracy aiming to develop a set of democratic institutions at the global level and a strategy for radical democracy aimed at forming a global civil society “from below,” through which social movements and nongovernmental organizations can pursue their goals across national borders. Global governance has created both problems and opportunities for democracy. Markets are hard to control, but political globalization may be used to expand democracy and human rights through the “human rights regime” – that is, an international framework for the protection of human rights. The international movement for 67 city women’s rights as human rights is one example of an expansion of the scope of human rights to protect women. It is contested whether the discourse of human rights is more appropriate once we live outside the confines of the nation-state? Bryan Turner in his “Outline of a Theory of Human Rights” in Sociology (1993) has argued that there is a need for a sociological theory of human rights as a supplement to the theory of citizenship. There is also a need for a global concept of citizenship that can contribute to focusing the responsibilities of the more affluent nation-states vis-à-vis those societies in the “developing world” that lack the resources to translate the development of human rights, as defined in the UN Covenant, into effective citizenship rights. Another main issue is the dilemma connected to EU citizenship. The European Union has given citizens new rights, for example attached to paid work, but many scholars find that the European Union is an elitist project of nation-building where rights are the entitlements of subjects rather than citizens. On the one hand, the European Parliament has obtained more power, but on the other hand there is a democratic deficit, and political identities are still tied to local, regional, and national communities rather than to transnational politics. There have been developments in EU citizenship, and the antidiscrimination doctrine of the Amsterdam Treaty that incorporates race, ethnicity, and sexual preference in anti-discrimination law may suggest a more inclusive definition of rights and protection in the European Union. Globalization and migration have made new claims from minorities for recognition and respect for diversity into a contested question for nation-states and the global community. At the analytical level, it is a challenge to develop institutions that may help to bridge the tension between equality and respect for diversity. At the normative level, it is a challenge to develop a vision for an inclusionary and multi-layered citizenship that is able to reconcile national belongings with a transnational notion of citizenship. BIRTE SIIM city Given the dramatic increase in urbanization in the nineteenth century and the claim of much social theory and sociology to be an analysis of contemporary societies, it is surprising that the nature of contemporary cities was not deemed worthy of wider study. F. Engels’s 1844 study of the urban 68 city working class in Manchester and elsewhere and his writings on the housing question must be set against Karl Marx’s neglect of cities in his analysis of capitalism, despite his statement that the division between town and country is one of great historical importance. Of the major sociologists around 1900, only Max Weber provided a historical analysis of the rise of towns and cities. Although many of the analyses of dimensions of contemporary society by Weber, Émile Durkheim, Ferdinand Tönnies, Werner Sombart, and others clearly presupposed a metropolitan modernity, this was seldom reflected upon in any detail. Only Georg Simmel made the modern metropolis one of the sites of modernity. Beyond the confines of sociology, there was an increasing interest in the nature of the modern city and its populations. This concern took the form of early ethnographies such as the studies of London by Henry Mayhew (1812–87), and, later, the London survey by Charles Booth (1840–1916), and W. E. B. Du Bois’s study of segregation in Philadelphia. Both the state and local city authorities also increasingly devoted attention to their populations, as evidenced in population surveys and other statistical compilations and modes of governance. By the late nineteenth century in Germany, for example, which experienced one of the greatest urban expansions since its unification in 1870, the issue had arisen as to what constituted a city. The statistically expedient but by no means unproblematic solution was to declare an urban concentration with 100,000 or more inhabitants as a city, while a world city or metropolis had a population of 1 million (in 1900, only Berlin achieved this status). In part influenced by Simmel’s concern with modes of “sociation” in the city, the Chicago School of the early twentieth century had a major impact upon the study of the city. Yet its key figures Robert Park, Ernest Burgess, and Louis Wirth did not have a unified research program. Rather, their focus upon the city was diverse, ranging from studies of land use and social segregation, through the city as a social laboratory, programs of social reform, the ecology of the city, and urban ethnographies, to the urban way of life in modernity. It could be argued that the ethnographic tradition is what has remained significant for later study of the city. In more recent decades, the turn to the political economy of cities has been in evidence, whether it be as sites of collective consumption and the local state (Manuel Castells, The Urban Question, 1977), city the production and reproduction of urban capital (David Harvey, Social Justice and the City, 1973, and Consciousness and the Urban Experience, 1985), or, more recently, global cities and their networks (Saskia Sassen, Global Cities, 2001). The city has also been examined in a more differentiated manner, somewhat belatedly exploring gendered urban spaces. This has been accompanied since the mid-1980s by explorations of new dimensions of the modern/postmodern city (David Harvey, The Postmodern Condition, 1989; Michael J. Dear, The Postmodern Urban Condition, 2000; Nan Ellin, Postmodern Urbanism, 1999); the space of flows in the information economy and the emergence of the dual city and changes in the occupational structure (Manuel Castells, The Informational City, 1989); postcolonial cities in the world economy; the uneven development between and within cities, including gentrification and economies of consumption; transformations of the public sphere within cities; cybercities (Christine M. Boyer, Cybercities, 1996); and the disjunction between suburbanization and the metropolis. Many of these transformations have been associated with the supercession of place by space as the focus of analysis. In part, this coincided with a focus upon urban space, prompted by Henri Lefebvre (1901–91) and others. Modifying Lefebvre’s tripartite conceptualization in The Production of Space (1991) into the production of urban space, the representations of urban space and spatial practices also drew attention to the representations, images, and imaginaries of the city, as well as how the city is negotiated and contested in everyday practices (as in Michel de Certeau’s analysis of taking a walk [The Practice of Everyday Life, 1984]). The study of representations of the city is indicative of wider interest in images of the city that were already present, if often only implicitly in earlier characterizations of the city. The city has been variously viewed, for instance, as a moral and political order, as a social and medical problem, as an aesthetic object, as a work of art, as ensemble of communities, as absent community, as utopian site, as dystopia, as apocalyptic site. The significance of cultural dimensions of economic aspects of the city and the problems of reading the city have been given fresh impetus in the reception of writers such as Walter Benjamin, whose work seems at some distance from urban sociology. His treatments of the city as text, as narrative, as dream-world, as site of collective memory / collective forgetting, as civic culture spectacle, as visual regime, recognize the city as not merely an agglomeration of silent built structures, as a concentration of producers and consumers, but also as imaginary, as aspiration. The often fragmentary experiences of the city, the shaping of everyday life in the city, everyday practices and the constitution of images of the city, contested spaces and boundaries, and modes of resistance are also consistent elements in understanding the contemporary city. DAVID FRISBY civic culture Also referred to as political culture, this is the culture, beliefs, and values that direct a political system, but the study of such cultures also involves attending to the institutions that bring about political socialization. The term became influential in political sociology following the publication of Gabriel Almond and Sydney Verba’s The Civic Culture (1963) in which they argued that the success of stable democracy was the result of civic institutions promoting democratic participation and creating opportunities for commitment and trust. The idea of political culture is thus closely connected with the idea of civil society. Almond and Verba undertook a comparative study of five countries – the United States, Italy, United Kingdom, Mexico, and West Germany. For various historical and structural reasons, the United States and the United Kingdom have vibrant civic cultures because these societies have many local and national channels whereby ordinary individuals can participate in political processes such as voting, registering opinions, selecting political leaders, and influencing political opinion. Their research has been criticized in methodological terms by Robert Dowse and John Hughes in Political Sociology (1986) on the grounds that surveys and questionnaires cannot easily tap into political cultures. Another criticism is that each social class will have its own political culture and therefore, where social class divisions are significant, it would be misleading to presuppose a unified civic culture. In other words, Almond and Verba did not take into account the issue of internal variations in political cultures. Another critical response, which was developed by Michael Mann in Consciousness and Action among the western Working Class (1973), has been to argue that liberal democracies survive because the working class have a “pragmatic acceptance” of their place in capitalism and because there is a general lack of any consistent commitment to values in the society. BRYAN S. TURNER 69 civil religion civil religion This is a term initially used by Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–78) and reintroduced to sociology by Robert N. Bellah in a highly influential essay published in the mid-1960s, “Civil Religion in America” (1967). Extending Émile Durkheim’s understanding that all things in society can be classified as either sacred or profane, Bellah developed the idea that, quite apart from institutionalized church religion, American society also has a publicly articulated and institutionalized civil or civic religion that anchors the civic culture. In the United States, Bellah argued, the “American way of life,” the core founding values and ideals of the republic, are given a sacred meaning in and of themselves, and are given an added religious dimension by their intertwining with specifically religious motifs, most usually drawn from biblical archetypes. In pluralistic societies wherein religious denominational beliefs may have a sectarian function, the affirmation of the nation’s civil religion serves social integration rather than fragmentation. A civil religion blends sacred cultural ideas and symbols with religious affirmations and is invoked to unify the nation and strengthen the shared communality of its people, to provide an “imagined community” out of diversity. A society’s civil religion is most evident during highly ceremonial public rituals – presidential inaugurations, parliamentary convocations, and other symbolically rich public events (assemblies, protests) that take place at the country’s sacred (civic) places. The complexity of a civil religion lies in the tension between appealing to sufficiently broad (nonsectarian) religious symbols and to the society’s high ideals (for example equality), while simultaneously not being appropriated in a sectarian manner to legitimate public policies that in practice may threaten rather than enrich social solidarity. MICHELE DILLON civil rights – see rights. civil rights movement – see social movements. civil society An expression that became influential in eighteenth-century theories about the individual, social contract, and the state, this denotes an area of social consensus based on agreements about norms and values. Whereas the state requires some level of force, civil society implies a degree of freedom. The concept was used by Adam 70 civil society Ferguson (1723–1816) in his An Essay on the History of Civil Society (1767) to make a contrast between the civilization of western Europe and the despotism of the East. The connection between “civil society” and “civility” and “civilization” was made clear in Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s The Philosophy of Right (1821 [trans. 1942]), where the German term is bürgerliche Gesellschaft. He recognized civil society as a specific area of ethical life, which exists or mediates between the family and the state. The word family was originally associated with oikos or “household,” and the word economy originally referred to the running of a household. In short, Hegel saw civil society as existing between the state (a coercive institution) and the economy (an institution based on selfinterest). The freedom of the individual and the enjoyment of rights were made possible by the historical evolution of civil society as a manifestation of bourgeois civilization. The adjective bürgerlich means “civil, civic” and also “middle-class, bourgeois.” Civil society is thus an area of social life that contrasts the world of the bourgeoisie from those of the nobility and clergy. These notions are also closely connected with the idea of citizenship. Gesellschaft or “society” derives from Geselle or “companion.” Sociology is the scientific study of society or Gesellschaftwissenschaft. It became commonplace in sociology to distinguish between affective social ties and more abstract social relations. Thus Ferdinand Tönnies made an important distinction between organic communities (Gemeinschaft) and mechanical association (Gesellschaft) in his Community and Association (1887 [trans. 1957]). The concept of civil society was shared by both liberalism and socialism, albeit with different significance. For John Locke (1632–1704) in the Two Treatises of Government (1690) the social contract was necessary to protect the individual and property rights, and it was this contract that created civil society in contrast to the “state of nature.” Liberal civil society requires limited government, the separation of powers, the rule of law, and rule by representative government. These political institutions are important for securing civil society, but Locke argued that a primary responsibility of government was the protection of property. Locke has been attacked by, for example, C. B. Macpherson, The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism (1962), for providing a crass defence of capitalism. In contrast, John Dunn, Western Political Theory in the Face of the Future (1979: 39), argues that, in the language of his day, Locke treated “property” and civil society “right” synonymously, and hence Macpherson’s criticism represents a translation error. Karl Marx was critical of Hegel’s understanding of civil society and, in his Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts (1844 [trans. 1964]), he argued that bourgeois society was characterized by economic self-interest and the struggle between social classes. Civil society was not an arena of civilized co-operation, but the epitome of bourgeois culture which merely masked the objective struggle between irreconcilable classes. The idea of civil society was revived in the twentieth century by the work of the Italian Marxist revolutionary Antonio Gramsci, who argued that the state was a mixture of force plus consent, or hegemony with coercion. While political society organizes force, civil society is that set of social institutions that provides consent. The leadership of the working class by intellectuals requires the transformation of civil society by political education if the dominant hegemony is to be challenged. Gramsci recognized that, because the Roman Catholic Church was influential in providing moral leadership in Italy, it was necessary to provide a moral alternative at the local level. This tradition of analysis of civil society has been continued, for example, by Norberto Bobbio, Democracy and Dictatorship (1980 [trans. 1989]). The notion of “civil society” continues to be important in contemporary sociology because the vitality of civic institutions is seen to be essential for sustaining democracy. Civil society is also the public sphere within which opinions are formed, developed, and exchanged. This arena of debate is important in the minimal sense that it permits lively criticism of government policies and ministers. One function of bourgeois society was that it created social spaces in which conversation, debate, and criticism could take place. The idea that the transformation of mass media and communications by the monopolistic ownership of newspapers, radio, TV, and film has seriously curtailed the possibility of critical dialog and argument was put forward by Jürgen Habermas in his The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere (1962 [trans. 1989]). Habermas’s pessimistic view of modern society has in turn been challenged by sociologists, partly influenced by the idea of network society in Manuel Castells, who claim that modern electronic technology – such as cell phones and computers – has created new opportunities for debate and dialogue. These technologies make possible a new global civil society which cannot be easily controlled by the state, and they allow rapid, civilization cheap means of political discussion. If the coffee house was the principal site of Habermas’s traditional bourgeois public sphere, where newspapers could be read and debated over coffee, the cyber café is the location of the new forms of information exchange. BRYAN S. TURNER civilization A concept referring to an advanced stage or condition of organized social life and social development, often used in distinction to primitive societies, the most important contribution to an understanding of civilization comes from Norbert Elias. In The Civilizing Process (1939 [trans. 2000]), Elias examines the sociogenesis and the social function of the concept. He argues that the term was formed in the second half of the eighteenth century, replacing the concepts of politesse or civilité which, before its arrival, had formed the same function: to express the self-image and specific kind of behavior of the European upper class, in relation to others whom its members considered simpler or more primitive. One of its earliest usages is found in the work of the Comte de Mirabeau, Honoré-Gasriel Riqueti (1749–91), who reformulated the concept of Homme civilisé while simultaneously drawing on the progressivism and reformism prevalent in the Parisian circles of court society. Like the Physiocrats, he believed that social events followed laws, and that a knowledge and understanding of these laws could be used as a progressive force by kings in their rule. Civilization stood between barbarism and a false “decadent” civilization engendered by a superabundance of money. Mirabeau’s approach was extended by Enlightenment thinkers, such as Anne-Robert Jacques Turgot, Baron de l’Aulne (1727–81), and P. H. T., Baron d’Holbach (1723–89), who also called for the improvement of institutions, education, and law, equally within a reformist framework. Though society had reached a stage on the road to civilization, it remained partial and incomplete since the masses remained uncivilized. This essentially middle-class idea for reform and the liberation of the broader sections of the population from all that was irrational in existing conditions, including class restrictions on the bourgeoisie, became fused with the aristocratic belief, which was pervasive in court society, that all others outside this sphere were uncivilized or barbaric with reference to morals, manners, and lifestyle. Though it did not play a considerable role in the French Revolution, following the revolution it was 71 civilization used to justify French national expansion and colonization. Whole nations henceforth began to consider the process of civilization as completed within their own societies – while forgetting the social conditions of its emergence – and came to see themselves as superior standard-bearers of an expanding civilization and architects of colonial conquest. Elias argues that civilization came to express the self-consciousness of the West: “It sums up everything in which western society of the last two or three centuries believes itself superior to earlier societies or ‘more primitive’ contemporary ones” (2000: 5). This pride could be related to its level of technology, its type of manners, its development of scientific knowledge, or to its religious ideas and customs. However, the term did not mean the same thing to different nations. The French and English use of the concept could be contrasted with the German term, Zivilisation, which, although referring to something useful, only had a secondary value. It was the concept of Kultur which expressed the selfimage of the Germans in their own achievements. While the French and English use of civilization was expansionary, outward-looking, and emphasized what was common to all human beings, the German concept of Kultur accentuated national differences and group identity, and was inward-looking. The conceptual antithesis between culture and civilization reflected the two different worldviews and the marked social division between a relatively powerless middle-class German intelligentsia, which emphasized genuineness, personality, sincerity, and intellectual development, on the one hand, and a Frenchspeaking, politically powerful, German court nobility, which championed outward appearance and manners on the other. This conceptual and social contraposition in turn reflected the political fragmentation of Germany as compared with the unified “good society” found in France, in which the rising middle classes, as already noted, readily adopted aristocratic traditions and behavioral models, and only showed a moderate reformist opposition to aristocratic world-views. For Elias, the implications of this were crucial in the different paths of development of England, France, and Germany and their subsequent use of the term. The contrast between civilization and culture also formed a crucial conceptual opposition in a number of books which influenced Elias’s work: Thomas Mann’s Reflections on a Life (1924), which, as part of his revolutionary conservative worldview, affirmed inward culture against moralistic 72 class conflict civilization; Sigmund Freud’s Civilization and Its Discontents (1930), which examined the conflict between sexual desires and social mores as the basis for aggression and violence in modern civilization; and Oswald Spengler’s Decline of the West (1918 [trans. 1926 and 1928]), which employed biological metaphors to argue that cultures pass through cycles in which they rise, mature, and decline. For Spengler, civilization was the inevitable destiny of culture, and an expression of its decline: “Civilizations are the most external and artificial states of which a species of developed humanity is capable. They are the conclusion, the thing-become succeeding the thingbecoming, death following life, rigidity following expansion” (31). Equally, the British historian Arnold Toynbee, in his comparative study of civilizations in The Study of History (1934–61), attempted to analyze the rise and decline of twenty-six civilizations, while placing an emphasis on religion as a regenerative force. More recently, Samuel Huntington, in The Clash of Civilizations (1998), has taken the concept of religion further by understanding civilizations largely as synonyms for it in a conflictridden world. However, because the concept refers to a variety of contradictory facts, it has been notoriously difficult to define and use. Émile Durkheim and Marcel Mauss in “Note on the Notion of Civilization” (1913 [trans. 1971, Social Research 38]) defined civilizations as referring to phenomena which pass beyond political and national frontiers: these are “interdependent systems, which without being limited to a determinate political organism are however, localizable in time and space . . . systems of facts that have their own unity . . . and form of existence a kind of moral milieu encompassing a certain number of nations.” More recent writers, by contrast, have classified civilizations according to the relationship between humans and their environment (Felipe Fernandez-Armesto, Civilizations, Culture, Ambition, 2000). Moreover, the connotations of collective self-approbation, especially by Europeans and Americans, which have become attached to the word have made many social sciences reluctant to use the concept as an analytical category. STEVEN LOYAL civilizing process – see Norbert Elias. class conflict – see social class. class consciousness coding class consciousness coding – see social class. The coding, categorizing, or classification of social phenomena – an activity described by Robert Edgerton in “Quality of Life from a Longitudinal Research Perspective,” featured in Quality of Life: Perspectives and Issues (1990), as “the American passion for reducing complex qualitative concepts to simple scalar instruments” – is an essential part of sociological research methodology under positivism. Coding, in theory, transforms otherwise unwieldy masses of disorderly phenomena, research participant reports or participant observations, into tractable data. The process of coding, essentially an exercise in the disaggregation of higherorder social phenomena and the assigning of numerical codes to theoretically important, and operationally defined, sub-phenomena (for example identifying a specific suicide as anomic, egotistical, or altruistic), is a core component of the experimental method, essential for the statistical manipulation of data, and the employment of inferential statistics to make population-based claims about the generality of sociological issues employing the logic of the hypothetico-deductive method. Coding operates on a number of levels, may take place either before, during (“field-coding”), or after data collection, and may index very different practices for different research methods. For example, what is meant by coding for a study influenced by grounded theory – with the important methodological and epistemological distinction in such work between the procedures of latent and of manifest coding of textual material – differs dramatically from the meaning of coding to the designer of a study using scales to assess the intensity of racial prejudice, or questionnaires to measure quality of life. In the former case, as with the very limited use of coding in discourse analysis (where in practice the term often means little more than the identification of like interpretative repertoires, in much the way one might “code” one’s socks by their color), the coding of emergent themes is a posteriori: categories/codes arise from inspection of the data. In the latter cases, coding refers to the assignment of a priori (numerical/value) codes to broad categories of expressed attitudes, beliefs, values, etc., by researchers. An example of an extremely simple coding scheme is illustrated in R. Schalock and K. Keith’s Quality of Life Questionnaire (1993). Their semistructured measure of quality of life is presented in Table 1. As is evident, coding the potentially infinite possible interviewee responses to the class interest – see social class. cluster analysis A multivariate statistical technique, used in the social sciences to divide a heterogeneous sample into a number of smaller, more homogeneous clusters, based on their similarity on a number of variables, there are a number of different ways of performing a cluster analysis. Small samples (tens of cases) can be clustered by building the clusters one link at a time, by joining cases with their nearest “neighbor” in terms of their similarity on the variables. For larger numbers of cases, algorithms exist to determine an appropriate number of clusters, and iteratively allocate each case to a cluster. Cluster analysis was developed to deal with biological data (for instance, determining the family structure of species of plants from the dimensions of their various components). It rarely gives such conclusive solutions in the social sciences (where cluster membership is more complex, and there can be many cases that do not easily fit into any of the clusters). But it can be a very useful exploratory technique, to determine the viability and usefulness of treating a sample as one whole or as several sub-samples. For instance, Brendan Burchell and Jill Rubery in “An Empirical Investigation into the Segmentation of the Labour Supply” (1990, Work, Employment and Society) used cluster analyses on a sample of 600 employees to divide them up into their different positions and trajectories in the labor market and to examine the ways in which advantaged and disadvantaged groups of employees are composed. They described five main clusters, for which the labor market operated in very different ways. They interpreted their results as supporting segmented labor market theories, whereby the labor market is better characterized as a number of non-competing groups for whom the relationship between productivity and rewards are very different. Each of the five clusters was assumed to represent one segment in the labor market. The results of this analysis partly supported previous theoretical accounts of labor markets, but also revealed new insights into the very different sorts of labor market disadvantage suffered by males and females in declining labor markets. BRENDAN J. BURCHELL 73 cognitive dissonance Coleman, James S. (1926–1995) item “How much fun and enjoyment do you get out of life?” as 1 (not much), 2 (some), or 3 (lots), is not only massively to attenuate the substantive content of all possible responses, but also, of necessity, to engage in an impossibly unreliable exercise (by the standards of the experimental method) in on-the-spot interpretation. Table 1. Field coding scheme for prescripted response alternatives Item: How successful do you think you are, compared with others? Code description of it to the next subject, but had a justification for their behavior in the size of the reward, so did not experience dissonance. The $1 subjects did not have this, and so, as a result of the experienced conflict, were motivated to revise their belief as to the inherent interest of the task. In essence it was a theory of why attitudes and beliefs change. Subsequent work has elaborated on what a cognition is, whether or not the aversive motivational state is essential, and the role played by an individual’s sense of self and identity in motivating or constraining a change. DAVID GOOD cohorts Response (a) Probably more successful than the average person 1 – see generation(s). Response (b) About as successful as the average person 2 Coleman, James S. (1926–1995) Response (c) Less successful than the average person 3 Item: How much fun and enjoyment do you get out of life? Code Response (a) Lots 1 Response (b) Some 2 Response (c) Not much 3 In this regard it is crucial that we recognize the potential shortcomings inherent in any account of sociological phenomena we derive from analyst-imposed classification. MARK RAPLEY AND SUSAN HANSEN cognitive dissonance A theory developed by Leon Festinger (1919–90) in his Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (1957); he proposed that anyone holding two contradictory cognitions experiences an aversive motivational state. This leads the individual to reduce the dissonance by changing one of the cognitions, or by including some justification into their thinking which would reconcile the difference. An example of this is provided by one of the original tests of the claim. Subjects completed an exceptionally dull task, and were then asked to misrepresent it as very interesting to the next subject in the study. In one condition, subjects received $20 ($135 in 2004 prices) for their duplicity, but only $1 in the other. Subsequently, subjects rated how interesting the task was. The $20 subjects gave it significantly lower ratings than the $1 ones. The explanation in cognitive dissonance terms was that the $20 subjects witnessed a conflict between their experience of the task and their 74 Professor of Sociology at the University of Chicago, Coleman’s career covered work in various areas of social science, methodology and theory, but his main contribution was to the theory of social action and structure (see agency and structure). His early work was concerned with conflict and power which he explored in Community Conflict (1957), Power and the Structure of Society (1974), and The Asymmetric Society (1982). He was a prolific writer of books and journal articles over his long career, and he focused on areas such as mathematical sociology in his Introduction to Mathematical Sociology (1964); the sociology of education in The Adolescent Society: The Social Life of the Teenager and its Impact on Education (1961), Equality and Achievement in Education (1990), and (with David Court) in University Development in the Third World (1993); and the analysis of social change. In the area of the sociology of education, his research on the positive effects of integrated schooling for underprivileged black children, the Coleman Report (Equality of Educational Opportunity, 1966), was most influential. He won many awards for his work including the Paul Lazarsfeld Award for Research in 1983, the Educational Freedom Award in 1989, and the American Distinguished Sociological Publication Award in 1992 for his book Foundations of Social Theory (1990), which contained some of his contributions to the theory of social capital. His later research focused on rational choice theory, for example in Individual Interests and Collective Action: Selected Essays (1986) and (with Thomas J. Fararo), Rational Choice Theory: Advocacy and Critique (1992). He founded the journal Rationality and Society in 1989. His most influential contribution was to the development of the theory of social capital. BRYAN S. TURNER collective action collective action This concept refers to the process by which interest groups produce a public good. Pure public goods have two properties: non-excludability (anyone can consume it, including noncontributors) and jointness of supply (an increase in consumption does not reduce the amount available to others). Collective action can also take the form of mutual restraint in depleting shared resources, a problem known as the tragedy of the common good. Collective action differs from collective behavior such as rioting or “groupthink,” in which people in groups suppress critical faculties. However, collective action is not necessarily motivated by rational self-interest. In The Logic of Collective Action (1965), Mancur Olson (1932–98) argued that rational actors will not contribute to public goods if: (1) they can enjoy the public good even if they do not contribute (the free-rider problem), and (2) they cannot substantially increase the public good even if they do contribute (the efficacy problem). Thus, rational actors will participate in collective action in large groups only if selective incentives reward contributors and punish noncontributors. Olson’s work was criticized by sociologists who countered that the provision of incentives is itself a public good that presumes collective action rather than explaining it. However, Douglas Heckathorn showed that it can be rational to contribute to sanctions even when it is not rational to contribute to public goods in the absence of social control. Gerald Marwell and Pamela Oliver also challenged Olson’s argument. In The Critical Mass in Collective Action (1993), they showed how, with high jointness of supply, collective action without selective incentives is more likely in large than in small groups. Large groups are more likely to contain a critical mass of highly interested and resourceful members. These statistical outliers may be willing to provide the public goods for everyone, no matter how many others benefit for free. Formal models of collective action have also examined the role of social networks. It is often easier to mobilize a critical mass of contributors locally, which can then spread from cluster to cluster until the entire population is involved. Local interaction also facilitates informal social control, such as the spread of reputation. While much research on collective action uses formal theory, researchers have also used collective behavior experimental laboratory research to study social dilemmas. An important branch of research attributes collective action to the cohesive effects of social identity rather than shared interests in a public good. Henri Tajfel, Social Identity and Intergroup Relations (1982), shows how individuals are more likely to contribute to public goods when a group identity is salient. However, in “The Group as the Container of Generalized Reciprocity” (Social Psychology Quarterly), Toshio Yamagishi and Toko Kiyonari argue that these studies may have confounded the effects of identity with a selfinterested expectation of generalized reciprocity. These and other experimental studies are reviewed by Peter Kollock in the 1998 Annual Review of Sociology. Another branch of collective-action research focuses on the mobilization of participation in social movements. Key approaches include resource mobilization, which considers the strategic attitudes and actions of participants, the political process model, which examines the intersection of political opportunities, social movements sectors, and cycles of protest, and the new social movements perspective, which explores structural determinants and outcomes of movements. MICHAEL MACY AND STEPHEN BENARD collective behavior Treated generically, this term refers to behavior that is carried out by some sort of collective rather than by an individual. While there are classic accounts of concerted action in the writings of Karl Marx and of Max Weber, there have been a variety of recent, more focused, approaches to the mobilization of such behavior. The specific “collective behavior” approach developed in the United States is associated with two otherwise quite different theorists, Herbert Blumer and Neil Smelser. Blumer’s symbolic interactionist emphasis on elementary forms of collective behavior, in which there is a lowering of the self-consciousness that barricades the individual against the influence of others, has much in common with Émile Durkheim’s stress on collective sentiments, rituals, and symbols. Blumer distinguishes between three elementary groupings in which individualism and privatism are transcended. These are: (1) a crowd, in which physical proximity and density are important, and which may range from the casual and passive to the expressively intense and active; (2) a mass, such as the audience for mass media events, in which similar action can be provoked in spatially 75 collective behavior disparate individuals by a common point of reference; and (3) a public, in which there is an interactional coming together of previously disparate individuals in order to debate issues of common concern. Blumer analyzes how these nascent and spontaneous forms of collective behavior can be transformed into more enduring and durable forms when the response to conditions of unrest involves the active creation of social movements with an esprit de corps, clear ideological values, and an organizational structure. The so-called “value-added” approach of Smelser’s Theory of Collective Behavior (1962), drawing its inspiration from functionalism, emphasizes the structural over the agency side of collective behavior. He identifies the response of groups to what they see as “structural strain” in their environment as central amongst several factors that affect whether, and to what extent, collective behavior will occur. The other factors include: the specific configuration of opportunities and constraints confronting the group; the growth and spread of generalized beliefs about what is wrong and what should be done; the “trigger” of concrete events that act as a focus for mobilization; communication networks that aid the coordination and organization of the mobilization; and the response of social control agencies such as the police or the media. Employing the prisoner’s dilemma from game theory, Mancur Olson’s influential The Logic of Collective Action (1965) highlighted a specific problem in mobilizing collective action, that of the “free rider.” The problem is that self-interested individuals will prefer to free-ride on the activities of others, gaining the benefits of collective actions but avoiding the costs of personal commitment. According to Olson, it is rational to defect from such actions unless individual incentives are provided. Such an individualistic and rationalistic approach sits uneasily with Blumer’s and Smelser’s more sociological emphasis on extra-individual values, beliefs, and collective sentiments. More recent work has refined and complemented earlier insights. The resource mobilization school has demonstrated the significance for collective actors of resources gained from external organizations and networks, while innovative works such as Doug McAdam, Sydney Tarrow, and Charles Tilly’s Dynamics of Contention (2001) have developed historically specific and grounded analyses of “cycles” and “repertoires of contention.” ROB STONES 76 Collège de Sociologie collective goods – see social capital. collective rights – see rights. Collège de Sociologie The powerful intellectual presence in France of Émile Durkheim, prior to his death in 1917, was due to the intellectual and organizational coherence of his school and to its elective affinity with a politically significant reformist socialist republican movement. Their collective work produced some positive responses from prominent members of other disciplines, but it equally provoked hostility, which helps explain its subsequent limited role in higher education. After World War I, few chairs in sociology were created and many Durkheimians gravitated to specialized research institutes. True, the Durkheimians influenced secondary education, but at the cost of a subsequent increasingly abstract, nationalistic and technocratic development of its precepts. In the 1930s, intellectual ferment was linked with Surrealist subversions of conventional art and literature, an interest in more “primitive cultures,” and a renewed interest in the ideas of German thinkers, such as Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Karl Marx, Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900), Sigmund Freud, and also Martin Heidegger (1889–1976). The work of the Durkheimians became increasingly marginalized: Paul Nizan even blamed them for the authoritarian nationalistic cast of education. Surprisingly, in 1937, the dissident Surrealists and anti-fascist activists Georges Bataille (1897–1962), Michel Leiris (1901–90), and Roger Caillois (1913–78) organized a Collège de Sociologie which met in a Parisian bookshop between November 1937 and July 1939. First announced in Bataille’s journal Acéphale, the Collège aimed to create a contagious “Sacred Sociology.” Unaffiliated with any academic institution, the reputations, connections, and networks of the Collège’s organizers and the promise of the “note” in Acéphale brought to its sessions many European literary figures, Surrealist and otherwise, historians, social theorists, and philosophers, including Alexandre Kojève (1902–68), Pierre Klossowksi (1905–2001), Denis de Rougemont (1906–85), Hans Mayer (1907–2001), Jacques Lacan, Georges Dumézil (1898–1986), Jean-Paul Sartre (1905–80), Claude Lévi-Strauss, and Walter Benjamin. Its major focus was the study of the problems of power, the sacred, and myths. This Collège de Sociologie required forms of inquiry which would embrace a person’s total activity and would entail working in common with others, seriously, selflessly, and with critical severity. To understand manifestations of the sacred, or their absence, historical and comparative anthropological materials and theories were needed and these were to be found in the work of Durkheim, Robert Hertz (1881– 1915), Henri Hubert (1872–1927), and Marcel Mauss. The lectures at the Collège and many associated writings have been brought together in Denis Hollier (ed.), The College of Sociology 1937–39 (1988). In their joint presentation in 1937 on the “Sacred Sociology and the Relationships Between ‘Society,’ ‘Organism,’ and ‘Being,’” Bataille and Caillois endorse Durkheim’s view that society was an emergent sui generis reality, society being something other than the sum of its individual members, and while these naively represent themselves to themselves as indivisible unities they are transformed by their subjection to the “communifying movements” of society, which is a “compound being.” Such movements create a feeling of being a society, but this may be precarious, since one society can produce a number of different collectivities at the same time. Both Caillois and Bataille drew on Durkheim’s analysis of the sacred and profane dichotomy. For Caillois, as he made clear in his lecture “Festival,” the sacred is a key element both in ordinary life and in the festivals found in primitive societies, and to a much attenuated degree in contemporary societies. Ordinary life tends to be regular, busy, and safe; insofar as it is part of a cosmos ruled by a universal order, the sacred only manifests itself against potential disturbances of this order or as expiations for any such disturbances. The very passage of time may be wearing and exhausting and individual human beings and social institutions get used up and every socially conscious act leads to the accumulation of potentially toxic wastes. Regeneration may depend upon the person who is its agent becoming polluted, for what is unclean may contain within itself a positive active principle. The popular frenzy of the festival may also be regenerative in that it can release an active sacred energy, which reverses the normal course of time and the forms of social order, encouraging sacrilegious words and deeds including sexual excesses. The festival helps rediscover the creative chaos associated with cosmic time and space and it may not only purify and renew the established social order but change it in fundamental ways. Collège de Sociologie Modern carnivals, however, are but dying echoes of earlier festivals – for example, the joyful destruction of a cardboard representation of a buffoon-like king has little sacral relevance because, when an effigy replaces an actual human victim, expiation or fertility are not a likely consequence. Caillois was a rigorous Durkheimian and his analysis is in accord with Durkheim’s belief that all forms of social phenomena that keep recurring within societies of a particular species — whether the phenomena superficially seem conformist or deviant — are either themselves functional for society as a whole or a necessary concomitant of something that is functional. Bataille significantly modified Durkheim’s distinction between the profane and the sacred. Durkheim distinguishes between phenomena or categorizations, homogeneous internally but heterogeneous each to the other, but Bataille reinterprets the distinction as one between the “homogeneous” and the “heterogeneous.” The profane involves homogenization: deferred gratification, analysis and calculation, planning and utility, production and the controlled consumption necessary for the reproduction and conservation of economically productive human life, conformist individuals experiencing themselves as separate self-sufficient subjects, the possession and consumption of objects. The sacred is associated with heterogeneity: socially useless activity, unlimited expenditure, orgiastic impulses, sexual activity, defecation, urination, ritual cannibalism, with extreme emotions, tabooed objects and their transgression — for example corpses and menstrual blood. The sacred evokes feelings of both attraction and repulsion and is linked with violence and its violent containment; with the cruelty of sacrificing others and with the subsumption of individuals within totalizing group processes when they fearlessly confront death and are willing to sacrifice themselves. It is potentially dangerous and destabilizing. More generally, while in contemporary societies sacral processes have become more obscure and suppressed, less obviously religious, they are still present, as can be seen in the way that men are attracted to sacrificial ceremonies and festivals. This discussion is to be found in “The Use-Value of D. A. F. de Sade: An Open Letter to My Current Comrades” in “Attraction and Repulsion” (Hollier, 1988: 106–22): “The Structure and Function of the Army” (1988: 139–44), “Joy in the Face of Death” (1988: 325–28), and “The College of Sociology” (1988: 333–41). 77 Collège de Sociologie In fact, historically, the sacred has been generated by taboo-violating rituals, and sacrifices have been key elements in festivals which both regenerate the sacred and corral it. The activities that both Caillois and Bataille describe are renewing and transforming cosmological social meanings and interpersonal and social relations, but Bataille provides a model which presumes a much lower level of integration, and which assumes less “societally functional” outcomes, than does the model found in the discourses of Durkheim (and Caillois). It is more marked by contradictions and tensions and, hence, possibly also subject to imperative elements. The meetings of the Collège de Sociologie consisted of lectures followed by a discussion. Something less traditional is hinted at in Bataille’s final lecture at the Collège. Bataille argues that the sacred is produced when human beings communicate in such a naked way that they form new beings. When humans unite with each other, for example through love, this always involves a mutual tearing and wounding. But lovers fear that sustaining their relationship for its own sake may subvert their ability to love to the point of losing themselves in love. Thus, to sustain the intensity of their feelings they must give themselves to turbulent passions and be with each other in a state of heightened drama, even to the point of being willing to embrace death. This may involve just the two, but they may seek to increase the intensity of their experience by incorporating another person into their erotic domain, leading to an even more annihilating expenditure. It is not hard to see why Bataille would conclude his lecture by claiming that eroticism slips easily into orgy, but it is not as self-evident why he links this, as he does, with sacrifice becoming an end in itself and a universal value. At that time, Bataille hoped, by the ritual execution of a consenting victim, to release sacred energies. This was to have been a ritual enacted by the members of the second Acéphale, the antiChristian and Nietzschean secret society Bataille formed in 1936 and for which the Collège represented an outside activity. Much has been revealed in the recent volume edited by Marina Galletti, L’Apprenti Sorcier du cercle communiste démocratique à Acéphale: Textes, lettres et documents (1917–1962); rassemblés, présentés et annotés par Marina Galletti (1999). From this it is evident that Acéphale’s goals — “to change the torture that exists in the world into joy within us; the Crucified into happy laughter; our old immense weakness into will to power” – were meant to be “communifying.” They 78 Collège de Sociologie found a willing victim, probably Leiris, and it is believed that Caillois was offered the role of the sacrificer, the actual executioner. Immediately after the sacrifice, the sacrificer was also expected to kill himself – for Bataille, the executioner’s desire was to be a victim. Caillois did not accept the offer. Further, according to French sacrificial theory, each sacrifice involves not only a victim and a sacrificer but also a sacrifier (the source of the desire for the sacrifice), and in this case each member of the group was a sacrifier, and presumably each of them – through “contagion” – could have been both sacrificer and victim. The human sacrifice never took place. Now, in his sole lecture at the Collège, “The Sacred in Everyday Life,” Leiris’s emphasis was psychological and personal. He was concerned with the variety of things – objects, places, or occasions – that awaken the mixture of fear and attachment taken as indicating the sacred. Much of his lecture was devoted to the symbolic meanings and associations of the sacred things that he was familiar with in his own early years, but this style of engagement had few resonances with other lectures at the Collège. In fact, Leiris soon distanced himself from its activities. One might speculate that this was associated with the failure of Acéphale’s sacrificial promise, but, overtly at least, he did so, from another place, as a professional ethnologist. In a letter to Bataille he suggested three major objections to the way the activities of the Collège had developed. It tended to work from ideas that were ill-defined, thus comparisons were often carelessly made with societies which were very different from each other; it was in danger of becoming a mere clique; and, finally, it overemphasized the sacred, thereby subverting Mauss’s idea of a total social fact. Caillois had made clear that the quality of the collective work should be such that its results could be substantiated and that the research would command respect. He had become increasingly uneasy about the extent to which this was being achieved. Indeed, his lecture “The Sociology of the Executioner” could be seen as a critique of Bataille’s overly voluntaristic and socially decontextualized understanding of sacrificial ritual, an understanding which also, it might be added, underestimates the necessary role that alea or chance plays in producing the sacred. Eventually, Caillois also distanced himself from the Collège. Bataille, alone of the three, in July 1939, attended the last session. In September of the same year, all of its members withdrew from Acéphale. FRANK PEARCE Collins, Randall (1941– ) Collins, Randall (1941– ) Professor of Sociology at the University of Pennsylvania, Collins has made important contributions to historical sociology, the study of networks, and sociological theory. His work in macrosociology has been influenced by Max Weber, and he has developed a distinctive interpretation of Weber in Conflict Sociology: Towards an Explanatory Science (1975), The Credential Society. An Historical Sociology of Education and Stratification (1979), Weberian Sociological Theory (1986), and Max Weber. A Skeleton Key (1986). From a Weberian perspective, Collins has analyzed the rise and fall of major civilizations and empires, and studied the conditions for capitalist growth in Macro History. Essays in Sociology of the Long Run (1999). His most ambitious and influential study was on the global consequences of networks for the development of philosophy in his The Sociology of Philosophies. A Global Theory of Intellectual Change (1998). He has also used the work of Erving Goffman to develop a theory of “interaction chains” to study such phenomena as violence and sexual interaction in Interaction Ritual Chains (2004). BRYAN S. TURNER colonialism Often treated as synonymous with imperialism, it seems helpful to distinguish between them. Imperialism refers to rule by a superior power over subordinate territories, but it is consistent, as with the Roman Empire, with the extension of citizenship to members of the conquered territories. The early forms of colonialism, as with the ancient Greeks, could also give rise to more or less equal, self-governing colonies; but modern colonialism, which has given the term its dominant meaning, usually refers to a fundamental inequality between metropole and colony, often codified in law, and resulting in a basic dependence of the colony on the metropolitan power. There have been two main forms of modern colonialism. In the first, inhabitants of one country establish colonies in another country, often in the process displacing or even exterminating the indigenous inhabitants of that country. This was the case, for instance, with the British colonies in North America, Australia, and New Zealand; though originally unintended, this also turned out to be essentially the condition of the Spanish and Portuguese colonies in the New World. Even though it is clear that the colony is an off-shoot of the parent body and remains tied to it in many ways, the similarity of sentiment, habits, and political attitudes between metropole and colony colonialism tends to mean that the colonies eventually aim at independence and self-rule – even if, as in the case of some of the American colonies, this has to be accomplished by force. We can – cautiously – call this the Greek model, as it follows the basic pattern of Greek colonization in the ancient world. The other form of modern colonialism is closer to the old Roman model. Here a superior power incorporates, usually by conquest, peoples of different ethnicities and levels of development. Examples of this form would include the European colonization of much of Asia, Africa, and the Pacific in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. In this form, colonialism shades over into imperialism. There is usually an official ideology of “the civilizing mission,” whereby the colonizing power aims to bring up the colonies to the levels of culture and material standards of its own society. There is no expectation, in principle at least, that the colonies will eventually achieve independence, though their people may well, as in the case of certain French colonies, achieve degrees of citizenship. Though the civilizing mission is offered as justification to the world at large, to their own peoples colonial powers usually justify colonial possessions in terms of their benefit to the mother country. They are expected to be a source of wealth and power, and to provide raw materials and markets for the goods of the colonial powers, together with opportunities for investment. The fact that in very few actual cases have things turned out as the colonizers hoped has not prevented many people from continuing to believe in the benefits of colonies – the Nazis, for instance, attempted a form of colonialism in Eastern Europe, as did the Italian fascists in North Africa. In the best-known instances of colonialism, the colonies are overseas, separated from the metropole by large distances. But there can also be “internal colonialism,” in which what are effectively colonies exist on the doorstep of the metropole. Such, argued Michael Hechter in an influential book Internal Colonialism (1975), is the case of the United Kingdom, with the English the dominant “colonial” power in relation to the “colonized” Welsh, Scottish, and Irish. A similar argument has been made about Russia in relation to its eastward expansion, especially as regards regions such as Siberia. There is an obvious degree of truth in this conception, but the limitations of the internal colonialism model become apparent in the cases of Spain and Canada, where the regions of 79 color blind Catalonia or Quebec do not at all fit the idea of exploited “colonies,” whatever the protestations of the inhabitants. Colonialism gave rise in due course to decolonization, especially in the period following World War II, when most European empires shed their colonies, with varying degrees of violence and usually under the pressure of nationalist movements. Decolonization was generally hailed as a victory for the principles of democracy and national self-determination, and in some senses therefore could be held to be the fulfillment of the western mission, since the principles clearly derived from western thought and practice. But to many observers the triumph was hollow, since what took the place of formal colonialism was informal neo-colonialism. In this view, the colonies achieve formal independence and national sovereignty, but remain in many essential respects as dependent on the former colonial powers as when they were colonies. This is shown in such matters as a narrow economic specialization, geared to the requirements of the economies of the advanced nations, and a culture that is equally dependent on foreign, mostly western, sources. Neo-colonial theorists point, as a telling parallel, to the situation in Latin America, whose countries were never formally colonized but whose pattern of development was in important respects dictated by the needs and interests of dominant foreign powers, notably Britain and the United States. One should mention, finally, post-colonialism. Unlike the other terms, this refers mainly to a school of cultural criticism and analysis concerned with the conditions of societies that have achieved independence, following a period of dependence and subordination as a part of colonial empires. Its most thriving branch to date has been on the Indian sub-continent, especially in the work of the Subaltern Studies group; but it is normal also to refer, for the founding texts, to such works as Franz Fanon’s The Wretched of the Earth (1961) and Edward Said’s Orientalism (1978). Post-colonial studies cover a wide variety of fields, but are especially marked by their exploration of the complex and often contradictory effects of the interaction between the colonized and the colonizers in imperial settings, and of the lasting legacy of this experience in the post-colonial period. KRISHAN KUMAR color blind – see prejudice. 80 communism commodity Fetishism – see alienation. communism As a form of social organization and ideas about it, the term indicates societies in which property is commonly and fully owned and shared. In this sense, the only societies to which this definition is empirically applicable have been pre-agrarian (hunter and gatherer societies) or early agrarian stateless societies. This so-called primitive communism is said to have disappeared with sedentary living, economic surplus, and social status differentiation related to material wealth. In Karl Marx’s stage-theory, history began with primitive communism. Within modern state societies, forms of communal living with shared property have occurred, but for sociological purposes are not treated as examples of communism. Likewise, contemporary hunter–gatherer societies have escaped this label in sociological theorizing, partially as an outcome of disciplinary struggles with anthropology. In contemporary usage in the social sciences, communism is often used as a shorthand for the political regimes of the twentieth century that were based on a diverse range of interpretations of Marxist theory and doctrine. China, Cuba, and North Korea are contemporary examples of societies explicitly led by communist doctrine. Where it is used as regime-type label, however, the connotation deviates sharply from the original theorizing of communism by Marx and Friedrich Engels, where it did not signify a future and desirable ultimate type of society (as interpreted by the Young Hegelians), but a “real movement” to transcend contemporary society grounded in the present – for example in the German Ideology (1845 [trans. 1965]) of Marx and Engels. Therefore in Marx’s system of thought, communism was no utopia. Marx’s concept of communism is deeply rooted in philosophical debates, specifically the Hegelian concept of time. Disagreeing with Hegel’s conception of the Spirit and its role in history, Marx understood the transcendence of time and history as resulting from human action. Seeing humans as expressing themselves and their purposes, rather than merely reproducing themselves, when engaging in economic activities, Marx came to define the workers as the agents of such transcendence. This proposition introduced a much-debated paradox into Marx’s theorizing, because he had to argue that, at the same time as the material conditions of capitalist production brought drudgery and communism misery to the workers, work itself was also the source of human creativity and self-fulfillment for the laboring class. The crux of the matter for Marx was that labor time, not labor as such, was commodified in the capitalist mode of production, thus leaving a residual for the self-actualization of labor. As he argued, with what now appears as great foresight, taking control of labor time becomes a paramount concern in class struggle, industrial relations, and management in capitalism. Within this paradox, Marx – decisively for future generations of Marxian faith-based political systems – had carved out a charismatic role for labor, in the form of collective proletarian revolutionary action. This vision contradicted his evolutionary understanding of history, according to which gradual progress within existing bourgeois institutions (the fulfillment of particular objective material factors) would eventually bring about ultimate human freedom. Marx took the concept of communism to mean the social movement uniting all revolutionary proletarians, but it remains unresolved as to how proletarian autonomy and consciousness, necessary to transcend the current conditions, can be achieved against the historical-materialist axiom of the theory that social existence determines consciousness and not vice versa. Marx’s writings show incoherence in terms of his assessment of the possibilities lying in the empirically existent working class during his lifetime. On one hand, he argued, the totality of the relations of production, constituting the economic structure, is the foundation of the legal– political superstructure, corresponding to definite forms of social consciousness. The working class thus was locked into structures provided by the laws of history (see social structures). On the other, as he and Engels argued in The Communist Manifesto (1848) and observed in reality, he saw some societies at the eve of a revolution, and hoped this would carry enough critical mass to overthrow the ruling classes and deliver a wholesome transformation. Marx himself, after many years as a commentator on labor’s collective action, became the leader of the first International, which was founded in 1863 by labor leaders as a nation-spanning alliance of workers in pursuit of the replacement of the current economic system with one of collective ownership of the means of production. The International became an active political threat to those in fear of the “specter of communism” the Manifesto had promised, and although it communitarianism dissolved in 1876 it was followed by two more Internationals. The political movement behind the International featured both agreement and disagreement about the overthrow of capitalism from diverse progressive forces. The history of social organization based on communist ideology cannot be understood without reference to socialism. While all forms of socialism are critical of capitalist organization and the resulting social inequality, not all variants agree over a centralized role for the state and the elimination of private property as preconditions for a better society. Eduard Bernstein (1850–1932), for example, embraced Marx’s scientific theory but found it at odds with the real development of industrial capitalism that showed an improved standard of living and class inequalities far less polarized than anticipated by Marx. He found a pacification of class protests and institutionalization of socialist and communist parties. Bernstein emphasized the role of democracy and advocated social reform. A departure from Marx in another direction was made by V. I. Lenin, who forged the idea of the necessity of a vanguard party that would translate the interests of the workers into revolutionary action. Lenin’s version of Marxian theory stressed socialism as more than a transitional phase: the bourgeois state would be eliminated while the proletarian state would be built. Marx had anticipated, on the contrary, that the state would wither away. He did not use in his writings the term “dictatorship of the proletariat,” but subsequent ideologies and regimes, and commentators on them, used the term to establish or express the supreme role of the communist party in state leadership. ANN VOGEL communitarianism A social philosophy that favors social formulations of the good, communitarianism is often contrasted with liberalism, which assumes that the good should be determined by each individual. To the extent that social institutions and policies are required, these should be based on voluntary agreements among the individuals involved, expressing their preferences. In contrast, communitarians view institutions and policies as reflecting in part values passed from generation to generation. These values become part of the self through internalization, and are modified by persuasion, religious or political indoctrination, leadership, and moral dialogues. In the 1980s communitarianism was largely advanced by Charles Taylor, Michael Sandel, and Michael Walzer. They criticized liberalism for its 81 communitarianism failure to realize that people are socially “embedded,” overlooking that people can have a strong attachment to their societies. They lamented liberalism’s focus on the individualistic concept of self-interest. Asian communitarians argue that, to maintain social harmony, individual rights and political liberties must be curtailed. Some seek to rely heavily on the state to maintain social order (for instance, leaders and champions of the regimes in Singapore and Malaysia), and some on strong social bonds and moral culture (as does Japan). Asian communitarians also hold that the West’s notion of liberty actually amounts to “anarchy”; that strong economic growth requires limiting freedoms; and that the West uses its idea of legal and political rights to chastise other cultures that have inherent values of their own. In 1990, a new school of communitarianism was founded. Among its leading scholars are William A. Galston (political theory), Mary Ann Glendon (law), Thomas Spragens, Jr. (political science), Alan Ehrenhalt (writer), and sociologists Philip Selznick, Robert Bellah and his associates, and Amitai Etzioni who wrote books that, in 1990, laid the foundations for responsive (democratic) communitarianism. Key communitarian texts include Habits of the Heart (1985) by Robert Bellah and colleagues, The Spirit of Community (1993) and The New Golden Rule (1996) by Amitai Etzioni, Communitarianism and Its Critics (1993) by Daniel Bell, and The Communitarian Persuasion by Philip Selznick (2002). Responsive communitarians, a group founded by Amitai Etzioni, assume that societies have multiple and not wholly compatible needs, in contrast to philosophies built on one core principle, such as liberty for libertarianism. Responsive communitarianism assumes that a good society is based on a balance between liberty and social order, and between particularistic (communal) and societywide values and bonds. This school stresses responsibilities people have for their families, kin, communities, and societies – above and beyond the universal rights all individuals command, the focus of liberalism. While a carefully crafted balance between liberty and social order defines a generic concept of the good society, communitarians point out that the historical–social conditions of specific societies determine the rather different ways a given society in a given era may need to change to attain the same balance. Thus, contemporary Japan requires much greater tolerance for individual rights, while in the American society excessive individualism needs to be curbed. 82 communitarianism Communitarians pay special attention to social institutions. Several of these form the moral infrastructure of society: families, schools, communities, and the community of communities. Infants are born into families whose societal role is to introduce values and begin the development of the moral self. The role of schools is to develop the moral self and to remedy moral development if it was neglected or distorted by the family. Communitarians emphasize that children reared in well-functioning families and schools will still not be sufficiently equipped for membership in a good, communitarian society. This is a point ignored by those social philosophers who assume that, once people have acquired virtue and are habituated, they will be adequately guided by their inner moral compass. In contrast, communitarians assume that commitments to moral values tend to deteriorate, unless these are continuously reinforced. A major societal role of communities is to reinforce these commitments in their members. This is achieved by the community’s “moral voice,” the informal sanctioning of others, built into a web of informal affect-laden relationships, that communities provide. Within this context, responsive communitarians point out that, if a society has communities whose social webs are intact, who share a moral culture, and whose members are willing to raise their moral voice, such a society can rest its social order largely on moral commitments rather than on the coercive state. That is, the moral voice can reduce the inevitable tension between liberty and social order and enhance both. In the same vein, communitarians argue that, while everyone’s right to free speech should be respected, some speech – seen from the community’s viewpoint – is morally highly offensive and, when children are exposed, damaging. For instance, the (legal) right to speak does not render verbal expressions of hate (morally) right. While sociologists made numerous contributions to altered communitarian thinking, this philosophy challenged sociology to face issues raised by cross-cultural moral judgments. Sociologists tend to treat all values as conceptually equal; thus sociologists refer to racist Nazi beliefs and those of free societies by the same “neutral” term, calling both “values.” Communitarians use the term “virtue” to indicate that some values have a high moral standing because they are compatible with the good society, while other values are not and hence are “aberrant” rather than virtuous. In the same vein, communitarians reject the claim of cultural relativism that all cultures community community studies command basically the same moral standing, and do not shy away from passing cross-cultural moral judgments. Thus, they view female circumcision, sex slaves, and traditional hudud laws (such as chopping off the right hand of thieves) as violations of liberty and individual rights, and abandoning children, violating implicit contracts building into communal mutuality, or neglecting the environment as evidence of a lack of commitment to social order and neglect of social responsibilities. Communitarian terms became part of the public vocabulary in the 1990s, especially references to assuming social responsibilities to match individual rights, while the term communitarianism itself is used much less often. The number of articles about communitarian thinking in the popular press increased during the last decade of the twentieth century. AMITAI ETZIONI community Critics argue that the concept of the community is of questionable value because it is so ill defined. In Colin Bell and Howard Newby’s edited The Myth of Community Studies (1974), Margaret Stacey argued that the solution to this problem is to avoid the term altogether. Bell and Newby similarly pointed out, “There has never been a theory of community, nor even a satisfactory definition of what community is” (1974: xliii). Amitai Etzioni (New Golden Rule, 1996) points out that community can be defined with reasonable precision. Community has two characteristics: (1) a web of affect-laden relationships among a group of individuals, relationships that often crisscross and reinforce one another (as opposed to one-on-one relationships); and (2) a measure of commitment to a set of shared histories and identities – in short, a particular culture. David E. Pearson states: To earn the appellation “community,” it seems to me, groups must be able to exert moral suasion and extract a measure of compliance from their members. That is, communities are necessarily, indeed by definition, coercive as well as moral, threatening their members with the stick of sanctions if they stray, offering them the carrot of certainty and stability if they don’t. (“Community and Sociology,” 1995, Society) Critics generally suggest that those who long for communities ignore the darker side of traditional communities. “In the new communitarian appeal to tradition, communities of ‘mutual aid and memory,’” writes Linda McClain in “Rights and Irresponsibility” (1994: 1029) in the Duke Law Journal, “there is a problematic inattention to the less attractive, unjust features of tradition.” Amy Gutmann (“Communitarian Critics of Liberalism,” 1985, Philosophy and Public Affairs) pointedly remarks that communitarians “want us to live in Salem,” a community of strong shared values that went so far as to accuse nonconformist members of witchcraft during the seventeenth century. Communitarians counter that behind many of these criticisms lies an image of old, or total, communities, which are neither typical of modern society nor necessary for, or even compatible with, a communitarian society. Old communities (traditional villages) were geographically bounded and the only communities of which people were members. In effect, other than escaping into noman’s-land, often bandit territories, individuals had few opportunities for choosing their social attachments. In short, old communities had monopolistic power over their members. New communities are often limited in scope and reach. Members of one residential community are often also members of other communities, for example, work, ethnic, or religious ones (see work and employment, ethnicity, and religion). As a result, community members have multiple sources of attachments; and if one threatens to become overwhelming, individuals will tend to pull back and turn to another community for their attachments. Thus, for example, if a person finds herself under high moral pressure at work to contribute to the United Way, to give blood, or to serve at a soup kitchen for the homeless, and these are lines of action she is not keen to follow, she may end up investing more of her energy in other communities – her writers’ group, for instance, or her church. This multicommunity membership protects the individual from both moral oppression and ostracism. A M I T A I E T Z I O N I community enterprise – see social economy. community studies These studies are concerned with interrelationships of social institutions in a locality. Some studies encompass all such relations, while others (for example Michael Young and Peter Willmott’s Family and Kinship in East London, 1957) focus on particular relations. Community studies traditionally understand “community” as a space defined by multiple contiguous social networks. Studies often share a number of characteristics. They often use participant observation with the researchers living in the locale, sharing some of 83 companionate marriage the experiences of the inhabitants, for whom they consequently display sympathy. They tend to offer detailed and lively descriptions of community life but may not be extensively theorized. Robert and Helen Lynd’s classical Middletown: A Study in American Culture (1929) charted cultural change and strain in a “typical” American town, organized around six themes – “getting a living,” “making a home,” “training the young,” “using leisure,” “religious practices,” and “community activities.” Many studies followed, one of the most famous being W. F. Whyte’s Street Corner Society (1943), a study of gang life in Boston’s East End. Community studies remained popular through the 1950s and there were several classical British studies including N. Dennis, F. M. Henriques, and C. Slaughter, Coal is Our Life (1956), but the method was increasingly criticized as a-historical, having an implicit model of functional equilibrium and difficulty analyzing change. Ray Pahl’s six-year study of the Isle of Sheppey (1978–83), later published as Divisions of Labour (1984), addresses these criticisms by exploring changes in household divisions of labor over time in relation to broader social structural processes. But in a period of high social mobility, internet communications, and transnational networks, the notion of spatially defined communities has become less central to sociology. LARRY RAY companionate marriage – see marriage and divorce. comparative method It is rather paradoxical to write about comparative method. All sociological method is intrinsically comparative in the sense that it either involves explicit and direct comparison of time and/or space differentials or involves concepts that were developed through such comparisons. Émile Durkheim was well aware of this paradox already when he argued that “comparative sociology is not a particular branch of sociology; it is sociology itself, in so far as it ceases to be purely descriptive and aspires to account for facts,” in The Rules of Sociological Method (1895 [trans. 1982]). But what exactly did comparison mean? Did it mean simply to compare and contrast across time and space? Did it mean to search for analogies and parallels across cultures and societies? Max Weber certainly opposed such simplistic comparisons. In a note on method hastily added to his The Agrarian Sociology of Ancient Civilizations (1909 [trans. 1976]), almost as an afterthought, Weber suggested that 84 complexity theory [a] genuinely analytic study comparing the stages of development of the ancient polis with those of the medieval city would be welcome and productive . . . Of course . . . such a comparative study would not aim at finding “analogies” and “parallels,” as is done by those engrossed in the currently fashionable enterprise of constructing general schemes of development. The aim should, rather, be precisely the opposite: to identify and define the individuality of each development, the characteristics which made the one conclude in a manner so different from that of the other. This done, one can then determine the causes which led to these differences. (1976: 385) For Weber, then, comparison did not consist in drawing parallels and analogies but in exploring the trajectories of social institutions in their irreducible differences and singularities (for example, Stephen Kalberg, Max Weber’s Comparative-Historical Sociology, 1994). Here, as elsewhere, Weber’s debt to Nietzsche’s conception of genealogy is unmistakable and perhaps remains one of Weber’s lasting legacies for empirically grounded theorizing (for example, David Owen, Maturity and Modernity: Nietzsche, Weber, Foucault and the Ambivalence of Reason, 1994). ENGIN ISIN complexity theory A recent development in social theory, gaining currency through the last decade of the twentieth century, this has been described as an amalgam or “rhetorical hybrid” of a range of insights drawn from a variety of different fields, mainly in the natural sciences, and applied to social relations. Complexity theory is closely associated with the foundation of the Santa Fe Institute in 1984, an interdisciplinary research institute comprising physicists, mathematicians, computer programmers, and systems analysts. It was also championed by world-systems sociologist Immanuel Wallerstein and Nobel-prize-winning scientist Ilya Prigogine (1917– ) in the Gulbenkian Commission’s influential 1996 report on the restructuring of the social sciences, Open the Social Sciences. The theory is essentially concerned with issues of order, adaptation, and feedback emerging from interactions between the different elements or parts of complex systems, from weather systems to business organizations. While it has produced compelling insights in economics it is probably too soon to say how fruitful it will prove to be in sociology. An essential point for complexity theory, as it is for realism, is that the properties, powers, and effects of the system or entity that emerges from the combination of parts can be both greater than complexity theory and different from the parts themselves. In Global Complexity (2003), John Urry explains this, using the taste of sugar as an example. This taste is simply not present in the prior carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen atoms that need to combine to produce sugar. The flavor of sugar is thus an “emergent” property that results from the relational interaction between the parts. It is a “nonlinear” consequence (one that differs from a “linear,” billiard ball, conception of cause and effect, in which neither the ball that is hit nor the ball that hits alters its essential properties) that arises from a transfiguring combination of individual components. Complexity theory embraces insights from chaos theory, sharing the latter’s emphasis on nonlinear laws, but its focus is ultimately on order rather than anarchy. Chaos theory concentrates on the disruption of order, on turbulent behavior in complex systems in instances where nonlinear laws amplify the smallest of changes in initial conditions, as in the classic example of the flapping of a butterfly’s wings producing large weather effects on the other side of the world. Complexity theory is more interested in the combination of order and disorder that is produced by such emergent interactions, stretching away, as they do, across space and time in open and interdependent networks. Institutionalized social processes, from households to large international organizations, are in fact conceptualized as islands of order within a sea of disorder. However, even these forms of order themselves, manifested as they are in billions of repeated social actions, are seen to be constantly changing and transmuting, as the tiniest of local changes in these repeated, iterated, actions generate “unexpected, unpredictable, and chaotic outcomes, sometimes the opposite of what agents thought they were trying to bring about.” Thus there are “pockets” of relative order existing within an overall patterning of disorder, and the relations between the two are complex. The effects of any particular localized action within this context is said to be highly contingent; they can be microscopic or global. Relatively ordered systems that appeared robust can turn out to be vulnerable, and the reverse can equally be the case. Metaphors, from attractors and fractals, through implicate orders and self-organization, to autopoeisis and emergent orders, have been liberally imported from many natural and social science paradigms and combined in an attempt to theorize this sense of “order on the edge of chaos” and guidance without a guide. ROB STONES Comte, Auguste (1798–1857) Comte, Auguste (1798–1857) A grand philosophical synthesizer who coined the term sociology, he was the first to attempt its establishment as a science. For Comte, society was a rule-governed order of reality, irreducible to the individuals who comprised it, and sociology was a fundamental branch of knowledge which, together with mathematics, astronomy, physics/ chemistry, and biology, made up knowledge as a whole. Comte’s approach to sociology was comparative and historical, aiming to understand how each type of society was institutionally constituted, and by what logic of development human society passed from one form to another. Comte divided his sociology into a “statics” (laws of order) and a “dynamics” (laws of progress). The first stressed the fragile relations between individual and society, and the importance of family and religion in securing the social tie. The second was organized around a “law of stages” according to which collective mental development, like that of an individual, passed from an infantile “theistic” stage, marked by imaginary causes and anthropomorphic projection, to a hybrid and abstractly idealizing – “metaphysical” – stage of adolescence, to a maturely “positive” stage where knowledge, understood to be limited, became soundly based on the evidence of the senses. The rebellious son of a Catholic-royalist family, Comte studied mathematics at the École Polytechnique in Paris and later transferred to the École du Médecine at Montpellier to study biology. After moving back to Paris he became Claude Henri de Rouvroy, comte de Saint-Simon’s private secretary from 1817 until their acrimonious parting in 1824, and then supported himself through writing, private teaching, and a part-time post as a secondary school mathematics examiner. Comte’s overall project was to provide the science-based (positiviste) intellectual and religious synthesis he saw as needed to complete the work of the French Revolution by establishing a new industrial form of society. He founded the Positivist Society as his main organizational vehicle which, following his conversion in 1854 (associated with the death of his beloved Clothilde de Vaux), assumed the explicit character of a church, with l’Humanité as its god and Comte as its grandprêtre. At the center of Comte’s attention was the post1789 crisis of industrial society, with its unresolved class and ideological warfare between, as he saw it, one-sided partisans of order and progress. Comte diagnosed the ongoing turmoil of 85 concentric zone theory French society as a crisis of transition, which he tried to understand and resolve by seeking to synthesize the secular-progressivist viewpoint of Étienne Condillac (1715–80) with the integralist social theorizing of Catholic counter-revolutionaries like Joseph de Maistre (1753–1821). In all this, Comte followed Saint-Simon, but before advocating a specific program of social reform he insisted on the need for preparatory intellectual work, beginning with the establishment of sociology. Sociology would not only provide politics with a scientific basis, but was itself an essential element of the new synthesis of scientific knowledge without which the moral order appropriate to industrial society could not be constructed. Comte’s six-volume Système de philosophie positive (1830–42) carried out both aims. His later work – including Système de politique positive (1851–4) as well as his unfinished Synthèse subjective – was taken up with further developing his system, now centrally organized around positivism as a religious and not just theoretical project, and expanded to include feelings (with altruistic love as the highest), as well as knowledge and action, as organizing categories. Sociology, in this revision, was the theology of Humanism, doctrinally anchoring an elaborate and grandiose plan for the unification of l’Humanité through planetary federalism and the establishment of a new post-theistic world religion. Comte is a relatively unexamined founding figure of modern sociology. Ignored because of his eccentricities, passion for systems, and sectarianism, his thought, nevertheless, has strongly influenced classical and post-classical French sociology, as well as many philosophers and social theorists from John Stuart Mill and Friedrich Nietzsche to Karl Mannheim, Gaston Bachelard, ANDREW WERNICK and Louis Althusser. concentric zone theory – see urban ecology. conjugal roles This term belongs to those sociological traditions that assumed heterosexual marriage to be the normal status of adult human beings. Despite the fact that this pattern never accorded with all known individuals in any society, it was nevertheless assumed that women and men would internalize sets of social norms about the behavior appropriate to marriage. Each party was expected to acquire an understanding of both the rights and the responsibilities of their role (for example, the husband to “provide” for his wife and the wife 86 conservatism to agree to sexual relations with her husband) and this understanding could be expected of all married individuals. The theory did not allow for differences in power in marriage (for example, the control of husbands over money) nor conflicts that might arise from distinct and conflicting interpretations of a particular conjugal role. The very concept of a conjugal role, with its implicit fusion of husband and wife (and its equally implicit expectation of the greater power within marriage of the husband – a power reflected in much western law until the 1970s), disappeared when feminism challenged the masculinist assumptions of certain aspects of sociology and – with gay and queer theory – problematized previously held understandings about sexuality and marriage. Empirical studies of the household suggest that many traditional expectations about male and female behavior in marriage/cohabitation persist but that these no longer have the social or legal legitimacy which the idea of conjugal roles once enjoyed. MARY EVANS conservatism This is a political movement – an ideology with a set of principles that relate to human nature, rationality, and the role of the state and nation. It arises historically as a reaction to liberalism and a fear that the logic of liberalism points to notions of universal emancipation that conservatives consider unrealistic and utopian. Conservatism is not, then, a disposition or attitude to life. This makes the notion far too broad. It is often said that being a conservative involves a pragmatic view that if things are “not broken, don’t fix them.” While a conservative disposition may involve an unwillingness to accept change, conservatism as a social and political movement is much more precise than this (see social movements). It is argued – particularly by conservatives who follow the ideas of Edmund Burke (1729–97) – that conservatism is too flexible to be an ideology or an “-ism.” But if we use the term ideology to denote merely a system of thought (and not an argument that is inherently dogmatic and authoritarian), then conservatism is an ideology since it has a set of principles, and these principles become clear when the doctrine is challenged. Conservatism sees people as naturally unequal, and therefore holds that people do not have rights that are universal. Why are they unequal? People have differing innate abilities; they are brought up in differing circumstances; some are more conservatism rational than others; they are influenced by the particular nation in which they live; and so forth. It is revealing that, although Margaret Thatcher is often seen as a “neoliberal” and a Whig, rather than a true Tory, she argues that people are inherently unequal. In this, she is impeccably conservative. It is true that “libertarian” conservatives of the New Right pushed further away from traditional conservatism by extolling the virtues of the “pure” market. They are better described as anarchists – anarcho-capitalists – rather than conservatives as such. The notion of difference for conservatives expresses itself in the form of natural hierarchies. Conservatives have interpreted the notion of “nature” to indicate a differentiation in roles – between men and women, “civilized” and “uncivilized” – and conservatives, for this reason, have at times opposed democracy, sexual (that is, relations between gays and straights) and gender equality, the rights of all nations to determine their own destiny, and so on. Nature is an eternal force that promotes hierarchy and differentiation rather than equality and sameness. Conservatism is not just a philosophy of “realism.” Conservatives may advocate radical change in egalitarian societies that they deem “unnatural.” The status quo deserves to be conserved only if it is conservative! Although ancient conservatism (as among the Greeks) opposed democracy and the rule of the “free” poor, in its modern form conservatism takes its identity from opposition to the French Revolution. Conservatives were particularly scandalized by the French Revolution because of its beliefs in natural rights and universalistic notions of freedom and equality. These were seen as abstract – that is, propositions that ignored circumstance and context. Notions of emancipation and “perfectibility” are anathema since these concepts ride roughshod over hierarchy and hierarchical differentiation. Conservatives favor the concepts of family, state, religion, and nation. It is revealing that in the statement so often cited by Margaret Thatcher – “there is no such thing as society” – she does speak of individuals and their families. The family as a patriarchal and hierarchical construct is favored by conservatism since it deemphasizes individual choice and stresses differentiation and inequality. This accounts for the fact that there is invariably a tension between conservatism and the market, since market forces are seen as eroding hierarchical communities and traditional relationships. Indeed, Marxism draws upon conservatism conservative critiques of the industrial revolution, while demurring at the aristocratic “solutions” to the problem. Charity is preferred to welfare rights since the former relies upon the benevolence of the few rather than the entitlements of the many. Support for private property must fit into a hierarchical view of society. The state is favored as an institution (although of course conservatives may disagree on the extent of state intervention) on the grounds that people cannot govern their own lives, but need leaders and authorities to tell them what to do and think. The need to use force as a weapon of last resort accords well with the conservative argument that order cannot rest simply upon rationality or persuasion. Some conservatives do not reject reason so much as a view of reason that is deemed abstract and liberal. Humans are imperfect, and will harm others or themselves unless social pressures including force are brought to bear upon them. Rulers are like parents who have, from time to time, to chastise wayward children. Religion is important for conservatives, since they are skeptical that people can act in an orderly way without an element of prejudice and mysticism. God is conceived as a patriarchal creator, a lord and master whom we should obey instinctively (as we do our parents). National and local sentiments that differentiate insiders from outsiders, are seen as natural and inevitable. Historically, conservatism supported empire and, in the case of Benjamin Disraeli (1804–81), conservatives regarded it as the key to “safely” expanding the vote, and the creation of workingclass conservatives. Conservatives are nationalists since they believe that certain nations are “naturally” more preeminent than others and regard any attempt to replace the nation-state with international institutions as dangerous and misguided. Altruism, whether collective or individual, is something that extends only to family, neighbors, and friends. Of course, the conservatives of one nation will differ from those of another nation, even though, ironically, the mutual antagonism arises from broadly shared principles. It is important to differentiate conservatism from doctrines of the radical right, like fascism, even though conservatives often supported fascist regimes on the grounds that they were the only force capable of crushing socialism and trade unions. Fascism is counterrevolutionary – creating a society that is quite new – whereas conservatism seeks to restore traditional regimes and values. JOHN HOFFMAN 87 consumer society consumer society This is an ill-defined, but nonetheless popular, concept gesturing towards the enhanced societal importance of the purchase of commodities and their cultural meanings and significance, it implies a comparatively greater role for consumption – in contrast with work and employment, religion, family, investment, or politics – in determining economic organization, cultural institutions, and personal motivations and experience. In general it is a term with negative connotations, appearing mostly in the course of critiques of the misuse of affluence in postwar western countries. It is less frequently used than the term consumerism, which is often considered one of its associated properties. It has received much less systematic scholarly attention than the concept of consumer culture, a term with more ambivalent and polysemic moral connotations and which has produced its own distinctive tradition of research. John Benson, in The Rise of Consumer Society in Britain (1994), summarizes the historians’ depictions of consumer societies as those “in which choice and credit are readily available, in which social value is defined in terms of purchasing power and material possessions, and in which there is a desire, above all, for that which is new, modern, exciting and fashionable.” But there is no consensus on the defining empirical features of a consumer society. There is also much disagreement about when such a society might have first come into existence, its origins having been dated variously from the seventeenth century to the 1980s. In social theory, the term was promulgated partly in reaction to economistic explanations of social structure and social change prominent during the period of the revival of neo-Marxism in Europe in the 1960s and 1970s. In 1970, Jean Baudrillard published the French version of The Consumer Society: Myths and Structures (1970 [trans. 1998]), a reflection on the contemporary role of consumption. Arguing that the productivist concepts of Marxism – use-value and exchangevalue – were inadequate to capture consumerist tendencies, he directed attention to sign-values. Commodities are given meaning through a logic of signs. The system of consumption was like a symbolic code or language, a basis for communication rather than for the satisfaction of needs. Baudrillard’s writing soon after took a postmodernist turn: indeed, consumer society is now considered by some as coterminous with postmodern society. His personal legacy is found more in cultural studies of consumption. 88 consumption Zygmunt Bauman, also a principal theorist of postmodernity, is the most eminent recent theorist of consumer society. He maintains that consumption has superseded production as the dominant organizing principle of society. Whereas industrial society engaged with its members in their capacity as workers, the consumer society “engages its members – primarily – in their capacity as consumers. The way present day society shapes up its members is dictated first and foremost by the need to play the role of the consumer” (Work Consumerism and the New Poor, 1998). The consumer attitude becomes pervasive; that is to say, people expect that their problems will find a solution, and their needs satisfaction, through their capacity to purchase goods and services. Consumption then becomes the principal means of achieving social integration as a majority of the population are seduced by the promises of consumer freedom. ALAN WARDE consumption A somewhat nebulous concept which has only recently been used extensively by sociologists, it remains primarily a topic of interdisciplinary attention, with the related concept “consumer” more widely deployed, especially in economics, psychology, and marketing. Its growing importance arose from observation that, in a context of material abundance, in consumer societies, focal interests in much of everyday life had been reoriented towards the possession and use of an increasingly wide range of goods and services, most purchased through the market, but also many provided by the state. The concept has two separate historic meanings. The first, and earlier, one had a negative connotation – to destroy, to waste, to use up. In political economy in the eighteenth century, a neutral sense emerged to describe market relationships, hence distinctions between consumer and producer, consumption and production. This second meaning signaled concern with the changing values of items exchanged in market economies, rather than the purposes to which goods and services might be put. These two meanings persist in analytic and normative tension. Negative attitudes to consumption long prevailed, Puritan and Protestant cultures in particular displaying suspicion of luxury and waste. T. Veblen coined the term conspicuous consumption in his Theory of the Leisure Class (1899) to describe the competitive pursuit of social status through display of possessions by a section of the consumption American middle class. The Frankfurt School were critical of mass consumption for its uniformity, cultural mediocrity, and tendency to induce passivity. Modern modes of consumption were said, variously, to engender narcissistic and hedonistic personalities, to reduce public participation, to be indifferent to the labor conditions under which goods are produced, and to cause environmental damage. Such critiques were often associated with a more general critique of capitalism, especially the fundamental process of commodification. Empirical research about consumption was rare until recently, the main exception being the tradition of research on poverty and inequality whose roots lie in the nineteenth century. Access to food, drinking water, and adequate health care, still critical issues from the perspective of global inequality, were tackled through state welfare provision in Europe and North America throughout the twentieth century. In recognition, studies of the material circumstances of private households were complemented in the 1970s by analyses of collective consumption, examining the extended role of the state in delivering income, goods, and public services to citizens. If the modern postwar welfare state resulted in some overall de-commodification, as provision through the market was replaced or supplemented, the policies of the New Right from the 1980s gradually reversed this. One consequence was described as the creation of consumption cleavages. Some people depend on public provision – for transport, health care, housing, and pensions – while others purchase these services through the market. To the extent that state provision is of poorer quality, which it may be because raising taxation to pay for expensive services for everyone is politically contentious, a new social division (arguably, superseding class) emerges. Those entirely or mostly dependent upon public provision are comparatively disadvantaged, with some demonstrated effect on their voting behavior and political attitudes. Differential consumption of goods and services became of increasing interest in studies of social stratification and cultural sociology in the later twentieth century. Pierre Bourdieu’s classic study Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste (1979 [trans. 1984]) demonstrated a strong association between class position and cultural taste in France. He showed differences in taste between the commercial and professional bourgeoisie, the intellectual fraction of the middle classes, and the working class. They differed in their preferences, consumption for example for food, interior decoration, and music. Taste was shown to be a weapon in social conflicts, as groups and classes towards the top of the social hierarchy used their economic and cultural capital (see social capital) to establish and legitimate their privilege. Another source of inequality is access to positional goods. A positional good is one which delivers value to its user for only so long as not too many others also have it. Thus, the use-value of an automobile decreases the more roads become congested with other motorists. The distinguishing symbolic value of a prestigious, novel, or fashionable product declines as others acquire them. Symbolically significant items attracting the attention of sociologists of consumption include possessions, cultural knowledge, and cultural participation, as well as preferences. As part of the “cultural turn” in the 1970s, attention was increasingly shifted from the instrumental aspects of consumption, from use-values, to the symbolic dimension of the process, to sign-values. Increasingly, consumption came to be seen as a means by which individuals and groups expressed their identities. When combined with diagnoses of postmodern culture, which stressed the fluidity and malleability of identity, consumption came to be understood as a key element in a process of continually renewed self-constitution or selfassembly. The slogan that “there is no choice but to choose,” now frequently applied to consumer behavior, captures the sense in which individuals are attributed with an autonomy previously denied both by lack of resources and by the weight of group or community conventions. In tandem came a reorientation in the ethical evaluation of consumption. Beginning in the 1980s in European sociology and cultural studies, the moral condemnation of consumer behavior was increasingly contested. (The USA had earlier, from the late nineteenth century but particularly from the 1930s, a much more optimistic understanding of the cycle of economic growth and increased consumption.) The view of the consumer as a passive victim of processes associated with mass production, of which advertising was the epitome, was countered by demonstrations of how people actively and creatively engaged with goods, appropriating them for their own purposes. The importance of consumer social movements and associations, mobilizing in the name of “the consumer” was also increasingly appreciated. And as they flourish, governments claim more frequently to speak and act on behalf of 89 consumption cleavages “consumers,” rather than of, say, classes, the nation, or citizens, and political discussion increasingly refers to consumer sovereignty, consumer choice, and consumer rights. The discourse of neo-classical economics takes prominence in contemporary practical and ideological understanding of consumption. ALAN WARDE consumption cleavages – see consumption. consumption function Rarely used in sociology, this term was central to the macro-economics of J. M. Keynes, who was concerned with the relationship between expenditure for consumption and saving (and thus capital investment) in fluctuations in capitalist economic growth. The consumption function describes the relationship between consumption and income, proposing that, all things being equal, consumption increases in proportion to income, though not necessarily instantaneously. Indeed, many conditions must be met for this relationship to hold; stability of prices, rate of replacement of durables, availability of credit, and level of inflation all affect the decision about when and whether to consume. The proportion of income devoted to saving also increases with rise in income; the poor being less able to afford to save, and poor countries therefore having less resources for investment. Subsequent work modifies the Keynesian account. One alternative argues that the relationship holds only in relation to permanent income: if income fluctuates from year to year, expenditure levels will be set in anticipation of long-run and predictable levels of income. This is the permanent income hypothesis associated with Milton Friedman (1912– ). Another alternative, the life-cycle hypothesis, maintains that the age of consumers affects their expenditure, with the young and the old spending a larger part of their income on consumption, less on saving, than those in middle age. Such accounts aim to estimate aggregate levels of expenditure and the savings ratio, indicators important to national macro-level economic management but of limited relevance to understanding the social and cultural dimensions of ALAN WARDE consumption. control group This term relates to classic experimental design, such as the pretest–posttest control group design, which may be diagrammed like this: 90 convergence For a somewhat facetious example, let’s say that a researcher suspects that cigarette smoking causes health problems. She or he recruits 10,000 young children, and randomly divides them into 2 groups of 5,000 each. The experimental group is required gradually to take up smoking in childhood, with the amount of cigarettes gradually rising to between 15 and 35 per day. The other 5,000, the control group, are never allowed to smoke. The researcher then monitors the health of the two groups over the decades. If the experimental group tends to develop more medical conditions such as emphysema, lung and throat cancer, and heart disease than the control group, the researcher can conclude that smoking causes disease and lowered life expectancy. The experimental and control groups are the same beforehand, during the course of the experiment the only difference is that the experimental group is exposed to the “experimental stimulus” (in this case, smoking), so that any difference in the end must be due to (caused by) the experimental stimulus. The control group is the group in an experimental design that does not receive the experimental stimulus and hence provides the essential comparator for the experimental group. The essence of the true experiment is control – the researcher controls everything except the experimental stimulus so that any difference between the experimental and control groups must arise from the experimental stimulus. The main advantage of the randomized experiment is that, if it is carried out correctly, the researcher can infer causality. BERNADETTE HAYES AND ROBERT MILLER convergence Identifying a tendency for societies to become more alike, in principle on any institutional dimension, the term “convergence” has most usually been applied to macro-economic and political trends, most notably in the work of Clark Kerr, John T. Dunlop, Frederick Harbison, and Charles Myers in Industrialism and Industrial Man (1960). Their convergence thesis, an account of social development much debated in the 1960s and 1970s, maintained that there was a tendency for industrializing countries to develop similar conversation analysis institutional arrangements. They argued that “industrial systems, regardless of the cultural background out of which they emerge and the path they originally follow, tend to become more alike over an extended period of time” and that they move towards a “pluralistic industrialism” where power is shared between state, firms, and individuals. Consciously in opposition to Marxist and conflict theoretical accounts of social structure, the convergence thesis envisaged greater harmony and consensus as industrialization progressed (see industrial society). Driven by the so-called “logic of Industrial Society industrialism,” causal priority was given to technology and the requirements of the industrial system. It was anticipated that industrialization would produce similar patterns of division of labor and industrial relations, the separation of households from work, urbanization, with rationalization spreading from the economic sphere into other realms of social life. Hence, the social and cultural differences between pre-industrial societies would reduce. In many ways, this amounted to a prediction that all countries would eventually converge on a pattern established by the modern societies of the western world. This quasi-evolutionary account has not stood the test of time. It has been criticized for inadequacies of theoretical explanation; for its propensity to economic and technological determinism; for the implication that there is only one possible direction for the path to economic development, that taken in Europe and North America; and for lack of clarity as to whether it is industrialism rather than capitalism that has the effects detected. Empirically, while industrial societies do have features in common, they still exhibit very considerable variation in their economic, social, and political arrangements. It is currently more common to consider instead varieties of capitalism, seeing the prior institutional arrangements of countries as laying down different paths of development. Nor does it appear that material inequalities between countries are diminishing, another condition which would have to be met in order to achieve convergence. Though the convergence thesis is no longer invoked, some accounts of the effects of globalization make similar projections regarding the homogenization of culture, based on the worldwide diffusion of the production activities of large corporations. ALAN WARDE conversation analysis A field of study concerned with the norms, practices, and competences underlying the organiza- conversation analysis tion of social interaction, conversation analysis (CA), notwithstanding the name, is concerned with all forms of spoken interaction, including not only everyday conversations between friends and acquaintances, but also interactions in medical, educational, mass media, and sociolegal contexts, “monologic” interactions such as lecturing or speech-making, and technologically complex interactions such as web-based multiparty communication. Originating within sociology in the 1960s and then developing with the privately circulated lectures of Harvey Sacks in 1992, CA has grown into a field of research that is practiced worldwide. CA emerged from two intellectual streams in sociology. The first is based on Émile Durkheim and derives most proximately from the work of Erving Goffman, who argued that social interaction constitutes a distinct institutional order comprising normative rights and obligations that regulate interaction, and that function in broad independence from the social, psychological, and motivational characteristics of persons. The second is Harold Garfinkel’s ethnomethodology. This stresses the contingent and socially constructed nature both of action and of the understanding of action, and the role of shared methods in the production, recognition, and shared understanding of joint activities. The CA perspective was formed from a fusion of these two perspectives by H. Sacks and Emmanuel Schegloff, who were in direct contact with their originators. Within CA, the Goffmanian interaction order structures the production, recognition, and analysis of action as it unfolds in real time, through the use of shared methods or practices. This process (and its analysis) are possible because participants reflexively display their analyses of one another’s conduct in each successive contribution to interaction. Correlative to this, CA starts from the perspective that (contra both Noam Chomsky and Talcott Parsons) the details of conduct in interaction are highly organized and orderly and, indeed, that the specificity of meaning and understanding in interaction would be impossible without this orderliness. CA research centers on the analysis of audio- or video-recorded naturally occurring interaction. Recording is essential because no other form of data retrieval is sufficiently detailed and accurate. Naturally occurring interaction is essential because other forms of interaction – for example, scripted theatre, role playing, or interaction in experimental contexts – are designed in terms of the designer’s beliefs about interaction which 91 conversation analysis bear an unknown relationship to the interaction order itself. Accordingly, CA practitioners regard naturally occurring interaction as the basic data for the analysis of interactional structure and process. CA proceeds at several analytic levels. At the most basic level, CA looks for patterns in social interaction for evidence of practices of conduct that evidence systematic design. To be identified as a practice, particular elements of conduct must be recurrent, specifically situated, and attract responses that discriminate them from related or similar practices. A central feature of this procedure is that the analysis of the practices used to perform a social action (for example, prefacing an answer to a question with “oh,” or identifying a co-interactant by name in the course of a turn) can be validated through the examination of others’ responses. Second, CA focuses on sequences of actions. In performing some current action, participants normally project (empirically) and require (normatively) the production of a “next” action, or range of possible “next” actions, to be done by another participant. Moreover, in constructing a turn at talk, they normally address themselves to immediately preceding talk, and design their contributions in ways that exploit this basic positioning. By the production of next actions, participants show an understanding of a prior action and do so at a multiplicity of levels – for example, by an “acceptance,” an actor can show an understanding that the prior turn was possibly complete, that it was addressed to them, that it was an action of a particular type (e.g. an invitation), and so on. Within this framework, the grasp of a “next” action within a stream of interactional projects, the production of that action, and its interpretation by the previous speaker are the products of a common set of socially shared practices. CA analyses are thus simultaneously analyses of action, context management, and intersubjectivity, because all three of these features are simultaneously, if tacitly, the objects of the actors’ actions. At a third level, practices cohere at various levels of systemic organization. For example, the turn-taking system for conversation is composed of sets of practices for turn construction and turn allocation. The question–answer pair is organized by a large number of practices that structure the timing and internal organization of responses to maximize social solidarity. Evaluations of states of affairs are structured by a range of practices through which people manage the relative priority of their rights to evaluate them, and so on. 92 Cooley, Charles Horton (1864–1929) Based on this framework, CA has developed as an empirical discipline focused on a range of domains of interactional conduct, including turn-taking (the allocation of opportunities to speak among participants), the organization of conversational sequences, the internal structuring of turns at talk and the formation of actions, the organization of repair (dealing with difficulties in speaking, hearing, and understanding talk), story-telling and narrative, prosody, and body behavior. Implicit in CA’s sequential perspective is the idea that social action is both context-shaped and context-renewing, and that social context is not a simple “container” of social interaction, but rather something that is dynamically created, sustained, and altered across an interaction’s course. Similar conclusions hold for the relevant social identities of the participants, which are also activated, sustained, or adjusted on a temporally contingent basis. This perspective has generated a growing CA research presence in the analysis of social institutions. Some of this research has investigated practices, sequences, and organizations that are earmarks of particular institutions or their tasks. Much of this work has been descriptive and naturalistic, but it has also been used in explanatory or predictive multivariate models. Because these analyses are internally valid in an “emic” sense, they have proved to be robust predictors of conduct, attitudes, and social outcomes, and this use of CA is likely to grow in the future. JOHN HERITAGE Cooley, Charles Horton (1864–1929) Rooted near his birthplace by the University of Michigan campus, Cooley led an uneventful life as an eccentric, renowned professor. A student of John Dewey, he helped introduce pragmatist ideas into American sociology. Cooley’s Human Nature and the Social Order (1902) set forth his famous notion of the “looking-glass self ” – that the individual’s sense of self is “mirrored” through others. He propounded this against prevailing utilitarian assumptions of the self as a natural given. His view of the self as a social product – that individual and society are not separable, but different aspects of the same thing – became a key stimulus, along with ideas of George Herbert Mead, to symbolic interactionism. Relatedly, Cooley called on sociologists to employ an empirical method he called sympathetic introspection – investigating the consciousness of actors by putting oneself in their place. This formulation anticipated by generations the corporate crime late psychoanalytic catchword of “empathic introspection.” In Social Organization: A Study of the Larger Mind (1909), Cooley elaborated another key concept, the primary group, a core process at the heart of institutions where close, intimate, face-to-face interactions establish common symbols and meanings. His Social Process (1918) emphasized how human plasticity leads to social change as a never-ending but fragile process of reciprocal change in self, primary group, and social definitions. His pragmatist conception of the creative potential of social disorganization held that social dissolution of traditions generates virtues as well as vices. Other works include Life and the Student: Roadside Notes on Human Nature, Society, and Letters (1927) and posthumous papers, Sociological Theory and Social Research (1930). A volume of selected writings, On Self and Social Organization (1998), was edited by Hans-Joachim Schubert, who wrote an authoritative intellectual biography. DONALD LEVINE corporate crime – see crime. correlation Used in a number of more or less precisely defined senses in sociology, in its loosest sense, this means that two variables are related. So, if we state that longevity is positively correlated with social status, then we are saying that higher-status people in any society live longer than lower-status individuals. A negative or inverse correlation would mean that as one variable increases, the other decreases. So, cigarette smoking and longevity are negatively correlated. In its stricter sense, correlation is defined as a statistical test to determine whether two variables are related. There are a number of different classes of statistic, and the choice of the appropriate type of correlation to calculate is determined by the nature of the data, and whether it is parametric or non-parametric. Knowing that two things are correlated is itself interesting, but usually social scientists want to go beyond simple correlation and investigate cause before they can really state that they have started to understand the relationship between two variables. Just the fact that two variables are correlated tells us little about the causal relationships between them. For instance, there is a correlation between the affluence of a country and the proportion of lawyers in the population. Is this because people like the services of lawyers, so as Coser, Lewis A. (1913–2003) they get richer they can afford more of the good things in life like ice cream and lawyers? Or is it because lawyers make an economy operate more efficiently, so that countries with more lawyers become richer? Or is the relationship spurious, and both lawyers and affluence are by-products of a certain type of capitalism? We would need some more complex form of analysis than simply calculating the correlation to be able to understand that one! BRENDAN J. BURCHELL Coser, Lewis A. (1913–2003) Born Ludwig Cohen in Berlin, Coser left for Paris in 1913, where he studied comparative literature and sociology. He was arrested by the French government in 1940, but eventually escaped, emigrating to the United States in 1941, where he changed his family name to Coser. Under the guidance of Robert Merton and Paul Lazarsfeld, he obtained his doctorate from Columbia University. In the postwar period, he became a member of the circle of New York intellectuals and published critical articles in Partisan Review, Commentary, and the Nation, and with Irving Howe and others he founded Dissent, for which he served as co-editor. He founded the sociology department at Brandeis University and taught there for fifteen years, before moving to the University of New York – Stony Brook, where he remained until his retirement. He was the President of the Society for the Study of Social Problems in 1967–8. He was President of the American Sociological Association in 1975. Coser received an honorary degree from the Humboldt University in Berlin in 1994. Coser is well known for his contributions to the history of sociological theory, including Men of Ideas (1970) and Masters of Sociological Thought. Ideas in Historical and Social Context (1971). He edited, with Bernard Rosenberg, Sociological Theory (1957). He contributed to the study of social conflict in The Functions of Social Conflict (1956). The principal influences behind Coser’s sociology were Max Weber and Georg Simmel who inspired his approach to classical sociological theory, but it was Simmel in particular who shaped his study of social conflict. Coser was concerned by the process of professionalization in American sociology, which had to some extent undermined the importance of sociology as social criticism. He feared that the dominance of empiricism and methods would erode the substance and significance of sociological investigation. Coser was an influential teacher of sociology, as illustrated in his Sociology Through Literature (1963). BRYAN S. TURNER 93 cosmopolitan sociology cosmopolitanism cosmopolitan sociology idea of “world patriotism” against the narrow With the development of globalization, critics of traditional sociology have argued that it was implicitly concerned with studying societies that were nation states, and hence, to become more relevant to a global world, sociology would have to change direction and become more cosmopolitan. The conventional methodologies that employed, for example, comparative and historical research could not understand global flows of goods and communication where national boundaries are of declining relevance. Ulrich Beck (2000) in Want is Globalization? has spoken of the emergence of a cosmopolitan vision in the evolution of transnational society, calling for sociology to embrace a global understanding of an open world horizon. A similar stance has been taken by Anthony Giddens in The Consequences of Modernity (1990) where he argued that classical sociology had been too much focused on the social structures of the nation-state, which was implicitly but inadequately equated to the universalistic study of society. There are at least three issues which the notion of cosmopolitan society raises. The first is possibly trivial, namely, did traditional sociology make an unwarranted equation of society with nationstate? For example, while anthropological research had the consequence of promoting the idea of human diversity, nineteenth-century sociology as a product of the Enlightenment embraced the idea of a unified science of society. Claude Saint-Simon and Auguste Comte (1798–1857) shared a common evolutionary view of society in which the new industrialism would bring about the destruction of Christian religion, but Comte saw sociology as a new science – a new “religion of humanity.” Positivist sociology promoted the idea of socialism to transcend both the social class divisions of capitalism and the Darwinian struggle of the races. Émile Durkheim, as the heir of SaintSimon and Comte, saw the moral dimension of socialism as a solution to the individualism and anomie of modern society. For Durkheim, the role of the state was to provide some moral guidance to society to compensate for the instability that was engendered by the market in a capitalist environment. Because Durkheim belonged to the Enlightenment tradition, his view of history was universalistic, and, while he was influenced by British anthropology in The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life (1912 [trans. 1954]), his thought did not incline towards cultural relativism. In Professional Ethics and Civic Morals (1992) he defended the nationalism of his day. It can also be argued that the political economy of Karl Marx sought 94 to understand the global economic process of capitalism, and through communism developed a socialist version of cosmopolitanism. Second, the globalization thesis may often underestimate the resilience of the sovereignty of the nation-state, and hence sociologists may be justified in concentrating on the United States or United Kingdom or France rather than on global networks. There is little evidence that the growth of global networks of interaction and communication have seriously undermined the political sovereignty of states, or that there is any prospect of global governance. Finally, it raises methodological problems about how exactly sociologists might study global society. While sociology has developed a methodology that is relevant, for example, to the study of social groups, cities, and societies, we have yet to develop adequate methodologies relevant to global society. The study of the internet is, of course, one promising area of research, and sociologists – for example, in Chris Mann and Fiona Stewart’s Internet Communication and Qualitative Research (2000) – have started to develop the opportunities made possible by electronic communication systems. Despite these criticisms, cosmopolitanism will become an important research topic in sociology, and the moral implications of cosmopolitan duties will have important consequences for the evolution of sociology, which to some extent remains bound within its national frameworks, despite the emergence, for example, of the International Sociological Association and the International Institute of Sociology. While globalization is influencing the intellectual development of sociology, the American Sociological Association remains the dominant national institution, and publishing houses still focus on the publication of work that is relevant to the Englishspeaking, western world. BRYAN S. TURNER cosmopolitanism Historically cosmopolitanism has two related meanings. Firstly, a cosmopolitan is someone who embraces plurality and difference. In this respect, modern cities are often seen as providing the backdrop for the development of cosmopolitan sensibilities in that they house a number of distinctive cultures, ethnic groups, and lifestyles. A cosmopolitan is a polyglot who is able to move cosmopolitanism comfortably within multiple and diverse communities, while resisting the temptation to search for a purer and less complex identity. Cosmopolitan selves and communities, in this understanding, will thrive when the right to be different is respected. Second, a cosmopolitan is literally a citizen of the world. This refers to a set of perspectives that have sought to jettison viewpoints that are solely determined by the nation, or their geographical standing within the world. The political philosophy of Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) argued that a cosmopolitan democracy should be developed to replace the law of nations with a genuinely morally binding international law. For Kant the spread of commerce and principles of republicanism could help foster cosmopolitan sentiments. Kant’s vision of a peaceful cosmopolitan order based upon the obligation on states to settle their differences through the court of law has gained a new legitimacy in the twentieth century with the founding of the United Nations and the European Union. More recently a number of political philosophers have argued that Kant’s earlier vision can be revised to provide a new critical politics for an increasingly global age. A cosmopolitan political response is required where national politics has lost much of its power but little of its influence. Globalization has undermined the operation of national democracies as they are increasingly unable to control the flow of money, refugees, and asylum seekers, viruses, media images, and ideas and perspectives. Many have argued that to begin to address these problems requires the construction of overlapping forms of political community connecting citizens into local, national, regional, and global forms of government. The development of cosmopolitan perspectives is fostered by the growing acceptance that many of the problems that face the world’s citizens cannot be resolved by individual states and are shared problems. The cosmopolitan project seeks to revive democracy in an age where it is increasingly under threat. There are three main criticisms of these arguments. (1) Such proposals are part of the liberal enterprise of state building and fail to appreciate the power of strategic interests apparent on the global stage. In this understanding, many have been concerned that the United States (the world’s last remaining super power) will refuse, and even try to subvert, cosmopolitan institutions. (2) Cosmopolitan politics is an elite top-down version of politics that will inevitably come to represent the interests of the powerful rather than more credentialism “ordinary” or excluded populations. In this respect, some have suggested that we focus upon the emergence of cosmopolitanism from below in respect of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). (3) Finally, some have been concerned that the two meanings of cosmopolitanism are not compatible with one another. Despite the acceptance of universal human rights, the rule of law, and democracy, many communities remain excluded from participatory forms of democracy. Here there is a concern that universal rules fail to appreciate the difference in people’s identities. NICK STEVENSON counterfactual – see explanation. credentialism “Credentials” are the key factors at the interface between systems of education and systems of employment. Randall Collins’s The Credential Society (1979) was an extension of his doctoral thesis on “Education and Employment” which coincided closely with the publication in 1967 by Peter M. Blau and O. D. Duncan of The American Occupational Structure. Belief in the acquisition of credentials – educationally tested and graded capacities to perform occupationally in commensurately graded employment tasks – is a by-product of a technocratic model of the social function of education. As Collins succinctly represented it, the model assumes that “Education prepares students in the skills necessary for work, and skills are the main determinant of occupational success . . . Hence education determines success.” Collins perceived that the de-schooling movement was an attempt to liberate education from credentialism, and that the early work of Pierre Bourdieu on social reproduction (which he linked with that of Louis Althusser on the reproduction of the class relations of capitalism) was also an attempt to discredit the claims of technocratic and meritocratic thinking. Nevertheless, neither critique sufficiently emphasized the importance of cultural markets in distorting the transmission of occupational opportunities. Collins argued that even the civil rights movement in the United States failed to destroy the supposed legitimacy of an a-cultural model of educational and occupational allocation. Disadvantaged groups sought to work the system of credentialism, generating an inflation of grades dubiously related to levels of educational achievement. Collins argued that in the 1960s the credential system went into a state of “explicit crisis.” He 95 crime suggested that the credential system was caught between opposing forces. On one side the system had become central to sustaining an economy of excess productive capacity. On the other side, it had become very expensive and relatively unrewarding for many individual investors. A balance remained possible but there was a potential crisis on either side. In the first instance, too much growth in the credential market generates disillusion and withdrawal of material investment, while, in the second, too little investment produces economic depression. He suggested that different ideological positions had been adopted about credentialism. The basic opposition was between what he called “credential capitalism” and “credential socialism,” but pressure from ethnic groups stimulated “ethnic-patrimonial” or “patronage” credentialism which, in turn, provoked “credential fascism” in reaction. He characterized “de-schooling” as a form of “credential radicalism” but his view was that there were only two “honest and realistic” positions: either “credential Keynesianism” which would recognize that education “creates an artificial credential currency” which does not assume any precise occupational purchasing power, or, preferably, “credential abolitionism” which would force education to re-emphasize its intrinsic, rather than instrumental, value. D E R E K R O B B I N S crime Societies have been concerned about behavioral expectations, disruptions to social order, and the protection of the natural flow of life since ancient times. Ancient Babylon’s Code of Hammurabi is the earliest evidence of a society that clearly identified a set of rules governing social life. King Hammurabi (1795–1750 BC) established a historical precedent for other societies to follow. By drawing notice to his subjects of what he saw as acceptable behavior, he laid the foundation for a more organized, purposeful, and civilized social order. With varying degrees of formalization and success, rulers have endeavored to protect their kingdoms, albeit the wealth and power of monarchs have frequently superseded the interests and protection of their citizens. The key issue here is that rules governing social life have been part of the social order of human communities since recorded time. Violations of these codes of conduct have also been part of the social fabric and social experience since humans began living in social groups. Hammurabi was no doubt a prescient ruler. There was a lengthy period between his rule and 96 crime the eventual codification of conduct into formal criminal and procedural laws. Before the development of such formalized codes, wrongs were dealt with on an individual level. The norm was for aggrieved parties to settle disputes or to right wrongs between themselves. However, as societies became more densely populated, urbanized, and organized, behaviors that violated the sensitivities of the collective were handled more formally and eventually judiciously. Codification of unacceptable behavior became necessary. This formalization of expectations established the boundaries of acceptable behavior by which citizens were to abide. These violations of the social order have evolved into what is today referred to as “crime.” Jay Albanese in Criminal Justice (2002: 13) asserts that “[c]rime is a natural phenomenon, because people have different levels of attachments, motivation, and virtue.” He was, no doubt, building on the notion first put forward by Émile Durkheim. Crime, Durkheim observed, is present in all societies and is seen as an integral part of “healthy” communities. In the chapter on “The Normal and the Pathological” in The Rules of Sociological Method (1895 [trans. 1958]), Durkheim asserted that “what is normal, simply, is the existence of criminality, provided that it attains and does not exceed, for each social type, a certain level.” He further defined crime as being actions that offend certain very strongly held “collective sentiments” (1958: 67). What makes crime “normal” for Durkheim and Albanese is society’s inability to be exempt from it. In other words, all societies experience transgressions, albeit in varying forms and varying levels of severity. The mere presence of crime across time and place makes it a normal and expected part of group living. Interestingly, once a society can identify tangibly those actions that are disruptive, the presence of crime can play a unifying role. For example, if particular behaviors are seen as offensive or threatening the greater social order, those behaviors will be barred, thus strengthening what a group believes to be important defining characteristics of its culture. Violations that offend core values and beliefs of a collectivity become the foundations for the formalization of codes of conduct at a given point in time and place. The critical issue here is that the behavior must offend collective sentiments rather than the sentiments of an individual, thus differentiating between civil and criminal wrongs. While violations of social norms are a constant in all societies, the term “crime” is stubbornly recalcitrant to precise definition. It is a complex crime concept that has been the focus of criminological and juridical research for many centuries. Crime is a concept whose definition varies across time and place. The definition is dependent upon perspective, viewpoint, and perception. Within criminology, there exist several competing theoretical foundations, all of which construct different and distinctive definitions of crime. As with any element of social science, context, perspective, and ideology play a significant part in the formulation of concepts, variables, and their operational definition. Crime is a social construct that reflects normative values, customs, mores, and tradition of a given society at a given point in time. Definitions of crime are also reflected in the political values and historical foundations of a social system. For example, the medieval church played an important and instrumental role in shaping and monitoring the morality of society, which in turn shaped what was defined as criminal. For example, in seventeenth-century Europe, the criminality of witchcraft was constructed by political leaders who were profoundly influenced by the religious community. The practices of witchcraft and sorcery were feared and regarded as a serious crime against the community, and as a result punishments were ultimately severe. Most jurisdictions have since abolished their statutes and laws pertaining to witchcraft with the development of secularization. Another example of how community values shape the definition of crime is the specific crime of theft. In western societies, theft is commonly included in criminal statutes. However, in some indigenous communities, there is no recognizable crime of theft owing to a longstanding tradition of community ownership. Because there is no legal tradition of private property, there is no corresponding formulation of a crime of theft. Finally, religious doctrine also influences criminological and juridical perspectives on what is acceptable behavior and what constitutes a crime. For example, the holy law of Islam, the Shari’a, is deeply rooted in the religious practices and institutions of Muslim societies, and the basic assumptions of the various schools of religious law are reflected in the criminal codes of many Middle Eastern and Asian societies today. However, in the United States and other western societies, there exists a philosophical and juridical doctrine that mandates the separation of church and state. The result is that many beliefs and activities that are offensive to religious groups are not necessarily criminalized. crime Three perspectives have been prominent in the definition of crime, namely the legalistic approach, conduct norm, and conflict perspectives. While there are other perspectives – as described, for example, in John Hagan, Modern Criminology: Crime, Criminal Behavior and Its Control (1987) – these three approaches have been at the intellectual core of the definitional debate for some decades. Undoubtedly, criminologists and others who study crime will never come to any firm agreement or lasting consensus as to what exactly constitutes a criminal act. Nevertheless, these perspectives or approaches do yield some important starting points. Somewhat naively, crime has been taken for granted as simply being acts that violate criminal law, the basis for the legalistic perspective. William L. Marshall and William L. Clark in their essay on “The Legal Definition of Crime and Criminals,” in Marvin E. Wolfgang, Leonard Savitz, and Norman Johnston (eds.), The Sociology of Crime and Delinquency (1962: 14), state very clearly that “crime is an act or omission prohibited by public law for the protection of the public, and made punishable by the state in a judicial proceeding in its own name.” Inherent in this perspective is the fact that laws are based on consensus. There is general agreement as to what behaviors are repugnant and unacceptable. These are then reflected in substantive criminal law. Crime is, therefore, a function of beliefs and morality. Those actions which violate morality and general social mores become crimes and are constrained by law. In theory these laws are to be applicable to all members of society, regardless of social class and the personal attributes of individuals. Marshall and Clark clarify the argument that crimes are public wrongs in contrast to civil injuries, which involve individual victimization. These authors’ views on the legal framework of crime are not uncommon. In fact, from the Classical School through to the 1970s the legalistic approach has existed somewhat in isolation, and has gone without systematic challenge. More simply put, crime, according to the legal approach, is any behavior prohibited by criminal law. Elements that constitute criminal behavior and that are codified in the law change over time. This problem of social change emerges from the fact that norms, values, and beliefs evolve in a given social context. Interestingly, at various points in time, the norms and values of a given society may well conflict with legal statutes. For example, in the United States during the 1920s, national and local laws prohibited the 97 crime sale, distribution, and manufacture of alcoholic beverages. However, the existing laws did not quench the public demand for alcohol. Public demand for alcoholic drinks is believed to have contributed to the emergence and proliferation of organized criminal gangs. In the 1930s, social pressure forced the US government to reconsider its stance, which led to the decriminalization of laws pertaining to the sale, transportation, and manufacture of alcohol. Two principles of law are associated with the legalistic approach. Under common law, the basis for many western legal systems, crimes are classified as either mala in se (evil in and of itself) or mala prohibita (proscribed by law). Additionally, under the legalistic approach, for a crime to occur, it must have three elements. The first feature of any crime is that of a guilty act (actus reus). The second feature is that of a guilty mind (mens rea). Finally, both of these must concur — the criminal act must converge with a culpable mental state. Crimes are generally categorized as felonies, misdemeanors, and acts of treason. Felonies are the more serious transgressions and are usually punishable by imprisonment for over a year. Misdemeanors are considered less serious and punishments range from community-based sanctions through to jail time for less than one year. Treason is an act against the state, thus reflected in Federal Law, although some state constitutions and statutes do contain treason definitions and provisions. While seemingly accurate, the legalistic perspective does not address the complexities and intricacies of the conceptual problems surrounding crime. Therefore the reliance on the legalistic aspect only tells a partial story. The conduct norm model for defining crime is perhaps best described in Thorsten Sellin’s Culture Conflict and Crime (1938). He postulated that the norms and values of the dominant social class are reflected in criminal law. There is, as a result, a built-in opportunity for disagreement and conflict between the dominant group and subordinate sections of society. Frequently, splinter groups emerge that are based on racial or ethnic criteria of membership, and as a result they formulate their own subcultures. From this situation, a set of conduct norms evolve based on their own values, beliefs, and interests. Therefore, society can be regarded as a collection of diverse groups that compete for scarce resources because they possess conflicting interests and politics. The perspective is built around a division 98 crime between the conflicting interests and resources of dominant elites and those of marginalized social groups, thus setting the stage for constant conflict. Closely aligned to the conflict school of criminology, definitions of crime within the conduct norm perspective are constructed in the interests of the dominant class. In other words, the group exercises power in such a manner as to construct criminal laws to reflect their economic and social position and interests. Furthermore, laws are unevenly applied in society. The poor and the underclass are most susceptible to unequal and unfair practices and treatment before the law. Examples of this inequality are the harsh treatment and punishments handed down for street crime, traditionally attributed to offenders from the poor and the underclass segments of society. Whitecollar offences, such as embezzlement and insider trading, have far-reaching fiduciary losses and long-term implications for their victims, but they carry with them relatively minor penalties in comparison to street crimes. However, the treatment of professional and business leaders in the Enron accounting scandals in the United States may suggest a change in legal attitudes towards such business crimes. According to the conduct norm perspective, definitions of crime are controlled by the wealthy and powerful people of position, not from the broad consensus of society. Therefore, crime is a political concept designed to protect the powerful members of the ruling class. According to this perspective, “real” crimes include economic and political domination, poor and inadequate working conditions, violations of human rights as reflected by racism, sexism, and imperialism, and inadequate opportunities for education, housing, and health care, and unequal participation in the political process. Along with the conflict and conduct norm perspectives, the symbolic interactionist perspective began to challenge the legalistic perspective from the 1970s. The interactionist perspective in defining crime has its roots in the works of George Herbert Mead, Charles Horton Cooley, and William I. Thomas. The tenets of this intellectual tradition hold that people act in accordance to their subjective interpretation of social reality, through which they assign meaning to things and events. Individuals learn the meaning of reality based on the ways in which others react, either negatively or positively, towards those social definitions. From this reaction, a person re-evaluates and interprets his or her own behavior in crime accordance with the meaning and symbols they have learned from others. The definition of crime reflects the preferences and opinions of people who hold social power in a given area. These individuals use their influence to impose definitions of “right” and “wrong,” “acceptable” or “unacceptable,” on the rest of the population. As a result, criminals are those whom society labels as undesirable or as outcasts. The reason for this label is that they have behaved in a manner counter to the norms and values of the rest of the group. Crimes are outlawed because society or the group defines them as such, not necessarily because they are evil in and of themselves. The interactionist perspective is similar to the conflict tradition in that people of influence determine the boundaries of acceptable conduct. However, unlike the conflict school, the interactionists in criminology do not assume that the exploitative relations of capitalist society are the chief determinant of the disparity. By contrast, interactionists argue that the boundaries of behavior are determined by moral crusaders, and when morality shifts, so too do the criminal laws. Larry Siegel sums up the interactionists’ definition of crime in Criminology (2000: 20) by concluding that “[c]rime is a violation of society rules of behavior as interpreted and expressed by a criminal legal code created by people holding social and political power.” Hagan in Modern Criminology (1987) identifies several additional ways in which the term crime can be defined. These definitions include: the formal legal; social harm; cross-cultural universal norm; labeling; human rights; and human diversity. In line with the legalistic perspective, the formal legal definition holds that whatever the state defines as being criminal constitutes a crime. Social harm, according to Hagan, includes both civil wrongs (disputes between individuals) and criminal actions (disputes between the state and the individual). The universalistic interpretation of crime assumes that there is no variation in different societies. For example, the crime of murder is a universal violation in all societies. A crime can only exist when a society reacts to the repulsiveness of its consequences. The foundation of the labeling perspective therefore regards social reaction to the offensive action as the most critical issue. The most comprehensive way to define crime is Hagan’s human rights perspective, in which any action that violates an individual’s human rights would constitute a crime. This would include acts of oppression, sexism, and crime racism. Finally, Hagan defines crime via a human diversity approach. Related to the human rights perspective, an action is a crime as a consequence of the social deprivations that arise from oppressive and discriminatory situations. The determination of what exactly constitutes a crime has far-reaching consequences. It is not just the philosophical considerations that are taken into account when trying to set the boundaries for acceptable and unacceptable social behavior. The process of defining a behavior as criminal is left to the legal scholars and criminologists to determine. However, the practical ramifications are important for policymakers. How a society decides to respond to and enforce the laws is somewhat dependent on the perceived legitimacy of the existing law. For example, laws that prohibit the personal use of marijuana have not been enforced to the full extent that law permits. Rather, the law enforcement community, in some areas, has been implicitly tolerant of the infraction, thus giving it a degree of legitimacy. The study of crime has captured the attention of many different academic fields. Many schools of criminology have emerged over the past decades, and in the social sciences the study of crime is multidisciplinary, including sociology, psychology, biology, economics, ecology, and law. In historical terms, criminology is a new member of the social sciences. Within these social sciences, countless research programs have been conducted over the decades in order to understand the process of criminality, and how and why crime occurs. The search for causal answers to the existence of crime has covered free-will arguments, biological and genetic causes, psychological and sociological variables, and more recently environmental influences. Eugene McLaughlin, John Muncie, and Gordon Hughes in Criminological Perspectives (2005: 8–9) claim that crime is a “social fact.” Crime is a product of free will, meaning that offenders make rational choices when deciding to engage in specific criminal behaviors. This viewpoint is compatible with the classical school of criminology’s founding fathers. Cesare Beccaria (1738–94), a utilitarian philosopher, believed that people exercise free will when they choose to engage in any form of behavior, including criminal actions. He also argued that people’s choices could be influenced by the level of the corresponding punishment, which should be proportionate, swift, severe, and certain. Another juridical philosopher, Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) postulated that humans considered several factors before 99 crime engaging in a particular behavior. Specifically, the hedonistic or “felicific calculus” measured various aspects of pleasure and pain, thus providing a framework for decisionmaking. Simply stated, if the pleasure gained from engaging in the activity outweighs the pain associated with it, the person will engage in the crime. Derek Cornish and Ronald V. Clarke in The Reasoning Criminal: Rational Choice Perspectives on Offending (1986) further developed the idea of a rational criminal by exploring the decisionmaking process of contemporary offenders. Deciding on whether or not to engage in crime, the person considers personal circumstances and motivations, such as the need for money, revenge, in relation to situational constraints or opportunities, for example the degree to which a target is protected, secure, or monitored. The decision to commit the crime will take into account the risks of apprehension and the threat of punishment against the benefits of partaking in the activity. It is a matter of personal choice, given the availability of attendant information. Since the earliest foundations of criminology, biological causes of crime have also been assessed, especially in the debate about “criminal types.” Cesare Lombroso (1836–1909) studied physical attributes of offenders in Italian prisons and concluded that there were indeed “born criminals.” Other biologically related studies included works by Enrico Ferri (1856–1929) and William Sheldon (1898–1977). In contemporary criminology, there is a renewed interest in turning to genetics in the explanation of crime. In particular, studies have focused on chromosomal abnormalities, chemical imbalances, and nutritional deficiencies among offenders. The research results of this approach are mixed and inconclusive in their findings, but the resurgence in biological theories has been significant in modern criminology. The search for a “criminal gene” is perhaps the most prominent feature of this resurgence. Psychological approaches to the study of crime examine how and why the mind operates and therefore influences individuals to commit crime. Historically, the ideas of Sigmund Freud were influential in suggesting a variety of conditions, such as the weakened ego or superego structures, that fail to contain the urges of the id, in the explanation of criminal behavior. In addition to the psychoanalytical approach, cognitive theories approach crime slightly differently. Cognitive theorists believe that crime occurs as a result of a particular pattern of thinking, which often includes short-term, self-indulgent, and 100 crime self-gratifying actions in the absence of thoughts about how the behavior may affect others. The sociological approach to crime is by far the most common and popular among those available. These sociological approaches evolved out of the weakness of biological and psychological theories in their ability to describe and explain fully the occurrence of crime. Jay Albanese in Criminal Justice (2002) categorizes the sociological approaches to crime into four types: learning theories; blocked opportunity theories; social bond theories; and choice-based theories, which have been discussed previously. Edwin H. Sutherland in Principles of Criminology (1934) first posited that, along with all other forms of behavior, crime is learned. Individuals learn how to behave by watching others or through role modeling. In essence, those who commit crime have interacted with others who have committed crime, thus learning the process of committing the particular offense, including ways of eluding police, or improving their criminal technique. Theories highlighting blocked opportunities developed during the 1940s–1950s, resulting eventually in the classic work of Richard A. Cloward and Lloyd E. Ohlin in Delinquency and Opportunity (1960). Crime, according to these theories, occurs as a result of individuals encountering structural barriers that prohibit them from achieving culturally acceptable goals through legitimate means. Travis Hirschi in his seminal research on the social bond in Causes of Delinquency (1969) found that the degree to which a person is “tied” to society directly reflects the probability of committing crime. In other words, someone who has a great deal of attachment to a community, including feelings of commitment to others, to conventional activities, and to a sense of moral values, is less likely to commit a crime. A final approach to the study of crime is the environmental perspectives. According to Jacqueline Schneider in The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology (2006), environmental criminology is a theoretical tradition that examines crime in relation to its physical setting. Anthony Bottoms and Paul Wiles in “Environmental Criminology,” in the Oxford Handbook of Criminology (2002), also claim that environmental criminology, rooted theoretically in human and social ecology, studies crime, criminality, and victimization in relation to place, space, and the interaction between the two. Of particular concern to environmental criminologists is the manner in which criminal opportunities are generated by the characteristics and attributes of the physical setting. The overall criminal justice system aim is to identify methods by which to alter these spatial characteristics in order to reduce criminal opportunities at various points in time. Although environmental criminology has been historically under-utilized within mainstream criminology, the perspective has been gaining prominence since the 1970s. Pat Brantingham and Paul Brantingham in Environmental Criminology (1991) observe that crime has four determinants: law; offenders; targets; and places. Classical criminology has focused on the legal aspects, while the positivists have concentrated their work on the offenders and their motivations. Environmental criminology addresses the last two determinants, targets and places. JACQUELINE SCHNEIDER criminal justice system This refers to a set of legal and social institutions established to enforce the criminal law in accordance with defined procedural rules and limitations in any one country, society, or subdivision of a society. There are generally four key elements in a criminal justice system: (1) law enforcement – involving the police, prosecution, and defense, which deal with offenders from the stage of reporting of a crime and arrest to prosecution in court; (2) the courts – which normally make decisions about pretrial detention, adjudicate on the guilt of offenders, and decide on sentences for those convicted; (3) the penal system (or department of corrections) – which involves fine enforcement through the courts, and the delivery of penalties through community-based penalties and intermediate sanctions such as supervision, probation, and prisons, jails, or reformatories. In addition, parole agencies or boards determine whether or not offenders might be released from custody early and under what conditions; (4) the fourth element of criminal justice concerns crime prevention – which, in addition to the agencies already mentioned, often involves a local or regional unit of government and a wider group of agencies which address broad social and structural conditions that may lead to crime (for example, drug addiction help sources and housing advisory services). In addition, there are numerous other agencies whose work involves criminal law enforcement: vehicle licensing agencies, tax authorities, and transport authorities, for example. The criminal justice system in each jurisdiction undergoes periodic change, most often following a change in government and ideological direction, or following media attention to a miscarriage of criminal justice system justice or a moral panic regarding particular crimes. The shape of the criminal justice system may also be influenced by business and publicemployee organizations, which have a major stake in criminal justice issues. Although legislators and other elected officials are not involved in individual cases, they are involved in the formulation of criminal laws and criminal justice policy, and this necessarily has a major impact on the way in which a system functions. Other institutions may also affect the operations and policy of criminal justice. In Europe, for example, the European Court of Human Rights serves to protect the rights and liberties of individuals within Europe. In this sense, the European Court serves as a final appeal court for those dealt with within European criminal justice systems. There have been longstanding debates about how far agencies of the criminal justice system cooperate, how far they have a shared vision, and how far they might be said to serve as a smoothfunctioning system rather than as a series of loosely connected agencies. In this sense, we may distinguish between agency-specific functions and the goals of the system as a whole. Existing systems include some ancient components (for example, jury trials) and some which are of recent origin (for example, specialized drug courts). There are many variations in criminal justice systems around the world. Crime, guilt, and punishment are conceived and dealt with very differently according to the laws and cultures of different countries. The operation of any one criminal justice system inevitably raises issues of fairness and equality, rights, and responsibilities. Crime control (with a focus on repressing criminal conduct) and due process (with a focus on the inviolability of legal rules and procedures so as to protect the offender and victim from the arbitrary exercise of power) have been presented as alternative models of criminal justice by Herbert Packer in The Limits of the Criminal Sanction (1968) as if systems are one or the other, but often criminal justice systems are a mixture of these values or completely different. In Australia and New Zealand, for example, crimes are perceived as community conflicts and resolved outside the formal criminal justice system via local restorative justice mechanisms which involve local families and communities meeting to resolve the conflicts and find informal ways of repairing the harm done. Such approaches (sometimes known as family-group conferencing) are commonly used by indigenous populations. Increasingly, criminal justice systems across the 101 criminal statistics criminology world are expressing interest in the possibility of adopting and adapting elements of this approach as an adjunct to the formal system. LORAINE GELSTHORPE criminal statistics – see crime. criminology The study of crime has a longstanding and rich history. In its earliest days, criminology was thought to encompass any study that pertained to the problem of crime. This simple description was born out of a fundamental desire to know more about deviant behavior, those actions that violated social norms and mores. Today, criminology is an advanced theoretical field of study pertaining to crime, criminal events, the actors — offenders, victims, and those who respond to crime – the etiology of crime, legal foundations and parameters, and societal reactions to crime. However, the definition, while accurate, is somewhat misleading and seemingly uncomplicated. Reality tells us another story. Criminology is not simply a science left to criminologists. There are a number of related disciplines, with varied interests and perspectives, associated with this particular social science. Criminology is firmly rooted in sociology, but is also studied by anthropologists, biologists, psychologists, economists, political scientists, and legal scholars, among others. Criminology has been described by Eugene McLaughlin, John Muncie, and Gordon Hughes in their edited volume Criminological Perspectives (2003) as “a ‘site’ of contested meaning where competing theoretical perspectives meet.” Owing to the diverse nature of those involved in the study of crime, the literature is often rich with discussion, debate, and interpretation. Modern criminology is faced with multiple areas of focus, thus making it a truly multidisciplinary field of study. The particular focus of criminology is dependent on the perspective taken. Generally speaking, criminology: describes and analyzes the extent, nature, and distribution of the various forms of crime, offenders, and victims; analyzes causes of crime with the aim of forwarding theoretical constructs; studies formulation of criminal law; studies the processes of justice, including police, adjudication, and punishment; evaluates policy responses and initiatives; and evaluates social reactions to crime. Given the large undertaking, the great task of all criminology, according to John Tierney in his book 102 Criminology: Theory and Context (1996), regardless of which underlying perspective is utilized, is to “unravel, or deconstruct, the concept of crime.” The study of crime could be said to have originated with theologians, who equated criminal behavior with sin, demonic influences, or witchcraft. Transgressions were investigated and found to have causes firmly rooted in the dark workings of the netherworld. Clergy were the obvious choice to turn to for intervention, becoming responsible for purging society from evil doings (that is crime) by way of very harsh methods, such as exorcisms and trials by fire. After this period of religious influence, came two defining periods that shaped today’s criminology: the Classical School and the Positivist School. Foundations for modern criminological thought were laid down during the eighteenth century with the seminal works of Cesare Beccaria (1738–94) and Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832), thus creating the Classical School of Criminology. Developed during a time where individual rights and interests were competing against those of the states, most of Beccaria’s and Bentham’s writing revolved around the need for reformation of the criminal justice system. In other words, they were advocates for structural changes that ended the arbitrary application of laws and severe punishments. Instead, Beccaria and Bentham called for the universal application of laws to all society’s citizens, thus providing equal protection before the law. Following this, they called for proportionate punishment. The utilitarian ideal of proportionality meant that punishment was determined by the severity of the crime committed, not on the individual characteristics of the offender. This idea provides the foundation for most criminal justice systems worldwide, thus leaving the classical school’s ideological mark on modern society. Prevention was another guiding principle of the Classical School. Feeling that prevention is far preferable to punishment, the philosophers put forth the idea that social systems of control must take into account the rationality of people. Beccaria and Bentham believed that free will guided behavior and that decisions to violate laws were calculated in accordance to hedonistic tendencies. People wanted to experience pleasure and avoid pain; therefore individual decisions were based on the probability of detection, and of being punished, set against the pleasure gained by partaking in the offending activity. The classical school ended a system of arbitrarily applied justice and punishment. It also criminology provided a new way of examining theories of criminality that acknowledge the free will of participants. However, this school falls short in its undertakings by failing to acknowledge external forces that may well influence criminal behavior, for example, social stratification and inequality, thus providing a foundation for a new paradigm to evolve. The origin of the positivist tradition in criminology in the late nineteenth century is often associated with the work of Cesare Lombroso (1835– 1909), whose main contribution to the field was the measurement of physical characteristics of Italian prisoners. It is important to note that, while the Positivist School rejected the free will philosophies of the Classical School in favor of determinism, the most important contribution of the new school was the step-change in ideology that was characterized by the drive to measure empirically those phenomena associated with crime. While Lombroso’s work is largely acknowledged as the starting point, the quest to measure social phenomena can be traced to the work of French and Belgian statisticians in the 1820s. For example, Adolphe Quetelet (1796–1874) found predictability in the distribution of crime and crime rates within French society. Therefore, the key aim of the Positivist School was to quantify observations. Measuring phenomena provided data upon which investigators could make inferences about causal relationships. Empirical evidence obtained via methods used in the natural sciences not only provided an avenue for theorists to advance their work, but also gave to the field of inquiry scientific respectability. The work of Lombroso, Enrico Ferri (1856–1929), and William Sheldon (1898–1977) into physical characteristics and body types highlighted the Positivist School’s contributions to criminology. Lombroso, referred to as the father of criminology, was a physician employed by the Italian penal system, who noted the physical characteristics of those imprisoned, thus putting forth the idea of a criminal type. Running parallel with the work of Charles Darwin, Lombroso’s scientific observations of the physical characteristics of prisoners made generalizations about criminality possible. Going beyond the examination of body types and their connection to criminality, the Positivist School also focused on isolating the differences between criminals and non-criminals in terms of psychological, social, and economic factors. Positivists disregard the notion of free will, as forwarded by the classical criminologists, in favor of critical race theory the idea that an array of social factors impacted behavior. In other words, a range of social factors caused or determined the course of action an individual took. The legacy of the positivists is the use of scientific methodology to frame criminological enquiry. However, this school is not without its shortcomings. While the utilization of scientific method is preferable to conjecture, there exists the possibility of the misapplication of technique and misinterpretation, thus resulting in misleading conclusions. Other criticisms of the Positivists relate to the definition of the term “crime.” Conflict criminology emerged in response to positivists’ claim that an underlying consensus existed regarding the nature and meaning of the concept of “crime.” Rather, conflict criminologists believe that state interests and the interests of the powerful determine the definitional parameters of the concept. This skewed viewpoint puts those already at the margins of society at risk for further disadvantage. Additionally, critics believe that, all too often, positivists ignore the relevance of cultural differences, as well as varying value systems that underpin the concept of crime. The power of criminology is in its ability to “travel.” In other words, theories, strategies, and criminological and criminal justice policy generated in one country are increasingly exported to other countries. The influence is not just in the empirical research, but also in the language and conceptual framework. These can have a profound impact on politicians, policymakers, and government officials, not to mention those who are afflicted by crime, as well as the general citizenry. However, it is ultimately important to gain a firm understanding about the values, culture, and social expectations within a given society before setting forth to seek causal explanations for crime. JACQUELINE SCHNEIDER critical race theory Critical of liberal theories of rights, especially in the area of race and ethnicity, this theory evolved initially in legal theory in the post-civil-rights era. Critical race theory (CRT) attacked the color-blind approaches to justice that were typical of the early days of reform. In fact, lack of significant progress in social reform for black Americans was the main force behind critical race theory. Many leading black American intellectuals, such as Cornel West in Race Matters (1993), criticized the hollow promises of liberal reform and argued that there 103 critical race theory was a cynical if implicit acceptance of racial hierarchy and inequality in the distribution of economic wealth and power in the United States. In an influential article, D. A. Bell in “Remembrance of Racism Past. The Civil Rights Decline,” in J. Hill and J. E. Jones (eds.), Race in America. The Struggle for Equality (1993: 73–82), outlined three shortcomings of existing liberal philosophies of race. First, the Constitution rewarded property over claims for justice. Second, whites support racial reform only when it is in their self interest; and finally, whites will not support reform if it is a challenge to their social status. CRT had its origins in jurisprudential debates about justice, but it has also had an impact on educational theory and practice, where it is argued – for example by W. F. Tate in “Critical Race Theory” (1996: 201–47), and by J. A. Banks in “The Historical Reconstruction of Knowledge about Race” (1995: 4–17) – that a restrictive interpretation of anti-discrimination laws limits the progress and educational attainment of African-Americans. CRT has also begun to influence theories of multiculturalism, where the liberal agenda does not appear to have been successful from the perspective of black America. CRT has a number of distinguishing features. It has been critical of the traditional binary division between “black” and “white,” especially where blacks have “race” as a biological category and whites have “ethnicity” as a social category. It has welcomed sociological studies of the law because conventional jurisprudence has often neglected the social conditions that determine injustice. It has taken a more positive view of victims in giving recognition to the personal narratives of the oppressed. For example, M. Matsuda, R. Delgado, and K. Crenshaw, in Words That Wound (1993), explored victims’ narratives to understand the connections between hate speech, the law, and racial violence. Like African-American Studies, CRT has encouraged interdisciplinary and comparative studies of racial oppression, such as Howard Winant’s The World Is a Ghetto (2001). There are several valuable introductions to CRT, such as Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic’s Critical Race Theory. The Cutting Edge (2nd edn., 2000) and K. Crenshaw, N. Gotanda, G. Peller, and K. Thomas (eds.), Critical Race Theory. The Key Writings that Formed the Moment (1995). Although CRT has been influential in law and pedagogy, it has been less prominent in the sociology of race and ethnicity. It appears to have had relatively little impact outside the United States, possibly because 104 critical theory racism in European societies has had a somewhat different history. BRYAN S. TURNER critical theory This phrase operates implicitly as a code for the quasi-Marxist theory of society of a group of interdisciplinary social theorists collectively known as the Frankfurt School. The term Frankfurt School refers to the work of members of the Institut für Sozialforschung (Institute for Social Research) that was established in Frankfurt, Germany, in 1923 as the first Marxist-oriented research center affiliated with a major German university. Under its director, Carl Grünberg (1861–1940), the Institute’s work in the 1920s tended to be empirical, historical, and oriented towards problems of the European working-class movement. Max Horkheimer became director of the Institute in 1930, and gathered around him many talented theorists, including Erich Fromm, Franz Neumann (1900–54), Herbert Marcuse, and Theodor Wiesengrund Adorno. Under Horkheimer, the Institute sought to develop an interdisciplinary social theory that could serve as an instrument of social transformation. The work of this era was a synthesis of philosophy and social theory, combining sociology, psychology, Cultural studies, and political economy. The first major Institute project in the Horkheimer period was a systematic study of authority, an investigation into individuals who submitted to irrational authority in authoritarian regimes. This culminated in a two-volume work, Studien über Autorität und Familie (1936), and a series of studies of fascism, including Adorno, Else Frenkel– Brunswik, and Daniel J. Levinson, The Authoritarian Personality (1950). Most members were both Jews and Marxist radicals and were forced to flee Germany after Hitler’s ascendancy to power. The majority emigrated to the United States and the Institute became affiliated with Columbia University from 1931 until 1949, when it returned to Frankfurt. From 1936 to the present, the Institute has referred to its work as the “critical theory of society.” For many years, “critical theory” was distinguished by its attempt to found a radical interdisciplinary social theory rooted in Hegelian– Marxian dialectics, historical materialism, and the critique of political economy. Members argued that Marx’s concepts of the commodity, money, value, exchange, and fetishism characterize not only the capitalist economy but also social relations under capitalism, where human critical theory relations and all forms of life are governed by commodity and exchange relations and values. Critical theory produced theoretical analysis of the transformation of competitive capitalism into monopoly capitalism and fascism, and hoped to be part of a historical process through which capitalism would be replaced by socialism. Horkheimer claimed that: “The categories which have arisen under its [traditional theory’s] influence criticize the present. The Marxist categories of class, exploitation, surplus value, profit, impoverishment, and collapse are moments of a conceptual whole whose meaning is to be sought, not in the reproduction of the present society, but in its transformation to a correct society” (“Traditional and Critical Theory,” 1972: 218). Critical theory is thus motivated by an interest in emancipation and is a philosophy of social practice engaged in “the struggle for the future.” Critical theory must remain loyal to the “idea of a future society as the community of free human beings, in so far as such a society is possible, given the present technical means” (230). In a series of studies carried out in the 1930s, the Institute for Social Research developed theories of monopoly capitalism, the new industrial state, the role of technology and giant corporations in monopoly capitalism, the key roles of mass culture and communication in reproducing contemporary societies, and the decline of democracy and of the individual. Critical theory drew alike on Hegelian dialectics, Marxian theory, Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900), Sigmund Freud, Max Weber, and other trends of contemporary thought. It articulated theories that were to occupy the center of social theory for the next several decades. Rarely, if ever, has such a talented group of interdisciplinary intellectuals come together under the auspices of one institute. They managed to keep alive radical social theory during a difficult historical era, and provided aspects of a neo-Marxian theory of the changed social reality and new historical situation in the transition from competitive capitalism to monopoly capitalism. During World War II, the Institute split up due to pressures of the war. Adorno and Horkheimer moved to California, while Leo Lowenthal (1900–93), Marcuse, Neumann, and others worked for the United States government as their contribution to the fight against fascism. Horkheimer and Adorno worked on their joint book Dialectic of Enlightenment (1947 [trans. 1972]), which discussed how reason and enlightenment in the contemporary era turned into their opposites, transforming critical theory what promised to be instruments of truth and liberation into tools of domination. In their scenario, science and technology had created horrific tools of destruction and death, culture was commodified into products of a mass-produced culture industry, and democracy terminated in fascism, in which masses chose despotic and demagogic rulers. Moreover, in their extremely pessimistic vision, individuals were oppressing their own bodies and renouncing their own desires as they assimilated and made their own repressive beliefs and allowed themselves to be instruments of labor and war. Sharply criticizing enlightenment scientism and rationalism, as well as systems of social domination, Adorno and Horkheimer implicated, however implicitly, Marxism within the “dialectic of enlightenment” since it too affirmed the primacy of labor, instrumentalized reason in its scientism and celebration of “socialist production,” and shared in western modernity and the domination of nature. After World War II, Adorno, Horkheimer, and Frederik Pollock returned to Frankfurt to reestablish the Institute in Germany, while Lowenthal, Marcuse, and others remained in the United States. In Germany, Adorno, Horkheimer, and their associates published a series of books and became a dominant intellectual current. At this time, the term Frankfurt School became widespread as a characterization of their version of interdisciplinary social research and of the particular social theory developed by Adorno, Horkheimer, and their associates. They engaged in frequent methodological and substantive debates with other social theories, most notably “the positivism dispute,” where they criticized more empirical and quantitative approaches to social theory and defended their own more speculative and critical brand of social theory. The German group around Adorno and Horkheimer was also increasingly hostile towards orthodox Marxism and were in turn criticized by a variety of types of “Marxists– Leninists” and “scientific Marxists” for their alleged surrender of revolutionary and scientific Marxian perspectives. The Frankfurt School eventually became best known for their theories of “the totally administered society,” or “one-dimensional society,” which analyzed the increasing power of capitalism over all aspects of social life and the development of new forms of social control. During the 1950s, however, there were divergences between the work of the Institute relocated in Frankfurt and the developing theories of Fromm, 105 cross-sectional design data Lowenthal, Marcuse, and others who did not return to Germany, which were often at odds with both the current and earlier work of Adorno and Horkheimer. Thus it is misleading to consider the work of various critical theorists during the postwar period as being produced by members of a monolithic Frankfurt School. Whereas there were both a shared sense of purpose and collective work on interdisciplinary social theory from 1930 to the early 1940s, thereafter critical theorists frequently diverge, and during the 1950s and 1960s the term the Frankfurt School can really be applied only to the work of the Institute in Germany. DOUGLAS KELLNER cross-sectional design data One of the most common forms of data used in sociological analysis, this is the sort of data gathered by a simple survey. It can be collected relatively quickly and (dependent on how the questionnaire is administered) cheaply. For instance, if a researcher wanted to determine the attitudes of employees to their jobs, then a simple cross-sectional design research project could be completed by sending questionnaires to a sample of, say, several hundred or thousand employees. If care was taken, and the employees were selected to be representative of a larger population (say, all employees in the United Kingdom) then the results could be generalized to that larger population through the use of inferential statistics. Averages could be calculated to describe the typical British employee, or correlations or regressions could be calculated to investigate the relationships between the variables, and find answers to questions such as “what sorts of employees are most satisfied with their jobs?” However, cross-sectional designs have a number of limitations that restrict their usefulness for serious sociological enquiry. They provide a “snapshot” of how things are at one particular point in time, but do not provide information on the dynamics of a system; for example how things develop over time, how inequality is perpetuated, or how institutions reproduce themselves. They are also poor at determining the causal nature of the relationships that are detected. Because of these limitations, much effort has been expended on gathering large datasets that provide more insight into how things change over time, for instance the British Household Panel Survey (BHPS) that re-interviews the same individuals and households each year ( see panel studies), or birth cohort studies such as the National Child Development Study that follows an entire cohort 106 cultural deprivation born in one week in March, 1958, across the United Kingdom, to investigate the relationship between childhood environments and experiences and outcomes in adult life or old age. BRENDAN J. BURCHELL cult(s) The word cult is often used interchangeably with new religious movements and, in everyday language, tends to have a strong negative connotation (for example James Beckford, Cult Controversies: The Societal Response to New Religious Movements, 1989). Cults are generally seen as evolving around individuals and/or beliefs that are outside the mainstream. Specifically, the term is used to denote the group solidarity attendant on an excessive degree of attachment and ceding of influence to a particular person or to a particular set of ideas and beliefs. The imposing leadership qualities displayed by founders of new religious movements, such as Jim Jones (the People’s Temple) or David Koresh (Branch Davidians), or specific ideas about Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs) or paganism can variously produce a tightly bound cult following among their respective associates and believers. Cult-like behavior, however, is not confined to religious movements; paralleling charisma, of which it is an accentuated expression, leadership or personality cults are found across politics (for example the cult of the emperor) and pop culture (for example Princess Diana), and in economic corporations, among other spheres. Within the religious domain, moreover, there is a long history of cultic adoration – the cult of the saints and of devotion to the Virgin Mary represent strong traditional forms of popular religion. Such cults play a large role today in religious tourism and the popularity of religious festivals, devotional rituals, local apparition sites, and pilgrimages (see W. Swatos and L. Tomasi (eds.), From Medieval Pilgrimage to Religious Tourism, 2002). Cults promote religious engagement, but also stimulate concerns among church officials that the cultic status of a particular saint may undercut the routinized and institutionalized authority of church (see church–sect typology) officials to demarcate sacred beliefs, practices, and MICHELE DILLON places. cultural capital – see social capital. cultural deprivation This phrase refers to the idea that some racial and/ or working-class cultures are deficient because cultural deprivation they hinder school and social success. Cultural deprivation theory was influential during the 1960s and 1970s. It was linked to ideas about the culture of poverty, the underclass (see social class), and to the idea of a cycle of poverty in which the values associated with being poor (such as fatalism and an antipathy to individually accumulated wealth) and the practices associated with poor communities prevented marginalized groups from social and economic advancement. Within the purview of cultural deprivation theory, the concept of subculture took on its earlier derogatory (and now discredited) definition as a deviant or otherwise marginal milieu. From within the sociology of culture, the idea of cultural deprivation drew upon work by Basil Bernstein and Pierre Bourdieu. While Bernstein’s focus was on language – in particular, the notion that working-class speakers employed a “restricted” (versus “elaborated”) communicative code – Bourdieu’s emphasis was on the idea that the dominated class were unable to appropriate “legitimate” forms of culture and thus were deprived of opportunities for advancement. Work in the sociology of education buttressed these ideas by showing how children from backgrounds lacking in cultural capital or “home advantages” were destined to fail because of a mismatch between the cultures of home and school. This argument was explored in Annette Lareau’s Home Advantage (2000). The idea of cultural deprivation has inspired various policy initiatives, such as Headstart, from the 1960s onward, with the aim of providing working-class and minority children with the cultural tools they otherwise lack. It has also been subject to considerable critique on a variety of fronts, most notably ethnographic and sociolinguistic. On the linguistic critical front, William Labov’s many studies – such as Language in the Inner City (1972) – of nonstandard English described how depictions of the inferiority of black communicative styles were simply ignorant of the meanings associated with that speech community, therefore also showing how the idea of cultural deprivation illustrated the white middle-class bias of both social institutions and social science. In her study of a black and economically disadvantaged community in Chicago, Carole Stack in All Our Kin (1978) demonstrated how community members posed alternative values and meanings, ones that were, given the structural disadvantages and routine contingencies they faced, highly logical and deeply practical. In Britain, Paul Willis’s Learning to Labour (1977) showed also how the “lads” (as cultural imperialism the schoolboys came to be known in his study) were seen to be actively engaged in processes of resisting the meanings and values of mainstream life. While the versions of cultural deprivation theory developed by Bourdieu and Bernstein were extremely useful in illuminating some of the cultural mechanisms through which stratification systems are reproduced, the idea of cultural deprivation can be understood as, ultimately, conservative, insofar as it implied that marginalized groups needed to abandon their initial logics and practices in favor of “legitimate” forms, to gain access to economic and expressive opportunities. In this respect, cultural deprivation perpetuates what Richard Sennett and Jonathan Cobb once famously referred to as The Hidden Injuries of Class (1972). TIA DENORA cultural imperialism Though the impact or imposition of foreign cultural values on subject peoples can be routinely regarded as part of the general phenomenon of imperialism, the term cultural imperialism has come to be used more widely in discussions of the influence of the values and beliefs of the dominant global powers on the poorer and weaker societies of the world, whether or not these are or have been subject colonies. Specifically the term refers to the use of superior economic and political power to export or impose values and attitudes at the expense of native cultures. At the most general level, this imposition can be considered as a cultural or ideological offshoot of the more general spread of a whole economic system, such as that of capitalism (communism in its heyday was also accused of cultural imperialism). In that sense, cultural imperialism takes the form of the promotion of capitalist values of individualism, competition, and materialism, at the expense of alternative or more traditional values, such as communalism and cooperation. More discretely, cultural imperialism can be seen simply as the expression of the influence and popularity of the culture industries of the great powers – the reach and influence of their television, film, music, publishing, and advertising products. While certain non-western and non-capitalist powers – such as China in Tibet or the Soviet Union in eastern Europe – have been accused of cultural imperialism, it is generally laid at the door of the major western capitalist societies, the European and, especially, the American. In many ways, indeed, cultural imperialism has become synonymous with Americanization, since even 107 cultural lag some European societies, notably that of France, have protested at the degree of American influence on their culture. What is normally meant by this is the steady spread of such things as American eating habits, as symbolized by the McDonald’s chain, and the dominant position in the world of the American film and television industries, as symbolized by Hollywood. Another common concern is the worldwide spread of large leisure and entertainment complexes, such as the Disney Corporation with its Disneylands and Disneyworlds, and the dominant position assumed by large news corporations such as CNN. But “Americanization” is something of a misnomer, as is clear from the power of the Australian media magnate Rupert Murdoch and his company News International – even though this has large American operations, and Murdoch himself became an American citizen in 1985. Moreover, it has been shown by many studies that the idea of cultural imperialism exaggerates the oneway flow of values and ideas. The claim for the McDonaldization or “Disneyfication” of the world ignores the extent to which local cultures mediate and reinterpret the influences from outside, large as these may be. The ambience and use of, say, a McDonald’s restaurant can be very different depending on whether it is in Dallas, Delhi, or Beijing. In general one might say that cultural imperialism is bound up with globalization, and while, as with all processes of globalization, there is a general tendency towards standardization and uniformity, this is by no means uncontested or ever complete. KRISHAN KUMAR cultural lag – see William F. Ogburn. cultural logic of late capitalism – see Fredric Jameson. cultural materialism Materialists have traditionally seen culture as a representation of an external reality. Culture is deemed truthful to the extent that it “reflects” the material world in an accurate way. Cultural materialism breaks from this notion in two ways. The first is that it argues that culture itself is part of the material world. Culture is defined much more broadly as human activity – the way we organize our lives – rather than an aesthetic representation of the world through music, literature, and art. For example, the houses we build, the way we relate to others, the leisure 108 cultural relativism activities we pursue, should be deemed cultural since they are part of (rather than reflect) material reality. Whereas a traditional materialist view of society examines the difference between social reality and our cultural perceptions of it, a cultural materialist view of society sees this social reality as itself culturally constituted. Culture, then, is a force that actually creates (rather than reflects or expresses) the material world. Even conventionally conceived culture – literature, music, and art – is seen as practical and not merely theoretical, since it constitutes the world as “discourse.” To put the matter philosophically, culture ceases to be simply “epistemological” – that is, concerned with accuracy, truthfulness, etc. – and becomes “ontological” – that is, it constitutes the real world. Cultural materialism is vulnerable to the argument that it makes critique impossible, since to criticize a culture it is necessary to refer it to a world that is external to it. JOHN HOFFMAN cultural relativism This doctrine has two prevailing variants. One of these is a version of moral conventionalism positing that the validity of norms and values is culturally specific and transcends cultural boundaries only coincidentally. Less rigorously but more familiarly, this is a version of moral liberalism that acknowledges that values vary both crossculturally and interpersonally, and prescribes the accommodation of as great a plurality of them as is procedurally possible. It has partial precedents in the celebration by Johann Gottfried von Herder (1744–1803) of the special “genius” of each “nation”; in Giambattista Vico’s liberation of the history of the “gentiles” from the preordained destiny of the elect; even in the legal contextualism of such Renaissance humanists as Desiderius Erasmus. Narrowed to a principle of method, it emerges in the German humanistic academy in the later nineteenth century, hand in hand with the development of hermeneutics and the principles of the Geisteswissenschaften (see human sciences). Thus narrowed, it is an intrinsic aspect of Max Weber’s interpretive sociology – in principle if not always in Weber’s own practice. It has a more expansive – and, in Europe at least, even more influential – analogue in Émile Durkheim’s early insistence on the analytical precedence of the intersocietal variety of normative prescriptions and proscriptions over the normatively universal. As Elvin Hatch points out in Culture and Morality (1983), it has its first advocates in the United States in the anti-racialists and anti-evolutionists cultural reproduction of the end of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, none of them of greater academic importance than the founder of American cultural anthropology, Franz Boas. It remains the signature of that anthropology from Boas at least until the 1970s, when it begins to weaken with the weakening of the conceits of cultural insularity and of ethnographic neutrality themselves. The other variant of the doctrine is one version or another of epistemological conventionalism, positing at its most radical that what constitutes knowledge is culturally specific and culturally bounded. It has its most immediate ancestor and most enduring complement in the linguistically inflected conventionalism that emerges among such German Romantic philosophers as Friedrich von Schlegel (1772–1829) in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century, and acquires increasing temper and refinement in the work of linguist Benjamin Sapir, anthropologist Melville Herskovits, philosophers Williard Quine and Nelson Goodman, and historians Thomas Kuhn and Michel Foucault in the twentieth. Lucien Lévy-Bruhl argues more directly for the incommensurability of primitive and modern scientific thought in How Natives Think (1922 [trans. 1926]) and several other works of the same period. The issue of the cultural relativity of both reason and conceptualization engages the contributors to Bryan Wilson’s important collection, Rationality (1970). If there is a single manifesto of the several versions of epistemological conventionalism circulating in the contemporary disciplines of cultural analysis, however, it is most likely Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann’s The Social Construction of Reality (1966). The “cultural relativism” of only a few decades past seems to have been largely displaced by the “social constructionism” of the JAMES D. FAUBION present. cultural reproduction This refers to the transmission of cultural capital through inheritance; the cultivation of order through normative coercion. The concept is most closely associated with the sociology of Pierre Bourdieu, who developed it in relation to the analysis of habitus and “symbolic repression” in Outline of a Theory of Practice (1972 [trans. 1977]) and Distinction (1979 [trans. 1984]). He proposed that every individual interiorizes symbolic master-patterns of thought and values as a condition of the socialization process. These constitute a distinctive social and cultural perspective that facilitates orientation and acts as a marker of social belonging. These symbolic master-patterns are cultural studies reinforced through interaction with others. Each carries distinctive social status within the social order and constitutes the basis for economic resource allocation and the distribution of prestige. Alternative uses can be found in the work of Louis Althusser (Lenin, Philosophy and Other Essays, 1971) in relation to the functions of the Repressive State Apparatus, the Ideological State Apparatus, and the interpellation of subjects; in Antonio Gramsci (Selections From Prison Notebooks, 1971) in relation to hegemony, complex unity, and cultural resistance; and in Basil Bernstein’s Class, Codes and Control, 1971–7), an analysis of schooling, power, and elaborated and restricted codes. The concept is often criticized for dissolving agency, knowledge, and reflexivity into social mechanics. On this account, cultural reproduction is a substitute for social determinism. However, in Bourdieu’s sociology, the concept is generally attached to the notion of an intellectual or symbolic field which allows for the reflexivity of the agent. Moreover, it is difficult to envisage how questions of social order and change can be addressed without utilizing a version of the concept. CHRIS ROJEK cultural rights – see rights. cultural studies This is an interdisciplinary field that arose in the late twentieth century, and that focuses on the study of modern and postmodern culture, culture being broadly understood as meanings, representations, symbols, and identities, together with related sites and practices. Cultural studies draws on many disciplines and discourses, including semiotics, communications studies, literary theory, psychoanalysis, feminism, Marxism of various kinds, sociology, cultural anthropology, continental philosophy, (post)structuralism, and critical theory. Media and popular culture are prominent topics, but it encompasses high as well as popular arts, literature and speech as well as newer media, and extends to the examination of advanced industrial culture as a whole. The methods and perspectives of Cultural studies have also been applied to early and pre-capitalist phenomena. While there have been tendencies to institutionalize Cultural studies as a new trans- or quasi-discipline, it is not unitary, and the lines between it and neighboring areas like sociology and literary studies have remained blurred. In 109 cultural studies larger compass, Cultural studies is the site of a more general, and contested, renovation of the humanities and social sciences, as shaped by the explosive post-1960s growth of various forms of critical theory. The emergence of Cultural studies as a distinct (and distinctly named) area of study has been mainly a development of the English-speaking world. In the United Kingdom, a formative role was played by the Centre for Contemporary Cultural studies (CCCS) at Birmingham University established in 1964 under the directorship of Richard Hoggart. His Uses of Literacy (1958) traced the impact of commercialized media (especially print) on the formation of working-class culture. Another early influence was Raymond Williams, whose Culture and Society (1958) traced the history of, and broadened, the category of culture itself, and whose later writings on literature, politics, and mass media connected these interests with the 1960s and 1970s revival of European Marxism, especially with regard to the non-mechanistic understanding of ideology and consciousness. Under Hoggart and his successor (in 1968) Stuart Hall, the CCCS did groundbreaking work on urban youth subcultures, consumerism, and the cultural side of Thatcherism and post-Fordist restructuring. As against the Frankfurt School critique of “mass culture,” the Birmingham School tended to emphasize the active and creative side of popular culture, its differential elements of class, race, and gender, and the political ambiguity of, for example, punk. Its theoretical inspiration was Marxist and neo-Marxist (Antonio Gramsci, Georg Lukács, Walter Benjamin, Theodor Wiesengrund Adorno, Lucien Goldmann), but this was accompanied by the assimilation of semiology via Roland Barthes and Mikhail Bakhtin; poststructuralism via Louis Althusser, Michel Foucault, and Jacques Derrida; Sigmund Freud through Jacques Lacan; as well as of feminist theory and much else. The conceptual strains introduced by this mixture led to controversies about agency, the status of the human subject, and the social power of discourse, as well as to a noteworthy polemic, in E. P. Thomson’s Poverty of Theory (1978), against the elevation of theory as such. Following the CCCS lead, other centers for Cultural studies were established in the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, and elsewhere. From the 1980s onwards a prominent role was also played by (the journal and center) Theory Culture & Society (TCS) led by Mike Featherstone. The TCS current was more closely linked to sociology, and has pursued themes 110 cultural studies such as the body, technology, and virtuality, the cultural economy of media, and globalization. American Cultural studies has followed the same general course. Here too a turn to culture within literary studies and social theory combined, in the context of post-1960s intellectual radicalism, with a turn to (European) theory. This is exemplified in the work of Fredric Jameson, who moved from a Lukacsian examination of modernist literature to a multi-dimensional (though still Marxist) interest in language, painting, and architecture. The work of Jameson and others was also important in fashioning an analysis of postmodernism (as an aesthetic and intellectual style) in relation to “the cultural logic of capital.” Cultural studies in the United States, however, was less social-science oriented than in Britain, and more an outgrowth of developments in literary studies, philosophy, and art history. Hence an emphasis on reading cultural phenomena, as in the title of the influential journal Social Text. It was in the United States too that there first developed a characteristic emphasis on the social construction of race and gender, and on the marginalization and silencing of various types of oppressed other. While some work in this vein has been linked to identity politics and has tended to be experiential and anti-theoretical, an interest in otherness has also connected to high theory through the ethical phenomenology of Levinas and through the linguistically and philosophically self-conscious spirit of Derridean deconstruction. Judith Butler’s Gender Troubles (1989) drew antiessentialist implications for understanding gendered bodies and helped to initiate queer theory. Donna J. Haraway’s “Manifesto for Cyborgs,” in Simians, Cyborgs and Women (1991), developed and celebrated a general notion of hybridity. Also related has been the development of postcolonial studies, with Edward W. Said’s Orientalism (1978) as a paradigm, to which are linked such further developments as subaltern studies in India (spearheaded by Gayatri Spivak) and the growth of aboriginal studies in Australasia, Canada, and Latin America. A further ingredient in the formation of Cultural studies has been the rise of media theory, especially as influenced by the Toronto School of communications, with its sensory grammar of media and its civilizationally attuned interest in media, culture, and technology. This influence has been felt mainly through Marshall McLuhan, though the Cultural studies mainstream has been largely dismissive of McLuhan’s work both because of its apparent technological reductionism culture and because of its crypto-theology (the “global village” of “the electric age” has echoes of Teilhard de Chardin’s “noosphere”). Chardin (1881–1955) defined “noosphere” as the stage of evolutionary development characterized by the emergence of consciousness, the mind, and interpersonal relationships. In Canada, the work of McLuhan’s mentor, Harold Innis, has also received renewed attention, while a more Baudrillardian version of the culture and technology approach is evident in the work of Arthur Kroker and the journal C-Theory. ANDREW WERNICK culture Traditionally the province of either anthropology or the humanities, culture has become increasingly central to sociology, both as a subject of study, and as a theoretical challenge to sociology’s self-conception. The sociological definition of and approach to culture, which refers to the form, content, and effects of the symbolic aspect of social life, has emerged out of a critical encounter with the two more traditional definitions. In the definition of the humanities, culture refers to intellectual and artistic activity and the artifacts produced thereby, to what Matthew Arnold (1822–88) called “the best that has been thought and said.” Culture is taken as the highest moral and aesthetic achievements of civilization. The sociology of culture has always provided critical distance from the pretensions of culture so understood and its ensuing enshrinement in the literary, dramatic, and musical canon. By showing the links between social status maintenance and taste, but also by carefully examining the aesthetics of both popular cultural artifacts, and the creative cultural activities of social classes, races, and genders traditionally excluded from the realm of high arts production, the sociology of culture has been essential to the deconstruction of the high/middle/lowbrow culture typology. In approaching culture as a social object of study, the sociology of culture forms a subfield alongside the sociology of religion and the sociology of science, and takes within its purview both high literature and pulp fiction, Fellini films and Hollywood schlock, art music and rock ’n’ roll. With the advent of the production of culture perspective in the 1970s, centered around the work of Richard Peterson, and the concepts of field and cultural capital, drawn from the work of Pierre Bourdieu, this subfield has gained both empirical purchase and theoretical sophistication. In the anthropological definition, culture is expected to do the comparative work of differentiating culture the peoples of the world, and thus also to unify their study; it forms the counterpoint to physical anthropology’s theories of human nature. Historical sociology, however, has shown the connections between the anthropological imagination and various nationalist and colonialist projects of nineteenth-century Europe, whereby the totalizing concept of culture was complicit in the exoticization and simultaneous subordination and colonization (and sometimes extermination) of native populations. Extensive debates about the political valences and historical guilt of the concept of culture have ensued. But perhaps more importantly for ongoing empirical research, sociologists have found the anthropological concept of culture to be underspecified; for sociology, differentiating culture from nature is not enough. Rather, culture must be defined in relation to society, history, and individual psychology, and, furthermore, the differentiation between culture and nature must itself be examined historically with an eye towards its varying social effects (many anthropologists have also come to this conclusion). Thus, while sociology has drawn extensively on symbolic, structuralist, and linguistic anthropology for its own studies of culture, it has resisted the temptation to conflate culture directly with the social as such, and the culture/ society distinction has been a productively unstable one. And it would be fair to say that social constructionist forms of cultural research have distanced themselves significantly from the “essentializing” concepts of an earlier era. However, both the sociology of culture and the critique of culture inside and outside of anthropology beg fundamental questions. Why are social actors so interested in cultural artifacts in the first place, as opposed to other, functionally equivalent, status markers? If cultural difference cannot be grasped inside scientific anthropological theory, does that mean that it cannot be grasped at all? What is the role of meaning and symbolic structures in modern and late capitalist societies? To answer these questions outside of the confines of the humanist tradition and postcolonial anthropology has been the central task for cultural sociologists, who since the 1960s have developed a set of increasingly subtle and nuanced approaches to this contested term of culture. For sociology, then, culture refers to the symbolic element of social life, which has been variously conceptualized, identified, and studied: signifiers and their signifieds, gestures and their interpretation, intended and unintended 111 culture meanings, written discourse and effective speech, situational framing and scientific paradigms, and moral and political ideals. Concretely, culture refers to those social objects and activities which are primarily or exclusively symbolic in their intent or social function, such as art, music, and sports. Analytically, culture refers to the symbolic and ideational element of any social action, social relationship, or historical pattern. In modern and postmodern societies, these two senses of culture are increasingly intertwined in ways that must be studied empirically: people may learn how to conduct intimate relationships from poetry or romantic movies, and rock stars may endorse politicians. The methodologies for studying culture so conceived range widely, and include surveys of attitudes and beliefs, participant observation, ethnography, structured and unstructured interviews, textual analysis of written and visual media, and conversational analysis. Ultimately, however, all of these methods involve the interpretation of meaning, and thus cannot be mapped directly from the methods of the natural sciences, though the extent to which scientific methods can be adapted to the study of culture is a matter of significant dispute. Furthermore, culture not only requires interpretation, but the meanings of symbols have to be understood in a holistic manner, which is to say that any given sign or symbol takes its meaning in relation to those with which it is contrasted and figuratively related. The meaning of the term culture is not an exception to this, and as culture has become central to sociology, its meaning has emerged in relation to three central concepts, namely social structure, action theory, and critical theory. After discussing these, we will briefly discuss the ways in which the consideration of culture has affected other aspects of the sociological field. The distinction between culture and society is, like culture itself, contested and controversial, and, since it often conflates the analytic and concrete dimensions of culture, it is perhaps better to discuss the relationship of culture to social structure. Talcott Parsons distinguished the cultural from the social system in a strictly analytic fashion (his student Niklas Luhmann would later claim that this should in fact be a concrete distinction). And Parsons suggested that the study of culture in all its symbolic elaborations could be left to anthropology, and that sociology could focus on the place where culture and social structure met, namely, on the institutionalization of values and norms. Structural-functionalism 112 culture suggested that culture, through the normative interpenetration of society, could perform an integrative function in the service of social equilibrium, and thus that social change came with a breakdown in value consensus (as in Chalmers Johnson’s (1931– ) theory of social revolution). These assertions were then subjected to relentless ideological attack for suppressing the role of strife and domination in society (and in the use of culture). However, it is perhaps more instructive, now, to notice a deeper problem with structuralfunctionalism, namely its interpretive deafness. By approaching culture as “norms and values,” structural-functionalism not only projected certain liberal ideals onto its model of society, but more significantly, evacuated meaning from culture, robbing its analysis of nuance and empirical specificity. For an engagement with the multiple layers of the symbolic immediately reveals that culture in modern societies is neither homogenous nor consensual. Rather, the size and makeup of collectivities that share certain symbolic articulations vary significantly (from small religious cults to large voting populations), and these symbolic articulations are contested both within and without collectivities. Mid-century Marxism and post-1960s conflict theory insisted that culture was more of a guarantor of hierarchy, exploitation, and inequality, and thus saw culture as ideology. And though the political commitments and theoretical presuppositions of conflict theory were fundamentally at odds with those of Parsonian functionalism, one can discern in the studies of the objective basis of systematically distorted communication, and in references to the political and economic functions of ideology, very similar problems to those that plagued the structural-functional approach. Here too, culture is assumed to be relatively uniform, at least in its social effects, and its study is guided by theoretical intuitions about the workings of the social system, in particular the exploitation of labor, and for a contemporary example see David Harvey’s The Condition of Postmodernity (1989). Thus Marxist repudiations of culture as ideology also suffered from a lack of musicality, and inattention to the empirical details of culture’s varied production, performance, and reception. In both cases, these problems were exacerbated by imagining social structures as hard, real, and external to the actor, in opposition to culture as a more pliable and less efficacious possession of individual minds. Furthermore, both structuralfunctionalism and Marxism were embedded in culture teleological philosophies of history and social evolution that enabled them to locate the appropriate relations between social structure and culture in an a priori theoretical manner. As these teleologies came to be seen as more the meaningful, ideational constructions of sociologists’ own cultures than ontological certainties about actual societies, the strict scientific distinction between social structure and culture began to break down, as did the various conceptions of their relationship. This breakdown created an opening for sociology to develop the tools necessary for a more sensitive and empirically sophisticated approach to culture in its collective forms. This has been accomplished by studying culture as a structure in its own right, a theoretical development that has taken three main forms. First, the study of symbolic boundaries, associated with the work of Michele Lamont (Money, Morals and Manners, 1994) and her students, has shown how actors construct and maintain meanings as a mode of ordering, including, and excluding their fellow humans, over and against the exigencies of social structure. Thus, the economic basis for class is overwritten by an attribution of certain moral qualities to certain humans, based on criteria (including religion, race, and so forth) that may crosscut the expectations of more reductively minded sociologists that would map class consciousness directly onto economic position, and so on. Second, the study of discourse and its relationship to power, based on the pioneering work of Michel Foucault, has enabled sociologists to examine not only articulated boundaries, but also unstated exclusions, and more generally the cultural construction of certain taken-for-granted “positivities” of modern life. Thus one can examine from a reflexive historical perspective how certain kinds of human subjects (for example, insane people and medical patients) and social problems (for example, homosexuality) came to be of such great concern, and how their meaningful construction effected the way they were dealt with, inside and outside mainstream society. Though Foucault’s work has been largely appropriated in the humanities as a set of theorems concerning power and knowledge more appropriate to critical theory than to empirical sociology, his early studies of madness, medicine, and the episteme of the classical and modern ages are in fact rich historical reconstructions of landscapes of meaning, and their essential role in the social processes of treatment, exclusion, and philosophical understanding. These issues are developed culture in Foucault, Madness and Civilization (1961 [trans. 1971]) and Chandra Mukerji, A Fragile Power: Scientists and the State (1990). Finally, the conception of culture as a structure in its own right has enabled the sociological transformation of a set of tools from literary theory and semiotics. Culture can be studied as a social text, replete with codes, narratives, genres, and metaphors. Then, culture can be examined in both its concrete and its analytic autonomy from social structure, which enables us to isolate and make clear its effects (and its varying political valences) from a sociological point of view. So, for example, the long struggle for women’s rights in the United States can be seen as a discursive battle for civil inclusion, according to which a new set of actors came to be coded in a democratic and morally positive way (Jeffrey Alexander, “The Long and Winding Road: Civil Repair of Intimate Injustice,” 2001). This conception of culture suggests, moreover, that social structures themselves are interpreted variably by social actors, and thus must be attended to hermeneutically by cultural sociologists, with an eye to their meaningful aspects, their locality, and their historical specificity (see Clifford Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures, 1973, and Jeffrey Alexander, The Meanings of Social Life, 2003). If culture was often contrasted to social structure, and furthermore associated with subjectivity, then it should not be surprising that it has often been erroneously conflated with action and its related terms: agency, reflexivity, and consciousness. However, as culture has become recognized as a structure in its own right, the relationship of culture to action has become a key component both of sociological action theory and of sociological research more generally. The ongoing debate about culture and action has its roots in two different sociological traditions, both of which contribute to the contemporary understanding of culture within sociology. On the one hand, the analytic tradition, descending from Parsons’s formalization of Max Weber’s means–ends approach to action, approached culture in terms of the ways culture sets the ends of action. Action is thus structured not only by interests, but by norms as well. Originally opposed to economistic accounts of social action, the strictly analytic approach to purposive action has been revived in contemporary sociological debates about agency and rationality. But a deeper understanding of the role of culture for action has been developed from within this 113 culture tradition by recognizing culture as an internal environment for action, arguing thus that culture orients action by structuring subjectivity. Social actors respond to sets of internal typifications of the social world and thus are dependent upon meaningful symbolization in setting their goals, and in imagining how they can go about meeting them. By reintroducing the symbolic as an environment of action full of rich narratives and morally and emotionally loaded oppositions, this approach integrates the expanded approach to culture-as-structure elaborated above. On the other hand, the pragmatic tradition, descending from George Herbert Mead and Herbert Blumer, rejects the means–ends characterization of action outright, and suggests instead that actors constantly negotiate situations in an improvisatory way, attempting to make sense of and solve both social and physical problems as they arise. Originally, because of its distance from the analytic abstractions of the Parsonian tradition, and its tendency towards methodological individualism, this tradition was not really oriented towards culture per se, though it had a conception of the use of symbols and framing on the micro level. Increasingly, however, the descendants of this tradition have developed a conception of culture-as-use that conceives of the knowledgeable agent as the link between culture and society. It is actors, in social situations, who draw on culture when institutional consistency breaks down. Thus the contemporary debate is structured by two positions, that of culture-in-action which is illustrated by Ann Swidler in “Culture in Action: Symbols and Strategies” (1986), and that of culture as thick environment for action by Jeffrey Alexander in Action and Its Environments: Toward a New Synthesis (1988). Both approaches have significant insights to offer. The first emphasizes that actors continually work to render coherent and solvable discursive and institutional problems that arise in the flow of social life. The second emphasizes the way in which the social world is constructed for the actor by previous interpretations and collective languages. In either case, these approaches suggest the importance of culture for the study of social life. For example, we should perhaps discuss the discursive repertoires of politicians, and the resonance of these repertoires with the shared codes of their audience–electorates, as opposed to the “revealed preferences” of either. The contrasts between the two approaches have, however, produced significantly different forms of theory and research. 114 culture One important manifestation of the symbolic interactionist tradition has been Gary Fine’s development of the concept of idiocultures, whereby small groups develop an idiosyncratic set of meanings (beliefs, knowledge, and customs) that forms the basis for mutual understanding and further interaction and action. Thus, cooks in various classes of restaurants develop an aesthetic language that enables them to communicate with each other concerning the manifestly practical problems of smell and taste. Alternately, Robin Wagner-Pacifici, in The Moro Morality Play (1986) and Theorizing the Standoff (2000), has developed the concept of social drama within the more analytic tradition of action and its environments, so as to enable the study of social situations where symbolic and physical violence interact. In studying terrorist kidnappings, standoffs between government and its discontents, and surrenders, she develops a deep understanding of morally loaded environments for action. When the social fabric is breached, actors must work within certain dramatic frameworks, and with certain obtainable identities. Thus, in a standoff between the Freemen of Montana and the United States Government, it was a mediator who had fought in Vietnam and, like some of the leaders of the Freemen, had formed his core identity in the crucible of that experience and its subsequent narration who was able to bridge the symbolic gap between the antagonists. Action was deeply structured by the symbolic environments of traumatic memory and the enactment of masculinity. The specificity of the kinds of meanings that are enacted, however, points both to the possible misinterpretations of the relationship between action and culture, and to the way forward in the theoretical debate. For the exclusive emphasis on culture as it is used by actors can support the naturalistic approach to social structure and thus an understanding of culture as unstructured and primarily the possession of individuals. In this conception, it is meaningless institutions that set the parameters of the action problem, and culture is merely the way actors make sense of things as they are solving it – perhaps important for filling out an explanation, but not essential to it. The environments to action approach is faced with a similar danger, for, insofar as it retains vestiges of Parsons’s action frame of reference, it can be taken to indicate that sociology can produce, in theory alone, a mechanistic explanation of the interaction of norms and interests that will apply everywhere, regardless of cultural differences. culture Perhaps most significantly, it is important that action theory be prevented from becoming a sort of existential meditation on the capacities (or incapacities) of human freedom, rather than a way to examine the social contingencies of actually existing meaning. If the knowledgeable agent becomes a sort of philosophical and methodological hero, whose reflexivity about her location in structure ultimately makes her the master of the cultural formations in her head, then the sociological purpose of examining cultural structures is vitiated, as collective meaning formations melt away in the face of agency and knowledge as developed by Anthony Giddens in The Constitution of Society (1984). Thus, the way forward in the action–culture debates lies in the development of a meaningful account of action through a theorization of social performance, by linking action theory to Erving Goffman’s dramaturgical sociology and Kenneth Burke’s literary theory, but also to Judith Butler’s reconception of the poststructuralist tradition of social thought. By thinking of social situations of varying scope (from small-group interactions to media events watched by millions) as dramas being played out on a public stage, with certain actors and audiences, props and social powers, emergent scripts and cultural backgrounds, we can conceive of the exigencies of social action in a thoroughly cultural way that does not reduce meaning to social structure. Action, then, involves putting certain intended and unintended meanings into the social scene. This is to say that the theorization of action not only has to take into account cultural structures, but must further focus on how actions are themselves interpretations of these structures, and thus respond to logics of meaning and identity underneath the interests and norms that were once supposed to do the analytical work of explaining these actions; this argument is developed in Jeffrey Alexander, Bernhard Giesen, and Jason Mast (eds.), The Cultural Pragmatics of Social Performance (2006). The sociological critique of culture used to be based almost entirely on references to the social as existing outside of culture itself. It was thus diametrically opposed to the sense of criticism associated with the detailed reading of the literary canon, and with humanistic studies more generally. The obvious exception was Marxist literary criticism, in particular that of Georg Lukács and Raymond Williams, which entered into literary texts themselves to find the logics of ideology in the content and form. While their work foreshadowed the development of Cultural studies, it culture remained nonetheless within the discourse of suspicion about culture, usually understood as bourgeois culture (and its discontents). Increasingly, however, sociology has brought its normative concerns with democracy, social inclusion, and the critique of power to the interpretation of culture, as well as to the debunking of ideology. This is to say that the project of hermeneutics, once associated with the conservative aesthetic hierarchies of the German philosophical tradition, can now be seen as a rich source of critique in a post-positivist and post-orthodox-Marxist age, as exemplified by the work of Michael Walzer, Luc Boltanksi, and Laurent Thevenot. The epistemological implication of their work is that sociological critique must abandon its pseudoscientific assumption of an exterior stance or view from nowhere, and develop critical distance through extensive engagement, dialogue, and interpretation. They develop critical perspectives on contemporary societies that share some of the empirical purchase of cultural sociology, but have as their ultimate goal the articulation of new normative understandings of justice and equality. More generally, in so far as sociological critique is no longer beholden to scientific certainty, revolutionary upheaval, and the genre of debunking, its normative repertoire of critical tropes, subtle ironies, and imagined ideals can be expanded. That culture has become a central theoretical term in sociology means that it has had significant effects on the sociological imagination as a whole, extending beyond the study of culture as a set of socially produced artifacts. “Culture,” in sociology, indicates a perspective as well as an object of study, and as such has addressed itself to nearly all of the classic and varied problems of sociological research. We cannot do the wide variety of cultural research in sociology full justice here, rather we will point to a few particularly telling examples. Sociology’s ongoing occupation with modernity, and the history of state formation, has led to a focus on the constitution of nations as collective identities. In explaining economic takeoff in western Europe, the consolidation of the power of states, and the emergence and importance of democratic publics and the free press, sociologists have increasingly focused on the construction of nations as “imagined communities,” or “discursive fields,” and nationalism as “a unique form of social consciousness,” for example in Benedict Anderson’s Imagined Communities (1991), Lyn Spillman and Russell Faeges, “Nations,” in Julia 115 culture Adams, Elisabeth S. Clemens, and Ann Shola Orloff (eds.), Remaking Modernity (2005), and Liah Greenfeld’s Nationalism (1992). The sociology of sex and gender has likewise experienced a cultural overhaul. While feminist and queer theory have questioned the naturalness of the sex/gender distinction, sociological research has examined the effects of actually existing cultural schemas of gender and sex for social outcomes, including family structure, women’s tendency to join or opt out of the workforce, and the ongoing existence of sexism in wage levels and status attainment. These studies examine both gender as a highly rigid structure of meaning, and its varying enactment by women and men who attempt to negotiate the political and economic contradictions of modern society, for instance in Judith Stacey, Brave New Families (1990); Sharon Hays, The Cultural Contradictions of Motherhood (1996); and Mary Blair-Loy, Competing Devotions (2003). Finally, sociology’s longstanding normative concern with democracy and its incipient populism has also taken a cultural turn. For example, analyses of American political participation and activism have investigated how certain meanings either enable or discourage civic participation. The results have often been counterintuitive: doctrines of individual empowerment encourage activity and public responsibility, while norms of civility and politeness discourage political conversation and involvement, a theme which is developed in Nina Eliasoph, Avoiding Politics (1998), and Paul Lichterman, The Search for Political Community (1996). Culture has thus moved towards the center of sociological discourse, as both a topic of study and a perspective from which to view the social. As reinterpretation is a primary form of theoretical advance, the perhaps predictable result of this is that, simultaneously, the classics of social theory have come to be seen in a new light. New readings of Karl Marx, Weber, and Émile Durkheim have emerged. While all twentieth-century Marxisms have given more importance to culture and ideology than did the crude economic Marxist orthodoxy that followed Marx’s death, the turn to culture in the 1960s and 1970s is evident in the increasing attention given to Marx’s analysis of commodity fetishism in Capital, as well as to the importance of the early, humanist, and perhaps even idealistHegelian Marx. Either way, Marx is read as attentive to the capacity of meaning as a social force. One important result of this has been the way 116 culture structuralist and poststructuralist theories of language have merged with Marxist historiography to produce a central thesis concerning postmodernism, namely that the postmodern age is one in which the workings of capitalism are increasingly dependent on signifiers as well as signifieds, that is, on the relational field of social symbolism. These approaches are illustrated by Frederic Jameson, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism (1992), and Jean Baudrillard, For a Critique of the Political Economy of the Sign (1972) [trans. 1981]). Likewise, since the mid-1960s, we have seen a recovery of Weber’s sociology of art, as well as continuing debate on the Protestant Ethic thesis. However, most significantly, the concern with culture has also entered into Weberian debates about the consolidation of state power and the institutionalization of rational bureaucracy. Here, sociologists have increasingly read Weber as a hermeneutic student of rationality as a cultural form specific to western history. In doing so, Weber’s concerns are read as not so different from Foucault’s, and bureaucracy as less a mechanism to be uncovered than a form of symbolic action to be interpreted. This interpretation is developed in Philip Gorski, The Disciplinary Revolution (2003). Finally, the cultural turn in sociology has seen a renaissance and reconsideration of Durkheim’s later works, and, in particular, of The Elementary Forms of Religious Life (1912 [trans. 2001]). This work has come to be seen as a key prolegomena to the symbolic study of society as a general project, as well as to the study of the role of culture in modern, industrial societies. Durkheim is thus read as uncomfortable with the materialist interpretations given to The Division of Labor in Society and as having made a key epistemic break in the years between the publication of Suicide (1897 [trans. 1951]) and that of Elementary Forms, an argument developed by Jeffrey Alexander in “Rethinking Durkheim’s Intellectual Development II” (1986). As a result, Durkheim can be seen as a precursor to cultural structuralism in his emphasis on the autonomy of symbolic forms, and the importance of belief and ritual for the organization of society. If culture has become central to sociology (though some may not hold this opinion, or at least be unhappy with this development), it has also remained a controversial subject. And as empirical research on culture has exploded, the theoretical presuppositions of this work, which often does not fit the model of positivist or scientificrealist sociology, have been left relatively culture unexplored. This is to say that, in the future, social theory must address not only culture, but its accompanying methodological and epistemological term: interpretation. This can be done by returning to the fundamental questions of the philosophy of social science, as well as by articulating the immanent epistemological selfconsciousness of cultural research in sociology. There are two fundamental concerns central to the question of sociological interpretation, broadly understood. The first regards the role of the investigator in social analysis. Though most cultural sociologists accept neither scientific norms nor postmodern normlessness as the parameters for their truth claims, what norms they do accept is an important issue to discuss in the abstract. In particular, it seems clear that sociologists want the meanings they reconstruct to be translatable, so that cultural comparison is possible, not so much so as to determine active and latent mechanisms, but so as to perceive more clearly the varied relationships of meaning in action. Thus, even single case studies or ethnographies implicitly contain a comparison, at least to the investigator’s own meaningful social contexts, and this comparative consciousness forms an important basis for the development of theory and research in cultural sociology. The second question concerns how much the methods and modes of explanation common to cultural sociology may apply outside the domain of what is analytically or concretely called culture. A lot of work within poststructuralist theory has examined the symbolic and discursive basis for what sociologists are more likely to call social structure, namely, institutional formations, social sanction and exclusion, and even violence, as argued in Judith Butler’s Gender Trouble (1989). But the extent to which these aspects of social life can actually be explored empirically remains to be verified by an epistemology more comfortable with the possibility of truth claims that are relatively autonomous from power. Thus, for example, we need to ask how even the reconstruction of political strategies and economic exigencies involves the interpretation of highly reified and strictly executed meaning. Ultimately, then, the advent of culture in sociology and the study of its subtleties and social contestations leads to fundamental questions about sociology itself. If culture is a perspective from which to examine society, it is also a perspective from which to examine the meaningformation called sociology. As such, its most cybernetics important effect will be to push the central concepts of sociology (structure, action, critique), empirical research topics, and the readings of sociological classics towards the interpretation of meaning. I S A A C R E E D A N D J E F F R E Y A L E X A N D E R culture industry – see Theodor Wiesengrund Adorno. culture of poverty – see poverty. custom – see norm(s). cybernetics A field of scientific inquiry devoted to self-regulating information systems, cybernetics, derived from the Greek word meaning helmsman or governor. Developed alongside computing in the later years of World War II, the reference to governors attaches the term to the regulatory mechanisms first used on nineteenth-century steam engines. The first phase of cybernetic science was mathematical, an attempt to quantify the amount of information in a given system. A critical breakthrough came with the information theory proposed in The Mathematical Theory of Information (1949) by C. E. Shannon and W. Weaver, employees of Bell Labs, the leading commercial research laboratory of the time. Bell needed to find engineering solutions for massive increases in telephone use in the later 1940s. Shannon and Weaver proposed a probabilistic model in which the information content of a message could be calculated as the ratio of signal – meaningful communication – to noise. “Noise” they defined as anything insignificant, from static hiss to repetitions and redundancies. Mathematically, the highest probability was for randomness in communication. In the Cold War period, early cyberneticians identified randomness with entropy, the tendency of systems to cool down, to move to less ordered states. In complex systems such as living beings or social organizations, increasing entropy dissipates the information content or patterned relationships. The task of cybernetic technologies was to maintain homeostasis: the state of a system with a high degree of predictable structure, or order. As the term suggests, however, homeostasis is negative entropy in the sense that it resists change. This was the tenet of two Chilean researchers, H. R. Maturana and F. J. Varela, in Autopoesis and Cognition (1980); they proposed the 117 cyberspace term that ushered in cybernetics’ second phase: autopoesis. Consonant with the ambitions of the Macy conferences which, through the 1950s, extended the scope of cybernetics to embrace fields as diverse as economics and meteorology, the concept of autopoetic machines is a general model of any self-sustaining system: a unity composed of processes which produce components which in turn realize the processes and constitute, continually reconstituting, the machine or organization as a unity. This internal circuit depends, more explicitly than earlier models, on the interaction of the autopoetic machine – technological, organic, or human – with its environment. This variant of cybernetics provided Niklas Luhmann with the foundations for his influential conception of society as a network of discrete functional systems (law, education, science, and so on), each of which replicates itself according to its own processes, but does so by treating neighboring systems as environmental inputs. For Luhmann, society’s internal differentiation debars it from acting as a single unified entity, a capacity restricted to its internal systems. It can and indeed must, however, embody the mutual feedback mechanisms between its distinct components. The third phase of cybernetics abandoned the centrality of homeostasis in favor of theories capable of explaining change. Variously known as chaos or complexity theory, contemporary cybernetics uses dynamic models like hydrodynamics to model complex boundary states between order and chaos, with a special interest in the emergence of new ordered states from apparently chaotic forebears. Importantly, the term chaos does not signify randomness but rather a system whose subsequent states are not entirely predictable from its original state. The model is closely allied with the development of network communications, and may be related to Ulrich Beck’s concept of risk society, but is also widely used to SEAN CUBITT justify free-market economics. cyberspace This term is used to refer to electronic communications networks and was first used by sciencefiction author William Gibson in his 1986 novel Neuromancer to describe a fictional parallel universe created by computers and inhabited by information (including the “avatars” or data representations of human characters). With the arrival of the worldwide web in 1993, the term took on a practical application, describing the online world, the interactions and networks of 118 cyberspace persons, groups, and information connected electronically through the worldwide web. In some usages, for example that of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the term describes an open terrain which may be occupied or homesteaded on the model of the westward expansion of the United States during the 1870s, and is in this conception a liberated and liberating geography, parallel to reality – physically copresent social transactions – but potentially far larger. The ambiguity of the term cyberspace and the juxtaposition to real, social life – does it describe an actual or a metaphorical geography? – derives from the unprecedented social relations which the worldwide web enabled. For some, cyberspace denotes a field of open opportunities distinguished from the real world by its freedom from constraint. For others, it denotes a new market in information and services – one not substantially different from other markets, but different in the degree to which it has only begun to be tapped. For many social theorists, cyberspace is interesting both for its internal relationships – new forms of socialization such as bulletin boards (BBSs) and massively multiplayer game environments (MMPs) – and for its articulation with real, geographical material spaces. The interconnection with reality takes several forms. Cyberspace is a source of news and opinions, many of them unsanctioned by traditional gatekeeping institutions, which may provide infrastructure for the development of new forms of public life. Cyberspace is also feared as a barely comprehensible jungle where pedophiles and con artists thrive. The greatest fear is that, through the powers of the internet, cyberspace may intervene in real, social space, for example in allowing a child molester to make a rendezvous with a potential victim, or con men to access real bank accounts. Since Amsterdam’s, France’s, and India’s initial forays in the early 1990s, many city and some national governments have extended the provision of services to online environments, including in some cases voting and other forms of citizen participation in government. At the same time, the subversion of electronic systems (“hacking”) has become a weapon of war, notably in the Middle East during the Second Intifada in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Identifying even such basic data as the number of participants in cyberspace has proved difficult. Describing its sociological characteristics is equally difficult, and a nascent scholarly field. Among significant contributions are A. R. Galloway’s Protocol (2004), cyberspace S. Lash’s Critique of Information (2002), C. May’s Information Society (2002), and T. Terranova’s Network Culture (2004). The material infrastructure of cyberspace is composed of a large number of computers linked by electronic networks. A proportion of these computers act as servers, storage devices allowing open access from other computers. A smaller proportion are routers, responsible for conveying data across the network. A small number of globally agreed software packages (protocols) permit the traffic to be used on almost every personal or institutional computer. Some subnetworks (intranets) are closed to all but named users. The major languages employed cyberspace are English, Mandarin, Spanish, and Korean. Many networks, routers, and servers are integrated with national and global telecommunication and entertainment corporations. But many are not, and the technology is cheaply available to individuals, groups, and companies who wish to communicate with the public. The most successful applications to date are e-mail, which allows person-to-person communication, and file-sharing, through which users can swap data, commonly music, images, and software. Cyberspace raises serious challenges for law (intellectual property), justice (online and international crime), the military (information warfare), and representational democracy. SEAN CUBITT 119 D Dahrendorf, Ralph (1929– ) The author of close to thirty books including Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society (1959) and Society and Democracy in Germany (1967), Dahrendorf’s most influential contributions to sociology include the conceptual elaboration of factors affecting the likelihood of group conflict (see social conflict), which are empirically variable across time and place; an attendant critique of Karl Marx’s universalizing of his historically narrow analysis of class conflict in nineteenthcentury Europe; an insistence on the analytical differentiation of industrialism from capitalism; and a concern with formal variations in types of organization and association, in types of authority relations, in patterns of conflict regulation, and in relations of stratification along a number of axes. Dahrendorf is popularly known as a “conflict theorist” but in fact has always refused to oversimplify reality through exaggerating tendencies of integration (as, for example, in functionalism) or of conflict (as, for example, in Marx). He is an anti-utopian who urges people to have the maturity to live with complexity. To emphasize this complexity, he has drawn attention throughout his work to the relatively independent nature of many aspects of social life, from those specific to international relations, industrial society, politics, and nuclear weapons, through divergent forms of ownership and control to, latterly, those related to the environment and to biological issues associated with genetic engineering, to name just some. His sociology is marked deeply by a political commitment to liberal values and to the welfare state, to both liberty and citizenship entitlements. Dahrendorf has combined his intellectual work with a hugely impressive presence in the practical worlds of both politics and academic administration. At the end of the 1960s he was a Free Democrat (FDP) member of the German Bundestag and a parliamentary secretary of state at the Foreign Office, then a European Commissioner in Brussels in 1970–4, before becoming the Director of the London School of Economics in 1974–84. From 1987 to 1997 he was Warden of St. Anthony’s 120 College, Oxford. He was created a United Kingdom life peer in 1993. ROB STONES Darwin, Charles (1809–1882) The theory of natural selection was developed independently by Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace (1823–1913). It was first introduced by Darwin in 1859 in Origin of the Species. Both men developed the theory on the basis of intensive and substantial empirical work. From 1831 to 1836 Darwin served as naturalist aboard the HMS Beagle, a mapping and scientific expedition sponsored by the British government. During this voyage he worked in the Galapagos Islands and elsewhere, studying new species and collecting them for later study. Wallace worked in the Amazon area and the East Indies in the 1840s. He also collected examples of species unknown to the western world. Their studies led to the assertion that evolutionary change is gradual, stretching over thousands of millions of years. The main mechanism for evolution was a process called natural selection. And they argued that the millions of species alive in the modern era probably arose from a single original life form through a branching process called “specialization.” Biological laws, Darwin and Wallace argued, affect all living beings, including humans. Population growth within limited resources leads to a struggle for survival. Certain characteristics confer advantages and disadvantages upon individuals during this struggle. The selection of these traits, and their inheritance over time, leads to the emergence of new species and the elimination of others. For many social scientists, the theory of natural selection should be seen as a product and reflection of its time. This was a point made in our contemporary era by, among others, Michel Foucault. Darwin is seen as a high Victorian, his ideas being little more than the struggle for existence in society being transferred to the natural world. Furthermore, even the distinction between scientific and nonscientific knowledge is seen by many Darwin, Charles (1809–1882) contemporary sociologists as spurious. “Science” is obfuscation, a way of legitimating the power of institutions and dominant social classes. The parallels between the theory of Darwin and Wallace and the society in which they worked were also pointed out by Karl Marx. The class struggle in Victorian England, he argued, was being transplanted by Darwin back onto the natural world. Similarly, the “specialization” of species was the division of labor in human society, again extended to the realm of nature. Marx, and to an even greater extent Friedrich Engels, nevertheless recognized that Darwin’s theory was an exceptionally important piece of science. Darwin and Wallace had uncovered real causal mechanisms which were generating species. These issues regarding the social construction of Darwin and Wallace’s scientific theory remain important and are developed and discussed in a number of texts concerned with the social construction of science. These include D. Amigoni and J. Wallace, Charles Darwin’s “The Origin of Species” (1995). Darwin’s and Wallace’s theories and ideas were certainly colored by the experience and predominant values of their day and they have since been developed by scientists such as S. Gould, Ever Since Darwin (1980). But the fact that Darwin’s and Wallace’s theory has survived largely intact for over 150 years suggests that it is much more than a social construction. It described, as Marx and Engels implied, real relationships and processes. All knowledge is inevitably “socially constructed,” but this need not mean that knowledge is only socially constructed. It can refer to relationships, processes, and mechanisms which are real, if not necessarily observable. But, as discussed in evolutionary psychology, social Darwinism, and Herbert Spencer, the direct application of Darwin’s and Wallace’s ideas to human society remains full of difficulties and dangers. Human behavior cannot be simply attributed to our evolutionary history, evolutionary processes being always mediated in complex ways by social relations and social processes. Similarly, and despite the attempt by Spencer and others to transfer Darwin’s work to human society, there are few useful parallels to be made between the structure of organisms and those of society. Darwin himself was very cautious about making parallels between biological and social evolutionary theory. On the other hand, his 1901 book The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex did make some preliminary forays into these difficult connections. And his 1872 text, The Expression of Emotions in Man and Animals, suggested data that human emotions and expressions could be traced back to “man’s” evolutionary origins. It can be seen as an early version of evolutionary psychology. PETER DICKENS data The term data (which is plural) comes from the Latin “things given.” This notion is a misleading one because usually the gathering of evidence involves much painstaking endeavor on the part of the social scientist. Data come in all shapes and forms and include responses to questionnaires or interviews, observational materials, documentary records, statistical information, visual materials, oral histories, and so on. The key question for researchers is how the sources of knowledge (data) and the sources of understanding (theory) relate. The data-design phase of research involves considering how best to collect data that will allow the investigator to answer the questions that he or she has posed. One of the frequent divisions drawn in data type is the distinction between quantitative and qualitative. These two approaches to data collection have often been pitted against each other as if quantitative and qualitative researchers had completely different understandings of how to gather knowledge of the social world. While there may be some difference in emphasis between those who work mainly with numeric or statistical data and those who work with more interpretative and phenomenological data, there is much overlap between the two. The importance of data design is in getting a “good fit” between research question and type of data. If you want to know the differences between men’s and women’s pay in the United Kingdom it is unlikely that you will get far without delving into statistics; but qualitative information on how men and women view their pay may also provide important insights into differences. If you want to know why women are under-represented in top managerial jobs, then you will require not only statistical knowledge about the relative success rate of job applicants but also highly contextualized information on men’s and women’s different life circumstances. Ideally, quantitative and qualitative data should complement each other. Another distinction is between primary and secondary data. It is wrong to think of social research solely in terms of the first-hand collection of data by means of, say, observation or asking questions. A great deal of information is already available having been collected by others, and 121 data often for other reasons. A wide range of data sources is available to the social researchers. Here I will just deal with two: statistical data sources and documentary sources. Recent developments in information technology, such as the worldwide web, make data sources increasingly accessible and amenable. There is a huge array of statistical data, commonly referred to as official statistics. These are collected by government agencies. But the degree to which the data are official varies enormously. Some data, such as vital statistics, are the by product of administrative processes like the statutory registration of births, marriages, and deaths. Others, like many of the surveys assembled by the Office of National Statistics, are based on collections of data by voluntary social surveys. The Census is the most extensive (in the sense of sample coverage) data that is available and, in Britain, the Office of National Statistics Longitudinal Study, based on just 1 percent of the total population, allows for the tracking of population change on a year by year basis. The whole process of archiving and dissemination of large-scale survey data has been revolutionized because of the increasing availability of computing power. It is now possible for the researcher to select survey data for secondary analysis and to download the whole survey or particular sub-samples for further analysis. Secondary data analysis involves extracting new findings from existing data by reanalyzing the original data resource. The important thing in using secondary data is to be mindful of the original purpose for which they were collected and the particular agendas that the collection of the data may have served. Many quantitative researchers are acutely aware that statistics are, to some extent, social constructions. In other words, the concepts and measures often reflect those that dominate official, political, and economic life (Government Statisticians’ Collective, 1979). For example, employment surveys may use a definition of work that is at odds with the sociological interest in non-paid caring and leads to an under-valuing of women’s contribution to the economy. This does not mean that data from employment surveys are not useful for sociological analysis, but it does mean that the researcher has to be fully aware of its limitations and strengths. Written documentary sources also pose great opportunities and challenges for social scientists. Few researchers need reminding that documents can rarely be taken at face value. To assess the 122 de-professionalization value of documentary sources as evidence, it is necessary to know why they were gathered in the first place. Documents differ in terms of their authorships – whether they are personal or official documents. They also differ in terms of access, which varies from closed through to openly published. John Scott, in his book A Matter of Record (1990), proposed that knowledge of authorship and access is important for answering questions about a document’s authenticity (whether it is original and genuine), its credibility (whether it is accurate), its representativeness (whether it is representative of the totality of documents in its class), and its meaning (what it is intended to say). Social-research data cannot be separated from ethical and political concerns. Most professional bodies have ethical guidelines that govern the collection of data and stipulate desirable practices, such as the obtaining of informed consent. However, arguably, some of the most serious instances of data abuse come at the analytical and writing-up stages. Research claims sometimes far exceed what the evidence or data warrant. This is a practice that W. G. Runciman in his book The Social Animal (1998) describes as an “abuse of social science.” He cites several examples of where sociologists are espousing ideology or opinion which goes far beyond what the data can support. The importance of being wary of over-stretching data claims should apply, whether or not the conclusions drawn are deemed politically correct. Data archives (both quantitative and qualitative) serve many important roles in modern social science. It is worth mentioning three. First, they allow for data to be widely accessed for secondary research. Second, they encourage the cumulative nature of social science by allowing researchers to build on and replicate (often in different contexts and times) what has gone before. Third, they help safeguard the highest professional standards by ensuring that social science evidence is available for further scrutiny and reanalysis. J A C K I E S C O T T data analysis – see data. data resources – see data. Davis and Moore debate – see functional theory of stratification. de-professionalization – see profession(s). de-schooling de-schooling Ian Lister, in Deschooling. A Reader (1974), has claimed that the “de-schooling movement” was “a general drift of thinking” which flourished in the 1970s in advanced capitalist societies. A precursor of the movement was the American social critic, Paul Goodman, who published Compulsory Miseducation (1962). In the United Kingdom, John Holt, who had written How Children Fail (1964), How Children Learn (1967), and The Underachieving School (1971), considered himself a “de-schooler” from the early 1970s. This coincided with the publication of the work and author most identified with the movement, Ivan Illich’s De-Schooling Society (1971), and also with Everett Reimer’s School is Dead (1971). Reimer defined schools as “institutions which require full-time attendance of specific age groups in teacher-supervised classrooms for the study of graded curricula.” The defining characteristics of de-schooling thinking are implicit in this definition. De-schoolers opposed the institutionalization of learning, arguing that state-controlled socialization inhibited the expression of individual freedom and creativity. Logically, they could have no time for credentialism. There was a nonconformist zeal about their views: schools should be disestablished and secularized. “To identify schools with education,” wrote Illich, is “to confuse salvation with the church.” While the movement might have seemed to be in alliance with the radical pedagogy of educationists in the Third World, such as Paulo Freire (1921–97), there was an ambivalence in that the resistance to state intervention might be interpreted as a conservative inclination to retain the social status quo and to resist the potential of state schooling to counteract inequality. DEREK ROBBINS death and dying At its simplest, the cessation of life, death appears to be a biological rather than a sociological phenomenon. However, diagnosing death is not a simple process as conflicts around the status of patients in persistent vegetative states demonstrate. Within medicine, death can be defined in different ways: as the cessation of pulse and breathing; as the loss of the body’s coordinating system, that is, lower brain stem, death; and cerebral cortex, that is higher brain stem, death. The current definition of death as the cessation of cerebral functioning is intimately tied to the harvesting of organs from people now dead, but whose vital physical functions – circulation and breathing – are intact and keeping their organs viable for transplantation. death and dying While all individuals will die, how and when they die will reflect broader patterns of inequality in society, especially around socioeconomic status, gender, and ethnicity. Unskilled manual workers die earlier and sooner of known preventable diseases than their skilled and professional counterparts. While women experience more diagnoses of ill-health – based around the medicalization of their reproductive functions – they will outlive men by five years; and members of significantly disadvantaged ethnic minorities, particularly aboriginal people, will die from preventable conditions twenty-five years earlier than the affluent and educated members of higher social classes, who have much longer life expectancy. The greater the inequality in a society, the poorer the quality of life and the earlier the death for those at the bottom of the social system. Death is far from a straightforward biological event occurring to individuals as a consequence of fate. The occurrence of death, particularly in hospitals, is a socially accomplished event. In Time for Dying (1961), Barney Glaser and Anselm L. Strauss demonstrated how dying was accounted for and made explicable and conformed to scripts that enabled patients, staff, and relatives to handle it. They identified “trajectories of dying”; the lingering death, which placed greatest strain on those around it; the expected quick death, which the staff could handle, but which took the relatives by surprise; and the unexpected quick death which challenged everyone’s account of the situation. David Sudnow, in Passing On: The Social Organisation of Dying (1967), demonstrated the medicalization of dying in the hospital, where the doctor decides when death has taken place, certifies its occurrence and announces it, and coordinates the process so that those affected perform according to the rules. He also showed how the diagnosis of death would be delayed and heroic measures taken to save the life of an individual based on their perceived social standing: the young, the white, and the apparently well-off were all subjected to more medical interventions before they were finally “dead.” Sociologists have also argued that social death can occur long before biological death. In this, individuals (for men as a consequence of retirement from work and for women as a consequence of widowhood) lose their social networks, become socially isolated, and lose the social roles that had provided their identity. As a consequence of the demographic transition as a result of which more individuals now survive infancy and more women survive childbirth, 123 Debord, Guy (1931–1994) social reactions to death have also changed. In the past, as Philip Ariés (1914–84) has shown (Western Attitudes Towards Death From the Middle Ages to the Present, 1974), the presence of death in everyday life was commonplace. As such it involved the whole community, with the dying person at the center of the event, presided over by a priest, with extensive public mourning. Modern death, under the control of the medical profession, is hidden away in the hospital, individualized and medicalized with little or no scope for public mourning. Death has become dirty and disgusting and an affront to modern medicine. The cultural highpoint of this attitude to death was reflected in the development of funeral parlors in the United States where morticians recreated the dead person as life-like, making them up and setting their hair. Ariés’s picture has in part been challenged by the rise of the hospice movement, established in England in 1967 by Dame Cicely Saunders (1918– 2005). In a reaction to the prolongation of death as a consequence of medical interventions, Saunders sought to free death from medical control and its bureaucratization in the hospital, and to reassert its meaning in the context of a secular society. With the growth of hospices and the occupation of bereavement counselors we are now urged to talk about our death, to anticipate it as a serene and comfortable process, even to experience it as an opportunity for growth. Legislative changes around the rights of the terminally ill reflect this change: living wills allow us to stipulate donot-resuscitate orders if we suffer neurological damage from accidents or medical misadventure; and lobbying for euthanasia – the right to a good death – is on the agenda of many European political parties. The assertion of the right to experience bereavement, too, has been legitimated by the popularity of the works of Elizabeth KublerRoss (On Death and Dying, 1969) and her argument that denial and anger were appropriate responses to death. As the population ages in the West, issues of rationing at end of life, definitions of death, euthanasia, and various forms of physician-assisted suicide will all become major social KEVIN WHITE policy issues. Debord, Guy (1931–1994) Born in Paris, Debord committed suicide in 1994. He was a founding member of the revolutionary group Situationist International, whose journal of the same name he established and edited from 1958 to 1969. He was influenced by, and critical of, Dadaism and Surrealism, and more importantly a 124 decarceration critical reading of Karl Marx’s work, Korl Korsch’s Marxism and Philosophy (1923 [trans. 1973]) and Georg Lukács, History and Class Consciousness (1923 [trans. 1971]), as well as at crucial junctures works by Georges Bataille and especially Henri Lefebvre. Debord is best known for his writings for Situationist International but, above all, for his Society of the Spectacle (1967 [trans. 1970]). He is much less well known for his films, including La Société du spectacle (1973). Set out in the form of theses, and lacking a specific definition of the spectacle, Debord outlines a critique of capitalist society as a whole as a society of the spectacle of the commodity. For him the spectacle should not be understood as a collection of images (and therefore is not confined to mass media technologies) but as a social relation between people that is mediated by images. The social relations in question are those of the dominant capitalist economic order, a world of appearances, of independent representations. The spectacle unites individuals as spectators only in their separation. Such reflections constitute Debord’s attempt to think through Karl Marx’s theory of commodity fetishism (see alienation) and Lukács’s conception of reification in the context of contemporary capitalist societies, with an apparent abundance of commodities, such that the latter have totally colonized social life. The suggestive nature of the theory of the spectacle impacted upon later social theories of consumption and consumer society, and in the critique of modern urbanism and the notion of the city and its spaces as spectacle. The historical analyses of techniques for the creation of the spectacle have also been informed by Debord’s work. As an intended revolutionary theory, it informed the student revolt of 1968 and beyond. DAVID FRISBY decarceration This concerns a deliberate process of shifting attention away from prison towards the use of alternative measures in the community. While the search for alternatives to imprisonment has roots in the nineteenth century, the decarceration movement developed in the 1960s as part of a general critique of institutional responses to crime and deviancy and as part of what Stan Cohen in Visions of Social Control (1985) has termed the “destructuring impulse.” Prisons and other total institutions (see Erving Goffman) attracted criticism for their degrading treatment of offenders, and their ineffectiveness in deterring and rehabilitating them. decolonization The decarceration movement is closely associated with the radical penal lobby and abolitionist movement in Scandinavia, western Europe, and North America. Strong as these movements have been, there is seemingly little evidence to suggest effectiveness; on the contrary, prison rates soar on a worldwide basis. Thus “prison-centricity” continues to dominate political thinking about punishment. Critics have also indicated unintended consequences of decarceration. Andrew Scull, for example, in Decarceration: Community Treatment and the Deviant – A Radical View (1984), has pointed to the benign neglect of offenders within the community. Cohen has suggested that the extension of community treatment and punishment in place of prisons serves to reflect Michel Foucault’s notion of “dispersed discipline” in Discipline and Punish (1977). Thus, ever wider and stronger nets of social control are created rather than community measures displacing imprisonment. In recent years, the boundaries between liberty in the community and confinement in prison have been blurred through the development of home curfews and electronic monitoring, in particular. LORAINE GELSTHORPE decolonization By the end of World War II, European conquest left some 750 million people, roughly one-third of the world’s population, living under colonialism. Propelled by national liberation movements, decolonization proceeded relatively rapidly, albeit unevenly in time, space, and form, with experiences ranging from violent revolution via guerrilla warfare in Algeria – theorized by revolutionary Franz Fanon in The Wretched of the Earth (1961 [trans. 1965]) – to India’s non-violent resistance led by Mahatma Gandhi (1869–1948). Uprisings were often brutally repressed, as Caroline Elkins, Imperial Reckoning: The Untold Story of Britain’s Gulag in Kenya (2005), makes clear. Tragically, independence often ushered in new ruling elites, an “administrative bourgeoisie” as Gerard Chaliand argues in Revolution in the Third World (1989). In other instances, peoples elected to remain part of the metropolitan country as citizens, as in the Caribbean island of Martinique, in a move supported by leading figure of the African diaspora Aimé Césaire. While Haiti and Latin America underwent decolonization during the revolutions establishing independent republics in the 1800s, in 1945 parts of the Middle East and much of Africa and Asia were still colonies. In the context of Cold War rivalry, postwar American sociology and western deconstruction social science became engaged in the study of decolonization and newly independent Third World states, initially as part of the field of modernization studies. Yet the transformation of academic life during the turbulent 1960s opened up a variety of new approaches towards these questions, emphasizing social conflict over consensus. Among the new approaches seeking to understand the decolonization process were variants of what became know as development theory, including dependency and world-systems analysis. More recently, a host of other approaches to the question of decolonization have appeared, from postcolonial theory to the work of the subaltern school. Recent work by sociologists emphasizes that colonization and decolonization come in waves, with the latter intimately related to hegemonic transitions and great power wars. So, for example, the global wars that characterized the period before the final emergence of British hegemony in the 1800s set off the Hispanic American revolutions. Likewise, World War II helped set off the period of formal decolonization of much of the rest of the world during the period of American hegemony. Peruvian sociologist Anibal Quijano coined the term “coloniality of power,” to deal with the continuation of colonial-type relationships between core states and racial-ethnic, class, and gender groups even after formal decolonization. Mahmood Mamdani in Citizen and Subject (1996), and Crawford Young in “In Search of Civil Society,” in J. Harbeson, D. Rothchild, and N. Chazan (eds.), Civil Society and State in Africa (1994: 33–50), have brilliantly analyzed colonialism and decolonization in Africa. There is now a dialogue taking place on these questions, with calls for a new, more radical, round of decolonization. Imperialism, colonialism, and decolonization are key processes that have shaped the world, with reverberations right up to the present. The varieties of the colonial and postcolonial experiences, and perspectives on the aftermath of European, Japanese, or Soviet conquest, whether they be from the frameworks of neocolonialism, postcolonialism, or the coloniality of power, will continue to play an important part in debates regarding the past, present, and future of humanity. THOMAS REIFER deconstruction This refers to a poststructuralist philosophy, associated with structuralism, much of whose impetus was provided by the writings of the French philosopher Jacques Derrida (1930–2004). Its early key 125 deduction democracy texts were his Of Grammatology (1967 [trans. 1977]) and Writing and Difference (1967 [trans. 1978]). The contested nature of this philosophy, which has had a significant impact in literature, Cultural studies, architecture, gender theory, and some postmodern social theory, lies in its rejection of traditional philosophical groundings of knowledge and language. The latter assumes that the meaning of something is directly accessible to consciousness by its presence. Derrida, in contrast, argued that our understanding of an object necessitates grasping how it relates to other things and contexts, that is, to its difference. In particular, claims to universality would be challenged by this position. So too would be the binary oppositions found in structuralist analyses, in sociology (sacred/profane; community/society) and in wider discourse (man/woman). The deconstruction of such oppositions or dualisms, which hierarchically privilege the first of the two oppositions in the dualism, also has a subversive intention. This is directed at what Derrida termed the “logocentrism” of western thought, which has been devoted to the search for an order of truth and a universal language. Derrida argued that there were no fixed orders of meaning. Deconstruction therefore challenges the legitimacy of such preestablished hierarchical dualisms, in order to remove their authoritative status. It therefore also aims to empower those marginalized by such discourse, and to encourage the proliferation of difference. DAVID FRISBY transformed. Where the moral framework of the dominant value system promotes the endorsement of existing inequality in ways that the subordinated accept as legitimate, and this legitimacy is expressed through their deference both to those in positions of localized and immediate authority and to the social status order in general, which they exemplify through the types of civil society that they choose to construct through their networks, then deferential workers are reproduced. These deferential workers presume that the social order comprises an organic entity, with the rich man in his castle and the poor man at his gate. Thus, inequality is seen to be inevitable as well as just; the social order is seen as fixed and the individual’s place within it is relatively unchangeable. The idea of the deferential worker has been widely used and generalized to address the overlay of both gender and ethnic relations on the basic social class model of society that Lockwood employed. STEWART CLEGG definition of the situation – see William I. Thomas. delinquency – see deviance. delinquent subculture – see deviance. demedicalization – see medicalization. deduction democracy – see explanation. Derived from the Greek terms demos (the people) and kratos (power), democracy usually describes a form of political rule that is justified and exercised by the people for the benefit of the people. Democracy is a model of government that can apply to different types of political communities and levels of political organization. In the contemporary context it is most commonly associated with the institutional framework of the nationstate. However, modern democratic states are representative democracies and therefore quite different from the democratic order that was initially proposed in the classical Greek model of direct democracy. This distinctiveness is probably best expressed in terms of different notions of freedom, as described by Benjamin Constant in The Liberty of the Ancients Compared with that of the Moderns (1819 [trans. 1988]). In the classical direct democracy system, each citizen had a fair chance of holding political office and, therefore, deferential workers These workers were identified by David Lockwood in The Blackcoated Worker (1958) while he was researching car workers in the British General Motors plant at Vauxhall. Many workers entered the automobile industry from other occupations, attracted by high postwar wages. Lockwood analyzed their images of society. Some had deferential attitudes to authority, which, as Howard Newby in The Deferential Worker (1977) explored, were ingrained in rural life and which translated into their attitudes to authority in the plant. Not everyone shared the same image of society and the differentiation was patterned. For Lockwood, the patterning was attributable to social origins and their social reproduction through extended networks of social interaction; it was through the latter that the former were reproduced or 126 democracy of influencing the political choices of the state. In a modern representative democracy, in contrast, individual citizens can only influence the political decisionmaking process at the margins, and their involvement in democratic governance is generally limited to electing the political representatives who will speak in their name. It must be stressed, however, that early forms of democracy could only provide such political opportunities by restricting the political franchise to certain categories of citizens. In later democratic systems, the franchise slowly expanded to include the poor, women, slaves, and other ethnic/racial groups, but this greater inclusiveness unavoidably reduced the number of opportunities for direct political involvement available to any one citizen. Early critics of representative forms of democratic government, like Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–78), argued that this model of democracy was so far removed from the original conception of this political process that it did not deserve its name. This criticism is also at the heart of many contemporary critiques of democratic politics (for example neo-Marxism, radical democracy, grassroots democracy), which argue that people experience a very limited form of democracy in the institutions of the modern nation-state. There are, however, powerful arguments that support the notion of representative democracy as the most appropriate form of modern governance. Max Weber presented the emergence of this representative model as a consequence of the rise of the bureaucratic state and the bureaucratization (see bureaucracy) of politics. In “Politics as a Vocation” (1919 [trans. 1994]), Weber argued that, because of the complexity of government and society, political parties staffed by professional politicians were needed to organize mass politics in a manageable and effective way. This process was conducive to a plebiscitarian type of democracy, in which people’s ability to govern themselves was to be understood principally in terms of their being able to choose their leaders from amongst those professional politicians running for office. This empirical approach to understanding the functioning of modern democracy was reinterpreted by Joseph Alois Schumpeter, and it became popularly known as a “minimalist” model of democracy. In Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy (1942), Schumpeter likened this approach to democratic politics to an analysis of the economic behavior of agents in free-market capitalism. To liken voters’ behavior to consumers’ choice is to say that the agents’ freedom essentially consists in buying or not buying the products that are being offered by democracy competing parties/companies. Such an approach provided the impulse for the statistical study of electoral politics in terms of voters’ behavior that dominates political life today. The other important difference between modern and ancient democracy is the role of the liberal Constitution. Building on the tradition of liberalism, modern democratic states are constitutional orders that stress the importance of a rule of law (see law and society) that protects the rights of the individual. This constitutional model, which, in the tradition of Baron Charles de Montesquieu’s The Spirit of the Laws (1748 [1989]), usually involves a degree of formal separation between executive and legislative power, protects citizens not only from the despotism of unelected leaders, but also from the abuses of democratically elected governments. This latter concern is probably best presented in terms of the opposition between constitutional democracy and majoritarian democracy. Liberal constitution orders are designed to avoid the main drawback of majoritarian systems that Alexis de Tocqueville described in Democracy in America (1835–40 [trans. 2000]) as “the tyranny of the majority.” While in a majoritarian democracy it is possible for the majority to vote in favor of the elimination of a minority, in a liberal democracy such a possibility can be countered by constitutional provisos. Although the people can change the Constitution, this process is a lengthy and complex one, which ensures that in the short term at least certain political options are not available to the elected political leaders – but as the example of the Weimar Republic (1919–33) illustrates, this system is never entirely foolproof. At the end of the twentieth century the notion that democracy is most meaningfully embodied by a liberal democratic form of government has become widespread, particularly after waves of democratization swept across Latin America and southern and eastern Europe as far as Russia. However, the idea that democracy and liberalism necessarily go hand in hand has been challenged in east Asia and in the Muslim world by proponents of “Asian values” and “Islamic democracy.” These actors argue that the “Western” liberal assumptions contained in this dominant discourse about democratic governance reflect a cultural bias. Today, despite the efforts of advocates of deliberative democracy, like Jürgen Habermas, who emphasize the possibility of a consensus reached through public deliberation, it seems that the only definition of democracy that can avoid these cultural dilemmas is one that is couched in 127 democratization negative terms. In other words, democracy is a form of government in which those wielding political power do so only by virtue of the popular mandate that they received from the citizens, and no other claim to legitimacy can trump this principle of democratic rule. As a political principle, the utilization of the notion of democracy has, therefore, important epistemological implications. It indicates that in this political order, as a matter of principle, no citizen can claim to know better than his or her neighbor what is politically desirable and achievable. Democracy as a form of government simply reflects this equality of judgment in political life and its institutionalization in a political system. And, as we enter the information age, changes in the way in which political opinion can be estimated and fed back into the decisionmaking process have the potential to redefine democratic politics at the level of both party politics and state politics. FREDERIC VOLPI democratization – see democracy. demographic transition – see demography. demography The term demography comes from the Greek words for population (demos) and for description or writing (graphia). The term de´mographie is believed to have been first used in 1855 by the Belgian statistician Achille Guillard in his book Elements of Human Statistics or Comparative Demography (1855 [trans. 1985]). Demography is concerned with how large (or small) populations are – that is, their size; how the populations are composed according to age, sex, race, marital status, and other characteristics – that is, their composition; and how populations are distributed in physical space, for example how urban and rural they are – that is, their spatial distribution. Of equal or greater importance, demography is interested in the changes over time in the size, composition, and distribution of populations, as these result from the processes of fertility, mortality, and migration. Demography is also concerned with answering the question of why these variables operate and change in the way they do. That is, why do populations increase (or decrease) in numbers? Why do they become older or younger? Why do they become more urban or rural? One paradigm in demography uses mainly demographic variables to answer the above questions, 128 demography and this is known as formal demography. Another paradigm uses mainly non-demographic variables drawn from sociology, economics, psychology, geography, biology, and so forth, to answer the questions, and this is known as social demography or population studies. For instance, formal demographers might address population differences in birth rates or in death rates by examining their differences in age composition or in sex composition. Other things being equal, younger populations will have higher birth rates than older populations; and populations with an abundance of females over males will have lower death rates than populations with an abundance of males. Alternately, social demographers might address the above differences in populations by examining differences in, say, their socioeconomic status. Other things being equal, populations with high socioeconomic status will have lower birth rates and death rates than populations with low socioeconomic status. Demographic data will help illustrate the differences between these two approaches. Take the demographic question of why human populations have different levels of fertility. Countries differ with respect to their total fertility rates (roughly defined as the average number of children born to a woman during her childbearing years). In Spain and Italy in 2004, for instance, women were producing an average of 1.3 children each, whereas in Somalia the average number was 7.1 and in Niger, 8.0 (Population Reference Bureau, 2004). Why do these fertility differences exist? The social demographer would go beyond purely demographic concerns and might focus on the processes of industrialization and modernization, while the formal demographer would rely more on purely demographic kinds of explanations. Another example focuses on rates of population growth. In 2004 the rates of population change due only to births and deaths in Hungary and Bulgaria were –0.4 percent and –0.6 percent respectively. In contrast, the rates in Malawi, and Saudi Arabia were 3.1 percent and 3.0 percent, respectively. Why are these four countries growing at such drastically different rates? Why do two of the countries have negative growth rates and the other two positive rates? The formal demographer might develop an answer by considering the birth rates of these countries. The numbers of babies born per 1,000 population in 2004 in Hungary, Bulgaria, Malawi, and Saudi Arabia were 9, 9, 51 and 32, respectively. The latter two countries have higher rates of growth than the former two demography countries partly because their birth rates are higher. The social demographer would first consider the birth rate differentials, but would then go beyond this demographic consideration to an answer involving non-demographic factors which may be influencing the birth rates. Perhaps the economy has something to do with these differences, where countries with low per capita incomes and low literacy rates for women tend to have higher birth rates. Perhaps the level of industrialization of the country has an impact (the more industrialized countries generally have lower birth rates). Social demography is broader in scope and orientation than formal demography. As S. H. Preston writes in “The Contours of Demography: Estimates and Projections,” in Demography (1993: 593), it includes “research of any disciplinary stripe on the causes and consequences of population change.” Demographers, however, do not always agree about the boundaries and restrictions of their field. J. Caldwell states the problem succinctly in “Demography and Social Science” (1996): “What demography is and what demographers should be confined to doing remains a difficult area in terms not only of the scope of professional interests, but also of the coverage aimed at in the syllabuses for students and in what is acceptable for journals in the field.” In the United States, most graduate training programs in demography are located in departments of sociology (although this is not the case in many other countries). Some American demographers thus argue that demography is best treated as a subdiscipline or specialization of sociology, owing to this organizational relationship. The late Kingsley Davis (1908–97), who served at different times as President of both the Population Association of America and the American Sociological Association, wrote in 1948 in his classic sociology textbook, Human Society (1948), that “the science of population, sometimes called demography, represents a fundamental approach to the understanding of human society.” The relationship between sociology and demography is hence a fundamental one: “Society is both a necessary and sufficient cause of population trends.” Change in the size of a population over a certain period of time is due to changes in the same time period in the three demographic processes of fertility, mortality, and migration. A population may change its size over a given time interval by adding the number of persons born during the period, subtracting those dying during the interval, and demography adding the number of persons moving into the area and subtracting those moving out of the area. The dynamics of population change may be represented in a form known as the population equation, also known as the balancing equation P2 ¼ P1 þ B
D þ =
M where P2 is the size of the population at the end of the time interval; P1 is the size of the population at the beginning of the time interval; B is the number of births occurring in the population during the interval; D is the number of deaths occurring in the population during the interval; and M is the net number of migrants moving to, or away from, the population during the interval. To illustrate, the following are data for the United States for the time interval of July 1, 2001 to June 30, 2002: US population size, July 1, 2002: 288,368,698; US population size, July 1, 2001: 285,317,559; Births from July 1, 2001 through June 30, 2002: 4,047,642; Deaths from July 1, 2001 through June 30, 2002: 2,445,837; Immigrations from July 1, 2001 through June 30, 2002: 1,664,334; Emigrations from July 1, 2001 through June 30, 2002: 215,000. These data may be incorporated into the population equation as follows: P2ð288; 368; 698Þ ¼ P1ð285; 317; 559Þ þ Bð4; 047; 642Þ
Dð2; 445; 837Þ þ Mð1; 664; 334
215; 000Þ The population equation describes a closed and determinate model, provided its geographical area remains the same. This is so because population change can occur only through the operation of the three demographic processes. Stated in another way, a population changes in terms of two forms of entry (births and in-migration) and two forms of exit (deaths and out-migration); no other variables need be entertained. Of course, if one wishes to determine why fertility and mortality are at certain levels, or why in-migration and out-migration are different, other nondemographic variables need to be entertained. As discussed above, these are the concerns of social demography. The word “population” derives from the Latin populare (to populate) and the Latin noun populatio. Geoffrey McNicoll, in the Encyclopedia of Population (2003), notes that, in ancient times, the verb populare meant to lay waste, plunder, or ravage and the noun populatio meant a plundering or despoliation. These usages became obsolete by the eighteenth century. The modern use of the 129 demography word population first appeared in 1597 in an essay by Francis Bacon (1561–1626). Strictly speaking, a population is a group or collection of items. But to a demographer a population is a group or collection of people. We may distinguish between a specific population or group of actual people alive at a given period of time – for example the population of the United States as of April 1, 2000 – and the population that persists over time even though its actual members may change, for example the population of China over the past 4,000 years, and even into its future. The more common use of the term population by demographers and in modern English usage is with reference to a delimited set, with unambiguous membership criteria, such as the population of the People’s Republic of China as identified and enumerated in its 2000 census. In a similar vein, N. B. Ryder, in “Notes on the Concept of a Population” (1964 American Journal of Sociology 69 (5): 447–63), defines a population as an aggregate of individuals defined in spatial and temporal terms. It is not necessarily a group, which in sociological terms requires some forms of interpersonal interaction and the development of a sense of community. The analysis of human populations is inherently dynamic because attention is focused on changes in the population over time. The population equation is a demonstration. Ryder also states that the population model is both microdynamic and macrodynamic in nature. This means that processes of change in fertility, mortality, and migration can be identified at both the individual and aggregate levels. This distinction lies at the very heart of the population model because it introduces Alfred J. Lotka’s distinction between the persistence of the individual and the persistence of the aggregate, to be found in Analytical Theory of Biological Populations (1934 [trans. 1998]). All human beings are born, live for some period of time, and then die. But a population aggregate is not temporally limited, provided that enough individuals continue to enter the population to replace those exiting; the population in this sense is immortal. Population aggregates, in terms both of the changes in numbers and of the characteristics of those entering and exiting, can experience changes not reducible to individuals who constitute the population. For instance, when individuals enter a population through birth or inmigration, they will “age” by becoming older. But the population aggregate cannot only become older, it can also become younger, provided that births exceed deaths and the in-migrants are 130 denomination younger than the out-migrants. The racial and sex composition of a population aggregate may also change if more members of one race (see race and ethnicity) or sex enter it than another. Typically, persons do not change their race or sex. Indeed, all human institutions and organizations may be conceived in these terms. One way that social change may be studied is by the monitoring of compositional change caused by entrances and exits. Age is the key variable in the study of populations because it reflects the passage of time. It is subject to metric measurement and provides a precise statement of the time spent by individuals in a population. Demographers use two key concepts in studying age-related changes, namely, the life-cycle and the cohort. The former permits the charting of the life-course experiences of individuals, for example, age of entry into and exit from formal education, entry into full-time employment and subsequent retirement, first marriage, births of first and last children, and so forth. The cohort is an aggregate of individuals who experience important events in their life-cycles at the same time. The defining event is often year of birth, but cohorts are also based on year of entry into or graduation from college, year of birth of first child, year of retirement, and so forth. In this context, age as the passage of time is the linkage between the history of the individual and population. Cohorts (see generations) are valuable analytically because they are subpopulations intermediate between the behaviors of individuals and the population. In terms of birth cohorts, we can conceptualize the population at any given moment in time as a cross-section of cohorts which are arranged uniformly in a staggered manner, each one on top of its immediate predecessor in time. In recent decades some of the most impressive and enduring accomplishments in demography have been made in formal demography. Features of the population model, some of which have just been discussed, have been developed, and the fruitfulness of the approach and its core concerns have been demonstrated. DUDLEY L. POSTON denomination This term is used to differentiate among diverse religious traditions and to categorize diverse affiliations within a shared tradition (most usually within Protestantism and Judaism). Denominationalism emerged as a useful construct in describing and understanding American religious denomination history because of the pluralism of its religious traditions and the notable diversity of the range of Protestant sects (see church–sect typology) that have characterized America since colonial times. Symbolically, denominationalism offers tacit acknowledgment that there is no “one true universal Church,” but that diverse religious denominations, while founded in a belief in a common divine source, develop in particular ways and assume particular organizational characteristics because of the accretions of history and culture. Denominationalism is a dynamic process contingent on multiple contextual factors and in American society is seen as a critical component of cultural identity and belonging. Will Herberg argued that the tripartite options of ProtestantCatholic-Jew (1955) offered a socially acceptable way for Americans of diverse ethnic and religious backgrounds to maintain a distinct identity while affirming their shared commitment to religion and, by extension, to American values (its civil religion). Denominationalism is intertwined with other significant aspects of American religion, including the centrality of personal freedom and choice in regard to churches and doctrines. The heuristic use of denomination rather than church or religion offers a nuanced way of thinking about the place of religion in a particular society; in the contemporary United States, for example, although Protestantism is the largest religious tradition (or church), Catholicism is the largest single denomination, and is followed by (Protestant) Southern Baptists. The comparative social status of different denominations (in terms of membership, institutional activities, political influence) over time is also a useful way of tracking, and theorizing about, changes in denominational membership and activities. Historically, denominational splitting occurred within Protestantism because of disputes over various theological and doctrinal questions (for example, requirements for salvation or the meanings of baptism and the eucharist) or forms of authority (hierarchical or congregational), differences in geographical region, ethnic/national origins (for example, Scotch Presbyterians), or social class, and in regard to political issues (such as slavery). Each denomination, therefore, has a discrete historical, cultural, and organizational identity whose worldview and practices distinguish it from other denominations. In recent decades, there is increased evidence that denominational identity is weakening in the United States. Although it was never an allencompassing identity – as indicated by the deskilling significant rates of intermarriage among Protestants of different denominations, and of church and denominational switching or mobility more generally – it has lost some of its salience both as an anchor of individual identity and in terms of demarcating sociocultural and political boundaries. There is some evidence that the conservative/liberal ideological division within denominations is more important in differentiating individuals and producing coalitions among individuals and groups independently of denomination (for example, Robert Wuthnow, The Restructuring of American Religion, 1988). Denominational affiliation still matters, however, and constrains or moderates individual attitudes and behavior (such as health and life-style practices). Strong denominational loyalties and commitments on the part of individuals can also constrain interorganizational relationships between denominations, and have an impact on specific issues (such as welfare reforms and gay marriages) in the formation of public policy. One of the tensions confronting denominations today is to achieve a balance between articulating their own particular denominational identity and simultaneously engaging in interdenominational and interchurch discourse and cooperation across various theologically charged (for example, abortion or stem-cell research) and economic and political issues (such as globalization). MICHELE DILLON denominationalization – see denomination. dependency theory – see development theory. deprivation – see relative deprivation. descent – see kinship. descent groups – see kinship. desegregation – see segregation. deskilling Philosophical anthropology sometimes conceives of the essence of humankind in terms of homo faber rather than homo oeconomicus. The former highlights people’s capacity to acquire skills, 131 determinism engage in creative labor, and derive pleasure from exercising these skills. In contrast, rational economic calculation could lead to deskilling to cut material and monetary costs. In general, deskilling reduces the skills needed for a given product or service and/or involves loss of skills due to failure to exercise them (for example, through long-term unemployment). Classical political economy discussed deskilling. Adam Smith (1723–90) illustrated it through the division of labor in pin manufacture, and Marx showed how this was reinforced by the transition to machinofacture. Postindustrialism in turn deskills intellectual labor through smart machines and expert systems that integrate tacit knowledge and intellectual skills. Examples include automation of scientific tests, software for legal work, and work in call centers. Labor economists and economic sociology continue to discuss whether modern economies require more or less skilled labor. This reflects two countervailing trends: while new labor processes and products may be more knowledge- and skill-intensive, the pressure to rationalize such processes and products may lead to deskilling. These contradictory tendencies were both emphasized in the work of Harry Braverman, the foremost proponent of the deskilling thesis in monopoly capitalism, in Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century (1974). Some commentators also suggest that deskilling leads to worker alienation, disempowerment, and dehumanization, and may prompt resistance from manual and mental labor. Others emphasize that it can lead to cleaner and less physically demanding work. BOB JESSOP determinism This is the view that, given certain prior conditions, there is an inevitability about the social processes, events, and happenings that will subsequently be brought about. These subsequent happenings are said to be entirely determined by the given prior conditions. Determinism can take many forms but perhaps the Marxist variant is the most well-known sociological example. Determinism here is associated with those interpretations of Karl Marx’s work in which the economic base is said to determine what happens at the level of law, politics, and ideology. The determining conditions here are the economic and class relations structured around the mode of production, whether this be feudal, capitalist, or some other. Politics, law, and ideology, the so-called superstructures, would be seen as merely the 132 determinism surface manifestations, the epiphenomena, of the deeper economic and class structures that provide the real force and energy driving all of social reality. Determinism can also take a range of other forms in which, instead of the economic taking the role of the determining force, this role is given to the genetic, cultural, discursive, demographic, or militaristic dimensions of social life, to name but some. Thus, many racist and sexist arguments are based on forms of genetic determinism in which allegedly inferior genetic inheritances determine lower levels of capability. Or, in a military version, it may be assumed that the nation with the greatest firepower will inevitably come to dominate the world economy. It is the economy this time that plays the role of epiphenomenon. While there can sometimes be some truth in deterministic arguments – such that the economic level does clearly have effects on other aspects of life, and that genetic inheritance will make some things broadly possible and other things impossible – the truths are often partial and overly simplified, and at other times they are simply wrong. Two salient weaknesses can typically be found in deterministic arguments. The first entails a crude view of the nature of the object or set of relations that are said to be doing the determining. Thus, to take the Marxist example, the economic level itself does in fact require certain legal, political, and ideological preconditions for it to exist in the first place, something stressed by many twentiethcentury neo-Marxists. The economic level is itself a more complex and plural entity than a crude account suggests. The second weakness is closely related, and entails an overly simple, or reductionist, view of the causal process by which the determining object is said to bring about the things it determines. In contrast to a laboratory experiment in which strict controls ensure that object X produces certain effects on object Y without any unwanted factors intervening, causality in social life is freighted with a plurality of complicating factors. Any effect that an object such as the economy has on another entity such as politics – even if it were possible to draw a ring around the two so neatly – would typically be mediated, tempered, and complicated by many other factors. These factors could include anything from constitutional statutes and party doctrines to media representations and nationalistic ideologies, not to mention the uncertainties and creativities of human agency within each of these spheres. The typical stance of determinism has been a view that social events are pre-determined, and detraditionalization that they are pre-determined by a particular kind of entity to the exclusion of other entities. A more adequate view is that social happenings do have causal determinants which bring them about, but that these determinants tend to be both internally complex and plural, and that they combine to produce social events but without having been bound to do so. ROB STONES detraditionalization – see tradition. development theory Coming to prominence in the context of United States hegemony and attendant Cold War superpower rivalry, development or modernization theory assumed the existence of national societies developing in parallel with each other in a natural and universal evolutionary process. There were strains, to be sure. The Russian Revolution, as Theodor Shanin argued in Russia 1905–07. Revolution as a moment of Truth (1986), can be seen as the outcome of some of the contradictions of “developing societies,” and rapid industrialization (see industrial society) thereafter – though brutal – was held up as a model for Third World states seeking to overcome economic backwardness. Both the United States and the Soviet Union aimed to convince other states to ally with them in the Cold War in exchange for military and economic aid, each arguing for the superiority of their model of economic development. Structural-functionalist theorists, notably Talcott Parsons, held up those industrialized capitalist societies that had achieved high levels of wealth and democratic political forms, notably western Europe, its settler offshoots – the United States, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand – and states such as Japan, as models of successful development. Poverty and underdevelopment were conceived of as reflecting the prevalence of traditional cultural values thwarting moves towards greater economic development and differentiation. In the context of the wave of decolonization after World War II, and new international bodies like the United Nations (UN), new voices challenged this consensus. One early important critique was that developed by the UN Economic Commission on Latin America (ECLA), based in Santiago, Chile, and formed in 1948 despite the strong objections of the United States, and led by the Argentine Raúl Prebisch (1901–86). While Latin America had been independent since the Hispanic American revolutions of the 1800s, the development theory ECLA’s economists emphasized the continued structural dependence of the region on advanced countries such as the United States. The ECLA analyzed how the formation of peripheral export economies served the needs of the powerful states at the center of the global capitalist economy throughout the colonial period and thereafter. The ECLA’s studies had a major impact on the emergence of a distinct Latin American perspective on development and underdevelopment, thus playing an important role in the emergence of dependency theory. The career of Celso Furtado (1920–2004), widely regarded as the most influential Brazilian economist of the twentieth century and a leader of the structural economists of the region, exemplifies this connection. Prebisch saw Furtado’s ability early on and chose him as the first head of the newly created economic development division. In a 1956 book, Furtado became one of the earliest social scientists to use the term dependency, and went on to serve as Brazil’s Minister of Planning in the populist government of João Goulart (1918–76), until the United States overthrew the democratically elected government in 1964. The structural economists of ECLA advocated the importation and development of infant industries through import substitution industrialization (ISI) and Keynesian (see John Maynard Keynes) techniques of economic demand stimulus. Yet, aside from the relatively unique experience of East Asia, for all the gains made in economic growth and development, ISI failed to overcome economic dependency on foreign actors and thus gave way to the emergence of a radicalized dependency theory. In the context of the Cuban Revolution and the United States response to this in the region, including through support for the emergence of military regimes, many of the dependency theorists advocated anti-imperialist revolutions, often as part of a broader socialist or Marxist-inspired strategy for Third World development. Marxist economist Paul Baran (1910–64) was an early precursor of the dependentistas, who included left-wing social scientists such as Samir Amin, Frederick Clairmonte, Alain de Janvry, Anibal Quijano, Cheryl Payer, Dudley Seers, Walter Rodney, and Theotonio dos Santos. Among the most prominent were Fernando Henrique Cardoso (later President of Brazil) and Andre´ Gunder Frank, both of them associated to varying degrees with ECLA. Frank coined the term “the development of underdevelopment,” arguing the two dimensions were dialectically related. In contrast to the 133 development theory modernization school, dependency theorists argued that the poverty of the periphery and wealth of the core were a structural outcome of unequal power relations between different states and peoples, not cultural differences or tradition. Such so-called feudal remnants – the domination of landed classes and so forth – were seen instead as products of capitalist development in the Third World dictated by the center. While inspired by the arguments of Karl Marx, dependency theorists differed in that they argued capitalism brought not modernization but instead subordination and polarization through surplus extraction. The institutional structure of domination here included what Peter Evans, in Dependent Development (1979), called the “triple alliance” of multinational, state, and local capital. Associated critical actors, which Robin Broad, David PionBerlin, Michael McClintock, and others have analyzed, included the core states, US-dominated Bretton Woods institutions – the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank (WB) – and associated core military intervention and support for repressive regimes. Despite all the frustrations of postwar development, it is now seen by many as the golden age of postwar capitalism. Governance of market forces and related social programs led to high growth rates and a growing advantage in the 1960s and 1970s for Third World states in the area of trade and development. The 1980s, in contrast, saw such dramatic reversals in social gains that it was called “the lost decade of the South.” The generalized economic crisis hit both the Second and Third Worlds, eventually leading to the collapse of the Soviet Empire in eastern Europe and the breakup of the Soviet Union, and the return of much of the region to its original Third World role. These epochal shifts of the 1980s were part of the “counterrevolution in development policy” associated with the hegemony of neoliberalism, globalization, and finance capital, propelled by the United States’ move towards high interest rates and massive borrowing on the global capital markets. Yet among radical critics, such as those of world-systems analysis, what was signaled here was actually not the victory but instead the crisis of developmentalism, the shared belief among self-declared capitalist or communist states that the gains and benefits of the world economy were open to all those who put in the requisite effort. Here, the rise of liberation theology, Islamic fundamentalism, and other social movements were seen as part of the resistance to developmentalism and its failures. 134 development theory The US economic boom of the 1990s, coming in the wake of the communist collapse, added to the revival of modernization ideologies and the neoliberal Washington Consensus, seen as the endpoint of history by scholars such as Francis Fukuyama in his The End of History and the Last Man (1989). For a time, the Asian economic crisis of 1997 and concomitant dramatic plummeting of incomes in the region led to renewed discussion about the superiority of the United States model of capitalism. Yet soon afterwards mainstream intellectuals such as Jagdish Bhagwati, along with radical critics such as Walden Bello, and Peter Gowan in his The Global Gamble (1999), pointed towards the unleashing of speculative capital – from hedge funds to derivatives – called for by neo-liberal policymakers, as causing the crisis. In the wake of the collapse of the US speculative boom, the bursting of the bubble, the ensuing corporate scandals and economic meltdown of Argentina – the former darling of the IMF – more sober assessments, questioning both the modernization and neo-liberal approaches, thus gained ground. Authors such as Alice Amsden, Bruce Cumings, Chalmers Johnson, Robert Wade, and former chief World Bank economist Joseph Stiglitz, highlighted the structural conditions allowing for East Asia’s economic advance and the role of neoliberalism in the crisis. Particular attention was paid to the developmental state, as Meredith Woo-Cumings explores in her edited volume (The Developmental State, 1999), and Alexander Gershenkron’s advantages of backwardness or late development, along with a host of unique conditions – land reform, US military aid for export-oriented industrialization in a productivist mold, limitations on foreign direct investment, and capital controls – that allowed for East Asia’s ascent, now joined by China. In essence, contrary to ideologies of neoliberalism, in East Asia’s export-oriented industrialization the state played a pronounced role in guiding market forces. More recently, Ha-Joon Chang in Kicking Away the Ladder (2002) has shown that virtually all the developed countries used infant industry promotion and protectionism before opening their markets to free competition, as Frederich List predicted, by telling the rest of the world – through organizations ranging from the IMF to the World Trade Organization – that they were not allowed to use such mechanisms. Indeed, advanced countries still interfere with market forces in numerous ways, from agricultural subsidies to military spending serving to prop up high-technology industry. development theory Development theory is today being radically reformulated by a host of iconoclastic scholars, from Mike Davis in Late Victorian Holocausts: El Nino Famines and the Making of the Third World (2001) to the efforts of the Nobel-prize-winning economist Amartya Sen. Though Sen generally stays away from the question of power in the global economy as a whole, his works nevertheless complement these perspectives. In books such as India: Development and Participation (2002), Jean Dreze and Amartya Sen redefined development as the process of enhancing human freedom, focusing on the quality of life and related social opportunities, seen as both the means and ends of development. By shifting focus from the question of income to human capabilities – with poverty redefined as capability deprivation – Sen and his colleagues redirected attention towards inequalities within states and regions. Though not denying the potentially positive relationship between economic growth, rising incomes, and livelihood, Sen demonstrates that various countries with a high Gross National Product have abysmal indicators in terms of the quality of life, while, through political action and public policy other societies have made tremendous achievements in terms of quality of life, even in the absence of significant economic performance. Moreover, in books such as Development and Freedom (1999), drawing on a wealth of empirical studies, Sen demonstrated the positive relationship between the improvement of people’s freedom and capabilities – notably basic education, health, rights to information, and democratic participation, especially for women – for economic growth, development, and fertility reduction. Sen has furthermore highlighted success stories, from the Kerala region in India to East Asia, the latter of which, for all its problems, can be seen in relative terms as what Fernado Fajyzylber, in his important Unavoidable Industrial Restructuring in Latin America (1990), called the “Growth-with-equity-industrializing countries.” World-systems analysts have drawn on the work of Roy F. Harrod (1900–78) who, in a series of famous articles, created the modern theory of growth. In particular, Giovanni Arrighi in The Long Twentieth Century (1994) and Fred Hirsch in The Social Limits of Growth (1976) have shown that, while options for upward mobility are open to some, ultimately they rest on relational processes of exploitation and exclusion that reproduce the oligarchic structures of the world economy, within which income and resources are used disproportionately by the few at the expense of deviance the many. Though many states of the South internalized aspects of the social structures of the core through industrialization, this failed to close the widening development gap. Recent United Nations Human Development Reports (1998, 1999) note that (1) the wealthiest 20 percent of the world’s population accounts for some 86 percent of private consumption expenditures; and (2) income inequality between the world’s poor and rich states has increased from roughly 3:1 in 1820, to 11:1 in 1913, before rising from 35:1 to 70:1 from 1950 to 1992. The Forbes (2004) most recent annual report on the nearly 600 billionaires in the world reveals their wealth to be close to US$1.9 trillion; this at a time when over a billion persons across the globe live on under a dollar a day, according to World Bank statistics, while the gap between high-, middle-, and low-income states continues to widen. In recent years these increasing inequalities have given rise to a global social justice and peace movement, replete with its own annual World Social Forum, bringing together concerned citizens and activists in non-governmental organizations, to build a better world. Thus, at the dawn of the twenty-first century, the questions of economic development and what model(s) might allow for truly universal values of greater global democracy, prosperity, and sustainable development remain one of the great unresolved questions of the present. THOMAS REIFER deviance In simple terms, this can be defined as (real or purported) non-normative behavior that, if detected, can be subject to informal or formal sanctions. Deviant behavior is norm-violating conduct that is subject to social control. In their textbook Social Deviance and Crime: An Organizational and Theoretical Approach (2000), Charles Tittle and Raymond Paternoster summarize the predominant ways in which sociologists have defined deviance and offer their own definition: any type of behavior that the majority of a given group regards as unacceptable or that evokes a collective response of a negative type (13). Deviants are those who engage in behavior that deviates from norms in a disapproved direction in sufficient degree to exceed the tolerance limits of a discernible social group, such that the behavior is likely to elicit a negative sanction if detected. Howard S. Becker, an influential scholar of deviance, pointed out in Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance (1963) that deviance is not a quality of the act one commits, but rather a consequence of the application by others of rules and 135 deviance sanctions to an “offender.” Whether an act is deviant depends on how others who have social power and influence define the act. One could commit any act, but it is not deviant in its social consequence if no elements of society react to it. Becker called social acts “rule-breaking behavior,” and actors violating norms of society “rule-breakers.” As John I. Kitsuse (1923–2003), a well-known scholar of deviance best-known for furthering a “labeling approach” to understanding rule violation, made clear in his body of work spanning over three decades, forms of behavior per se do not differentiate deviants from nondeviants; conventional and conforming members of the society identify and interpret behavior as deviant, and then transform rule-breaking behavior into deviance and persons who break rules or norms into deviants. Many theoretical frameworks, including strain, subculture, learning, and labeling, have been developed by sociologists to explain the occurrences, forms, consequences, and labeling of deviance. One way to make sense of these various frameworks is to organize them according to the degree to which they are designed to address one of two central questions in the study of deviance. First, normative theories ask “who violates norms and why?” Second, reactivist theories ask “why are certain types of norm violations by certain types of individuals (and not others) reacted to as deviant and result in the stigmatization of the rulebreaker?” Relatedly, theories of deviance can be classified as macro and micro. Macro-theories focus on societal and group structures, while micro-theorists focus on individuals and the interactional patterns in which they engage and to which they are subject. Classified along these dimensions, many – but not all – theories of deviance have been categorized by James Orcutt as “macro-normative,” “micro-normative,” “macroreactionist,” and “micro-reactionist” (Analyzing Deviance, 1983). In recent decades, however, sociologists have integrated theories of deviance so that elements of these four types of theories can be found in a single theory organized around a central causal mechanism. The macro-normative approach to the study of deviance examines how societies and communities are organized, to determine why varying rates of deviant behavior appear across subgroups in the population, locations in a community or society, and at different points in history. For example, the French sociologist Émile Durkheim, perhaps the most frequently cited classical theorist of deviance, studied how social structure 136 deviance facilitates or impedes the production of deviance, by emphasizing that structural strain produces what he called “pathology” in the population. Based on empirical data on suicide rates across Europe in the latter part of the nineteenth century, Durkheim argued in Suicide (1897 [trans. 1964]) that changes in the rate of suicide are not adequately explained by individualistic approaches to deviance. Rather, fluctuations in the rates of suicide within and between societies were best explained by the way societies were structured, especially in light of three types of social conditions that produce strain: (1) anomie, a societal condition characterized by a state of normlessness in which individuals become disassociated from a collective moral authority; (2) egoism, a societal condition in which the normative order is too weak and individuals are not sufficiently integrated into society, and thus they are not bound by the norms of the society; and (3) altruism, a societal condition in which the normative order is too strong and individuals are overly integrated into society in ways that compel them to willfully take their own life. From a Durkheimian point of view, an appropriate level of “pathology” is “normal” for society because it serves positive functions, including: a boundary-setting function that delineates the distinction between right and wrong; a group solidarity function for those united in collective opposition to the normative threats of nonconformity; an innovation function insofar as breaking norms often leads to healthy social change; and a tension-reduction function for those who “blow off a little steam” by engaging in low-level forms of deviance (Durkheim, 1895 [trans. 1938]). Consistent with Durkheim’s path-breaking approach to deviance, many contemporary deviance theorists explain varying rates of deviant behavior in terms of an array of structural features of society. Robert K. Merton, for example, extended Durkheim’s work in Social Theory and Social Structure (1957). He sought to explain why people in the same environment behave differently, sometimes conforming and sometimes exhibiting deviant behavior. He borrowed Durkheim’s key term – anomie – to conceptualize structural strain as an acute disjuncture between cultural norms and goals and the socially structured capacities of the members of the group to act in accord with them. In simple terms, Merton argued, when people are faced with blocked access to legitimate means to reach culturally acceptable goals, they will “adapt” to the situation by pursuing illegitimate means – deviant behavior – to achieve deviance conventional goals. Because economic opportunity is not evenly distributed across society, rates of deviance, especially crime and delinquency, are also unevenly distributed. More recently, Steven Messner and Richard Rosenfeld in Crime and the American Dream (1994) reformulated Merton’s theory by proposing that anomie fostered by economic inequality is most likely to produce crime and delinquency when economic and noneconomic institutions fail to offset the material success available to those engaging in deviance. Versions of social ecological theories of deviance constitute another type of structural explanation of deviance. Social disorganization theory, which developed at the University of Chicago in the 1930s and continues to inspire volumes of research today, emphasizes the correlation between spatial location and rates of criminal and deviant behavior. The concept of social disorganization refers to both social and cultural conditions, such as value and norm conflicts, mobility, cultural change, and weak relationships. Social disorganization undermines internal and external social control, thereby promoting unconventional and deviant behavior. Some spatial locations have so much social disorganization that a delinquent subculture arises. Albert Cohen argued in his book Delinquent Boys: The Culture of the Gang (1955) that youth become frustrated (a form of anomie) when they find themselves unable to perform in school on a par with their more privileged peers. Seeking solace with other lower-class peers, together they engage in deviant acts as a way to flaunt traditional norms. Richard Cloward and Lloyd Ohlin furthered subculture theory with their book Delinquency and Opportunity: A Theory of Delinquent Gangs (1960). They specified three types of delinquent gang subcultures: criminal, conflict, and retreatist. Criminal subcultures focus more on making money than being violent; conflict subcultures are violent towards law-abiding and criminal groups alike; and retreatist subcultures comprise individuals who cannot make it in either the legitimate or the criminal world – therefore, they resort to deviant (and illegal) activities such as the excessive or inappropriate use of drugs, alcohol, and so forth. Other ecological theories of deviance include: routine activities theory, which posits that the convergence of a motivated offender, a suitable target, and the absence of a capable guardian produces crime and deviance (Lawrence Cohen and Marcus Felson in “Social Change and Crime Rate Trends: A Routine Activity Approach,” American Sociological deviance Review, 1979); gender and power-control theory (John Hagan, Structural Criminology, 1989), which points to the family as the primary source of varying socialization experiences for boys and girls, to explain gender differences in nonconforming behavior; classic control theory, such as Travis Hirschi, Causes of Delinquency (1969), which emphasizes sources of social bonding and attachments as key to understanding who deviates and why; and contemporary control theory, which emphasizes lack of self-control and directs attention to the social organization of the family as producing (and inhibiting) deviance (for example, Michael Gottfredson and Travis Hirschi, A General Theory of Crime, 1990). Others have theorized about why some people in an environment (and not others) fail to conform to group norms and, instead, engage in deviant behavior. These theorists focus on the experiences and interpersonal interactions of those who learn to engage in deviant behavior. Orienting to deviance as a form of learned behavior, these theorists treat the underlying mechanisms that produce deviance as essentially no different from those that produce conformity. However, theorists disagree on what the precise mechanisms of learning entail. The early roots of a learning perspective on deviance can be found in a French magistrate’s work on imitation and suggestion as the “cause” of juvenile delinquency and crime. Gabriel Tarde argued in The Laws of Imitation (1890 [trans. 1912]) that the explanation of crime lay not in biology but in the social world and that crime is transmitted through intimate personal groups. In simple terms, he argued good boys associate with and imitate bad boys and, in the process, become bad boys themselves. Regardless of what characteristics one has at birth, Tarde argued, one must learn to become criminal by association with and imitation of others, just as one learns a trade or learns about and imitates the latest fads and fashions. A far more systematic and consequential learning theory was presented in 1939 by the American criminologist Edwin H. Sutherland in Principles of Criminology, which is now in its eleventh edition and continues to be one of the best-selling criminology textbooks (see Sutherland, Cressey, and Luckenbill, [eds.] 2002). Sutherland argued that crime and other forms of deviance do not result from social disorganization; rather, some groups are organized for criminal activities and some are organized against these activities. Sutherland hypothesized that any person can be trained to adopt and follow any pattern of criminal behavior 137 deviance and any pattern of conforming behavior. Such patterns were developed through differential social organization and differential association. Sutherland, and later his co-authors Donald Cressey and David Luckenbill, argued that differential social organization could explain the crime rate (just as the macro-normative theorists would suggest), while differential association could explain the criminal behavior of a particular person. The differential association element of this approach posits that deviant behavior is a product of learning via communicative interaction. This type of learning involves defining certain situations as the appropriate occasions for deviant behavior; mastering the techniques of successful deviant activity; and acquiring the motives, drives, attitudes, and rationalizations that justify violations of norms and/or laws (see law and society). One key to learning deviance is what Gresham Sykes and David Matza refer to as “techniques of neutralizations,” which are justifications and excuses for committing deviant acts (“Techniques of Neutralization: A Theory of Delinquency,” American Sociological Review, 1957). By denying responsibility, denying injury or harm, denying the victim, and appealing to higher loyalties, deviants are able to free themselves from the pressure to conform to social norms for a specific act. Techniques of neutralization play a key role in deviance disavowal – the deviant’s rejection of the application of deviant labels – by enabling the deviant to distinguish himself from his deviance in an effort to maintain a conventional identity as a conventional member of society. Techniques of neutralization also play a key role in deviancy drift theory as developed by Matza in Delinquency and Drift (1964). Matza’s drift theory assumes that people live their lives on a continuum somewhere between total freedom and total constraint, and often people move between conforming and deviant behavior. This movement occurs because delinquents can maintain a commitment to the dominant norms while neutralizing their controlling effect on their deviant behavior. Indeed, the frequent deployment of techniques of neutralization shows that deviants generally hold values and beliefs very similar to those who conform. More contemporary theoretical treatments of the role learning plays in producing deviance have examined other dynamics crucial to learning both deviant and conforming behavior. For example, Ronald Akers (Social Learning and Social Structure, 1998) looks beyond differential association to differential reinforcement. Reinforcement refers 138 deviance to the process by which other people reward or punish a particular deviant act. Akers stresses that this process is complex and is built upon reciprocal feedback loops that precede the moment of engaging in deviance. Moving away from the normative question of who engages in deviance and why, sociologists working within the “constructionist” or “reactionist” tradition analyze the origins and content of rules, norms, traditions, and laws in order to understand why certain types of behavior and people are constructed and categorized as deviant in the first place. Here the focus is on the social construction of deviance, a process whereby conduct, events, and people are constructed as abnormal, atypical, pathological, and ultimately stigmatizable. Rather than focusing on the causes and correlates of deviant behavior, this perspective devotes analytic attention to the processes whereby the boundaries between “normal” and “deviant” are demarcated at the societal level. At the macroscopic level, sociologists have studied the formation of criminal law and other forms of social policy and rule-making as one empirical measure of a group, community, or society marking behavior as unacceptable and subject to social control. Over a half a century ago, Edwin Sutherland published one of the earliest and best-known sociological investigations of the origins of a specific type of criminal law. In “The Sexual Psychopath Laws” (Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 1950), Sutherland argued that the origins and the diffusion of sexual psychopath laws are largely the result of two things: the manipulation of public opinion by the press and the influence of experts on the legislative process. These factors invented what is now identifiable as the sexual psychopath, declaring certain people deviant and in need of social control. Since the publication of Sutherland’s classic study on the criminalization of sexual psychopathy, sociologists have pointed to a plethora of demographic, organizational, political, structural, and institutional conditions that shape when and how social behaviors and statuses become defined as deviant over time and across geopolitical boundaries. For example, taking a decidedly materialist approach to criminalization, William Chambliss detailed in his now-famous and often reprinted article “A Sociological Analysis of the Law of Vagrancy” (Social Problems, 1964) how changing demographic and economic conditions enabled vagrancy laws, which define people without a permanent residence as deviant, to emerge in the fourteenth century. A more recent work on deviance the topic of homelessness by Gregg Barak (Gimme Shelter: A Social History of Homelessness in Contemporary America, 1991) demonstrates that gentrification and redevelopment in central cities, coupled with changing views of “the homeless,” led to a plethora of laws that criminalize homelessness and, in the process, deviantize the homeless as misfits and vagabonds living outside the conventional moral order and threatening those who do not. Similarly, Joseph R. Gusfield in Symbolic Crusade (1986) explains how the distribution and sale of alcoholic beverages was constitutionally defined as criminal in the United States in the early twentieth century. In the process, native groups effectively deviantized immigrants, Catholics, and urban dwellers, who consumed alcohol in more visible ways than natives, Protestants, and rural dwellers. In more recent work on status politics and law, Valerie Jenness and Ryken Grattet analyzed in their book Making Hate a Crime (2001) the crucial role grassroots activists and organized social movements have played in instigating and formulating hate-crime law in the United States that criminalizes bias-motivated violence across the nation; as a result, in the latter part of the twentieth century, age-old violent behavior deriving from bigotry became recognizable as hate crime. Similarly, Elizabeth Boyle’s work Female Genital Cutting: Cultural Conflict in the Global Community (2003) shows how processes of globalization have redefined centuries-old normative behavior – female genital cutting – as unacceptable, deviant, and, in some cases, criminal behavior. At the microscopic level of analysis, sociologists of deviance examine the interactions between deviants and “normals” and the consequences of such interactions for the production and management of stigma, the engine around which deviantization motors. The term stigma (or stigmata) dates back to the Greek word for “tattoo-mark” and references the mark made with a hot iron and impressed on people to show they were devoted to the service of the temple, or on the opposite spectrum of behavior, that they were criminals or runaway slaves. In its most literal usage, the term stigma refers to a mark or stain that ruins an individual’s reputation. To understand the concept of stigma and its relevance to the social construction of deviance, Erving Goffman’s classic work Stigma: Notes on the Management of a Spoiled Identity (1963) emphasized a distinction between virtual social identities and actual social identities. Virtual social identities are normative expectations about how people should behave and deviance characteristics people should possess; and actual social identities are the actual behavior of individuals and the characteristics individuals actually possess. Goffman argued that discrepancies between virtual and actual social identities often cause us to reclassify an individual from one socially anticipated category to another less desirable one. For example, coming to understand someone is homosexual, an ex con, or the carrier of a fatal disease, after presuming the individual was heterosexual, a law-abiding citizen, or generally healthy, can result in the reclassification of someone as a particular type of person. However, attributes do not, in and of themselves, cause stigmata; whether or not an attribute is stigmatizing depends upon the circumstance and the social audience. An attribute that stigmatizes one type of person can confirm the usualness of another and therefore is neither creditable nor discreditable as a thing in itself. Context matters because it is only within specific contexts that attributes get negatively labeled and reacted to as such. In short, deviance is necessarily relative. The process of labeling, as anticipated by Frank Tannenbaum, conceived by Goffman, and elaborated by Howard S. Becker, Edwin Schur, Edwin Lemert, and Stephen Pfohl, has loomed large in empirical studies of deviance. Relying upon the basic tenets of symbolic interactionism, sociologists have documented many sources and consequences of stigma by empirically examining diverse types of people, situations, and judgments that spoil actual social identities in an array of institutional settings. For example, stigma attached to the presence of a criminal record reduces the perceived value of potential employees for potential employers. Moreover, specific sexual practices, health conditions, family histories, bodily forms, and religious practices can, if and when they become known, demote individuals in the eyes of what Goffman called “normals.” Finally, identities and subcultures can be organized around shared stigma, and deviance can be amplified as a result. In Lemert’s classic formulation (Human Deviance, Social Problems, and Social Control, 1967), primary deviance is norm-violating behavior that does not result in consequential public labeling because it does not surpass a group, community, or society’s tolerance threshold; therefore it is ignored or normalized. In contrast, secondary deviance occurs when normviolating behavior passes the group, community, or society tolerance threshold, is subject to a “dramatization of evil” (Tannenbaum’s terminology) and stigmatized, and results in a changed 139 deviance self-concept for the deviant(s). Unlike primary deviance, which derives from multiple causes and is sporadic, secondary deviance is role-based behavior and is more predictable. In other words, secondary deviation is a function of societal reaction and stigmatizing labels. Related, deviance amplification is the unintended consequence of formal and informal social control efforts, which often stimulate a spiral of deviance. The way people (for example teachers and parents) and organizations (for example the criminal justice system) react to relatively minor deviance can result in the formation of deviant subcultures and deviant careers. This is because stigmatization changes self-concepts, and changed self-concepts provide the principal link between the stigmatized labels and future deviant behavior. In simple terms, labeling theory posits that people take on deviant identities and play deviant roles because they are strongly influenced into doing so by the application of stigmatizing labels to them. This line of thinking has been applied most commonly to juvenile delinquents, as well as the mentally ill, rapists, nudists, homosexuals, ex-convicts, shoplifters, and people struggling to manage their weight. Sociologists have also examined the ways stigmatized identities and groups organized around them have become the source of political consciousness and attendant social movement activity. For example, in the latter part of the twentieth century, those sustaining the gay and lesbian movement, the prostitutes’ rights movement, the disabilities movement, the movement to advance fat acceptance, and the movement to normalize mental illness have sought to destigmatize the very attributes, identities, and behaviors that bind them together as a discernible socialpolitical group. Kitsuse commented on this uniquely modern trend in a presidential address to the Society for the Study of Social Problems aptly titled “Deviance Coming Out All Over: Deviants and the Politics of Social Problems” (1980). A little over a decade later, United States senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a sociologist, reiterated the constructionist theme of the elasticity of social boundaries between conventional and deviant behavior and expressed concern about the degree to which what was once seen as deviant behavior is now seen as conventional behavior in an article entiled “Defining Deviancy Down” (1993). More recently, Joel Best has pointed out in his history of deviance, Deviance: Career of a Concept (2004), that labeling theory came under fire from feminist critics who found labeling theorists too sympathetic towards those who victimized 140 deviance women, identity politics that sought to remove the stigma from certain activities and attributes, and mainstream sociologists who claimed that labeling theory was empirically wrong, which was probably the most damaging of the critiques. According to Best, as labeling theory became unpopular, scholars turned to more specialized studies – such as the study of social problems and social movements and deviant transactions – because they allowed the scholars the freedom to condemn some deviants while celebrating others. Since the mid-1970s, a number of explanations for deviance have emerged that do not fit into the categories of theories described above, precisely because they are integrated theories. Integrated theories, by design, draw elements from normative and reactionist theories at both the macroscopic and microscopic levels, add new causal mechanisms to elements drawn from these theories, and present the synthesis as a new explanatory framework. Developing integrated theories requires the scholar to recognize that the elements of one theory are compatible with another, even though the theories operate on different levels of abstraction. Ernest Burgess and Ronald Akers in their article “A Differential Association–Reinforcement Theory of Criminal Behavior” (Social Problems, 1966) successfully combined social learning theory and Sutherland’s differential association theory. As Messner and Liska point out in their textbook Perspectives on Crime and Deviance (1999), Burgess and Akers did this by recognizing that youths “hanging out” with delinquent peers and learning from them (differential association) is merely one particular type of operant conditioning (learning theory). A second integrated theory is found in John Braithwaite’s Crime, Shame and Reintegration (1989). Braithwaite draws upon elements of structural strain theory, learning theory, and societal reactionist theory to argue that the type of shaming to which rule-breakers are subject is crucial to producing deviance. Specifically, one type of shaming – disintegrative shaming – reproduces deviance; another type of shaming – reintegrative shaming – reduces the occurrence of subsequent deviance by providing the opportunity for individuals to recommit to conventional society. More recently, in Control Balance: Toward A General Theory of Deviance (1995), Charles Tittle relies upon elements from many different theories and the notion of “control-balance” to develop a new theoretical framework. In Tittle’s theory, “controlbalance,” or the ratio of how much a person is able to control compared to how much the deviance deviant case analysis individual is controlled (itself a product of social structures, interaction patterns, and other ecological variables), explains both conforming and deviant behavior. As integrated theories continue to be developed, so too do general assessments of the status of the sociological study of deviance. On the one hand, the sociology of deviance’s book-length obituary has been written by Colin Sumner (The Sociology of Deviance: An Obituary, 1994), who accuses the field of no longer advancing a viable, coherent, and legitimate body of knowledge. This skepticism about the future of the field has been affirmed by others, including Anne Hendershott, who argues in her book The Politics of Deviance (2002) that scholars have romanticized deviant behavior; and by J. Mitchell Miller, Richard Wright, and David Dannels in their article “Is Deviance ‘Dead?’” (2001). On the other hand, Erich Goode has pointed out in several articles and in his popular textbook Deviant Behavior (1994) that practitioners of the sociology of deviance continue to teach graduate and undergraduate courses on the topic across the United States and abroad. Arguably, Alexander Liazos’s strident critique in 1972 of the sociology of deviance as the impoverished study of “nuts, sluts, and perverts” has been overcome by what continues to be a vibrant and exciting field that remains intimately connected to larger sociological concerns. Influential scholars continue to write articles and books that offer new and improved approaches to the study of deviance. For example, Charles Tittle and Raymond Paternoster’s book Social Deviance and Crime: An Organizational and Theoretical Approach (2000) calls for an organizational approach to deviance. In addition, others call for approaches to the sociology of deviance that integrate normative and reactionist frameworks and build more flexible and inclusive definitions of the term deviance (see Alex Heckert and Druann Maria Heckert’s article “A New Typology of Deviance: Integrating Normative and Reactivist Definitions of Deviance,” Deviant Behavior, 2002). Finally, leading scholars specializing in deviance, including Jack Katz and Christopher Williams, have encouraged colleagues to recognize that engaging in deviance and crime can be fun and exciting, perhaps even creative and artistic. As these calls for reform circulate, the sociological study of deviance continues to be integrated with other areas of sociology, most notably criminology, the study of social stratification, community, queer theory, moral panics, and social movements. VALERIE JENNESS AND PHILIP GOODMAN deviance disavowal – see deviance. deviancy – see deviance. deviancy amplification – see deviance. deviancy drift – see deviance. deviant behavior – see deviance. deviant case analysis Perhaps one of the clearest instances of the differentiation of quantitative and qualitative approaches in sociology is the treatment of deviant cases in a dataset. Anomalous cases in the quantitative tradition are regarded as sources of error, bias, or “noise,” tend to be termed “outliers” and are, if not deleted, “transformed” until they approach “normality” prior to statistical analysis. In contrast, in qualitative work, particularly in the sub-disciplines of ethnomethodology and conversational analysis (CA), deviant cases are actively cherished for their potentially crucial analytic import. These qualitative approaches, which were originally inspired by Harold Garfinkel’s Studies in Ethnomethodology (1967), analyse “breaches” in the mundane social order in which the exception may illuminate an otherwise-taken-for-granted, and hence “invisible,” rule. The analysis of cases/ instances that seem to run counter to established patterns or theoretical claims has become a canonical methodological procedure in ethnomethodology and CA, and in variants of discursive psychology which draw upon this heritage. The analysis of deviant cases is designed, then, in order to get at, in Garfinkel’s terms, the “seenbut-unnoticed background features” of everyday life. Thus, given contemporary ethical constraints on real-life “breaching experiments,” investigators will actively search for naturally occurring breaches of conventionally normative social conduct. An example can be taken from Alec McHoul and Mark Rapley’s “Should we make a start then?: A Strange Case of a (Delayed) Client-Initiated Psychological Assessment” (2002, Research on Language and Social Interaction, 35). This case involved the study of the initiation of a psychological test by the testee rather than, as would normatively be 141 dialectical materialism expected, by the tester. Deviant case analysis may, alternatively, involve – for example – combing a dataset of telephone-call openings. Emmanuel A. Schegloff, in “Sequencing in Conversational Openings” (1968, American Anthropologist 70), looked for the single instance (that is deviant case) out of a collection of 500 in which a social actor (“member”) broke the putative rule that “answerer speaks first,” to develop a more sophisticated theoretical account. Thus, in Schegloff’s research, the analysis of the deviant case showed that it did, in fact, lend support to a higher-order theoretical conception of “summons–answer” sequences. Similarly, the McHoul and Rapley study supported the work of Harvey Sacks in his two-volume Lectures on Conversation (1995). Through an analysis of the breach of the normative conventions of membership in asymmetric social categories, Sacks’s account of the conditions under which an omni-relevant device for conversation may be theoretically inferred were, in fact, empirically demonstrable. MARK RAPLEY AND SUSAN HANSEN dialectical materialism – see Marxism. diaspora A term originally applied to the experience of a people dispersed from their original homeland for long periods, yet who retain cultural memories and ties, diaspora has gained increasing currency to describe a host of such peoples in a world in which movement and flight are common. While the term was traditionally applied to the stateless Jewish people, among the most important diaspora communities today are, ironically, the Palestinians displaced from their homeland with the formation of the Jewish state of Israel, thus pitting two diasporic communities against each other. The modern world has seen numerous largescale migrations, forcible and voluntary, from the African slave trade, to the movement of the Irish during the potato famine and thereafter. Today, the experience of the African and Irish diasporas form important components of the blossoming field of diaspora studies. Sociologist Paul Gilroy coined the influential term The Black Atlantic (1995) to capture the African diaspora experience, while Irish scholars now use the term “The Green Atlantic.” Increasingly, with globalization, there are transnational diaspora communities – including those fleeing war and poverty – of overseas migrants and citizens whose resources are critical to those left in their home countries. 142 differentiation Thus, diaspora communities, from the experience of Puerto Ricans, Salvadorans, or Latinos as a whole, are today proliferating. And with the ascent of East Asia and China in the contemporary global economy, there has also been increased attention paid to the (often wealthy) Chinese diaspora community in East Asian and Chinese development. THOMAS REIFER diasporic studies – see diaspora. differential association – see deviance. differentiation The differentiation of tasks in society – or the division of labor – is a central focus of sociology. Sociologists have studied the effects of increasing specialization and complexity and have classified societies in terms of the nature and level of differentiation. During the Scottish Enlightenment, writers like Adam Ferguson (1723–1816) and John Millar (1735–1801) distinguished four sociologically distinct stages of society: hunters and gatherers; shepherd or pastoral society; husbandmen or agricultural society; and commercial society. Karl Marx’s materialist theory of history represents social development in terms of successive modes of production. Marx introduces the idea that social differentiation is associated with inequality and that conflict among social classes is one of the principal motors of social change. Functionalism provides an alternative account of differentiation, concerned with the problem of interdependence among the parts of a differentiated system. Émile Durkheim set out a model of types of societies from elementary to more complex types. The two poles of this continuum were respectively characterized by mechanical and organic forms of solidarity. Talcott Parsons expanded this scheme with a full theory of structural differentiation, where the four functional imperatives that all societies must meet allows a classification of societies in terms of the degree of institutional specialization around each of the functions these four functions were called the pattern variables, relating to the economy, polity, value system, and motivation that all societies must satisfy. Many sociologists became suspicious of the emphasis on linear development and the teleological implications of both Marxian and functionalist approaches. Feminist theory criticized each digital divide disability and impairment approach for the neglect of the sexual division of labor and the role of gender inequalities in capitalist modernity. Postmodern sociologists have emphasized the possibility of dedifferentiation as well as forms of hyperdifferentiation. JOHN HOLMWOOD digital divide As the internet has grown in scope and usefulness, so too has concern about equitable access to its services and benefits, especially to information. The term digital divide is a catch-all phrase to cover many perspectives addressing equity issues in terms of the way mediated electronic communication and information resources are available to, or used by, various groups. The emphasis is on disparities among groups. An early digital-divide concern, which came to particular prominence in the late 1980s, was over computer access. Computer access was seen as being mal-distributed along gender lines. Some felt that, since males were by far the heaviest users, aggressive intervention programs were needed to boost female participation. Although varied programs were launched to interest girls in careers in computer science, little appear to have been accomplished. A similar concern regarding gender was expressed in the early era of the internet, when males were heavy adopters. However, over time, advancing ease of use and engaging content alone appear to have solved this “divide” as women have become as heavily involved in online activities as men. While there is some variation, such as women appearing to be more interested in online social interaction than are men, this dimension of concern over a possible digital divide has largely disappeared. Yet gender is but one of a series of other possible digital divides reflecting various inequities. These would include mal-distributions along lines of geographic, racial/ethnic, economic, institutional, age, educational, religious, and handicapped status. In many ways, there appears to be little about these “divides” that is uniquely digital. The very factors that might create a digital divide have already acted to create other opportunity divides. For instance, digital-divide concerns along international dimensions is actually a subset of the already existing inequality between “rich nations” and “poor nations.” Also, from a practical viewpoint, conceptual distinctions in access to digital resources are multiple and overlapping. At the same time, there are some interesting ways that the politics of the issue play out. While there is broad public concern over inequitable access to internet resources, similar inequalities in access to mobile communication resources command little attention. This is true despite the fact that it may be that mobile communication resources are more important economically to those on the margins of the global system than to those at the core. In terms of geographic digital divides, there are stubborn problems of unequal distribution of information and other resources, with rural and less densely populated areas not keeping up with their urban counterparts. In addition, poorer areas tend to be less well-served with information and other resources. Much has been made of perceived racial/ethnic inequalities, and these concerns are frequently accompanied by far-reaching program proposals. While it is true that certain racial/ethnic minorities are underrepresented in the online world, it is equally true that others are “overrepresented.” Interestingly, when educational achievement is considered, it is generally the case that the racial/ethnic divide disappears. Put differently, people with low education are the ones who have low participation rates, rather than there being something unique or disinclining about their cultural characteristics that prevent members of that culture from using the internet. There are enormous differences internationally among usage levels of the internet. These also seem to be a result of international inequalities of income and productivity, as well as local telecommunication pricing policies. Although the internet was seen originally as a solution to the gap between the rich and poor countries, it now appears that many international aid bodies feel that efforts are no longer necessary to try to wire the less-developed countries. As J. Katz and R. Rice show in Social Consequences of Internet Use (2002), mobile communication, especially via cell phones, is seen as an avenue for economic progress in developing countries. JAMES E. KATZ diploma disease – see credentialism. disability and impairment Both terms, which are culturally specific and contested, are used to designate a particular relationship of the individual to bodily norms and to society in general. Disability has different meanings in different cultures, and in many western countries legislative definitions of disability have become increasingly complex, because they result in the provision of rehabilitation services or welfare payments to disabled people. Indeed, the 143 disability and impairment definitions adopted by western governments have changed so often that one can argue that disability is basically defined by public policy, and therefore disability is socially produced by policy decisions. In the traditional medical literature, impairment is defined as the inability of a physiological or body system to perform the function for which it was designed. A functional loss occurs when an impairment limits a person’s ability to perform basic functional activities like climbing stairs, running, or jumping. Disability is present when the functional loss limits a person’s ability to ambulate, do daily self-care activities, perform the duties of a parent, work and function in society. Scholars in the United States and United Kingdom objected to this “medicalized” view of disability because it focused on individual limitations and deficiencies, not on the larger environment. In the British version of the social model of disability, impairment is the term used to refer to medical conditions, or differences from normal bodily or cognitive functioning, and disability refers to the social reactions to impairment, particularly experiences of discrimination, oppression, social exclusion, and marginalization. Today, it is evident that disability cannot be simply reduced to a medical or biological definition nor located entirely in the environment. From an ecological perspective, disability is defined not only by the biology of the injury or disease, but more significantly by the interaction between biology and an individual’s physical, social, economic, and political environment, as well as by the demands of the person’s physical, social, and occupational activities. Disability is a physical condition and social experience that is not necessarily permanent and can be modified, if its determinants can be altered. Dealing with impairment can be a very difficult experience, because it often involves admitting vulnerabilities, revealing intimate or private bodily details, and dealing with unexpected biographical disruptions. Every impairment has its own unique features, but there are four important factors affecting the way an individual responds to their impairments: the age at which a person acquires impairment, the visibility of the impairment, the degree to which others comprehend the impairment, and the influence of illness. The social acceptability of the impairment is also important – some types of impairment are far more stigmatized than others. This distinction between impairment and disability, which is at the heart of the social model 144 disability and impairment of disability, is valuable because it emphasizes the need to remove the barriers, discrimination, negative images, and lack of opportunities which many disabled people experience. Access is fundamental to the construction (and contestation) of disability. There is a sense in which every discrimination can be seen as a problem about access: access to an equal, unhindered social role. Social restrictions and discrimination are a central part of the experience of disability for people with any sort of impairment. Regardless of whether these barriers stem from inaccessible built environments, proscriptive notions of intelligence, the inability of the public to communicate using sign language, a failure to provide resources in accessible formats, or the discrimination experienced by people with invisible impairments, these experiences have a negative social dimension which can be addressed in the creation of a more just and equitable society. A medical model of disability might suggest that such problems with access are caused by an individual pathology, but the social model of disability which is favored by disability rights activists and by disability studies suggests that the unaccommodating nature of the environment is to blame. The politicization of access issues could therefore be seen as one of the great benefits of distinguishing between impairment and disability in this way. Understood through a social model, disability is not an individual trait, it is a social construction constantly made and remade through beliefs, practices, institutions, environments, and behavior. In this vein, disability is produced by the perception of physical, mental, and emotional variation. The implication is that non-disabling environments and patterns of behavior can be developed – if disabled people have rights, support, recognition, and self-determination. A British group, the Union of Physically Impaired Against Segregation (UPIAS), was particularly influential in promoting the distinction between impairment and disability and in defining disability as a form of oppression. UPIAS has argued that it is society which disables physically impaired people. Disability is something which is imposed on top of existing impairments by the ways in which people with impairment are unnecessarily isolated and excluded from full social participation. Disabled people are consequently an oppressed social group. In order to understand this situation, it is necessary to recognize the distinction between physical impairment and the social situation called the “disability” of people disability and impairment with such impairments. Impairment is defined as lacking part of or all of a limb, or having a defective limb, organ, or mechanism of the body, while disability is the disadvantage or restriction of activity caused by contemporary social arrangements. Disability occurs when social institutions take little or no account of people who have physical impairments, thereby excluding them from participation in the mainstream social activities. Physical disability is a particular type of social oppression. Although the initial definition of disability provided by UPIAS focused on people with physical impairments, it was subsequently broadened to include other impairments. The UPIAS definition of impairment and disability has become well known, partly due to the fact that a leading disabled academic, Mike Oliver, has consistently relied on them in his work, but also because other academics have accepted these definitions. An important element of the UPIAS approach to disability was the promotion of self-determination. UPIAS has rejected the idea of experts and professionals holding forth on how people should accept disabilities, or providing academic lectures about the psychology of impairment. In contrast, UPIAS argues that they are interested in finding ways to change their own conditions of life, thereby overcoming the disabilities which are imposed over and above existing physical impairments. This approach identifies disabled people as the experts on their own lives, and has given many disabled people the confidence to challenge the barriers and negative attitudes which they experience in their daily lives. Instead of the sense of powerlessness, dependency, and shame which may result from the medical model of disability, such an approach gives disabled people a sense of confidence, empowerment, and removes feelings of shame, stigma, and guilt from discussions of access requirements. The central element of this approach to disability is its emphasis on the need to remove the barriers that prevent people with impairments from taking their rightful roles in society. The essential message is that, although disabled people may have significant bodily, cognitive, or psychological differences which distinguish them from non-disabled people, those differences do not justify inequality and should not result in the denial of citizenship rights. Society creates many of the problems that disabled people experience and society has a responsibility to address them. Thus it is suggested that it is impossible to discourse analysis identify the number of disabled people in a society. From the perspective of the social model of disability, people are only disabled by an environment which does not meet their needs. There is no fixed number of disabled people, because people with impairments may not be disabled in every context. MARK SHERRY AND GARY L. ALBRECHT discourse – see discourse analysis. discourse analysis An omnibus term to describe a wide range of socio-cultural analytic perspectives developed in the aftermath of the linguistic turn in the social sciences during the 1960s, at the broadest level, the domain of discourse analysis encompasses the study of language use beyond the level of the sentence or utterance, in relation to social or societal context. In this broad conception, discourse analysis embraces both speech and interaction and written texts as objects of study. Much of Anglophone discourse analysis stems from the widespread influence of the “ordinary language philosophy” practiced by John L. Austin (1911–60) and John Searle (1932– ). This perspective was elaborated in opposition to the notion that the primary function of language is representational. Austin in How to Do Things with Words (1962) at first argued that language use involves both “constative utterances” (that represent states of affairs) and “performatives” (for example, “I now pronounce you man and wife”) which function to perform social actions and which only do so if certain normative conventions are satisfied. Subsequently Austin concluded that speech mingles the performance of actions with the predication of states of affairs, and this theme was given more formal expression in Searle’s development of “speech act analysis” in Speech Acts (1979). At the same time Anglophone discourse analysis has embraced the notion that language use embodies indexical properties which ensure that the meaning-making process will inevitably involve the use of the relationship between utterance and context to elaborate the meanings of social actions. These basic ideas have been developed in several distinctive intellectual and disciplinary contexts. In linguistics, H. Paul Grice (1913–88) created the theory of “conversational implicature” (implicit meaning derived from construing what is said explicitly in relation to social context). Based on the notion that cooperative conversation is organized in terms of a number of basic 145 discourse analysis principles that license inferences about the communication of meaning, this theory has been highly important in the development of linguistic pragmatics which incorporates the analysis of speech acts, presupposition, “deixis,” and related topics. In anthropology, Dell Hymes (1927– ) built on the theory of speech acts to develop a broader model of the ethnography of speaking, based on sixteen dimensions of a speech event. This marks a departure from the traditional anthropological emphasis on documenting and preserving threatened indigenous languages, and towards a focus on the relationship between language, culture, and the use of speech acts within given communities and activities. Moreover, it does so with the provision of an anthropologically informed sense of the variety of language games that may be sustained within a given culture. In sociology, Erving Goffman’s conception of social interaction as driven by normatively mediated face wants was a proximate source both for the development of conversational analysis, and for the development of a theory of positive and negative face in Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson’s highly influential cross-linguistic analysis of face-threatening behavior and politeness. In all the forms of discourse analysis described so far, the fundamental research effort is to isolate the endogenous norms, practices, and reasoning which inform the participants’ construction and interpretation of social interaction. Other forms of discourse analysis, in particular critical discourse analysis, approach the analysis of text and interaction by examining them in relation to power and ideology and to the perpetuation of race-based, gender-based, and other forms of disadvantage and social exclusion. While this method has been applied to social interaction, some of its most successful manifestations have emerged in the analysis of written texts such as newspaper articles, political directives, and so on. This work has links to the broader poststructuralist discourse analysis associated with Michel Foucault, Fredric Jameson (1934– ), Stuart Hall, and others. Moreover, in its focus on text and other forms of cultural production (including art, film, and television), this form of discourse analysis has clear affinities with broader trends in cultural and semiotic analysis. The emergence of discourse analysis has coincided with a new emphasis on narrative as a vehicle for the communication of basic human understandings, as a basic form in which human knowledge is stored and represented, and as a means of socialization, memory, empathy, and 146 disorganized capitalism catharsis. Vladimir Propp’s analysis of Russian fairy tales in his Morphology of the Folk Tale (1969) was among the first efforts to subject narrative to systematic description and it has been followed by many others which analyze narrative as a sociolinguistic, conversational, cultural, and artistic process. In this way narrative analysis has become a major site at which many forms of discourse analysis converge, ranging from the microanalytic study of story-telling as situated action, to macrocultural analyses of the narratives of political decisionmaking and warfare, and the historical narratives of imagined communities. JOHN HERITAGE discrimination This is a social practice that organizes prejudicial attitudes into the formal or informal segregation of social groups or classes stigmatized by the collective prejudice. The earliest use of the word in the English language was in the sense of “to discriminate” as to cultural taste, for example in Pierre Bourdieu’s Distinction (1979 [trans. 1984]). Discrimination can therefore be defined, sociologically, as a practice whereby the cultural tastes of a dominant group or social class are projected negatively on groups or classes they consider inferior. Discrimination presents as a cultural attitude but is organized and sustained as a structural effect with legal, social, and economic consequences. The term is commonly associated with racial discrimination, but discrimination has also come to be used as a general term to denote any discriminatory practice of sufficient structural durability to exclude classes of people from economic opportunities, political rights, or social freedoms; for example, the 1964 US Civil Rights Act, while directed primarily at racial discrimination, was broadly conceived to end discrimination with respect to race, color, religion, sex (gender), or national origin. Discriminatory beliefs and actions are rooted in everyday-life attitudes and social practices, usually ones backed by a long tradition. They are, therefore, so embedded in the local or regional culture that they are difficult to define legally and sociologically: for example, the distinction between racial and ethnic discrimination, the reluctance to take gender discrimination seriously, and the outright hostility to legislation aimed at eliminating discrimination on the basis of sexualities. CHARLES LEMERT disorganized capitalism – see capitalism. distribution distribution This refers to the nature of any variable that is collected as part of a quantitative research method. For instance, it could be measures of the income of individuals, the levels of crimes of cities or the health differences between nations. But a statistician’s approach to examining a distribution of a variable is the same regardless of whether we are measuring health or wealth, or whether our units (or cases) are individuals or countries. When we examine any distribution, there are four key aspects that should be examined. If any of them are missed, the sociologist risks missing some important features of the data. These features are the central tendency, the spread, the shape, and outliers. The expression “central tendency” is a summary of the average value in the data. Most commonly this is calculated with the mean, although in many cases the median gives a better typical value. The mean is calculated by summing all of the cases, and dividing by the number of cases. The median is obtained by rank-ordering the cases, and taking the value of the middle case. For categorical variables, the mode (the most commonly occurring category) is the most common measure of central tendency. Although less obvious, sociologists are often more interested in how spread out, or heterogeneous, the cases are. For instance, amongst the richest few dozen countries in the world, the nature of the societies and the quality of life of the citizens seems to vary surprisingly little with the mean level of income. But the spread of incomes – that is the size of the gap between the richest and poorest, seems to have a greater effect on outcomes such as health and average life expectancy. Often sociologists and statisticians pay too much attention to averages, and neglect the spread of data. There are a number of measures of spread, the common ones being the standard deviation and the midspread (aka the interquartile range). Many statistical tests assume that, when the data are plotted in a histogram, they will form a bell-shaped curve, also called the normal or the Gaussian distribution. In practice, few sociological variables actually form such a neat distribution – so to call it a normal curve is somewhat of a misnomer. For instance, the distribution of hourly income in most countries is very skewed, with a long upwards straggle towards the small number of employees with very high incomes, while most people’s wages are slightly below the mean. And if one plots weekly hours of work, one obtains a double consciousness “bimodal” graph, with one peak around full-time (36-40 hours) and the other peak around half-time (20 hours). In such cases the shape of the distribution tells one far more than the average value. In many sociological measures, a small number of cases on “outliers” seem to be very different from all the others. For instance, if one counted the number of sexual partners that individuals had over the past twelve months, many people would score 0 or 1, but a small proportion would have had dozens or hundreds of sexual partners in that time – for instance, prostitutes. Pooling all of the cases to calculate an average would be misleading. For some analyses, it would be appropriate to exclude those extreme cases, called outliers. In other cases, the research might learn more from those cases that deviate from the norm, the exceptions that prove the rule. But beware, those extreme cases often arise because of some error in the research! To summarize, it is good practice in sociological research to investigate all four of these aspects of any distribution. BRENDAN J. BURCHELL division of labor – see labor. divorce – see marriage and divorce. domestic labor – see labor. domestic violence – see family. double consciousness A theory of black consciousness in the United States that is associated with the sociology of W. E. B. Du Bois, who was influenced in his analysis of white–black relationships in America by G. W. E. Hegel’s description of the master–slave relationship. For Hegel, the master and the slave cannot enter into a relationship of mutual recognition and respect because they are separated by a relationship of absolute power. Du Bois argued in The Souls of Black Folk (1961: 16) that the black man always has consciousness of himself through the consciousness of the white man, and thus “[i]t is a peculiar sensation, this double-consciousness, this sense of always looking at one’s self through the eyes of the others, of measuring one’s soul by the tape of a world that looks on in amused contempt and pity.” The black man’s consciousness had 147 double shift been destroyed by the experience of slavery, and Du Bois proposed an educational reform that would begin to restore self-respect and hence self-consciousness. BRYAN S. TURNER double shift – see family. Douglas, Mary (1921– ) A former student at Oxford and biographer of E. E. Evans-Pritchard (1902–73), Douglas is the most widely influential British anthropologist of the second half of the twentieth century. She conducted her original fieldwork among the Lele of present-day Zaire, but from the 1960s onward her expertise in the ethnography of Africa has been put to broader comparative purposes. Two thematics dominate her mature work. The first is the social-organizational determination of perception, classification, and cosmology. The second is the dynamic tension between social order and selfinterest. Both thematics come to her from Émile Durkheim through Evans-Pritchard’s mediation. Analytically, she remains virtually the only Durkheimian purist writing in anthropology today. Critically, she tends to favor hierarchy more vigorously and to take greedy individualist self-interest to task more readily than even Durkheim was ever inclined to do. She is comparable in this respect to her British-trained contemporary, Louis Dumont. Her own biographer, Richard Fardon (Mary Douglas: An Intellectual Biography, 1999), attributes such “sociological conservatism” less, however, to her postsecondary training than to her continuing devotion to the Catholicism into which she was born. Purity and Danger (1966) and Natural Symbols: Explorations in Cosmology are the double centerpiece of her theoretical program. In the earlier work, she argues that any given society’s collective preoccupations with purity and pollution are the more salient the more its moral system is ambiguous or paradoxical. In the later work, noticeably but not fundamentally revised from its first (1970) to its second (1973) edition, she postulates that the intersection of the variable intensities of the two general dimensions of social control that she names “grid” and “group” operate on the ever-ready semiotic vehicle of the human body to generate distinctive pairings of the expression of the self and the imagination of the cosmos. In tandem, these works join Pierre Bourdieu’s Outline of a Theory of Practice (1970 [trans. 1977]) as contemporary foundations of the anthropology 148 Du Bois, W. E. B. (1868–1963) of the body and as productive challenges to the sociological insensitivity of many of the applications of phenomenological hermeneutics in cultural and in religious studies. They are also the point of departure for her own further research into such diverse topics as dietary prescriptions and proscriptions; the patterns and the teleologies of consumption (in The World of Goods, with Baron Isherwood, 1978) and the correlative definition of lifestyles; and the study of dietetics and dietary theology that are the focus of her last work to date, Leviticus as Literature (1999). Douglas has largely lived in and worked on the society of the United States since moving there in 1977. She subsequently collaborated with Aaron Wildavsky in writing Risk and Culture (1982), a somewhat unflattering portrait of the ecological anxieties and opportunistic activism of the American middle classes that, unsurprisingly, was not well received in the United States itself. After the 1970s and in the midst of several forays into the epistemology of the social sciences and the sociology of epistemology, her most systematic refinement of her theoretical commitments remains JAMES D. FAUBION How Institutions Think (1986). dramaturgical analysis – see Erving Goffman. drug abuse – see addiction. Du Bois, W. E. B. (1868–1963) A historian, sociologist, race man, social theorist, poet, journalist, political and civil rights leader, in his time, William Edward Burghardt Du Bois was ignored by white-dominated official sociology in the United States. Yet, as the segregation of blacks subsided, Du Bois emerged as one of the most original academic sociologists of the twentieth century. Du Bois was born in Great Barrington, Massachusetts, in 1868, in the years following the American Civil War. In this small New England town, he was accepted in the local schools and excelled as a pupil. His higher education began in 1885 at Fisk University in Nashville, where for the first time he encountered the vicious racism of the American South; he then studied at Harvard and in Germany (1892–4) before earning his PhD at Harvard. His doctoral thesis, The Suppression of the African Slave-Trade to the United States of America, 1638–1870, became the first of his published scholarly books in 1896. Du Bois began his academic Du Bois, W. E. B. (1868–1963) career at Wilberforce University (1894–6) before accepting a research position at the University of Pennsylvania. There he did the exhaustive fieldwork on Philadelphia’s Negro community which led to The Philadelphia Negro (1899), the first important urban ethnography in America by an American. Shortly after, Du Bois published the book that established his reputation as a major social thinker and writer, and a fresh voice in American racial politics, Souls of Black Folk (1903). Souls is best known for its poetic description of the double consciousness (or “twoness”) concept that appeared in its lead essay: “One ever feels his twoness, – an American, a Negro; two souls, two thoughts, two unreconciled strivings; two warring ideals in one dark body, whose dogged strength alone keeps it from being torn asunder.” The double-consciousness idea exerted its influence late in the twentieth century as a model for postfeminist social theories of the self as comprising a number of conflicting identities shaped from a matrix of domination (for example Patricia Hill Collins, Black Feminist Thought, 1990). Souls of Black Folk also introduced the cultural and political theory of racial uplift as led by a talented tenth of highly educated black leaders. Du Bois’s emphasis on cultural training set him at odds with the thenreigning race-leader in the United States, Booker T. Washington (1856–1910), founder of the Tuskegee Institute in Alabama. Washington’s program for racial uplift was based on the agricultural and industrial education of poor blacks. From 1895, when Washington declared his Atlanta Compromise (that blacks would work with whites economically, but keep themselves socially separate), until his death in 1915, Booker T. Washington was anointed by whites as the spokesman for blacks in America. In “On Mr. Booker T. Washington and Others” (also in Souls), Du Bois directly challenged Washington’s philosophy. Thus began a political feud that would last until Washington’s influence began to wane after 1910, the year Du Bois joined in the founding of the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People). In 1910, Du Bois left his academic position at Atlanta University, which he had held since 1897, to work in New York City with the NAACP. He immediately founded Crisis magazine, which soon became, under his editorial leadership, the most widely read news and literary paper in black America. He continued in this work until 1934 when his authority as Washington’s successor as the foremost Negro leader in the United States fell under attack. Du Bois, W. E. B. (1868–1963) Du Bois’s 25-year association with the NAACP was always uneasy. He was temperamentally a man of firm ideas and methods. He did not suffer fools gladly, especially those who kowtowed (as Washington had) to powerful whites. Throughout these years in New York, Du Bois continued to write prolifically, to engage in political commentary and direct action, and to assert his lifelong commitment to the importance of culture (notably as a leader in the Harlem Renaissance of the 1920s). Du Bois’s career as an academic sociologist was split into two parts, both at Atlanta University. In the early years (1897–1910), he taught economics and history while engaged in empirical sociological research. In addition to The Philadelphia Negro, Du Bois conducted a series of field studies of rural Negro communities in the South. Max Weber attended one of the conferences on these studies during his 1904 visit to the United States. Du Bois’s second academic career was as Chair of the Department of Sociology at Atlanta (1934–44). Though he was in his eighth decade of life, Du Bois returned to sociological scholarship with the vigor of a young man. It was in this period that he completed his most important work of historical sociology. Black Reconstruction (1935) is increasingly recognized today as a brilliant structural sociology of social change in the United States after the Civil War. The book attacked the history profession’s then current attitude that the failure of Reconstruction (1863–77) was a failure of the freed Negroes to make economic and social progress. Du Bois responded in sharply sociological terms that demonstrated that the freed people had made remarkable progress given the structural constraints. The three and a half million freed Negroes, as a class, were trapped in a structural conflict between the poor white workers and the planter class. Planters ultimately restored their economic dominance after 1877 by using the poor whites as political pawns to pressure the federal government to give up Reconstruction. The poor whites were, in effect, granted the higher racial status in compensation for their economic misery. This has been called the racial wage by David Roediger in Wages of Whiteness (1991). The genius of Du Bois’s concept was that it was empirical, structural, and historical sociology that explained a local practice (segregation) as an element in the social structures of the post-Civil-War South. Du Bois died in 1963, in Accra, Ghana, in exile from the United States he had sought to redeem in 149 dual economy Duncan, Otis Dudley (1921–2004) his youth. The civil rights movements of the 1960s brought Du Bois’s ideas into currency. He earned a place in history as much for his political work as for his scholarship and writing. C H A R L E S L E M E R T dual economy Dual economy models were developed to challenge unilinear accounts of capitalist development, by emphasizing the persistent importance of areas of economic activity that do not involve large-scale corporations, mass production, or even formal market relations. One example, from development studies, concerned the coexistence of an informal subsistence economy with a formal plantation economy. Another addressed the persistence of small-scale enterprises and low-paid work alongside the business alliances and internal welfare regimes of corporate capitalism, as in R. T. Averitt’s analysis of The Dual Economy (1968) in the United States, and N. Chalmers’s analysis of Industrial Relations in Japan (1989). Here, dualism between types of firm was matched by labor market dualism, as large firms utilized primary, and small firms, secondary, labor markets. The critical power of these analyses depends on explaining the survival of the subordinate economy in terms of its role for the dominant economy, by absorbing surplus labor or providing low-cost production capacity. However, such dependencies have been specified in quite varied ways, with different implications for the dynamics and persistence of dualism. For example, M. J. Piore and C. F. Sabel, in The Second Industrial Divide (1984), portray the erstwhile subordinate small-firm sector as a potential challenger to large-scale mass production. Dual economy models also rest on clear contrasts in the organization and dynamics of the two economies, but specifications of the interlinkages and dependencies between them often lead to more differentiated accounts of production chains and hierarchies of employment conditions. This moves away from a clear dualism, but still addresses the processes that may sustain differentiation and uneven development in capitalist economies over time. TONY ELGER Louis Dumont (1911–1998) A student of Marcel Mauss, his early work was on French festivals, about which he published an ethnographic study of La Tarasque (1951). He made a major contribution to the analysis of Indian social structure in Homo Hierarchicus. The Caste System and its Implications (1972) and Religion, Politics and History in India. Collected Papers in Indian Sociology 150 (1970). He also wrote on ideologies of equality and individualism in western societies in From Mandeville to Marx. The Genesis and Triumph of Economic Ideology (1977) and Essays on Individualism. Modern Ideology in Anthropological Perspective (1986). He contrasted the hierarchical caste society of India, with its emphasis on the social whole over the individual, and western society where the social whole is subordinated to the individual. Following the tradition of French structuralism, Dumont wanted to uncover the underlying principle of caste, which he argued was the contrast between pure and impure. Caste hierarchy was founded on this dichotomous principle. By “hierarchy,” Dumont did not mean social stratification. Rather, hierarchy explains a relation of opposites that can nevertheless cohere within a cultural unity. Dumont’s contrast between holism and individualism has become an important aspect of BRYAN S. TURNER the debate with Orientalism. Duncan, Otis Dudley (1921–2004) Completing his PhD at the University of Chicago in 1949, Duncan was a member of the Faculty at Penn State University, and the universities of Wisconsin, Chicago, Michigan, Arizona, and California, Santa Barbara. His most influential publication was with Peter M. Blau on The American Occupational Structure (1967) which received the American Sociological Association Sorokin Award for the most distinguished scholarly publication in 1968. Using the first large national survey of social mobility in the United States, Blau and Duncan showed how parents transmit their social standing to their children mainly by influencing their children’s education. Their approach to social mobility showed that mobility takes the form of small rather than dramatic steps up the social ladder. In addition to its substantive findings, The American Occupational Structure showed how an important sociological topic could be analyzed rigorously with appropriate quantitative methods. Through his exploration of path analysis, Duncan contributed to the development and use of structural equation models in the social sciences. He invented a measure of social standing of occupations – the Duncan Socioeconomic Index. He also developed an index of residential segregation between blacks and whites in Chicago. He was President of the Population Association of America in 1968–9. He published Notes on Social Measurement (1984), Statistical Geography: Problems in Analysing Areal Data (1961), and with H. Pfautz he translated M. Halbwach’s Population and Society: Introduction to Social Morphology. His Durkheim, Émile (1858–1917) general argument was that quantitative sociology summarized empirical patterns in between-group differences, while temporarily ignoring the pattern of within-group individual differences. BRYAN S. TURNER Durkheim, Émile (1858–1917) Generally considered as one of the founding fathers of sociology, and by some as the sociologist par excellence, Durkheim labored to establish the intellectual distinctiveness and significance of the discipline and to charter it as a fully legitimate component of academia. The following account of his thought is focused on four books that are conventionally considered the most significant. Born in 1858 to a Jewish family, in the French town Epinay (Lorraine), Durkheim witnessed as an adolescent the defeat of the Second Empire in the Franco-Prussian War and the subsequent tragedy of the Paris Commune. In 1879–82, at the École Normale Supérieure, in Paris, he studied chiefly philosophy and history. Subsequently he taught philosophy in a lycée, but five years later joined the faculty at the University of Bordeaux. His teaching subject was the philosophy of education, but early on he coupled it with “social science” and later with “sociology.” At the time, in France and in other parts of Europe, sociology was cultivated by intellectuals and scholars, but was not accepted as an academic discipline. Durkheim gave the first major demonstration of his own understanding of it, and of its entitlement to recognition and institutionalization, in his massive doctoral dissertation The Division of Labour in Society (1893 [trans. 1933]). Targeting a phenomenon which had been and was being thematized chiefly by economists, Division agreed with them that the division of labor was a most significant phenomenon, particularly so in modern society. He also agreed with the social Darwinist view of the division of labor (put forward principally by Herbert Spencer) as the human variant of a universal biological process, the progression from simple forms of life to differentiated, complex ones. Durkheim, however, rejected what later came to be called the utilitarian interpretation of the causes and consequences of the division of labor. He believed that the causes could not lie, as Spencer had claimed, in the individual’s pursuit of his own egoistic advantage through increasingly specialized, and thus increasingly efficient and competitive, activity. The division of labor had taken off originally in societies so simple and so Durkheim, Émile (1858–1917) cohesive that their members did not conceive of themselves as possessing interests of their own, to be pursued at their own behest and initiative. That all early human societies were so constituted was indicated, according to Durkheim, by the way they typically responded to violations of their norms. That response took the form of punitive sanctions, of inflictions of pain on the violators by, or in the name of, the whole society, in order to reassert universally shared and strongly entertained understandings. These early societies all embodied the following “morphological” pattern. A small population, with low demographic density, subsists in a relatively large territory, exploiting its resources extensively, through very simple practices, assisted only by the most primitive technology. Such societies are segmented into even smaller, very similar subunits, which subsist in the manner indicated, each embodying the same culture but interacting with the others chiefly on ritual occasions, which renew in everyone the awareness of and dedication to shared, sacred beliefs and practices. Under these conditions, the society hangs together mechanically, because it is highly homogenous, and presents no fissures to be mended. Many times in the course of pre-history, the equilibrium of such a society, according to Durkheim, has been disturbed by a critical development of a distinctively social nature, not expressing the intentions and strategies of individual actors (who at this point exist only as separate biological entities). An increase in population occurs, and the increased demographic density puts the resources under growing competitive pressure. Either the society in question falls prey to strife and disorder, thus leaving no further trace on the pre-historic record, or it spontaneously embarks on a course of sustained change, chiefly by dividing labor. This latter solution leads, over many generations, to a society with dramatically different traits from the previous one. Its population is large, and, although it operates over a large territory, is much denser. It now makes intensive use of the territory’s resources, because distinct parts of that territory are as different as the countryside on one hand, towns on the other. Furthermore, a differentiation process has also penetrated those parts, for that intensive use requires the components of the population of even the same locality to develop different skills and different technologies. Only a very small part of the society’s cultural patrimony is shared by all parts and by all the 151 Durkheim, Émile (1858–1917) components of each part. Increasingly diverse beliefs and norms now activate and guide individuals in their differentiated activities. They are less sharply formulated than those obtaining in the former kind of society. They authorize and broadly orient the individual’s diverse activities rather than commandeering them and narrowly directing them. They allow for more variation in the ways they are understood and implemented. They also acknowledge, regulate, and protect the pursuit by individuals of interests which are private to themselves. The violation of the greater part of the norms, in particular, does not evoke the wrath of the whole society. Rather, sanctions are typically not punitive but “restitutive,” that is they seek to remedy the damage the violation has done to the interests of given individuals, and only if these request such remedy. Thus the normative bonds underwritten by and addressed to the whole society are fewer, relative to the totality of sanctioned expectations, and somewhat looser. But this does not abandon the society to disorder and strife. It now hangs together primarily because its different parts interact with, and deliver goods and services to, one another. The mechanical solidarity of simple society with a minimal division of labor has been replaced by an organic one. This reminds one of the evolution of advanced biological species, which present organs which are diverse in structure and operation, but all subserve the needs of each other and of the whole. This result was the main consequence of the division of labor, not the increased happiness of society as Spencer claimed. Spencer, furthermore, while correctly emphasizing the role that contracts play in establishing and managing the relations between individuals in modern societies, had not realized that “not everything in the contract is contractual.” These individuals only avail themselves of the contracts as juridical instruments of their private pursuits because public authorities had created and sanctioned the institution of the contract. In fact, advanced societies required such authorities to work towards their integration, not to shrink into mere “night watchmen” as Spencer wanted them to. The Rules of Sociological Method (1895 [trans. 1958]), which appeared two years after Division, was a manifesto for a positivistic conception of sociology’s mission, for it considered the natural sciences as an appropriate methodological model for the development of sociology itself. Durkheim, however, did not like the expression “positivistic” 152 Durkheim, Émile (1858–1917) to be applied to him, for it was associated with a specific philosophical posture, and in spite of his philosophical training he was keen to lay a boundary between philosophy and sociology. His strategy was to commit sociology, by means of two chief arguments, to a self-conscious strategy of empirical reference. First, sociology had a distinctive realm of facts – social facts – to attend to. Second, it had to treat those facts as things, that is as phenomena which are external to those perceiving them (including those studying them) and which lay constraints on their activity. A further boundary had to be established between sociology and psychology. The most significant social facts are collective ways of acting and thinking, that is représentations, or mental constructs, unavoidably lodged in the psyches of human individuals. Collective representations, however, are distinguished from those that are not collective – and which can be left for psychology to study – by one significant characteristic. They are sanctioned, that is society makes arrangements for the eventuality that they are not, in a given case, respected and complied with. It is in the very nature of such representations that they can and indeed are occasionally violated. On this account, Durkheim shockingly declared, even crime itself is normal. Its occurrence and its modalities should be registered by sociologists, and its causes investigated, without indulging in philosophical moralizing. The same empirical posture is implicit in various strategies of investigation Durkheim recommended to sociologists. For instance, they should, as early as possible, define clearly the phenomenon they study (and their definitions may well vary from the conventional ones). They should be aware of variations in that phenomenon, study them comparatively, and seek to establish their causes, and distinguish these from their consequences or functions. The more significant variations will probably be associated with different types of society. These types are to be constructed in the first instance by the morphological criteria already developed in Division, which emphasize the complexity (or lack thereof) of a given society or group. Durkheim continued teaching at Bordeaux until 1902, when he was appointed to a chair of science of education at the Sorbonne, in Paris. However, he had already become identified as the most authoritative practitioner and promoter of sociology. He was committed to the discipline also on moral grounds, expecting it to attain valid scientific results regarding the conditions Durkheim, Émile (1858–1917) obtaining in his beloved France. Such results could in turn find practical and political use in the construction of new and more appropriate public institutions by the Second Republic. Durkheim sought to accomplish this, among other things, by acting as a consultant to ministerial authorities. He also worked hard at selecting and training young people who shared his own view of sociology’s scope and method, and subsequently sought to have them appointed to the positions which were being created in that discipline and in neighboring ones. Most of Durkheim’s tireless energy, however, was expended in strictly scholarly tasks. In 1896 he began editing, in Paris, L’Année Sociologique, a journal devoted to reviewing, year by year, the most significant publications which had appeared in sociology and in neighboring disciplines, in several European languages, over the previous year or two. It also published original contributions, including essays by Durkheim himself and by his students. In 1897 Durkheim published his third major sociological book – Suicide: A Study in Sociology (trans. 1951). The phenomenon the book addressed was, and remains, of considerable public significance. It was relatively well documented, and had already been discussed by many scholars from various European countries. Durkheim’s treatment of it focused on a particular aspect. Suicide is, on the face of it, a most private act, a peculiarly individual undertaking. Yet the data concerning its occurrence, which Durkheim painstakingly assembled and analyzed over years of research, showed remarkable regularities in the suicide rate, that is the frequency of the occurrence of suicide relative to the size of the population. The suicide rate varies, sometimes widely, from country to country, or from one to another subunit of a country’s population, and does so consistently, year in, year out. Furthermore, the differences between subunits (for example, city dwellers versus country dwellers, women versus men) are remarkably similar from one country to another, and are stable over time. Finally, over longer periods of time, one may detect consistent trends in the suicide rate, the most significant trend being its increase in modern times. These data, Durkheim argued, suggest unequivocally that a certain propensity to suicide is a significant collective property of a given population or population subunit. That property manifests itself through a number of suicidal occurrences, each the product – we may well assume – of the particular circumstances of the Durkheim, Émile (1858–1917) individual in question, the final episode in a unique biography. The attempts other students have made to account for the regularities in the suicide rates by referring, for instance, to the geographical environment of a national population, or its ethnic composition, are demonstrably inadequate. The reasons for such regularities must then be found in the “moral constitution” of a given population or subunit, in the varying nature and intensity of the “suicidal currents” associated with that constitution. The prohibition or the strong disapproval of suicide is common to all such constitutions. In this perspective, the universality of the suicide phenomenon (for all its variation) suggests that it should be interpreted by reference to two aspects of all societies. These are, on the one hand, the extent to which in a given society individuals are induced to interact, to take each other into account, and to form more or less cohesive bonds with one another, and, on the other, the extent to which societies address individuals with rules, and with normative guidance about how they should conduct themselves and think. Each aspect, however, may impinge on the suicide rate (or on the occurrence of other forms of deviance) both when the moral constitution of a society emphasizes it excessively and when that emphasis is too weak. According to Durkheim’s analysis, many of these data point to high suicide rates that correspond with a low significance of one (or both) of those aspects, namely bonding or regulating. For instance, Protestants show much higher suicide rates than Catholics. He attributes this difference to the lower social cohesion the Protestant denominations generate by stressing the autonomy of the individual believer, by their less pronounced and authoritative hierarchical structure, and by the lower frequency and intensity of their ritual occasions. Alternatively, the suicide rate is lower among married than among unmarried adults, lower among those married and with children than among those without children. This last instance shows the untenability of what could be called a utilitarian understanding of differential suicide rates, which would associate higher rates with situations more likely to put people under pressure, or to confront them with greater hardships. Memberships which impose demanding responsibilities upon those holding them, by the same token, put in place support structures which may support them if they find themselves in those desperate circumstances which tempt them to suicide. 153 Durkheim, Émile (1858–1917) Looser, less demanding, but by the same token, less cohesive memberships are less likely to offer such support. This, paradoxically, may take the form of reminding individuals of their responsibilities and obligations towards other members, for to fulfill such obligations requires them in the first instance to remain alive. Without such reminders, individuals who face a particularly harsh crisis may well succumb to that “suicidogenic current” Durkheim calls “egoistic,” for it results from the supremacy in their own minds of considerations relating exclusively to their own well-being, which is now seriously threatened. Lack of regulation, of morally authoritative criteria by which to judge one’s circumstances and to orient one’s conduct, exposes individuals instead to the threat of “anomic” suicide. Anomie may derive from the accelerated pace at which social and cultural change occurs, from the individuals’ exposure to a multitude of diverse stimuli, inciting them to seek ever-new experiences, new horizons, or new occasions of pleasure. Insofar as they yield to such entreaties, individuals place themselves outside the reach of established, sanctioned expectations. By the same token, their continuous effort to respond to those stimuli, to challenge the current boundaries of their existence, becomes an end in itself. Supposing again that a serious crisis befalls them, they cannot overcome it by appealing to norms and values which confer significance on what they have and who they are. The conventional sources of meaning may no longer suffice, and have not been replaced by new ones. The suicido-genic effect of anomie is proven according to Durkheim by the high suicide rates of such people as divorcees, especially male divorcees. The bounding of desire, the framing and shaping of conduct previously afforded them by marriage, is no longer available, leaving them at a loss. Also, variations of the suicide rate over time suggest this circumstance, for it rises during periods of accelerated economic change – and that not only, Durkheim claims, at times of bust, but also at times of boom. Economic booms engender a general feeling that one must improve one’s position, devalue old possessions and associations, strive for continuous improvement. People who act upon that feeling are out on a limb; should any misfortune befall them, it may find them unable to attach to their identities and possessions, to whatever they had accomplished in the past, a value which may sustain them, justifying the effort to remain alive and the related burdens. Egoism and anomie together, according to Durkheim, increasingly characterize the moral 154 Durkheim, Émile (1858–1917) atmosphere of modern society, the one amounting to a deficit of cohesion, the other to a deficit of meaning. But Suicide also points to the suicidogenic effects of an excess of cohesion. Under certain conditions, people may have such a sense of their own dependence on society, of society’s entitlement to their devotion and sacrifice, that they become prone to a third, “altruistic” type of suicide. In some cases, society positively expects them, in certain circumstances, to dispose of themselves. In others, it gives them such a diminished sense of their own significance, of the value of their own survival, that if (again) a deep crisis occurs in their existence they easily surrender to it. This phenomenon is much more in evidence in Oriental societies than in western ones, but is echoed here, Durkheim claims, by the relatively high suicide rate characteristic of a specific constituency – the members of the military profession. The army teaches the individuals that compose it to attach much less significance to themselves, qua individuals, than they attach to the group of which they are part, be it the fatherland or a specific military unit. It thus predisposes them to a suicide flowing not (as with egoistic suicide) from their acute sense of their own importance, but from a heightened sense of their dispensability. All three suicide types (egoistic, anomic, and altruistic) are connected with universal social norms – respectively, that enjoining the individual to take some responsibility for her/himself; that encouraging her/him, under certain circumstances, to seek experiences “unprogrammed” by conventional culture; finally, that urging the individual to consider and to place her/himself at society’s disposal. It is the priority among these different, though equally significant, commandments that varies from society or group to society or group – and unavoidably so, because of their mutual incompatibilities. There is, however, a certain affinity between egoism and anomie (Durkheim acknowledges the difficulty of clearly distinguishing them), which together, as we have seen, characterize modern society. This is largely because egoistic attitudes and anomic dispositions are intrinsically connected with that society’s economic arrangements, currently dominated by industry and centered on the market and on technological innovation. The growing hold of such phenomena on society at large increasingly worries Durkheim, who in Suicide (as in other writings) suggests how to Durkheim, Émile (1858–1917) moderate the damage it can do to the society’s moral temper. Again, public action is called for – but not directly that of the state. This (as Durkheim conceives of it) is an organ for the formation of general norms and of broad, durable policies, incapable as such of attending competently to the highly diverse and dynamic processes of economic life. Rather, public action on economic phenomena should be entrusted to corporate bodies organizing all those who are professionally involved (as employers or employees) in the various branches of industry. Such bodies can identify the potentialities and needs of each branch, regulate its activities, moderate the conflict between employers and employees, and generate among their constituents both a feeling of fellowship towards one another and a sense of responsibility towards the broader public. The concern over the current tendencies of modern society that motivates such proposals is to an extent sublimated away in Durkheim’s last great book, The Elementary Forms of Religious Life (1912 [trans. 2001]). The theme of religion had attracted him before, possibly because of its close connection with morality. For Durkheim, it had long been axiomatic that society was at bottom a moral reality. Its continuing existence and welfare depended on the willingness of individuals to consider each other not as instruments, but as fellow beings equally entitled to respect and solidarity, and society itself as demanding not only obedience but devotion. Society, furthermore, was not just the addressee, as it were, of moral conduct, but the source itself of morality. Durkheim argued that morality, in all its forms, is only encountered in society, and only varies in relation to social conditions. Society imparts to its expectations a quality of moral obligation that its own sanctions are meant mainly to symbolize, rather than to engender, and that is the essence itself of morality. Morality refracts itself, as it were, in a plurality of social institutions. For all the variety of the social interests they guard and they discipline, all institutions, at bottom, impart to their own commandments, more or less openly, that same quality of intrinsic dutifulness. (Although it has its own institutions, the sphere of economic life is least likely to orient to such considerations the conduct of those taking part in its activities – and that is what worries Durkheim about it). The relationship of the whole institutional realm to religion is revealed in the close affinity between the quality in question – the particular prestige moral facts enjoy in the mind of a society’s Durkheim, Émile (1858–1917) members – and the distinctive sacredness of religious beliefs, norms, and practices. According to Durkheim, all institutions, mundane as their themes may be, have arisen as articulations and differentiations of a single, great institutional matrix – religion itself. For, as Durkheim sees it, religion, in all its varieties, rests on and affirms the very distinction between its own realm – that of the sacred – and the contrasting realm of the profane, which encompasses all that must be kept at a distance from the sacred, acknowledging its unique powerfulness, awesomeness, dangerousness. The noli me tangere of all social institutions – their projecting themselves as public realities which individuals must not tinker with in their private pursuits, but accept and continuously validate as legitimate constraints upon them – is a derivation, however remote, of the sacred so understood. But the question becomes – what engenders the division itself between the sacred and the profane? Durkheim holds that such a primordial and universal distinction must be rooted on an equally primordial and universal experience, best conveyed by the most primitive form of religious life one can find, which he claims to find in the totemism of Australian aboriginal populations. Here multiple, diverse bodies of beliefs and ritual practices, different as they are, agree on two points. Each celebrates the unchallengeable sacredness and the unique significance of an object (generally a biological species). Each asserts the identity between that object – the totem – and the tribe itself, among other things by attaching to both the same name. This assertion provides Durkheim with a critical cue. As it worships the totem, the tribe worships itself. Quite generally, in fact, it is the confrontation with the superiority, the powerfulness, the generosity of a group, that generates in its members the experience of the sacred itself – an experience which myth and ritual continuously revisit and reproduce. When religions attain an idea of God, that idea symbolically represents society itself. Other religions may convey a less distinctive notion of a sacred force. All of them, however, partition reality into a sacred and a profane realm, assert an asymmetry of significance between them, and design collective activities which celebrate that asymmetry and align the participants with the higher realm. As they do so, the participants draw new strength and assurance from that part, rededicate themselves to the myths and the rituals of the group, many of which affirm the intrinsic obligatoriness of its manières 155 Durkheim, Émile (1858–1917) d’agir et de penser. At the same time (dialectically, one might say), the participation of the faithful in the worship of that superior force posits and reconstitutes its existence (and thus the unique validity of those manières). All religions do this, though perhaps none as clearly as the totemic ones. Even these, of course, do so in varied and contrasting ways. Each tribe attributes sacredness to a different totemic being, and thus implicitly to itself. Each celebrates it through a different ensemble of myths and rituals. This very diversity may suggest to the observer that religion itself is at bottom an arbitrary exercise in self-delusion, a delirium. Yes, Durkheim agrees – “but it is a wellgrounded delirium.” In all its forms, religion asserts symbolically a basic truth. The individual owes everything to the society. Reciprocally, only the individual’s respect for and devotion to society itself, asserted more directly through religious practice, less directly by dutiful submission to varied institutional commands, confirms the very existence of society and the continuing validity of its institutions. If this is the core argument of Elementary Forms, one may well see one problem it poses for Durkheim himself. If religion is the ultimate source of all morality, and if it is necessary to the very survival of society, what of modern society itself? Has modernization not displaced religion? By the time he wrote Elementary Forms, Durkheim himself had recognized some validity to the secularization thesis, and had become less and less confident in the validity and sustainability of the modernization project. Yet in Elementary Forms and in other writings he tries hard, one senses, to be optimistic. Modern society, like all others, needs religion, for without religion society would face dissolution. And it has in fact, for all appearances to the contrary, a religion of its own, 156 Durkheim, Émile (1858–1917) compatible of course with other aspects of its nature, but not yet sufficiently conscious of itself and of its own distinctiveness. Modern religion – the cult of the individual – sacralizes the human person, the human being as such. It surrounds with a halo of dignity each member of society, forbidding others to treat the individual as a morally neutral, merely factual component of society, as a means or as an obstacle. Its content is revealed, in particular, by political constitutions which attribute some rights to all citizens, irrespective of their social condition. This recognition of a juridically significant capacity which belongs equally to everyone is a significant moral advance of modernity. That capacity is periodically celebrated by political rituals, and its scope is destined to grow in the future. Its moral significance is under threat from contemporary developments which encourage egoism instead of affirming the sacredness of the individual. But such developments can be countered by institutional innovations, in particular those that regulate and constrain competitive conduct on the market. Furthermore, it can be expected that more and more societies – beginning with European ones, which represented for Durkheim the front edge of modernity – will assert in their constitutions the equal moral significance of all their members. They will thus contribute to establishing a form of religion appropriate to modernity. Durkheim’s expectations of further moral advances from European societies were harshly negated by the advent of World War I. This conflict at first gave new impulse to his French patriotism; but at length its carnage brutally thinned out the ranks of his own students. When his own son perished during a military expedition in the Balkans, this personal tragedy broke Durkheim’s heart and paralyzed his mind. He died in 1917. GIANFRANCO POGGI E economism This is a term for theories that regard economic activity as the primary focus of social life, in which political or cultural arrangements are, at best, secondary to, or derivative of, more fundamental economic forces. Examples of economism include theories (such as the economics of the market, and certain types of Marxism) and social activities (such as free trade or trade unionism) that are perceived as neglectful of interactions between economic and noneconomic aspects of social life. The term is usually applied by critics rather than supporters of economism. To describe something or someone as economistic is usually to diagnose a one-dimensional approach to social analysis that is inadequate to the complex or multidimensional character of social phenomena. Few sociologists would identify with economism in an extreme form, even though many would regard the economy as a central (perhaps the central) aspect of social structure, power, and social inequality. The idea of economism rests on the modern assumption of a social differentiation. This perspective sees society as becoming differentiated into distinct spheres – the economy, government, law, and culture – that are autonomous from one another and centered on specialized institutions – such as markets and factories, parliaments and law courts, and so forth. The idea of differentiation, however, raises questions as to the relationship between different spheres, in this case between the economy and the rest of society. While economistic thinking sees this in terms of the causal primacy of the economy over polity and culture, this assumption remains controversial. Sociologists generally prefer alternative accounts which emphasize the role of government and culture in the constitution and regulation of economic life. ROBERT HOLTON economy In the most simple and general sense, the concept of the economy is used to refer to the social organizations and institutions that are involved in the production and distribution of goods and services in society – firms, labor, money-capital, and the markets and networks by which they are connected and articulated. The term is derived from the ancient Greek oeconomicus which referred to the practical activity of household (oikos) management. From the late Middle Ages onward, particularly in western Europe, the social organization of production and exchange became increasingly detached from the feudal and communal social relations of households, manors, and patrimonial estates. Home and work gradually became structurally separated. An early sociological analysis of this process is contained in Max Weber’s General Economic History (1927 [trans. 1981]). Early nineteenth-century classical economics saw the resulting “economy,” comprising the factors of production of land, capital, and labor, as a relatively autonomous subsystem of society that was governed by the economic laws of the market, conceptualized by Adam Smith (1723–90) as the “invisible hand.” This approach identifies the “economy” with the “market.” Talcott Parson’s social theory endorsed this distinction between “economy” and “society”; but there have also been two critical responses within sociology to this conceptualization. First, Karl Polanyi, following Karl Marx and Weber, contended that the modern market economy should be understood as a historically specific type of economy in which production and exchange had become separated, or “disembedded” from wider social relations and norms. Second, as Mark Granovetter has argued, economic relations in modern economies are also social relations. In a critique of the postulate of natural scarcity in classical economics, Marx argued that it was a socially produced consequence of the unequal and exploitative relations in the economy. He classified different types of economy as historically located modes of production, distinguished by different technological “means” and “social relations” of production between owners and nonowners. Marx identified a sequence of development from primitive communism – through ancient, Asiatic, feudal, and capitalist – to communism or socialism. 157 economy The general Marxian approach to the analysis of economies is developed by the modern Parisian Regulation School, exemplified in Michel Aglietta’s The Theory of Capitalist Regulation (1979). Regulation theory identifies three successive modes of regulation of capitalist economies from the middle of the nineteenth to the late twentieth century: (1) the nineteenth-century competitive mode of regulation; (2) twentieth-century “monopoly capitalism” and mass production or Fordism (see Post-Fordism); and (3) the 1970s crisis of Fordism and the subsequent partial disintegration of flexible specialization, and development of regional industrial districts, or disorganized capitalism. In The Long Twentieth Century (1994), Giovanni Arrighi synthesized the Marxian and Weberian classical sociology with the economics of Adam Smith (1723–90) and with the history of Fernand Braudel (1902–85), to produce an analysis of the successive hegemonies of structurally different capitalist economies from the Renaissance Italian city-states, to the Netherlands, Britain, and the United States. Modern sociology, for example in P. Hall and D. Soskice (eds.), Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage (2001), has been concerned with the question of the diversity of modern capitalist economies. In the first place, the success of East Asian capitalism and the rapid advance of the German and French economies after World War II led to a debate on whether there existed equally efficient and effective forms of capitalism to the Anglo-American liberal market system. In Stock Market Capitalism: Welfare Capitalism, Japan and Germany Versus the Anglo-Saxons (2000), Ronald Dore argued that Japan and Germany had been able to combine economic success with social welfare. The debate continues in the context of the relatively poor performance of these economies from the late twentieth century. Second, the transition from the central planning of communism in the former Soviet Union and the continued liberalization and growth of the Chinese economy have stimulated a debate on the type of capitalist economy that is likely to develop in the former state socialist economies. A further important consideration, also discussed in Bruno Amable’s The Diversity of Modern Capitalism (2003), is whether economic globalization will reduce the existing diversity of different types of capitalism in a process of convergence towards the Anglo-Saxon liberal market type of economy. GEOFFREY INGHAM 158 education education A concern with education has been inseparably linked with the development of sociology, especially in the French tradition. In defining sociology, Auguste Comte argued that there had been a historical progression in the advancement of all science from deploying religious and metaphysical conceptual frameworks to adopting procedures of positivist analysis, based on observation. This intellectual progression was mirrored institutionally by corresponding forms of social organization – from feudal and aristocratic systems to that culminating form which would be the consequence of secular, social engineering. The emergence of positivist analysis of human and social relations would necessarily entail the construction of forms of social organization which, for the first time, would be founded on science rather than prejudice or privilege. Positivist scientists would become the legislators of mankind. Comte was aware that the prevalence of positivist principles in social practice in mass society would require some emotional underpinning, and he proposed the institutionalization of a positive religion which would generate a sense of ideological and social inclusion, operating as a secular, surrogate Catholic Church. The third French Republic – of “intellectuals” – tried, from 1871, to introduce a system of state education which would perform the function that Comte had projected for an organized positivist religion. The function of the education system would be to generate social solidarity by initiating the whole population of the country into the secular values which informed its organization and operation. It was Émile Durkheim who tried to implement Comte’s program in the 1890s by carrying out sociological research and by articulating rules which should govern the method of sociological enquiry, but it is important to remember that he taught pedagogy at the same time as sociology for the whole of his life. In his first post at the University of Bordeaux, from 1887 until 1902, he gave weekly lectures on pedagogy to teachers and, when he moved to Paris, it was to the Chair in the Science of Education at the Sorbonne. Durkheim’s writings on education were assembled posthumously, notably Education and Sociology (1922 [trans. 1956]), Moral Education: A Study in the Theory and Application of the Sociology of Education (1925 [trans. 1961]), and Pedagogical Evolution in France (1938 [trans. 1977]). In his introduction to the first of these texts, Paul Fauconnet insisted that Durkheim’s parallel attachment to education sociological and educational analyses was not at all accidental, but, rather, that “it is in as much as it is a social fact that he approaches education: his doctrine of education is an essential element of his sociology.” The two dimensions of Durkheim’s thinking explain the traditional affinity between sociology and the study of education: on the one hand pedagogical practices within the educational system were necessary instruments for fulfilling the social mission which was the legacy of Comtist thinking. On the other hand, it was important that the study of education should exemplify sociological rigor. Typically, Durkheim began his discussion in Education and Sociology with a critical examination of the existing definitions of education. He argued that the word had been used too broadly to include the influence of nature on human will and intelligence and that, instead, it should be restricted to mean solely the action which adults exercise over the young. To define this education more closely would entail an analysis of educational practice in different times and places. In faithful positivist fashion, Durkheim concluded: We do not know a priori what is the function of the respiratory or circulatory systems for living beings. By what privilege should we be better informed concerning the educative function? ... Hence, must it not be the case that to constitute a preliminary notion of education, to determine the thing which is denominated in this way, historical observation appears to be indispensable. His social history of pedagogy in France fulfilled just this function. For Durkheim, the sociology of education was to be pedagogically prescriptive by being methodologically exemplary. The inaugurating concern of sociology with education was the product of a particular set of social and intellectual circumstances in France at the end of the nineteenth century. Consideration of the legacy of this concern raises broad questions about the transcultural and transtemporal applicability of the social sciences. In considering the “predisciplinary history of social science” in general, in his The Rise of Social Theory (1995), Johan Heilbron has argued that this rise was part of a progressive secularization of human societies. At first this involved a return to the works of classical antiquity, and to Aristotelian “practical philosophy” in particular, but this was the starting-point for the articulation of modern notions which characterized the predisciplinary history of social science. There followed stages of development which, in Heilbron’s view, moved from primary interest in conceptions of state and law to concern with education economic theory until, in the eighteenth century, there emerged a secular approach to the concept of society which meant breaking with both theology and political theory. There is a reciprocal relationship between developing social conditions which generate new social sciences and the contributions which social scientific analyses of these emergent developments make towards their realization. Durkheimian sociology of education was in a reciprocal relationship with those social and political forces which suggested that the introduction of a statecontrolled national education system would actualize the concept of a conscience collective which would ensure social cohesion and foster a national identity. There was an affinity with the distrust of individualism manifested at the same time in Germany in the formulation of the notions of Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft (see Ferdinand Tönnies). In the United Kingdom in the same period, the response to similar forces arising from similar phenomena of industrialization (see industrial society) and democratization (see democracy) developed within a different conceptual framework – that of liberalism. In his contribution to The Rise of the Modern Educational System: Structural Change and Social Reproduction, 1870–1920 (1987), the English Marxist social historian, Brian Simon, demonstrated that the consequence of the United Kingdom Elementary Education Act of 1870 was that three levels of schooling came into being in the period from 1860 to 1900: “public” schools for the upper middle class, elementary schooling for the working class, and a new set of schools aimed at accommodating the middle classes. The outcome, he contended, was “the establishment of a highly differentiated system in which each level served, in theory at least, a specific social class (or subsection of a class), with each having a specific function.” In the early years of British sociology, the problem of education was much less central than in France precisely because education was not required to perform the same social function. There was little expectation that the educational system should contribute towards the development of a self-conscious social democracy and, rather, the enlargement of educational provision was a carefully regulated mechanism for legitimating the allocation of individuals to pre-established, stratified, social and professional positions. In general terms, the liberal tradition led to research which focused on the performance of individuals and on the relationship between educational and occupational hierarchies. In part, the 159 education emphasis was on educational psychology and the measurement of intelligence. In so far as this tradition generated a sociology of education, it was a sociology which, particularly in the United States, responded to the given structure of relations between education and the economy. It was the impulse towards egalitarianism provided by World War II which, in the United Kingdom, stimulated an adoption of a Durkheimian orientation towards the sociological analysis of education. It is significant that it was in this period that Durkheim’s texts on education were first translated into English, and sociological analysis began to operate reciprocally in tandem with the movement towards the comprehensivization of the schooling system. The stimulus given to British sociology of education by the publication in 1971 of the collection of articles edited by M. F. D. Young, entitled Knowledge and Control. New Directions for the Sociology of Education – which first popularized early articles by Basil Bernstein and Pierre Bourdieu – came largely from a re-discovery of Durkheim’s societal perspective. In France, however, Bourdieu’s work was provoked by his sense that the official ideology of the French educational system masked social differentiation and that it was no longer possible, in any case, to assume that the achievement of equality within an educational system could guarantee social equality. Bourdieu problematized the systemic legacy of Third Republic educational ideology and also refused to limit the sociology of education to the analysis of pedagogical relations within schooling institutions. The shift in his thinking was accurately reflected in the English rendering of the title of his book on reproduction which, in France in 1970, was subtitled “Elements for a Theory of the Educational System”, but, in English in 1977, was called Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture. Writing within the Durkheimian tradition, Bourdieu offered a framework for analyzing the function of schooling within a society which was conceived as being in a state of conflict or competition, where educational attainment, cultural taste, occupational position are mobilized in interacting ways to acquire and legitimize the acquisition of power. Without renouncing the ideal of the socialist tradition – of achieving social equality, solidarity, and inclusion – Bourdieu provided a conceptual apparatus which could accommodate the interests of the liberal tradition. It is significant that Bourdieu’s work of the 1960s became available in translation in the United States at the end of the 1970s. The technocratic model of 160 Eisenstadt, Shmuel Noah (1923– ) education had become dominant in the United States. It operated on the assumption that the graded performance of students in education was a reliable indicator of eligibility for posts in a correlative hierarchy of occupations. Several challenges to this assumption emanated from the United States: the de-schooling movement; the articulation of the influence of a hidden curriculum in formal learning contexts; and the critiques of credentialism. In different ways, these were all attempts to rescue the sociology of education from subservience to the status quo of assumed relations between school and work and, therefore, between educational and economic opportunities. The refusal to accept the acultural assumptions of the technocratic model was strengthened by the association with the civil rights movement (see social movements) and the concomitant interest in affirmative action as a way of enabling educational opportunity to overcome cultural disadvantage. If we accept, first, that the sociology of education at any time is in reciprocal relationship with educational policies; second, that it has emerged in the West in two, ideal-typical, philosophical traditions of socialism and liberalism; and, third, that its history in the West demonstrates the effects both of the internal reciprocity between theory and practice and of cross-cultural conceptual transfer between these competing traditions – then, two provocative questions arise, one local and the other global. If the hegemony of the conservative party in British politics from the 1970s to 1997 suppressed the resurgence of a socialist sociology of education, has the effect of the New Labour accommodation with Thatcherism, associated with the sociological work of Anthony Giddens, neutralized sociological critique and encouraged the development of a postmodern version of the technocratic model? Does the appropriation of cultural difference through the overriding force of economic performativity now mean that a sociology of international education is doomed to stand impotently by as the technocratic model begins to prevail globally? DEREK ROBBINS Eisenstadt, Shmuel Noah (1923– ) Emeritus Professor in the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and a recipient of the Balzan Prize in 1988, Eisenstadt has made important contributions to comparative, historical and political sociology. In The Political System of Empires (1967), he examined pre-industrial societies to establish the elective affinity conditions that contributed to their instability and ultimate transformations. He made a major contribution to the study of generations and social change in From Generation to Generation: Age Groups and Social Structure (1971). Eisenstadt was in general concerned to understand development in non-western societies in terms of the legacy of Max Weber in The Protestant Ethic and Modernization (1968). He has been fascinated by Japanese society in Japanese Civilization (1996), because Japan raises many acute questions about whether the western model of development is unique. Eistenstadt has therefore been influential in arguing that there are many forms of modernity rather than a single, uniform process of modernization. His idea of “multiple modernities” has been explored in Patterns of Modernity (1987) (with D. Sachsenmaier), and he edited Reflections on Multiple Modernities: European, Chinese and other Interpretations (2002) and Comparative Civilizations and Multiple Modernities (2003). He has also contributed to the sociological understanding of fundamentalism in Fundamentalism, Sectarianism and Revolution (1999), arguing that Islamic fundamentalism is not anti-modern or even traditional, but another type of modernity. BRYAN S. TURNER elective affinity – see Max Weber. Elias, Norbert (1897–1990) Born in Breslau, German sociologist Elias studied medicine and philosophy before graduating with a doctorate in philosophy in 1922. He worked with Alfred Weber, before becoming academic assistant to Karl Mannheim in Frankfurt in 1929. After fleeing to Paris in 1933, following the rise of the Nazis, Elias settled in England in 1935, taking a research fellowship at the London School of Economics. In 1954, he was appointed to the subsequently influential Sociology Department at the University of Leicester. He also held university positions in Frankfurt, Ghana, Bielefeld, and Amsterdam. Elias’s approach has often been characterized as figurational sociology, though he came to prefer the term process sociology. This approach was designed to avoid reified accounts of social institutions and to emphasize the historical character of social life. His work is therefore often contrasted with the functionalism of Talcott Parsons. The defining features of this approach hold that: (1) human beings are born into relations of interdependency so that the social structures that they form with each other engender emergent Elias, Norbert (1897–1990) dynamics, which cannot be reduced to individual actions or motivations. Such emergent dynamics fundamentally shape processes of individual growth and development, and the trajectory of people’s lives; (2) these figurations are in a constant state of flux and transformation; (3) longterm transformations of human social figurations are largely unplanned and unforeseen; and (4) the development of knowledge takes place within such figurations and forms one aspect of their overall development. Elias’s first work, though not published until 1969, was The Court Society, in which he examined the social pressures facing the “court nobility” under the reign of Louis XIV. According to Elias the court rationality of the nobility, in which rank and prestige determined expenditure, can be contrasted with the economic rationality of the bourgeoisie, where consumption is subordinated to income. Like economic rationality, court rationality involved forms of self-restraint which were expressed in literature, architecture, and philosophy. Elias’s magnum opus, however, remains The Civilizing Process (1939 [trans. 2000]). Drawing on a variety of thinkers, including Karl Marx, Mannheim, Max Weber, and Sigmund Freud, Elias offers a bifocal investigation of psychological and behavioral transformations among the secular upper classes in the West, which, he shows, are integrally tied above all to processes of internal pacification and state formation. Because of the late and separate publication of volumes I and II in English, in 1978 and 1981, the study of long-term psychological changes, the history of manners, and the capacity for greater self-control in volume I has often, misleadingly, been read independently from the study of changes in social structure and state formation outlined in volume II. Elias’s other writings often develop ideas originally elaborated in The Civilizing Process. Together with Involvement and Detachment (1987), which outlines the social conditions for the possibility of a scientific sociology, Elias’s other crucial work is What is Sociology? (1978), in which he outlines among other things a series of “game models.” These demonstrate the regularity of social processes which generate emergent dynamics that cannot be reduced to individual actions. These constrain and mold the habitus and behavior of individuals. Other important works by Elias include (with J. Scotson) The Established and the Outsiders (1965); and (with Eric Dunning) Quest for Excitement (1986); The Society of Individuals (1991); and Time: An Essay STEVEN LOYAL (1992). 161 elite(s) elite(s) While in classic analyses the term elite carries a connotation of superiority (“the cream”), in contemporary social analysis it is used in a nonevaluative manner: it means a powerful minority affecting public and political outcomes in a systematic and significant way. Elite influence reflects control over “power resources” concentrated in large organizations, for example capital, authority, means of coercion, mass communication, knowledge, and charisma, as well as the capacity of elite groups to act in concert. Elites emerge in all organized societies, especially those with strong bureaucratic states. Therefore, the most visible parts of national elites are political elites (leaders). In democratic regimes, such elites operate electoral systems in which they compete for popular support. They also interact – collaborate, compete, and sometimes contend – with state-administrative, business, media, trade union, military, and religious elite groups. If this interaction is peaceful, and if elite groups achieve a high degree of consensus, stable democratic regimes may emerge. Elite warfare, by contrast, is a trademark of unstable and non-democratic polities. While the empirical delineations of elites are arbitrary – power and influence are matters of degree – most elite researchers restrict their size to about 300–1,000 persons. Such elite persons are identified “positionally,” as holders of the top power positions in the largest and most resourcerich organizations, or by involvement in making key decisions, or by reputation among their peers, or, finally, by a combination of the three methods. National elites are also seen as internally stratified, with political leaders typically placed at the apex of national power structures. At the other end of the power spectrum are the masses (“non-elites”). Between these two extremes, social scientists also distinguish “political classes” – the power strata from which elites are drawn, and on which elites rely in wielding power – and “influentials,” those who can affect elite decisions. Elites are sometimes conflated and sometimes contrasted with “ruling classes” (see social class). The latter are seen as much broader collectivities distinguished by ownership of capital. Class theorists typically see elites as “executive arms” of the ruling class(es). Elite theorists, by contrast, criticize class reductionism and point to the autonomy of political elites, as reflected in their capacity to expropriate ownership classes (for example in revolutions). 162 elite(s) Classical elite theory was developed at the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries by Vilfredo Pareto, Gaetano Mosca, and Robert Michels, under the strong influence of both positivism and the theories of Max Weber. It constituted a critique of democratic theory that predicted a radical dispersion of political power, and of Marxism that foresaw class conflicts and a triumph of egalitarian socialism. In contrast with both, the classic elite thinkers suggested persistent and inescapable power concentration in elites’ hands. Revolutions (see revolution, theory of ), including “socialist revolutions,” claimed elite theorists, merely reconstituted elites, and they did not narrow down the elite–mass power gaps. Both classic and contemporary elite theorists see the bases of elite power in certain psychological predispositions, organizational abilities (rare in general populations), small size, and internal cohesion. Elite cohesion does not preclude the possibility of temporary intra-elite conflicts and divisions on specific policy questions. However, when their power is threatened, elite members defend it in a solidary way. Their firm grip on power is strengthened by alliances with non-elite social forces – dominant strata, movements, classes, and organized groups – and by control over their succession exercised through exclusive schools, corporate hierarchies, and party machines. Contemporary elite theorists, such as C. Wright Mills, see the United States elite as firmly anchored in the core organizations: the national government, the military directorate, and the largest business corporations. A comprehensive overview of modern elites is provided by Tom Bottomore in Elites and Society (1993) and by Robert Putnam in Comparative Study of Political Elites (1976). Bottomore highlights elite – ruling class connection. Putnam stresses elites’ anchoring in social and institutional structures, and he sees elite conduct as heavily constrained by ideologies (revolutionary elites) and national legal frameworks (liberal elites). Other contemporary elite theorists, such as John Higley and Eva Etzioni-Halevi, elaborate the conceptions of elite unity and democracy. They focus on elite effectiveness, consensus, and competition. According to Higley and his collaborators, elites that “craft” and maintain stable democratic regimes are united in their support of peaceful electoral competition, broadly integrated, and well connected with the major mass constituencies, typically through party organizations and elite(s) civic associations. Etzioni-Halevi sees effective “coupling” of elites with lower/working classes as a key condition of democracy, the latter seen as a regime of competing elites. More recently, there has been a shift in elite researchers’ attention, reflecting a change in the structure and composition of contemporary elites. It can be summarized in five points: (1) The emergence of transnational power networks and elites. While nation-states remain the most important institutional loci of power, other power concentrations emerge in the process of globalization and the formation of such transnational bodies as the United Nations, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, Greenpeace, and Islamic movements. The increasingly transnational/global nature of the problems national elites face (for example terrorism, environmental degradation, the drugs trade, uncontrolled migrations and the spread of AIDS) forces them into supra-state and transnational domains. (2) Widening elite autonomy. One of the key trends of the last decades seems to be a widening of non-elective elites capable of initiating, and sometimes directing, social change. Thus what are arguably the most momentous events of the twentieth century, such as the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the collapse of Soviet communism in eastern Europe, and the liberalization of the Chinese economy, have been engineered by elites. (3) Emergence of pro-democratic elites. The recent wave of democratization (1989–95) has been championed mainly by elites “crafting” and consolidating democratic regimes, often with only weak support from mass populations. Pro-democratic elites have emerged in southern Europe, Russia, central and eastern Europe, and East Asia. (4) Intense elite differentiation and circulation. Contemporary studies show that new elite groups emerge with the expansion of new industries, civic groups, social movements, and nongovernmental organizations. (5) The declining impact of ideologies in advanced western societies. Western elites cultivate mass support in a pragmatic and ad hoc manner, often through media “spin” and campaigns focusing on personalities of leaders. This reflects the fact that the support constituencies of western elites are less anchored in specific classes, ethno-segments, or religious categories. JAN PAKULSKI emotions embeddedness This concept suggests that economic conduct is embedded within and influenced by wider social structures, institutions, and cultures, and represents a sociological critique of standard economic models that equate economic processes with atomistic market transactions between self-interested individuals. Mark Granovetter codified this critique in “Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness” (1985), in the American Journal of Sociology. He argued that trust, suspicion, and manipulation in market transactions cannot be explained by the calculations of autonomous (undersocialized) economic actors or by (oversocialized) cultural determinism. Rather, they are explicable in terms of the specific networks of social relations inhabited by such actors: a shared network may underpin trust rather than suspicion, but may also create more scope for abuse of trust. This is not an argument for uniform embeddedness. First, in some societies economic processes are largely structured in terms of nonmarket relations, in which case formal market models are entirely inappropriate. Second, market processes in capitalist societies are not autonomous and self-sustaining, as much economic theory implies, but rather generate tensions and challenges that prompt efforts at institutional regulation. Third, market transactions are differently conditioned by specific institutional features: thus different liberal market and “alliance” capitalisms involve various levels and types of embeddedness. Finally, the greater embeddedness of economic processes in “alliance” capitalisms, through ties among enterprises and with the state (and sometimes organized labor), may generate trust and cooperation more readily than liberal market capitalisms. However, the invocation of embeddedness only provides a starting point for such arguments. The consequences of different sorts of embeddedness, and their advantages and disadvantages for different economic actors, have to be addressed through more detailed specification and research. TONY ELGER embodiment – see body. emotional labor – see emotions. emotions Although typically understood in terms of feelings and bodily sensations, which are components of 163 emotions any emotion, emotions are best regarded as experiences of involvement. Social circumstance, expressive communication, and actor intentions are crucial to the genesis of emotional experience and its quality. Thus, emotions can be seen to underscore values, interests, and meanings in social life. Emotions, then, are implicated in rational as well as irrational action and outlook. Max Weber’s distinction, for instance, between rational action and affective action, therefore loses its coherence when emotion is not confined to a particular type of action but seen to underlie all action. Similarly, while some emotions may rise and fall within a short time-frame, it is not a necessary characteristic of emotions that they are of short duration, though this applies to those emphasized by experimental work in psychology: here laboratory research studies chiefly reactive and highly visceral emotions, readily elicited from experimental subjects usually drawn from undergraduate student populations. Many important emotions, however, are not brief and episodic but enduring or ongoing. Another misunderstanding holds that those experiencing emotions are necessarily conscious of them. They need not be. Many emotions, including the most important for social processes, are experienced below the threshold of awareness. Thomas J. Scheff, for instance, has shown that much social conformity can be explained in terms of shame of which the subject is not consciously aware. The relevance of emotions to sociological explanation is original to the discipline, central to the eighteenth-century precursors of sociology, including Adam Smith (1723–90) in The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759) and Adam Ferguson (1723–1816) in An Essay on the History of Civil Society (1767), and to nineteenth- and early twentiethcentury sociological pioneers, including Alexis de Tocqueville, Émile Durkheim, Vilfredo Pareto, Ferdinand Tönnies, and Georg Simmel. Since the 1970s, after at least half a century of neglect by sociologists, a sociology of emotions has emerged. An approach associated with these developments concerns emotion management and emotional labor as in Arlie Russell Hochschild’s The Managed Heart (1983). Emotion management is the broad process that matches face or emotional expression to circumstance, a process achieved by emotional labor. Emotional labor, like labor in general, refers to activities performed in an employment setting for a wage, in which the labor is to induce or suppress feelings in order to sustain an outward countenance or emotional expression intended to produce a particular state of mind in 164 emotions others. The affective parameters within which emotional labor is performed are the culturally defined feeling rules that prescribe the content of emotional expression and the circumstances in which particular expressions are appropriate. Hochschild estimated that, in the early 1980s when she wrote her book, approximately onethird of American workers had jobs substantially involving emotional labor and that approximately half of all female workers had jobs involving such forms of emotional work. She argues that the costs of emotional labor to those engaged in it are high: it affects the capacity to feel and may lead to loss of the function of emotional display or expression. The deleterious consequence of performance of emotional labor postulated by Hochschild is supported in many of the documented cases of emotional labor. And yet case studies seldom control for other aspects of the work that may be responsible for negative emotional outcomes. In a comparative examination of occupations, Amy Wharton in Work and Occupations (1993) found that emotional laborers are no more likely than other workers to suffer emotional exhaustion and somewhat more likely to be satisfied with their job. What determines whether work leads to emotional exhaustion or a sense of emotional inauthenticity is the level of job autonomy and involvement. When these are low then the jobs involved tend to produce emotional exhaustion and low job satisfaction, whether emotional labor is a primary aspect of the job or not. The sociology of emotion management and emotional labor predominantly understands emotions in terms of social and cultural manipulation, transformation, and restraint. While this aspect of emotions is important it does not exhaust the ways in which emotions may be sociologically considered. The way in which emotions spontaneously emerge in social processes and also the extent to which they constrain and orient social processes. A general theory of emotions developed by Theodore Kemper in A Social Interactional Theory of Emotions (1978) postulates three basic propositions. First, all social interactions can be characterized in terms of two formal dimensions of social relations, namely power and status, or involuntary and voluntary compliance, scaled in terms of whether they are in excess of what is required in the relationship, adequate for it, or insufficient. Agency – who might be responsible for too much or not enough power, say – can similarly be differentiated, as “self ” or “other.” Second, specific physiological processes are stimulated by specific experiences of power and status. empiricism Finally, particular emotions are physiologically specific. Physiological processes are thus the mechanisms that translate the structure of interactions into the emotions of the actors and are therefore an intermediary variable. In summary, the particular emotions that people experience arise out of the structure of the relations of power and status in which they are implicated. Thus, insufficient power in a relationship is likely to lead to experience of fear, excess of power to guilt; excess status is likely to lead to shame, insufficient status to depression, and so on. According to this account, emotion is in the social relationship: the subject of relations of power and status experiences emotional change, and, in being so changed, is disposed to change the relationship itself. Thus emotion is a necessary link between social structure and social actor. The connection is never mechanical, though, because emotions normally do not compel but bias activity. Emotion is provoked by circumstance and is experienced as transformation of dispositions to act. It is through the subject’s active exchange with others that emotional experience is both stimulated in the actor and orientating of their conduct. Emotion is directly implicated in the actors’ transformation of their circumstances, as well as the circumstances’ transformation of the actors’ disposition to act. JACK BARBALET empiricism This is a position in epistemology which states that only that which is observable, that is, empirical, can be used in the generation of scientific knowledge. There can be no recourse to unseen forces, underlying causes, or claims that behind the appearance of reality there lies a more fundamental reality. In contrast to theological accounts of how we gain knowledge of the world – through divine revelation, faith, and the teachings of the church fathers – empiricism was an epistemological position, evolved through the Enlightenment, arguing that knowledge of the world was a product of careful observation by the individual, the sorting of these observations, and the generation of laws governing them. As developed in Newtonian mechanics, the world was conceptualized as orderly and lawful. As developed by John Locke (1632–1704) in political philosophy, we are born into the world as a blank sheet and, through sensory experience and by induction (that is, by moving from the knowledge of the particular to the knowledge of the general), gradually build our endogamy knowledge of the world. However, Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) argued that reality is too infinitely complex for us to know what to abstract out of it; that in our own lifetime we could never make sense of it; and hence the mind must come prepared to make sense of the empirical world. Thus he proposes that the categories of reason – of causality, mass, weight, time, and so on – are a-priori characteristics of the human mind. Alternatively, Émile Durkheim proposed that the categories of the mind are not individual achievements since we are born into already existing explanations of the world, and that knowledge, natural and social, is a social achievement, specific to each culture in its own time. Applied in the social sciences by Auguste Comte and Durkheim, empiricism led to the claims that society could be studied in the same way as nature, and that, with the methods of the natural sciences (observation, classification, comparison, and experiment) and the use of statistics, the laws of social life could be demonstrated. The critique of the empiricist position has continued in the history and philosophy of science in the twentieth century. On the one hand, historian of science Thomas Samuel Kuhn argued, in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1970), that scientific knowledge was not the product of nature, but of the scientific communities who constructed it. We come to have knowledge of the world through socialization into specific world-views, which give a definition of what reality is, how to investigate it, what questions to ask about it, and how to answer them – in short, paradigms. Kuhn demonstrated that paradigms rose and fell and that knowledge was not cumulative: for example, Newtonian mechanics and Albert Einstein’s relativism are not cumulative and they cannot be reconciled. Put another way, our knowledge of the world is not built on any correspondence theory of truth. This point was made most importantly by W. V. Quine, in Words and Objects (1960), where he argued that there was nothing in reality or our sensory experience of it that led to the logical distinctions that we make about it. K E V I N W H I T E encoding/decoding – see Stuart Hall. end-of-ideology thesis – see ideology. endogamy – see kinship. 165 Engels, Friedrich (1820–1895) entrepreneurship Engels, Friedrich (1820–1895) An interpreter, collaborator, and popularizer of Karl Marx. Born in Barmen, Germany, he went to Britain to manage the family factory in Manchester. He first met Marx in 1842 and his Outlines for a Critique of Political Economy was well received by the latter. The two agreed to work together in attacks on the Young Hegelians and in 1845 Engels published his Condition of the Working Classes in England, a study based on detailed empirical work on the plight of workers, particularly in Manchester. Engels’s strength was his clarity of argument. Critics have felt that he oversimplified Marx and extended Marx’s theory into areas such as the natural sciences where it is not appropriate. His loyalty (and financial assistance) to Marx is not questionable, however. He wrote fascinating historical work on Germany after the crushing of the 1848 revolutions (see revolution, theory of), and his Anti-Dühring was a fierce critique of a German socialist. His Socialism: Utopian and Scientific appeared in English in 1892, a popularizing work that was widely read. In 1894 he wrote the Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, a work that built sympathetically on the anthropology of Lewis Henry Morgan (1818– 81). In 1888 his Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of German Classical Philosophy was published, and did much to expound Marxist theory as a dialectical and historical materialism. His Dialectics of Nature appeared posthumously in 1927. After Marx’s death, Engels devoted the rest of his life to editing and translating Marx’s writings. JOHN HOFFMAN Enlightenment In the western tradition, Enlightenment (éclaircissement, aufklärung) refers to the process of becoming rational in thought and action. It can be individual or society-wide. Either way, reason is figured as a light that illuminates the understanding and dispels the darkness of ignorance and superstition. Enlightenment thus conceived has two sides. Positively, it entails the empowering discovery of well-founded knowledge; critically, it is a movement of demystification, skeptical towards anything that cannot give an adequate account of itself before the bar of reason or experience. Historically, the term is associated with the eighteenth-century European intellectual movement that championed reason and progress against the enchainment of thought by, especially religious, tradition and belief. Hence “the Enlightenment” (capitalized) to designate that 166 movement, and the broader shift towards secularism, republicanism, humanism, and science to which it was connected. Important centers of Enlightenment thought were Scotland (Hutchinson, Hume, Ferguson, Smith), France (Montesquieu, Diderot, Voltaire, D’Alembert), England (Shaftesbury, Paine, Bentham, Wollstonecraft), and the United States (Franklin, Jefferson), though its crowning philosopher was Immanuel Kant (1724–1804). For many Enlightenment thinkers, a model for reason (and intellectual progress) was provided by the natural sciences, with Francis Bacon taken as their prophet and Isaac Newton’s “terrestrial” and “celestial” mechanics as their paradigm – whence a further ambition to extend the scientific model to the human realm. Just as the sciences of nature could lead to material progress, so knowledge of man as part of nature could lead to social and moral progress. Such thinking led to ambitious totalizations like that of the French Encyclopédistes, as well as to the more specialized development of what became the disciplines of psychology, economics, sociology, and anthropology. While Enlightenment thinking had a technocratic strain, it also linked reason with freedom and autonomy, as in Kant’s 1794 definition of enlightenment as “man’s leaving his self-caused immaturity” by “daring to think.” Optimism about the emancipatory and civilizing potential of knowledge-based progress peaked in the nineteenth century, but waned in the disasters of the succeeding century. Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno’s Dialectic of Enlightenment (1948 [trans. 1972]) criticized the actual course of enlightenment in their own time as a totalitarian disaster in which enlightenment itself had regressed to myth. Against this, and also against postmodernists like Jean-François Lyotard and Jacques Derrida who deconstructed logocentric narratives of progress, Jürgen Habermas has defended enlightened modernity as “an unfinished project.” ANDREW WERNICK entrepreneurship This topic is discussed in several social-science disciplines, and therefore a sociological view of entrepreneurship has to include references to non-sociological works. This, for example, is decidedly the case with the work of the founder of the study of entrepreneurship, economist Joseph Alois Schumpeter. Schumpeter presented the essentials of his theory of entrepreneurship in The Theory of Economic Development (1911 [trans. 1934]). The essence entrepreneurship of entrepreneurship, it is here suggested, is a new combination of already existing elements in the economy. Schumpeter also emphasizes that one of the great difficulties for the entrepreneur is that he or she has to break with the past. There is typically a strong resistance to change that has to be overcome, if there is to be an innovation. In a famous passage in The Theory of Economic Development, Schumpeter enumerates the main types of innovation: (1) the opening of a new market; (2) the introduction of a new merchandise; (3) the introduction of a new method of production; (4) a change in the organization of an industry; and (5) getting a new and cheaper source of raw materials or half-manufactured goods. Innovations, in other words, can happen anywhere in the economic process, from the assembly of material for production to the end product being marketed and presented to the prospective customer. What drives the entrepreneur is not so much money, Schumpeter also argues, as the joy of creating, the possibility of creating one’s own kingdom, and to succeed for the sake of success. A successful innovation, Schumpeter adds, creates entrepreneurial profit – which tempts others to imitate the initial entrepreneur till a situation is reached when no more entrepreneurial profit is to be had. In Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (1942) Schumpeter, finally, feared that huge corporations would kill the initiative of the individual to be an entrepreneur. As Richard Swedberg shows in Entrepreneurship (2001), post-Schumpeterian research on entrepreneurship has, to repeat, been interdisciplinary in nature. There exists, for example, whole literatures on entrepreneurship by psychologists, economic historians, and economists. Sociologists lack a sustained tradition of studying entrepreneurship but have nonetheless produced a number of interesting studies during the last few decades. One genre of such studies deals with so-called ethnic entrepreneurship or the role that entrepreneurship plays in various ethnic groups. One insight, for example in Roger Waldinger’s Ethnic Entrepreneurs (1990), from this type of literature is that successful ethnic entrepreneurs have to find other customers than their co-ethnics (“the ethnic market”) if they are to become truly successful. Sociologists also tend to emphasize the role of the group in entrepreneurship, as opposed to the single individual. Entrepreneurship in modern corporations, for example, often means the putting together of a group, in combination with an effort to stimulate its members to work on some task, as Rosabeth environment Moss Kanter shows in The Change Masters (1983). Finally, much contemporary sociological research looks at the earliest stages of entrepreneurship, so-called start-ups, but also what goes on before these exist – an issue which is discussed in Howard E. Aldrich’s entry on “Entrepreneurship,” in R. Swedberg and N. Smelser (eds.), Handbook of Economic Sociology (2004). RICHARD SWEDBERG environment Since its emergence as a political and social issue during the 1960s, the environment has been a topic of sociological interest. Owing to its intrinsic complexity and its intimate connection to a nonsocial and nonhuman “natural” realm, the environment has shown itself to be difficult to subject to sociological scrutiny, however. The traditional demarcation between nature and society that is assumed by many, if not all, sociologists to be a defining characteristic of modernity has caused difficulties, which have been reinforced by institutional barriers which tend to separate sociologists from other environmental scientists, as well as from the users of their knowledge. Nonetheless, in recent years sociologists interested in the environment have produced a variety of theoretical insights and empirical research findings, even though there is little agreement among them about how environmental issues are most appropriately to be comprehended and investigated. The sociology of the environment, or environmental sociology, as it is sometimes called, has suffered from many of the same processes of specialization and compartmentalization that have affected other sociological subfields. In comparison to other areas of social life, and in relation to the discipline as a whole, the environment has remained a relatively marginal topic of explicit sociological interest. It can be suggested that other social scientific disciplines have been more successful in “appropriating” the environment as a topic for investigation. Particularly in regard to external research funding and programs in environmental science, sociologists have tended to be less active and less visible than political scientists, psychologists, economists, geographers, and policy scientists. This is not merely because of a lack of entrepreneurial skill or energy on the part of sociologists. There is also a structural or disciplinary basis for the relative lack of interest in the environment among sociologists. For one thing, most of the classic sociological texts give short shrift to environmental problems, and have thus provided little intellectual guidance in helping latter-day interpreters to deal with 167 environment them, either theoretically or empirically. Generally viewed as “side effects” or subplots in the main story-lines of modernity and modernization, environmental issues were, for the most part, bracketed out of the foundational narratives of the discipline. Karl Marx, Max Weber, Émile Durkheim, and George Herbert Mead, as well as Herbert Spencer and Ferdinand Tönnies, all expressed in varying degrees a positive attitude to the human exploitation of the natural environment, if they referred to it at all. They all shared a respect for, and indeed sought to emulate, the natural and engineering sciences, whose development is generally considered to be one of the root causes of environmental problems. It can be suggested that this identification with science, and the attempt to make sociology itself into a science, has served to limit the seriousness with which sociologists have concerned themselves with the environment. Even though there were significant differences among them, the founding fathers of the discipline placed whatever criticisms they might have had about science and technology and the exploitation of nature in the margins, or footnotes, of their works. While Marx, for instance, praised the “civilizational role” of modern industry and of its science and technology in no uncertain terms, he only noted in passing that this civilization had negative implications for nonhuman nature. He never placed environmental issues in the foreground of his analyses of capitalist society, which was exclusively focused on the underlying dynamics, or laws of society. Similarly, Max Weber analyzed and, on occasion, bemoaned the rationalization processes of contemporary life, but the environmental implications of those processes were never examined explicitly. As such, the environment was marginal to the formation of a sociological identity, or imagination. As sociology became institutionalized in the course of the twentieth century, the environment continued to be neglected as a topic of investigation. The kinds of environmental problems that became socially significant in the 1960s – industrial pollution, energy and resource limitations, consumer risk and safety – were issues that fell far outside the disciplinary mainstream. They had either been delegated to other social science disciplines (economics, geography, and political science, in particular) or they were seen as aspects, or secondary dimensions, of other sociological concerns, such as urbanization, social conflict, regional development, or science and technology. It might be suggested that the paradigms or 168 environment disciplinary matrices of sociology as a field had come to “frame” the sociological objects of study in such a way as to make environmental issues marginal at best and invisible at worst. The environment was seldom viewed as an independent variable or a social issue in its own right. The environmental debate of the 1960s, associated with such popular writings as Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring (1962) and Paul Ehrlich’s The Population Bomb (1968), had only a minor impact on sociology. The key texts of the environmental “movement” were written by natural scientists or science writers, and received little interest from sociologists. For reasons of language and education, as well as inclination and interest, the new issues were considered of secondary importance for sociologists. It was not until the emergence of major environmental conflicts in the 1970s, particularly over energy policy, and nuclear energy in particular, that an environmental subfield began to develop with any intensity. Subsequent sociological concern with the environment has been strongly divided into what C. Wright Mills, in The Sociological Imagination (1959), once called “grand theory” and “abstracted empiricism.” While the theorists have sought to integrate environmental issues into broader conceptualizations and frameworks of interpretation, the more empirically minded have gradually added environmental issues to the growing number of social problems and social movements that they investigate. In this respect, a sociological interest in the environment has often been mixed with an interest in other social domains: the media, public administration, urban conflicts, and development. Little attempt has been made to “test” the rather abstract notions that the theorists have proposed with empirical research, and there has been little coordination of the various projects carried out by the empiricists in order to develop generalizations or systematic comparisons. As a result, the sociology of the environment has come to be fragmented into a number of approaches that are seldom combined in any meaningful way. In theoretical terms, sociologists have generally tried to incorporate the environment into the received frameworks of interpretation that they have derived from the so-called classics. Many have been the attempts to apply the terminology of Marx, Weber, or Durkheim to the sociology of the environment. An early effort by Alan Schnaiberg (The Environment: From Surplus to Scarcity, 1980) proposed the concept of the “treadmill of production” to characterize the social basis environment of environmental problems, which was derived from the Marxian concept of capital accumulation. Schnaiberg and the many other Marxian theorists who have followed have generally sought to frame environmental problems in materialist or historical materialist language, and thereby to connect the environment to relations of production. As with environmental economists, these theorists have tended to see environmental problems as dependent on, or determined by, other more fundamental social processes. The influential theory of Ulrich Beck has, on the other hand, drawn on the classical conceptions of Tönnies and Weber to develop a social theory in which environmental problems are given a more central or determinant place. In the 1980s, Beck proposed the concept of risk society as an allencompassing term to reflect the underlying social changes that had brought environmental issues into social and political life. Like other theorists of postindustrial society, Beck’s theory posits a fundamental shift in the overall logic, or rationality, of society, in his case from the production of goods to the manufacture of uncertainty, endemic risks, and dangers. Environmental problems are thus a structural characteristic of the contemporary age, a determinant factor in society. For Beck and many of the “risk” theorists who have been inspired by him, social processes and activities are no longer dominated by the conditions of modern industry – instead, we have entered the age of what Beck terms “reflexive modernization.” At a somewhat lower level of abstraction, and with a more explicitly political ambition, the risksociety thesis has been modified into a theory of “ecological modernization,” which has exerted a wide influence over many European social scientists and policymakers. Ecological modernization has been developed both by sociologists and by political scientists for analyzing institutional arrangements and administrative procedures that have been devised, primarily in relation to the political and social programs of so-called sustainable development. As such, ecological modernization has served perhaps more as a political ideology or policy doctrine than as a theoretical framework for academic sociologists. A distinction can be made between those theories that seek to link environmental issues explicitly to sociology and social theory and those that draw on concepts from the natural and environmental sciences, and are thus less directly disciplinary. This “ecological turn” has been facilitated by interdisciplinary research programs in global environmental change and human ecology, as environment well as by institutional linkages, or networks that have been established between sociologists and environmentally interested scientists in other fields. Some have distinguished between environmental sociology and ecological sociology. In the more ecological theories, social processes are depicted in terms of resource and energy flows, as theorists make use of concepts derived from systems theory, and, more recently, complexity theory. The sociological interest in the environment has from the 1970s been fragmented into a number of empirically delineated specialty areas. Sociologists have investigated a wide range of environmental conflicts, movements, and forms of activism, as well as the myriad processes of institutionalization, professionalization, (see profession(s)) and organization of environmental concern. There has also been a continuous research activity, using quantitative and survey methods to explore public attitudes to environmental problems, shifts in media coverage of environmental issues, membership patterns in environmental organizations and campaigns, and aspects of environmental lifestyles and consumer preferences. In these more empirical areas, links have been established between environmental sociologists and sociologists of science and technology, as well as with organizational sociologists and scholars of social and political movements. In many cases, particularly in relation to local environmental conflicts, sociologists have combined an academic and an activist role in new forms of action, or action-oriented research. In both theoretical and empirical terms, the sociology of the environment has provided fundamental contributions to what might be called the reinvention of the sociology of knowledge. Since the use of knowledge and expertise plays a central role in almost every significant environmental conflict, sociological analysis has helped elucidate some of the main processes involved. Depending on the terminology, these processes have been characterized as organizational learning, reflexive knowledge, citizen science, or cognitive praxis, to mention only some of the concepts that have been developed. In this respect, the sociology of the environment has contributed to the broader social understanding of knowledge production, and has, in many specific cases, combined environmental sociology with the sociology of science, or scientific knowledge. The way in which science has come to be used in environmental policy has been a major focal point of sociological investigation. 169 environmental movements The sociology of the environment has also been central to the opening of sociology as a whole to interdisciplinary and cross-cultural interactions. An environmental focus or point of departure has proved valuable for initiating collaboration across disciplinary boundaries and for opening spaces for communication between the human and the nonhuman sciences. As a result, there has been a fertilization and “translation” of theoretical terms and concepts in both directions, and there has also been a variety of hybridizations of social scientists and natural scientists into transdisciplinary environmental scientists. In the future it can be expected that the tension between environmental sociology as a distinct subfield within the discipline and as a part of a broader and less academically defined intellectual activity will continue. The value of sociological understanding for the resolution of environmental conflicts and the solution of environmental problems is significant, and it is to be hoped that sociologists will continue to contribute to the broader pursuit of a sustainable development or an ecological society. ANDREW JAMISON environmental movements – see social movements. environmental rights – see rights. epidemiology Defined as the study of the patterning and determinants of the incidence and distribution of disease, the discipline of epidemiology is concerned with environmental factors – whether physical, biological, chemical, psychological, or social – that affect health, and also considers the course and outcomes of disease in individuals and in groups. Where social variables are emphasized – the distribution of disease by social circumstances and social class, for instance, rather than more strictly biological aspects of sex, race, or geographical environment – the term social epidemiology is often used. The formal beginning of the discipline was in the nineteenth century with the work of the pioneers of public health. John Snow (1813–55), in his Report on the Cholera Outbreak in the Parish of St. James, Westminster (1854), famously demonstrated the transmission of cholera through contamination of the London water supply, “cured” by the removal of the handle of the Broad St. pump. The epidemiological approach, comparing rates of 170 epidemiology disease in subgroups of populations, became increasingly used in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, applied at first mainly to the investigation and control of communicable disease. Well-known examples of its nature and successes include assisting in the eradication of smallpox in the world by the l970s. A classical triumph of epidemiology was the conclusive demonstration by Sir Richard Doll (1912–2005) in 1954 of the association between smoking and lung cancer. This classical follow-up study of the mortality of almost 35,000 male British doctors continued to offer results for over fifty years. In 2004 a new report in the Lancet celebrated this milestone in public health by showing that the risks of persistent cigarette smoking were actually greater than previously thought, and about one-half to two-thirds of all persistent smokers would eventually be killed by the habit. It was also shown, however, that quitting at any age, even up to the 60s, gains years of life expectancy. Epidemiology is essentially a statistical discipline, dealing in rates of disease and mortality, but has always acknowledged multiple and interactive causes of ill-health. Behavior and lifestyle are increasingly held to be important in the causal analysis of population, and epidemiology studies their effects, and also how the control and prevention of problems in both can be more effective. One of the most recent examples of the contribution of epidemiology has been to the study of the HIV/AIDS epidemic, where it has been vital to trace out the worldwide patterns of spread and control, rates of transmission, and changing outcomes. This health crisis has also been responsible for some coming-together of ethnographic and qualitative sociological methods of enquiry with the more statistical science represented by epidemiology, since unconventional methods were necessary to gain knowledge (of, for instance, drug use, prostitution, and intimate sexual behavior) essential for the modeling of epidemiological statistics and predictions. Medical sociology in some respects grew out of social epidemiology, and still has close links with it. Some divergence between the disciplines, however, relates to the fact that epidemiological statistics are population statistics and so can say nothing about any individual. How doctors present this to patients, and how lay people interpret at a personal level the statistical facts of epidemiology in the form of rates and probabilities, is a topic of interest in medical sociology, particularly in the currently active fields of genetics and risk. epistemology Environmental epidemiology, an important branch of the discipline, faces contemporary challenges of global change. The study of causal pathways at societal levels is sometimes called eco-epidemiology. Globalization is also relevant in relation to the necessity for global control of pandemic diseases. MILDRED BLAXTER epistemology The theory of knowledge, epistemology is one of the core subjects within philosophy. It tries to answer questions about the nature, sources, scope, and justification of knowledge. In some languages, epistemology is often equated with the philosophy of science. However, in sociology, epistemology has also often been used in a broader sense. Epistemology of the social sciences, for instance, deals with issues of method. What, if any, methodological guidelines ought to be adopted? What, if any, are the differences between the social and the natural sciences? In this respect, two debates are worth mentioning. First, in the Methodenstreit in nineteenth-century Germany, positivism and hermeneutics were opposed to each other. Positivist authors postulated methodological unity between the social and the natural sciences; it assumed the existence of laws or law-like generalizations in the social realm; and it postulated the possibility of value-free social science. Hermeneutic authors argued that the study of historical and social phenomena aims to understand (not explain) specific instances (not general laws). They also argued that sociology and history could never obtain valueneutrality. Max Weber adopted an intermediate position in this debate. Second, in the 1950s the Positivismusstreit opposed the positivist school and critical theory. Positivist-inclined authors, like Hans Albert and Karl Popper, tried to establish the scientific foundations for sociology. For critical theorists, like Theodor Adorno and Jürgen Habermas, sociology should be preoccupied with self-emancipation and critique of society. For them, value-neutrality is impossible. In philosophy the traditional notion of epistemology searches for the universal foundations which underpin an individual’s knowledge and secure its validity and neutrality. This notion of epistemology has come under recent attack. First, influenced by American pragmatism, Richard Rorty (1931– ) argues that we should substitute hermeneutics for epistemology. Whereas epistemology tries to establish a-temporal foundations for cognitive claims, hermeneutics is sensitive to the situated nature of knowledge. For Rorty, recent equality developments within analytical philosophy (for instance, the work of Donald Davidson [1917–2003] and Willard Quine [1908–2000]) have made epistemology (as the search for foundations of knowledge) untenable. Philosophy should aim at Bildung and self-edification. Second, social epistemology pays particular attention to the social aspects of the sources, justification, and diffusion of knowledge. Social epistemology draws on Science and Technology Studies. It can be an explanatory and descriptive endeavor (for instance, how did a particular theory become widely held?) or a normative enterprise (for instance, how can we organize academic institutions more effectively?). Third, feminist epistemologists emphasize the gendered nature of knowledge, the extent to which men and women develop different types of knowledge. Some forms of feminism challenge the assumption of neutrality and advocate standpoint theory. According to standpoint theory, women are in some respects better placed to obtain knowledge. This is by virtue of their specific position in society. Some theorists extend standpoint theory to refer to superior forms of knowledge linked to any marginal, subordinated, or oppressed category. PATRICK BAERT equality The problem of equality has been a persistent topic of western philosophy and political theory. There is considerable debate about equal treatment of individuals in society as a normative principle (“people ought to be equal”) and the claim “all human beings are equal” as a statement of fact. Before the modernization of society, human beings were thought to be equal (“in the eyes of God”) in religious terms, or they were equal (in nature) under Natural Law. The contradiction between the normative view and the empirical condition of inequality produces conditions for radical social change. Secular theories of equality are associated with Karl Marx who argued that human beings were equal before the advent of private property and the development of class relations in capitalism. For Marx, socialism would restore the equality between men through a revolutionary change of society. In his study of Equality (1931), R. H. Tawney combined socialism and Christian theology to develop a normative theory of society. Tawney was critical of capitalist society that intensified inequality by stimulating human greed for commodities. His study of Religion and the Rise of Capitalism (1926) developed a critique of individualism as an alternative to Max Weber 171 equality and The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1905 [trans. 2002]). In the post-war period, social reconstruction was often pursued through the Keynesian (see Keynes, John Maynard) welfare state, and by developing social citizenship many western governments committed themselves to social policies that were designed to reduce inequalities. However, in the 1970s and 1980s many western governments embraced neo-liberal social policies, associated with British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher (1925– ) and the American President Ronald Reagan (1911–2004), that emphasized entrepreneurship, individualism, profit, and self-reliance. The consequences of these policies, which involved, for example, cutting personal income tax, were to increase the efficiency of industry and the profitability of investment, but they also increased social inequality, as measured, for instance, by post-tax income. Some economists such as Partha Dasgupta in An Inquiry into Well-Being and Destitution (1993) argue that infant mortality rates, life expectancy at birth, and literacy rates provide better measures of resource allocation in society than measures of income inequality, such as the gini coefficient. These can be regarded as traditional measures of inequality, but with globalization and the revolution in information there are new aspects to inequality such as the digital divide. Access to electronic information via the internet is increasingly important as a measure of equality. The principal theme in philosophical debate has been to determine to what extent differences between human beings can be derived from natural differences and from social evaluation. For example, as a matter of fact, men in the United States are on average taller than men in Japan, but should this natural difference lead to any difference in evaluation? Ralph Dahrendorf, in a famous essay “On the Origins of Social Inequality” (in P. Laslett and W. G. Runciman (eds.), Philosophy, Politics and Society 2nd series, 1962), distinguished four types of inequality. The first concerns natural differences of kind (such as the color of eyes). Second, there are natural differences of rank (between talents or intelligence). Third, there is the social differentiation of positions (such as the division of labor); and finally there is social stratification, involving a rank ordering of individuals (by prestige and wealth). Sociologists have typically concerned themselves with this fourth type of inequality, have sought to avoid normative judgements about the ontological equality of people as human beings, and have focused their empirical research on the various dimensions of inequality in studies of poverty, income distribution, and 172 equality wealth. As a result, equality has not been studied directly, because it is implicitly treated as the residue of inequality. The level of equality in society is implicitly measured by the extent of inequality. There are broadly four types of equality. First, there are religious arguments in favor of an ontological equality of human beings, regardless of their de facto differences. This type of equality was supported by Natural Law philosophers, but it is now associated with human rights, because Article 1 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights announced in 1945 that “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.” Second, there is the liberal notion of equality of opportunity, which means that access to important social institutions such as higher education should be available to all on universalistic criteria. This principle emphasizes talent over inheritance and promotes the idea of meritocracy (see credentialism). The argument is that social roles should be open to achievement and competition, not ascription. Sociological research shows, however, that this form of equality is often limited as a result of racial discrimination or gender bias against women. Equality of opportunity can never fully guarantee a “level playing field.” For example, successful parents will tend to pass on their wealth and cultural capital (see social capital) to their children. Third, equality of condition involves various strategies to address limitations in equality of opportunity. For example, taxation (of personal income and the inheritance of property) can be used to reduce inter-generational inequalities. Affirmative action programs also attempt to ensure that equality of condition is not compromised by negative attitudes, for example towards the employment of mothers, the elderly, or minority groups. Affirmative action programs are also relevant to the fourth type of equality, namely equality of outcome. A university that decided to offer every student a degree regardless of their actual performance would have a policy of equality of outcome. However, to create an egalitarian society requires considerable state intervention into society, especially in the market, through taxation, affirmative action, and legislation. Liberals and anarchists believe that the state should not interfere with the right of individuals to dispose of their own assets. Liberals argue that the fundamental principle of freedom is the right to individual property. From the perspective of functionalism, individuals have to be motivated to fill positions in society that are dangerous, or essentialism estates demanding, or require extensive training. In the Davis and Moore debate (see functional theory of stratification), social inequality in terms of prestige and wealth is necessary to ensure that functionally necessary tasks are undertaken. Although liberal democratic societies typically embrace the idea, expressed in the Declaration of Human Rights, that all human beings are equal, very few governments are willing or able to implement policies that would radically promote equality among their citizens. In a parliamentary democracy, the economic interests of the wealthy will always prevail over the interests of the poor. Since the early 1980s, governments adopting post-Keynesian strategies have cut personal taxation, reduced expenditure on welfare, and privatized social services. The consequence has been to increase inequality. BRYAN S. TURNER essentialism This term has been, since the mid-1980s, at the heart of debates about the extent to which the human condition is formed by the natural characteristics of gender and race. The politics of essentialism have revolved around the double-sided possibilities of essentialism: asserting the importance of a category such as “woman” allows a politics organized around that term and yet at the same time contains female people within a concept which may be interpreted as naturalistic and potentially coercive. Similar arguments apply to the use of racially and ethnically specific terms; in all cases, the powerful arguments for political organization and mobilization around certain definable characteristics – which often underpin considerable similarities of circumstance and experience – are contested by those who argue that any form of “essential” identity is in itself an identity imposed, and maintained, by those who are more powerful. For women, essentialism has been contested because it positions women within a binary opposition in which they can never be men and in which all forms of social negotiation have to be conducted through a “natural” condition. From the end of the twentieth century, considerable theoretical energy has been devoted to separating both masculinity and femininity from male and female; resistance to this idea remains considerable, particularly from psychoanalytically informed sociology which maintains that distinct biologies of male and female do exist and that the recognition of this fact (and consideration of its consequences) does not in itself constitute essentialism. MARY EVANS estates A system of social stratification in which rights and duties were legally defined, estates were based on a common principle of the hierarchical organization of social strata in pre-industrial societies, such as feudalism. The analysis of the survival of estate systems has been an important aspect of the theory of revolutions. In Economy and Society, Max Weber (1922 [trans. 1978]) classified estates as a form of traditional authority, specifically patrimonial authority or “estate-type domination.” Estates, which were typically divided into nobility, clergy, and commoners, flourished in France, Germany, and Russia before the rise of capitalism, when new forms of economic power confronted the traditional distribution of aristocratic titles and privileges. Estate domination in Weber’s terms involved an authoritarian, militarized nobility surrounding a monarch or emperor. The heyday of the French system of estates corresponded with the rule of Louis XIV (1643–1715) and the consolidation of absolutism in the seventeenth century. Whereas in France the estate system remained an inflexible system of privilege, the English social structure permitted the entry of bourgeois capitalists into the nobility. Although the traditional authority of the English nobility was undermined by the English Civil War and the execution of Charles 1 in 1649, the division between the House of Lords and the House of Commons in the British parliamentary system represents the last vestiges of the “estates of the realm.” The French system of estates was destroyed by the French Revolution (1789–98), but a militarized and conservative nobility (known as the Junkers) survived in Germany and was an important aspect of Weber’s analysis of the political and cultural rigidity of Germany at the beginning of the twentieth century. The German nobility was shattered by the crisis of World War I, but the political system based on authoritarian “statism” survived much longer, according to G. Kvistad in The Rise and Demise of German Statism (1999). An estate system also existed in Russia until the Bolsheviks came to power after the October Revolution of 1917, when military defeats, food shortages, and revolutionary conflict brought an end to autocratic Tsardom. Given the strength of the Russian estate system, Weber remained pessimistic about the possibilities of social change in Russia in his The Russian Revolutions (1917 [trans. 1995]). In conclusion, the rigidity of the system of estates – the survival of the nobility and the peasantry into modern times – has often been seen as an obstacle to the development of democracy, for example in 173 ethnic group ethnicity and ethnic groups Barrington Moore’s Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy (1966). BRYAN S. TURNER ethnic group – see ethnicity. ethnic mosaic This expression is a euphemism used by dominant ethnic groups to represent their political and economic intentions towards ethnic minorities as benign or, even, well-intentioned. Similar expressions include “melting pot,” “salad bowl,” and “multiculturalism.” From the late twentieth century, terms like “melting pot,” which convey the cultural ideal that ethnic differences will in time melt away, have been replaced by terms that serve to respect the differences as reconcilable if unbridgeable. Thus, after the 1960s in the European diaspora, popular groups tended to speak of the national society as a salad bowl, in which the differing vegetables contribute to the cultural taste of the whole without relinquishing their differences. Evidently multiculturalism is a somewhat more abstract version of the same well-intentioned theory that different ethnic groups can achieve a state of peaceful coexistence – as in fact they occasionally do, for example between the French and the English in Canada and the Walloons and Flemish in Belgium. Ethnic mosaic is a somewhat more scientific term used in the social sciences to lend an analytic legitimacy to what is otherwise a historical incongruity. The ethnic mosaic, like the metaphorical salad bowl, connotes the ideal that ethnic conflicts are aberrations limiting the social good which can be achieved when groups set aside differences to work together for the common good. In real history, the ethnic mosaic ideal strains against ethnocentrism, which seems to be a deeper structural feature of ethnic groups. The disposition to consider one’s own group as superior aggravates, even in the most stable of ethnic mosaics, the potential for affirmation of differences that the dominant culture may be unable to suppress. CHARLES LEMERT ethnic nationalism – see nationalism. ethnicity and ethnic groups These concepts are intended to define social differences associated with, but theoretically distinct from, racial ones. It is common, thereby, for social analysts to link race and ethnicity to suggest that 174 ethnic differences go beyond, while including, racial ones. The distinction is not entirely arbitrary owing to the predominance of biological theories of race in late modern European diasporic cultures. Among the most notable modern examples of the confusion wrought by race and ethnicity is the United States, where racism has long been a structural feature of its status in the capitalist world-system. It is necessary to distinguish race from ethnicity when there is reason to justify a national or regional economy’s reliance on slavery or other pre-modern forms of feudal or despotic production. West African people captured and transshipped to the Americas from the long sixteenth century until the nineteenth century, were defined as a race as opposed to an ethnic group for two reasons: one, they had lost their ties to their original ethnic cultures in Africa; two, the shame of economic reliance on slave labor called for a pseudo-scientific justification in the form of the racial attribution being offered as a sign of an inherent biological difference that stipulated the mental, even categorical, inferiority of blacks. Today, it is very well known that racial differences are biologically insignificant and that ethnicity must be considered quite apart from its assumed associations with race. The word ethnic descends from the Greek noun ethnos, which has entered into modern languages, including English, variously as “people” and “nation.” Yet, the somewhat awkward derivative “ethnicity” did not come into play until relatively late in the nineteenth century when sociology and other academic social sciences, still immature institutionally, were forced to account for the social conflicts arising from the presence of immigrant groups in European and North American cities. It was then that “heathen” or “barbarian,” a third but already archaic sense of ethnic differences, may be detected in analytic usages. Ethnic differences are thus most severe in host societies when groups considered foreign come to live in close proximity. Their languages, customs, religions, cuisines, and other cultural practices appear strange to established citizens of the host nations — even when their own ancestries can be traced to groups whose social habits were once alien. Simply put, ethnicities are of analytic importance when differing peoples are forced to live close by each other in an established region or political territory such as the modern nation-state. Ethnic differences are most acute when the prevailing nation-state is unable to manage the ethnicity and ethnic groups conflicts that inevitably ensue when established groups of the region depend on the aliens to satisfy their need for cheap and plentiful labor. In the United States, for example, in the nineteenth century, European groups were recruited to the eastern and middle states, as Asian groups had come to the western states, to relieve the acute shortage of workers for hard labor in industry, farming, and mining. In times of rapid economic expansion, industrializing areas necessarily suffer labor shortages. Whatever scruples the dominant group may have as to the cultural habits of foreigners, they must embrace them if the economic growth is to continue. The embrace is almost always false and short-lived. Very often, the foreign labor is recruited from among the most stigmatized groups in the host nation, as when, in the United States after 1914, World War I cut off access to European immigrant labor, forcing the northern industrial centers to recruit blacks from the rural South. Usually, ethnic groups are invited as (in the European expression) “guest workers” to work in low-end service, manufacturing, or agriculture sectors. Yet, ethnic differences can also rise to perplexing visibility when immigrant workers are needed for highly skilled labor, as when, from the last quarter of the twentieth century, South Asian peoples came to play a major role in technological and financial sectors throughout the European diaspora. Ethnicities, thus, are most salient when the host nations are unable to manage the conflicts that inevitably arise between the new ethnic groups and the assimilated dominant groups or among the ethnic groups themselves. Ethnic conflicts can break into open warfare and civil discord when the political sovereignty of the national or regional authorities weakens, as, after 1989, when the collapse of the Soviet Union led to ethnic violence in regions once under the control of the Warsaw Pact — Chechnya and the Balkans, among others. The extremes of ethnic violence are realized when ethnic conflicts occur in regions where there is little or no legitimate political authority — as in Rwanda, Burundi, Congo, and Uganda. Late in the twentieth century, ethnic conflict between the Hutu and Tutsi led to the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocents, and early in the twenty-first century ongoing violence, mainly against women and children, is laying waste to villages in the Darfur region of the Sudan. The fact that the global powers, notably the United States, largely ignored these ethnic wars while simultaneously seeking to manage ethnocentrism similar ones in Iraq among the Shi’a, Sunni, and Kurds illustrates the role of economic and geo-political interests in ethnic conflicts. A dominant ethnic group with the power to do so will intervene in conflicts among other groups only when its perceived interests are at stake. Ethnocentrism seems, therefore, to be a naturally occurring attribute of ethnic groups who will engage rival groups with unusual ferocity when their sense of ethnic privilege is threatened. The artificiality of the analytic distinction between race and ethnicity is evident, thus, in the degree to which the ethnic differences interact with political realities. In the United States, for example, people of the African diaspora were recognized as a legitimate ethnic group, AfricanAmerican, only after 1965 when the American Civil Rights Movement forced the dominant whites of European extraction to accept the civic (if not social) legitimacy of blacks who, to that point, had been defined narrowly as an excludable racial minority. After the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in the United States, descendants of slaves captured from West Africa as long as three centuries before increasingly claimed an African ethnic identity of which most were necessarily ignorant. Thus, ethnic practices can occasionally be latterday inventions intended to connect people to a lost ancient tradition, as in the case of the African-American Kwanzaa, a holiday introduced in 1966 to celebrate the ancient traditions of West Africa. At the same time, when the dominant ethnic group or groups are forced, in times of relative domestic or regional peace, to accept formerly obnoxious cultural differences, they will themselves invent cultural ideals celebrating their own civility, as in the case of expressions like ethnic mosaic or melting pot, which serve to cover their own history of incivility and cruelty towards ethnic minorities. In short, ethnicity is a sociological concept meant to disentangle the complex historical ties between cultural differences and political CHARLES LEMERT and economic power. ethnocentrism The seemingly universal cultural habit of considering one’s own ethnicity unique, and thus in some sense – or several senses – special, the most striking instance of ethnocentrism in the modern world is that of the North American peoples in the United States who, over more than two centuries of history, thought of “America” as exceptional for the purity and goodness of its values. American “exceptionalism,” like most forms of 175 ethnography ethnocentrism, has shown itself to be a plastic cultural attitude equally capable of reference to religious culture (as in America as the New Israel in the seventeenth-century Puritan theory of divine providence) as to secular principles (as in the doctrine of manifest destiny, an expression used to justify the appropriation of lands from Mexico in the 1840s). More often, if less accurately, ethnocentrism is used to describe the evident unwillingness of foreign and domestic ethnic groups to yield their distinctive cultural practices in order to assimilate to those of the more powerful dominant groups in control of state or regional power. Analytically, ethnocentrism describes the vicious cycle of inter-group relations by which differing ethnicities respond to contact with each other by claiming a natural superiority for their own cultural practice, hence for themselves CHARLES LEMERT as a people. ethnography Involving the first-hand exploration and immersive participation in a natural research setting to develop an empathic understanding (Verstehen) of the lives of persons in that setting, ethnography has its origins in the nearly simultaneous emergence in the early twentieth century of social anthropological studies of the cultures of native peoples and the social ecology studies of city dwellers by sociologists of the Chicago School (Ernest W. Burgess, Robert Ezra Park, and William I. Thomas). The Chicago School wedded Thomas’s appreciation of the theoretical insights of Charles Horton Cooley and George Herbert Mead to Park’s practical experience as a journalist. Once symbolic interactionism emerged from Chicago, it found a natural partner in ethnographic methods, adapted to the study of organizations and other settings as constituted by the interactions of the participants. Likewise, it is difficult to see how Erving Goffman’s dramaturgical perspective could have been developed except in the explication of ethnographic data. Ethnography as a method retains a commitment to naturalistic enquiry, that is, a commitment to richly contextualized, extended, participant-eyed description of the setting (alias the “thick description” recommended by Clifford Geertz in The Interpretation of Culture, 1973), with a minimum of pre-existing hypotheses and a determination to represent the phenomena at hand faithfully. Thick description is an outcome of the sustained immersion in the research field alongside the writing of detailed reflective fieldnotes, which 176 ethnography enable the researcher to represent the culture in a multi-layered richness that is broader and more comprehensive than schematic grand narratives. The ethnographic tradition does not commit itself to a specific data collection protocol, rather it comprises a number of different methods, the main components being interviews, participant observation, and documentary analysis. Indeed, some commentators distinguish ethnography, as the written report and interpretation of a culture, from fieldwork, as the modes of observing the culture. The importance of the written ethnography has led some to observe that the ethnographer’s task is story-telling through personal narrative, alongside other tasks of theory or typology development. Participant observation is generally considered to be central to the ethnographic method. Participant observation involves collection of data by participating in the social world of those being studied, and interpreting and reflecting upon the actions, interactions, and language of individuals within that social group. Fieldnotes are used to record observations and fragments of remembered speech. The use of multiple methods within an ethnographic project enables different insights to emerge. For example, interviews provide access to subjects’ descriptions, rationalizations, and reflections about their behavior, while observation provides insights, both into non-rational behaviors that may remain undisclosed in an interview, and into the mundane everyday activities of the habitus, frequently taken for granted and unarticulated within subjects’ usual reportage. The level to which ethnographers may choose to integrate themselves into cultures can vary considerably, from fully participating in the interaction to remaining on the periphery of the action as an observer. Participation of the ethnographer, and engagement in (or withdrawal from) some activities in the fieldwork setting, places the ethnographer within certain categories used by participants (friend, confidant, guest, and outsider). Social distance between the ethnographer and members of the culture being studied can result in lack of trust, a lack of understanding, or not knowing enough about the phenomena under study to ask the right questions. Good fieldwork relations are crucial and ethnographers will need to consider how best to manage their personal identity accordingly (dress, speech, and behavior). Field relationships may also be facilitated by the skills, knowledge, and abilities of the ethnographer, which may range from giving advice on medical or legal problems to ethnography helping with daily chores. Maintaining a reflexive awareness will also enable the ethnographer to assess the impact of field relationships on the data collected. Analysis of ethnographic data should start at the piloting stage, continuing throughout data collection where the purpose of the research is progressively focused, and into the process of writing. Indeed, the progressive focusing that occurs as a consequence of continual analysis and reflection often results in a significant shift of focus in terms of the original aims of the study. During this inductive process, the ethnographer will make analytic notes in which are recorded ideas about emerging features and patterns (whether they be surprising or mundane), along with ideas of how such patterns might be explained. While some ethnographies remain mainly as descriptions or accounts of the way of life in a particular setting, other ethnographies are more theorized accounts which focus on specific phenomena, or aspects of the culture. Traditionally, ethnography has been criticized for its lack of objectivity, scientific rigor, and generalizability, and its relevance to social and political practice. Thus, there have been many insightful ethnographies of drug use, from Howard S. Becker’s Becoming a Marihuana User (1953) onward, but their contribution to the formation of national policies on drug misuse has been minimal. More recently, ethnography has been subject to more varied criticisms. Thus, ethnographers have experienced “the revolt of the subject,” challenged as to whether s/he who is not a party can ever be a judge: persons with disabilities, for example, have questioned whether those without disabilities have the capacity to conduct disabilities research. Furthermore, doubts have been raised about realist claims of the author’s authority to represent the truth about the social world. Geertz himself is among those who have condemned the production of “author-evacuated texts” as an implicit denial of the necessary dependence of all ethnographic writing on particular discursive practices for establishing their verisimilitude. These relativist challenges have allowed multiple interpretations of social phenomena and encouraged ethnographers to demonstrate a reflexive awareness of the researcher’s constitutive contribution at all stages of the research – including ethnographic writing. The resulting tension between ethnographers’ commitment to realism and their recognition of relativism has been addressed by Martyn Hammersley’s advocacy of “subtle realism” in What’s Wrong with Ethnography? (1992). Subtle realism acknowledges ethnomethodology that different and competing accounts of social worlds may be offered by ethnographers but requires that competing claims to knowing about social worlds must be assessed for their plausibility and credibility. MICK BLOOR AND FIONA WOOD ethnomethodology Originally developed by Harold Garfinkel during the 1950s and 1960s in theory-laden empirical studies subsequently published in his Studies in Ethnomethodology (1967), ethnomethodology is an original approach to what Garfinkel terms the seen but unnoticed aspects of social practices. The term ethnomethodology also refers to the sociological community of scholars who have refined, extended, and, in one case, refashioned Garfinkel’s theoretical position. The ethnomethodological community came into being with the first generation of Garfinkel’s students, notably including Harvey Sacks, who founded conversational analysis (commonly called CA) as a semiautonomous theoretical position. New centers of ethnomethodological research subsequently emerged in California, on the East Coast, and in the Midwest in the United States, and in England and Scotland as well. Ethnomethodologists tend to maintain deep loyalties to their position and they build their intellectual networks through ties that are stronger than is often the case in other intellectual communities in sociology. Though ethnomethodologists themselves often prefer to work within the boundaries of Garfinkel’s and Sacks’s founding principles, the ethnomethodological view of social practices has shaped a variety of other sociological projects and programs as well. This is especially true of the socalled strong program in the sociology of science, which analyzes the social construction of scientific knowledge and of Anthony Giddens’s structuration theory. Neither are ethnomethodological in the strict sense of the term, but neither would look quite the same in the absence of Garfinkel’s original insights. Ethnomethodology begins with an extremely prosaic insight: social action in context is an actively produced accomplishment. From a distance this may seem to put Garfinkel in the company of philosophers such as John Dewey (1859–1952), George Herbert Mead, Ludwig Wittgenstein (in his later works), John Austin (1911–60), and Garfinkel’s fellow sociologist Erving Goffman. This is not entirely a false impression. All of these theorists reject the centrality of consciousness in any form as the pivot of social behavior (via such things as conscious motivation, existential 177 ethnomethodology meaning, rational interest, emotional reactions, or personal attitudes) and all make social practices in local contexts the center of their concern. All of them thus break with both longstanding utilitarian views of interest-driven action and Immanuel Kant’s (1724–1804) views of meaning in action, such as those adopted by Max Weber and Alfred Schutz. Yet, on closer inspection, Garfinkel discovered a dimension of social action as an active human accomplishment that bears little resemblance to the moral dimension in Goffman’s analyses of facework and other interaction rituals, Austin’s performative analyses of speech acts, and Dewey’s and Mead’s efforts to decenter consciousness from social praxis without losing sight of consciousness altogether. Garfinkel’s distinction is to be the only leading sociologist to concentrate exclusively on how local action is accomplished or produced. One of his fundamental insights concerns the central role of reflexivity in the production of action. Reflexivity, a term that has several other sociological denotations that are irrelevant here, refers to the fact (demonstrated in many of Garfinkel’s early studies) that every move in a social action or interaction takes its significance from the context that has been produced by previous moves, and, reflexively, each move sustains or alters the local context that shapes the significance of the next move. For example, if I open an interaction by saying “hello” in a friendly way, then this move creates a context in which whatever my interlocutor says will be regarded as a reply to my specific greeting. My interlocutor may say, for example, “I have been sick, but I am better now.” The context has now changed and my next remark will be significant in light of my friend’s response to my initial greeting. I could say, for example, that a mutual friend of ours has been sick as well, which changes the context of conversation once again. Even if I altogether omit the slightest allusion to my friend’s illness, that very omission will be significant in the contextual light of the report of illness that preceded my remark. Each move in an action or interaction is thus constructed within the locally produced context, and every move advances that context so that the entire sequence unfolds as a reflexive series of contextualized and context-producing moves. There is a sense in which Garfinkel’s key insight into reflexivity and contextuality invites sociologists to give careful, fine-grained consideration to the minutiae of everyday life. For example, the timing of responses, as measured in fractions of a second, may make a big difference to the 178 ethnomethodology significance of a reply. If, to provide one illustration, I greet my friend with a rapidly enacted set of words and gestures and my friend pauses for, say, three seconds before responding to my rapidfire greeting in any way, then this pause becomes part of the context just as surely as if my friend had responded instantaneously, but with a different effect on it. Ethnomethodologists typically investigate these minute yet significant aspects of social praxis by using video transcriptions of interaction, which they break down into small segments for purposes of analysis. There is now a standardized set of ethnomethodological symbols to record pauses, vocables (meaningless sounds uttered during conversations), episodes of people talking over one another, and more. Though not as central to current ethnomethodological studies, other aspects of locally produced conduct such as tone of voice, static and shifting body postures, and even changes in perspiration, respiration, and eye-blink rates are open to ethnomethodological investigation insofar as they add reflexive significance to a complex practice. But if Garfinkel’s basic insights into reflexivity and contextuality lead in one direction into the minutiae of everyday life, in another direction they lead to some of the most profound issues not only in the sociology of action, but in the philosophy of action as well. Consider the question of the nature of human reason, which has been at the top of the philosophical agenda since René Descartes (1596–1650) famously declared, “I think, therefore I am,” and which Talcott Parsons used as the template for his analyses in The Structure of Social Action (1937). These and other views conceive reason as a logically structured form of thought, replete with tightly constructed models of means and ends in action, or axioms, deductions, and hypotheses in science. For Garfinkel, rationality does not arise in practice as an abstract and universally applicable form, which structures social action. Instead, rationality is produced locally as actors reflexively produce chains of reasoning that make sense only in and through the development of the local contexts. Can local interactions in context be logical in the more formal sense of the term? On occasion, perhaps, say, in the shop talk of mathematicians. But these instances in no way epitomize how other sorts of contextual reasoning proceed. One of Garfinkel’s early studies demonstrates how local reasoning operates through the analysis of discussions of jurors deliberating about the case they are charged to decide. Though the judge has instructed jurors to reach a verdict by strict rules of reasoning based ethnomethodology on a given set of legal principles, the jurors actually created a form of reasoning on their own that did not necessarily correspond to the legal statutes prescribing how jurors are supposed to reach a verdict. The contextually constructed nature of reason is matched by a deeper understanding of how a theory-laden scientific fact is constructed. In 1981, Garfinkel was senior author on a study of conversations between scientists, taped on the evening when they pieced together for the first time the notion of an optical pulsar through conversations regarding observations made by telescopes and electronic data. Unlike others in the strong program in the sociology of science, Garfinkel and his junior colleagues specifically affirm that physical objects somehow are exhibited in the flow of observations. However, it is also essential to the construction of scientific discovery that scientists make sense of these facts in their conversations through the reflexively unfolding process whereby participants take turns in talking. In fact, the scientific article reporting the results of the observation of the optical pulsar is republished as an appendix to the ethnomethodological analysis, allowing readers to compare how the empirical scientific discovery was produced in conversation with the very different and far more logical way it was reported to the astronomical community. A second study of empirical discovery appears in Garfinkel’s reconstruction of how Galileo constructed his inclined plane demonstration of the real motion of free-falling bodies. This study is published in Garfinkel’s Ethnomethodology’s Program (2002). Garfinkel writes in a profoundly idiosyncratic narrative voice replete with etymologically obscure neologisms, technical usages of commonplace American English terms, and lengthy cascading lists of conceptual synonyms and variations in place of a single term. Whatever Garfinkel’s motivation for writing in this way, his style has had two consequences for ethnomethodology. First, it has injected a certain gnostic quality into the ethnomethodological community, making many practitioners believe that they possess rare insights unavailable to the uninitiated. Second, it has confused outsiders who sometimes grotesquely misinterpret ethnomethodology’s insights and often end up feeling estranged from not only Garfinkel’s writings but his insights as well. It is therefore Garfinkel’s good fortune to have had two fine exegetes, John Heritage and Anne Rawls, who have done much to clarify Garfinkel’s work and build original bridges to other classical and contemporary theories. ethnomethodology In her perceptive and accessible introduction to Garfinkel’s Ethnomethodology’s Program and in her more technical theoretical essays elsewhere, Anne Rawls derives from well-known works by Émile Durkheim an emphasis on enacted social practices, and via this interpretation demonstrates that Garfinkel’s basic ethnomethodological insights are not only consistent with Durkheim’s thought, but expand upon some of Durkheim’s classical themes. In Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology (1984), John Heritage grounds Garfinkel’s insights in his reactions to Talcott Parsons, with whom Garfinkel trained, and Alfred Schutz, with whom he studied. Heritage also makes a significant independent contribution. In an early essay, Garfinkel reported a series of experiments in trust (technically not experiments), which demonstrated the intense attachment actors have to the enacted practices through which they collaboratively generate their contextually situated social reality. His strategy was to disrupt the normal course of enactment; his findings indicated that these disruptions produced profound reactions amounting to an implicit struggle to avoid anomie. Heritage observes that these studies point to a cognitive problem of order. This problem concerns not what constrains the behavior of actors outside the immediate context such that they produce social order in society, but rather how actors produce and sustain social order in everyday life. In developing this theme, Heritage indicates how Garfinkel both borrowed from and departed from Schutz’s social phenomenology. However, though Heritage never explicates the point, Garfinkel’s experiments in trust further demonstrate not only that Garfinkel discovers a cognitive problem of order but also that people will engage in sustained struggles against anomie when order is disrupted. This indicates a deep subconscious motivation to produce some sense of order at all times. This theme is further developed by Anthony Giddens in his conception of ontological security in structuration theory. The branch of ethnomethodology known as conversational analysis takes the production of order in a new direction by stressing that the mechanisms for such conversational practices as turntaking, opening, closing, and so on have formal properties (invariant across contexts) that constrain the production of order. In turn-taking, for example, a person may be unable to interject remarks into a conversation at a given point, no matter how significant their contributions may be, since they have no immediate access to a turn at talking. 179 Etzioni, Amitai (1929– ) Despite Garfinkel’s brilliant insights, ethnomethodology often ends up in a sociological culde-sac. As it pushes ever deeper into the details of social praxis, it loses sight of institutional and psychological dimensions of social life. Anthony Giddens opens ethnomethodology to the structural conditions of social life in structuration theory. However, no one as yet has built theoretical bridges between the enacted production of local social order and actors’ existential experience of meaning and emotion in social life. That bridge, when it is built, should make ethnomethodology’s profound insights intuitively more interesting to wider audiences. IRA COHEN Etzioni, Amitai (1929– ) Professor at the George Washington University and Director of the Institute for Communitarian Policy Studies, and former White House adviser (1979–80), Etzioni is an American founder of communitarianism. He was Professor of Sociology at Columbia University for twenty years and guest scholar at the Brookings Institution in 1978. He served as President of the American Sociological Association in 1994–5, and in 1990 he founded the Communitarian Network. He was the editor of The Responsive Community: Rights and Responsibilities from 1991 to 2004. In 1997 Etzioni was awarded the Simon Wiesenthal Center Tolerance Book Award. He has championed the cause of peace in a nuclear age in The Hard Way to Peace (1962), Winning Without War (1964), and War and its Prevention (Etzioni and Wenglinsky, 1970). His recent work has addressed the social problems of modern democracies and he has advocated communitarian solutions to excessive individualism in The Spirit of Community. The Reinvention of American Society (1993) and New Communitarian Thinking (1996). Etzioni has been concerned to facilitate social movements that can sustain a liberal democracy in The Active Society. A Theory of Societal and Political Processes (1968) and A Responsive Society (1991). He has been a critic of the erosion of privacy through modern surveillance technologies and threats to identity in The Limits of Privacy (1999). His most recent work was From Empire to Community. A New Approach to International Relations (2004). Etzioni has also contributed significantly to the sociology of organizations in Modern Organizations (1964) and A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations (1961). BRYAN S. TURNER eugenics – see genetics. 180 evolutionary psychology everyday life The term everyday was in English usage as early as the seventeenth century to refer to ordinary or ongoing ways of life such as work routines and interpersonal demeanor, as well as to items of material culture such as clothing and décor. The synonymous term quotidian had appeared in English in the fourteenth century, with roots in earlier French and Latin usages. Though many of these usages imply contrasts with extraordinary situations (for example, holy days, days of mourning, war, disaster), in sociological theory the term is often used to refer to knowledge of ordinary and routine ways of life. The appropriate contrast here is with sociological knowledge that selectively abstracts and reorganizes elements of daily life based upon theoretical concepts or empirical methods of research. In this sense, the purest form of the sociology of everyday life is found in ethnographies that forgo second-order analysis for first-order verisimilitude. Clifford Geertz produces and advocates this way of studying everyday life. A second denotation of the sociology of everyday life refers to the analysis of the interaction order. The latter term, as defined by Erving Goffman, refers to forms of activity where participants are either copresent or in immediate communication with one another. Everyday life here contrasts with more encompassing institutional orders (bureaucracy, markets, and states). Selective analyses of everyday life are possible in this sense of the term. Goffman was the master of sociological metaphors that depend upon sociological correspondences rather than literary resemblances. Ethnomethodologists also deal with the everyday production of ordinary social events, by focusing on carefully isolated, minute aspects IRA COHEN of it. evidence-based-policy – see social policy. evolution – see evolutionary theory. evolutionary psychology A form of psychology, this claims to explain human behavior with reference to humanity’s phylogeny, their evolutionary history. The brain, or mind, is seen as having evolved to help solve the adaptive problems encountered by our hunter–gatherer ancestors on the African savannah between 4 million and 100,000 years ago. It was during that era, evolutionary psychology according to Steven Pinker in How the Mind Works (1998), that modern humanity evolved with a collection of devices which influence behavior to this day. The lifestyle enjoyed by our African ancestors was one of hunting and gathering. The prime requirement for such people was simply to reproduce into future generations. Mental “organs,” or brains and minds, assisted towards that overriding goal. These early people developed a distinctive set of motives, conceptual frameworks, emotions, and even aesthetic preferences to use and adapt to their environment. These included, for example, a liking for particular types of physical landscapes in which they could see potential aggressors approaching. Aesthetic predispositions are, however, seen as one of the less damaging results of humanity’s evolutionary history. Our inherited mental apparatus is seen by evolutionary psychology as generating forms of behavior which are both selfdestructive and damaging to the social order. A demand for prestige, property, and wealth, a male preference for young women as sexual partners, a division of labor by sex, hostility to other groups, conflict within groups, and a male predisposition towards violence, rape, and murder are all damaging results of inherited predispositions which are not easily shaken off. Similarly, stepparents are more likely to murder their stepchildren because they are not genetically related to them. Evolutionary psychology therefore offers precise and seemingly scientific insights into contemporary society and its disorders. It is a close cousin to sociobiology, a form of biological analysis that was extended to the human condition in the mid1970s. Two of its main advocates were E. O. Wilson, who wrote Sociobiology: The New Synthesis (1975), and R. Dawkins in The Selfish Gene (1976, 1989). The central claim of sociobiology was also that an organism such as an animal or human being has evolved to interact and compete for resources in such a way as to maximize its “success” in spreading genes to later generations. The prime explanatory unit in sociobiology was the gene. Individual animals, including people, were envisaged as “survival machines,” beings programmed by their genes towards the expansion of “inclusive fitness.” This latter concept referred to the sum of an individual’s fitness plus that of other blood relatives. The concept is perhaps best summed up by the distinguished biologist J. B. S. Haldane who, when asked whether he would lay down his life for his brother, replied: “not for one brother. But I would for two brothers or eight evolutionary psychology cousins.” Sociobiology was also seen as solving the puzzling problem of altruism. The reason why an individual should assist another, apparently selflessly, is that this is the best way of getting assistance back at a later date. It is another unconscious way in which the genes ensure they are reproduced. Sociobiology captured the spirit of thrusting individualism in the neoliberalist era of the 1970s and 1980s, though it finds little support today. Evolutionary psychology claims, however, to have advanced beyond sociobiology. One of the many criticisms of sociobiology was that it told “just-so stories,” implying that all traits and behaviors inherited during the evolutionary process necessarily result in a better adaptation of organism to environment. But there is a wide recognition among evolutionists that this is not the case. Certain traits and characteristics that are nonadaptive, for example, are passed on. Some “junk” genes are doing very little at all. Evolutionary psychology claims to circumvent these problems by focusing on what Pinker calls “reverse engineering.” This entails identifying a goal and specifying in general terms the kind of design that would best meet it. The next stage is to examine how well an organ or organism under study actually does perform the demands made of it. The question of “mind” is especially important to evolutionary psychology. Sociobiology was also often criticized for reading off “behavior” from genes, with unsatisfactory attention to complex mental processes. Evolutionary psychology, in contrast, focuses on “mental organs” which “generate” behavior. The mind is equated to a computer processing incoming information. But the human computer is “preprogrammed.” It is meeting the adaptive needs of its owner; on the other hand, it contains assumptions about the nature of the physical world, such as the existence of material objects in three-dimensional space. Evolutionary psychology also seeks to avoid the universalism of sociobiology. It recognizes that behavioral propensities may well be dysfunctional to people and societies when they encounter new environmental and social circumstances. The question arises, however, whether evolutionary psychology really does avoid the charge of biological reductionism leveled against sociobiology. H. Rose and S. Rose consider some of these criticisms in Alas Poor Darwin (2000). Explanations of social power and social relations remain blinkered, still focusing on the unchanged, biologically based predispositions. And, like sociobiology, evolutionary psychology systematically 181 evolutionary theory ignores forms of biology that give much less attention to genes (though considering them important in explaining the development and growth of the organism during its lifetime) and much more attention to the developing organism in its social and ecological context. P. Dickens outlines some of these alternative perspectives in Social Darwinism (2000). Despite their continuing problems, evolutionary psychology and sociobiology have managed to shake social theory out of thinking it has a unique purchase on human behavior and that the biological world is of no explanatory importance. The focus of future research must be that of combining ideas from biology, psychology, and social theory in more nuanced ways, recognizing the complexity of their interactions. This would certainly entail recognizing the importance of genes and biology in affecting the overall growth and psychic propensities of human beings. But it would also recognize that households, educational systems, work hierarchies, and the like all deeply affect how these biologically based tendencies work out in practice. Similarly, the human mind is almost certainly less “hard-wired” and inflexible than the proponents of evolutionary psychology suggest. Different kinds of psychic structure come into play according to the social relations which the mind encounters and indeed contributes to. PETER DICKENS evolutionary theory Evolution and learning are two principal mechanisms of adaptive self-organization in complex systems. Learning alters the probability distribution of behavioral traits within a given individual, through processes of reinforcement and observation of others. Evolution alters the frequency distribution of individual carriers of a trait within a given population, through differential chances of selection and replication. Selection depends on heterogeneity which is replenished by random mutation in the face of replication processes that tend to reduce it. Selection pressures influence the probability that particular traits will be replicated, in the course of competition for scarce resources (ecological selection) or competition for a mate (sexual selection). Although evolution is often equated with ecological selection, sexual selection is at least as important. By building on partial solutions rather than discarding them, genetic crossover in sexual reproduction can exponentially increase the rate at which a species can explore an adaptive landscape, compared to reliance on trial and error 182 evolutionary theory (random mutation) alone. Paradoxically, sexual selection also tends to inhibit ecological adaptation, especially among males. Gender differences in parental investment cause females to be choosier about mates and thus sexual selection to be more pronounced in males. An example is the peacock’s large and cumbersome tail, which attracts the attention of peahens (who are relatively drab) as well as predators. Sexually selected traits tend to become exaggerated as males trap one another in an arms race to see who can have the largest antlers or be bravest in battle. Selection pressures can operate at multiple levels in a nested hierarchy, from groups of individuals with similar traits, down to individual carriers of those traits, down to the traits themselves. Evolution Through Group Selection (1986) was advanced by V. C. Wynne-Edwards as a solution to one of evolution’s persistent puzzles – the viability of altruism in the face of egoistic ecological counterpressures. Prosocial in-group behavior confers a collective advantage over rival groups of rugged individualists. However, the theory was later dismissed by George C. Williams in Adaptation and Natural Selection (1966) which showed that between-group variation gets swamped by withingroup variation as group size increases. Moreover, group selection relies entirely on differential rates of extinction, with no plausible mechanism for the whole-cloth replication of successful groups. Sexual selection suggests a more plausible explanation for the persistence of altruistic behaviors that reduce the chances of ecological selection. Contrary to Herbert Spencer’s infamous view of evolution, following Charles Darwin, as “survival of the fittest,” generosity can flourish even when these traits are ecologically disadvantageous, by attracting females who have evolved a preference for “romantic” males who are ready to sacrifice for their partner. Traits that reduce the ecological fitness of an individual carrier can also flourish if the trait increases the selection chances of other individuals with that trait. Hamilton introduced this gene-centric theory of kin altruism in “The Genetic Evolution of Social Behaviour” (Journal of Theoretical Biology, 1964), later popularized by R. Dawkins in The Selfish Gene (1976, 1989). In “The Cultural Evolution of Beneficent Norms” (Social Forces, 1992), Paul Allison extended the theory to benevolence based on cultural relatedness, such as geographical proximity or a shared cultural marker. This may explain why gene–culture coevolution seems to favor a tendency to associate with those who are similar, to evolutionary theory differentiate from “outsiders,” and to defend the in-group against social trespass with the emotional ferocity of parents defending their offspring. This model also shows how evolutionary principles initially developed to explain biological adaptation can be extended to explain social and cultural change (see social change). Prominent examples include the evolution of languages, religions, laws, organizations, and institutions. This approach has a long and checkered history. Social Darwinism is a discredited nineteenth-century theory that used biological principles as analogs for social processes such as market competition and colonial domination. Many sociologists still reject all theories of social or cultural evolution, along with biological explanations of human behavior, which they associate with racist and elitist theories of “survival of the fittest.” Others, like the sociobiologist E. O. Wilson, believe “genes hold culture on a leash” (On Human Nature, 1988), leaving little room for cultural evolution to modify the products of natural selection. Similarly, evolutionary psychologists like Leda Cosmides and John Tooby search for the historical origins of human behavior as the product of ancestral natural selection rather than ongoing social or cultural evolution. In contrast, a growing number of sociologists and economists are exploring the possibility that human behaviors and institutions may be heavily influenced by processes of social and cultural selection that are independent of biological imperatives. These include Paul DiMaggio and Walter Powell (the new institutional sociology), Richard Nelson and Sydney G. Winter (evolutionary economics), and Michael T. Hannan and John H. Freeman (organizational ecology). One particularly compelling application is the explanation of cultural diversity. In biological evolution, speciation occurs when geographic separation allows populations to evolve in different directions to the point that individuals from each group can no longer mate. Speciation implies that all life has evolved from a very small number of common ancestors, perhaps only one. The theory has been applied to the evolution of myriad Indo-European languages that are mutually incomprehensible despite having a common ancestor. In sociocultural models, speciation operates through homophily (attraction to those who are similar), xenophobia (aversion to those who are different), and influence (the tendency to become more similar to those to whom we are attracted and to differentiate from those we despise). exchange theory Critics counter that socio-cultural evolutionists have failed to identify any underlying replicative device equivalent to the gene. Dawkins has proposed the “meme” as the unit of cultural evolution but there is as yet no evidence that these exist. Yet Darwin developed the theory of natural selection without knowing that phenotypes are coded genetically in DNA. Perhaps the secrets of cultural evolution are waiting to be unlocked by impending breakthroughs in cognitive psychology. MICHAEL MACY exchange theory The social division of labor is mediated by exchange. Exchange theory conceptualizes this as a bargaining process that reflects the relative dependence of the parties involved. Not all social interactions involve bargaining and exchange. Peter M. Blau, who developed the field in 1964 with Exchange and Power in Social Life, warned that “People do things for fear of other men or for fear of God or for fear of their conscience, and nothing is gained by trying to force such action into a conceptual framework of exchange” (1964: 88). Yet Blau did not regard most social relations as outside this framework. “Social exchange can be observed everywhere once we are sensitized by this conception to it, not only in market relations but also in friendship and even in love” (88). Social exchange differs from economic exchange in three important ways. First, the articles of exchange are not commodities but gifts. No money is involved, nor credit, nor contract. Giving a gift is a “selfish act of generosity” in that it creates in the recipient the need to reciprocate with something that is desired by the giver. Both parties to the exchange “are prone to supply more of their own services to provide incentives for the other to increase his supply” (89). Simply put, a gift is not an expression of altruism; it is a way to exercise power over another. Second, the terms of exchange are unspecified (91). One side offers something the other values, without knowing how or when the partner will return the favor. Third, the exchange is not instrumentally calculated. Without a quid pro quo and in the absence of explicit bargaining, one cannot know if the gift is optimal in a given transaction. Instead, optimization takes place through incremental adjustments to behavior in response to experience. These need not be conscious adjustments but could be experienced merely as feelings of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the relationship, such that the terms of exchange emerge as a byproduct of a learning 183 exchange theory process. Each partner evaluates the outcomes from the exchange relative to a “comparison level” corresponding to what the actor expects to receive from their best alternative relationship. When the value falls below this standard, the individual is dissatisfied and seeks alternative partners whose offers are perceived as superior. On the other hand, according to Susan Sprecher in Social Exchange Theories and Sexuality (1998: 34), “if the outcomes they are receiving from their current relationship are better than what they expect to receive from their best alternative(s), they will feel dependent on the relationship and become committed to it.” These differences with economic exchange make social exchange applicable to emotionally charged behaviors where instrumental manipulation of the partner would ruin the experience for both. Social exchanges can be experienced as acts of generosity towards those we love and trust. In particular, trust is necessary because of the unspecified terms of exchange. Attraction and trust increase when the generosity is satisfactorily reciprocated and decrease when it is not. Although social exchange lacks explicit terms of trade, enforceable contracts, or a monetary medium, it nevertheless follows the basic principles of economic bargaining over the price of commodities, such as the “principle of least interest,” summarized by Karen Cook and Richard Emerson in “Power, Equity and Commitment in Exchange Networks” (American Sociological Review, 1978): “The party who is receiving the least comparative benefit from a trade has the greater bargaining power to improve upon that trade. If that power is used . . . then the terms of the trade will shift until power is balanced” (724). This theory applies to the balancing of power in exchanges between workers, neighbors, friends, business associates, and marriage partners, as noted by Ed Lawler and Shane Thye in “Bringing Emotions into Social Exchange Theory” (Annual Review of Sociology, 1999): “Whether it is two lovers who share a warm and mutual affection, or two corporations who pool resources to generate a new product, the basic form of interaction remains the same . . . Two or more actors, each of whom has something of value to the other, decide whether to exchange and in what amounts” (217). One of the best-known examples of the general principles of exchange is Gary Becker’s Treatise on the Family (1992) which models mate selection as a marriage market in which people exchange status, sex appeal, wealth, or intelligence. Although numerous studies of the “law of attraction” have found strong tendencies towards 184 exchange theory homogamy based on age, race and ethnicity, religion, education, and occupational status, exchange theory provides an alternative explanation. Homogamy may reflect not a taste for similarity but rather constraints on the ability to attract a partner who has more valued resources. From an exchange-theoretic perspective, romantic relationships are formed through a matching process in which women and men look for the best “catch.” Exchange theory has also been applied to the exercise of power in the family. The principle of least interest predicts a positive effect of relative socioeconomic position on conjugal power in decisionmaking. For example, studies show that women in high-paying occupations are less dependent on their husbands and thus have more power in marital exchange than do women without such occupations. Marital exchange is an example of dyadic exchange. In contrast, generalized exchange involves three or more actors who each provide valued resources to others with no expectation of direct reciprocity. In Social Exchange Theory: The Two Traditions (1974), Peter Ekeh distinguished between “group generalized exchange” in which resources are pooled and then redistributed, and “chain generalized exchange,” which is illustrated by kula, a ceremonial exchange of wreaths of flowers for food or betel-nut, as described by Bronislaw Malinowski in his studies of the Trobriand Islanders. Although both these systems appear to depart from rationally self-interested behavior, exchange theorists have shown that this need not be the case, especially where reputation and status depend on exhibitions of generosity, or where gifts have far greater value to others than to the giver. Social networks are of central importance in exchange systems. A variant of exchange theory, called “network exchange theory,” predicts power from actors’ locations in network structures. For example, in a “3-Line” network (B1-A-B2), A has power over B1 and B2 because A has access to multiple exchange partners, each of whom has access only to A. But if we simply add a link between B1 and B2, A loses its structural advantage. In this triangle network, all three actors now have equal power because all are excluded with the same probability. The predicted effects of network structure have been strongly supported in laboratory studies of bargaining behavior. In Network Exchange Theory (1999), David Willer reviews these studies and provides an overview and history of the field. MICHAEL MACY AND ARNOUT VAN DE RIJT experimental method experimental method Experimental research constitutes a minority of all sociological research. The experimental method is a research paradigm borrowed from the physical and natural sciences. Experiments are studies employing the hypothetico-deductive method specifically designed to determine whether there is a cause and effect relationship between two or more phenomena. Other forms of sociological research have accordingly divergent goals. Thus, for instance, survey-based research is designed to provide descriptive information about a topic of interest, as it pertains to a specific sample of persons, and ethnomethodological studies are designed to provide formal descriptions that display the features of the cultural machinery assumed to have produced these features. The experimental method entails the systematic variation in the levels of one or more independent variables, and then the measurement of the effects of this manipulation according to one or more dependent variables. The manipulation of the independent variable is achieved by altering the qualitative or quantitative levels of this variable. The levels of a qualitative independent variable are often established by the presence or absence of a particular variable (for example exposure to anti-racism training, or no exposure to anti-racism training); or by measuring the effects of various different kinds of training. In all such cases, the groups in question do not experience different amounts of the independent variable, but rather the presence or absence of a particular treatment or experimental condition. In contrast, the levels of a quantitative independent variable entail quantitatively different amounts of exposure to that variable. For example, Gordon Allport’s contact hypothesis, expounded in The Nature of Prejudice (1954), would predict that the amount of time spent exposed to minority groups (given certain other necessary conditions) should systematically reduce the level of prejudice expressed towards that group. Thus, subjects may be divided into groups that spend one week, two weeks, and three weeks interacting with minority group members under such conditions. The dependent variable (expressed prejudice) would be measured before and after these quantitatively different amounts of exposure to the independent variable. These three levels of the independent variable are expressed according to a quantitative dimension, time. However, as these examples perhaps make clear, it is only possible to infer a cause and effect explanation relationship between variables if all other variables remain constant. If conditions are not held constant, an uncontrolled source of influence – or confound – may affect the dependent variable(s), and thus interfere with the expression of the independent variable(s) – either through offering an alternative account for its effects, or through masking the expression of an effect. In the social scientific community, attention to identifying the effects of potential confounds arguably reflects a positive level of skepticism towards too readily inferring causal relationships between variables. In order to identify potential confounds, one should pay close attention to those other factors – besides the independent variable – that may systematically vary during the experiment (for example, students from a particular socioeconomic area may already have experienced different levels of exposure to racism, compared to students from a different socioeconomic area, thus potentially confounding the effects of antiracism training). Another major concern for experimental social scientists is that of ecological or external validity. This form of validity (see sampling) refers to the ability of the researcher, on the basis of the experimental results, to generalize from the experimental context to the equivalent real-world situation. Further, work on the sociology of scientific knowledge has demonstrated that, in practice, the experimental method is by no means culture-free and objective. MARK RAPLEY AND SUSAN HANSEN explanation Most sociologists seek to explain. Explanations often draw on counterfactual thinking, trying to assess the impact of x by imagining what would have happened if x did not occur. There are many types of explanation, and little consensus exists as to what kind of explanation is preferred. A common type of explanation is a causal one, but there are various types of causal explanation and causal inference. Some causal explanations are mechanistic. They explain a phenomenon by referring to the fact that it was caused by other social factors, but without a precise reference to the mechanisms or powers at stake. For example, a mechanistic explanation for the rise in suicide rates may refer to the rise in unemployment figures. Alternatively, people’s dissatisfaction at work might be explained by reference to the technology involved in their 185 explanation employment. Some commentators argue that such mechanistic accounts are not explanations because they fail to answer why- and how-questions. Rather than providing answers, they seem to beg questions. Other causal explanations are intentional. In intentional explanations, people’s purposes or reasons are treated as causes for their actions. Sociologists subscribing to methodological individualism use intentional explanations. Methodological individualism is a research program that focuses on how individuals act purposefully while producing not just intended but also unintended and unanticipated effects. Max Weber and Karl Popper are amongst the main advocates of methodological individualism. They oppose holistic forms of explanation, which refer to systemic or societal needs. Some methodological individualists use rational explanations. These are intentional explanations but with the added assumption that people act rationally. People act rationally if they have a clear preference ordering and make choices consistent with that preference ordering. In addition, they have rational beliefs about how to get what they want and about the costs and benefits involved. Rational choice theory (or rational action theory as some prefer to call it) advocates rational explanations. Within this theory, there are differences as to the universality and applicability of rational explanations. There is also disagreement as to whether people make conscious calculations. Externalists like Gary Becker simply argue that people act as if they are rational. They do not assume that people necessarily go through a conscious decision process. Sometimes they might, sometimes they might not. In opposition to methodological individualism, some sociologists are drawn to holistic forms of explanation. Most holistic explanations are functional. Functional explanations account for the persistence of certain social phenomena by referring to their (often unintended) effects for the cohesion and stability of the broader social system in which they are embedded. For example, some sociologists explain the persistence of religious rites by referring to the solidarity and cohesion they create. Most sociologists occasionally use functional explanations, but functionalism is a sociological school that primarily and selfconsciously uses functional explanations. Robert K. Merton and Talcott Parsons are well-known self-proclaimed functionalists. Within this theoretical framework, there are many differences. Earlier functionalists, like A. R. Radcliffe-Brown (1881–1955) and Bronislaw Malinowski, assumed 186 explanation that most, if not all, practices are functional and indispensable. Later functionalists relaxed this position. Evolutionary explanations rest on a combination of causality and selection, and evolutionary theory is a school that promotes such explanations. There are two types of evolutionary explanation. First, sociobiology uses biological factors to explain social phenomena. For instance, it tries to demonstrate that biological differences between sexes manifest themselves in social differences. Second, some theorists account for social processes by drawing on analogies with biological evolution. For instance, it might be argued that, through time, institutions and even whole societies undergo evolutionary selection. Or it might be asserted that certain practices or ideas are eventually selected out, while others replicate more easily. Some sociologists combine evolutionary analogies with methodological individualism. This was the case for Herbert Spencer, one of the first sociologists to employ evolutionary reasoning. Others use evolutionary analogies in conjunction with a more holistic approach. Émile Durkheim was one of the first to do this. Since the publication of Richard Dawkins’s The Selfish Gene (1976), evolutionary analogies have regained popularity in the social sciences. Examples are Walter Garrison Runciman’s two-volume Treatise on Social Theory (1983, 1989) and Rom Harré’s Social Being (1993). While there are many types of explanation, there is also disagreement as to how to evaluate explanations. Many philosophers argue that explanations need to have some empirical content. This led logical positivists to call for verifiability: explanations ought to be formulated so that it is possible to find empirical evidence that supports them. Popper suggested falsifiability: explanations ought to be stated so that they can be refuted on the basis of empirical evidence. Highly falsifiable explanations are preferred over cautious explanations: they are more informative and more precise. The school of critical realism focuses on the difference between explanations and descriptions. For a statement to be explanatory, it ought to include precise information about the mechanisms, structures, or powers at work. These mechanisms might not be immediately accessible to observation. Finally, there are also different views as to how to arrive at explanations. The inductivist tradition insisted on the primacy of theory-independent empirical observations. It employs induction, whereby one generalizes from observational explanation statements to arrive at universal statements. Deductivists like Popper and Carl Gustav Hempel (1905–97) insist on the value of deduction, whereby one starts with theoretical assumptions and initial conditions to infer empirical hypotheses. Hempel’s view of science is known as the hypothetico-deductive method. Different again is the “retroduction” or “abduction” of Charles Peirce (1839–1914) referring to the process extended family by which one makes sense of a new phenomenon through drawing analogies with something familiar. PATRICK BAERT expressive revolution – see Talcott Parsons. extended family – see family. 187 F face-to-face group – see group(s). face work – see Erving Goffman. factor analysis One of the most widely used, and misused, of the complex multivariate statistics that have become more accessible since the spread of computing power, this can reduce a larger number of measured variables into a smaller number of latent variables, or “factors.” It is thus a “data reduction” technique, aimed at simplifying data while retaining its important features. Factor analyses take as their input a number of different variables, usually all measuring similar related constructs (such as items in a standard personality questionnaire). The correlations between these measures are computed, and the number of dimensions (in a multi-dimensional space) that one needs to extract to describe the important variance, while screening out the error variance, is estimated. These factors are then constructed, and rotated to facilitate their interpretation. Finally, each case can be given a score on the newly created factors, for instance to describe respondents’ personality along each dimension of the model. Factor analysis was critical to the conceptualization and development of research into intelligence and personality in early and mid-twentiethcentury psychology. For instance, R. B. Cattell, in The Scientific Analysis of Personality (1965), started by extracting all of the words in the English language to describe personality. Even after removing synonyms, there were still thousands of words. So Cattell used factor analysis to reduce this down to a list of fourteen personality scales, which became a standard model for many years in personnel selection and social research. H. J. Eysenck, in The Scientific Study of Personality (1982), went a stage further, and produced a model with just two dimensions, extraversion–introversion and neurotic– stable (and later a third dimension, psychoticism). 188 The initial appeal of factor analysis is that it would provide a scientific basis for answering some fundamental questions, such as how many dimensions there are to human personality or intelligence. Unfortunately, this promise to provide a scientific objectivity has not materialized, and in many cases different researchers, each using factor analyses, have arrived at very different conclusions. This is largely because there are a number of ways in which the computation of any particular model can be influenced by fairly arbitrary decisions by the researcher. At each stage, the number of factors extracted, the method of rotation, and the method of separating error from true variance are often matters of judgment by the researcher, rather than being given by the model. And, probably, the most contentious decision of all is how one chooses which variables to include in the factor analysis. For instance, if one is attempting to create a model of intelligence, we would all agree that we should include mathematical, logical, and linguistic skills, but what about musical ability, creativity, or coordination? Two forms of factor analysis are currently employed by sociologists. Exploratory factor analysis is the more common variety, typically used (as the name suggests) to investigate the way in which variables can be simplified into their underlying dimensions. As long as no grand claims are made about determining the true nature of reality, researchers can avoid the controversy associated with the early uses of factor analysis, and can pragmatically simplify the analysis of complex datasets. The second form, confirmatory factor analysis, works to a different philosophy, and determines how well a set of data conforms to a theoretical model. BRENDAN J. BURCHELL falsification What makes a theory scientific was a question that haunted Karl Popper, and, more particularly, how we could distinguish a scientific theory from a non-scientific one. He argued that traditional explanations of what made a scientific theory scientific – that it was based on careful observation falsification and then the formulation of laws regarding the relationships discovered, that is induction – were wrong. This is because, while events might regularly occur together, there is no way to establish that they cause each other: the problem of causality. The bigger question at hand for Popper was how to distinguish pseudo-science from science, and in particular to demonstrate why it was, as he thought, that Marxism and the works of Sigmund Freud were “pseudo-sciences.” The answer was that no evidence could disconfirm either Marxism or psychoanalysis: if the proletariat did not rise up in rebellion today as predicted, then they would one day. The observation was modified to protect the hypothesis. If the patient did not resolve their anxiety neurosis, then it was not because their psychoanalysis failed, but because the patient was repressed. Thus the theories could explain everything that did (or did not happen) and appeared to be constantly verified. Given this, they could continue to claim to be scientific and no evidence could satisfactorily challenge them. Popper argued that it was too easy to search for verifications of theories and that a new way of putting the question had to be formulated. Rather than look for evidence to support it, a scientific theory had to pose questions that could prove it wrong, that is falsify it. So the criterion of a scientific theory for Popper is that it be falsifiable by empirical observations. The example that Popper uses is Albert Einstein’s prediction that light would be attracted towards a heavy body, that is, that it could be seen to bend as it neared the gravitational pull of say, the sun. This was, as Popper put it, a risky hypothesis since, if it was not confirmed, then Einstein’s theory would be falsified (which was not in itself a problem, since the hallmark of good science is that it can be falsified). However, Einstein’s theory of gravitation was confirmed in 1919 by A. S. Eddington’s observations of the transit of Venus. So Einstein’s theory survived a challenge that could have falsified it. While we cannot conclude that it is true, we can now proceed to work with it as a scientific theory. Until Marxism or psychoanalysis, like science, makes predictions that are falsifiable by evidence, then we can conclude that, whether they are true or not, they are not scientific. However, Popper is still left with the problem of what is to count as an independent observation that could falsify a prediction. As work by later historians and philosophers of science was to show, particularly that of Thomas Samuel Kuhn (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 1970) on paradigms, scientific theories are self-contained, largely self-confirming, family sets of statements, sustained by specific scientific communities. They establish what questions can be asked, what will count as an observation, and disregard non-confirming evidence. On this ground, no theory can be scientific in Popper’s sense. KEVIN WHITE families of choice – see Family. family There are many sociological explanations and accounts of families, from those that concentrate on grand theories and relate family structure to industrial society, capitalism, and/or patriarchy, through to those that are derived from more ethnographic studies of everyday family interactions and negotiations. Families can be, and have been, studied at all levels of analysis. At times families have been seen as homogeneous unities of people who co-reside, often with a sole head of household, clearly defined social roles, and a distinct division of labor. At other times families are understood to be real or imagined networks based on obligations and affections of an interpersonal nature rather than being structurally determined. These differences reflect, to a large extent, changing fashions in sociological theorizing and enquiry. At certain times particular modes of explanation are seen as especially insightful (for example. functionalist approaches), while at others different issues seem more important, particularly if they have been previously ignored or rendered invisible (for example domestic labor in the household). In more recent times, the very prospect of a sociology of the family has been deemed to be uninteresting and theoretically arid, and the subject has been described as slipping into the doldrums. Indeed Ulrich Beck and Elisabeth Beck-Gernsheim, in The Normal Chaos of Love (1990 [trans. 1995]), suggest that it has only recently become interesting again: “Family research is only gradually waking up from its drowsy fixation on the nucleus of the family.” The core issue that all sociologies of family life and relationships have had in common, however, has been the problem of turning the sociological gaze onto areas of life which are routine, commonplace, and part of almost everyone’s everyday experience. The family is a naturalized concept, by which it is meant that it is taken-forgranted as natural – notwithstanding how much families differ and change. The sociological task is therefore to de-naturalize the family in order 189 family that it may become the focus of social analysis. It is this project of de-naturalization that links otherwise disparate sociological approaches. It is almost inevitable that any synopsis of sociological work on families should start with Talcott Parsons and Robert Bales (Family, Socialization and Interaction Process (1955). Not only did their functionalist approach set the tone of much work on families for generations in the United States and the United Kingdom, but it became the standard against which more critical work later pitted itself. Parsons and Bales broadly argued that a sociological approach to families should construe them, not simply as natural collectivities, but as a social system. There arose the tendency among functionalists to speak of the family, because “it” was theorized as one institution amongst several core social institutions (such as the church and the state). The institution of the family was however, in this schema, a relatively junior player, because its structure and functioning was deemed to serve the needs of other (more significant) institutions. Indeed, Parsons and Bales argued that an indication of how “advanced” a society was lay in whether the family was in a subsidiary status when compared with other institutions. They saw the decline of the significance of kinship as indicating a cultural rise of merit over the values of familialism. Their approach tended to suggest that phenomena such as family size (two children rather than ten, for example) or segregated gender roles within the family were a result of the needs of the economy or of industrialization, rather than arising from the motivations or interests of the members of families. The family was therefore depicted as the handmaiden of larger social forces, and its core function was to produce socially appropriate (well socialized) citizens of the next generation to take their place in the economy and wider society. Men, women, and children were seen as having different roles and functions in the family, which had evolved to meet the needs of society. Thus women were inevitably unpaid housewives and child carers, while men were the breadwinners because this system produced the most stable outcomes for society. Moreover, men were deemed to be heads of the household, because the model of family living deployed by the functionalist approach presumed that authority and leadership could only come from one source. Parsons and Bales predicted (unwisely as it turns out) that this division of labor would remain unchanged in the future. 190 family There are, of course, many criticisms that can be made of this early sociological work on the family, and some of these will be rehearsed below. However, it is useful to locate this work in its own time and intellectual moment in order to appreciate the way in which it can be given a certain amount of credit for developing the field. The task that Parsons and Bales set themselves was a complex one because they saw the family as a social system, but also as the site where individual personality was formed. They also saw the types of personalities that were formed there as contributing (in an iterative fashion) to the wider culture of a given society. They were therefore working with three main concepts. The first was the idea of the family as a system, the second was the idea of the personality as a system, and the third was the wider culture – a concept which is ultimately underdeveloped in their work. For the latter two concepts they drew heavily on psychoanalysis particularly the work of Sigmund Freud, and anthropology particularly the work of Margaret Mead), respectively. Their work brought together quite different disciplinary approaches which in turn gave rise to their insistence that the family was itself a site of production of personalities and that its workings could not be conceptually reduced to the impoverished idea that families were mere microcosms of wider society. Notwithstanding the fact that Parsons and Bales are largely remembered for their ideas about the way in which the family functioned to support other social institutions and the desirability of the gendered division of labor, they spent a great deal of time exploring the internal dynamics of families and even raising the issue of sexual relationships between spouses – something that later sociologists conspicuously avoided. At virtually the same time that Parsons and Bales were producing their general theoretical analysis of the family, Michael Young and Peter Willmott (Family and Kinship in East London, 1957) published their micro-analysis of changing family life based on empirical research within workingclass communities. Young and Willmott’s study sought not only to analyze family change but also to allow the voices of the family members to be heard in the text through the liberal use of quotations from the interviews they conducted with couples. Their approach to research and their style of presentation was almost the complete antithesis of Parsons and Bales’s formal and abstract interpretations. Where Parsons and Bales ignored the extended family, focusing almost exclusively on the ideal of the nuclear family, family Young and Willmott located families within kinship networks and talked about the importance of family members helping each other and sustaining (adult) intergenerational links. The latter did not conceptualize families as isolated from their communities (although they did note how things changed as neighborhoods were demolished in the postwar era). While Parsons and Bales’s work can now be interpreted as a paean to the nuclear family, Young and Willmott might be described as a hagiography of the working-class family. Their work sought to rewrite the working-class family as a site of warmth and mutual support between husband and wife, and to retrieve it from the widespread belief (generated by the writings of early feminists, philanthropists, and campaigners against poverty) that it was a wretched place, dominated by male violence, drunkenness, grime, and relentless childbirth. Their vision was optimistic too. They argued that there were far fewer broken homes in Britain in the 1950s than in previous decades, and they saw this as something continuing into the future because they understood the main cause of disruption as being the death of the male head of household (usually in wars) or of either parent (owing to disease). This optimistic framework carried forward into their later work, The Symmetrical Family (1973), in which they described the emergence of a new type of family. This family was described as home-centered or “privatized,” as nuclear rather than part of an extended kinship network, and, most significantly, as having much less segregated roles for husbands and wives. In some ways this new vision was closer to that of Parsons and Bales, except that the latter did not predict any change to the rigid segregation of the male breadwinner and female housewife. By the time The Symmetrical Family was published, the sociology of the family (in both the United Kingdom and the United States) had become wedded to the idea of the nuclear, home-loving, monogamous, heterosexual family where other family forms were dismissed as aberrant or dysfunctional. It seemed as if there was little more to be said about families; theoretically the field was still predominantly functionalist in orientation, and empirical research was happily documenting progress towards an egalitarian, child-centered, companionate family form in which, although there might still be problems, progress was being made. Beck and Beck-Gernsheim describe the sociology of the family as becoming a zombie category, still occupying a place in the sociological canon and family yet holding to ideas and conceptualizations long dead in other fields of sociology and social theory. Yet this criticism is only accurate if one dismisses the significance of the new feminist work which began to dominate the field in the 1970s in both Britain and United States. This feminist work challenged the idea of the family as a companionate, egalitarian institution, and sought to understand the workings of families from the standpoint of the women who lived and worked in them. There were two particularly important strands of work that developed: the first was a reinterpretation of the meaning and significance of the gendered division of labor in the family, and the second was the re-discovery of domestic violence in families. While Young and Willmott were identifying the rise of the symmetrical family, other studies were beginning to reveal that the movement of married women into the labor force seemed to be generating a double shift for women, rather than a sharing out of paid and unpaid labor. Empirical studies showed that husbands did not take on more housework or child-care responsibilities, but that wives would come back from paid work only to find that they remained responsible for all (or almost all) domestic duties. Men might have spoken of their willingness to “help” in Young and Willmott, but this was seen by later feminists as merely confirming that domestic work remained the responsibility of women. Research by feminists such as Ann Oakley (The Sociology of Housework, 1974) drew attention to the idea that housework was “real” work and that it was, moreover, never finished. She dismissed the idea that modern technology had lightened women’s load because, although the physical labor associated with each task might have become less arduous, standards of cleanliness and child care rose exponentially. Following Oakley’s attempt to force sociology to take “women’s work” in the home seriously, there arose a more explicitly Marxist analysis which became known as the domestic labor debate. In this debate, the feminist position argued that a materialist analysis of capitalism should include consideration of women’s unpaid labor, because housework and child care were part of the reproduction of labor power needed by capital to keep those in paid employment (see work and employment) fit and capable of working long hours in the process of producing profit. Without women’s unpaid labor in the family, it was argued, capitalism could not survive, and women’s labor indirectly contributed to the creation of profit. 191 family Linked to this argument was the idea that women continued to give their labor freely because they subscribed to (or were brainwashed by) the ideology of familialism. It was argued that ideas that women’s roles as mothers or as housewives were a natural component of women’s being and psyche were a kind of false consciousness, which kept women willingly confined to economically dependent and subservient positions in their families. Rather than seeing women’s economic and social vulnerability as either god-given or as functionally necessary, this approach saw it as exploitative and oppressive. Marxist feminist work became associated with a profound critique of the family, and this oppositional stance is exemplified in the work of Michelle Barrett and Mary McIntosh, Anti-Social Family (1982). While the domestic labor debate was about housework, other feminists turned their attention to “care” work. This approach focused on two aspects of hidden work in families. The first was the work of caring for others, not only children, but also often elderly or infirm relatives. These activities had previously been treated as extensions of women’s natural caring capacity, and so the process of redefining it as work was part of a process of making it more visible and understood as a social activity. The second approach centered more on emotional labor. This activity was identified as women’s responsibility, and its focus was to keep the breadwinner happy, to attend to his emotional needs, and to provide an emotionally comforting and restorative environment. It is interesting that, in bringing these activities to the fore, feminists at this time used the terminology of work or labor to give a kind of concrete status to these otherwise apparently ephemeral activities. But, in so doing, both care and emotions were reduced to a form of labor which could be measured and assessed. Throughout this period, work on the family therefore sought to deconstruct taken-for-granted ideas about the warmth, love, and support supposedly found in families. Instead it focused on power relations, something notably absent from earlier approaches. However, because emotions were seen as suspect, this feminist work banished a sphere of enquiry on love, care, and attentiveness for over a generation. Indeed, it was argued that the very term family should be avoided, and in its place the concept of the household used, because this was free from naturalistic assumptions about gender roles, affection, duties of care, and unequal, heterosexual relationships. 192 family However, the attempt to remove the term family from the sociological lexicon ultimately failed. The rediscovery of domestic violence (itself a contested term) was also linked to the focus on power relations in the family. The term was coined to counterpoise the idea of the domestic as an environment of harmony and safety, with concepts typically associated with the public sphere, namely danger and harm. It was later criticized because it obscured the fact that this violence was inflicted overwhelmingly by men, and so it was seen as disguising men’s moral responsibility for their behavior. But whether the term wife beating or domestic violence or woman abuse was used, the focus on violence was a crucial part of the redefinition of the family as a universally “good thing.” Feminist work sought to explain why women had little choice but to stay in violent relationships, and also argued that violent men gave rise to violent sons and intimidated daughters. Through this focus on violence it was also argued that heterosexual relationships were dangerous for women and that, even though not all men were violent, the cultural acceptance of male violence in the home served to empower all men in their relationships with women. Research on domestic violence highlighted the core problem of women’s economic dependence on men, especially when they had children and had left the labor market. It also revealed the extent to which both criminal and family law protected the privilege of husbands within the privacy of the family. Assaults, which would have led to criminal proceedings if carried out in public, were treated as a private matter between spouses, and there was little help an assaulted wife could call on. When combined with the recognition of women’s double shift, emotional labor, and economic exploitation in families, there emerged an argument that the monogamous, heterosexual family was an arrangement which was highly detrimental to women, and which reproduced the privileged position of men in western societies. For at least a decade feminist work on family life was largely preoccupied with these questions of power and exploitation, and sought to challenge the idea that families had become more democratic and egalitarian institutions. The feminist critique on the family is often (rather simplistically) seen to be the cause of the decline of the family. This is because the depiction of the family as a poor choice for women coincided (in western societies) with a rise in the family divorce rate, a decline in marriage rates and the birth rate, a rise in cohabitation and lone motherhood, and also a rise in people living alone. However, it is important to recognize the extent to which concerns and predictions about the decline of the family are a historical phenomenon. It is hard to find a moment when someone was not expressing alarm that the family was no longer the decent, patriarchal household of the past, with obedient children and subservient wives. Even Parsons and Bales started their book on the family with reference to the worry that changes in family structure were causing in the postwar United States. Each new generation would appear to have identified slightly different reasons for the perceived decline or disorganization of the family. Some saw the shift from extended to nuclear families as a profound loss, other saw the loss of “functions” of the family (for example education) to the state as an indication of moral decline. Yet others saw (and still see) the rise in divorce (see marriage and divorce) as a clear indicator of decline, while opponents argue that the high rate of divorce is a sign that people set great store by the value of good personal relationships and so will no longer tolerate bad, or abusive, situations. These concerns gave rise to the so-called ProFamily Right, predominantly in the United States, but also to a lesser extent in the United Kingdom. In a kind of backlash against the perceived hegemony of feminist thinking, the Pro-Family Right depicted fatherless families as the cause of rises in delinquency, idleness, and poverty (David Popenoe, Disturbing the Nest: Family Change and Decline in Modern Societies, 1988). A dystopian vision of family life came to dominate much of this writing with each rise in the divorce statistics or rise in numbers of children born out of wedlock interpreted as a nail in the coffin of the family. As early as 1983 Brigitte and Peter Berger, in The War over the Family, were trying to find the middle ground between those promoting policies to re-establish the traditional family (by which it was meant the patriarchal breadwinner / dependent housewife model) and those who saw the family as the site of the reproduction of both gender and class oppressions. In the United States the “war” was highly charged because of the direct link with both policy and politics, which meant that studying the family had become less an academic pursuit than a politically fraught enterprise. This politically charged engagement suggests that the study of the family might not have been in the doldrums as Beck and Beck-Gernsheim family suggest, but in fact their point still stands because the interminable debate about family decline was ultimately intellectually reductive and circular. The claims and counterclaims became familiar territory, and it seemed to become impossible to move beyond this narrow conceptual straitjacket. In fact, sociological work on families did manage to move forwards (although not completely) as new ways of thinking about family relationships started to emerge. A key re-conceptualization came from David Morgan in Family Connections (1996), where he succeeded in ultimately breaking with the functionalist tradition of seeing the family as an institution with its roles and core functions, and instead saw the family as something people “did.” He coined the terminology of “family practices.” He conceptualized the family as a web of relationships which was created and recreated by what people did and how they related to one another through their ordinary practices. This meant that the family was set loose from traditional ideas that it was fundamentally about the co-residence of a man and a woman and their children, who all occupied a given status in relation to one another. He grasped what is acknowledged in everyday experience, namely that those whom people feel to be family are family and that co-residence is not vital to form a family, but affective (and other emotional) bonds and everyday practices are. This conceptual shift provided a means to think differently about families and to start to include varieties of previously unrecognized families without constantly comparing them to the nuclear ideal. Morgan also rehabilitated the term family. He acknowledged that it is a problematic concept because of the ideology of familialism which idealizes a particular type or set of relationships. The term family is also apparently resolutely heterosexual in intonation; some would argue it is heteronormative, because of its focus on and privileging of marriage and opposite sex biological reproduction. But Morgan’s work pointed to the flexibility of the concept of family in everyday usage and the ways in which it has been stretched and molded, notwithstanding sociology’s attempts to fix a definition of the family as comprising two opposite sex parents and their children. Morgan also pointed out that the term family is deeply culturally significant, and, even though it may have many different meanings, it is still meaningful and so should not be discarded, since it encapsulates and reflects a range of cultural values which should be the focus of enquiry. The 193 family task for sociology, he suggested, was to explore more imaginatively how people “do” family life. These ideas were simultaneously being reflected in a new body of empirical research on families. Of particular significance was the work of Janet Finch and Jennifer Mason, Negotiating Family Responsibilities (1993), who re-incorporated ideas about values and meaning into how people live their family lives. They used the term negotiating in order to express how, even in close kin relationships, people were not governed by a sense of handed-down rigid obligations, but were guided by their feelings about their relatives and by their own sense of ethics, or “the proper thing to do.” Almost all family relationships were thus seen as negotiable and so variable. Yet they also found that there remained an important sense of obligation and commitment to kin. This microlevel analysis focused much more explicitly on the values that people live their family lives by; it looked at everyday workings and gave precedence to the meanings that family members themselves constructed in living their families. This focus on meanings and values in everyday living has also been reflected in other empirical studies which have attempted to capture the complexity of both relationships within families and those between generations. This greater attentiveness to the ways in which real, complex, and multilayered relationships are lived has finally ended the sociological tendency to speak about the family as if it was an entity of likeminded, homogeneous people who react in a uniform way to the “outside world” rather than themselves being (inter)active agents. An example of this development is found in How Families Still Matter by Vern Bengtson, Timothy J. Bibblaz, and Robert E. L. Roberts (2002). This is a longitudinal study of American families which focuses on intergenerational change and continuity across time. Four generations were included in the study, with the first generation born at the turn of the twentieth century, the second born around the 1920s, the third around the 1950s, and the fourth in the 1970s. The importance of this study is that, through its longitudinal methodology, it has been able to capture continuity and change across generations, while also mapping such changes onto the changing historical times through which the families lived and are still living. The study is also able to capture individual change, for example the authors can compare what people say now with what they said ten or twenty years ago. They can, moreover, compare what older people born in the 1950s actually 194 family said and felt when they were in their twenties with what twenty-year-olds now say and feel. This move to qualitative and quantitative longitudinal research marks an important shift in the extent to which sociology can actually grasp family life and also the actual processes of family and social change. Most significantly, it is able to deal with the problem of “golden age” thinking in which family life of the past is always depicted as better, more moral, more loving, and generally superior to family life now. Observations of the interiority of family life have also brought a new level of imaginative thinking to the field. John Gillis, in A World of their Own Making (1996), has distinguished between families we live “with” and families we live “by.” The latter are the families in people’s memories, hopes, and imaginations, the families people represent to themselves; while the former are the actual co-resident families who may be far from the ideal held in thoughts or longings. Gillis points to the constant iteration between these two levels of experiences of, and thinking about, families. His focus is on myth and ritual (for example family holidays or the ways in which ancestors influence lives lived in the present) in order to reveal the ways in which people live their families in their heads, not just in the material present. To some extent, Gillis has rehabilitated the older concept of the ideology of the family which, when deployed by feminist writers in the 1970s, was seen as a kind of imposed, malign influence which kept women in their place. In other words he has reintroduced the significance of hopes and feelings into an understanding of families, without the prior assumption that these are oppressive devices. These shifts in conceptualizing families, namely seeing families as kinship networks which need not co-reside, focusing on negotiations, highlighting the importance of the representation of families both culturally and personally, and the idea that it is important to capture process and change, rather than taking a series of snapshots, have all produced a sociology of family life which is far more complex and subtle than the early functionalists were able to produce. But factors such as gender, social class, ethnicity, religion, and sexual orientation remain an important component of a sociological imagination about family life. Families remain one of the most significant means of the transmission of privilege, wealth, and cultural capital (see social capital) across generations. The personal nature of family life which is captured above is also part of the reason why family abuses of power across genders and generations remain hidden and tolerated. Moreover, the fact that one is born into a family (usually) and that one’s kin is identified in advance (through blood ties and lineage) still means that families, unlike friendships, are imposed rather than entered into voluntarily. This idea that families are inevitably given, rather than chosen, has been challenged however. Kath Weston, in Families We Choose: Lesbians, Gays, Kinship (1991), has pointed to the growing creation and recognition of families of choice. The exclusion of gays and lesbians from supposedly proper (that is, heteronormative) families in conventional thinking has led to a reclaiming and remolding of the concept of family so that it can be used to signify people living together in close relationships notwithstanding the fact they are unable to marry and are not blood relatives. The increase in, and increasing visibility of, lesbian mothers and gay and lesbian adoption, has profoundly affected the taken-for-grantedness of the heterosexual family. The claim by lesbians and gays to form families has been controversial, precisely because the family has been seen inevitably to incorporate and promote heterosexual privilege; however, this move can also be seen as part of the redefinition of what families are in contemporary society and as a blurring of the boundaries between traditionally privileged relationships and those that were once ignored and denigrated. It has been suggested above that sociological work on families operates on two levels, with macro-theoretical work progressing in a parallel fashion with more micro-level work. Of course there are conversations between the two, but there is also a tension between the more finely tuned, nuanced work of those engaged in more empirical work, and those who are seeking to develop broader theories about how family life is changing. There has been a revival in sociological interest in families at the macro level which has not been apparent since the decline of the functionalist perspective (if one treats the feminist interventions as slightly separate since they did not emerge from mainstream sociology). Social theorists who have typically dealt with traditionally conceived big themes (such as capitalism or modernity) have turned their interest towards families. Most notable here is the work of Beck and Beck-Gernsheim (Individualisation, 2002, The Normal Chaos of Love) who have returned to the perennial theme of social change and families. As part of their overall thesis on Fanon, Franz (1925–1961) the rise of individualization in modern societies, they depict the family as a site of fragmentation and of constant (exhausting) balancing and negotiation. They argue, “Family life no longer happens in one place but is scattered between several different locations . . . The lives of individual family members, with their different rhythms, locations and demands, only rarely fit together naturally.” They depict a tension between individual life projects and the collective needs of families which are hard to resolve, and relate these trends to wider developments in a highly individualized society. They suggest that western societies are moving towards a post-familial family but, unlike others who have observed family change and seen alarming signs of decline, their analysis identifies a range of new family forms which do not conform to the nuclear ideal but which will take their place alongside the more traditional family structure. The theoretical scope of this work has brought families back into mainstream sociological thinking and reconnected the sociological understanding of family life with wider social changes. However, the tension with the more grounded empirical work remains, especially where evidence of the changes that Beck and Beck-Gernsheim impute to the interiority of family life is seen as tenuous or at least is disputed. Notwithstanding this, the sociological study of families has become reinvigorated and has returned to a more central place in the sociological canon. CAROL SMART Fanon, Franz (1925–1961) Born in Martinique, a French overseas territory in the Caribbean, to a middle-class family of African origin, Fanon studied medicine and psychiatry in France in the late 1940s. He developed an anti-colonial political doctrine that became a main reference point for the Third World movement. Fanon became involved in politics, both as a writer and as an activist in the 1950s while directing a psychiatric ward in Algeria (another of France’s overseas territories) during the country’s war of decolonization (1954–62). Having joined the Algerian independence movement, the Front de Libération Nationale (FLN), he proposed a radical brand of political existentialism in which the realization of Algerian identity necessarily coincided with the destruction of the French presence in the country. His Hegelian-inspired construction of the black/ colonized self through the negation of the white/ colonial presence was developed in two main 195 fascism works: Black Skin, White Masks (1952 [trans. 1967] and The Wretched of the Earth (1961 [trans. 1965]). Fanon showed how structures of domination, mediated by culture and discourse, consistently reminded the colonized of their fundamental inadequacy in a world created by white colonizers in their image. Hence, Fanon emphasized the therapeutic aspect of violence by the oppressed against their oppressor, which freed them from their inferiority complex and restored their selfrespect. Influential in postcolonial theory despite its controversial apology for violence, Fanon’s work has nonetheless been criticized for over-emphasizing the racial dimension of domination at the expense of aspects such as gender or religion. His political essays are collected in two further works: Studies in a Dying Colonialism (1959 [trans. 1965]) and Toward the African Revolution (1964 [trans. 1967]). FREDERIC VOLPI fascism Sometimes used as a word of abuse to refer to movements or individuals who are intolerant or authoritarian, fascism is certainly intolerant and authoritarian, but it is more than this. It is a movement that seeks to establish a dictatorship of the “right” (that is an ultra-conservative position that rejects liberalism and anything associated with the “left”). It targets communists, socialists, trade unionists, and liberals through banning their parties and their members, so that these groups cannot exercise their political, legal, or social rights. It is anti-liberal, regarding liberal values as a form of “decadence” and seeing them as opening the floodgates to socialist, communist, and egalitarian movements. As a movement, fascism extols action and practice over ideas and theory. It uses ideas with considerable opportunism, mixing socialist ideas, avant-garde positions, anti-capitalist rhetoric, ecological argument, and pseudo-scientific ideas to do with race and ethnicity in a veritable potpourri. Is it an ideology at all? Some have suggested that fascism is too jumbled and incoherent to be called an ideology, but, while fascism is peculiarly “flexible,” there are particular features that characterize it, so that a general view of fascism can be created. The term derives from the fasces – the bundle of rods carried by the consuls of ancient Rome; the word fascio was used in Italy in the 1890s to indicate a political group or band, usually of revolutionary socialists. But fascism is essentially a twentieth-century movement, although it draws upon prejudices and stereotypes that are rooted 196 fascism in tradition. Italian fascism saw itself as resurrecting the glories of the Roman Empire, and Alfredo Rocco (1875–1935), an Italian fascist, saw Niccolo Machiavelli (1459–1517) as a founding father of fascist theory. Nazism (which is an extreme form of fascism) was regarded by its ideologues as rooted in the history of the Nordic peoples, and the movement embodied anti-Semitic views that go back to the Middle Ages. Fascism appeals particularly to those who have some property but not very much, and are fearful that they might be plunged by market forces into the ranks of the working class. Fascism is particularly hostile to Communism, since it is opposed to the cosmopolitan contentions of Marxist theory, and its belief in a classless and stateless society. It is a movement that dislikes universal identities of any kind, although of course fascists may call for unity with kindred spirits in other countries. Nevertheless, it is intensely nationalistic, and takes the view that the people must be saved from enemies whose way of life is alien and threatening. Differences are deemed divisive and menacing, and war extolled as a way of demonstrating virtue and strength. The idea that people are divided by social class is rejected in favor of the unity of the nation or people, so that industry is to be organized in a way that expresses the common interest between business and labor. In practice, this did not happen, and it is arguable that fascism is anti-capitalist only in theory, not in practice. Fascists vary in their attitude towards the church (extreme fascists may see religious organizations as a threat to the state), but they regard religion in a loose sense as being a useful way of instilling order and loyalty. Certainly, they use a religious style of language in invoking the need for sacrifice, redemption, and spiritual virtue, and fascists attack materialism, consumerism, and hedonism as decadent and unworthy. Although women can be fascists as well as men, fascism is a supremely patriarchal creed, by which I mean that women are seen as domestic creatures whose role in life is to service men, to have children, to be good mothers and wives, and to keep out of politics. Fascism is hostile to the liberal tradition, and it dislikes the notion of reason. It regards the individual as subordinate to the collectivity in general, and the state in particular. Liberal freedoms are seen merely as entitlements that allow the enemies of the “nation” or the “people” to capture power. Fascist regimes are highly authoritarian, and use the state as the weapon of the fashion dominant party to protect the nation, advance its interests, and destroy its enemies. They are strongly opposed to the idea of democracy (although fascists may use democratic rhetoric to justify their rule or use parliamentary institutions to win access to power), and regard the notion of self-government (the idea that people can control their lives in a rational way and without force) as a dangerous myth. As a movement based upon repressive hierarchy, fascism argues that all institutions should be controlled by “reliable” leaders, and the “leadership principle” comes to a climax with the supreme leader, seen as the embodiment of the nation and the people. Fascist leaders may be civilians, but they are closely identified with the army and police, since these institutions are crucial to rooting out opponents. Fascist movements extend beyond the state, but the violence of these movements is condoned and encouraged by the state; given tight control over the media, this violence is then justified in the light of fascist values. Fascists see themselves as revolutionary in that they are concerned to “rejuvenate” a tired and decadent society, and some fascists speak of creating a “new man” in a new society. They are, therefore, anti-conservative as well as anti-liberal, although they may form tactical alliances with other sections of the right when they can establish momentary common ground. Many regimes, loosely called fascist, are in fact conservative and reactionary systems – Franco’s Spain, Pétain’s “Vichy” France (a regime that collaborated with the Nazis who occupied the country), Japan under Tojo, and so forth. They may have fascist elements within them, but they are not really anti-conservative in character. Postwar fascism has generally sought to distance itself from intrawar ideologies in Germany and Italy, and has ranged from movements that see the European Community as containing the germ of a “United Europe” to movements hostile to the European Union. Some fascist movements claim democratic credentials, although these are not really plausible, given their intense chauvinism, anti-feminism, and hostility to liberalism and socialism. JOHN HOFFMAN fashion The study of fashion in the sociological tradition has a long history. However, it is important to distinguish between two related approaches: (1) an emphasis on the study of fashion as a cultural phenomenon of modernity; and (2) fashion as the study of clothing and the body in specific fashion cultural contexts. These features are often run together although we should recognize that they are analytically separate. The sociologist Georg Simmel argued that fashion emerges in a society that is built upon social and cultural change. For Simmel, fashion is built on the impulse to distinguish yourself from others, while also satisfying the need for social adaptation and imitation. Fashion is mainly structured by social class and is caught in constant cycles of innovation and emulation. As elites attempt to set themselves apart through observable social markers like dress, others seek to copy the new styles as they emerge from above. Consequently, elites respond by inventing further new styles and so on. Fashion in this analysis becomes a novelty mania, where collective tastes are being born and replaced at ever faster rates. Indeed, if fashion becomes routinized and formalized it can lose the charm it exercises over its consumers. Simmel’s arguments were further developed by Thorstein Veblen (1857–1929), who similarly argued that the cycles of fashion were structured by class. For Veblen what became fashionable was largely determined by what was in short supply and expensive. This was a way (as Simmel also suggested) of distinguishing classes, but also of displaying wealth and power. Fashion was a way of making wealth visible through “conspicuous consumption” so that it might be admired by others. There are two main objections to such views: (1) the analysis tends to ignore other sociological features such as age, race, and gender, which are perhaps even more important than class in structuring fashion; and (2) elites are no longer, if indeed they ever were, the main purveyors of fashion. In modern societies, elites often find themselves “out of fashion” or even lagging behind current trends. Other studies of fashion have tended to emphasize features other than social class. Gender is now seen as a key determinant in the study of fashion. In Elizabeth Wilson’s Adorned in Dreams (1985), fashion is seen to represent the Romantic movement’s critique of the culture of instrumentality that accompanied the industrial revolution. In this view fashion is explicitly concerned with sensuality, aesthetics, and individualism. Further, fashion values the life of the city by emphasizing the spirit of play, fluidity, and performance over authenticity. Fashion is a form of adult play made possible by the development of modernity. In this respect, Wilson criticizes some feminist authors for dismissing fashion as a form of 197 fashion masculine control, when it offers women, its main consumers, with the potential for aesthetic creativity. Indeed many have argued that the “grand theorists” of fashion have mistakenly presumed it to be an explicit product of western society. Here the study of fashion has become the recognition of the acceptable codes of behavior that govern the presentation of the body. In particular these features have emphasized the role of gender and youth in the construction of fashion. Particularly important here has been the shift from equating fashion with the lifestyles of social elites and the rise of a mass fashion industry over the course of the twentieth century. If, in the 1920s, Hollywood helped democratize ideas of glamor and beauty, it was the 1960s that provided the first genuinely mass fashion. Further, the 1970s witnessed the emergence of supermodels, who were highly paid international figures who helped promote a certain look. Most of these developments sought to target women as the main consumers of a fashionable image, but this would change in the 1980s. Until this period heterosexual men’s clothing was probably more conformist than that of women. This was a direct consequence of the fact that men risked being labeled effeminate for showing too much interest in fashion. Expressive fashions up until this point were mostly confined to gay men, ethnic groups, and popular entertainers. The shift in fashion occurred during the 1980s for three main reasons: (1) the arrival of high-street stores that explicitly offered affordable stylish clothes for men; (2) new visual representations of men (in particular the softer and more caring form of masculinity that was represented in the new man); and (3) the arrival of new style and fashion magazines. Other sociologists have emphasized how fashion can become a site of cultural struggle. Dick Hebdige, in Subculture (1979), argues that the adoption of different styles on the part of young people can act as a form of defiance. Fashion and clothing can become a way of subverting dominant discourses and codes that seek to regulate acceptable behavior. Youth cultures and subcultures hold out the possibility of suggesting new and oppositional meanings in different social contexts. The rise of new youth lifestyles since the emergence of rock and roll in the 1950s offered opportunities to subvert the values and meanings of the dominant parent culture. However, whatever the role that fashion plays in the formation of identity, it continues to be linked to a wider culture of modernity in a way that was 198 fatherhood/fathers recognized by earlier classical thinkers. In particular, fashion is a requirement of the economic system. Unless consumers are willing to buy new things, get into debt, and give up old tastes in preference for the new, then capitalism’s ability to expand would be severely curtailed. If fashion represents change and the formation of identity, it nevertheless continues to represent the cycles of profit maximization in an increasingly commercial world. NICK STEVENSON fatherhood/fathers In patriarchal societies fathers are a source of both authority and power in the ordering of the lives and social experiences of family members. The role of fatherhood is an identity taken up outside the workplace in the private sphere. In industrial society the main role of the father was to be both a provider for, and protector of, the family. Many objected that such was the authority of the father that the nuclear family was actually a form of domination requiring the subordination of women and children. Further the image of the father proved to be a powerful one with many national leaders earning the title “father of the nation.” In more recent times, the authority of individual fathers has been challenged by the development of democratic norms (women’s and children’s rights) and the development of the welfare functions of the modern state. In western industrialized societies, since the 1950s, the role of fatherhood has been the subject of transformation and change. The development of dual-labor households and new expectations in respect of intimacy have arguably changed the role of fathers. Further, the development of lesbian and gay social movements, feminism, and other features have all sought to increase the diversity of family types and has arguably unsettled previous patterns of male dominance. The changing roles of men and women and the shaking of heterosexual norms have all taken their toll on the social privileges of the father. In The Transformation of Intimacy (1992), Anthony Giddens has argued that families have become more contingent social arrangements. Fatherhood is no longer defined by economic necessity, but has become an empty sign to be filled by the participants within the relationship. This does not mean that the family has become more harmonious. Indeed with the decline of overt class antagonisms, the family is the place where most individuals are likely to experience conflict. Yet if the role of fatherhood is being redefined, it fecundity feminism is not clear that men themselves have kept pace with the new demands now being made of them. In the demand for new intimate and caring family ties, men have become “laggards” in the shift towards more egalitarian relationships. Such a situation has meant that traditional forms of masculinity (and fathering) continue to exist, as a backlash in the face of the demand for more equal relations, mainly coming from women. Many feminists have criticized the idea that we are currently living through a transformation of this type. First, many radical critics argue that patriarchy has been intensified rather than diminished by current social transformations. Under the hegemony of the market and masculine values, motherhood has become a non-identity. The care of children and vulnerable adults is increasingly outsourced and is work of low social status. Here the small steps that some fathers have taken in respect of a more nurturing role should not be allowed to overshadow more disturbing transformations. Second, other critics have contested the view that the home has been democratized, pointing to the slow change of masculine values and the continued subordination of women, children, and other sexual identities. NICK STEVENSON fecundity – see fertility. feminism Histories of feminism usually assume that feminism is a western, post-Enlightenment social movement which has contributed significantly to changes both in the social situation of women and in social perceptions of women. This assumption has frequently made feminism the subject of attacks from women in non-western cultures who have identified the movement as pre-occupied with western issues and unable to understand the gender relations of other societies. Thus it is first and foremost important to recognize the possible ethnocentricity of feminism, while at the same time acknowledging that feminism, in the broadest sense of the protest of women against a subordinate social status, is both global and takes different forms in different cultures. Where feminism stands universally united is on issues of the valid claim of women to education, to a public voice, and to equality with men in law. The most usually recognized starting point of western feminism is in the eighteenth century and, in particular, the publication, in 1792, of Mary Wollstonecraft’s A Vindication of the Rights of Woman. This book emerged out of a number of social and intellectual changes in the eighteenth century: the growing assumption of the equal rights of all individuals and what Thomas Laqueur has described as the invention of sex in his Making Sex (1990). From the beginning of the eighteenth century onwards, numerous writers (including Mary Wollstonecraft’s husband, William Godwin) articulated what was to become the rallying cry of the French Revolution: “Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity.” Mary Wollstonecraft (1759–97) entirely supported the first two of these propositions but took issue with the idea of “fraternity.” Her argument suggested that no society should allow men to control the public space or to have no knowledge of, or responsibility for, the private, domestic sphere. Thus Wollstonecraft argued not just for the education and public emancipation of women, but also for the domestic education and participation of men. Wollstonecraft died the death of thousands of eighteenth-century women when she gave birth to her daughter, Mary Shelley. But her book was recognized both before and after her death, and was influential in what became known as the domestication debates of the early nineteenth century. Although her influence on writers is often implicit rather than explicit, what Wollstonecraft had done was to identify the social making of gender: this made it possible for later writers to suggest (as Simone de Beauvoir was to do in the twentieth century) that women are “made and not born.” Throughout the nineteenth century, in both Europe and the United States, women (and occasionally men such as John Stuart Mill) questioned the social role of women and argued for their greater participation in the social world and equality of education. Perhaps inevitably, in the nineteenth quite as much as in the twentieth century, feminism and feminist demands were complicated by differences between women. In Britain these differences were generally differences of social class, while in the United States racial and ethnic differences were to have equal significance. Throughout the nineteenth century, feminism, on both sides of the Atlantic, was to constitute an important part of social debates and the culture which informed literature and the visual arts. Classic liberalism, for example in Mill’s On the Subjection of Women (1869), emphasized the importance of the education of women: this emphasis was hugely influential and made education, and access to education, a consistently important part 199 feminism of feminist campaigns in both the nineteenth and the twentieth centuries. (Indeed, in the late twentieth century this argument still continues: the economist Amartya Sen has suggested that the key to reducing the birth rate, and a greater degree of economic prosperity, lies in the education of women.) In both the United Kingdom and the United States, white, middle-class women campaigned for women to have access not just to schools – which had always been allowed, if less enthusiastically than for men – but to higher education. By the end of the nineteenth century, this objective had been achieved in both Britain and the United States and a very small number of women had begun to attend university. Feminist campaigns for education were, however, only part of feminist history in the nineteenth century, and a part which was largely the concern of middle-class women. Of equal importance were the campaigns, often far more disruptive and socially contentious, for the right of women to own their own property and for a form of sexual morality which did not take for granted male sexual rights over women. Alongside these campaigns – fought throughout the West – were the struggles of working-class women to secure rights in paid work. One of the longest battles which has been fought by western feminists is that for equal pay: this battle continues into the twenty-first century. The arguments involved have changed considerably over the past 100 years and second-wave feminism in the West secured the greater recognition of the concept of “equal work of equal value,” which did much to overturn the more traditional idea of the different (and deeply gendered) value of different kinds of work. A second campaign fought by feminists has a similar historical length to battles over the rewards of paid work. This is the campaign by women for control over their bodies: a campaign which first arose in the nineteenth century over the question of the sexual double standard and has continued into the twentieth and twenty-first centuries in relation to issues related to new forms of technology, notably contraception and the new reproductive technology. In the nineteenth century, campaigners such as Josephine Butler succeeded in over-turning legislation which assumed male rights of sexual access to women. In the early twentieth century, women such as Marie Stopes argued for women’s right to contraception and heterosexual fulfilment. All these debates, as much in the nineteenth century as in the twentieth, lie within the remit of feminism 200 feminism (since they imply an explicit commitment to the rights of women), yet they are at the same time complicated by the different politics of the women involved. For example, Marie Stopes had views about genetics and the reproduction of “the race” which would nowadays be regarded with some suspicion; other women involved in campaigns around reproduction and sexuality were committed to normative heterosexuality and the social status quo. It is thus that the history of feminism is complicated by the diverse politics which women (and very occasionally men) have held. In the twentieth century, there was a very general approximation of the coincidence of feminist and progressive views about women and women’s emancipation with left-wing and radical politics. Thus the rightwing, fascist regimes of the twentieth century (Franco’s Spain, Mussolini’s Italy, and Hitler’s Germany) have all supported traditional views of women and passed legislation designed to ensure the exclusion of women from the public world. At the same time, it is also the case that those equally radical, although left-wing, regimes such as that of Stalin’s Russia, while fully integrating women into paid work (and putting in place a social infrastructure to make this possible) have minimized sexual difference and articulated a model of human beings as male. This eradication of gender difference has been widely questioned, and feminist writing of the late twentieth century has claimed that feminism should be about the recognition of the female/feminine rather than the equalization of the female/ feminine with the male. At the beginning of the twenty-first century, feminist writers have come to recognize that feminism is a broad church and that the interests of feminism cannot be easily summarized. The great work of twentieth-century feminism, de Beauvoir’s The Second Sex (first published in 1949 [trans. 1972]) famously argued that women are made by society and the social world, and that the social world which “makes” women has a consistent tradition of misogyny. This social constructionist view of women has been widely influential and there was little significant challenge to the view until the publication, in 1974, of Juliet Mitchell’s Psychoanalysis and Feminism. In this discussion of Sigmund Freud, Mitchell argued that feminists should re-consider the impact of biological difference on behavior and our symbolic interpretation of the world. The work was extremely influential and opened up new developments which made feminism itself more reflective. feminism In large part this greater self-consciousness led feminists to re-consider the relationship of feminism to the social world and to consider, as Sheila Rowbotham (1943– ) has done in Hidden from History (1973), the emergence and practice of western feminism as part of the politics of liberal capitalism. What this view does is to shift the claims of feminism from those of a movement of social transformation to those of a movement of social integration. Without for one moment denigrating the achievements of feminism (which in areas such as paid work, property and legal rights, and sexual politics have been of value to all women, regardless of class and race and ethnicity), this argument sees feminism in wider terms and as part of the transformation of western capitalism to a social system based on consumption. The history of feminism is generally divided into the first-wave feminism which extends from the middle of the nineteenth to the early twentieth century, and second-wave feminism which developed from 1970 onwards. Feminism at the beginning of the twenty-first century is often described as part of the “mainstream” in that many institutional contexts demand gender equality and policies which recognize the claims of women and men to equal treatment. At the same time, while institutional contexts have achieved significant forms of recognition of the rights of women, there remain numerous aspects of social life where gender differences are still considerable. Throughout the West it is still the case that the birth of children impinges far more on the lives of women than on the lives of men, and women have far less involvement in political, public power than men. These gender differences are clearly resistant to social change, despite the fact that, in the United Kingdom, women over the age of thirty have had the vote since 1918, partly as a result of the political impact of the Suffragettes – a social movement associated with Mrs. Emmeline Pankhurst (1858–1928) who successfully campaigned for the enfranchisement of women. These issues remain of consistent importance to individual women and to those feminist groups which campaign on specific issues related to the situation of women. In this sense, the contemporary history of feminism is similar to its history in the past: as a movement its concerns are rooted in a particular historical and social context, even though the thread which unites all feminist movements is that of the universal social subordination of women. But what has become a central part of contemporary feminism is the acknowledgment that claims such as the fertility “universal subordination of women” are complicated by the differences between women and the part which women themselves play in determining their own situation. Thus feminism today recognizes the considerable degree of female agency, with the crucial implication that this may powerfully disrupt the idea of a single feminist agenda. MARY EVANS fertility This term refers to the actual production of children. Demographers thus distinguish between the actual production of children and the ability to produce children, known as fecundity. Medical scientists do not make such a distinction, and use the term fertility to refer to reproductive ability. French-speaking and Spanish-speaking demographers (like their English-speaking counterparts) also distinguish between the potential and actual production of children, but they reverse the English usage of the terms. Thus French-speaking demographers use the term fertilité, and Spanishspeaking demographers the term fertilidad, to refer to reproductive ability, and fécondité and fecundidad, respectively, to refer to actual reproductive performance. An easily understood and interpreted method for quantifying fertility is the crude birth rate (CBR), that is, the number of births in a population in a given year, per 1,000 members of the population. It may be expressed as follows: CBR ¼ births in the year  1; 000 population at mid-year Using data for China for 2004, the equation becomes: CBR ¼ 15; 600; 000  1; 000 ¼ 12 1; 300; 000; 000 This means that in China in 2004, there were 12 babies born for every 1,000 persons in the population. Crude birth rates among the countries of the world in 2004 ranged from lows of 9 in several countries, including Austria, Germany, Bulgaria, Poland, and Greece, to highs of 55 in Niger and 51 in Malawi. The range of crude birth rates is much greater than that for crude death rates, which in 2004 extended from a low of 2 to a high of 29. Lay persons tend to employ the CBR more often than any other fertility measure, but it is not the most accurate of the measures. Its denominator does not really represent the population exposed to the risk of giving birth because males, pre-puberty females, and post-menopausal females are included. Because of this overly inclusive denominator, the CBR should be interpreted with caution. 201 fertility Demographers use more refined fertility measures, including the general fertility rate (GFR), age-specific fertility rates (ASFR), the total fertility rate (TFR), the gross reproduction rate (GRR), and the net reproduction rate (NRR). The GFR, ASFR, and TFR are increasingly more accurate measures of the childbearing experiences of the population. The GRR and the NRR measure not fertility but actual reproduction. Demographers have developed extensive theories of fertility. Prominent explanations include demographic transition theory, wealth flows theory, human ecological theory, political economic theory, feminist theory, proximate determinants theory, bio-social theory, relative income theory, and diffusion theory. The view of some that demography is void of theory is an incorrect one. Indeed there is more theory in demography than in most of the social sciences. A major explanation of fertility change and dynamics has its origins in demographic transition theory (DTT), as first developed by Frank W. Notestein in “Population – The Long View,” in T. W. Schultz (ed.), Food for the World (1945), and by W. S. Thompson in his article “Population” (1929, American Journal of Sociology). Current versions of DTT propose four stages of mortality and fertility decline that occur in the process of societal modernization. The first is the preindustrialization era with high birth and death rates and stable population growth. With the onset of industrialization (see industrial society) and modernization, the society transitions to lower death rates, especially lower infant and maternal mortality, but maintains high birth rates, with the result of rapid population growth. The next stage is characterized by decreasing population growth due to lower birth and death rates, which lead then to the final stage of low and stable population growth. DTT argues that the first stage hinges on population survival. High fertility is necessary because mortality is high. Thus societies tend to develop a variety of beliefs and practices that support high reproduction, and these are primarily centered on the family and kinship systems. The forces of modernization and industrialization alter this state of near-equilibrium, and the first effect is often a reduction in mortality. Indeed the beginnings of mortality decline in many European countries were stimulated not so much by medical and public health improvements as by a general improvement in levels of living. This intermediate stage resulted in rapid rates of population growth because fertility remained 202 fertility high after mortality had declined. In the next stage fertility declines also to lower levels. The causal linkages are complex. Underlying the global concepts of industrialization and modernization are such determinants of fertility as women’s participation in the labor force and the changing role of the family. The normative, institutional, and economic supports for the large family become eroded, and the small family becomes predominant. The increasing importance of urbanization affects the family by altering its role in production. Also, urban families meet considerably higher demands for consumption from their children, especially for education and recreation. J. C. Caldwell, in “Toward a Restatement of Demographic Transition Theory” (1976, Population and Development Review), has called for a restatement of demographic transition theory. His fertility theory of wealth flows is grounded in the assumption that the “emotional” nucleation of the family is crucial for lower fertility. This occurs when parents become less concerned with ancestors and extended family relatives than they are with their children, their children’s future, and even the future of their children’s children. He argues that ideally there are two types of societies; the first is where “the economically rational response is an indefinitely large number of children and the second where it is childless.” But why from an economic view would couples want either an unlimited number of children or none at all? Caldwell explains that it depends on the direction of the intergenerational flows of wealth and services. If the flows run from children to their parents, it is entirely rational for parents to want to have large families. In modern societies where the flow is from parents to children, it is rational to want small families. To say that parents in the less developed countries are “irrational” because they continue to have large families is to misunderstand these societies. Caldwell states that fertility behavior is rational in virtually all societies irrespective of their levels of development. Two other prominent fertility paradigms are based on human ecology and political economy. The human ecological theory of fertility is a macro-level explanation and argues that the level of sustenance-organization complexity of a society is negatively related with fertility. In the first place a high fertility pattern is dysfunctional for an increasingly complex sustenance organization because so much of the sustenance produced must be consumed directly fertility by the population. High fertility should reduce the absolute amount of uncommitted sustenance resources thereby limiting the population’s flexibility for adapting to environmental, technological, and other kinds of changes and fluctuations. Low fertility is more consonant with the needs and requirements of an expansive sustenance organization. More sustenance would be available for investment back into the system in a low-fertility population than in a population with high fertility. Large quantities of sustenance normally consumed by the familial and educational institutions in a high-fertility population would hence be available as mobile or fluid resources in a low-fertility population. Sustenance organization in this latter instance would thus have the investment resources available for increasing complexity, given requisite changes in the environment and technology. This leads to the hypothesis of a negative relation between organizational complexity and fertility. The political economy of fertility is not really a theory of fertility per se, but an investigative framework or “analytic perspective” for the study of fertility, according to S. Greenhalgh in “Toward a Political Economy of Fertility: Anthropological Contributions” (1990, Population and Development Review). Diverse fields of knowledge are integrated into the political economy approach. It is a “multileveled” approach, combining both macroand micro-level explanations of fertility patterns occurring in a given locale. This means that determinants are considered and measured at every level, including, for instance, global, international, and national forces; political, structural, and legal shifts; community factors; and characteristics of the individual couple. Central to this perspective is the appreciation of “agency and structure,” or structuration, which refer to the structural elements and stages that delineate the existing choices people have, as well as the incentives and tactics that come into play as individual objectives are met. This framework entails both quantitative and qualitative approaches. A good example of a political economy approach to fertility is Dennis P. Hogan and David I. Kertzer, Family, Political Economy and Demographic Change (1989), a study of Casalecchio, Italy. They tracked one rural community over a few change-laden decades of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, using individual-level data and directed by a life-course perspective. They touched on often ignored historical events, such as labor and marriage patterns, and found that fertility varies with feudalism the social class or occupation of the individual family. DUDLEY L. POSTON feudalism This term is used to describe forms of political, economic, and social relationships found during the Middle Ages, principally in western Europe but also in Japan and sometimes China. It is derived from the Latin term feodum and the Germanic fief, but was not used until the seventeenth century. When defined narrowly as a legal relationship, it refers to a set of reciprocal legal and military obligations within the nobility between a lord and a vassal. In this hierarchical relationship, the lord granted land, or a fief, to a vassal through a commendation ceremony involving homage and an oath of fealty. In return for the land and, in addition, protection from the lord, the vassal was obliged, through the principle of fidelitas, to provide military service and to give “counsel” or aid to the overlord (suzerain). There was also often a process of subinfeudation in which a vassal would grant part of his fief to another vassal and become a lord himself. Although having some basis in Roman times, this system of allegiance is generally regarded as having emerged slowly during the ninth and tenth centuries as a means to reinstitute social order, and to protect against further incursion, following the Germanic incursions. With reference to political rule, owing to poor communications and transport, and the localized character of the agricultural economy based essentially on a manorial system, feudalism was characterized by decentralized institutions of power. Although the king was generally regarded as the chief lord, in reality governmental authority was fragmented so that individual lords and barons had considerable autonomy and largely administered their own estates. Power was exercised by the lords predominantly through jurisdiction and the holding of courts to settle disputes. This was backed by the ideological power of the church which owned a considerable amount of land, as did many bishops and abbots. The church also emphasized the divinely created and hierarchical nature of a society divided into three major social classes: those who prayed (clergy), those who fought (nobility), and those who worked (peasants). A second definition of feudalism gives prominence to economic rather than juridical relations. Here the hierarchical relationship between lord and vassal is extended to include the socioeconomic obligations of peasants and serfs. For 203 Feyerabend, Paul (1924–1994) fieldwork Karl Marx, feudalism was primarily a mode of production, which, unlike slavery and capitalism, permitted some control over the means of production to peasants, especially through customary rights. The dynamic underlying feudalism was sustained through the exploitation of peasant tenants by lords, vis-à-vis the extraction of feudal rent, usually through labor services on the demesne (home farm). The level of feudal rent was determined by the relative military or political strength of the lords as compared to the serfs, who, at minimum, had to maintain family subsistence. This antagonism was often expressed in peasant uprisings. Rather than the etymological question of whether and to what extent feudalism existed, the crucial question for many Marxists has concerned the transition from feudalism to capitalism and the role played by internal relationships of feudalism as opposed to the external impact of the market in accounting for the transition. There have, however, been other more general definitions of feudalism which have attempted to fuse these definitions by accentuating the social, political, and economic criteria existing in the Middle Ages. Writing from a sociological perspective, Marc Bloc in Feudalism (1939–40) has argued that feudalism includes: a subject peasantry; widespread use of the service tenement (that is, the fief) instead of a salary; the supremacy of a class of specialized warriors; ties of obedience and protection which bind man to man and, within the warrior class, assume the distinctive form called vassalage; fragmentation of authority, leading inevitably to disorder; and the survival of other forms of association. However, given the diversity of practices, types of social relationship, and customs characterizing this period, as well as the diversity of national and geographical differences and inflections, medieval historians, such as Elizabeth Brown in her essay “The Tyranny of a Construct: Feudalism and the Historians of Medieval Europe” (1974, American Historical Review), have argued that the varied use of the term renders it meaningless, and that its application to the medieval world is confusing and inaccurate. Nevertheless, given the existence of key characteristics and concepts associated with the Middle Ages, the term is still widely used in history and sociology. STEVEN LOYAL Feyerabend, Paul (1924–1994) Born in Austria, Feyerabend initially studied philosophy at the University of Vienna and then at the 204 London School of Economics under Karl Popper. He made an important, albeit iconoclastic, contribution to the philosophy of science. He initially followed Popper’s philosophical outlook, but soon deviated from it, embracing instead the historical approach of Thomas Samuel Kuhn in his Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962). From the early 1960s onwards Feyerabend devoted himself to exploring the relevance of the history of science for the philosophy of science. Feyerabend was a prolific author; his main contribution remains Against Method; Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge (1975). He contributed to the debate surrounding falsificationism. This debate is summarized in Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge (1970), edited by Alan Musgrave and Imre Lakatos. At the time, many philosophers, like Popper, tried to uncover the method common to all scientific practices and which distinguishes them from non-scientific activities. Feyerabend questioned the validity of this philosophical enterprise. The history of science shows that there is no single method common to all sciences: a detailed historical outlook demonstrates that scientists operate in very different ways. The consequences for critical rationalism were devastating. Feyerabend argued that not only did scientists not operate in a Popperian fashion, but also, if they had followed Popper’s prescriptions, they would not have progressed to the same extent. PATRICK BAERT fieldwork This is a broad type of qualitative research also sometimes known as ethnography or as observation and participant observation. Regardless of the label, the research is based upon collecting information through observation of how people live “real life.” Fieldwork is a qualitative technique because the researcher is striving to obtain richly detailed information about the social situation they are interested in and will be using inductive methods of analysis to generalize from the data in order to develop conceptual ideas. Fieldwork can be grouped into three types, each with an increasing level of involvement and contact between researchers and their subjects. The observation of some ongoing social situation but without direct contact or involvement by the researcher. For example, I am interested in barbecue culture in the southern United States and decide to observe the interactions between customers and staff in Dizzy’s Bar-B-Q. With observant participation, the researcher begins to observe and collect information about fieldwork some ongoing social situation that s/he is already involved in during their normal everyday activities. That is, the researcher has to “step outside himself/herself” and begin to look at the everyday social environment from a new point of view – that of the researcher – and begin to apply techniques of observation, note-taking, and analysis. For example, I am a regular at Dizzy’s Bar-B-Q and decide to carry out a systematic observation of the interactions between the manager, employees, and customers. The advantages of observant participation are that researchers already have access and are their own source of insider knowledge. The disadvantage is that, unlike the observer coming from outside, one may find it difficult to switch to the role of a researcher. Things that have always been taken for granted may be important and can easily be overlooked. Where the researcher immerses him/herself in a social environment that is new to him/her: for example, getting a job in Dizzy’s in order to do research on southern barbecue culture. This immersion starts to give the researcher the same level of access and opportunity to gain insider knowledge but participant observation is more than that. It is the process of gradual internalization by the novice researcher of the cultural mores of the observed group that is the key to true participant observation and that makes it truly qualitative. The researcher is immersed in a social environment that is new to him/her, and the presumption is that they can be aware of how their own reactions and feelings alter as they become socialized. In effect, the researcher’s own feelings, and how they change, become data. A crucial decision the researcher must make is whether to reveal to those being observed that they are being researched – to carry out overt research – or to keep the research subjects unaware – to adopt a covert role. The advantages of a covert role include: (1) it may be impossible to observe some types of behavior or groups unless it is done covertly – when this is the case and the topic of research is sufficiently important, this can be a justification for covert research; (2) access, getting permission to carry out research, is not a problem if the research is covert – if no one knows you are doing it, obviously there is no problem; (3) people may behave differently if they know they are being researched – if they don’t know they are being observed, the problem of reactivity is avoided. There are a number of disadvantages to covert fieldwork, such as the practical difficulties and psychological costs of maintaining a front, but firms the main disadvantage of covert research is its questionable ethics. The research subjects are being deceived and their privacy may be invaded. Specifically, they obviously do not have the opportunity to give informed consent. ROBERT MILLER figurational sociology – see Norbert Elias. firms This is the organization of production of largescale enterprises, employing wage labor and financed by bank-credit money, and is a typical element of capitalism. This superseded various forms of domestic and household production in which work and the household are integrated, and production is financed entirely from saved income. There are three general theories of this development: (1) new institutional economics; (2) Weberian theories of bureaucracy; and (3) Marxist theories of exploitation. (1) New institutional economics is an attempt to explain social institutions as the result of rational economic maximization. If, as economic theory maintains, the market is the most efficient form of organization, why, the Nobel prize-winner Ronald Coase (1910– ) asked in 1935, do firms exist? Why did the large vertically integrated firm replace the putting-out system in which independent domestic producers were connected and coordinated by contractual market relations? Coase answered that firms exist when there is a cost to using the market mechanism. In a series of publications beginning with Markets and Hierarchies (1975), Oliver Williamson has elaborated this insight and integrated it with Alfred Chandler’s The Visible Hand (1977). Market relations incur “transactions costs.” For example, there may be only a few acceptable suppliers of raw material (“small numbers bargaining” and “asset specificity”) which may enable them to take advantage of a producer (“opportunism with guile”). These market relations can be controlled only by costly surveillance and legal contracts, which may be more efficient to replace by internalizing them into an integrated hierarchy. The firm replaces production chains and networks, as command and authority replace contract. Types of firm, varying by levels of backward or forward integration, may be placed on a continuum: from vertically integrated bureaucratic firms through looser structures such as franchising or dealerships. Transactions-cost economics is used to explain the transnational firm (see 205 firms transnational corporations); hierarchy is less costly than transnational contracts with spatially and culturally distant suppliers. Several problems persist with this analysis owing to an inadequate treatment of “hierarchy” as a structure of power, rather than as merely a rationally devised costreducing mechanism. Where does power to choose an organizational form come from? Large firms are not simply an alternative to costly market exchange, but a means of superseding the market to make monopoly profits, as argued in Giovanni Arrighi, The Long Twentieth Century (1994). (2) An alternative sociological explanation of the firm’s role in producing economic rationality is provided by Max Weber. In General Economic History (1927 [trans. 1981]), he contrasts the rationality of the capitalist firm with traditional workshop production and booty capitalism. Rationality is seen as the capacity to calculate and is linked to the use of double-entry bookkeeping to strike a balance (rational capital accounting). This capacity is structurally dependent on the bureaucratic firm. Like the modern state, the capitalist firm is a corporate body that becomes structurally differentiated from household and family, which enables the removal of arbitrary nonrational decisionmaking based on traditional norms and family ties. This is attributed in part to the use of external credit finance and the need for the precise calculation of returns due to nonfamily, as opposed to a share in the common family pot. This occurred most clearly in the West; for example, in trading associations – such as the ship’s company and the spreading of risk in commenda finance. This analysis remains relevant for modern debates. Is oriental family capitalism a viable alternative to the western model, or is it crony capitalism that impedes economic rationality? Similarly, is the joint-stock corporation, owned by outsiders, the most efficient form of organization? Weber appears to concur with modern economic analysis that the firm’s separation from family ownership creates a competitive market in which a firm’s market value, based on performance, is a means of monitoring the managerial bureaucracy. Formal rationality (calculation of profitability) has a substantive basis in the power and control that comes with the complete appropriation of nonhuman means of production and the formally free labor market. Capitalists and their managers can freely manipulate the production process, and hire and fire workers at will to maximize returns to capital (see Marxist theory below). The firm is an agency for calculation, not 206 firms (as in economic theory) an aggregation of calculating agents. Therefore, in contrast to the view of new institutional economics, the bureaucratic firm is not an alternative to the market, but the complementary location of economic rationality. For Weber it is a question of markets and hierarchies, not markets or hierarchies. (3) For Karl Marx, the capitalist firm exists in order to dominate and exploit wage labor. In his critique of classical economics, Marx made a distinction between labor and labor-power. The worker does not sell a fixed unit of labor input for a wage in an equal exchange. Rather, the worker sells, or alienates, labor power – or productive potential – to be organized by the capitalist. Labor not only exchanges effort for reward, but submits to domination in the labor process which enables the capitalist to extract surplus value through exploitation. Thus, the form taken by the capitalist firm is the means by which labor is transformed into capital. In “What Do Bosses Do? The Origins and Functions of Hierarchy in Capitalist Production,” in Anthony Giddens and David Held (eds.), Classes, Power and Conflict (1982), Stephen Marglin argues that the division of labor and the centralized hierarchical organization of the firm are not determined by technology, but by the need to create and accumulate capital. The bourgeoisie play its historic role by exploiting the workers in order to gain a competitive advantage and, in doing so, advances the means of production. In Labor and Monopoly Capital (1974), Harry Braverman distinguishes two central features of the capitalist firm: the social division of labor (occupations) and task specialization; and the separation of hand and brain through the deskilling and appropriation of the knowledge function in a management hierarchy. Both are determined by the need to maintain power and control in the firm. In Chaos and Governance in the Modern World System (2000), Giovanni Arrighi and Beverly Silver identify three dominant historical forms of capitalist firm. Each is associated with successive capitalist state hegemonies: (1) Dutch and English joint-stock chartered companies in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries; (2) British family-enterprise capitalism in the nineteenth century; and (3) American multidivisional, multi/ transnational corporations from the early twentieth century. Each attempted global monopolization of the most profitable activities; each was dependent to a significant degree on external financing; and, in the development of a contradiction, each comes to depend increasingly on, firms but is ultimately subversive of, hegemonic state power. (1) Joint-stock chartered companies had their origins in commenda-trading ship finance in Italian city-states such as Venice and Genoa during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The English East India Company (1600) and Dutch East Indies Company (1602) were granted monopoly charters by their respective states, which were not quite powerful enough to monopolize the trade themselves. These firms were a hybridization of capital and coercion. They internalized their protection costs with their own armies; but externalized transactions costs by organizing production in long chains of domestic production. That is to say, unlike earlier empires, these company states did not only exact tribute and taxes, or impose direct controls on an economy, but also financed and coordinated indigenous workshop/communal production into a chain, as in the European putting-out system. A dynamic Indian cotton industry exported to Europe. But there were two contradictions; the increasing coercion costs were borne by the Company, and its repatriated profits helped to transform the British textile industry which opposed the East India Company’s monopoly, which was consequently abolished in 1813. (2) Nineteenth-century British family-enterprise capitalism was based on the protection of global networks, undertaken by imperial powers, in which domestic production became linked to exploitation of empires’ primary products. European domestic production was transformed by mechanization, which facilitated the reorganization of proto-capitalist putting-out chains into factories that reduced transactions costs, and the subordination of the workers to a calculable regime of rigorous exploitation. As Adam Smith (1723– 90), and later Marx and Engels, observed, the intense competition, unchecked by state-controlled monopolies, and reduction of capital costs through mechanical innovation led to falling profits and a deflationary spiral, culminating in the sharp down-turn of the business cycle. (3) Modern corporations emerged at the top level of capitalist economies, most clearly in the United States, in the last quarter of the nineteenth century. They were large oligopolies or monopolies with bureaucratic management, separated to some degree from owners. From their inception, the American enterprises were multidivisional and multi/transnational. Two factors were involved. First, as Marx observed, incapable of raising enough capital for large-scale mass production technology, family capitalism was replaced by firms joint-stock corporations. Second, vertical integration of production chains in large corporations and horizontal combination in cartels were means of avoiding the earlier competition that had reduced profits to intolerable levels. Different paths were taken in dominant economies. In Germany, as part of a state-building process, there was horizontal and vertical integration in association with the big banks. Families retained some power via large banks and the state elite. This path was also characteristic of Japanese capitalism. Britain moved more slowly towards monopoly capitalism. A looser and more fragmented familybased structure persisted until after World War II. The City of London remained cosmopolitan and concerned with commercial and financial activity of the world as explained in Geoffrey Ingham, Capitalism Divided? (1984). In the United States, the bureaucratic, multidivisional, multi/transnational corporations based on mass production created a “second industrial revolution” (Chandler, The Visible Hand, 1977). Bureaucratic management first appeared in railroads and the telegraph, based on West Point military hierarchical command and control. It quickly spread to mass retail and mail order; Sears Roebuck was processing 100,000 orders per day by 1905. This was accompanied by the creation of the mass consumer by advertising and the “democratization of luxury,” according to Weber. A populist political backlash against banking “money trusts” produced a departure from the path taken in Germany to the joint-stock system of diffused mass stock/share ownership. The “roaring Twenties” culminated in the Wall Street Crash (1929) and were followed by the ideological relegitimization of capitalism, as occurred after the early 21st-century technology stock crash and the corporate frauds in Enron, Worldcom, and other corporations. In the 1930s, this involved the professionalization (see profession[s]) of management in Taylorism and scientific management. Managers were portrayed as the technically expert guardians of a “peoples’ capitalism,” in which dispersed shareholding separated ownership from (management) control. These vertically integrated enterprises gained competitive advantage by greater control and calculation of speed of throughput, based on a further reduction of transactions costs and an extension of control over labor by assembly-line technology. They were multinational from the outset. By 1914, American direct investment abroad, at 7 percent of Gross National Product, was as high as 207 firms in the 1960s; and, by the late 1920s, Ford and General Motors had firms in Britain and Europe. However, this mode of capitalist regulation, based on monopoly mass production and mass consumption could be limited, as John Maynard Keynes realized, by a lack of “effective demand.” The underconsumption/overproduction crises of the 1930s were overcome by the post WorldWar-II “warfare–welfare state,” based upon state expenditure and the United States’ bid for global dominance in order to capture foreign markets. For example, the United States government supported the European Common Market on condition that there was no discrimination against US multinationals. As before, the successful capitalist organizational innovation was emulated with varying degrees of success by competitors with similar results. There was an intensification of competition; but innovators of earlier developments in industrial organization may become locked in to a path dependency that inhibits the adoption of the next innovation. The French were quick learners and, under state direction, systematically set about Americanizing its industry. In contrast, the fate of the British automobile industry is testimony to continued difficulties with the adoption of large-scale organization and mass production. By the 1980s, it was argued, for example in Michael Piore and Charles Sabel, The Second Industrial Divide (1984), that the dominance of American “dinosaur” corporations was being overcome by new forms of organization: first, by flexible specialization and informal networks/alliances between small and medium-sized firms in local industrial districts; and, second, by the challenge of East Asian forms of industrial organization, especially Japanese “relational contracting” and “just-in-time” methods of vertically disintegrated production chains. American corporations responded to this competition by cutting costs with the “downsizing” and “delayering” of management and labor, in order to increase profitability and “stockholder value.” By the late 1990s, the large multi/transnational American enterprise had survived as the dominant form of organization. The modern capitalist enterprise is the site of a struggle for its economic surplus. Reliance on external finance from either banks or the stock market and the growth of managerial bureaucracy have rendered this conflict more complex than the conflict between capital and wage labor in the nineteenth-century family-owned firm, as outlined by Marx. This question of “ownership and control” or “corporate governance” was first 208 firms addressed in the stock-market-based American economy by Adolf Berle and Gardner Means, in The Modern Corporation and Private Property (1932). They asserted that stock ownership in almost half the largest American nonfinancial corporations was so dispersed that no “dominant” ownership interest was evident and, therefore, they must be controlled by the managers. Coming after the American Senate’s Pujo Committee’s (1913) critical, populist “money-trust” interpretation of US capitalism, and the Wall Street Crash, The Modern Corporation and Private Property conveyed a clear ideological message. “Managerialism” maintained that managers were neutral technocratic guardians of “peoples’ capitalism” in enterprises in which there was no inherent conflict of interest due to the widespread share ownership. Marxist analyses of twentieth-century capitalism have been influenced by Rudolph Hilferding’s Finance Capital (1910 [trans. 1981]), which analyzed the dominance of large banks in the German economy. Until recently, the “finance capital” interpretation was seen simply as an alternative to Berle and Means’s “bourgeois managerialism.” However, they are referring to two different patterns of corporate financing – bank lending and stock markets – and their effects on corporate governance. Research in the 1970s lent support to the “managerialist” account of the American economy. Echoing Keynes’s “euthanasia of the stockholder,” John Kenneth Galbraith (1908–2006) argued in his New Industrial State (1967) that the modern corporation was controlled by a managerial “technostructure.” Unlike owners with a direct financial stake – that is, families, stockholders, banks, and other financial interests – managers did not pursue profit maximization, but, rather, growth, sales, and prestige in order to consolidate their power and security. During this period of American “managed” monopoly capitalism after World War II, financial and creditor interests were less powerful. During the 1970s, however, a combination of falling profits, inflation, global recession, and a collapse of the stock market led to a reassertion of financial interests and a rebalancing of power between creditors, stockholders, managers, and workers. A new coalition of corporate managers, investment-fund managers, and stockholders aimed to “unlock shareholder value.” This new neoliberal settlement reestablished the dominance of financial interests as outlined in Geoffrey Ingham, The Nature of Money (2004), and Neil Fligstein, The Architecture of Markets (2001). In a firms wave of mergers, acquisitions, and hostile takeovers during the 1980s, managers’ interests were aligned with those of the stockholders with the use of stock options as managerial remuneration. Unsatisfactory performance brought the threat of a hostile takeover or of a “leveraged buyout” (LBO) by a new class of financial entrepreneurs such as Kohlberg Kravis Roberts. The resulting private companies fell under the financial discipline of the new owners and, with its management holding stock options, they released the “free cash flow” to shareholders. According to Doug Henwood in Wall Street (1997), “An LBO is a form of class struggle.” In The Political Determinants of Corporate Governance (2003), Mark Roe has extended this analysis and argued that the Anglo-American type of large corporation based on the separation of diffuse stockholder ownership and management control is incompatible with social democratic political systems based on high levels of employment security and welfare. In these circumstances, management and workers both benefit from the maximization of growth and employment rather than profits. Unless the interests of shareholders and management can be aligned as they were in the United States and Britain in the 1980s, then, shareholders will find it difficult to impose the changes that might maximize “shareholder value.” Strong social democracies, such as those of continental Europe, with high levels of welfare, job security, and takeover controls encourage management to define their interests in terms of security and the avoidance of risk and radical change. In order to resist this alliance of management and workers, ownership is more concentrated in the hands of banks and families – as in France, Germany, and Italy. On the basis of empirical evidence, Roe identifies two patterns of corporate governance and social democratic politics in the fifteen wealthiest nations during the post-World-War-II period: (1) diffuse ownership and low social democracy – for example, the United States, Britain; and (2) concentrated ownership and high social democracy – for example, Germany, Italy, France. Globalization appears to be changing the latter pattern. The deregulation of capital markets is leading to the erosion of concentrated bank and family ownership in national economies and stronger shareholder interests in the form of global investment funds. With the intensification of global competition, shareholder interests exert pressure to replace employment security and social welfare with economic “flexible” labor market policies. GEOFFREY INGHAM flexible specialization First Nations These are peoples asserting a common cultural and linguistic heritage and descent from common ancestors who were the original and enduring inhabitants of circumscribed territories later absorbed into modern states. Most broadly conceived, they constitute what is often called the Fourth World and include all of the aboriginal populations of the Americas and of Australia; the Inuit and Aleut peoples of the American and Eurasian Arctic; the transhumant pastoralists of Scandinavia, Russia, and the Balkans; minority populations of the insular Pacific such as the Japanese Ainu and natives of Hawaii; the Hmong of China and Laos; peoples of Africa such as the Pygmies, the Nuer, and the San; and many others. More narrowly conceived, they are those Native American peoples formerly referred to as “bands” that the government of Canada officially recognizes as being entitled in principle to selfgovernment. The term First Nations emerged in Canada during the later 1970s and its use is still far more common there than elsewhere. Native American bands began to adopt it as a selfdesignation in the course of asserting their right to be recognized as one of the “founding nations” of Canada, together with the English and the French. They effectively established it as a selfdesignation at the First Nations’ Constitutional Congress, convened by the now-defunct National Indian Brotherhood in 1980. There are currently more than 600 First Nations in Canada and their numbers are likely to grow as smaller and more scattered populations win governmental recognition in future decades. They do not, however, and probably will never include the Metis, a large population descending from unions between French colonists and Native Americans that is concentrated especially in the southeast of Canada and has episodically but enduringly cultivated a distinctive nationalism of its own. The situation of the Metis nevertheless points to one of the most controversial aspects of the very concept of “First Nations,” whether broadly or narrowly conceived – that of what degree of cultural and genealogical “purity” is necessary, and what other criteria are sufficient, to establish membership. JAMES D. FAUBION flexible specialization This term was introduced in the 1980s to redescribe a familiar type of labor process and to identify a new type of economic strategy in response to the crisis of Fordism. It refers to the 209 flexible specialization use of flexible machinery by skilled or craft labor to produce a wide range of products to exploit economies of scope. It is contrasted with Fordist mass production, which involves the use of dedicated machinery and plant by semi-skilled labor to produce long runs of standardized products to exploit economies of scale. It would be wrong to see these as the only types of labor process. There are many other ways to organize this, depending both on the nature of the products and on the dominant social relations. Michael Piore and Charles Sabel argued in The Second Industrial Divide: Possibilities for Prosperity (1984) that the growing displacement of craft production by mass production in the late nineteenth century was more the result of a paradigm shift produced by social and political struggles than to inherent technical superiority. They suggested that the crisis of Fordist mass production was an opportunity to revive craft production in the form of flexible specialization. And they also claimed that success in this regard would usher in a democratic republic of craft workers in control of their working lives, for flexible specialization reskills and empowers workers so that they were no longer simple appendages to the machine. This combination of advocacy and analysis has been a marked feature of the flexiblespecialization literature and makes it vital to distinguish between: (1) the theoretical and historical claims made for flexible specialization as an ideal type of production organization; and (2) the normative-political claims made for it as an idealized type of production organization that should therefore be adopted. Analysts and advocates of flexible specialization normally identify three variants: (1) a small-firm variant exemplified in the industrial districts characteristic of the Third Italy, an industrial region that was initially created in the 1950s and 1960s to foster co-operation between small, craftbased firms; (2) a West German model based on internal decentralization of large firms; and (3) the Japanese just-in-time production model based on large firms’ sponsorship of complex, multilayered subcontracting networks. In each case, productivity and innovation depend on collective efficiency and economies of scope in the use of flexible machinery and flexible labor. In the first variant, a key role is played by local authorities and consortia of small firms. The second and third variants, in contrast, involve the delegation of financial, marketing, and research services to a combination of semi-autonomous internal business units and cooperative external suppliers. 210 focus group These examples all involve “offensive flexibility,” that is, forms of flexibility that promote high-quality production and high productivity. There are also “defensive” forms that involve hire-and-fire labor markets, flexi-wages (including downward flexibility), and a focus on cost reductions. While offensive flexibility may prove sustainable in the medium term, defensive flexibility is more likely to be a short-term solution. BOB JESSOP focus group This research method is designed to generate data on group beliefs and group norms by capturing intra-group interaction in specially composed groups (a range of differently composed groups is normally required), where the researcher seeks to facilitate and record that interaction. Although methods akin to focus groups were used by academic sociologists researching the persuasiveness of United States government World War II propaganda, focus group methods are a crossover method from commercial market research. However, as Michael Bloor, Jane Frankland, Michelle Thomas, and Kate Robson have pointed out in Focus Groups in Social Research (2001), there is now a divergence between market research and academic social research in their uses of focus groups. The former primarily uses focus groups as a locale for conducting group interviews. In the latter, rather than conduct a question-and-answer session with the group, the facilitator seeks to generate intra-group discussions which are illustrative of group norms. A focus group should also be distinguished from a delphi group, a panel of experts which may be repeatedly consulted or reconvened to derive authoritative consensus statements of group belief or policy. Facilitators typically seek to generate a general discussion by asking the group to perform a set task, or focusing exercise. A common type of task is a ranking exercise, where the group will be asked to look at a series of statements and then rank them in order of correctness or importance. Fictitious vignettes may also be presented and the group may be asked to discuss what action the central character in the vignette should undertake next. Analysis of focus groups is normally based on the study of transcripts of audiorecordings. Email communication has permitted research using virtual focus groups, where the facilitator/moderator operates a closed email distribution list. Such groups can have many more participants than conventional focus groups folk religion and, of course, have no attendance and/or transcription costs. Focus groups are used more frequently as an ancillary method than as the main research instrument. They are often used in pilot studies for larger projects to collect data on group norms and on everyday language use, in order to assist in planning the next phase of the investigation. Focus groups are also often used at the close of projects to collect feedback from respondents on preliminary research findings. Whether or not it is preferable for focus group members to be known to each other has been a matter of controversy. It has been argued that, by recruiting from pre-existing friendship groups, work groups, and so on, focus group researchers may be able to tap into group interactions that approximate to naturally occurring data, which might otherwise be only slowly accumulated by an ethnographer. However, in research on sensitive topics there is a real danger of over-disclosure by animated participants. The fashionableness of focus group methods had looked set to wane due to difficulties with recruitment and analysis. But the development of virtual focus groups has ensured their continuing popularity. MICK BLOOR AND FIONA WOOD folk religion – see religion. folkways – see norm(s). food The economic, social, and symbolic significance of food is a highly complex interdisciplinary topic of study which sociology, understandably, has addressed in only some aspects, and then unevenly. The diversity and complexity of the topic has resulted in its analysis through many different theoretical lenses – of political economy, structuralism, feminism, poststructuralism, actor network theory, conventions theory – and via historical, institutional, and developmental approaches. For most people throughout history, food production has involved local, small-scale organization for household consumption, with the implication that what was eaten was seasonal and limited by geography and climate. Industrialization required, and supplied the means, to transform food production. Urban populations could not supply sufficient of their own raw materials, impelling changes in agricultural techniques and processes and new means of distribution. The food logic of industrial production also spread to food as a product. Now a substantial part of food production is organized on a global basis, by large corporations, operating internationally, to grow, process, and distribute foodstuffs. Rationalization of production results in less employment (see work and employment) in agriculture (a feature of all societies undergoing modernization), larger production units, and greater commodification of food provision. Contemporary agro-food studies encompass issues associated with rural and economic sociology in western societal contexts. Interest in the organization of rural communities has declined with the reduced size of rural populations and their lesser dependence on employment in agriculture. Instead attention has focused on the organization of the food industries, particularly the feature of organization into a chain of successive, non co-located, commercial episodes of production and exchange, of farming, processing, and retailing, each with intermediating processes of transportation and storage. Explaining the restructuring of these connections, which themselves vary for different types of produce, has generated competing theoretical frameworks of various provenance, including world system theory, regulation theory, commodity system and commodity chain analysis, a systems-of-provision approach, and later hybrid accounts paying greater attention to the impact of local and cultural diversity on food production. One consequence of the increasingly global span of the food chain is the greater visibility of the unevenly developed supply of adequate food. The highly secure, varied supply to the rich countries contrasts markedly with continued shortages and famines in other parts of the world. And even within the most affluent societies, though malnutrition as a consequence of poverty has mostly disappeared, there remain significant inequalities in access to diets of good-quality and nutritious foodstuffs. Food provision and preparation remains a key activity of households even in the industrial and post-industrial societies, because most eating occurs within the home and requires much domestic labor of shopping, preparation, cooking, and cleaning. Most work of this kind is done everywhere by women, part of the unequal division of labor which defines gender inequalities. Such work is integral to the reproduction and maintenance of family relations and family life, symbolizing belonging and care, and a source of emotional attachment and conflict. 211 food Eating is a fundamentally social activity; in general people have not preferred, and do not prefer, to eat alone. Households are defined for official purposes as those who eat together, and in societies where people live predominantly in elementary or nuclear families, the family meal has been seen as a central temporal and social organizing principle of everyday life. The extent to which it may be in decline has attracted much attention. Meals away from home, in restaurants, canteens, and other homes are also social events, ones which increase with industrialization and the growth of consumer services. The meal is a major social institution. All social groups have norms and conventions governing the social relations of commensality, concerning who should eat together and what foods are appropriate to which gatherings. These norms are partly definitive of relationships of intimate and distant kinship, friendship, and interaction with strangers. Norms of hospitality vary greatly between societies, ethnic groups, and social classes. What is considered fit and appropriate to eat varies between cultures and many societies have complex culinary conventions which comprise cuisines to which nations, ethnic groups, and social classes have strong symbolic attachments. Also, more elaborate cuisines develop in places with particular hierarchical types of social structure. For example, the French royal court not only ate differently from the peasantry but also was central to the refinement of table manners which Norbert Elias in The Civilizing Process (1939 [trans. 2000]) considered a key element of the western civilizing process. Cuisine types are now marketing devices for restaurants and cookery books, and although isolating precisely the defining characteristics of French, Persian, or Chinese food may be difficult, national and regional ways of selecting and preparing preferred ingredients persist, and indeed are often increasingly valued. The symbolic aspects of food have been most powerfully analyzed by anthropologists, but cultural sociology and sociology of consumption has increasingly become involved. Food preferences are made to reflect and indicate differences in class distinction and aesthetic taste, to express ethnic group membership, and also personal identity. Many eating events are now more informal than before. As foods become more highly processed and require less preparation – as with “fast food” and convenience foods – greater opportunities exist for people to adopt individualized habits of consumption. Meals are now less regular, 212 Foucault, Michel (1926–1984) uniform, and predictable. Also, it has become harder to justify what to eat and perhaps more necessary to do so in the face of unprecedented variety. This has gone along with perhaps some greater anxiety about food, symbolized, for example, by epidemics of anorexia and obesity. Anxieties are also apparent as a sense of risk arising from the technologies of food processing – additives, genetic modification, and so on. This has had an impact through food scares and crises of consumer trust which have in turn led to renewed effort being devoted by political authorities to legislation and regulation and restructuring of the activities of market actors. These are also increasingly prompted by social movements promoting new types of diet, for instance vegetarianism; new production standards as with organic foods; and styles of eating, for example the Slow Food Movement. People, either individually or through consumer associations, often with the collaboration of niche producers, attempt to modify and regulate their food consumption in accordance with their ethical and political principles, their attitudes towards body maintenance, and their aesthetic preferences. ALAN WARDE Fordism – see post-Fordism. formal organizations – see bureaucracy. Foucault, Michel (1926–1984) Foucault was born in Poitiers, France, and died at the age of fifty-seven from an AIDS-related illness. He studied both psychology and philosophy at the École Normale Supérieure and went on to teach psychology in a department of philosophy while also working as a researcher in a hospital in Paris. The latter posting provided the inspiration for his first book, Mental Illness and Psychology (1954 [trans. 1976]). Foucault continued this practice of simultaneously teaching and holding practical postings throughout his career, which allowed him to write Madness and Insanity in the Age of Reason (1961 [trans. 1965]), Birth of the Clinic: An Archaeology of Medical Perception (1963 [trans. 1973]), Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (1975 [trans. 1977]), and the volumes that constituted The History of Sexuality, such as The History of Sexuality Volume One: An Introduction (1976 [trans. 1978]); volume II, The Use of Pleasure (1984 [trans. 1985]), and The Care of the Self (1984 [trans. 1986]). Foucault, Michel (1926–1984) Foucault’s intellectual investigations originated with an inquiry into the ways in which scientific discourse shapes the boundaries between, and relationship of, good and evil, safety and danger, and health and illness. He observed that the development of microtechnologies of surveillance paved the way for society to act upon these ideas in order to control the behavior of individuals and diffuse norms among large groups. This creates what he termed an environment of panopticism, so titled after Jeremy Bentham’s (1748– 1832) eponymous prison in which inmates were subject to a regime of constant and complete surveillance. Ultimately, it was therefore not simply discourse, but the entire infrastructure of the rational, scientific face of governance, that was implicated in the dual processes of individuation and massing. In the twentieth century, these processes culminated in the installation of authoritarian regimes responsible for some of the most grievous atrocities humankind has visited upon itself. Equally crucial to Foucault’s thought was the tenet that science infuses social life with particularly powerful behavioral norms, therefore equipping individuals with technologies of the self that cause them to internalize social norms through which they become self-policing. Thus, even the most private acts become moments during which people reproduce cultural understandings of the normal or the decent, and the abnormal or the indecent. Technology permits those dangerous individuals who are not “selfdisciplining” to be disciplined by social institutions and the state. Hospitals, prisons, and insane asylums therefore function both to reinforce norms for those who might stray and to discipline the recalcitrant. Their logic and impact extends beyond their own walls creating a carceral society in which discipline is imposed on all individuals privy to public spectacles of punishment. Through his study of the natural and human sciences, Foucault was able to reveal the capillary nature of power. So, in his example, students submit willingly to examinations, disciplining themselves physically and mentally, even when they have no expectation of immediate, coercive punishment from a centralized authority. The implications of the capillary nature of power also allowed Foucault to reconceive the study of politics, and more specifically government, by indicating that it is the channels through which power flows, and the methods by which it is exercised, that ultimately constitute power. Governmentality is a set of successful techniques whose Foucault, Michel (1926–1984) ultimate achievement is control and political coordination of specific populations. In this view, the state is only the most readily apparent articulation of the larger process of governmentalization. Because Foucault was committed to demonstrating the manner in which the sciences are not abstracted academic pursuits, but rather important and unrecognized channels of power, his substantive and methodological projects are inextricably linked. Foucault’s most significant methodological injunction is that meaning must be sought by examining evidence not simply qua evidence, but rather as composed of organic artifacts laden with meaning beyond that explicitly stated by their authors. In the case of historical knowledge, we must be cognizant that history is a product as much of the present in which it is unearthed as the past that buried it. Meaning is revealed via an intricate process of what he initially termed archeology but later came to be known as genealogy. The idea of a legitimate authority of truth is debunked insofar as knowledge and those who seek it are each simultaneously the objects and tools of power. This renders the concept of academic disciplines one in which scientists discipline and are in turn disciplined by the subjects of their inquiries. Foucault himself rejected the claim that he was a structuralist, though many find his approach to show the influence of structuralist logic. Scholars of Foucault have also engaged in a heated debate about the intellectual coherence of his corpus. Some have argued that, contained within the entirety of his work, is an almost Rousseauian set of distinct and sometimes inconsistent strains of thought: one liberal and the other radical. The liberal Foucault views power more neutrally than does his more radically skeptical alter ego. To critics, this also indicates an important inconsistency in his understanding of power. Alternatively, the disaggregation of power from domination has the effect of redistributing the pejorative connotations others have associated with power. This makes room for a more normatively neutral and less fatalistic vision of human interaction, which both rescues Foucault from internal contradiction and opens avenues for the study of how individuals exercise power in ways that resist domination. Foucault attributed to his own work influences that included Friedrich Nietzsche, Max Weber, Theodor Adorno, and Max Horkheimer. In turn his legacy has shaped the contributions of innumerable social scientists, notable among them 213 Frank, André Gunder (1929–2005) Frankfurt School Pierre Bourdieu, Anthony Giddens, Nancy Fraser, of heterodox Marxist theorists, including Theodor and Edward Said. His intellectual presence is felt Adorno, Walter Benjamin, Herbert Marcuse, Frethroughout the social sciences and remains both particularly strong and controversial in the fields of cultural geography, discourse analysis, criminology, and the sociology of medicine. ELIZABETH F. COHEN Frank, André Gunder (1929–2005) Born in Berlin and educated at the University of Chicago where he obtained his PhD in Economics in 1957 for his dissertation on Soviet agriculture, Frank went to Latin America in 1962 where he taught at the University of Brasilia. In 1965 he moved to the National Autonomous University of Mexico, and in 1968 he was a professor of sociology at the University of Chile, where he became involved in the social reforms of the Salvador Allende administration, and, after the military coup in 1973, he escaped to Europe where he became Visiting Research Fellow at the MaxPlanck Institute in Starnberg, Germany, from 1974 to 1978. In the years leading up to his retirement in 1994, he held many professorial appointments in Britain, Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and the United States. Frank published extensively but his principal contribution was to the emergence of development theory in which he was a critic of modernization. He argued that development was not a unilinear or inevitable process from tradition to modernity, because the developed world caused the underdevelopment of peripheral economies and societies. These critical assessments of the impact of capitalism in Latin America appeared in Capitalism and Underdevelopment in Latin America (1969) and Dependent Accumulation and Underdevelopment (1978). He was critical of the western bias in economic history and historical sociology, and in ReOrient: Global Economy in the Asian Age (1998) he sought to re-assess the independent growth of Asian economies before the age of western imperialism. BRYAN S. TURNER Frankfurt School Although there was no “School” in the sense of any agreed body of theory and research, the term Frankfurt School is associated with theorists of the Institut für Sozialforschung (Institute of Social Research), founded in Frankfurt in 1923 and at first directed by an orthodox Marxist, Carl Grünberg (1861–1940). In 1930 Max Horkheimer assumed control and promoted interdisciplinary research guided by a broadly Marxist social philosophy. The Institute attracted a diverse group 214 drick Pollock, Franz Neumann (1900–54), and Leo Lowenthal (1900–93), who, between the 1930s and 1960s, developed distinctive critical analysis of western capitalism and culture, drawing insights from many sources, including Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Immanuel Kant (1724– 1804), Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900), Max Weber, Georg Simmel, Sigmund Freud, and Jewish philosophy. In 1937 Horkheimer expounded the concept of critical theory, as a programmatic statement of his philosophy, which was to become one of the most influential social theories of the twentieth century. In opposition to “contemplative theory,” or detached observation of the world, Critical Theory would seek engagement with radical sources of critique and emancipatory practice, building into its concepts the possibility of a better society. However, by the 1930s the world had changed dramatically from that represented in the classical Marxist critique of capitalism. World War I had demonstrated the capacity for mass destruction created by technological warfare and unsettled belief in progress though the development of technology and science. The failure of revolutionary movements in western Europe and the success of the Russian Revolution created a new global polarization compounded by the consequent fission of the left into democratic socialist and communist parties, and the dominance of fascism over much of Europe. Further, the increasing complexity of capitalist economies, the emergence of new mass communications media (see mass media and communications), and the increasing role of the state in the economy meant that the Marxist notions of class formation and class-consciousness needed rethinking. In particular these developments made the possibility of successful proletarian revolution uncertain. However, the “death of the proletariat” motif in Critical Theory should not be exaggerated; in 1941 Horkheimer wrote the optimistic revolutionary essay “The Authoritarian State,” invoking the “trailblazing” tradition of workers’ councils going back to 1871, which was imminently to sweep aside the authoritarian state. Even so, in Dämmerung (1934), Horkheimer had suggested that there were “subtle apparatuses” (education and mass media) working to protect capitalism against revolutionary consciousness. Indeed, in a world dominated by totalitarianism (Stalinist and fascist) on the one hand, and the mass culture industry on the other, any belief in the Frankfurt School redemptive potential of class struggle appeared naive. Any revolutionary cultural or political impulse risked being incorporated and becoming itself an instrument of domination. Thus, according to Adorno, as the practical possibilities of emancipation are closed off, “philosophy returns to itself.” Karl Marx’s early works such as Hegel’s Philosophy of Right had talked about the utopian core of Hegelian philosophy being “realized,” that is instantiated, through the real-life struggles of the working class. But by the 1940s the realization of this “moment” of history had been missed and the urgent task of Critical Theory was to keep alive the possibility of critical thought at all, by developing perspectives that critique the world from the standpoint of a future emancipated society. One such influential and controversial critique was that of the popular culture industry epitomized in big band jazz and the Hollywood cult of stardom. As culture was produced for a mass market, the commodity form entered the very process of creation or composition of works of art, thereby undermining their aesthetic form. This development created an uncritical and soporific culture reconciled to the status quo that lacked the glimpse offered by aesthetic experience into the possibility of a non-alienated existence. Unlike orthodox Marxism, Critical Theory was receptive to Freudianism. A distinctive feature of Frankfurt research was the combination of class analysis with analysis of the psychodynamics of the family and authority. This theme came to the fore after 1933, when the Institute was forced to leave Nazi Germany, and functioned in exile in Geneva, then New York, and finally California. Marxism and psychoanalysis were combined with empirical social psychology to generate a new theory of authoritarianism (the authoritarian personality) and critical reflection on the fate and direction of western modernity. This combined several themes of Frankfurt thinking, in particular the economic and cultural logics of late capitalism, the psychosocial processes of authority and family, and their relationship to mass culture and consumption. In Dialectic of Enlightenment (1944 [trans. 1973]), Horkheimer and Adorno located the origins of domination deep in human history, at the point at which scientific calculating reason was deployed to overcome the forces of nature, which were often symbolized in myths. In the process of enlightenment, on which cultural modernity is based, instrumental calculating reason (Verstand) Frazier, E. Franklin (1894–1962) gained dominance over objective reason (Vernunft), which could pose questions about the rationality of social institutions. The consequence of this was that ultimate questions about the worth of human societies were deemed “irrational,” and all values (whether fascist or liberal, for example) became matters of personal decision rather than objective judgment. The Culture Industry contributes further to this degeneration of public life. By 1953 the Institute was able to move back to the University of Frankfurt in Germany, where Adorno assumed a co-directorship with Horkheimer in 1955. He died in 1969 and Horkheimer in 1973. The Institute of Social Research continued but what was known as the “Frankfurt School” did not. Critical Theory has continued as an increasingly diverse body of theory with less direct connection with Frankfurt. The most significant figure in this phase was Jürgen Habermas, who studied philosophy and sociology at the Institute in the 1960s and returned to a chair at the University of Frankfurt in 1982. Over four decades of work, Habermas has drawn on virtually the whole corpus of social theory and philosophy to develop a comprehensive Critical Theory that remains critical of the commercial and technocratic colonization of the public sphere yet locates new sources of rational critique and emancipatory practice. In particular he has sought to defend aspects of the Enlightenment tradition associated with modernity that he considers to be constructive and emancipatory from what he sees as their premature rejection by an earlier Critical Theory. LARRY RAY Frazier, E. Franklin (1894–1962) In 1948 Edward Franklin Frazier was elected President of the American Sociological Association, at a time when the United States had not begun to deal with its racism. The high regard in which academic sociology held this black man was founded on Frazier’s broad learning and pathbreaking scholarship, which led to eight books, of which two are classics, The Negro Family in the United States (1939) and Black Bourgeoisie (1957). Both were years ahead of their time in sociology’s attempt to understand the strengths of the black family and the weaknesses of the black bourgeoisie. After attending Baltimore schools, Frazier was a student at Howard University (BA, 1916), after which he taught mathematics, history, English, and French at several schools, including Tuskegee Institute. His interest in sociology dates to graduate work at Clark University (MA, 1919), then to 215 Freud, Sigmund (1856–1939) further study at the New York School of Social Work (1920–1) and the University of Copenhagen (1921–2). Frazier then taught at Morehouse College, Atlanta University, and the Atlanta School of Social Work. He was forced to flee Atlanta when white racists were provoked by his 1927 essay “The Pathology of Race Prejudice.” He then pursued doctoral studies in sociology at the University of Chicago (PhD, 1931). After teaching at Fisk University (1929–34), Frazier began his long tenure in sociology at Howard University, from which he retired in 1959. An academic at heart, Franklin always put his learning to use in public service and race politics. CHARLES LEMERT Freud, Sigmund (1856–1939) The founder of psychoanalysis, Freud was born in Freiberg, a part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. A studious child, he undertook medical training in 1881, and subsequently pursued his clinical interest in hysteria with a colleague, Josef Breuer (1842–1925). Studies in Hysteria (1895 [trans. 1957]), the book that emerged from the researches of Freud and Breuer, developed a path-breaking theory, one that underscored the central role of sexual memories in the formation of mental disturbance. The work laid a skeletal structure for the theoretical development of psychoanalysis, which emerged in 1900 with the publication of Freud’s The Interpretation of Dreams (1900 [trans. 1958]). Therapeutically, Freudian psychoanalysis is perhaps best known as the “talking cure” – a slogan used to describe the magical power of language to relieve mental suffering. Theoretically, psychoanalysis is rooted in a set of dynamic models relating to the human subject’s articulations of desire. Freud’s originality is to be found in his analysis of the unconscious as repressed. In his celebrated essay “The Unconscious” (1914) in The Standard Edition of the Complete Works of Sigmund Freud, vol. XIV, he argued that the individual’s selfunderstanding is not immediately available to itself, that the human subject is itself split, torn between consciousness of self and repressed desire. In discussing human subjectivity, Freud divides the psyche into the unconscious, preconscious, and conscious. The preconscious can be thought of as a vast storehouse of memories, most of which may be recalled at will. In contrast, unconscious memories and desires are cut off, or buried, from consciousness. We become the identities we are, in Freud’s view, because we have inside us buried identifications 216 friendship with people we have previously loved (and also hated), most usually our parents – and particularly the mother. The breakup of our primary emotional tie to the maternal body is, for Freud, the founding moment not only of individuation and differentiation, but also of sexual and gender difference. Loss and gender affinity are directly linked in Freud’s theory to the Oedipus complex, the psyche’s entry into received social meanings. For Freud, the Oedipus complex is the nodal point of sexual development, the symbolic internalization of a lost, tabooed object of desire. In the act of internalizing the loss of the pre-Oedipal mother, the infant’s relationship with the father (or, more accurately, symbolic representations of paternal power) becomes crucial for the consolidation of both selfhood and gender identity. Freud’s writings show the ego not to be master in its own home. The unconscious, repression, libido, narcissism: these are the core dimensions of Freud’s psychoanalytic dislocation of the subject. Freud’s dislocation of the subject reemerges in various guises in contemporary sociological theory. In the critical theory of the Frankfurt School, it is part of an attempt to rethink the powerlessness of identity in the face of the objectifying aspects of contemporary science, technology, and bureaucracy. For Jürgen Habermas, it is a series of claims about the nature of distorted intersubjective and public communication as a means of theorizing repressive ideologies. For Jacques Lacan, it is a means for tracing imaginary constructions of self-concealment, as linked to the idea that language is what founds the repressed unconscious. ANTHONY ELLIOTT friendship This concept played an important role in ancient philosophy, where the virtues of loyalty and trust were seen to be pre-eminently displayed in relations between friends. Friendship designated a social relation that is neither instrumental nor selfish. In contemporary philosophy, there has been a renewed interest in the ethical nature of friendship, for example in L. Blum, Friendship, Altruism and Morality (1980). In The Care of the Self (1984 [trans. 1986]), Michel Foucault examined the Roman conception of friendship between a man and a woman, and between men and boys. In this classical conception, a manly affection for a young boy could exist through life, and was not subject to the vagaries of aging. In Homeric Greek, according to E. Beneviste in Indo-European Language and Society (1969 [trans. 1973]), philos (friend) was closely friendship connected with aidos (reverence or respect), indicating that a bond of friendship was defined by a strong sense of obligation. There was also an obligation of friendship towards a “gueststranger” (xenos). Although in contemporary society, friendship implies an intimate, close, and private, but not sexual, relationship, in Greek society the word philia covered a range of relationships, including passionate and erotic ones. Aristotle distinguished between friends of utility, pleasure, and virtue, and, in the latter, friendship involved the whole person. In the Nichomachean Ethics, Aristotle claimed that friendship as a universal emotion forms the basis of the polis. Plato also saw friendship as the basis of harmony and consensus, and hence necessary to politics. Although friendship can therefore be treated as quintessentially ethical, political philosophy has been primarily interested in the relationship between friendship and government. In Redeeming American Political Thought, J. N. Shklar, in the chapter on “A Friendship” (1998), discussed the complex relations between politics and friendship, noting that there are obvious tensions between loyalty to a friend and to government. With some important exceptions, such as Ray Pahl’s On Friendship (2000), the topic has been somewhat neglected in sociology. When friendship is analyzed by sociologists, it is typically in the context of the study of privacy and intimacy. For example, Barrington Moore, in his study of Privacy (1984), examined the ambiguities of friendship in classical society. Aspects of friendship have also been analyzed in exchange theory, in, for example, George Homans’s Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms (1961) and Peter M. Blau’s Exchange and Power in Social Life (1964). In the perspective of exchange theory, people make and keep friends because they are useful or rewarding. These theories implicitly accepted Aristotle’s definition of friendships of utility, thereby admitting that by the 1960s friendship had become a commodity. The corrosion of friendship in modern society is an implicit topic of recent research on emotions. In a consumer society, where emotional work (for example of air-hostesses) involves the production of fleeting intimacy for cash, friendliness is commercialized. For example, in Postemotional Society (1997), S. Mestrovic argues that synthetic, quasi-emotions become the basis for manipulation in public life. The commercialization of friendship represents a form of alienation. In summary, friendship has been important in philosophy but not in sociology. This neglect is functional theory of stratification curious given the fact that sociology is literally the study (logos) of companionship or friendship (socius), pointing once more to the notion that friendship is the ultimate root of both the polity and the community. In Latin, the idea of civis is best translated as “fellow-citizen” or companion. BRYAN S. TURNER Fromm, Erich (1900–1980) A psychoanalyst and philosopher, Fromm was for a time associated with the Frankfurt School, though they split acrimoniously in the early 1940s. Fromm developed a theory of the cultural roots of personality, organized around the ideas of freedom and autonomy. The scope of freedom in human societies emerges historically and appears most strongly with modern individualism, but living with freedom is difficult and people seek means of escape in ways that are set during socialization. These include, first, authoritarianism, of which the most extreme forms are masochism and sadism, although milder versions are widespread. Second, destructiveness, which can be outwardly directed through brutality or inwardly directed in, for example, drug addiction, alcoholism, and passive entertainment. Third, automaton conformity escapes from freedom through submission to social hierarchies or by following the dictates of mass cultural forms of fashion and style. This is the dominant form of personality in modern society. In these strategies for escaping freedom, people become alienated from themselves. Finally, there is potentially the productive and loving personality type in which freedom is accepted – this would be developed in a humanistic socialist society. In later work Fromm brought together psychoanalytical insight and evidence from physical anthropology to develop the concept of a “necrophilous personality” (such as Adolf Hitler [1889–1945] and Joseph Stalin [1879–1953]), passionate to transform life into death. Major works include Escape from Freedom (1941), Man for Himself (1947), The Art of Loving (1956), The Sane Society (1955), and Anatomy of Human Destructiveness (1973). LARRY RAY functional theory of stratification At the heart of the functional theory of stratification is the argument that structured social inequality, that is the differential allocation of social rewards and facilities, enhances social efficacy and social integration. This is both its (seldom realized) “social purpose” and “social cause”; stratification, in turn, has become universal because it engenders “evolutionary advantage.” 217 functional theory of stratification We owe the classical formulation of allocative functionalism to Kingsley Davis and Wilbert Moore. In “Some Principles of Stratification,” in the American Sociological Review (1945), they argued that in all complex societies the functional importance of social positions and social roles vary. Some positions are more strategically important than others, and they require special and rare talents and skills. Because such talents and skills are scarce, and because they typically require long and costly training, there have to be incentives for their display and cultivation. Differential rewards inherent in stratification systems provide such incentives for cultivating knowledge, skills, and talents. Similarly, the optimal allocation of the best candidates to the most important jobs and continuous motivation of incumbents to perform well require differential rewards. Societies that fail to develop such a system of functional stratification lose efficacy, and they are in a position of disadvantage in developmental competition. Thus there are a number of preconditions of socially functional stratification – and a number of criticisms directed at functional arguments: (1) The reward structure has to reflect accurately the social consensus as to which roles and positions are more, and which less, strategically important. Critics point out that this assumption is unrealistic. (2) Rewards should effectively attract the best incumbents and motivate them in their performance. According to critics, incompetent elites prove that this condition is seldom met. (3) The recruitment process has to be open and merit-based. In functionally stratified systems there is no place for inheritance, ascription, and closure. This claim produced the most serious bone of contention between functionalists and their critics. While Davis and Moore recognized that inheritance and ascription persist, and it weakens the functionality of stratification, they nevertheless disagreed with those critics who argued that functional theory was unrealistic. The critics also question the functionalist explanation of the universality of stratification. Since functional principles are similar in most societies, one would expect to find similarities in stratification systems, at least among contemporary societies at a similar level of development. Yet one of the striking features of modern societies has been a broad diversity of social hierarchies – a fact that contradicts allocative functionalism. 218 functionalism These criticisms resulted in a gradual eclipse of allocative functionalism. In the 1960s–1970s a more sophisticated Parsonian version of integrative functionalism gained a currency among sociologists. Talcott Parsons suggested that functionality of stratification systems consisted in strengthening social integration around core values. Differential rewards, according to Parsons, contribute to such integration by rewarding commitments to central societal values. Stratification also contributes to effective value socialization, because it increases the transparency of the core value standards according to which social rewards are allocated. Thus the system of structured inequalities strengthens value integration and aids value socialization. JAN PAKULSKI functionalism Functionalists argue that society should be understood as a system of interdependent parts. The different parts of social life depend on each other and fulfill functions contributing to social order and its reproduction. Functionalism can be traced to Émile Durkheim and Herbert Spencer. The anthropologists Bronislaw Malinowski and Alfred Radcliffe-Brown (1881– 1955) drew on Durkheim to develop a distinctive form of functionalist anthropology in the early twentieth century. Functionalism came to prominence as a school of sociology in the United States in the 1950s. It was associated with Talcott Parsons and Robert Merton, although they differed in approach. From the 1960s, functionalism was subjected to major criticism and few sociologists defended it until the 1980s when Jeffrey Alexander identified a convergence with functionalism by erstwhile critics such as Jürgen Habermas, Anthony Giddens, and Margaret Archer. Functionalism departs from the traditional logic of causal argument where a cause should precede its consequences. Functionalists identify a causal loop or feedback linking cause and effect. When an anthropologist asks “why do the Hopi dance for rain?” a functionalist considers the consequence of the dance and notes that it maintains group solidarity. The functionalist concludes that if the rain dance did not have this positive function it would not be reproduced. Functionalists are aware of illegitimate teleology, arguing that the explanation of the origins of a practice should be distinguished from that of its reproduction. Radcliffe-Brown distinguished sharply between diachronic and synchronic analysis, between the analysis of change in a system and the analysis of the interaction among parts functionalism of a system at a moment in time. The latter was the proper domain of functional analysis. Malinowski argued that all societies have to meet some universal and interconnected requirements – as well as group solidarity, economic subsistence, social control, sexual reproduction, socialization and education of new generations, and the management of sickness and death – and that these can form the basis for comparison. Parsons was influenced by Malinowski, but believed his identification of functions to be ad hoc, arguing that functions must be theoretically specified in a general framework. For Parsons, there are four different interconnected systems bearing upon human action: the human organism, the individual personality, the social system, and the cultural system. The behavioral organism is concerned with the human body as the primary vehicle for engaging the physical environment; that of personality corresponds to the individual actor viewed as a system. It includes conscious and unconscious motivations (or need dispositions). Actors respond not only to positive rewards, but also to internalized feelings of guilt, anxiety, and the need for approval. The social system is a system of positions and roles organized by expectations and maintained by sanctions; the culture system refers to the symobls and meanings that are drawn upon by actors in the pursuit of their personal projects. Parsons’s primary focus is the social system. He proposed four functional imperatives necessary to its constitution and operation (the A-G-I-L scheme). Adaptation is concerned with relationships to external environments and the utilization of resources in the pursuit of goals. Goal attainment is concerned with the direction of systems towards collective goals. Integration refers to the maintenance of coordinated relationships among the parts of the system, while latency, or patternmaintenance, describes the symbolic order in terms of mutually reinforcing meanings and typifications. The A-G-I-L scheme also allows the classification of societies in terms of the level of structural differentiation or institutional specialization around functions – for example, the extent to which political institutions are separated from economic institutions, or economic institutions separated from the household. The idea of the “superiority” of higher over lower stages of developmental complexity carries the implication of evolutionary change, where better-adapted forms are realized out of the deficiencies of “lesser” forms. Modernity – more substantively, functionalism the United States, which Parsons called the new “lead” society – is the culminating stage of development. This seemed to critics to be an extreme form of teleology, one that revealed an ideological bias inherent in a scheme that Parsons had presented as the “indispensable logical framework in which we describe and think about the phenomena of action” (The Structure of Social Action, 1937: 733). While Parsons regarded functionalism as part of a unified general theory, Merton saw it as an adjunct to the development of empirically grounded theories of the middle range. His argument, originally in 1949 in “Manifest and Latent Functions” and reprinted in Social Theory and Social Structure (1968), was taken to be a veiled criticism of Parsons, especially the latter’s emphasis on integration. Merton identified three unsatisfactory postulates of functionalism: the functional unity (or integration) of a society, universal functionalism, and indispensability. According to Merton, it may be that some nonliterate societies show a high degree of integration, but it is illegitimate to assume this would pertain to all societies. It is also possible that what is functional for society, considered as a whole, does not prove functional for individuals or for some groups within the society, and vice versa. This suggests that, alongside the concept of function, it is necessary to have a concept of dysfunction – that is, where the consequences of an item are negative for some individuals or groups. For Merton, persisting forms have a net balance of functional consequences, either for society considered as a whole or for sub-groups. Finally, it is necessary to distinguish between functional prerequisites – preconditions functionally necessary for a society – and the social forms that fulfill those prerequisites. While the former are indispensable, it is not required that particular forms meet those functions. There are always alternative ways of meeting any particular function. Each of Merton’s qualifications was designed to transform the postulates into variables. As a form of methodological holism, functionalism was criticized by methodological individualists, such as George Caspar Homans or Peter M. Blau, working within the exchange-theory perspective. Functionalism was also criticized by conflict theorists such as John Rex and Ralph Dahrendorf, for its neglect of power, though the criticism was more aptly applied to Parsons and his definition of functions in terms of the generalized collectivity. Merton’s more empirical approach had asked “functional for whom?” David 219 fundamentalism Lockwood sought to reformulate functionalism in order to allow a concept of system contradiction. Alvin Gouldner argued that functionalism was an ideological expression of welfare capitalism. JOHN HOLMWOOD fundamentalism Combining both political and religious radicalism, fundamentalism constitutes a distinct, specific, modern social movement and ideology, promulgating adherence to a strict and intense interpretation of a scripture or holy text. Although it is a reaction against the secular dimensions of modernity, it cannot be regarded as a traditional movement. It developed in the late nineteenth century, first in the United States, and then spread, especially in the last decade of the twentieth century, to a variety of Protestant, Jewish, and Muslim communities around the world. Among such movements, it is important to consider the American Council of Christian Churches, founded in 1941, and the more recent Christian Coalition founded in 1989, the Gush Emunim (Block of the Faithful) and various ultra-orthodox movements (both non-Zionist and anti-Zionist) in Israel from the 1970s onwards, and many similar movements in the Muslim world which developed in the nineteenth century, blossoming in the last decades of the twentieth century. The most successful among these movements was the Iranian Revolution (1978–9) which was led by the Ayatollah Khomeini (1900–89). With the exception of movements in the United States and more recently Europe, most of these fundamentalist movements developed in those states which were established, like the Kemalist government of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk (1881– 1938) in Turkey, after World War I, or in the colonial-imperial states, which were constituted by the various national movements after World War II. Social groups which were dislocated from their respective traditional settings, and drawn into modern frameworks, formed a central component of these movements. These social groups often advanced within a modern context – for example, the experience of social progress among many Muslim women in Iran, Turkey, or Egypt – but they also felt culturally dislocated in these settings and often alienated from them. In the Islamic movements, the confrontation with secular modernity constituted a central component of these movements. In all these societies and historical settings, the fundamentalist groups constitute what we may 220 fundamentalism call “Jacobin movements,” that is totalistic or totalitarian movements. These totalitarian tendencies were rooted in the Jacobin tradition that emerged in the French Revolution of 1789, which promulgated the total reconstitution of man. Jacobinism, named after the Jacobin club, was a society of deputies, which acted to concentrate power and which believed that the truth of its vision of society was sufficient to guarantee its authority. Jacobinism can also be seen in the high level of political mobilization in the period between the two world wars, which represented a major challenge to the pluralistic constitutional regimes of the democracies. The tendency towards Jacobinism can also be seen in various communist regimes. Therefore, contrary to the widely accepted wisdom of many interpretations, these fundamentalist movements are not traditional or antimodern religions but distinctively sectarianutopian, modern, Jacobin movements which promulgate an ideological and essentialist conception of tradition. Fundamentalist ideologies, movements, and regimes share, with other Jacobin developments such as Communism and utopian sects, the tendency to promulgate a strong vision or gospel of salvation, which is combined with a total worldview, the implementation of which is to take place in this world and in the present. The institutionalization of such totalitarian visions entails the establishment, through the powerful mobilization to political action of an existing social order, of collective and individual symbols of identity, and the constitution of sharp social boundaries between the pure inside and the polluted outside. Such political actions often involve the sanctification of violence and terror, oriented above all against both internal and external evil forces and enemies. From the fundamentalist perspective, the enemy is typically seen to be rooted in the secular dynamics of modern society, that is the West, the United States, or Israel. This modern Jacobin mobilization of fundamentalist movements and regimes is often combined, paradoxically, with anti-modern, or at least an anti-liberal, ideology. This contradictory combination of the modern and the traditional is most clearly expressed in the fundamentalist attitude to women. On the one hand most of these movements promulgate a strong patriarchal, antifeminist attitude, segregating women and men, and placing far-reaching restrictions on the former. At the same time, and in stark contrast fundamentalism to traditional regimes, these modern fundamentalist movements mobilize women in the public sphere through demonstrations, paramilitary organizations, and religious associations, and in the central political arena through elections to parliament. Although they can often appear to be seemingly traditional, in fact, these movements are in some paradoxical ways anti-traditional. They negate the living traditions of popular and folk religions, with all their inevitable cultural complexity, changeability, and heterogeneity, in their respective societies. Instead they uphold a highly ideological and essentialist conception of tradition as an overarching ideological principle couched in a modern idiom, with a strong emphasis on mobilization, participation, and the organizational dimensions of modern political programs. These decidedly modern components of fundamentalist movements and regimes can also be seen in some aspects of their institutionalization as regimes, namely in the continuation, albeit with strong Jacobin components, of modern institutions such as political constitutions. The majilis parliament in Iran following the Revolution fundamentalism basically had no roots in traditional Islam, and the elections to the parliament are illustrations of this. Thus these fundamentalist movements do not overtly and consciously promulgate modernity, but rather attempt to appropriate modernity on their own terms. The approach of these movements to tradition is also manifest in their attitudes to the more conservative religious leaders and establishments, as well as to the more popular manifestations of tradition. They also typically involve some degree of distance and separation beween young generations of fundamentalists and their traditionalist parents or grandparents, who come to be regarded as a cohort who are or were not pure enough in their lifestyles and everyday life. Although these fundamentalist movements and regimes appear to have been politically successful in many respects, they have also faced some distinctively modern problems, which have attended their institutionalization. These problems are in fact manifestations of the basic tensions which are the legacy of their Jacobinism and their acceptance of the basic institutional frameworks of modernity. S. N. EISENSTADT 221 G Gadamer, Hans-Georg (1900–2002) game theory Hans-Georg Gadamer made a substantial contribution to hermeneutic philosophy. Born in 1900 in Marburg, he studied under Martin Heidegger and also attended the lectures of Edmund Husserl. Gadamer’s professional life was spent mainly in Germany, although after his retirement from his Chair in Philosophy at Heidelberg in 1968 he took up various visiting posts abroad. In the course of the 1970s sociologists became increasingly interested in hermeneutics, hence there was a growing interest in Gadamer’s writings. Gadamer’s main book is Truth and Method (1960 [trans. 1975]). In this book, Gadamer distanced himself from the emphasis on method in nineteenthcentury hermeneutics; like Heidegger, Gadamer heralded the “ontological turn.” He criticized philosophers of the Enlightenment for failing to appreciate the pivotal role of tradition in knowledge acquisition. He saw understanding as a dialogical process in which we draw on our presuppositions to make sense of other people, but these presuppositions are themselves affected by this encounter. Gadamer talked about a “fusion of horizons” to hint at the dialogical nature of the interaction between the reader and the text, or the observer and observed. Gadamer applied his hermeneutic approach to medicine and medical practice in The Enigma of Health (1996 [trans. 1993]). In the late 1960s, Jürgen Habermas engaged in a debate with Gadamer. For Habermas, Gadamer was right to point out the limitations of positivism, but his plea for hermeneutic understanding lacks a critical edge. Gadamer’s reply was that Habermas failed to acknowledge that his own critical standpoint is itself embedded in tradition. Later, Richard Rorty’s argument for an edifying philosophy, beyond epistemology, drew on Gadamer’s dialogical model. Gadamer also inspired Charles Taylor’s philosophy of social sciences, in particular its reflexive component. This is a mathematical tool for modeling social conflict and cooperation among two or more players, where payoffs for a given strategy depend in part on the strategies of other players. This strategic interdependence can be represented as a payoff matrix (the “normal form” for simultaneous moves by the players) or as a decision tree (the “extensive form” for sequential moves). Strategic interdependence allows for two types of games. In zero-sum games, a gain for one player is always a loss for the partner, which precludes the possibility of cooperation for mutual gain. In positive-sum games, everyone can gain through cooperation, defined as a strategy combination that is Pareto-efficient (see Vilfredo Pareto) (any improvement for some would come at someone else’s expense). Nevertheless, cooperation may fail for two reasons: the fear of being “suckered” by the partner and the temptation to cheat. These failures can be avoided in two ways, through enforceable contracts that preclude “cheating” (“cooperative games”) and through collusion (in “noncooperative games”). A cooperative game consists of a set of players and a value function that assigns a value to every possible coalition of players based on the total amount of transferable utility the players of that coalition can distribute. Sociologists such as F. J. Bienenstock and P. Bonacich have used the cooperative-game paradigm to study the effects of network structure on power inequality in social exchange (“The Core as a Solution to Negatively Connected Exchange Networks,” 1992, Social Networks). Non-cooperative games are played without the benefit of an enforceable contract, hence the opportunity for cheating. These games are generally more interesting to sociologists because they can be used to model social dilemmas – games in which rational self-interest can lead players into an outcome that is not Pareto-efficient. In a social dilemma, mutual cooperation is Pareto-efficient PATRICK BAERT 222 game theory yet may be undermined by the temptation to cheat or by the fear of being cheated or by both. In the game of Stag Hunt, the problem is “fear,” and in the game of Chicken the problem is “greed.” The problem is most challenging when both fear and greed are present – as in the celebrated game of Prisoner’s Dilemma. Although the games vary widely, the theory of games provides a solution concept that can be universally applied. In Non-Cooperative Games (1950), John F. Nash showed that every game contains at least one Nash equilibrium – an outcome where every strategy is a “best reply” to the other strategies played; hence, no player has an incentive to change strategy unilaterally. The Nash equilibrium predicts mutual defection in Prisoner’s Dilemma, unilateral defection in Chicken, and either mutual cooperation or mutual defection in Stag Hunt. Nash also identifies a Paretodeficient mixed-strategy equilibrium in Chicken and Stag Hunt. A mixed strategy chooses randomly from all available behavioral choices following a particular probability distribution (for example, “cooperate .45, defect .55”). Knowing that a configuration is a Nash equilibrium means that if this state should obtain, the system will remain there forever, even in the absence of an enforceable contract. However, even when Nash can identify a unique equilibrium, this does not tell us whether this state will ever be reached, or with what probability, or what will happen if the equilibrium should be perturbed. Nor does Nash equilibrium explain social stability among interacting agents who are changing strategies individually, yet the population distribution remains constant, as in a homeostatic equilibrium. Both Chicken and Stag Hunt have three equilibria, and game theory cannot tell us which one will obtain. Worse yet, if these games are repeated by players who care about future payoffs in an ongoing relation, the number of Nash equilibria becomes indefinitely large. When games have multiple equilibria, Nash cannot tell us which will obtain or with what relative probability. Nor can Nash tell us much about the dynamics by which a population of players can move from one equilibrium to another. Game theorists have responded to the problem of equilibrium selection by proposing procedures that can winnow the set of possible solutions to include only those that are risk-dominant (players follow a conservative strategy that earns the best payoff they can guarantee for themselves), payoff-dominant (every other equilibrium is less preferred by at least game theory one player), and subgame-perfect (all nodes along the equilibrium path can be reached in the extensive form). However, these equilibrium selection methods are theoretically arbitrary (for example, there is no a-priori basis for payoffdominant or risk-dominant behavior) and they often disagree about which equilibrium should be selected (for example, in Stag Hunt, payoff dominance and subgame perfection identify mutual cooperation while risk dominance points to mutual defection). These limitations, including concerns about the cognitive demands of forward-looking rationality, have led game theorists to explore backwardlooking alternatives based on evolution and learning. Evolutionary game theory allows for the possibility that players rely on cognitive shortcuts such as imitation, heuristic decision making, stochastic learning, Bayesian updating, best reply with finite memory, and local optimization. Evolutionary models test the ability of conditionally cooperative strategies to survive and reproduce in competition with predators ( John Maynard-Smith, Evolution and the Theory of Games, 1982). Biological models have also been extended to military and economic games in which losers are physically eliminated or bankrupted and to cultural games in which winners are more likely to be imitated (Robert Axelrod, The Evolution of Cooperation, 1984; Jürgen Weibull, Evolutionary Game Theory, 1995). Evolutionary game theory is based on the consequentialist assumption that strategic choices can be explained by the associated payoffs. The payoffs that matter are those that have already occurred, not those that a forward-looking optimizer might expect to obtain in the future. Repetition, not calculation, brings the future to bear on the present, by recycling the lessons of the past. Through repeated exposure to a recurrent problem, the consequences of alternative courses of action can be iteratively explored, by the individual actor or by a population. Iterative search relaxes the highly restrictive cognitive assumptions in analytical game theory, thereby extending applications to social and cultural adaptation by highly routinized actors, such as bureaucratic organizations or boundedly rational individuals whose behavior is based on heuristics, habits, or norms. The game paradigm obtains its theoretical leverage by modeling the social fabric as a matrix of interconnected agents guided by outcomes of their interaction with others, where the actions of each depend on, as well as shape, the behavior of those with whom they are linked. Viewed with 223 gangs Gans, Herbert J. (1927– ) that lens, game theory appears to be especially relevant to sociology, the social science that has been most reluctant to embrace it. MICHAEL MACY AND ARNOUT VAN DE RIJT gangs This term refers to a group of individuals collectively engaging in social activities that are often deviant or criminal. While the term has been used to label a wide range of criminal or deviant groups, criminology has more narrowly focused on gangs that reflect the findings of the first systematic study, The Gang (1927), by Frederic M. Thrasher. According to Thrasher, gangs, usually composed of male adolescents, form in urban areas and function as a primary group based on strong loyalty and a clear territorial focus. Thrasher’s colleagues at the Chicago School account for a number of theories aimed at explaining gang-based deviant behavior. E. H. Sutherland in his textbook Principles of Criminology (1939) developed the notion of “differential association” which explains criminal activity in the immediate social context of various subcultures in society. Criminal activities are thus peer-group-induced. Albert Cohen’s Delinquent Boys (1955) describes gangs as working-class subcultures engaging in a deliberate rejection of middle-class values. Drawing on Robert Merton’s functionalist approach to crime, Cohen ascribed the formation of delinquent subcultures such as gangs to the frustration of working-class youths over their lack of social status and mobility. The work of another sociologist associated with the Chicago School, Howard S. Becker, was instrumental in the foundation of labeling theory. According to Becker, in Outsiders (1963), deviance is a relational, socially constructed label through which powerful sections of society exercise control: “deviancy is not a quality of the act a person commits, but rather a consequence of the application by others of rules and sanctions to an ‘offender.’” The significance of social class in the formation of gangs is highlighted further by studies in New Criminology, closely associated with the Birmingham Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies. New Criminology portrays deviant gang behavior as a deliberate act of resistance by working-class youths to the existing social and economic order. Ian Taylor in Football Mad (1972), for instance, explains the rise of hooligan gangs as a result of excessive social control and the inequalities of postwar capitalism in Britain. However, these approaches have been criticized for insufficiently 224 accounting for the victims of gang-related activities, which, as in the case of inner-city street gangs and hooligans, are often found among other disadvantaged sections of society. Moreover, in light of the deterritorialization of social identities and subcultures, the strong emphasis on local working-class culture seems increasingly difficult to maintain. The sociological study of gangs also raises important methodological questions. As gangs naturally shield at least part of their activities from the public gaze, participant observation is the only qualitative method promising detailed data on gangs. Such qualitative research, however, involves immediate dangers and ethical pitfalls for the researcher (by becoming a victim or complicit to criminal behavior) and the researched (through the exposure of their activities and possible legal repercussions). With their entry into the field, researchers are also forced to take sides in relation to the gang’s struggle, a theme pursued by Becker in Whose Side are we on? (1967) and Ned Polsky in Hustlers, Beats and Others (1967). CORNEL SANDVOSS Gans, Herbert J. (1927– ) Born in Cologne, Germany, Gans migrated to the United States in 1940, and gained his MA in social science at the University of Chicago, and his PhD in city planning from the University of Pennsylvania. His research reflects interests in both sociology and urban planning. He was a professor of sociology at Columbia University, and 78th President of the American Sociological Association in 1988. He has made significant contributions to sociological debates about poverty in The War against the Poor. The Underclass and Antipoverty Policy (1995). In More Equality (1973), he challenged the cynical view that the poor are valuable clients for professional groups such as social workers, family lawyers and doctors, and the owners of pawn shops and brothels. There is also an economic argument that the poor are useful in prolonging the life of certain commodities such as day-old bread or secondhand clothing. In arguing for more equality, Gans argued that much dirty work should be done by automation and that higher wages could be given to the poor for dirty but necessary work without damage to the economy. Gans also contributed to the development of urban sociology in The Urban Villagers. Group and Class in the Life of Italian-Americans (1962) and The Levittowners: Ways of Life and Politics in a New Suburban Community (1982), and to the sociology of the Garfinkel, Harold (1917– ) media and culture in Popular Culture and High Culture (1974), Deciding What’s News (1980), and Democracy and the News (2003). Gans’s basic argument is that news is top-down, favoring high-ranking government officials over low-ranking officials, government agencies over opposition groups, and organized groups over unorganized individual citizens. The concentration of the ownership of the news and the pressure to increase profitability compromises the independence of journalism and corrodes audience confidence. Finally, Gans has been an important critical observer of American life in Making Sense of America (1999). Finally, he published a collection of essays in honor of David Riesman in On the Making of Americans (1979). BRYAN S. TURNER Garfinkel, Harold (1917– ) The originator of ethnomethodology, Harold Garfinkel has made original contributions to how sociologists understand the production of social action. Along with George Herbert Mead, John Dewey (1859–1952), and Erving Goffman, Garfinkel was one of the initiators of the shift from definitions of social action in terms of subjective consciousness and existential meaning to definitions in terms of enacted social practices. Ethnomethodology, a neologism Garfinkel coined, refers to the methods people use to produce conduct in local settings. As demonstrated by essays in his two major books, Studies in Ethnomethodology (1967) and Ethnomethodology’s Program (2002), Garfinkel investigates the accomplishment of social action in minute and pains-taking detail. His investigations reveal a realm of what he terms seen but unnoticed practices that contribute to the constitution of local action. Garfinkel is also famous – many would say notorious – for his convoluted narrative voice. Once one masters his style, Garfinkel appears to be profoundly selfconscious about the precision of his prose. However, even his staunchest supporters admit to being daunted by their first encounters with his works. All stylistic matters notwithstanding, Garfinkel’s contributions remain fertile ground for new developments, and his writings on ethnomethodology will influence sociological theory for many years to come. Garfinkel was born in 1917 and raised in Newark, New Jersey, where his father owned a small furniture business. He graduated from the University of Newark (unaccredited then but now a large campus of Rutgers University) in 1939. He completed his master’s thesis in sociology at the University of North Carolina in 1942. After serving gay studies in the military for several years, Garfinkel enrolled at Harvard University from which he received his PhD under the nominal supervision of Talcott Parsons in 1952. Garfinkel, however, was already an original thinker and he was inclined to follow a non-Parsonian position from the start. His main influences were social phenomenologists, including two internationally wellknown scholars, Aron Gurwitsch (1901–73) and Alfred Schutz, who provided Garfinkel with intellectual support. In 1954 Garfinkel took a position at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), and this became his base for the rest of his career. Garfinkel has never acted as a solitary, inimitable thinker in the manner of Georg Simmel or Goffman. At UCLA he has been blessed with successive cohorts of loyal, gifted graduate students, including many who are now senior scholars of distinction in their own right. This list includes Aaron Cicourel, Harvey Sacks, David Sudnow, and Emmanuel Schegloff. Sacks and Schegloff are well known for conversational analysis, which is a semiautonomous offshoot of Garfinkel’s original program. Over the half-century since Garfinkel moved to UCLA, ethnomethodology has grown into an international movement with centers in Great Britain and elsewhere, as well as across many departments of sociology in the United States, including Boston University and the University of California, Santa Barbara. Garfinkel’s writing style demands clarification and it has been Garfinkel’s good fortune to have fine exegetes such as John Heritage in Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology (1984), and Anne Rawls. IRA COHEN gay rights movement – see social movements. gay studies The study of the culture, history, and character of gay sexuality and gay identity, this is associated with the social movement for gay and lesbian liberation. The gay rights movement was influenced by the riots that followed the police raid on the Stonewall Inn in New York in 1969, when the New York Gay Liberation Front was formed. The Front rejected the conventional social roles and gender definitions of mainstream or “straight” society. The first Gay March took place in 1970 and was quickly imitated in other countries, from European capitals to Sydney, Australia. The self-recognition of homosexuality came to be known as “coming out,” an expression taken from 225 gay studies the American notion of “coming out of the closet” or rejecting the stigma of hidden or concealed sexual identity. This process of coming out was given its definitive expression in Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick’s Epistemology of the Closet (1990). Gay studies eventually emerged in university curricula where they were modeled on lesbian studies, gender studies, and women’s studies. There are many journals related to gay culture and experience, such as GLQ – A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies (1994– ), Sexualities (1998– ), and Journal of Homosexuality. The diversity and depth of journals, conferences, study programs, and institutions relating to gay studies were explored in Ken Plummer’s Modern Homosexualities (1992). The development of gay politics in Britain from the nineteenth century to modern times was described by Jeffrey Weeks in Coming Out (1977). In 1991 the Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies was founded in the Graduate Center of the City University of New York to study the cultural and political issues that are important for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals. Professional mainstream sociology has somewhat neglected the study of human sexuality. There are of course some classic illustrations of research on same-sex behavior and practice, such as Laud Humphrey’s Tearoom Trade (1975). There has also been some research on sex re-assignment surgery, for example Frank Lewin’s Transsexualism in Society (1995), but we know relatively little about the long-term health-care needs of transsexuals. Sociology became heavily involved in the study of the HIV/AIDS epidemic mainly through the study of networks. Because gay men often have friends and lovers who have predeceased them, they are often in a chronic state of grieving or “bereavement overload” and may experience “survivor guilt.” These traumatic experiences have contributed to a variety of selfhelp movements and have generated a new gay consciousness, as documented in, for example, R. A. Isay’s Becoming Gay: The Journey of Self-acceptance (1996) and E. Rofes’s Reviving the Tribe: Regenerating Gay Men’s Sexuality and Culture in the Ongoing Epidemic (1996). In British sociology, the work of Ken Plummer on narratives such as Telling Sexual Stories (1995) has represented an innovative approach to human sexuality. The Handbook of Lesbian & Gay Studies (2002), edited by Diane Richardson and Steven Seidman, is a valuable guide to this diverse field of research. Jeffrey Weeks also produced a series of influential studies, such as Coming Out, Sex Politics and Society (1990), and Against Nature (1991). 226 Geertz, Clifford (1926– ) Some gay activists have, however, come to the conclusion that gay studies was merely a strategy for co-opting a more radical aspect of gay politics, thereby making gayness a dimension of more conventional sexual identity. In addition, the gay movement came to be stigmatized once more by the HIV/AIDS epidemic in the 1980s. In response to these changing circumstances, queer theory emerged, in which a stable homosexual identity was rejected in favor of the notion that gay was really an epistemological critique of stable categorization, and hence queer theory adopted elements of postmodernism and postcolonial theory. One example of these developments is Queer Theory / Sociology edited by Steven Seidman (1996). The work of Michel Foucault played a major part in rethinking sexual identity as an aspect of the struggle over the relationships between power and knowledge in different historical settings. Foucault demonstrated that homosexuality was a building block of male friendship in classical Greece in The Use of Pleasure (1984 [trans. 1985]). Foucault, who died of an AIDS-related illness in 1984, became an icon of politics relating to men’s health and his role has been defended and celebrated by David Halpern in Saint Foucault. Towards a Gay Hagiography (1995). In sociology, queer theory and Gay Studies have influenced the ways in which masculinity as a sexual identity is conceptualized. In particular, social constructionism rejected essentialism and claimed that, while homosexual feelings or practices had always existed, “the homosexual” was a construct of a particular time and place. These approaches rejected the conventional psychological view that homosexuality was an illness or a form of social deviance. Gay studies are therefore concerned to reject these negative labels and to explore the complex historical manifestation of homosexual identity, culture, and institutions. BRYAN S. TURNER Geertz, Clifford (1926– ) Among the most eminent American anthropologists of the latter half of the twentieth century, Clifford Geertz has made many contributions to diverse areas of anthropology and to the social sciences more broadly. These contributions include the ethnography of Java, Bali, and Morocco, and, as much outside anthropology as within it, to the theorization of religion, of politics, and of culture itself. Though a student of Talcott Parsons, he gradually moved away from a merely functionalist treatment of culture and, by the middle 1960s, had begun to piece together, from the Gehlen, Arnold (1904–1976) thought of Max Weber, Ruth Benedict, Bronislaw Malinowski, Gilbert Ryle, Suzanne Langer, and Ludwig Wittgenstein, among others, an “interpretive anthropology” of “the native’s point of view” that cast culture as a loosely integrated totality of institutionally and perspectivally specific systems providing models of and models for the world and life within it, whose constituent symbols acquire their meanings from the contextually specific occasions of their use. Geertz followed many of his American predecessors in presuming the diverse expressions of culture to be sufficiently bounded for any one of them to be readily distinguished from the next. He shared their tendency to privilege the broadest collective themes of a culture over their more idiosyncratic refractions. He departed from them, however, in arguing that the key to human nature lay not in the cross-culturally universal but, instead, in cross-cultural diversity itself. His major works include Peddlers and Princes (1963), Islam Observed (1968), Negara (1980), and two volumes of essays, The Interpretation of Cultures (1973) and Local Knowledge (1983). JAMES D. FAUBION Gehlen, Arnold (1904–1976) A member of the Nazi movement in Germany, Gehlen was a philosopher, anthropologist, and sociologist whose work was influenced by Hans Driesch, Nicolai Hartmann, and Max Scheler. He joined the Nazi party in 1933, and his career benefited from opportunities for advancement created by the removal of Jewish and anti-Nazi academics from universities in the Third Reich. His work during this time attempted to create a “National Socialist philosophy” (Der Idealismus und die Gegenwart, 1935). His major work was Man: His Nature and Place in this World (1940 [trans. 1980]) in which he developed a philosophical anthropology based on Nietzsche’s idea that humans are “not yet finished animals”: they are dependent on society and culture for a long period of maturation; they have “world-openness” because of a lack or deficit of instincts; thus modern life is precarious and humans require a secure political and social environment to provide discipline. Human dependence on social institutions and culture creates ontological frailty and existential precariousness. A meaningful life can be lived only through conformity to institutions; thus emancipatory efforts (such as those of Enlightenment critique) are risky because institutions are easily destroyed but difficult to establish. Gehlen was therefore highly critical of the radical social movements of 1968. The ideas of ontological frailty and precariousness have Gellner, Ernest (1925–1996) been influential in sociology, for example in the work of Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann (Social LARRY RAY Construction of Reality, 1966). Geisteswissenschaften – see human sciences. Gellner, Ernest (1925–1996) Formerly Professor of Anthropology at Cambridge University, Gellner made significant contributions to the study of Islam and nationalism. In his Saints of the Atlas (1969), Gellner contrasted the puritanical religion of the towns, in which the authority of the Qur’an was paramount, and the mystical religion of the Sufi saints in the countryside, where their personal charisma (or baraka) was sought after by their disciples. While urban religiosity stressed the equality of believers, the Islam of the Sufi saints was hierarchical. Gellner employed this model of religion in his subsequent work on the political structure of North African societies. He developed a theory of elite circulation, which he adopted from Ibn Khaldun. The tribal groups of the countryside have greater social solidarity (assabiya) than the towns, and they periodically replace the urban elites that have become weak, fragmented, and corrupted. This circulation of elites explains the periodic intrusion of nomadic tribes into urban civilization. This pattern has, however, been transformed by modern technology which has allowed the towns to control the hinterland more effectively, and has also allowed the spread of puritanical, Quranic, egalitarian Islam into the interior. Gellner thus developed, in Muslim Society (1982), an early appreciation of the importance of fundamentalism in modern politics. Gellner was also concerned, in Thought and Change (1964), to understand the force of nationalism in modern societies. He regarded nationalism as a product of modern societies, arguing that nations are invented. In modern democracy, there is a demand to be ruled by our own ethnic group (see ethnicity and ethnic groups), and hence national identity becomes a major issue of modern democratic politics. Gellner was, in Legitimation of Belief (1974), a critic of trends in cultural anthropology, because he was hostile to cultural relativism. He defended the idea of rational criticism against relativism, which Gellner thought was self-defeating. He was consequently, in Postmodernism, Reason and Religion (1992), critical of the impact of postmodernism on modern anthropological theory, and defended traditional ethnographic methods 227 Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft against postmodern emphasis gender on narrative of femininity, but diverse conditions relevant to the deconstruction. In The Psychoanalytic Movement particular situation of an individual woman. But (1985) he brought his critical perspective to bear on Freudian (see Sigmund Freud) therapy, which he dismissed as incoherent and ineffective. BRYAN S. TURNER Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft – see Ferdinand Tönnies. gender For many students of society, gender is the most important form of social division, far more important than social class or race and ethnicity in the impact that it makes on individual lives. Yet the history of the concept of gender is not a long one; unlike the concept of class, the idea of gender does not have roots in the nineteenth-century origins of sociology, and it is since the mid-1960s that the question of gender has come to be central to discussions of social life. In large part, the emergence of the concept of gender owes much to second-wave feminism, which drew attention to sexual divisions in society and to the patterns of social difference and inequality that arose. But what differentiated the concept of gender from the concept of sex was work by feminists in the 1970s that took issue with the idea of essentialist explanations of sexual difference. These interventions, for example by sociologists such as Ann Oakley, pointed out that biological sex differences did not in themselves lead to differences in behavior between the sexes. Oakley, in common with other sociologists and anthropologists, pointed out that across cultures and historical periods there were very considerable differences in the ways in which women and men were expected to behave. What persisted were biological differences of sex, but what differed were social constructions of masculinity and femininity, namely constructions of gender. Gender, it became accepted, was the articulation of social expectations about how a person of a particular biological sex should behave, but that performance of gender could differ significantly across time and space. What this separation of gender and sex did was to establish the idea that there was no such thing as naturally male or female behavior. Simone de Beauvoir had famously written in The Second Sex (1949 [trans. 1972]) that women are “made and not born” and it is precisely this view which is at the heart of contemporary understandings of gender. De Beauvoir argued that feminine behavior has numerous aspects to it; there is no one condition 228 in all cases, for de Beauvoir, the specific femininity which women display places them as the other in human society. The male, and masculinity, constitute the norm and it is from this that women deviate. De Beauvoir’s view has been hugely influential because it challenges the assumption that the categories of women/femininity and men/ masculinity are fixed and static. Although much recent work on gender has been initiated by feminist debates and feminist writers, it is also the case that the challenge of the idea of gender has made a considerable impact on conventional assumptions about men and masculinity. Although de Beauvoir was critical of much of Sigmund Freud’s work and was skeptical about his theories of sexual development, one similarity in the work of both these writers is the acknowledgment that sexual identity is not fixed but can be changed by circumstance and even, on occasion, by choice. But what both Freud and de Beauvoir are working with is the post-Enlightenment recognition of the difference between male and female biology. To modern students of gender, this is now a taken-for granted assumption, but a crucial part of the history of the idea of gender is the recognition that it was not until the eighteenth century that the physical differences between the sexes were fully recognized, and even then it was not until the twentieth century that the extent of hormonal differences between male and female were more fully investigated. Thomas Laqueur in Making Sex (1990) has pointed out that it is only recently that sex, as a stable biological attribute, has existed. Laqueur argues that human biology, that is the stable, ahistorical, and sexed body, has to be understood as the “epistemic foundation” for prescriptive rather than descriptive claims about the social order. Before this agreement about biology, the social identity of being a woman or a man depended on social factors and the division between male and female was not a binary division but one in which “maleness” and “femaleness” could be greater or lesser according to the particular situation of women. But by the nineteenth century most of Europe had come to accept a division between male and female, a division which, in the majority of human beings, was visible at birth and which was then made the basis for social divisions. Women in the nineteenth century were expected, in order to meet middle-class norms of femininity, to show distinct patterns of behavior from those of men. The social reality of nineteenth-century gender Europe was such that this norm was meaningless for the majority of women who spent their lives in agricultural and/or domestic work, but social expectations about biology had been established. It was those norms which women such as de Beauvoir challenged: forced by economic circumstance to provide for herself, de Beauvoir lived out the contradictions of gender and indeed protested against them. In her own life, and in her writing, de Beauvoir demonstrated an iron determination to claim for herself the same rights to an intellectual life as those of men. In this sense, much of her work is not about claiming a different form of femininity but about being allowed to occupy the same space as men. This reaction to gender stereotyping implies an internalized sense of a division between male and female, a sense which is powerfully present in de Beauvoir’s account of her childhood, Memoirs of a Dutiful Daughter (1958 [trans. 1959]). What de Beauvoir tells readers about in this, the first volume of her four-volume autobiography, is the process of becoming a girl, and the way in which the acquisition of that identity inhibits various kinds of activity. The book provides an excellent example of the complex way in which children acquire a sense of the social implications of their physical sex; it is not just for de Beauvoir that the passage to an adult sexual identity is riven with difficulties and contradictions. But what de Beauvoir encounters in her childhood and adolescence is a contradictory set of social expectations about her possible gender. As a bourgeois girl in France in the first half of the twentieth century, de Beauvoir, like others of her class, is not expected to entertain educational ambitions, still less to study a subject – philosophy – which is associated with anti-clericalism and often a critical attitude to social convention. But as a poor bourgeois girl, the only way out of penury is either to marry or to study. Lacking the personal inclination, or social attributes, that might have made possible an advantageous marriage, the option for de Beauvoir was to study and to learn to provide for herself. The expectations of gender had to be surrendered to those of class. The autobiography of the author of The Second Sex – a woman always claimed as the greatest feminist writer of the twentieth century – provides an outstanding example of the way in which gender identity can be both subverted and changed, while also being maintained. The “bonds of femininity” were, for de Beauvoir, always bonds which could be broken, and much of her fiction is concerned with the stories of women who cannot gender break those bonds or re-interpret femininity in other ways. At the same time, the case of de Beauvoir provides for us an example of the impact of social conditioning on a particular individual: the hurdles faced by de Beauvoir in her educational career were not fantasies of her own making, but real difficulties in the social world. Thus, the evident strength of social mores can be seen in the cases of de Beauvoir and of other women of her generation. We know, from this individual case and from all information about more general situations, that all societies organize social life on the basis of sex differences, and that constructed ideas of gender play a considerable part in the maintenance of these differences. It is now well known that, in the United Kingdom in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, many people, including medical specialists, took the view that women should not be over-taxed by intellectual work, lest this damage their reproductive systems. This notion, hardly relevant to the majority of the female population who were engaged in arduous manual work, was just one of the many nineteenth-century views of femininity, albeit one which attracted both derision and support. Since the late twentieth century, we have come to regard with some suspicion ideas about differences between male and female which support theories about distinctions between the male and female brain. In Biological Politics and Sexual Divisions, Janet Sayers (1982) has outlined much of the literature on the physiological differences between the sexes, particularly in terms of the differences, if any, in the brains of women and men. But the point of this literature, as Sayers argues, is not only the actual conclusions about differences in the brain, but the social structures which are built on them. From the eighteenth century onwards, a consensus developed about the existence of differences in physical strength between women and men; at the time, these differences had a relevance to the labor market and underpinned the sexual exclusivity of certain occupations. The changes in the European labor market of the late twentieth century have largely marginalized the potential impact of differences in physical strength, but what has become more important has been identified as the persistence of gender differences which persistently advantage men and disadvantage women. It is at this point that academic debates about gender encounter the reality of the social world. Since the 1970s, and the impact of second-wave feminism on academic debates, the question of the construction of gender has become central to 229 gender both the academy and the wider social world. Following the tradition (albeit a tradition with its own internal differences and contradictions) which included Freud and de Beauvoir, a consensus emerged in which it was generally agreed that gender was socially constructed out of biological sex differences. The emphasis (as suggested above) was initially on the social construction of femininity, but by the 1980s authors such as Victor Seidler and Jeffrey Weeks had demonstrated that, just as femininity was socially constructed, so the same was true of masculinity. In short, our social/sexual selves were as unstable as Freud had assumed and what could be demonstrated – and was demonstrated, for example by Ken Plummer in work on homosexuality – was the strength of social norms to create individual sexual persona. This academic work became part of more general social concerns about gender stereotyping. Thus by the end of the 1980s there was, throughout the West, a general consensus that recognized the way in which all societies made, of sexual difference, differences of gender. Anthropologists demonstrated that qualities associated with men in some societies (for example competence in the economic market) were of little value in others, and that the meaning of masculinity and femininity in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries was as variable as it been in previous centuries. The view of “natural” attributes of male and female had little credence in academic circles. It was at this point that a book by Judith Butler, Gender Trouble (1990), was published, which pushed the debate on gender even further towards the conclusion that all gender attributes are constructed and, as Butler describes it, “performed.” For Butler, gender is the defining division of the social world and debates on this issue with Nancy Fraser have involved numerous participants. But Butler’s central case - since developed in Bodies that Matter (1993), Excitable Speech: A Politics of the Performative (1997), The Psychic Life of Power (1997), and Antigone’s Claim: Kinship between Life and Death (2000) – has become a central part of the analysis of gender. For Butler, gender is a strategy, a “corporeal style” which individuals pursue, because if they do not they are punished by society. For example, one of the reasons Joan of Arc was condemned was that she wore men’s clothes. This is an extreme example, but in other cases social sanctions are still present and societies overwhelmingly police the correct “performance” of gender. But, so far, this idea of people being coerced into behaving in ways that are deemed to be appropriate for a member of their physical sex is not in itself 230 gender innovative or radically different from anything that has been said before. What makes Butler’s argument different is the suggestion, in Gender Trouble, that people are not copying an original or correct model of gender behavior since no such original exists. It is in this way that Butler’s work differs from that of Harold Garfinkel, who, in the study of the young person named Agnes, had demonstrated that individuals could very convincingly do gender and thus make others believe in whichever gender was chosen. In her argument, Butler has recognized the existence of individuals such as Agnes in the history of gender (and indeed the history of – literally – the wardrobe of gender). But she has also insisted that each generation, in putting together a gender identity, is not using the original but only the various forms in which gender had so far been performed. One of the strengths of Butler’s argument is her recognition of the way in which dress (for both sexes) has always had a rich vein of both parody and subversion. Equally, one of the problems with Butler’s argument is the question of what becomes chosen as the norm at any place or time: there might well be a huge amount of choice in modes of dress, but there are always limits to social toleration and a point at which the welcome for the new turns to the condemnation of the bizarre. Butler’s work has been influential across a number of disciplines, in both the social sciences and the humanities, since what she offers is a way of seeing gender as always and inevitably radically unstable. She does not regard cross-dressing or drag as necessarily radical or subversive, for the very good reason that both these forms simply invoke and confirm gender stereotypes. Thus her work is less a celebration of popular forms of subverting fixed gender identities (these, in her view, merely re-inforce existing expectations of gender) but rather a method of studying the ways in which, in social life, literature, and the visual arts, gender is constantly being re-made. But the social world, which prefers the order of fixed gender identities, works against subversions of gender, because it is fixed distinctions of gender which, to Butler, maintain the social world. It is here that her work has led her to conflict with those critics (for example Martha Nussbaum and Nancy Fraser) who have argued that the social world of late capitalism can function perfectly well, whatever the politics of gender. The idea of a world without gender, Butler argues, would be a world in which there would be no expectation of “feminine” qualities of care or masculine gender attributes of “strength” but only the recognition of human qualities. Those industries related to the various forms of the manipulation of the body (fashion, health and beauty, and cosmetic surgery) and indeed the expected tensions of much popular entertainment (how the couple of either homosexual or heterosexual desire is going to be formed) would collapse, Butler suggests, if we did not have fixed gender identities to maintain. For many sociologists, Butler’s work, while recognized as important, is regarded as somewhat removed from social reality, in which sexual difference still plays a crucial role in the determination of social identity. Beverley Skeggs, in Formations of Class and Gender (1997), and Linda McDowell, in Gender Identity and Place (1999), have argued that both femininity and masculinity are not just attributes of a particular sex, they are also constructed in different contexts of class. Skeggs has shown how, for working-class women, maintaining that sense of femininity which prioritizes the care of others (both personally and professionally) is an essential part of what they see as their best hope of an advantageous marriage; McDowell has suggested that, for middle-class men, the demonstration of the supposedly female qualities of “caring” and co-operation with others is a highly positive attribute, whereas supposedly “masculine” characteristics in women do not receive the same approval. What both authors are able to show is that constructions of gender differ from social class to social class, but a model of behavior which accords with traditional expectations of femininity is of positive social value for middleclass men, but of negative social value for working-class women. These possible differences in the social value of different gender identities open up a further question about the relationship of gender to the social world. Many writers have seen the Enlightenment, and modernity itself, as an inherently “masculine” project. Although there is considerable evidence to suggest that the question of gender was important to writers in the Enlightenment, and that the writers were both male and female, what has emerged as the dominant view of the Enlightenment is that of a way of looking at the world which values reason above feeling, the rational over instinct. That binary division (the association of women with nature and men with culture) has long been assumed to be at the heart of the Enlightenment. But if we can observe the increasing social value of the attributes of the feminine, we also have to remember that this greater social value is only gained by men rather than women. gender Thus, although the postmodern might include the blurring of gender boundaries (and the concomitant furious resistance in some quarters to these newly apparent forms of sexuality and gender identity), what does not appear to be taking place is any realignment in the hierarchies either of class or of gender identity that is related to biological difference. Hence some men can, to their advantage, do femininity, but women cannot do masculinity. For many writers on gender, however, shifts in the social construction of gender identity, apparent and important though they may be, break down when confronted by actual biological differences between the sexes and the impact that these differences have on individual lives. For biological determinists, there are (as there always have been in different ways) differences between women and men which are fixed and both transhistorical and transcultural. At the same time Freudian psychoanalysts would resist any attempt to eliminate biological sexual differences from either the study or the understanding of the human. Empirical sociological investigation has also demonstrated that, although men, particularly middle-class men, may be willing to do femininity in certain aspects of employment, their willingness – in common with that of working-class men – to take over female responsibilities in the household or in caring work is still extremely limited. In these circumstances, the gender politics of everyday life demonstrate a resistance to the re-thinking of gender which is very marked, as do various forms of social reaction to behavior in women (for example what is seen as the excessive drinking of alcohol) which is more generally associated with men. Arlie Russell Hochschild is among those sociologists who have investigated the present ordering of gender relations in the private space of the home and found that traditional patterns of gender persist. This continuing inequality in gender relations (and the theories such as that of Anthony Giddens in The Transformation of Intimacy (1992) which argue that gender relations in the private sphere are shifting to a more egalitarian model) is explained by L. McNay, Gender and Agency (2000), following Pierre Bourdieu, in terms of a challenge to the cognitive, reflexive, and deliberate refashioning of gender identity which Giddens assumes. Bourdieu’s concept of habitus is used to explain the indeterminacy of gender and embodiment. Social ideas and expectations about gender are enacted at a pre-reflexive level: what is being suggested here is that individuals have certain deeply 231 gender held, often unconscious, investments in conventional patterns of masculinity and femininity, and these patterns are not easily over-turned, either by objective decisions or by social situations in which the rejection of these norms might appear to be the socially meaningful and rewarding choice. Thus, while gender identity is not an immutable or essential pattern of behavior, McNay suggests that there are many pre-reflexive aspects of masculine and feminine behavior which call into question the idea of reflexive identity. Crucial to all these theories about gender, and the ways in which we acquire our gender identity, is our understanding of language. All language is saturated with meaning: the very terms man or woman carry all kinds of embedded knowledge that we seldom voice but nevertheless use in our social existence. It is for this reason that the use of language, particularly language about gender, has become such an important issue in both the academy and practical politics. In the mid-1960s, the term people was quite widely used to refer only to men; today the term is used to make explicit the absence of bias towards male or female in particular situations. Traditional terms such as husband or wife have been replaced by the term partner, a term which ironically carries with it associations of the formal relations of the marketplace. But in contexts other than the everyday world, language is also crucial for theories of gender, because it is through language that we achieve the means to express our understanding of the symbolic meaning of our bodies. The writer who has contributed most influentially to this debate is the French psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan in his Écrits (1966 [trans. 1977]), who has argued that a child has to recognize sexual difference before becoming a speaking subject; it is only through recognizing both absence and presence of the phallus that a child can make the necessary progress towards both language and an understanding of the symbolic world. Feminist writers (most particularly the French writer Luce Irigaray) have challenged this idea by arguing that what children primarily experience is the “discursive” sexuality of their mothers. For Irigaray it is not male sexuality which constitutes the primary means of entry into language but that of the female. With Irigaray’s thesis in “When our Lips Speak Together” (1980, Signs) comes the view that femininity resides in female biology: it is a view which has been accused of biological essentialism and it is, of course, very different from the ideas of Butler. Whatever the different views of various writers about the relationship between language and the 232 gender formation of gender identity, all writers agree on the centrality of the body to theories about gender. Here the spectrum of writers ranges from those who see the body, and its physical characteristics, as definitive in the making of individual identity, to those who would question the idea that the body has a sex at all. This very radical view might seem to challenge all taken-forgranted assumptions about the social world, but the idea is supported by evidence from diverse communities which suggests that our western ideas about gender, and gender difference, are not necessarily as straightforward as we might like to suppose. Thus anthropologists (for example Henrietta Moore) have pointed out that male and female are not necessarily the fixed and certain categories that we might suppose but differ between societies and cultures. If the physical definition of the body can be questioned, then it is inevitable that gender identity then becomes a matter of uncertainty and negotiation. This thesis alters our relationship to the body: it is no longer the fixed starting point but actually the unknown, fluid starting point of attempts to define gender. Seen in the light of this, it is possible to surmise that gender identity is as rigid as it sometimes is because what Freud recognized as the “polymorphous perversity” of the psyche is as true of the body as it is of the mind. In his work on the history of the body, Bryan S. Turner in The Body and Society (1984) has emphasized the importance of working with an understanding of the “lived body,” an approach which opens up the possibility of seeing the body itself as a production of the social world rather than as a fixed constituent of it. All theories of gender work with the paradox that they begin with the recognition of the impact of gender difference in the social world and then attempt to show that this difference, having been produced, can also be dissolved. The politics of gender have come to be recognized as central to the organization of social life, not because these politics have been articulated for the first time in the latter part of the twentieth century but because gender, and gender identity, has always played a crucial role in the history of the social world. The Bible begins with the drama of the recognition of sexual difference (implicitly suggesting that the concept of sexual difference was created through knowledge rather than corporeal reality) and Homeric epic is organized around the mistaking of the identity of the mother. Both these examples might serve to remind us that the question of gender, and gender identity, is as old as civilization itself. MARY EVANS gender studies gender studies This area of interdisciplinary research is concerned with understanding the biological differentiation of male and female, the gender roles that express that differentiation in society and culture, the development and expression of different types of human sexuality, the political representation of gender in feminism, and the modern expression of sexuality such as lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transsexual identities. Women’s studies and gender studies are interdisciplinary fields of contemporary scholarship that are devoted to the study of women and gender in different historical and social contexts. These areas of study stress the gendered nature of social life. In sociology, social constructionism has argued that gender is not a naturally occurring phenomenon but has to be socially produced and sustained. Sociologists are concerned with understanding how people do, rather than have, gender – that is, by what processes of socialization do people learn the practices, attitudes, and behavior through which distinctive gender identities are expressed. For example, masculinity is itself not a uniform expression of male identity. In Gender and Power, R. W. Connell (1987) has argued that masculinity and femininity are normalized gender identities that are hegemonic in modern society. Gender studies are concerned to understand power and inequality in terms of gender differences. There are a huge array of gender studies and women’s studies programs, especially in higher education in the United States. There are innumerable journals, research centers, and institutions devoted to this field of study, and gender studies in many respects provided a model for the development of lesbian studies and Gay Studies. Some leading feminist journals include Signs, Feminist Review, Feminist Studies, differences: a journal of feminist Cultural studies, and Hypatia. Gender studies is in large measure the academic consequence of feminism and related social movements that campaigned for gender equality. The success of feminism and its internal political and cultural divisions are also manifest in different forms of gender research. Gender studies was introduced into universities because it was argued that higher education was dominated by men and that the academic disciplines ignored women, gender, and sexuality. There has been a substantial debate about whether gender studies is a special field of research or whether gender as an issue should be part of the mainstream of every generation(s) discipline. Gender studies have been important in promoting research on the family, marriage and divorce, nature/nurture (see environment), patriarchy, private and public spheres, and women and work. Through feminist social theory, it has been critical of biologism and essentialism. Feminist theory has often been associated with postmodernism by challenging many of the takenfor-granted assumptions of social science. The study of gender has had a significant impact on the development of the sociology of health and illness (for example Ann Oakley’s Women, Medicine & Health, 1993), the sociology of the emotions (such as Arlie R. Hochschild’s The Managed Heart, 1983), and the sociology of the body, in which Emily Martin’s The Woman in the Body (1987) was important. The study of gender has been significant in sociology, but it has often found a more secure home in literary studies and Cultural studies, where the traditional canon has been transformed by the impact of feminist theory. BRYAN S. TURNER generation(s) This term is used in different and sometimes inconsistent ways by social scientists. There are at least five ways in which the term is employed: (1) to designate levels in extended kinship structure; (2) to designate the general stage or segment in the life-course that a group occupies (for example the current generation of college students); (3) to refer to those who experienced a common historical period (for example the Depression generation, the Sixties Generation, or Generation X); (4) to refer to a subset of a historical generation who share a common political or cultural identity; and (5) to denote a circumscribed age group in the population. The fifth use is closest to what developmental scientists call a “cohort.” The concept of cohort refers to an aggregate of individuals (generally defined on the basis of birth year) whose lives move together through a historical time. Given these varied meanings, it is important to trace the way the various concepts are measured and used. The confusion of generation and cohort has led some scholars to insist that generation should only be used to designate a kin relationship and genealogical linkage (for examples, parents and children or grandparents and grandchildren). As D. L. Kertzer, in Generation as a Sociological Problem (1983), points out, there is often substantial overlapping of age among (kin) generations, and it would be impossible to characterize the generations 233 generation(s) properly in terms of their common characteristics vis-à-vis other generations. A generation might consist of several cohorts, each of which has encountered different historical experiences that have affected its life-course. Therefore, to examine change over time in generational relations it is necessary to compare cohorts not generations. With the revolutionary changes in longevity in the advanced industrial world, there is far greater co-survival of generations and this has led family researchers to examine the consequences in terms of intergenerational family solidarity and conflict. Much of the contemporary research suggests that obligations are giving way to more negotiation among the generations. Yet, while intergenerational support has been shown in both the United Kingdom and the United States to be more a matter of negotiation than of prescription, there is little evidence to suggest that intergenerational family relations are of less importance than in the past. The distinction between generation and cohort has been further blurred by the political debates in many western nations about generational equity, a concern about whether the distribution of resources and power in society among different age groups (cohorts) favors one generation to the detriment of another. This debate was spurred by the United States demographer Samuel Preston’s article, “Children and the Elderly: Divergent Paths for America’s Dependents” (Demography, 1984), in which he claims that elderly people receive more than their fair share of the federal budget, particularly in light of their economic status, and they ultimately receive these benefits at the expense of groups that are more needy and deserving, especially children. Notions of the Third Age, a time of personal fulfillment after retirement, have helped fuel labels like “the SKI generation” (Spending the Kids’ Inheritance). The crucial point is about the just distribution of wealth between age groups which, according to historical demographer Peter Laslett’s A Fresh Map of Life (1996), is one of the most urgent issues of contemporary society. It is the problem of social change that has informed much of sociology’s concern with generations. Karl Mannheim, in his essay “The Problem of Generations” (1928), posed the thought experiment of how human social life would be if one generation lived on forever and none followed to replace it. It was the linkage between “generational replacement” and social change that Mannheim explores in his famous essay. According to Mannheim the biological process that defines generations creates the potential for 234 generation(s) the development of a shared consciousness that unites and motivates people. It provides them with a similar location, much like social class, but does not guarantee that they will form a “generation as actuality.” For a generation to trigger social change, they must forge an additional bond that allows a shared consciousness that underpins what he calls a generational unit. Of course, not all respond to historical circumstances in the same way, and the same historical period may provoke different generational units who take quite contrary stances. However, once adopted, consciousness is resistant to revision. Thus societal change takes place partly as a result of cohort replacement, the process by which the older generation dies out and is replaced by the new. Some forty years later, Norman Ryder, in his article “The Cohort as a Concept in the Study of Social Change” (1965, American Sociological Review), revisited Mannheim’s analysis. Ryder substituted the concept of birth cohort for Mannheim’s generation and largely jettisoned the notion of shared consciousness and the distinction between “generation” and “generation as actuality” that was central to Mannheim’s view of the structural linkage between agency and social change. Ryder argues that a comparison of different cohorts is a powerful analytical strategy for studying social change. Cohorts describe age-homogeneous groupings that are clearly bounded. A whole industry of social research (predominantly North American) has grown up looking at cohort change in attitudes and behaviors. However, the definition of cohorts according to birth year is convenient but problematic. When we examine the question of why a particular span of years is important in the life experiences of individuals, we are back into the thorny issues of how biography and history intersect. This was the issue that C. Wright Mills, in his book The Sociological Imagination (1959), identified as the crucial concern of the social science. Social research on generations, aging, and lifecourse interconnect in ways that defy any simple overview of sociological work on generations. Glen Elder, in his classic study of Children of the Great Depression (1974), makes use both of generations (in the kinship sense) and of birth cohorts to track the influence of the economic crisis of the 1930s on the life-course of two cohorts of children born just eight years apart. He shows the importance of familial processes for mediating the impact of socioeconomic change. As John Clausen stated in his preface to Elder’s book, “we know that ‘life chances’ depend on historical genetic engineering circumstances and one’s location in the social structure but we are only beginning to formulate the nature of the linkages between particular kinds of experiences located in time and place, adaptive responses to these experiences and longterm outcomes.” Generational reproduction is a complex process, regardless of whether we are looking at kinship relations or societal change. The various meanings of the term generation do at least serve to remind us that biological, biographical, social, and historical reproduction crucially interrelate. This was one of the central insights of Mannheim’s essay which has stood the test of time. JACKIE SCOTT genetic engineering – see genetics. genetics A branch of biology, genetics is concerned with the study of heredity and the variability of organisms. The twentieth century has been described by Evelyn Fox Keller as The Century of the Gene (2000). From the discovery at the turn of the twentieth century that Gregor Mendel’s laws of inheritance could also be applied to those of human heredity, to the recent successful completion of the human genome project identifying all the genes in the human body, developments in genetics have accelerated so that they now dominate the science arena. If the field of nuclear physics dominated post-World-War-II science, it is the fields of genetics and genomics that have come to supplant it. These fields are often referred to as “big science,” a term used to describe both the scale and complexity of large-scale post-World-War-II scientific endeavors. Commentators have suggested that genetics is not only influential in shaping ideas about human identity, but also a powerful economic and political force aligning considerations of health and wealth and generating new forms of biocapital. As we move into the twentyfirst century, genetic science and its associated technologies seem likely to have an even greater impact on society and upon understandings of what it is to be human. The idea of eugenics, a process for selectively breeding humans in order to preserve and promote “desirable” characteristics, was first formulated by scientist and cousin of Charles Darwin, Francis Galton (1822–1911). In 1904 at a meeting of the Sociological Society, Galton is reported to have said that, “Eugenics is the science which deals with all influences that improve the inborn qualities of a race; also with those that develop genetics them to the utmost advantage.” Eugenics was defined by Galton as the study of agencies under social control that may improve or impair the qualities of future generations either physically or mentally. He intended eugenics to extend to any technique that might serve to increase the representation of those with “good genes,” in this way accelerating evolution. A major motivation of many eugenicists was an idea of human progress. The idea of progress was based not solely on the advancement of scientific knowledge but also on genetic improvement. This was supported by Darwin’s evolutionary theory, wherein the survival of the fittest was equated with the survival of the best. The best were thought to be the best people to cope with modern life. Galton tended to equate people’s genetic fitness with their social position. Social Darwinist ideology provided a good climate for eugenic thought, and many qualities such as intelligence, temperament, and behavior were believed to be inherited. Galton proposed that the human race might be improved by eliminating society’s so-called undesirables and multiplying its so-called desirables. Such ideas became increasingly popular in the political sphere with both democratic and totalitarian regimes. The eugenic movement was supported by the upper-middle classes, with scientists and geneticists in particular playing an important role in this movement. Research into human heredity was carried out in scientific laboratories to develop eugenically useful knowledge. A human genetics program emerged, focusing on the analysis of various conditions, particularly those seen to be creating a social burden for society. The socalled feeble-minded were a particular focus. Psychologist and eugenicist Henry Goddard was of the opinion that “feeble-mindedness” was a hereditary condition of the brain that made those who had inherited such a condition more prone to becoming criminals, paupers, and prostitutes. Societal problems such as poverty, vagrancy, prostitution, and alcoholism were understood by eugenicists as primarily the outcome of a person’s genetic inheritance rather than emanating from social, political, and economic factors. The mental and behavioral characteristics of different “races” were also a focus of the eugenic movement, and, in genetic science in northern Europe and the United States, eugenics was frequently used to support ideas of the existence of a superior white, middle-class Protestant elite, such as the so-called Aryan race. Beginning in 1907, compulsory sterilization laws were passed in many states in the 235 genetics United States, with Denmark and Germany passing such measures in the 1930s. While these countries adopted compulsory sterilization programs designed to prevent the continued breeding of those deemed to be undesirable, the eugenic movement in Nazi Germany led not only to the sterilization of hundreds of thousands of individuals but ultimately to the death camps where millions of Jews and “undesirables” were murdered. The story of eugenics is not only characterized by such negative aspects; the eugenic program also included many initiatives that were classified as “positive.” Galton originally classified eugenics as consisting of two types: positive and negative. While negative campaigns were concerned with getting rid of the “undesirables,” positive eugenics involved the promotion of “desirable” human stock. In Britain, positive eugenic campaigns sought to encourage the middle classes to breed through a system of tax concessions and grants, and in the United States the American Eugenics Society sponsored Better Babies competitions and Fitter Families contests as part of their positive eugenic campaign. Beginning in the 1950s, there was a rise in nondirective genetic counseling in an attempt to dissociate the field from the negative eugenics of the Nazi regime. Such measures were based on the understanding that couples wanted healthy children, and such interventions were seen as important in providing impartial advice to enable couples to make choices concerning reproduction. Scientific endeavors to discover the chromosomal location of genes and their relation to each other initially began slowly at the start of the twentieth century. Scientists understood that a gene was a single unit located on a chromosome, passed from one generation to the next, and that this material was coded in cells determining how an organism looked and behaved. In 1913, the first genetic map appeared, identifying the relative location of six genes on one chromosome. In the following decades, this process remained painstakingly slow and difficult. In 1953, two Cambridge University scientists, James Watson (1928– ) and Francis Crick (1916–2004), made what is considered to be a landmark scientific breakthrough by discovering the physical structure of DNA (the molecular structure that holds genetic information). Nevertheless, scientists still faced a daunting task in identifying all the genes of the human body, particularly as it was incorrectly assumed that there were likely to be in excess of 100,000. However, by the 1980s, genetic maps 236 genetics were good enough to allow scientists to go “hunting” for genes among families of people with inherited diseases such as Huntington’s disease and cystic fibrosis. In the 1980s, with the invention of a new technology called PCR (polymerase chain reaction) that enabled DNA to be replicated and amplified, and the availability of new high-speed computer-sequencing technology, scientists began to consider a global endeavor to map and sequence the entire human genome – that is, to identify the now more accurately assessed 20,000–25,000 genes of the human body and determine the sequences of the 3 billion chemical base pairs that make up human DNA. The human genome project marks the entry of genetics into the realm of big science and officially began in 1990 with the aim of completing the genetic sequencing of certain forms of bacteria, yeast, plants, animals, and ultimately human beings. It was anticipated that a complete human sequence would be produced by 2005. The scale of the project was such that it was as much a political endeavor as a scientific one. In the United States, the project was headed by James Watson, who played a key role as both scientist and political lobbyist. Although the majority of the research was undertaken in the United States, the project became an international collaboration, involving twenty research groups from six countries. The intention was to divide the mapping of the twenty-four human chromosomes among some dozen or so laboratories around the world. One-third of the human genome was sequenced in the United Kingdom at the Sanger Institute. The scale and cost of the project was huge. It is estimated that work carried out in sequencing the single gene responsible for the disease cystic fibrosis cost between US$50 million and US$150 million. The human genome project has political dimensions, as could be expected for any project requiring so much funding, with huge potential rewards for the biotechnology industry in terms of the possible application of genetics to medicine and agriculture. The enormous expense of this project was justified primarily on the basis of the likely medical benefits. There was also an implicit understanding that such an enterprise would have economic benefits by helping to fuel a growing biotechnology sector. Indeed, as the project progressed, many countries involved, including the United Kingdom, were quite explicit in their plans to use genomics to help generate national wealth. The International Human Genome Consortium (the group which coordinated and genetics managed the human genome project) made extravagant speculations about the practical importance of their work for human health, claiming that the human genome project would lead to profound long-term consequences for medicine, by enabling an understanding of the underlying molecular mechanisms of disease and the design of drugs and other therapeutics targeted at those mechanisms. As the project developed, so too did the “hype,” with many speaking of genetics as the key to unlocking the secrets of life and providing a genetic blueprint of what it is to be human. Many scientists involved were also keen to ensure that scientific competition would not undermine or delay the project. In particular, there was concern that the granting of patents allowing exclusive property rights over data would undermine international collaboration. It was therefore agreed that this worldwide, multibillion-dollar project would be funded solely from public funds and medical charities such as the United Kingdom’s Wellcome Trust. Furthermore, information on the sequencing of all human genes was to be made freely available via the internet. The ethos of the policy of publicly funding the human genome project is that it is a democratic resource intended to maximize the benefits for society as a whole. Nevertheless, commercial companies were involved in a race to map and sequence the human genome, and the American company Celera Genomics developed a rapid gene-sequencing technique and subsequently took out commercial patents in order to profit from this work. In response, work being undertaken on the human genome project accelerated and a race between these two groups to be the first to announce the completion of an initial draft of the human genome developed. In June, 2000, President Bill Clinton of the United States and Prime Minister Tony Blair of the United Kingdom made a televised announcement that the work of the human genome project was almost complete. The announcement was made five years before the original estimate of completion, and it was a further two years before the project was officially declared complete. The announcement made headline news around the world and was surrounded by much media-fueled hype, with politicians and scientists variously describing it as the most wondrous map ever made and more important than the invention of the wheel. The human genome project and recent developments in genetics are surrounded by triumphalist accounts of scientific progress. While there has been little in the way of sociological theory to genetics explain the phenomenon of hype that pervades this field, some have noted that such hype plays an important role in generating the necessary funding and investments for projects such as the human genome and other biotech endeavors. Alongside the creation of high expectations that genetics and associated technologies will bring, it is recognized that developments in genetics also raise new ethical problems. While this new form of scientific knowledge has promised to bring about cures for many diseases, and the elimination of inherited disabilities, genetics is also understood to raise new ethical issues and fears about the social consequences of such interventions. Concerns were voiced from the outset about the ethical, legal, and social implications of the human genome endeavor. In the United States, James Watson successfully argued for the case that 5 percent of the total science budget should be set aside to study and address these issues. There has also been a growing expansion in the funding of similar projects in other countries. These initiatives are understood as playing an important role in the governance of genetic developments. Critical questions have been raised about whether such new technologies for reading our genetic constitution would challenge human identity and freedom, create unjust discrimination, and invade our privacy. Although many sociologists are now working in the field of bioethics alongside philosophers and lawyers, this is an uneasy alliance. There is a growing sociological critique of bioethics, which maintains that bioethics involves a narrowing of debate, is focused too much on individuals at the expense of the social, and too often readily legitimizes genetic developments. Sociologists have in general been more critical of recent developments in genetics. Some have suggested that developments in genetics are promoting a return to eugenic practices and generating genetic determinism. Others are less critical and, while acknowledging that genetics is extremely powerful in shaping ideas, see the emergence of new kinds of identities, forms of personhood, and social relations developing. Various surveys carried out to ascertain public opinion on developments in genetics indicate that, while there is widespread support for developments related to improvements in health, there is also widespread concern about scientists “tampering with nature.” Advocates of projects to map the human genome claim that the information produced will illuminate the causes of human disease, 237 genetics improve treatment, and, in general, increase our health and well-being. Certainly there are now tests available for detecting over 1,000 genetic diseases and conditions. Although not all of these are readily accessible in the clinic, the availability of such tests is growing at a rapid rate. Tests are used variously: to diagnose those suspected of having a genetic disease, to predict the likelihood of the existence of genetic disease in asymptomatic individuals with a family history of genetic disorders, and to identify carriers of a genetic disease (that is, those at risk of passing the disease on to their children but who do not themselves have susceptibility to the disease). Tests are also carried out during pregnancy and after birth. Prenatal testing is performed during a pregnancy to assess the health status of a fetus. Such tests are offered when there is an increased risk of having a child with a genetic condition due to maternal age, family history, or fetal ultrasound examination. Preimplantation testing is performed on early embryos resulting from in vitro fertilization (IVF) in order to decrease the chance of a particular genetic condition occurring in the fetus. It is generally offered to couples with a high chance of having a child with a serious disorder. Newborn screening identifies individuals who have an increased chance of having a specific genetic disorder so that treatment can be started as soon as possible. Nevertheless, while the human genome project has helped to identify a number of genetic conditions, there are only a few treatments available. Most genetic conditions cannot be treated and the reduction in the numbers of individuals being born with such conditions is a result of pregnancy terminations or through the selection of healthy embryos identified by genetic testing during IVF. There have also been a number of educational programs aimed at raising awareness among certain ethnic groups (see ethnicity and ethnic groups) that have been identified as having increased susceptibility to certain genetic conditions. Those of eastern European (Ashkenazi) Jewish descent, for example, are often targeted, as chances of being a carrier of Tay Sachs disease are significantly higher in these populations. A number of commentators have expressed concern about the commercialization of genetic tests and testing services. The biotech company Myriad Genetics, for example, has taken patents out on the genetic codes relating to the two genes most commonly associated with hereditary forms of breast cancer and has been successful in creating exclusive rights over these genetic tests. Many 238 genetics other genetic tests are now readily available over the internet, with tests such as those used for establishing paternity being increasingly used in disputes between parents as well as by agencies involved in determining child support. Many critics of contemporary genetic practices, such as Troy Duster, suggest that the introduction of clinical testing and genetic screening programs that have steadily increased since the late 1980s have created a Back Door to Eugenics (1990). Duster clearly warns against the dangers of prenatal detection of birth defects, gene therapies, and genetic solutions to problems associated with various racial minority groups. He also documents an increasing propensity to see crime, mental illness, and intelligence as expressions of genetic dispositions. Feminists and disability scholars, too, have expressed concern about the social implications of genetics, especially its reliance upon abortion to prevent the occurrence of genetic disease. In Genetic Politics (2002), Ann Kerr and Tom Shakespeare, while acknowledging that the recent implementations of practices and policies related to genetic technologies are very different from those in the past, also warn that there is a fine line between contemporary policies and practices on abortion and diseases and the past practice of compulsory sterilization for deviancy. They argue that genetics reinforces medical-genetic definitions of disability, makes judgments about the social worth of disabled persons, and ultimately involves decisions about what kinds of persons ought to be born. A number of scholars have criticized the costs of mapping the human genome and the possible discriminatory and eugenic applications of the information it will provide. They have raised concerns such as the implicit assumptions in the biomedical discourse in which the “benefits” of genetics are proposed, and the ways in which genetic tests shape definitions of illness and health, normality and abnormality. The terms geneticization and genetic determinism were first coined in the early 1990s to refer to the ways that social and other environmental conditions that shape the manifestation and meaning of bodily characteristics and behavior have been ignored in preference to biological and genetic understandings. Abby Lippman is credited with first using the term geneticization to build upon the concept of medicalization, whereby people come to perceive the body in conformity with biomedical categories. From this perspective, genetics is highly problematic, as it is based on false biological reductionist and deterministic assumptions which generate a genetics sense of fatalism. In a similar vein, Dorothy Nelkin and Susan Lindee in The DNA Mystique (1995) argue that the gene has become a very powerful cultural icon and that a process of genetic essentialism is occurring whereby what it is to be human is increasingly understood in genetic terms. Such geneticization, these critics argue, stems from highly exaggerated claims made by scientists and the ways in which powerful metaphors such as “genetic blueprint” and the “book of life” have been used to describe the human genome. The media in particular are seen to play a vital role in conveying and proliferating the iconic status of the gene. Nevertheless, concerns about geneticization and a return to eugenics are not shared by all scholars in this area. Nikolas Rose and Carlos Novas, for example, maintain that such approaches oversimplify the shifts in the form of personhood that arise as a result of the growing awareness of genetic risk. They claim that the new genetics does not so much result in individuals seeing themselves and their lives along predetermined genetic lines, but rather that knowledge of genetic risk transforms their identities and relations with medical experts in novel and unexpected ways. The growth in various forms of patient activism – such as those coalescing around web-based forums and patient organizations that not only raise funds to find cures for genetic diseases, but also help direct scientific agendas – are evidence, they argue, of a more active self-actualizing form of personhood. There has been a great deal of research within the field of medical sociology examining the experience and understandings of those who are understood to be genetically at risk of disease. The new genetics is based primarily on those selfidentifying, and being identified, as at risk. Much of this work is based on a phenomenology approach, focusing on descriptive analyses of the procedures of self-, situational, and social constitution of those who have experienced genetic testing or understand themselves as living with an increased risk of disease. While much of this work, too, highlights the ways in which individuals’ knowledge of genetic risk may generate a sense of responsibility towards others, in particular family members who may also be at risk, such research also demonstrates the difficulties and dilemmas faced by those at risk. Risks in the form of the consequences of genetic engineering or genetic modification of human and other living organisms have also been a subject of debate for scholars. genetics There is concern that genetic engineering of humans, where faulty genes are either repaired or replaced, might alter the germline cells (those cells that have genetic material that may be passed on via reproduction to a child) and irreversibly alter the genetic makeup of future generations. In The Future of Human Nature (2003), Jürgen Habermas argues that positive eugenics such as genetic engineering, along with other forms of genetic enhancements, should be forbidden. The reason for forbidding such interventions is that they undermine what it is to be human by ignoring the autonomy of future generations and their standing as moral agents. Drawing upon Max Weber’s notions of rationality, John Evans, in Playing God! (2002), examines bioethics and policy debates about genetic engineering. Evans demonstrates that many such debates, although initially broad-ranging, quickly tend to become narrowly defined, focusing more on how best to achieve the scientific aims rather than on the desirability or otherwise of the aims themselves. Developments in the new genetics raise profound questions about democracy and citizen rights. Fears about the undesirable social consequences of developments in genetics have prompted governmental and international regulations and statements. In 1997, for example, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) drew up a Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights. The declaration affirms the human dignity of each individual, regardless of his or her genetic endowment, and sets out ethical principles for the conduct of research, treatment, or diagnosis related to characteristics of a person’s genome. It calls upon states to outlaw discrimination based on genetic characteristics if such discrimination would have the effect of “infringing human rights, fundamental freedoms and human dignity.” Many indigenous peoples and environmental nongovernmental organizations oppose the granting of patents on biological materials such as genes, plants, animals, and humans. Some commentators suggest that we are witnessing new forms of “biopiracy” and the colonization of life itself. The Human Genome Diversity Project, which proposes to collect blood and tissue samples from hundreds of different indigenous groups worldwide for genetic study, has been severely criticized by indigenous communities and human rights advocates. They have raised questions regarding both ownership of the genetic samples and who stands to profit from the commercialization of 239 genocide genocide products derived from the samples. Concerns have also been raised in relation to the collection, storage, and ownership of DNA for the growing number of national genetic databases. The creation of genetic databases has been surrounded by controversy and debate, attracting worldwide media attention and significant financial investment by both public and private bodies. At national and international levels, policymakers have sought to define and engage with what they see as the considerable social, ethical, and legal issues at stake. These include informed consent, commercialization, ownership, privacy, confidentiality, and public confidence in the governance of research. Many of these are longstanding areas of public policy in relation to the new genetics and more broadly. An Enlightenment model of progress underpins much of this scientific endeavor with an everincreasing control of nature through culture. At the same time, a number of commentators have noted that culture is becoming increasingly biologized. Paul Rabinow, for example, has coined the term “biosociality” to refer to the new forms of subjecthood and social and political practices that are emerging, which he sees as providing a possible basis for overcoming the nature/culture split. OONAGH CORRIGAN genocide While mass killing has been a perennial aspect of human societies, the term genocide is a relatively new concept. It was coined by the Polish jurist Raphael Lemkin in his Axis Rule in Occupied Europe (1944) as the legal term to describe the atrocities committed by the Nazis in World War II. Lemkin’s effort aimed to provide a legal category to make such acts justiciable under international law (see law and society). In Lemkin’s view, genocide is a coordinated plan that aims to destroy national groups, in whole or in part. This plan includes not only physical destruction, in the form of mass murder, but also the destruction of the group’s culture and collective identity. Lemkin’s definition has served as the conceptual foundation for practically all subsequent efforts to define genocide, including those by sociologists. Among sociologists, there is considerable conceptual confusion about how to define genocide. Some sociologists adhere rather closely to Lemkin’s definition and/or legal definitions, while others seek more expansive sociological definitions, which outline the general structural elements of genocide. Legalistic definitions, however, make it difficult to engage in systematic socio240 logical research and theorizing about genocide. There is some general consensus among sociologists that genocide is the killing of substantial numbers of people by an institutionalized, superordinate form of power, generally a state in conjunction with military power. The victims are generally subordinate, both in a material sense (lacking the means of self-defense) and in a symbolic or ideological sense (they are socially constructed as “threatening,” “evil,” or “dangerous”). For many legal scholars, genocide is characterized by what is called dolus specialis, or special intent, but this is a difficult category to conceptualize within existing sociological theory. Homicide is the killing of one person, but genocide is the killing of a number of people. There is, however, no consensus, either among legal scholars or sociologists, as to what the numerical threshold for genocide is. Much of the social science literature on genocide relies on a naturalistic and positivistic frame of reference that aims to predict and prevent genocide. Barbara Harff and Ted Gurr in Early Warning of Communal Conflicts and Genocide (1996) have developed an “early warning” model that provides a series of indicators that aims to predict the occurrence of genocide. Such predictions, however, are not at present tied closely to the institutional means of prevention. In recent years, genocide has occurred in Iraq, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Rwanda, and Sudan. Owing to the modern mass media, these genocides were widely observed, but were not prevented. This fact indicates that the phenomenon of “bystanding” is also an important aspect of any definition, empirical research, or theory of genocide in the modern world. For some sociologists, the relationship between modernity and genocide is highly significant. In his Modernity and the Holocaust (1989), Zygmunt Bauman argues that the scale of mass killing in the Holocaust was enabled by the very forms of bureaucratic rationality and instrumental reason that characterize modernity. Bauman’s sociological view focuses less on the intent and agency of actors or institutions and more on the power of social roles and institutionalized practices that enable ordinary people to become perpetrators of extreme violence. Michael Barnett in Eyewitness to a Genocide (2002) notes that the inability of institutions of global governance to prevent genocide is related to bureaucratic decisionmaking procedures, which stress organizational norms and imperatives to the detriment of more global ethical norms and genocide prevention. gerontology ghetto Since World War II, when the term genocide was coined, there have been numerous genocides, which indicates that this remains a perennial aspect of human collective behavior in the modern world. A recent example of genocide is in Darfur, Sudan, where as many as 300,000 people have been killed in a campaign of mass murder and cultural destruction. This event was recognized by the world community as genocide, but no decisive action was taken to stop it. TOM CUSHMAN gerontology The study of processes of population and individual aging, this draws upon a wide range of perspectives, including disciplines such as biomedicine, the social sciences, and the humanities. Gerontology is typically concerned with understanding aging, first, as a biological and social process affecting individuals across the lifecourse; second, as a process influencing social change through the movement of birth cohorts; thirdly, as a significant issue for the development of health and social policy. Interest in the nature of human aging is longstanding, reflected in studies of longevity and related themes from Francis Bacon (1561–1626) onwards. Gerontology as a discipline first emerged at the end of the nineteenth century, notably through investigations by Jean-Martin Charcot (1825–93) into the relationship between old age and illness, and the development of theories of aging by Elié Metchnikoff (1845–1916), based upon his work in medicine and biology. The study of aging from social as well as biological perspectives took longer to develop, but expanded rapidly from the 1940s – driven by awareness of the economic impact of aging populations. Professional associations concerned with research into aging developed around this time, including the Gerontological Society of America (established in 1945) and the International Association of Gerontology (1948). Key figures in the development of social and psychological studies of aging, from the 1950s onwards, included James Birren, Bernice Neugarten, Clark Tibbitts, and Matilda White Riley in the United States, and Peter Townsend in the United Kingdom. Sociological and social policy perspectives in gerontology were extended during the 1980s with a combination of critical perspectives on aging and fresh investigations into the family and community life of older people. The former (notably through the work of Carroll Estes and Alan Walker) challenged prevailing views about old age as a “problem for society,” highlighting structural pressures and constraints affecting older people. The latter confirmed the diversity of social ties in later life, and the continuing centrality of family and friends through all stages of the life-course. Longitudinal research in gerontology has confirmed the complex mix of factors influencing the experience of growing old. On the one hand, interactions between social, psychological, and biological characteristics influence key aspects of aging. On the other hand, these are embedded within the particular historical and cultural experiences of successive birth cohorts. Membership of a cohort may, for example, greatly influence health and financial status as people mature into later life. This point is reflected in approaches such as cumulative advantage/disadvantage theory, which examines the extent to which early advantage or disadvantage may be accentuated over time leading to increased inequality at later stages of the life-course. Through models such as these, gerontology has challenged assumptions of homogeneity among old people, with research evidence suggesting that people become less alike with age, given long-term interactions between genetic endowment, social inequalities, and cultural and historical events. Major influences on gerontological research in the twenty-first century are likely to include the challenge of globalization and the impact of population aging on poorer regions of the world. Hitherto, studies of growing old have been dominated by a focus on older people in western society. Global society comprises, however, a range of demographic processes with variations in the experience and likelihood of growing old. Studying such differences and inequalities across the world will undoubtedly produce major challenges and questions for gerontological research over the next phase of its development. C H R I S P H I L L I P S O N ghetto This term comes from the early modern Italian practice of setting aside urban neighborhoods for Jewish people. Over time, the term retained its association with the enforced segregation of Jews in Europe, but in the United States in the twentieth century, ghetto was generalized to other social groups against which a collective prejudice was directed – notably urban blacks confined economically and socially to an isolated residential area. By the early 2000s, the term had entered common language to be applied to any social group cut off from common social life, 241 Giddens, Anthony (1938– ) sometimes by its own preferences (for example, “the academic ghetto” or “the gypsy ghetto”). With respect to urban enclaves of ethnic groups (see ethnicity and ethnic groups) other than Jews or blacks, the term ghetto is commonly replaced by expressions like Chinatown or Little Italy. Whether imposed on the segregated by the wider society or assumed by those who cut themselves off, the term generally retains its original pejorative connotation, as in “ghetto-blasting” in reference to the loud music outsiders associate with the cultural tastes of black ghetto youth. In academic sociology, “ghetto” may occur as a quasitechnical term borrowed from common language, but it is more accurately used to denote the social practice whereby social groups tend to associate with others of like kind, usually (but not always) residentially, occasionally by their own choice, but usually by force. CHARLES LEMERT Giddens, Anthony (1938– ) Born in 1938 in north London, the son of a clerk, Giddens has had two careers, the first as one of the most influential social theorists of our time, the second as a public intellectual both in Great Britain and on the global stage. Giddens was trained as a social theorist at the London School of Economics, to which he returned as Director from 1997 to 2003. From 1970 to 1997, Giddens taught at the University of Cambridge where he became a professor and life fellow of King’s College. He is the author or editor of over thirty books. He was made a life peer and took his seat in the British House of Lords in 2004. As a social thinker, Giddens has an exceptional ability to reconcile and synthesize leading arguments drawn from disparate and often rival schools of thought. In doing so he produces novel analytical frameworks and concepts that preserve the strengths of a vast array of sources. Proceeding in this way, Giddens has done as much as any single thinker to set the agenda for an entire generation of sociologists. He first rose to prominence in 1971 when he published Capitalism and Social Theory. At a time when Anglophone social theory was still ill informed about European social thought, Giddens provided surehanded commentaries on the depth and breadth of works by Max Weber, Émile Durkheim, and especially Karl Marx, whom Giddens did much to legitimate for sociologists who previously had avoided his works. In the next phase of his sociological career, Giddens created a new analytic framework he dubbed structuration theory. Structuration theory 242 Giddens, Anthony (1938– ) is a sociological ontology, that is, a set of concepts that propose generic assumptions about the nature of social life that sociologists draw upon when they first think about social life in any given historical, cultural, or local domain. When developing structuration theory, Giddens absorbed the lessons of Harold Garfinkel, Erving Goffman, and the later philosophy of Ludwig Wittgenstein, all of whom concurred on the fundamental importance of enacted practices in social life. It is in part thanks to Giddens’s structuration theory that social practices are now regarded as basic units of analysis in sociology. When Giddens first began developing structuration theory at Cambridge in the mid-1970s, social action was almost always defined in terms of the subjective meaning the actor gave to his/her own acts. Like Garfinkel, Goffman, and the later Wittgenstein, Giddens recognized that it is what actors do and how they perform that constitutes social conduct. But Giddens was quite critical of sociologists of practice (also known as sociologists of everyday life) for their unwillingness to take on board the reflexive association between enacted forms of conduct and the larger structural properties and morphological patterns of relations in society. In his central concept of the duality of structure, Giddens proposes that structural properties of larger and enduring social groups are carried by actors as forms of competencies that enable them to act in specific ways in appropriate situations. Actors in such situations may reproduce the general form of the practices they have learned in the past, or they may alter that form in some way. While no single act may sustain or change the structural properties of a culture or a group in itself, the manifold reproduction or alteration of practices by numerous actors over extended periods of time will either reproduce the characteristic structured features of a culture or group, or more or less substantially revise the structure of that group. In much the same way, enacted practices may either reproduce or alter the networks of contacts and relations, and the more integrated systems, that provide the morphological patterns for society. In structuration theory, Giddens also offers a new theory of power in society. Like Weber, Giddens distinguishes forms of domination from the forms of social power in everyday life. Concentrating on the latter, Giddens breaks sharply with Michel Foucault and others who see pervasive domination in social life. In his concept of the dialectic of control, Giddens proposes that in principle all actors, save perhaps for those who gift Gilroy, Paul (1956– ) are physically disabled, have at least two options, namely to comply or resist the orders of others. Given that the dominant typically require compliance from the dominated, Giddens proposes that dominated groups always have some ability to carve out spheres of autonomy for themselves, however modest or expansive they may be. Recent works by Michael Mann and Charles Tilly expand upon this point, though only Mann directly acknowledges a debt to Giddens in this regard. Modernity is the theme in the third phase of Giddens’s sociological career, a phase marked by three publications: The Consequences of Modernity (1990), Modernity and Self-Identity (1991), and “Living in a Post-Traditional Society,” in Ulrich Beck, Giddens, and Scott Lash, Reflexive Modernization (1994). As the Soviet Union imploded and the information age was about to dawn, Giddens pointed out that dramatic cultural, political, economic, and technological change has been characteristic of modernity since its inception. This did not make the new wave of changes any less disruptive and disorienting. Indeed, Giddens mainly concentrates his attention on the existential problems and the difficulties in maintaining personal relationships that have beset modern western societies since the end of World War II. Two disruptive forces of particular note are, on the one hand, the eclipse of time and (to only a relatively lesser degree) space as barriers to the expansion of social systems and, on the other hand, the erosion of local authority and culture by abstract economic and informational systems. But Giddens also notes the countervailing trend of the reappropriation of abstract knowledge by actors in their everyday lives. As a public intellectual, Giddens is best known as the originator of The Third Way, a set of leading ideas for social policy associated with the Labour government of Prime Minister Tony Blair in Britain and several European governments as well. Giddens has published several books for general audiences including The Third Way (1998) and Runaway World (2000). IRA COHEN Americans in which a chief might display his power through a ritual destruction of his possessions. This example demonstrates the contradictory nature of gift giving, both creative and destructive. In the social philosophy of Jacques Derrida (1930–2004), the study of gifts is related more broadly to hospitality and friendship. Derrida has drawn on Emile Benveniste’s Le Vocabulaire des institutions Indo-Europeenes (1969) in his Of Hospitality (2000). In the study of reciprocity, Derrida showed that in a variety of European languages there are important etymological connections between “stranger,” “enemy,” and “guest.” Latin hostis indicates the notion of a stranger who has an irresistible claim on our hospitality, specifically a claim against the master of the household. While people who dwell outside may be enemies, the guest who has entered our dwelling to sit by the fireside has significant rights and can claim our protection. This analysis of the origins of “guest” demonstrates how notions of reciprocity and exchange between the master of a household and the guest emerge from expectations about hospitality. Any consideration of the stranger/guest relationship must take into account the wider realm of gift exchange, and the duties that attach to giving and receiving. Derrida was influenced by Mauss’s discussion of “primitive exchange” in The Gift, in which the word pharmakon means both poison and cure. In Mauss’s analysis of the potlatch ritual of the Native American communities of the northwest coast, it is evident that the gift-exchange is typically a challenge that creates a destructive social relationship. In connection with social relations, the gift is both corrosive (poison) and therapeutic (cure). In reflecting on “Plato’s Pharmacy” through Mauss’s analysis of the pharmakon, Derrida used this etymological analysis of the ambiguity of the gift to show in effect that all ethical behavior involves hospitality, because ethics are about the claims which the stranger might have on our society. BRYAN S. TURNER gift gift relationship The giving of gifts has been analyzed as an aspect of social exchange. Gifts generally create or reinforce social solidarity by creating obligation, but they can also be used aggressively to demonstrate superior social power. In his The Gift, Marcel Mauss (1923 [trans. 1983]) treated gifts as a form of social exchange which reinforces social solidarity, creating a duty to reciprocate the original gift, but he also examined the “potlatch ritual” of Native – see gift. Gilroy, Paul (1956– ) Influenced by the Birmingham Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies, since 1999 Gilroy has been Professor of Sociology and African-American Studies at Yale University. His PhD thesis, “Racism, Class and The Contemporary Politics of ‘Race’ and ‘Nation’” (1986), focused on the British situation 243 Glazer, Nathan (1924– ) and culminated in his first book, There Ain’t No Black in the Union Jack (1987). His work has been a consistent attempt to combat “raciology” by emphasizing the diasporic character of racial categories of identity, solidarity, and resistance. The Black Atlantic (1993), Against Race (2000), and Between Camps (2004) reject essentialist approaches to ethnicity in favor of a post-identity form of doubleconsciousness that seeks to acknowledge the hybrid form of the various versions of white supremacy and black power. The Black Atlantic reveals the authoritarian connection between sovereign territory and national consciousness and the contradictions thereof. It argues that for 150 years black intellectuals in the West have been diasporic and struggled with the dilemmas involved in being simultaneously black and western. Gilroy’s sociology makes an explicit link between the quest for territorial sovereignty, racism, and fascism. At the level of material culture, Gilroy has examined black vernacular and popular cultures through black music, film, and literature to demonstrate the articulation of diasporic, hybrid forms. His recent work has been concerned with examining the meaning of multiculturalism and elaborating non-racial democracy. This has climaxed in the concept of “planetary humanism” which he develops from Aimé Césaire and Franz Fanon. This rejects liberal humanism on the grounds that it is complicit with racism and calls for an inclusive, global, anti-racist, anti-militaristic, and environmentalist humanism. By arguing that racial politics must transgress the color line and incorporate a critical stance on essentialist thinking per se, Gilroy shows that he is au courant with postcolonial thought and the post-identity thinking found in the work of his old Birmingham School mentor, Stuart Hall. But critics have questioned whether his politics of double-consciousness and planetary humanism is CHRIS ROJEK practically viable. Glazer, Nathan (1924– ) Formerly Professor of Education and Social Structure and currently Professor Emeritus, in the Graduate School of Education, Harvard University, and the co-editor of The Public Interest, Glazer has been an influential figure in American public life in terms of his writing on race relations and multiculturalism. He has been closely associated with the so-called New York intellectuals who included such figures as Daniel Bell. He was, as a student, a follower of L. Trotsky, the Russian revolutionary. After the Depression, Glazer, like many Jewish intellectuals, came to regard capitalist 244 Glazer, Nathan (1924– ) America as a successful democracy in which each successive wave of migrants could eventually be incorporated into America, despite discrimination. His first publication was on the topic of his dissertation, The Social Basis of American Communism (1961), and he collaborated in David Riesman’s The Lonely Crowd (1950). He came to the attention of the academic community through his publications on race and ethnicity. He wrote the influential American Judaism (1957) and, with D. P. Moynihan, he published Beyond the Melting Pot (1963) and Ethnicity. Theory and Practice (1975). His essays on these issues were published as Ethnic Dilemmas 1964–1982 (1983). Glazer has emerged as a controversial figure in American politics because he has questioned affirmative action programs, for example in support of black Americans. These arguments were presented in Affirmative Discrimination (1975) – a collection of essays that date back to the early 1970s. Critics of Glazer, for example S. Steinberg (2001) in Turning Back. The Retreat from Racial Justice in American Thought, have argued that, not only has he abandoned the socialist principles of his youth, but also it is hypocritical of a person from a migrant Jewish background to criticize black activists for demanding support for their aspirations to succeed in American society. For example, Glazer was a student at City College New York in 1940 when tuition was free – a form therefore of affirmative action. Critics claim that his policy prescriptions are justified by apparently scholarly arguments from, for example, Beyond the Melting Pot, where Glazer argued that, because black Americans had suffered so profoundly in the past from slavery, they have not experienced the upward social mobility enjoyed by other ethnic communities who have prospered in the American Dream. Glazer argues that repairing this historical problem of black Americans is beyond the scope of current social policy. Glazer argued that, despite the civil rights movement, the gap between white and black Americans has persisted, and this inequality is associated with declining inner-city schools and the unravelling of the black family. He has recently been critical of liberal policies, especially in schools towards a multicultural curriculum, in We Are All Multiculturalists Now (1997) and Sovereignty under Challenge (J. D. Montgomery and N. Glazer (eds.), 2002), in which he is concerned that multicultural education subverts the truth and undermines national unity by the “Balkanization” of the American republic. Glazer and his generation believed that Americanization was unproblematic because globalism ethnic minorities would eventually be assimilated and benefit from growing economic prosperity. However, that optimism has been questioned by the fact that black progress appears to have come to an end in the 1970s. For his critics, Glazer apparently offers black youth a bleak choice: either negative social conflict and disharmony, or passive acceptance of inclusion into American society (on white terms). Despite criticisms, the quality and importance of Glazer’s scholarship remains unquestioned. BRYAN S. TURNER globalism – see globalization. globalization Described as a new world order, some scholars argue that globalization is an unprecedented 21st-century reorganization of time, space, people, and things. It is variously portrayed, sometimes as “globalism” by advocates and promoters, or as a postmodern form of unrestrained capitalist expansion and imperialism by members of antiglobalization movements. In both instances, the object of support or resistance is a global system of interconnected communication and transportation networks, economic markets, and persons, covering almost the entire planet. An essential feature of this system is that it is deterritorialized, that is, the connections and collectivities exist primarily in electronic networks of communication. Some authors, such as Arun Appadurai in his “Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Cultural Economy,” in Public Culture (1990), refer to this as a form of pan-locality, with multiple nodes of transaction or “scapes” – ethnoscapes, technoscapes, finanscapes, mediascapes, ideoscapes, linguistically echoing the notion of landscape for segmented networks in this now deteritorrialized, fluid, transnational, global social organization. Through the electronic connections and diverse scapes, elements of human culture move around the globe separately from geographic, institutional, or relational contexts. A scientific–technological account of globalization describes a world engirded by a finely wrought network of cables, satellites, air, and sea lanes, as well as old familiar land routes, that transport information, things, and people from one place to any other on the globe in anything from a minute to a day. This is a world in which boundaries that once had been created by time and space have been eroded by scientific and technological developments, especially in communication and transportation. globalization These innovations have roots in ancient times when exploration and trade by land and sea was apparent in the Mediterranean basin and Asian seas, and in medieval and Renaissance times when scientific and technological innovations began to spread around the globe. Scientific and technological development escalated noticeably, however, during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and, with exponential rates of both invention and social change in the twentieth century, the spatial and temporal distances that had historically moored distinct populations, languages, cultures, markets, and political systems have been made porous through regularized and continual communication. In this techno-scientific account, emphasis is placed on the cumulative effects of the Enlightenment, and how humans slowly accumulate the knowledge and ability to produce ever increasingly rational forms of social organization and technological innovation, in the end overcoming ignorance, superstition, myth, religion, and scarcity to create relative abundance, human freedom, and worldwide mobility. The mixing of peoples, languages, and cultures has brought about what is now a transparent hybridity in human groups and cultures. While few human cultures, in history or contemporary times, have been unaffected by exchange with others (enemies or friends), the degree of hybridity and technologically driven hybridization is at a scale and pace heretofore unknown. A political-economic account of globalization places less emphasis on the technological sources of globalization than on the political and normative claims of capitalist investment. Rather than being a portrayal of the success of science and technology, a political-economic account describes the historic triumph of the market economy. It is an account of how the market – as a means of coordinating production and distribution – is now worldwide, after more than a century of being confined within national and regional boundaries. This view of globalization depicts markets as both the engine and product of human energy and imagination, now in the twenty-first century overcoming what is described as backward and inefficient systems of centralized planning and socialized ownership that governed a good part of the globe during the twentieth century. Some accounts of globalization emphasize the international coordination of scientific research to control disease, prolong lifetimes, and improve conditions of everyday life. Others focus on the 245 globalization transnational flow of people, goods, and capital that creates a global division of labor with an equally global diffusion of material and cultural goods. For example, goods produced with Korean or Chilean labor, from materials mined in Zaire or grown in India, are sold in the shops in Paris, Los Angeles, or Tokyo. People born and raised in Mexico, Guatemala, Turkey, Algeria, Ethiopia, or Zimbabwe travel north to find work to sustain families left behind. At the same time, music from American urban ghettos is played in the shops in Japan and Australia or the streets of Budapest and Russia, portable telephones manufactured in Finland adorn the hips of laborers from Santiago to Cape Town, and television stations around the globe fill their schedules with the product of Hollywood studios while munching on American-style fast food of Big Macs and French fries. As the same time as local sites become linked in a global circulation of people, signs, materials, and goods, globalization is understood to be reshaping the parts of the world now joined communicatively and economically. While some people and phenomena are ripped from spatial and territorial moorings, others – for example, social groups based on ethnic, linguistic, or religious practices – become re-territorialized, making claims to specific pieces of geography with newly recognized boundaries as the ground of their participation in the global world order. While some localities experience a marked increase in standards of living (measured in terms of reduced infant mortality, longevity, education, and calories consumed), others experience an equally marked decline in material, psychological, and sociological conditions of everyday life. In the techno-science account, the global community is linked internally by its actively shared cultures and externally through its collective scientific exploration beyond this globe. Rather than a portrayal of the success of science and technology, the political-economy account emphasizes the virtues of flexible production, worldwide sourcing, and low-cost transportation and communication. Just as the boundaries between time, space, people, and things are erased in the techno-science account, the economic account emphasizes the erasure of traditional distinctions among market tools – between banking, brokerage, insurance, business, politics, and consumer credit – and the promotion of strict boundaries between economics and politics. Global capital is financialized, that is, like social transactions dis-embedded from geography and social 246 globalization relations, capital accumulation is also de-territorialized, mobile, residing nowhere more than in cyberspace. Ever liquid, new financial instruments are created as well as markets in these instruments, new markets in commodities, as well as markets in currencies and debts. The capital that fuels the global circulation of goods, services, and people is therefore faceless and rootless, free of national or geographic identity, ever mobile, moving from one locale to another, as efficiency and profit demands. The global markets create both dispersion and integration. Global dispersion is typified by the creation of new producers and sites of production within nations and transnationally. Large and small companies increase their subcontracting, and do so with several geographically distant subcontractors for the same product. Industrial homework spreads into the hinterlands of remote parts of the world at the same time as highly skilled cognitive (mind-work) laborers and professionals move their work from office to home, sometimes also at great distances from the centers of control and management. This diffusion of worldwide outsourcing – fueled by low transportation costs and computerized communication linkages – creates flexible production and higher profits for corporate managers and owners, while relegating labor and suppliers to hypercompetition and insecure income. The territorial dispersion is accompanied by a parallel concentration of centralized control to manage and finance the dispersed production. The remotest sites of individual production are tied by centralized management through closely linked chains of financial and design control finding their apex primarily in the global cities such as Tokyo, New York, and London. The global cities produce the specialized services which, according to Saskia Sassen in The Global City (1991), are “needed by complex organizations for running spatially dispersed networks of factories, offices, and service outlets,” as well as the “financial innovations and the making of markets . . . central to the internationalization and expansion of the financial industry.” The dual processes of dispersion and integration are joined in processes of what some term “glocalization,” a neologism joining globalization and localization to describe the customization of globally produced products or services for local cultures and markets. It is also used to refer to the use of global networks, for example in cell phones, to provide local services. It refers in addition to identity marketing that fetishizes local globalization places for the purpose of product branding, associating, for example, coffee with a particular Colombian farmer, or a unique island with the home of a generic product. According to Roland Robertson, who is credited with popularizing the term, glocalization describes the tempering effects of local conditions on global pressures. At a 1997 conference on “Globalization and Indigenous Culture,” Robertson said that glocalization “means the simultaneity – the co-presence – of both universalizing and particularizing tendencies.” The term, first used by Japanese economists in the 1980s, is also used prescriptively in business circles to emphasize that the globalization of a product is more likely to succeed when the product or service is adapted and tailored specifically to each locality or culture in which it is marketed. Examples of glocalization display the selfconscious cultural hybridization that is at work in global marketing. For example, the American fast-food chain McDonald’s replaced its mascot, the clown Ronald McDonald, in French advertising with Asterix the Gaul, a popular French cartoon character. Accompanying the techno-scientific and economic accounts of globalization, there are political and moral claims about the necessity of a rule of law (see law and society) and, at the same time, the inefficiencies of legal regulation. In the political–legal account of globalization, national boundaries are described as inefficient and should cease being barriers to trade: all national economies should be open to trade. In this moral universe, all exchanges, transactions, and engagements should be signaled solely through market prices, which are conceived as the only legitimate form of social control for rewarding good action and punishing bad. Public regulation of private enterprise, as an alternative to price regulation, is the enemy of the global economy and its moral universe. As a corollary to the dominant role of prices as the major form of communicating participation in the market economy, domestic prices are supposed to conform to international prices and monetary policies are expected to be directed to the maintenance of price and balance-ofpayment stability. These are the basic universal principles of market economics promoted by the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and neoliberal economists promoting market globalization. Although markets depend on law to provide a stable normative environment, ensuring security of property and contracts, the global “marketeers” insist that the law do no more. Beyond the globalization assurance of mutual trust and normative order, the market or neoliberal account of globalization demands that the rest of economic affairs remain entirely matters of market (price) decisions rather than the consequences of political organization or legal processes. The market version of globalization urges use of law to police a fixed boundary between public and private, between economics and politics. Although national legal orders in western Europe and the United States have, for more than 100 years, created various adjustments to counteract market instabilities and imperfect competition, a key feature of globalization at the end of the twentieth and beginning of the twentyfirst centuries is the fury of its critique of legal intervention and its insistence on a natural and necessary divide between public and private, economics and politics. Historical experience and legal precedents notwithstanding, the global marketeers insist that the private law regime of property and contract, at both the national and international levels, is an apolitical realm, merely supportive of private initiative and decision, immune from public or political contestations and without significant or problematic redistributive consequences. Some observers argue that the global system – embodied primarily in the communication networks – allows direct cultural and economic relationships that bypass and/or subvert – depending on the point of view – traditional power hierarchies like national governments, or markets. There are some who see in globalization the possibilities of a new democratic transformation. Some stress that the circulation of capital and culture is – as the phrase suggests – a circulation, not solely a movement from the center to the peripheries. By dissolving political, temporal, and spatial boundaries, the technological revolutions underwriting this transnational exchange create capacity for movement in all directions and with less investment than was heretofore possible. From this perspective, as illustrated in Boaventura de Sousa Santos’s Toward a New Common Sense: Law, Science and Politics in the Paradigmatic Transition (1995), globalization enables more diverse participation and more sources of influence – forms of enfranchisement – throughout the world-system. Those at the geographic peripheries of the world-system welcome the chance to be regular and possibly influential participants in the virtual global community. In the global networks of communication and exchange, human creativity can be unleashed from traditional cultural and material constraints to find new forms of expression in 247 globalization what seems like an unbounded space of possible interactions and connections. Here, observers point to the importance of human rights discourse, in contrast to the economic rights discourse of marketeers, in shaping actual, not merely a virtual, community, and the empirically documentable changes that discourse has wrought in heretofore authoritarian regimes. Similarly, some note the growing significance of environmental concerns in mobilizing social movements across traditional national, political, racial, and gender boundaries. For optimistic observers, globalizing markets pose an opportunity and challenge. In contrast, others view globalization as a historic process leading to a more one-way relationship between the global realm, inhabited by multinational corporations, global finance, the entertainment industry, international broadcasting, the worldwide web, amoral secular humanism, and a subjugated “local” realm where the identity-affirming senses of place, neighborhood, town, locale, ethnicity, religion, and morality barely survive against the global onslaught of globally circulated, professional produced-forprofit identities. Some claim that the technoscientific account of globalization is a saga of disenchantment, as Max Weber predicted. Noting the immediacy with which persons, goods, information, and technologies move across vast distances, and the expanding breadth and accelerating pace of consumption, critics of globalization, in anti-globalization movements and elsewhere, emphasize how the loss of sacred illusions and embedded identities has left a corrosive absence at the center of human life where “all that is solid melts into air” (Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto (1848 [trans. 1968]). Critics note the bombardment by stimuli, the neurological overloads, and the homogenizing consequences of the escalating circulation of signs and symbols removed from local experiences and interpretive frameworks. Globalization seems to be characterized by isomorphisms, convergences, and hybridizations that create a sense of pervasive sameness across heretofore-diverse cultures. Some anti-globalization movements emphasize this emptying out of meaning and morality in the global markets, actively seeking a return to a religiously guided morality, politics, and economy – sometimes violently, such as in Islamic Jihadist groups (such as the Taliban in Afghanistan) or some anti-abortion movements in the United States, sometimes peacefully, such as among Christian fundamentalists. 248 Goffman, Erving (1922–1982) Other anti-globalization movements emphasize and attempt to resist the growing inequality and erosion of economic security that had been promoted by the twentieth-century welfare politics. Some observers go so far as to describe globalization as a form of postmodern colonialism, where the worldwide distribution and consumption of cultural products removed from the contexts of their production and interpretation are organized through legal devices and markets to constitute a form of domination, as argued by Susan Silbey in “Let Them Eat Cake: Globalization, Postmodern Colonialism, and the Possibilities of Justice” (1996, Law and Society Review). In postmodern colonialism, control of land or political organization or nation-states is less important than power over consciousness and consumption, much more efficient forms of domination. This is, for anti-globalization critics, the consequence of advanced capitalism and technological innovation seeking a world free from restraints on the opportunity to invent and to invest. In this most critical account, globalization describes a world in which size and scale in terms of numbers of persons (who can produce), and in numbers of outlets (to disseminate and place products), and capital (to purchase both labor and land) determine the capacity to saturate local cultures. Advocates of free-market capitalism worldwide acknowledge the inequalities produced, urging “measures that enlarge the scope for wage differentials without making it socially unacceptable” (Y. Kosai, R. Lawrence, and N. Thygesen, “Don’t Give Up on Global Trade,” in the International Herald Tribune, 1996). The processes of global economic differentiation have led to increased income for some previously poor workers at the peripheries of the system, but also for significant transfers of income from workers to upper-level managers and investors. Alongside the economic differentiation is a division of intellectual labor: the new systems that organize work and production are designed by relatively few highly educated, technically trained specialists, with labor and repetitive, minimal skill well distributed across the globe. SUSAN SILBEY glocalization – see globalization. Goffman, Erving (1922–1982) One of the most original, influential, and exciting sociologists, Erving Goffman found systematic order and moral meaning in the momentary gestures of individuals in the presence of one another Goffman, Erving (1922–1982) that seem at first glance to be nothing more than unreflective conformity to local custom and cultural etiquette. Goffman characterized this realm of phenomena “the interaction order,” and in his essay by that name, published in American Sociological Review (1983), saw it as comprising all that is socially structured whenever actors are in sufficiently close proximity to be aware of one another’s presence. (He termed this the condition of copresence.) Focused conversations are the most obvious phenomena in the interaction order. However, the interaction order also includes the less involving, small gestures through which actors acknowledge or avoid one another in everyday life. At the boundaries of the interaction order, Goffman includes the ways people respect one another’s privacy in public settings and the ways people maneuver so as to maintain order on crowded city streets. Readers almost unanimously experience a special sense of discovery in reading Goffman’s work. He was outstandingly blessed with the ability to find order and significance in everything from small shifts in body posture to a conversational pause that continues only slightly beyond cultural expectations. But Goffman did not couple his deep insights with sociological breadth. He assumed a controversial theoretical position by maintaining that there is only a loose coupling between the interaction order and larger institutional orders such as the worlds of work, commerce, and government. Goffman was born in 1922 in the Canadian province of Alberta to parents of Jewish-Ukrainian descent who immigrated to Canada prior to World War I. He was educated in sociology and anthropology at the University of Toronto and began his graduate studies in anthropology at the University of Chicago, where he received his doctorate in 1953. His doctoral research, conducted during eighteen months of fieldwork in the Shetland Islands, yielded the data analyzed in one of his most prominent books, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (1959). Goffman took his first major academic position at the University of California, Berkeley, in 1958, and moved to the University of Pennsylvania in 1968. At the time of his death from cancer in 1982, he was President of the American Sociological Association. Goffman, together (though not in direct association) with George Herbert Mead, Alfred Schutz, and Harold Garfinkel, transformed the study of social action by shifting from a Weberian (and ultimately Kantian) emphasis on subjectivity, motivation, and the ascription of meaning, to Goffman, Erving (1922–1982) an emphasis on the enacted performance of social practices. He summarized this shift in a famous apothegm, “Not men and their moments. Rather moments and their men” (Interaction Ritual, 1967: 4). By this, he meant that social action in local situations is structured by cultural rituals rather than by the psychological motives of individuals. The majority of Goffman’s publications from 1956 to 1971 have a special richness in this regard. Transforming Émile Durkheim’s insights in completely unanticipated directions, Goffman demonstrated that apparently inconsequential aspects of social etiquette have deep-seated moral significance. One of his great achievements was to transmute Durkheim’s philosophically inspired insights into the cult of the dignity of the individual into studies of facework (that is, the ways in which individuals establish their identities during social interaction). Though Goffman never strayed into the analysis of the culture of individualism at large, he seemed to have a deep intuitive understanding of the fragility of social face within the culture of modernity, where interaction rituals and social identities shift from one context to the next. He was keenly aware of the possibilities of error, playfulness, and even attacks upon others during the course of facework. He was extremely sensitive to the structured avenues available in interaction for the protection and repair of one’s own face and the defense and repair of others. But these vulnerabilities impressed Goffman less than the fact that interaction rituals generally produce order in everyday life. For example, Goffman understood conversation to create an unio mystica, that is, a shared involvement that transcends all other concerns. But Goffman’s interest in order, which is one of his great sociological strengths, is the source of his greatest weakness as well. Other than embarrassment, an emotion that he could not ignore, Goffman studied the interaction order by bracketing the actor’s existential and emotional experiences. Hence, despite the stunning brilliance of his insights into morally meaningful interactions, his works sometimes lack sufficient human depth. For example, in Stigma (1964), Goffman analyzed the nature of profoundly damaged identity in social interaction with no more than perfunctory acknowledgments of the dramatic inner experiences of stigmatic individuals. In 1974, Goffman published Frame Analysis, a sprawling book in which he tried to draw together a systematic approach to the structured enactment of meaning in social life. However, the 249 Goldmann, Lucien (1913–1970) work is more valuable for its remarkable insights into specific forms of interaction than for its theoretical structure at large. Goffman’s genius, and the word is used purposefully here, resided in his ability to find order in the seemingly improvised nature of social action. His methods make reading his work a special delight, thanks in particular to his skill in drawing metaphors from contexts such as religious rituals, dramatic performance, and games, seen as idealized instances of the deeper and more general properties of social practice he wanted us to see. But if his imaginative recourse to these and a profusion of other metaphors to find the order in interaction sets him apart, Goffman stands out as well for his ability to sustain a systematic analysis while allowing for the contingencies available as an interaction scene unfolds. No other sociologist of action has managed to find the balance between order and contingency in local situations nearly as well. When classical social theory is redefined to include the twentieth century, Goffman will be one of the first IRA COHEN nominees. Goldmann, Lucien (1913–1970) Born in Romania, Goldmann spent much of his adult life in Switzerland and France. He is best known for his contribution to the study of literature and philosophy and in particular to the discussion of the ways in which literary and philosophical works are related to their social context. Goldmann was much influenced by the Hungarian Marxist Georg Lukács and the Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget; the work of both men encouraged Goldmann to attempt to find a way of explaining cultural form without reverting to either materialism or idealism. The fruition of Goldmann’s work was his study of Pascal and Racine, The Hidden God (first published in 1956), in which he argued that complex cultural phenomena are formed through what he described as “homologous structures,” essentially similar patterns of thought between relatively unformed ideologies and more complex and finished intellectual works. For Goldmann, the study of culture was not about the identification of “influence” or “context,” since this enterprise isolated social patterns; Goldmann argued for a method which maintained a “conceptual oscillation” between the parts and the whole. Goldmann wrote widely on seventeenth-century France, the Enlightenment, the method of the social sciences, and cultural change in the twentieth century. In the latter context he is well known for his assertion 250 Goode, William Josiah (1917–2003) that in modern western societies the great political battles are for the control of consciousness rather than the control of the means of production. MARY EVANS Goldthorpe, John (1935– ) A British sociologist, Goldthorpe is best known for his empirical and theoretical contributions to the study of social mobility and social class, and his trenchant critical essays on a wide range of topics in contemporary sociology. At the center of much of Goldthorpe’s work on topics in social stratification has been a critical empirical assessment of modernization and industrialization theories. Goldthorpe’s first major work, the three-volume The Affluent Worker (1968–9), examined the extent to which the best-paid segment of the working class was undergoing a process of embourgeoisement, concluding that this core claim of industrialization theory was for the most part unsustainable. From a base at Nuffield College at Oxford University, beginning in the early 1970s, he produced important work on occupational sociology (The Social Grading of Occupations, 1974) and the patterning of social mobility in Britain (Social Mobility and Class Structure in Modern Britain, revised 2nd edn., 1987 [1980]). Goldthorpe led a pioneering effort to examine systematically the patterns of social mobility cross-nationally in the so-called CASMIN project. The major work of this project, The Constant Flux (1992), was co-authored with Swedish sociologist Robert Erikson. It challenged the view that all societies are on a unilinear path of increasing social mobility. The “EG” class schema presented there and in earlier writings has become virtually standard in most contemporary cross-national work on classes in capitalist societies and has even been adopted by the British government. Goldthorpe has also penned a series of sharply and widely debated critical essays on the practice of qualitative and comparative-historical sociology, class analysis, feminism, and Marxism. Many of these are collected in On Sociology (2000). These critiques have in common an insistence upon the importance of rigorous empirical evidence and data analysis in developing and evaluating sociological theories, an approach Goldthorpe has consistently applied in his own research across his long career. JEFF MANZA Goode, William Josiah (1917–2003) Emeritus Professor at Stanford University, former President of the American Sociological Association, President of the Eastern Sociological Gouldner, Alvin (1920–1981) Society, and an assistant director of the Bureau of Applied Social Research, Goode made major contributions to the cross-cultural study of marriage and divorce, and to the theory of social control systems of prestige, force, and love. Goode taught at various universities in the United States: Wayne State, Columbia, Stanford, Harvard, and George Mason. His Columbia dissertation was published as Religion Among the Primitives (1951), which remains a brilliant introduction to the sociology of religion. His World Revolution and Family Patterns (1963) set the research agenda on the family in twentieth-century sociology by examining the rise of distinctive family patterns in fifty societies during the process of industrialization. His other major publications in this field were After Divorce (1956), The Family (1982), and World Changes in Divorce Patterns (1993). Goode developed the theory of social role in his Theory of Role Strain (1960) and of social status in his The Celebration of Heroes (1978). He contributed, with his co-author, Paul K. Hatt, to the teaching of methodology in Methods in Social Research (1952). Underlying much of his work was a theory of social exchange in which he was particularly interested in the role of third parties. BRYAN S. TURNER Gouldner, Alvin (1920–1981) Gouldner made a significant contribution in several areas of sociology, most notably to the understanding of the sociological enterprise itself. In his most important work, The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology (1970), he advances the case for a reflexive sociology which, he felt, would address the shortcomings of existing “conservative” and “Marxist” traditions. Gouldner’s most important early work, Patterns of Industrial Bureaucracy (1954), deals with conventional themes in industrial sociology and organization theory. The influential Wildcat Strike (1965), meanwhile, focused on a case study of employer– employee relations from which Gouldner constructed a theory of group tensions. By the 1960s, he had turned his attention increasingly to theoretical commentary on traditions of social theory and to its reconstruction. Taking a long time-span, he turned, in Enter Plato (1967), to aspects of the legacy of ancient Greece that he saw as having value in the contemporary world. Closer to home in The Coming Crisis, he argued against the adequacy of both structural functionalism and Marxism as models for the sociological project. The former, as exemplified by Talcott Parsons, was regarded as conservative, accommodating sociology to new realities of Gouldner, Alvin (1920–1981) power and inequality. Since it is hard for social theorists to reconcile new forms of power built around corporations and the professions with norms of goodness, Gouldner felt that the conservative option found ways of representing power as positive, changing norms to accord with reality. He rejected this, having more sympathy with radical alternatives that provided a critique of power, and gave a positive normative loading to thoughts and feelings unpermitted by mainstream opinion. Gouldner’s commitment to theoretical renewal also led him to found the influential journal Theory and Society in 1974. Marxism was a possible alternative source of radical inspiration, though this had a further difficulty, namely that it was more successful in criticizing other traditions than criticizing itself. In this respect, Gouldner thought of himself as an “Outlaw Marxist.” Instead of asking social theorists to choose between “conservative” sociology and “radical” Marxism, Gouldner projected reflexive sociology as an alternative standpoint. This idea was designed as a way of reconstructing the vocation of intellectual in a general way, and of sociology in particular. While intellectuals should promote a culture of critical discourse, the reflexive sociologist should rise above the role of technical specialist. Reflexive sociology was to be defined not in terms of scientific objectivity towards its subject matter, but in terms of a critical stance to the social and political context in which the sociologist operated. Soul-searching was better than soul-selling. This position is in one sense a product of its times, sociology seemingly oscillating between canonical (Parsons) and iconoclastic (Gouldner) moments. Marxism, as Gouldner was later to argue in The Two Marxisms (1980), contained these tensions within itself, manifested in the contrast between Marxism as science and Marxism as critique. While reflexivity is now very much a mainstream idea – seen in the concept of reflexive modernity – Gouldner’s emphasis on social emancipation via critical intellectuals and the culture of critical discourse, advanced in The Future of Intellectuals and the Rise of the New Class (1980), has been undermined by the class-like inequalities associated with knowledge holders. Gouldner’s project of a sociology based on critical analysis from a moral standpoint is again a fairly widely held presupposition. Yet he failed to provide much epistemological depth on how a critical position can be reconciled with a realist approach to social analysis. His legacy is therefore a somewhat fragmented one, perhaps as befits a would-be outlaw. ROBERT HOLTON 251 governmentality governmentality This encompasses a set of practices, institutions, technologies, and sciences that enable the exercise of political power over a population of individuals. The contemporary study of governmentality derives from the work of Michel Foucault whose oeuvre sought to uncover the microsocial processes, techniques, and knowledges associated with governmentality. In his essay “On Governmentality,” which appears in The Foucault Effect (1991), edited by Graham Burchell, Colin Gordon, and Peter Miller, Foucault dates the origins of the concept to the sixteenth century when self-conscious investigations of the “art of government” were initiated. Governmentality came to involve by the eighteenth century an economy of politics over a population. This relationship between government and governed evolved out of a pastoral model of the family, in which a head of a household claimed responsibility for the well-being of its members. The welfare of the population is the end of governmentality. To seek the common good is to ensure that laws (see law and society) are obeyed and order maintained. Governmentality is therefore distinguished from other reasons of state, in particular the religious and the Machiavellian. While governmentality is associated with a pastoral relationship of shepherd and flock, it explicitly rejects the possibility that a Christian kingdom dedicated to the glory of God could realize governmental sovereignty. Any religious doctrine in which moral or divine ends supersede the rationally understood good of the people will by necessity contradict governmental reasons of state. This lends a distinctly economic character to the notion of the good. The logic of governmentality also eschews Machiavellian premises insofar as it insists that government exists for the sake of the population, and not the power of its leader(s). Economic, familial, and political governance are continuous enterprises that share a triangular relationship in which none is ever entirely subject to either or both of the other two. Therefore, a politics in which a leader occupies a singular position and wields a unique form of power through channels over which he maintains a monopoly cannot support governmentality. Implicit in a governmental approach to politics is the conclusion that sovereignty is defined primarily by dominion over a population rather than a geographic territory. A population of individuals simultaneously provides a government with both its greatest source of power and gravest potential threat. Therefore the means through which a 252 governmentality government can control its population are crucial to asserting governmentality. This requires the regulation of individuals through the threat of direct physical coercion implied by an omnipresent police force as well as indirect and even internalized means of enforcing social norms. The apparatuses, technologies, and sciences capable of controlling a population and realizing the goals of governmentality developed alongside modern politics. Insofar as governmentality prioritizes an economic reason of state, it inevitably relies upon scientific understandings of the population being governed. The good, having been construed in material rather than metaphysical or otherwise transcendent terms, can only be arrived at upon close inspection of those whose good is sought. Thus the science of demography, and statistical knowledge more generally, are crucial technologies of governmentality. Because both political and social security are essential to the success of government, a symbiotic relationship develops between the sciences from which statistical knowledge of the population can be gleaned and the military technologies whose purpose it is to ensure the safety of the population. Detailed scientific assessments of the contours and characteristics of a population facilitate the degree of surveillance necessary to identify, inhibit, and punish deviance. A range of forces collude to cause citizens to recognize their identity as political beings belonging to specific communities to which they owe certain obligations and from which they need and will receive protection. In the modern liberal context, civil society becomes the terrain upon which negotiations between government and the governed occur. This implicates an almost endless array of social and economic institutions in the process of asserting governmentality. It also suggests that a significant challenge of governmentality will be the reconciliation of social and economic justice. The notion of justice exists to distinguish those who recognize and abide by social norms from those who do not, and who consequently must be isolated from the rest of society and/or reeducated. Law provides an articulation of the responsibilities of individuals to society, and vice versa. However, within liberalism, various interpretations of economic logic yield vastly disparate notions of these responsibilities, in no small part because social and economic justice are not simply distinct but often contradict one another. Thus social and civil rights often come at the cost of one another and hence obstruct both the expression and realization of a conception of justice. Gramsci, Antonio (1891–1937) Governmentality is a broader political concept than either the Weberian notion of legitimate authority or the Marxian concept of the state within any given mode of production (see Karl Marx). It is broader than legitimate authority because it embraces processes both within and beyond the administrative apparatus of the state. Foucault explicitly addressed himself to Marxist critics whose work he believed falsely assumed the state to be the inevitable locus of political power in all modes of production. The core concept of governmentality contradicts the Marxian thesis, instead offering a vision of politics in which power constitutes and expresses itself through multiple sources, of which the state is merely one. The confluence of the pastoral model of politics, specific diplomatic and military techniques, and the development of a police force is responsible for the governmentalization of the state. The state in this view, while perhaps uniquely successful, is simply one instrument and manifestation of governmentality. ELIZABETH F. COHEN Gramsci, Antonio (1891–1937) Gramsci was one of the most influential Marxist theorists of the twentieth century. After graduating from Turin University in 1915 he worked as a journalist and regularly spoke at workers’ studycircles on novels, the Paris Commune, the French and Italian revolutions, and Marxism. In 1919 he was one of the founders of the revolutionary weekly paper L’Ordine Nuovo, in 1924 was elected to the Chamber of Deputies for the Italian Communist Party, and became General Secretary of the Party. But after the fascist takeover Gramsci was imprisoned in 1926, and during the following ten years in confinement wrote copious notes on theory and strategy, that were published in translation as Selections from the Prison Notebooks (1971). Gramsci was concerned to eradicate economic determinism from Marxism and to develop its explanatory power with respect to cultural and legal institutions. He argued that class struggle must always involve work against the dominant hegemony of bourgeois ideas and ideologies, so that creating alternative cultural forms was essential to the struggle for socialism. He stressed the role performed by human agency in historical change since economic crises by themselves would not subvert capitalism. As opposed to a war of maneuver (a frontal attack on state power, such as the Bolshevik Revolution), a war of position may be more appropriate for liberal-democratic societies, which would involve a long struggle across institutions of civil society. Gramsci’s Granovetter, Mark (dates unknown) thinking was influential in the postwar Italian Communist Party and in western Marxism – especially in developing theories of Cultural studies, for example by Stuart Hall. LARRY RAY grand theory – see C. Wright Mills. Granovetter, Mark (dates unknown) A leading American contributor to the study of economic sociology and social networks, Granovetter has been responsible for major innovations in thinking about the strength of weak ties in economic life, and about the embeddedness of economic relationships in wider social arrangements, both in non-market and in market-based economic systems. His work moves economic sociology beyond the pioneering formulations of Karl Polanyi and beyond the generalized emphasis on normative rules in the work of Talcott Parsons and Neil Smelser, while remaining distinct from the predominant focus on power relations within political economy. Granovetter’s initial empirical work published in Getting a Job (1995) focused on how professional, technical, and managerial workers found new jobs. His evidence demonstrated the importance of personal contacts. Granovetter pursued the characteristics of these contacts, and developed in the process a theoretical account of the significance of “weaker” ties with individuals not well known to each other, as compared with “stronger” and closer ties between those who interact frequently. In a major paper “The Strength of Weak Ties” (1973, American Journal of Sociology), he argued that such weak ties were especially salient in situations where communities contained several ways, rather than one distinct way, in which individuals might interrelate. This made a significant opening for a new kind of micro–macro network analysis, in contrast with the primarily micro focus of existing network theory. Granovetter’s seminal contribution to economic sociology was made in another paper, “Economic Action and Social Structure: Problems of Embeddedness” (1985, American Journal of Sociology). This engaged with Polanyi’s celebrated discussion of the relations between economy and society. For Polanyi, most economic arrangements across history operated through the embedding of economic transactions and price mechanisms with broader social, political, and cultural arrangements. The exception was found in modern capitalist economies, where, for the first time, according to Polanyi, the economy became profoundly 253 Graunt, John (1620–1674) differentiated from society, around notions of economic freedom or laissez-faire. This, however, threatened social cohesion and the protection of social cohesion, and the pendulum swung back in the epoch of welfare states towards a reembedding of markets in political institutions. Many economists have criticized this view by arguing that markets through history have been far more autonomous than Polanyi proposed. Rational choice theory, even more radically, proposed that a logic of rational choice underlies social action across history, rendering the past almost entirely similar to the present. Granovetter, by contrast, took a rather different view. For him, all economic arrangements, markets included, are embedded in wider social arrangements, and in this respect the idea of laissez-faire is a misnomer. This conclusion followed from his earlier work on job search and social networks. In later work in the 1990s he developed this line of thinking regarding all economic institutions as socially constructed, arising as “congealed networks,” assisting in flows of information and the creation of trust. The social dimension here is, however, a very broad one, in which a complex mix of expressive and instrumental aspects of life are included. Granovetter’s ideas have developed one line of thinking about economy and society in very striking directions. What remains unanswered is quite what the social means within a network context, and why it is that markets, networks, and formal organizations have emerged as distinct forms of social life. ROBERT HOLTON Graunt, John (1620–1674) A draper and haberdasher, and merchant and citizen of London, Graunt was born in that city on April 24, 1620, to Henry and Mary Graunt. He died in London in poverty, of jaundice, on April 18, 1674. Although lacking higher education and not trained in the sciences and mathematics, he was an active participant in the intellectual life of London and was a charter member of the Royal Society of Philosophers. He published in 1662 the first known quantitative data analysis of a human population, Natural and Political Observations Made Upon the Bills of Mortality. This small and very influential book has led some to recognize Graunt as a founder of both demography and statistics. The “Bills of Mortality” were weekly accountings and reports of the London parish clerks of all the deaths and christenings. The reports were started in response to the plagues of the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries and 254 grounded theory were published in a nearly unbroken series for decades. Merchants used data from the “Bills” as a rough gauge of the likelihood of their clientele to flee to the countryside during epidemics. Graunt studied this mass of data searching for regularities. He is credited with being the first to recognize that more males are born than females, and that females have greater life expectation than males. He also was one of the first to recognize the phenomenon of rural to urban migration. He also developed a crude mortality table that eventually led to the modern life table. In addition to the above four substantive contributions, Graunt also set a precedent for one of demography’s oldest traditions, namely, the thorough evaluation of data to learn the extent, types, and probable causes of errors. P. Kraeger, in “New Light on Graunt” (1988, Population Studies), writes that he “carefully evaluated the bills for their numerical consistency and reliability of compilation, and presented his evidence at length so that his readers might judge it independently.” Although Graunt died in obscurity, his lasting monument is his Natural and Political Observations, a book which to this day is a joy to read. DUDLEY L. POSTON grounded theory Developed by Barney Glaser (1930– ) and Anselm L. Strauss this theory, put forward in The Discovery of Grounded Theory (1967), argues that sociological research should be based on the close observation of social life – participant observation, in-depth interviews, and focus groups – to allow the experience of social life as understood by the actors to emerge out of the data. This contrasted with Talcott Parsons’s “grand theory” – in which the sociologist derived hypotheses about social life at his or her desk, and then gathered data to test them according to the hypothetico-deductive method – and with Robert K. Merton’s middle range theory, which sought to examine ways in which specific social structures (for example religious beliefs) constrained individuals in their actions. For Glaser and Strauss, sociology could not proceed by deduction, nor did an independent social reality or set of social forces exist apart from the individual and his or her interactions. Thus, grounded theory aims to generate theory rather than to verify it. Hence grounded theory was an important early reaction to positivism in American sociology and gave impetus to the resurgence of qualitative research in sociology in the mid-1970s. In what we might call the “strong version,” grounded theory argued that sociologists should grounded theory group(s) shed all preconceptions about social life before entering the field and allow the data to shape their developing theory. Moving between the data and the explanation of what was going on – the constant comparative method – was the only way to produce valid sociological knowledge, which would provide an adequate account of people’s understanding of their social situation. Glaser and Strauss developed a system for the close reading of interview and field notes. Open coding is the initial sorting of the material to identify what is going on in a given situation; axial coding is drawing the different codes together and relating them to each other; and, in the final stage, in selective coding, one key category, the core, is identified and ties all the others into it. In addition, they argued that sampling strategies should be driven by the theoretical concerns that emerged out of the research (this contrasts with the random sampling of the hypothetico-deductive method). Once no new data were being found – when the researchers had reached saturation in data collection – then the writing-up of the study could start. Ultimately the research should have a practical outcome and a positive impact on the subjects’ understanding of their situation and experiences. The problem with the strong version of this theory is that, without pre-existing hypotheses, research data cannot be gathered or classified. A second problem is that, in the search to provide an emic account (that is, one from the subject’s perspective) of social reality, sociologists would only reproduce and record the respondent’s views and understanding of reality. In subsequent developments, major differences emerged between Glaser (Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis, 1992) and Strauss (Strauss and Corbin, Basics of Qualitative Research, 1990). While Glaser remained committed to a qualitative account of social life, emphasizing a flexible use of qualitative research methods, Strauss moved to codify explicitly the steps researchers must take to ensure that they were doing grounded theory. In Strauss’s approach, the emphasis came to be based more on traditional concepts of positivistic social research, emphasizing generalizability, replicability, and theory verification. Glaser objected that Strauss was “forcing” the development of theory rather than allowing it to “emerge” from the data. KEVIN WHITE group dynamics The group dynamics approach to small groups research was perhaps the most influential attempt to analyze the processual quality of group life. The approach was first articulated by German émigré Kurt Lewin (1890–1947) in the 1930s and 1940s, and became institutionalized by Lewin, his students, and colleagues, notably at centers of small group research, such as Michigan, Harvard, and Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in the 1950s. The group dynamics approach attempts to examine the processes through which group activity occurs. The claim is memorialized in Lewin’s famous equation, B = f(PE): behavior is a function of personality and environment. Lewin treated the relations of people within group settings using the dynamics model of physics, and developed a set of concepts – force fields, vectors, valence – that detail this metaphor. Lewin’s metaphor proved difficult to operationalize precisely and many subsequent experimental researchers used the label while jettisoning the connections to physical forces. The group dynamics tradition was also enriched by Freudian theory, as in the interaction process analysis work of Robert Freed Bales, whose approach owed much to both Sigmund Freud and the Parsonian tradition of the general theory of action. In all cases, the group dynamics tradition attempts to incorporate theoretical models of larger units, bringing them into the action arena of the small group. The leading text treating the approach is the edited collection of Dorwin Cartwright and Alvin Zander, Group Dynamics: Research and Theory, first published in 1953 at the height of the movement. Today, remnants of the group dynamics tradition are evident in expectation states theory, as it was developed at Stanford by Morris Zelditch, Joseph Berger, and Bernard Cohen, who trained in social psychology at Harvard during the heyday of the group dynamics approach. Expectation states bring in social categories from outside group life – gender, social status, or race – examining how they are exemplified in behavioral arenas. GARY ALAN FINE AND KENT SANDSTROM group(s) The term group(s) is widely used within sociology, and the social sciences. However, the referent of the term may vary, according to whether or not people interact as groups, or share a feeling of group membership, or unity. Social scientists have long recognized the distinction between “a group defined by outsiders” which has no social reality for its members and groups that have social and psychological reality as such, for their members. Henri Tajfel (1982, Annual Review of 255 group(s) Psychology: 1–39) notes that there are two distinct theoretical senses of the term: (1) objective collections of similar individuals as defined by outside observers, that is, objectively defined groupings that may be statistically significant to the researcher, but not subjectively significant for their members (that is, some sociological category, such as single-income families in rural areas). (2) groups defined as such by their members through patterns of interaction and shared representations, that is, a dynamic social process in which the capacity of people to represent themselves as members of social categories is part of the process by which sociological categories may become meaningful social groups. Charles Horton Cooley’s distinction between “primary groups” and “secondary groups’ or nucleated groups is also a key distinction in sociology. Primary groups are defined by close, face-to-face interaction, unlike secondary or “nucleated groups,” which tend to be larger and less congruent. Members of such groups (for example, political parties, and trade unions) are seldom in direct contact, in contrast to members of primary groups (for example, friendship networks, families) who are in regular contact. A further distinction may be made between closed groups and open groups. This distinction refers to the relative permeability of the boundaries of social groups. Open groups have relatively permeable boundaries, and few barriers to interactions with outsiders, while closed groups have impermeable boundaries, and have little interaction with outsiders. Thus, ostensibly similar social groups (for example clubs or religious sects (see church–sect typology) may be distinguished by being either open or closed. Further, group membership may be either ascribed and relatively fixed (for example, by race and ethnicity, or gender), with little possibility of movement out of the group (save in cases of surgical reassignment, gender identity “disorder,” or divorce), or relatively flexible, with the possibility of movement between groups (such as occupational groups or nationalities). Peer groups are collections of individuals who define themselves, and are recognized by others, as a distinct social group. Peer groups may also define themselves through shared social characteristics such as age, gender, sexuality, occupation, or ethnicity and ethnic groups. Such groups have shared norms, culture, and rituals and socialize new members according to these. Existing 256 group(s) members may be excluded from the peer group with reference to a breach of these group norms and sanctions. The dynamics of peer groups, and other face-toface groups, is the subject of both social psychology and sociology. Within sociology, notable contributions to the study of group dynamics have been made by Talcott Parsons (see, for example, Family, Socialisation and Interaction Process, 1955, and Working Papers in the Theory of Action, 1953); within social psychology, Robert Bales made significant foundational observations (see, for example, Interaction Process Analysis: A Method for the Study of Small Groups, 1950; and SYMLOG: A System for Multiple Level Observation of Groups, 1979). Pressure groups are a particular kind of social group characterized by a common purpose – to put pressure on governments and decisionmaking bodies, and to influence public opinion, such that their aims are supported. These aims may be either for significant reforms to a current system, or for the maintenance of the current or previous status quo. Pressure groups may be distinguished from other groups united in a common interest, such as political parties, in that they aim to influence public opinion, and government decisions, rather than to govern and make such decisions per se. However, the relationship between pressure groups and political parties is often symbiotic, and certain pressure groups have close relations with particular political parties – for example, the relationship between the trade unions and the Labour parties of Australia and Britain; and the relationship between fundamentalist Christian groups and the Republican party of the United States. Further, pressure groups may develop into political parties – for example, the Family First party in Australia – and enter into politics and decision-making proper. There are two general types of pressure groups – broadly, “protective” and “promotional” groups. This distinction is intended to highlight the divergent aims of some pressure groups. Protective pressure groups are united in their aim to protect existing and affiliated members of that group – for example, trade unions and professional associations. By contrast, “promotional” groups seek to promote a cause, rather than to defend a defined group. Promotional groups include the RSPCA, and other societies bound by a goal to promote a cause – for example, environmental groups; proor anti-censorship groups; pro- or anti-choice groups. However, this distinction is not always clear-cut. Thus, professional associations have joined with other groups in condemning prejudice, Gurvitch, Georges (1894–1965) Gurvitch, Georges (1894–1965) war, and violence, for example; and the public in 1935. He spent the years of World War II in interest lobby for an increase in the national minimum wage – a public cause – is a key task of the trade unions in defending their members, and others. SUSAN HANSEN AND MARK RAPLEY Gurvitch, Georges (1894–1965) Born in Novorossisk, Russia, Gurvitch closely observed the Russian Revolution, met V. I. Lenin, and knew Leon Trotsky (1879–1940). In 1917 he published a work on Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–78) and agrarian rights and became a lecturer at the University of Leningrad. He was made a professor at the University of Tomsk in 1919, but in 1920 he left Russia. Between 1921 and 1924 he worked in the Russian Department at the University of Prague, and was particularly influenced by the work of Johann Fichte (1762–1814). Indeed, in 1930 he published in France Les Tendencies actuelles de la philosophie allemande: E. Husserl, M. Scheler, E. Lask, M. Heidegger. In 1925 he moved to France, and became a lecturer at the University of Strasbourg the United States, and his Déclaration des droits sociaux (1944) was a socialist analysis of selfmanagement. Returning to Strasbourg, Gurvitch edited Twentieth-Century Sociology (1945) with Wilbert E. Moore; although based in France, he was a visiting professor in Brazil, Argentina, Japan, Canada, North Africa, and the Near East, as well as Europe. He was a passionate opponent of French government policy during the Algerian war, and founded the Centre d’Études Sociologiques. He also created the journal Cahiers Internationaux de Sociologie, and started the Bibliothèque de Sociologie Contemporaine (Library of Contemporary Sociology). He was concerned with the preservation of the French language. He published La Vocation actuelle de la sociologie in 1950, and in 1962 his most complete work, Dialectique et sociologie appeared. He spent much of his time battling over the question of dialectics. His Les Cadres sociaux de la conaissance (1966) was published posthumously. JOHN HOFFMAN 257 H Habermas, Jürgen (1929– ) Often regarded as the most influential German social theorist of the second half of the twentieth century, Habermas belongs to the Frankfurt School, a group of neo-Marxist intellectuals who pursue a critical theory of society. Habermas belongs to the so-called second generation of the Frankfurt School; the first generation consists, for instance, of Theodor Wiesengrund Adorno and Max Horkheimer. He initially worked under Adorno’s supervision, but soon developed his own version of critical theory. Habermas’s project differs from Adorno in a number of respects. First, whereas Adorno’s critique was directed at the Enlightenment project, Habermas emphasized its positive features. He recognized the problematic nature of the current sociopolitical constellation, but he insisted that these problems were not intrinsic to modernity. He argued for recognition of the liberating features of the shift towards modernity, and the central nature of these features to any critical theory. Second, whereas Adorno’s notion of rationality was still embedded in the “philosophy of consciousness,” Habermas sought to ground reason in the intersubjective context of daily linguistic usage. For this, he drew partly on the speech act theory of J. L. Austin (1911–60) and partly on the theory of psychological development of Lawrence Kohlberg (1927–87), who published Stages of Moral Development (1971). The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere (1962 [trans. 1988]) was Habermas’s first book, and it already expressed his belief in the importance of unconstrained, open debate amongst equals. He called this the ideal of a “discursive will-formation.” Habermas argued that the emergence of bourgeois society made possible the potential for realizing this ideal. With the advent of bourgeois society, a public sphere emerged: people openly discussed political issues, which appeared in newspapers and magazines. Modern society has not fulfilled this potential, partly because of the way in which the content and role of the media have changed. Several commentators 258 criticized Habermas for overestimating the existence of the public sphere in the nineteenth century. They pointed out that several sections of society were excluded: notably working-class people and women. Some feminist authors add that the emergence of a private sphere for women was constitutive of the public sphere for men. In Knowledge and Human Interests (1968 [trans. 1971]) and other methodological writings, Habermas draws on the pragmatism of Charles Peirce (1839–1914) to criticize positivism. Positivist epistemology tends to reduce knowledge to one type: empirical-analytical knowledge, directed towards technical control and prediction. Habermas insists that other types of knowledge are also valid; they simply aim at different cognitive interests. Interests are “basic orientations” based in “fundamental conditions” of reproduction and self-constitution of the human species. Besides empirical-analytical knowledge, there is also hermeneutics and critical theory. Whereas the empirical-analytical approach aims at nomological knowledge, hermeneutics insists on the qualitative differences between the natural and the social sciences. Hermeneutic authors insist that the main objective of the social sciences is to provide understanding – to make sense of different practices or cultural artifacts. Critical theory consists of a combination of empirical-analytical and hermeneutic knowledge, but it is ultimately directed neither towards control, nor towards understanding. Its main goal is emancipation and critique. It seeks to question what was previously taken for granted and it intends to reveal and uplift psychological dependencies and sociological obstacles. Once these are removed, emancipation becomes a realistic political target. In the early 1970s, Habermas turned his interest towards the question of how governments are able to find legitimacy within capitalism. In Legitimation Crisis (1973 [trans. 1975]), Habermas set out to explain the problems capitalism faces. Capitalism tends to justify itself as a highly efficient socioeconomic system; it avoids referring to higher political, spiritual, or religious values. In Habermas, Jürgen (1929– ) reality, however, capitalism faces recurrent economic problems. These economic crises are inherent to the capitalist mode of production. Because capitalism justifies itself mainly in terms of instrumental rationality, these economic crises easily lead to a “legitimation crisis.” Governments find it difficult to sustain themselves in the light of an economy of boom and bust, especially given that their legitimacy relies on their ability to solve technical, economic problems. Towards the mid-1970s, Habermas developed a growing interest in the accomplishments of the linguistic turn in philosophy. This led to his theory of universal pragmatics, which forms the core of his Theory of Communicative Action (1981 [trans. 1984]). Central to his universal pragmatics is the idea that, whenever people talk, they make a number of validity claims. Validity claims are presuppositions such as intelligibility, truth, moral rightness, and sincerity. For instance, when I explain to a student how to get to a lecture hall, it is implicit in my account that the instruction is intelligible and that it is correct – that is, it is the right way to reach the lecture hall. Also implicit in it is the assumption that I am morally justified to provide it, and that I am being sincere – I am not explaining the way in order to deflect attention from something else. Habermas talked about undistorted communication in which people can openly criticize each other (and openly defend themselves) with regard to the validity claims. Habermas coins the term ideal speech situation for when there are no obstacles whatsoever in the way of such an unconstrained debate. Although the ideal speech situation never exists in reality, it is a yardstick for a critical theory of society. It allows the critical theorist to judge and compare real settings and to criticize distorted communication. Habermas used this communication-based approach to tackle various issues. In The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity (1985 [trans. 1987]) and The New Conservatism (1985 [1989]), he defends Enlightenment principles against postmodernism and conservatism. In Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action (1983 [trans. 1990]) and Justification and Application (1991 [trans. 1993]), he applied the theory of universal pragmatics to the ethical domain. Discourse ethics treats normative claims like truth claims: they are considered as having a cognitive meaning. Discourse ethics assumes that the grounding of norms requires a dialogue. As such, moral judgments are not simply conclusions reached by isolated individuals (as in the formal approaches), nor do they simply reflect social Halbwachs, Maurice (1877–1945) codes (as in the communitarian perspectives). In Between Facts and Norms (1992 [trans. 1996]), Habermas took the position that legal and political issues should not be left in the hands of the experts. These issues should be subjects of an open discussion, which includes as many people as possible. In his proposal for a “discursive democracy,” norms are valid if they are accepted by the individuals who are potentially affected by these norms, and if this acceptance followed procedures of communicative rationality. PATRICK BAERT habitus and field Pierre Bourdieu’s sociology of structured inequality pivots on these two concepts. (See Bourdieu’s “Structure, Habitus, Practices,” in his The Logic of Practice, 1980 [trans. 1990].) Habitus, the more widely known term, refers to a system of lasting dispositions which integrate past and present perceptions, appreciations, and actions, and also facilitate the achievement of an open-ended array of diversified tasks. It constitutes a component of a field of objective relations, where the term objective signifies independent of the individual’s consciousness and will. The objectivity of fields is provided by the distribution of different species of power, which Bourdieu characterizes as economic, cultural, and social capital. To each field corresponds a tacit struggle over these resources. Fields determine relational positions which impose present and future situations on their more or less powerful occupants. A given population may occupy positions in multiple fields. Multiple fields may impose more or less consolidated relations of domination and subordination. For fields to operate there must be agents with the appropriate habitus, which operates tacitly (see David Swartz, Culture and Power, 1997). Like Émile Durkheim, Bourdieu sees the dispositions which constitute habitus as acquired in primary socialization. The originality of the idea of habitus stems from its positioning in fields of struggle. This allows Bourdieu to investigate the tacit ways in which the dominant perpetuate their own domination or, in Bourdieu’s terms, commit symbolic IRA COHEN violence on themselves. Halbwachs, Maurice (1877–1945) A French sociologist who was much influenced by Émile Durkheim, but who modified and extended the claims of the Durkheimian paradigm, Halbwachs was an accomplished social statistician, and, in his book Les Causes de suicide (1930), he introduced major new findings that Durkheim 259 Hall, Stuart (1932– ) missed. For example, suicide rates differ between rural and urban communities, such that those in more placid and religious rural settings have lower suicide rates than those in densely populated urban agglomerations. Halbwachs was also one of the first French sociologists to write systematically about the nature of social class. In his study of the working class he showed that Friedrich Engels’s Law, according to which low-wage groups spend a larger proportion of their income on food than other classes, applies far more widely. He argued that perception of human needs is determined by class position. His representation of the working class, however, is too inflexible to be of much use to contemporary class analysts. Halbwachs’s most influential and innovative work concerns collective memory where he goes far beyond Durkheim’s concept of collective representations. Halbwachs’s thesis is that human memory can only function within a collective context. He shows how collective memory is always selective, and how various groups of people have different collective memories which in turn give rise to different modes of behavior. Halbwachs was the first sociologist to stress the important insight that memories of the past are essentially reconstructions in the light of the present. His work has important implications for contemporary studies of the role of collective memory (and collective forgetting) in continuity and social change. JACKIE SCOTT Hall, Stuart (1932– ) Born in Kingston, Jamaica, Hall migrated to the United Kingdom in 1951 to study as a Rhodes Scholar at the University of Oxford, and is widely regarded as Britain’s leading public intellectual. He is sometimes erroneously called “the father of cultural studies.” Actually, he belongs to the second “New Left” generation that took the cultural turn, following the mold-breaking work of Richard Hoggart, C. L. R. James (1901–89), Raymond Williams, and Edward Thompson. Hall’s contribution has been built upon a consistently inventive and exhaustive reading of western Marxism, post-structuralism, post-colonialism, psychoanalytic theory, and feminism. He has combined this with political activism and various media contributions. Hall’s ideal for intellectual activity, borrowed from Antonio Gramsci, is the organic intellectual, who combines the latest cuttingedge ideas with effective political action. In 1964 he was invited by Hoggart to join the newly founded Birmingham Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies, where he became Director 260 Haraway, Donna J. (1944– ) in 1974. In Birmingham, Hall’s work attempted to fuse central elements from the thought of Gramsci with the Marxism of Louis Althusser to elucidate the interpellation of subjects under advanced capitalism and the unfolding crisis of the “representative–interventionist” British nationstate (Hall et al., Policing the Crisis, 1978, and Hall et al., On Ideology, 1978). This involved an ambitious reformulation of the operation of ideology, hegemony, and normative regulation. Not the least achievement in this respect was his encoding/decoding model of mass communications that purported to reveal how “preferred readings” of news items are orchestrated in the process of political and cultural reproduction. Hall’s work on the crisis was based in a trenchant analysis of the roots of welfare interventionism that he traced back to the 1880s, and which he presented as a constant “war of maneuver” designed to co-opt the working class (Hall et al., Crises in the British State, 1985). Writing before the rise to power of the New Right, Hall accurately predicted the drift towards the “law and order” society and a form of democratic state control organized around authoritarian populism (The Hard Road to Renewal, 1988; Hall and Martin Jacques, New Times? 1990). In 1979 he was appointed Professor of Sociology at the Open University, where he remained until 1997. Hall’s later writings focused on questions of multiculturalism, new ethnicities, identity slippage, and black aesthetics, raising a series of urgent questions about identity and belonging in the age of globalization, but casting doubt on the political realism of his project. CHRIS ROJEK Haraway, Donna J. (1944– ) A cultural theorist and scientist concerned with the relations among humans, technologies, and animals, Haraway, during her early career studying primate behavior, engaged in a number of feminist debates, and published critical accounts (Primate Visions, 1989) of the activities of her male colleagues in the biosciences, ascribing to them the behaviors they ascribed to primate bands, such as competition, aggression, and the pursuit of dominance. Her “A Manifesto for Cyborgs”, first published in Socialist Review in 1985, has become one of the three most cited articles in the humanities. In it she constructs a socialist-feminist case against essentialist feminisms, those that describe femininity as an unchanging quality, often with mystical connections. Instead, through the use of the metaphor of the “cyborg,” she argues for a feminist, hybrid cybernetic organism. This health health imaginary creature (which nonetheless has some practical existence, for example, in wearers of pacemakers and contact lenses) is a construct built from existing components. By analogy, new genders may be constructed from the components with which we are surrounded. Rather than embrace a mystical essence, Haraway recommends building new identities: “I would rather be a cyborg than a goddess.” Though her essays collected in Simians, Cyborgs and Women (1991) were especially influential in the first generation of critics responding to the emergence of the worldwide web in 1993 as they began to describe virtual worlds and identities composed of material and electronically constituted components, Haraway herself pursued her interests in the life sciences to produce significant critiques of genetic engineering techniques from socialist feminist perspectives (Modest Witness @ Second Millennium, 1997). In her most recent work, she has begun a critique of human–animal relations, initially through an analysis of “companionate” (pet) animals and the institutional discourses that surround them (The Companion Species Manifesto, 2003). SEAN CUBBITT health The sociology of health was originally known as medical sociology, emerging as a specialized area in the 1950s. “Sociology of health and illness” is now the preferred term, suggesting a wider canvas than the purely “medical,” though medical sociology is still often used for convenience. Despite its youth – little more than half a century – it rapidly became one of the most important of the subdisciplines of sociology, in terms of numbers of practitioners, volume of research, and specialized journals. In part, this is because of the recognition by medicinal authorities of the importance of a sociological perspective on health and illness in helping general practitioners to understand better their interaction with patients. The subject is now almost universally taught in medical schools and in the education of nurses and other health professionals. Originally a distinction was made between sociology in medicine and sociology of medicine. The first described the use of sociology in solving medically defined problems, such as the social distribution of disease (covered by social epidemiology), the self-definition of illness which brought people to seek medical help, and illness behavior. The sociology of medicine is seen as less oriented to the professional interests of medicine, and treats the concepts of health and illness as problematic and constructed. Medicine itself is studied as an institution and practice, and there is concern with the issue of power relations between doctors and patients. The larger term, the sociology of health and illness, defines the concept positively, and includes not only the profession of medicine, but also the whole range of caring occupations and activities, and not only the identification, treatment, and experience of illness, but also health-related lifestyles and health as general well-being. What is called, in its stereotypical form, the biomedical model has been the basic paradigm of medicine since development of germ theory in the nineteenth century. At the beginning of this modern period, medicine was based almost entirely on the methods and principles of biological science. Four postulates were seen as its basis: (1) the doctrine of specific etiology, that is the idea that all disease is caused by agents which are at least theoretically identifiable – germs, parasites, trauma, bacteria. Ideally, the search is for single causes; (2) the assumption of generic disease, that is the idea that each disease has its distinguishing features that are universal within the human species; (3) the model of ill-health as deviation from the normal, with health defined as equilibrium and disease as a disturbance of the body’s functions; (4) the principle of scientific neutrality, that is, the belief that medicine adopts the values of objectivity and neutrality on the part of the observer, and sees the human organism as the product of biological or psychological processes over which the individual has little control. The actual practice of medicine, as knowledge advanced and medical institutions became more differentiated and complex, threw up many problems relating to these postulates. In his book Man Adapting (1966), René Dubos (1901–82) asked, for instance, why infection does not always produce disease. It was realized that for many diseases there are multiple and interacting causes, rather than single ones. The principle of single causes is more easily applicable to acute conditions and infections than to the chronic diseases that became more important in the twentieth century. The assumption of generic diseases stumbled against the realization that diseases are differently defined in different cultures, and medical definitions are not simply a matter of advancing knowledge but also of professional choice. Diseases tend to be those things which, at any given time, medicine is able to treat or wishes to 261 health treat. Deviation from the normal, though still a foundation of much medical investigation and categorization, is complicated by the fact that it is often unclear where normal variation ends and abnormality begins. What is defined as the normal range (of body mass index, of lung function, of birth weight, of liver function, of blood pressure, and so on) has to be a choice, even if it is one which is scientifically informed. Finally, scientific neutrality was questioned, since the institution of medicine is always embedded in the larger society and subject to social, political, and cultural pressures. Residues of these postulates can be found in modern medical practice. However, the advance of science has directed attention to necessary and sufficient rather than single causes, and biomedicine now stresses multiple and interactive causes, including the state of the body’s own defenses. The rise of psychology was influential in altering a purely mechanistic model of illness. The medical model current in medical practice should not be presented as separate or in opposition to the social model of health. The clearest dissatisfaction with the dominant model offered by biomedicine arose around the mid twentieth century. A mechanistic view of human health, together with the rapid rise in knowledge, had resulted in an ever-increasing use of medical technologies. Dubos described the Mirage of Health (1959), whereby we are led to believe that science can produce a utopia of diseasefree life: scientists look only for a “magic bullet.” The American philosopher Ivan Illich (1926–2002), in his Medical Nemesis (1976), argued that medical practice had transformed the human condition of pain, illness, and death and dying into merely a technical problem. As a result, medicine had prevented people from dealing with these threatening circumstances with autonomy and dignity. Medicine had parodoxically created a new kind of “unhealth” (1974, Lancet). Anton Antonovsky, in Health, Stress and Coping (1979), was influential in pointing out that this means more attention to disease than to health – “We do not ask about the smokers who do not get lung cancer, the drinkers who stay out of accidents, the Type As who do not have coronaries” – and advocated thinking “salutogenically,” that is, focusing on what facilitates health, rather than what causes or prevents disease. The focus on stressors as causes of ill-health has led to much study of the mechanisms and possible buffers, such as coping resources and social support networks. This literature has shown clearly 262 health that social integration is positively linked with mental and physical health and with lower mortality. The most powerful form of support is intimate relationships, and emotional support can provide protection against adverse life events. Most recently this has been associated at the societal or group level with theories of social capital. The concept of social or holistic health is more than simply the recognition that social factors such as poverty or behaviors have to be included in any model of the causes of ill-health. It locates biological processes within their social context, and considers the person as a whole rather than a series of bodily systems. It is organic rather than mechanistic and reductionist. Human beings are living networks formed by cognitive processes and purposive intentions, depending on the meanings ascribed to bodily phenomena, not simply machines. The development of the social model has been accompanied, among the public, by a growing enthusiasm for alternative and complementary therapies, which tend to be more holistic. These have also been incorporated to some extent into mainstream medicine. In the social model, health is a positive state of wholeness and well-being, associated with, but not entirely explained by, the absence of disease or mental or physical impairment. The concepts of health and ill-health are not simply opposites. In 1948 the World Health Organization defined health as “a state of complete physical, mental and social wellbeing, and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity,” and this is generally held to epitomize the social definition of health. This definition has been criticized as difficult to measure and impossible to achieve, and as promoting the medicalization of all aspects of daily life. However, it draws attention to the holistic and socially conscious definition of health which is most favored in contemporary western societies and medical systems. Whether health is considered negatively, in terms of disease, or positively, in terms of holistic health, it is necessary to distinguish between objective and subjective health. In English-speaking countries it is usual to give different meanings to the words disease, illness, and sickness. Disease is the medically defined pathology. Illness is the subjective experience of ill-health. Sickness is the social role of those defined as diseased or ill. There are problems about this usage, since not every language has equivalent words, but it has value in emphasizing that these concepts are not the same. health People may be ill, that is, feel themselves to have something wrong with them, without (known) disease. In the doctor’s office, the person with an illness may be transformed into a patient with a diagnosis, that is, a disease. It is possible to be subjectively ill or to be medically diagnosed as having a disease without adopting the role of the sick person – that is, without assuming or seeking permission to give up normal roles. People may have a disease, or be injured or functionally incapacitated, without being ill or claiming to be sick. It is very common, in surveys of self-defined health, to find people with severe disability claiming that their health is “excellent.” Moreover, it has been noted that modern medicine produces many liminal states which are neither ill nor well – potentially ill, but at present well, in remission but not cured, at known risk of disease which has not yet developed. A commonly cited epigram is “disease (and trauma) is what doctors treat, illness, is what patients experience.” Though attractive, this is somewhat facile: doctors do treat illness, even in the absence of anything that can be diagnosed as disease, and patients do subjectively perceive and self-define disease. The distinction between disease, illness and sickness is paralleled by the usage, in the field of disability studies, of the terms impairment, disability, and handicap, as promulgated by the World Health Organization in their “International Classifications” of disabling conditions. In the early days of medical sociology, the American sociologist David Mechanic, in his Medical Sociology (1968), defined illness behavior as the way in which “symptoms are differentially perceived, evaluated and acted upon (or not acted upon) by different kinds of people and in different social situations.” The concept included, as well as what Irving Zola called the pathway from person to patient, the whole process of seeking help, including the “lay referral system.” Classic work, particularly in the United States, mapped out the way in which groups in society might differ in their responses. The concept became extended to include their perceptions of the illness and its treatment, and their heath-promoting or healthharming lifestyles. Many models, largely variants of the “health belief model” described by Irwin Rosenstock (Health Education Monographs, 1974), were used, especially in health psychology, to formalize the processes by which perceived illness is translated into sickness, and offer explanations of actions taken, or not taken, to promote health. Certain disease labels carry with them public stereotypes. More generally, in early medical health sociology the work of Talcott Parsons, defining illness as a form of deviance which disrupted the social system by interfering with normal role performance, gave rise (particularly in the United States) to a body of theory analyzing illness as deviance. Labeling theory was applied to the secondary deviation resulting from the identification as being ill, especially for particular disease labels such as epilepsy. Thomas J. Scheff, for instance, in Being Mentally Ill (1966), claimed that labeling was the single most important cause of the manifestations of mental illness. The work of Erving Goffman on Stigma (1964) was also very influential. These concepts are still important in disability and impairment and are relevant in specific conditions such as HIV/AIDS. The psychological models of health beliefs and behavior have, in more recent decades, been criticized as abstracted from social settings, and the term illness behavior has become somewhat outmoded. Studies of the perception and experience of illness, based on phenomenology and the methods of qualitative research, are seen as moving away from the medical model, and turning to the patient’s perspective. The influence of social constructionism has become strong in the sociology of health, especially in many countries of Europe. It is argued that medical knowledge is produced by and reflects the society in which it is found. What counts as disease or abnormality is not given in the same sense as a biological fact is given, but depends on cultural norms and shared rules of interpretation. It is, as the Polish medical philosopher Ludwik Fleck (1896–1961) suggested, a product of the “thought style” of a particular community of scientists and practitioners. In the version of constructionism most favored in the sociology of health, it is not suggested that diseases and pathogens are not “real,” but that health is, like other human experiences, at the same time a socially constructed category. Much of the understanding of how people act in illness began to come from studies of groups suffering from particular chronic conditions, including especially diabetes, asthma, hypertension, heart disease, and epilepsy. Self-regulation and control, and adjustment to illness within a family and social context, are prominent themes, as is illness as biographical disruption, that is, the place of ill-health in the lifecourse. Interest has increased in the analysis of illness narratives, in which, as Arthur Frank notably described in The Wounded Storyteller (1995), individuals make sense of their experience and create new identities. 263 health The search for meaning, or the answer to what the French social anthropologists Claudine Herzlich and Janine Pierret in Illness and Self in Society (1987) called the “Why me? Why now?” question, became a focus of research. Associated themes are moral discourses of health, lay explanations of disease, and particularly the question of selfresponsibility. An earlier, and more specifically psychological, model of attitudes to health as either “internal” (health as the outcome of individual behavior) or “external” (health as the consequence of outside influences or simply chance) has, largely, been abandoned. Contemporary discussion still very much emphasizes the question of agency and structure, however: the debate about the extent to which people can, or feel themselves able to, exercise individuality and free will or are subject to various kinds of constraint. Max Weber had provided a theoretical background for these discussions, distinguishing the two concepts of life conduct and life chances. The interplay of these is a dominant theme because of its practical and political importance in the fields of health promotion and health inequalities. Relevant to this issue is the popular theme of the commodification of health. This emphasizes the range of dietary, leisure, slimming, and body maintenance and decoration products which modern commerce and culture provide, and the emphasis on the young and fit body as a fashionable ideal. Theorizing health as consumption owes much to Pierre Bourdieu, who extended analysis to the explanation of class and group differences in health behavior. Individual practices are connected to culture and structure, and ultimately to power, through the concept of habitus. The consultation, as a basic unit of the interaction between health professional and patient, is a topic of particular interest in the sociology of health. A distinction has been made between “doctor-centered” consultations, traditionally paternalistic and controlled by the doctor, and “patient-centered” ones, with greater patient involvement and a more mutual relationship. These, and other suggested models, such as the consumerist relationship which may be applicable in particular circumstances, can be appropriate to different stages and types of illness. Different patient characteristics are also shown to be associated with their willingness to assume a participative role. Within the earlier and more medical model, there had been many studies of compliance, or 264 health whether the patient accepts the doctor’s instructions or takes medication as prescribed. This approach, it was suggested, ignored the lay meanings of medications, and their place in the individual life, and the term adherence began to be preferred, implying a more active, collaborative activity. Non-compliance was demonstrated to be, often, a rational response to experience. Concordance is an alternative term especially popular in primary care, suggesting a course of action agreed upon in negotiation between patient and doctor. Doctors’ communication skills are an important topic in teaching and in research, as are decisionmaking principles and practice, and the characteristics of health care systems which may affect interaction and the outcome of consultations. The role of patients in decisionmaking about treatment is an active theme in contemporary western health systems, since the right of patients to be involved in making informed choices is an increasingly promulgated value. At a more theoretical level, the relationship of health to social systems has always been one of sociology’s major interests. Most of the significant differences in health between countries and groups within countries are not biologically inevitable, but bound up with the particular society, its place and time, its politics, administration, and health services. At the same time, the relationship is reciprocal: the health of a population has economic consequences. Health is part of a society’s capital. Two of the most influential founding theorists on the relationship of health and society were Émile Durkheim and Parsons, offering “functional” models of society. Durkheim emphasized the importance of societal structures, and norms and processes which were outside the individual but integrated them into the structure. In Suicide (1897 [trans. 1951]) he used the example of rates of suicide, developing a three-fold typology of egoistic, where the individual was detached from society; anomic, due to a state of normlessness; and altruistic, a purposive choice. The prevalence of this very individual act of suicide was shown to be determined by ties to society. The concept of anomie, in particular, proved of lasting importance in theories about health and society. The American sociologist Parsons, influenced by Durkheim and by Weber, as well as by early psychoanalytic theory, was concerned to explain value consensus, social order, and stability. In the major work The Social System (1951), using the medical profession as a model, he analyzed the needs of the system, expressed in the duties and reciprocal entitlements of both doctor and health patient. For the doctor, the pattern variables of universalism, performance, or achievement, rather than ascription, specificity, and affective neutrality, were appropriate. The rights, obligations, and privileges of the sick role described the norms of being a patient. This ideal-type contract was what would, theoretically, identify medicine as functional in maintaining equilibrium in society and maintaining social order. However, structural functionalism lost influence as a theoretical position in the 1960s and 1970s. The emphasis on consensus seemed to favor the status quo and the domination of the powerful, and the approach was found inadequate in the explanation of change. Social conflict theory, with its roots in Karl Marx, suggested that society was not held together by shared norms and values, but by those imposed by economically powerful groups. Weber added that social differences are based not only on economic factors, but also on status and other forms of influence. Conflict theory turned attention, especially, to the sources of ill-health in the economic environment. In the later decades of the twentieth century, the power and pre-eminence of medicine as an institution, combined with some disillusion about the actual effects of increasingly hightech medical science, led to an emphasis on a degree of conflict between the interests of patient and of doctor, and on medicine as an instrument of social control in society. The medicalization of society became a popular topic of medical sociology. A separate strand of theory relates to the relationship of economic development to health. This turns attention from the possibly oppressive effects of the system of medicine to its undoubted positive successes, together with economic development, in prolonging life. Obviously, in the long term, the health of populations increases with economic development: even in the already developed nations, life expectancy at birth usually still increases from one generation to the next. At present, two or three years are added with each decade that passes. The causes include not only improving material standards of living, but also changing disease patterns (especially the relative disappearance of infectious disease), advances of public health and hygiene, and the non-material advances in, for instance, education associated with economic progress. How much is due to the advances of medical science or improvements in health care is disputed. Once a certain state of development has been reached, the proportion of Gross National Product spent on medical care, or health the way in which care is organized, does not seem to have any clear association with differences in the longevity of populations. Expectation of life has been markedly influenced by the steep fall in infant mortality in the developed world, rather than by much extension of life in old age: this fall has now reached a stage where little more is possible. The possibility of treating ever more diseases does, however, alter the health profile of populations. The shift from acute (infectious, commonly fatal) disease to chronic (long-term, to be controlled rather than cured) means that longer life may mean an increase in the actual experience of ill-health. This has an effect on the burden placed on health services. A corollary of the political and economic view of the relationship of health to social structure is that capitalism necessarily creates inequalities between sections of populations. The minimization or correction of these inequalities is a major concern of western health systems, and inequality in health has been one of the most active areas of research and discussion in medical sociology for some three or four decades. Obviously, simple equality in health is impossible to achieve in any society: differences associated with genetic inheritance, the geographic environment, or pure chance (and of course age) are part of the human condition. The patterning of inequality shows that the issue is not related only to the extent of economic deprivation, with deficiencies in such things as food, living environments, or medical care. In effect, the term “inequality in health has come to mean a special sort of difference – that difference between individuals or groups which is: socially determined, rather than due to biological factors; felt to be unjust and inequitable, and not the individual’s own responsibility; held not to be inevitable, that is, it could, with current technologies and knowledge, be alleviated. Thus the concept of equality in western societies is highly constructed and dependent on the progress of science and on ethical positions. It is more than equity of health-service provision, though “equality of provision for equal need” is a common way in which policy tries to find a services-relevant description. The measures of equality most often used are rates of death or life expectancy. Since life expectancy at, say, age 65 and at birth may be differently patterned, years of healthy life, or potential years of life lost (PYLL) before the age of 70, are measures which can be used. Inequalities may also be 265 health measured in absolute terms (simple differences between two groups) or in relative terms (for instance, the ratio of death rates in the lowest social group to those in the highest). The latter may appear to exaggerate inequality if rates are low. Approaches to the problem of inequality in health vary widely throughout the world. In lowincome countries, the causes may clearly be material and the urgent questions may be political and economic ones, including the provision of health care. A strong emphasis on equality of access is also found among some of the wealthiest nations, such as the United States, with largely privatized health services. Countries with large ethnic or indigenous groups may also be particularly concerned with the health care of different races. In the United Kingdom there has been a tradition of public concern about unequal health ever since the mid nineteenth century, when pioneers such as Edwin Chadwick (1800–90) described the living conditions of the poor and noted their low expectation of life. Concern about inequality remained in the early years of the twentieth century, and was offered as one major justification for the setting up of the National Health Service in 1948, following the Beveridge Report of l942. The rediscovery of inequality was marked by the Report of the United Kingdom Department of Health (known as the Black Report) in 1980, and in the following decades many other countries, especially those of western Europe, took up the issue, and the theme was one of those around which the World Health Organization has based its strategies. The field has been primarily occupied with understanding why differences linked with socioeconomic status arise, persist, and even grow greater. In Europe, it has been usual to rely on occupation-based measures of social class to demonstrate this. In the United Kingdom this classification has been used, sometimes collapsed into the two classes of manual and non-manual, for almost a century, to measure differences by class in mortality rates. Increasingly, however, the classification scheme is seen to have problematic features in modern society, and others are being developed for the purpose of health statistics. The experience of illness health also varies by social class, though not as strongly or as regularly as mortality. Other dimensions of inequality in health include ethnicity and region. Certain regions within countries show consistent health disadvantages over others, associated with, but in addition to, their economic or social class 266 health composition. Everywhere, minority or migrant ethnic groups tend to show higher rates of many sorts of ill-health than the native population. Two aspects of the statistics on inequality have attracted particular attention in recent decades. One is that, measured by social class and by death rates, inequality appears to be growing in many developed nations. The second issue relates to what is known as the “continuous gradient” or “fine grain” of inequality. The “threshold model,” suggesting that inequality only occurs at a level of deprivation below which health is likely to be affected, does not seem to be correct: there is no sharp discontinuity between the minority who lack the basic needs of life and the majority whose living conditions meet at least minimum standards. Rather, a straight line relationship between socioeconomic status and health is found everywhere. The main issue of debate in inequality studies is about causality, and especially causes of the apparent increase in inequality in developed countries. The 1980 Black Report in the United Kingdom discussed three types of explanation of real inequalities, if the social class differences were not, as is generally agreed, simply artifacts of statistics and the changing composition of social classes over time. These explanations were: natural and social selection and mobility (the healthy move up the social scale and the unhealthy suffer occupational disadvantage); the lifestyles and healthrelated habits typical of particular groups (in particular smoking, or general lack of health awareness or preventive behavior); the direct materialist effect of living and working conditions. It is now generally agreed that the types of explanation are interconnected, and each makes a contribution. Simple models stressing only the importance of behavioral patterns, for instance, have to allow for the fact that lifestyles depend on social relationships and the cultures of areas and of groups. Cohort studies, following populations from the day of their birth, have demonstrated in Britain and in other countries how the causes of unequal health begin at birth or even before, and can accumulate through the lifecourse. A poor start in life, associated with poorer family circumstances and vulnerability to illness, can be reinforced throughout childhood by inadequacies in education and thus lower adult socioeconomic success, less healthy behavior, and poorer health. This overview has shown that the sociology of health and illness is multifaceted, ranging from the statistical to the qualitative and philosophical, health and from concern with social structures and historical processes to individual experience and social psychology. Subspecialities flourish, some with their own institutions and journals. Some of the most important topics have been noted, but others include: the sociology of nursing and the professions allied to medicine; social pharmacy; the sociology of mental health; media and cultural studies of medicine and health; community care; death and dying; the sociology of reproductive behavior and the social epidemiology of fertility; health promotion; and health service organization and evaluation. Discourses of risk are pervasive in health, as in other areas of life. Risk assessment is a key element of public health, and the perception and management of voluntary risks to health, and the relative importance of lifestyle factors and environmentally and socially imposed risks, are central questions of health promotion. Expert and lay concepts of health risk are a topic of particular sociological interest, and Ulrich Beck’s Risk Society (1986) [trans. 1992] has been influential in discussions of attitudes and responses to global ecological, genetic, nuclear, and economic risks to health. Currently, sociological research and discussion focuses especially on the consequences of the explosive rate of change and development in medical science and technology. Techniques such as microsurgery and nanotechnology (technology at the level of molecules), and new technologies of imaging, change attitudes to the body. It has been argued that the image is becoming privileged over the actual body: simulations have come to constitute reality. Other technologies which are changing the practice of medicine relate to the information revolution. Telemetry (the transfer of measurements at a distance) and telemedicine (distant, or even automated, contact between patient and professional), alter the doctor–patient relationship. The application of genetics is a very important topic. There is, for instance, much discussion of predictive genetic testing for disease as an ethical issue, how it is perceived by the public, and what changes it may bring to medical practice, family life, and social relationships. Developments in reproductive technology call into question when a new life commences. Technologies such as in-vitro fertilization, cloning, surrogate motherhood or the use of fetuses for genetic therapy raise questions about the family and person-hood. At the end of life, modern techniques of keeping alive, health care systems especially in the context of transplant surgery, blur the boundaries between life and death. The replacement of body parts, including xenotransplantation (where animals are bred to carry genes from another species) and stem cell technology (which is capable of supplying transferable tissue), also blur the distinction between the body and not-body and call human identities into question. The integration of machine parts into the body is sometimes called cybermedicine. MILDRED BLAXTER health care systems Health care can be divided into primary care, taking place in the community as a point of first contact, and secondary care, usually taking place in hospitals and delivered by specialists. The term tertiary care is sometimes used to indicate rehabilitation, or restorative rather than curative care. Community care is used to indicate care provided outside institutions, not only by doctors but also by social carers. Preventive care systems (such as immunization) are also distinguished from curative care. A distinction is also made between personal clinical health care, provided for the cure or care of the individual, and public health, directed at populations. The ways in which health care is organized, in different societies, range from the extreme of a pure market system in which health is treated as any other commercial commodity, to universal free services provided entirely by governmental funding. In most nations of the world, however, the distinction is becoming increasingly blurred. Patterns of health provision are converging, because aging populations, changing disease patterns, advances in biotechnology, growing public expectations, and increasing costs, all introduce common pressures. Market systems have to make provision for those who cannot pay, as in the Medicare for old people or Medicaid for the poor in the United States. In wholly or predominantly state-organized systems, there is a tendency to shift some costs onto the consumer, and introduce types of rationing. In order to gain some of the advantages of a market system, “free at the point of need” services may introduce elements of managed competition, separating the funding of services from their supply while retaining universal access, as in the internal market of the British National Health Service. In most systems, insurance of various forms acts as the buffer between provider and consumer. Health insurance is commonly obtained through employers’ schemes, and in some countries these 267 health inequalities hegemony are compulsory. Insurers can limit consumer choice by cost-contained health services, as in the Health Maintenance Organizations of the United States. In recent decades, all industrialized nations have tried to reform health care. Growth in expenditure, commonly exceeding growth in Gross Domestic Product, has created a heightened interest in efficiency and effectiveness. There is also general interest in increasing patient choice and public participation in the organization of services. A further factor in change is some dissatisfaction about the priority given, in the past, to hospital services at the expense of community care and public health. However, a wide range of international studies (notably from the regular publications of the World Health Organization and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) suggest that the way in which services are organized, and indeed the level of provision, have little effect on the health status of populations, once a country has reached an advanced stage of development. This is not because medical services are ineffective, but is thought to be due to the overwhelming weight of other, principally economic and social, factors. Nevertheless, the equity and efficiency of services, patterns of patient usage, and medicine as an institution, are important topics within the sociology of health. MILDRED BLAXTER health inequalities – see health. Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich (1770–1831) Born in Stuttgart, the son of a government clerk, Hegel studied theology at the university in Tübingen, working as a private tutor in Berne and Frankfurt, before becoming a university lecturer at Jena, a post he held until 1807. It was here that he published The Phenomenology of Mind (1807 [trans. 1931]) – a work generally regarded as his masterpiece, in which he argued that the power of reason itself is unlimited. While reality is the entire development of everything, it consists ultimately of a world soul or mind. In The Science of Logic (1812 [trans. 1929]), which he published in 1812, he elaborated upon the dialectical categories through which this absolute reality passes. He edited a newspaper during the Napoleonic occupation and was headmaster at a school in Nuremburg until 1816. Hegel was appointed Professor 268 at the University of Heidelberg for two years in 1816, and then acquired the Chair of Philosophy in Berlin that he held until his death in 1831. He published the Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences in three volumes (1817, 1827, and 1830 [trans. 1927–30]), and his lectures on history, philosophy, and religion were published posthumously. But arguably his most important work was The Philosophy of Right, which appeared in 1821 (trans. 1942). Here he built upon his earlier philosophical work to argue that the modern state is an ethical entity. The state incorporates the altruism of the family and the self-interestedness of civil society, and its universal outlook is guaranteed by a hereditary monarch, by an assembly representing social interests, and by a civil service that constitutes a “universal class.” Hegel’s philosophy of history had a profound influence on the sociology of Karl Marx. JOHN HOFFMAN hegemony The process by which a ruling group secures the consent of the ruled, this term is identified with the Italian Antonio Gramsci. Writing in prison under Benito Mussolini (1883–1945), Gramsci employed an idiosyncratic vocabulary to avoid censorship. However, this term proved a viable alternative to the more commonly used term ideology, because it describes a process rather than a result of rule. Faced with the question, “Why has the Italian working class accepted fascist rule?” Gramsci outlined a process of negotiation between rulers and ruled. To secure power, rulers may use coercion, but to maintain it they require the active participation of the ruled in the processes of economic and, in many instances, civil life. With the exception of periods of revolutionary activity, societies are characterized by dynamic equilibria in which, normally, one hegemonic group holds sway over several subaltern groups. Subaltern groups may be formed from the residues of a previously hegemonic social class or classes, from newly emergent social groups such as the proletariat that emerged during the industrial revolution, or from class fractions striking alliances either against some abuse of power or to gain a particular goal. Hegemony passes through cycles of emergence, establishment, renewal, and decline, and the hegemonic process will necessarily involve alliances and therefore compromises with groups outside the hegemonic class itself. Typical alliances struck by Mussolini’s fascist party included those with the Catholic Church, with residues of semifeudal landowners, heredity heredity with the military, with the civil-service bureaucracy based in Rome, and with some elements of the skilled working class, all in the interests of the industrial bourgeoisie of northern Italy. Compromises included recognition of religious values, protection of inherited property rights, extensive military expeditions and budgets, and enhanced employment prospects. Gramsci’s term was initially specific to the political life of society. The word was taken up, after Gramsci’s notebooks were translated as Selections from the Prison Notebooks in 1971, in British cultural studies. In the Birmingham Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies especially, cultural life could be examined as a dynamic equilibrium in which mass media offered entertainment in exchange for loyalty to the nation and a sense of belonging. At the same time, television and popular music provided subaltern groups with the means to assemble alternative and competing subcultures. In certain instances, these subcultures served the purposes of hegemony by encouraging disaffected school students to opt for lowpaid employment. In others, cultural resistance formed social bonds that allowed emergent subaltern groups, such as black Britons, to articulate their social and political interests. The concept of rule as dynamic equilibrium also served as a powerful analytical tool in analyses of education policy, sports studies, and gender studies. A more political variant appeared in the Indian journal Subaltern Studies, notably in analyses of the way in which Hindi nationalist histories of the struggle for independence from Britain subordinated non-Hindi and working-class achievements, in the interests of securing the postindependence hegemony of the ruling bloc. Similar concerns engage the Latin American Subaltern Studies Group. The theoretical turn of cultural studies in the 1990s displayed some return to ideological determinism, in Gayatri Spivak’s query in her article “Can the Subaltern Speak?” from Cary Nelson and Lawrence Grossberg (eds.), Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture (1988), rather than a dynamic process of ideological exchange. Some of the most trenchant contemporary scholarship describes hegemony as that which is taken for granted, uncontested, and unnoticed in social life, leaving ideology to describe the active contests over meaning and interpretation. SEAN CUBBITT heredity This incorporates the idea that characteristics such as intelligence, strength, or criminality have a biological basis and can be transmitted between generations. Some versions, following the pre-Darwinian biologist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744– 1829), suggest that acquired characteristics can be inherited. The idea was highly influential in early forms of sociology, such as the social Darwinism promoted by William Sumner and Herbert Spencer, the latter emphasizing transmission of acquired characteristics. Heredity remains significant today in the social sciences, though it is widely considered an ideology justifying the social order as natural. There is still no evidence of genes directly affecting intelligence or behavioral characteristics. In 1865 a Moravian monk, Gregor Mendel (1822–84), established the key principles of genetics. He discovered that when plants are crossed the outcome is not simply a blending of characteristics. Discrete characteristics are passed on down the generations, resulting in, for example, a purple plant transmitting inherited white characteristics from future to later generations. Some twenty years later, though not having encountered Mendel’s work, Charles Darwin’s cousin Francis Galton (1822–1911) coined the term eugenics, derived from the Greek “good in birth.” This new science appeared to show that intellectual success runs in families; the Galton, Darwin, and Wedgwood families, for example, producing a relatively large number of offspring that were “brilliant.” Such insights led to proposals for the active management of human reproduction. This would favor the reproduction of the fittest and discourage the reproduction of the less fit. The new science received widespread support (including encouragement from a broad range of political opinion) during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Some branches of contemporary social science incorporate, at least tacitly, a notion of heredity as the basis of social structure. R. Herrnstein and C. Murray’s The Bell Curve (1994) was, for example, highly influential and generated considerable debate among those exploring links between genes and intelligence (see, for example, R. Sternberg and E. Grigorenko, Intelligence, Heredity and Environment, 1997). As a political practice, eugenics reached its most horrific conclusion with the Nazi mass extermination of the Jews. The killing of thousands of Croats and Muslims by a Serbian elite in the early twenty-first century shows that eugenics persists as an idea. But, despite its deeply sinister history, it would be wrong for sociologists to completely reject biological understandings of heredity. There is, for example, some evidence of genes 269 hermeneutics generating predispositions to certain afflictions, such as Huntington’s disease and cystic fibrosis. And some biologists – for example, E. Steele, R. Lindley, and R. Blanden in Lamarck’s Signature (1998) – claim that certain forms of immunity (even acquired immunity) can be genetically transmitted. Meanwhile, more mainstream epidemiological work – for example, D. Barker in The Best Start in Life (2004) – is showing that bad health can indeed be inherited, but as a result of undernutrition in utero, rather than the passing on of specific genes. Genes, according to this literature, are important in terms of governing overall developmental processes. Illnesses are mainly a product of environment, especially as encountered in the earliest stages of life, combined with genetically driven processes of development. P E T E R D I C K E N S hermeneutics The art of interpretation, hermeneutics was originally meant to adjudicate disputes concerning the authenticity of religious texts. Later, its role was extended to a method or set of tools that help to understand writing in general. Later, again, hermeneutics dealt with the understanding of any type of human action – not just writing. In the nineteenth century, hermeneutics became a prominent philosophical tradition in Germany with central figures like Friedrich Schleiermacher and Wilhelm Dilthey. Influenced by Immanuel Kant (1724–1804), Herder, and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, hermeneutic authors emphasized the differences between the study of historical, social phenomena and the natural sciences. The former deal with the understanding (Verstehen) of unique events, whereas the latter aim at explaining (erklären) and generalizing. The reliving (Nacherleben) of people’s aims and assumptions is crucial in the understanding of historical phenomena. The nineteenth-century hermeneutic authors became involved in the wellknown Methodenstreit over the method of the historical sciences. Influenced by positivist views, the opposite camp advocated a unity of method between the social and the natural sciences. Max Weber was influenced by hermeneutics but took a balanced view in the debate. For Weber, social scientists need to rely on Verstehen (or “interpretative understanding”) but this re-enactment of individuals’ purposes and assumptions does not exclude the possibility of causal analysis. He was also skeptical of the view that the emphasis on understanding makes history or social science a hopelessly subjective endeavor. Although historians and social scientists always adopt a selective 270 hidden curriculum viewpoint, this does not make their research less objective. Hans-Georg Gadamer’s Truth and Method (1960 [trans. 1975]) heralded a major shift in philosophical hermeneutics. Influenced by Martin Heidegger, he criticized Enlightenment philosophers for failing to acknowledge the pivotal role of tradition. In contrast with nineteenth-century hermeneutics and its emphasis on methods, Gadamer was more preoccupied with ontology. He suggested that we conceive of understanding in a dialogical fashion: we cannot help but rely on our presuppositions to make sense of what we encounter, but the very same presuppositions are also affected by this interaction. In Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature (1980), Richard Rorty refers extensively to Gadamer’s dialogical model to back up his notion of an edifying philosophy beyond epistemology. For a long time, social scientists ignored the importance of hermeneutics, especially in the heyday of structural functionalism. Since the 1970s sociologists have shown a growing interest in interpretative philosophies, including hermeneutics. Anthony Giddens’s New Rules of Sociological Method (1976) and Zygmunt Bauman’s Hermeneutics and Social Science (1978) were crucial in drawing the attention of social scientists to hermeneutics. In Constitution of Society (1984), Giddens suggests that the way forward is the structuration theory, an attempt to integrate interpretative philosophies with structuralism. Structuration theory conceives of social order as continually produced by “knowledgeable” individuals in everyday settings. In Knowledge and Human Interests (1968 [trans. 1971]), Jürgen Habermas demonstrated the importance of hermeneutics to critical theory: his notion of critical theory draws on a combination of empirical-analytical knowledge (directed towards prediction and control) and hermeneutics (directed towards understanding) and is ultimately aimed at self-emancipation. PATRICK BAERT hidden curriculum In 1971 B. R. Snyder published The Hidden Curriculum, containing a chapter by the American sociologist of higher education, Martin Trow, on “distraction and the expropriation of learning.” Snyder’s book was the outcome of research in which, as a student of psychiatry, he investigated in the early 1960s “the paths that students followed during four years at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.” His findings were also informed by his subsequent experience as a senior administrative officer in a university. This was a period in the history of American higher education in which historical materialism the system seemed to be dominated by regulation and bureaucracy, associated with a technocratic model of education and with credentialism. In a context of precise regulatory control, Snyder argued that students adopt coping mechanisms which involve acting on the basis of their calculations of what is actually required to succeed and secure accreditation rather than what is officially required. These mechanisms involve restricting study only to those elements of curricula which are assessed and also ensuring that extra-curricular behavior is socially or politically acceptable to the institution. Trow’s argument suggested that similar circumstances push staff towards equally “instrumental” rather than “expressive” behavior. Snyder argued that acknowledging the operation of a hidden curriculum recognizes social and cultural factors in learning ignored by rational planners. Arguably, subsequent higher education reforms have sought to make the hidden curriculum more visible and have thus subjected the informal in teaching and learning to more insidious regulation. DEREK ROBBINS historical materialism Materialism and idealism offer two contrasting ways of understanding the social world. The former emphasizes the causal primacy of material forces such as climate, technology, economic resources, and the institutional arrangements within which they are organized and applied. The latter emphasizes the primacy of ideas and the meanings given by human actors to their actions. Historical materialism, associated with Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, is a particular form of materialism designed to account for long-term processes of social change across time. It was first articulated during the 1840s, in The German Ideology. German idealism, as reflected in the work of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel and his successors, had seen historical development as the progressive realization of the ideas of reason and freedom in human activities. This position was criticized for ignoring the differing material contexts within which individuals lived, the changing patterns of power and exploitation built into human institutions, and social conflicts between exploiting and exploited social classes evident through time. Meanwhile, existing forms of materialism were generally ahistorical and often contemplative in function. For Marx, the agenda for social theory was both to understand and to change the world. This required an activist materialism, in which human actors helped make the world and emancipate historicism humankind from exploitation, though not through the simple imposition of progressive or utopian ideas on the conditions of social existence. The task was rather to bring ideas into harmony with material possibilities. This shifted the burden of human emancipation from philosophers to exploited social classes whose interest lay in overcoming the forms of material exploitation in which they lived. Within historical materialism the mode of production is the key concept through which the material conditions of existence are articulated. This includes two main elements: the productive forces, such as technology, and the social relations of production, referring to the prevailing form of property rights in human labor and other economic resources. Such rights included slavery, feudal land tenure, and the capitalist wage-labor relationship. Under the capitalist mode of production, the exploited working class would be the bearer of social change through class conflict leading to a socialist and communist future, where labor and property were owned in common. Historical materialism has received significant criticism, and has been subject to revision and reformulation from those more sympathetic to the underlying project. Critics such as Max Weber argued that the approach offers far too crude an approach to the interaction of material and ideal elements in social change, as well as downplaying the motivating role of ideas, as proposed in Weber’s Protestant ethic thesis on some origins of the spirit of modern capitalism. Historical materialism also overemphasizes class institutions and class struggle over other social cleavages, and downplays the autonomy of political institutions and structures of legitimate domination. Capitalism, meanwhile, has proven far more robust, a reflection in part of periodic surges of productive new technology, and in part of working-class incorporation into consumer society. Attempts to reformulate historical materialism to take these trends into account remain haunted by the failure of material existence to restructure social consciousness in ways that generate revolutionary struggle rather than social passivity. ROBERT HOLTON historicism Deriving from the German historismus, this concept has two broad meanings. First, it refers to the belief that social structures, events, and texts should be understood within the context of their historical formation and the social conditions within which they arose. Every age and each 271 Hochschild, Arlie Russell (1940– ) Hoggart, Richard (1918– ) historical situation, it is argued, can only be understood in its own terms. The applicability of the concept is usually restricted to the social sciences and humanities. In contrast to an emphasis on ahistorical universalist assumptions or nomothetic forms of explanation, which are used in the natural sciences, the focus is, as Friedrich Meinecke (1862–1954) argues, on the essential individuality, contingency, and uniqueness of social phenomena. This has two implications: (1) since events are unique and there is no independent means for comparing phenomena, this implies a form of relativism; (2) that in order to understand social phenomena a form of empathetic, hermeneutical understanding, or what W. Dilthey and Max Weber call Verstehen, is required. For Karl Mannheim in “Conservative Thought” in his Essays on Sociology and Social Psychology (1952) the origins of the term historicism, and a stress on historical explanation, have their roots in the conservative and Romantic reaction to the Enlightenment, especially in Germany in which a dynamic historical philosophy of life confronted a static philosophy of reason. Second, the term has been employed by Karl Popper to designate explanations of the social world which advocate fixed long-term laws of historical development and argue for their predictability. For Popper, the chief exponents of such a misconceived view were Plato, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Auguste Comte, Karl Marx, Oswald Spengler (1880–1936), and Arnold Toynbee (1889–1975). He argued that such views of historical inevitability were imbued with totalitarian overtones and were, in addition, unscientific. STEVEN LOYAL Hochschild, Arlie Russell (1940– ) Hochschild received her undergraduate degree from Swarthmore College and, in 1969, her PhD in sociology from the University of California, Berkeley. She joined the Berkeley faculty in 1971, and is currently Professor of Sociology. She has made significant contributions to the sociology of the family and gender, and to social psychology. In The Managed Heart (1983), she develops the notion of emotional labor. According to Hochschild, in the increasingly service-oriented economy of the postindustrial world, more and more occupations require that emotion be a part of the service offered. Emotional labor demands that the worker produce an emotional state in another person, as workers in jobs from waiting tables to flight attendants are increasingly called upon to create good feelings in their customers. Moreover, 272 the employer increasingly exercises a great degree of control over his/her employee’s emotions. Hochschild has also explored the intersection of work and women (see women and work), gender, and family as an increasing number of American women enter the workforce outside the home. In The Second Shift (1989), she shows that women are still responsible for housework and child-care, the “second shift,” even if they work outside of the home. In The Time Bind (1997), she demonstrates that, often, family-friendly policies enacted by corporations fail because people are becoming more comfortable with their work life, finding home life increasingly hectic. In particular women have little “quality time” to spend with their families. Hochschild’s most recent research documents the difficult plight of immigrant care workers in the United States. K E N N E T H H . T U C K E R Hoggart, Richard (1918– ) A lecturer in English at the University of Leicester (1959–62) before gaining the Chair in English at Birmingham University (1962–73), he founded the influential Birmingham Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies in 1964. He left in 1971 to become Assistant Director-General of UNESCO and Warden of Goldsmiths College, University of London (1976–84). Hoggart’s origins betray and compromise much about his position on the register of cultural theory. His hometown was Leeds, and the working-class districts of Chapeltown and Hunslet supplied the data and inspiration for his most famous book, The Uses of Literacy (1957). In its day, this volume was a much-lauded work. Progressive sections in both the media and the redbrick universities regarded it as holding a set of refreshing insights into working-class life, not least the injunction to take working-class culture seriously. Today, it is chiefly regarded as a somewhat nostalgic, impressionistic, introspective study, that retains its place in the canon for its historically important, unapologetic insistence that workingclass culture matters. This is unjust. In founding the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies at the University of Birmingham with a self-ordained tripartite brief to study the historical-philosophical, literary-critical, and sociological aspects of culture, and gaining private funding from Sir Allen Lane of Penguin Books to finance the project, there is reason to claim that Hoggart made a seminal contribution to the development of Cultural studies, especially in the two volumes of Speaking To Each Other (1970 and 1972). Further, he turned the Homans, George Caspar (1910–1989) rejection of the elitist view of Mathew Arnold and F. R. Leavis – that culture is the best that can be thought and done – into a cause célèbre. Against this, his revisionist approach sought to recognize that important new cultural forms were emerging around media culture and to honor the value of non-elite cultures. His work emphasized the policy dimension of Cultural studies, for example in The Future of Broadcasting (with Janet Morgan, 1982), British Council and the Arts (with others, 1986), and The Idea of Europe (1987). With deep roots in adult education, Hoggart made a virtue of unostentatious, practical criticism and forms of cultural theory based in realistic involvement with society and culture. This emphasis is now associated with anti-theoretical overtones in his work. CHRIS ROJEK Homans, George Caspar (1910–1989) Between 1939 and 1941, Homans taught sociology at Harvard, then served for four years as a naval officer, and finally returned to Harvard where he made significant contributions to exchange theory in The Human Group (1950), Social Behavior: its Elementary Forms (1961), Sentiments and Activities (1962), and The Nature of Social Science (1967). He became a full Professor of Sociology at Harvard between 1955 and 1980. He was elected to the National Academies in 1972. He was 54th President of the American Sociological Association and his presidential address was published as “Bringing Men Back In” (1964) in the American Sociological Review, in which he argued that social phenomena are to be explained in terms of the characteristics of individuals rather than social structures. Homans developed a range of propositions that draw on social psychology to examine the ways in which individuals are connected to social groups. These propositions (relating to success, stimuli, values, satiation, and aggression) explain how social exchange functions at the level of the individual. Homans was critical of what he regarded as the abstract sociological theory of his day, and especially the work of Talcott Parsons, because it could not be adequately tested by empirical research. Homans insisted on the importance of developing testable hypotheses that explain basic social processes in small groups. BRYAN S. TURNER Horkheimer, Max (1895–1973) For many years Horkheimer served as Director of the Institute for Social Research and, with Theodor Wiesengrund Adorno, Herbert Marcuse, and Hughes, Everett C. (1897–1983) others, helped develop the critical theory of society. In “Traditional and Critical Theory” (1937 [trans. 1972]) in Critical Theory, Horkheimer argued that “traditional theory” (which included modern philosophy and science since Descartes) tended to be overly abstract, objectivistic, and cut off from social practice. Critical theory, in contrast, was grounded in social theory and (Marxian) political economy, carried out a systematic critique of existing society, and allied itself with efforts to produce alternatives to capitalism and bourgeois society (then in its fascist stage in much of Europe). The goal of critical theory is to transform these social conditions and provide a theory of “the historical movement of the period which is now approaching its end.” A collaborative work with Adorno, Dialectic of Enlightenment (1947 [trans. 1972]), sketched out a vision of history from the Greeks to the present that discussed how reason and Enlightenment became their opposite, transforming what promised to be instruments of truth and liberation into tools of domination. Under the pressure of societal systems of domination, reason became instrumental, reducing human beings to things and objects and nature to numbers. While such modes of abstraction enabled science and technology to develop apace, they also produced societal reification and domination, culminating in the concentration camps that generated an instrumentalization of death. Horkheimer’s Eclipse of Reason (1947) presents a popularized version of Dialectic of Enlightenment for an English-speaking audience, and Critique of Instrumental Reason brings together Horkheimer’s key essays since the end of World War II. Some of Horkheimer’s most important writings are collected in Critical Theory (1972) and Between Philosophy and Social Science (1993). DOUGLAS KELLNER housework – see women and work. housing classes – see social class. Hughes, Everett C. (1897–1983) A Methodist minister’s son from small-town Ohio, Everett C. Hughes rose to lead the “Second Chicago School.” Like his mentor Robert Park, his primary impact on sociology was by challenging and inspiring graduate students. Inspired by Georg Simmel, he specialized in dazzlingly insightful miscellany. 273 human capital The method Hughes preferred was “the intensive penetrating look with an imagination as lively and as sociological as it can be made.” He directed his own sociological imagination to the areas of work and professions, race relations (see race and ethnicity), and such topics as social movements, migration, and social institutions. His sociological eye often reframed subjects in subversive ways – for example, showing how psychiatrists and prostitutes share the problem of distancing themselves emotionally from situations that are highly emotional to clients, or by spotlighting the dark side of respectable occupations. Hughes delighted in locating social facts in larger contexts of meaning. His stream-of-consciousness lectures sparkled with insights drawn from family, fieldwork, and friendships. Participant observation was the keystone of his research ingenuity. He developed and passed on to devoted generations of students, including Erving Goffman, a range of techniques on how to do and to interpret fieldwork. Symbolic interactionism stemmed from the ideas of Hughes and his colleague Herbert Blumer. His academic works include French Canada in Transition (1983), Where Peoples Meet: Racial and Ethnic Frontiers (with Helen MacGill Hughes, 1981), Men and Their Work (1958), Education for the Professions of Medicine, Law, Theology, and Social Welfare (1973), and The Sociological Eye: Collected Papers (1984). In 1994, Lewis A. Coser edited a selection of his writings, On Work, Race, and the Sociological Imagination. DONALD LEVINE human capital – see social capital. Human Genome Project – see genetics. human needs These have two related but different definitions. One is grounded in psychology and the other in sociology and social welfare. The difference in the two perspectives is the unit of analysis. The psychological approach to human needs focuses on the individual and the sociological and social welfare perspective attends to the needs of the family, group, and society. The task of psychology is to understand behavior by linking it to the organism’s primary needs and the environmental conditions relevant to them. Other approaches have added to this line of inquiry by concentrating on psychological 274 human needs rather than physiological needs. In the 1950s psychologists developed a model in terms of eight levels. The first four are: physiological needs, safety needs, belongingness and love, and esteem needs. Once these needs are met, individuals seek self-growth by addressing the next four levels of needs: need to know and understand, aesthetic needs, self-actualization, and transcendence. Selfactualized people are characterized by: (1) being problem-focused; (2) incorporating an ongoing appreciation of life; (3) being concerned about personal growth; and (4) having the ability to enjoy peak experiences. The most recent psychological work on human needs is self-determination theory which defines needs as innate psychological nutriments that are essential for ongoing psychological growth, integrity, and well-being. The psychological concept of human needs has served as a means of organizing and integrating a wide range of research related to social contexts, motivational orientations, goals, healthy development, high-quality performance, maintained behavior change, and mental health. The sociological and social welfare perspective defines human needs in terms of what the family, group, or society needs to enjoy a humane and high quality of life and to have fundamental human rights. These discussions are often couched in terms of: avoiding violence and social conflict (stability, security, and peace being desirable); disparities between racial/ethnic groups, sexes, or age cohorts; social justice; equal opportunity; free trade; immigration; citizenship; taxes and social welfare (redistribution of resources) policies. The Coalition on Human Needs in the United States, for example, is an alliance of national organizations working together to promote public policies that address the needs of lowincome and other vulnerable populations, such as children, women, the elderly, and disabled people. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International are two international human rights organizations that monitor human rights abuses around the world. They publish their findings and use publicity to focus the world’s attention on human rights abuses. Most of these organizations base their work on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1948, and which declares: Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want human relations has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people. Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law. GARY L. ALBRECHT AND MARK SHERRY human relations – see management. human rights – see rights. human sciences This term has its origins in the work of Wilhelm Dilthey (1833–1911), who, in his 1883 Introduction to the Human Sciences, argued for a conception of the human sciences that contrasted with existing perspectives and practices in many parts of the humanities and nascent social sciences. He argued for an interpretivist and hermeneutic approach to socio-historical studies, seeing them as united under the heading Geisteswissenschaften, in contrast to Naturwissenschaften or the natural sciences. Central to this was his emphasis on the meaningfulness of human lived experience and its primacy in the genesis of human action. Thus the psychology of the individual and individual consciousness are seen as part of broader historical inquiry and many traditional boundaries that now exist between disciplines are avoided. A central part of Dilthey’s work was an attempt to provide a secure philosophical foundation for the Geisteswissenschaften that would afford them the same integrity and status as Naturwissenschaften. In conducting social-historical research, Verstehen was afforded a central role, and a wide variety of materials and sources were brought within the purview of this kind of inquiry. Verstehen is a German word which may be roughly translated as “the understanding of meaning,” and as a method it has been described as seeking the empathic understanding of the outlook and feelings of others. As an approach and a philosophy, this work has its clearest descendants in social anthropology and interpretative sociologies. In contrast to Dilthey’s original definition, the term human sciences is used very broadly and loosely, and most commonly in the name of university faculties, departments, and research groups. Typically these uses do reflect his desire to bring together the different parts of the humanities and social sciences. A number of them also include various parts of the biological hybridization sciences too, but rarely do they follow the philosophical and methodological precepts which Dilthey sought to establish. DAVID GOOD hybridity The synthesis of different cultures or social identities, resulting in a new third form, this term originates in horticultural studies to refer to the crossbreeding of two different species which produces a new species. In the nineteenth century, the term was sometimes used to refer to the mixing of races, synonymous with miscegenation. Typically it had a negative connotation. In the early twentieth century, the negative connotations were shed by anthropologists who used it as a descriptive category. Some anthropologists claimed that the mixing of races produced a new “social type” which they called the “hybrid.” In linguistics, hybridity is used to refer to the combination of languages. Examples include “pidgin” and “creole” languages. The most recent uses of the term in social analysis have been partially influenced by the work of Mikhail Bakhtin (1895–1975). He argued that linguistic difference also corresponded to differences between forms of social consciousness and social classes, such that, in his view, a hybrid refers not only to the combination of linguistic elements but to the social elements as well. Hybrids mark innovation, creativity, and change in social spaces. Bakhtin’s idea has been expanded to encompass not only linguistic combinations but also combinations of social identities, ideas, and cultures, typically produced through cultural encounters during colonialism or through globalization. Culture theorists like Stuart Hall have tried to shed the negative connotations of the term and replace them with positive meanings. In this use of the term, hybrids reveal the inadequacy of essentialism. The underlying idea is that all cultures and identities are hybrids. There is no such thing as a completely unified culture or identity; they are always formed by a process of negotiation or interrelationships between differences or opposed terms, categories, or ideas. Hybridity therefore emerged as an important analytic concept in culture theory because it highlights that identities and meanings are formed relationally. Some strands of postmodernism and postcolonial theory have also used the term to show the importance of cultural difference without falling into the trap of essentialism. JULIAN GO hybridization – see globalization. 275 hypothesis hypothesis – see hypothetico-deductive method. hypothetico-deductive method This method is in fact a theory of how science is supposed to work. The scientist makes hypotheses about reality and then tests them by looking for evidence to confirm these hunches. That is, a scientific hypothesis must be testable and based on observable empirical data. We deduce from a hypothesis what we should be able to discover as an explicit observable feature of reality. If observed, then the hypothesis is supported; if not, then the hypothesis must be given up. The immediate contrast is with the inductive method that suggests that science proceeds by collecting empirical instances of an event and then producing a hypothesis about what was going on (induction). 276 hypothetico-deductive method However, the hypothetico-deductive method does not resolve problems of what constitutes a scientific explanation. In the first place, what is to count as an observation is not clear, and scientists, when confronted with disconfirming evidence, can dismiss it on other grounds, such as, for example, that the measuring instruments are wrong. Following the work of Thomas Kuhn on paradigms, it is now clear that scientists actively work to protect their theories from disconfirming evidence, rather than actively working to falsify them. The strongest rejection of the hypotheticodeductive method was put forward by the philosopher of science Karl Popper. In his account, for a theory to be scientific, any hypotheses it produces must specify explicit observable outcomes that are capable of falsification, rather than searching for data that are able to verify the original set of hypotheses. KEVIN WHITE I ideal type All religious attitudes, conventionally underMax Weber defined the nature and use of the ideal stood, are idealist in character, but they can be type, though many of the elements of his discussion originated with his colleague Heinrich Rickert (1863–1936). Ideal types are pure concepts that make no claim directly to describe or explain empirical events. They are constructed by social scientific investigators as conceptually pure benchmarks for contrasts and comparisons with facts collected from historically specific cases. Thus, one may use several different ideal types to specify the historical significance and cultural meaning of any given constellation of events. For example, in studying socially disadvantaged groups in a modern nation-state, one might use ideal types of both social class and social status. According to Weber, sociology as a discipline devotes itself to the construction of ideal types. Though sociological ideal types can make no empirical claims, they gain the advantage in conceptual precision on the level of meaning. Weber’s compendium of ideal types in Economy and Society (1922 [trans. 1978]) demonstrates this advantage. Each ideal type includes actions defined by typical subjectively assigned meanings, all of which are logically integrated into a complex concept. Beyond conceptual precision, distilling ideal types from historical sources requires great erudition. Ideal types may be developed on many levels of abstraction. Weber’s well-known ideal type of social action is historically unlimited. His ideal-typical model of the routinization of charisma is applicable only in a particular range of situations, and his ideal type of the Protestant ethic applies only to a small group of early modern religious IRA COHEN confessions and sects. idealism A view of the world that sees reality as ultimately composed of ideas rather than a realm existing outside human consciousness, idealism reaches this conclusion on the grounds that, without ideas, humans could not function. Because human activity is conscious activity, the world itself is ultimately composed of ideas. described as forms of objective idealism. Objective idealism does not doubt the existence of a reality outside the individual mind, but sees the real world as the creation of gods or God, so that worshipping God or appeasing the gods is essential for human control over nature. In its “deist” form, objective idealism argues that, while the world is ultimately created by God, science studies its regularities and character without assuming any further divine intervention. Objective idealism needs to be distinguished from subjective idealism. Subjective idealists argue that the real world is created by individual ideas. Since all data must be processed by the human mind, it is impossible to prove that there is a world beyond these data. It is difficult to see how subjective idealism can rebut the criticism that it leads to a paralyzing skepticism and an inability to distinguish the subjective from the objective. Idealism in general is unable to provide an analysis of how consciousness itself is a product of history. JOHN HOFFMAN identity The idea of human beings having an identity or identities has come to replace previous notions of character. Whereas identity is assumed to be socially constructed and invented, character signified individual attributes that were fixed and permanent. Identity then has an intersubjective dimension. In the social sciences, the view of George Herbert Mead that identity is dependent upon the recognition of others introduced more complex forms of understanding. Mead argued that human identities develop out of a three-way conversation between the I, Me, and generalized Other. It is by “taking the attitude of the other” that we learn reflexively to monitor our identities and present them to others. Identity is formed out of the constant ebb and flow of conversation between ourselves and others. When there is a conflict between the demands of the community and the self, individuals are thrown back on 277 identity themselves in a reflective attitude, thereby examining whether their values and beliefs are in need of revision. On this reading all identity is reflexively produced. If all identity is produced in the context of community, many have sought to look at the ways society seeks to regulate and manage its production. Many have sought to criticize Mead’s views for neglecting the role of power and culture in helping shape identity. The modern state has been involved in the regulation and monitoring of identities through a number of institutions, from prisons to the courts and from the education system to border controls. Further, these features of identity are related to the rise of identity politics over the course of the twentieth century. In opposition to the way many of the dominant features of modern societies have sought to police and control identities, many have used claims to identity as a means of organizing themselves politically. The most prominent amongst these movements has been feminism, which has historically sought to deconstruct overtly masculine assumptions about human identities, while promoting new forms of inclusion and respect for women. On the other hand, other social movements have more explicitly sought to claim an absolutist identity as a means of engaging in politics. The politics of identity includes a number of social movements and networks, some of which provoke critical questions, while others defensively reaffirm communal connections. The impact of more complex models of identity in the wake of Mead (not forgetting the impact of psychoanalysis) and identity politics has led to a growing appreciation of the complexity of identity. Indeed many now prefer the term “identities,” signifying the idea that no one source can explain the complexity of the modern self. Modern selves are the product of a range of shifting and diverse social and cultural categories and identifications that are rarely stable. For many the capacity to have an identity means the ability to be able to tell a story about the self and related communities. An identity is like a narrative that has to be constantly retold and reformulated in the light of new circumstances. If social and cultural change in respect of globalization and technology has aided the reflexive capacity of identities, it has also increased the capacity of many to claim more fundamentalist versions of identity. The rise of the internet and new forms of communication have offered new opportunities for new forms of identity conflict and contestation that are no longer contained by the nation-state. NICK STEVENSON 278 ideology identity politics – see identity. ideology Generally used to point to the ability of ideas to affect social circumstances, the function of ideology has thus been described as the capacity to advance the political and economic interests of groups or social classes (Karl Mannheim, Ideology and Utopia, 1936; Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The German Ideology, 1846), or, alternatively, the capacity to produce cohesion (N. Poulantzas, State, Power, Socialism, 1978) and resolve social strain (Talcott Parsons, The Social System, 1951). In Marx and Engels’s early formulations, ideology belonged to the cultural superstructure of social formations while material forces of production were described as the foundation or base. Contradictions in the mediation between base and superstructure were understood to be signs of strain and class conflict that in turn produce social change. This general notion treated ideology as materially effective representation, although it often carried with it a connotation of false representation and concealment of power. Ideology was associated with systems of beliefs that naturalized inequality through false consciousness. So powerful was the association between ideology and political mobilization that, by the end of World War II, writers such as Daniel Bell (in The End of Ideology, 1960) described the ensuing period of conformity and political quiescence in some advanced capitalist societies as the eclipse of ideologies, post-political politics, broad social consensus, and the emergence of the administrative state organized for efficiency rather than contests between opposing claims concerning power and justice. Few contemporary scholars claim that ideology is a grand set of ideas that in its seamless coherence imposes belief. It is not a system of ideas that strictly determines what people think, their consciousness, false or otherwise. The most promising formulations propose that ideology is not a body of abstracted ideas at all (static, coherent, or otherwise). Rather, ideology is a complex process “by which meaning is produced, challenged, reproduced, transformed” (M. Barrett, Women’s Oppression Today: Problems in Marxist Feminist Analysis, 1980; M. M. Bahktin, The Dialogic Imagination, 1987; M. Billig, Ideology and Opinions, 1991). Ideology as a process of meaning making is not, however, to be equated with culture or structure in general, or with social constructionism as a transactional process in general. An ideology always embodies particular arrangements of power and ideology affects life chances in a manner that is different from some other ideology or arrangement of power. Within this constructivist or constitutive framework, consciousness and ideology are understood to be part of a reciprocal process in which the meanings given by individuals – in transactions with others – to their world become patterned, stabilized, and objectified. These meanings, once institutionalized, become part of the material and discursive systems that limit and constrain future meaning making. Meanings can be said to be ideological only insofar as they serve power; thus ideology is not defined by its specific content but by its contextual construction and function (P. Ewick and S. S. Silbey, The Common Place of Law, 1998). This view recognizes that ideology continues as in the nineteenth century to be associated with power, inequality, and domination, but is not simply a tool to hide or create a distraction from the real. Rather, the social meanings we define as ideological are constitutive of domination; they are ideological precisely because they appear to be non-ideological (P. Ewick, Consciousness and Ideology, 2004). Ideologies vary, however, in the degree to which they are apparent, contested, or conventionalized. Thus, ideology can be understood in relationship to hegemony as the ends of a continuum. At one end of the continuum, the visible and active struggles referred to as ideology. At the other end, the term hegemony refers to situations where these struggles are no longer active, where power is dispersed through social structures, and meanings are so embedded that representational and institutional struggles are no longer visible (J. Comaroff and J. Comaroff, Of Revelation and Revolution, 1991). Although moments of resistance may be documented, in general subjects do not notice, question, or make claims against hegemony. In Ideology and Modern Culture (1990), J. B. Thompson offers a useful typology of how ideology generates meaning and truth claims by creating ways of knowing and not knowing by suppressing alternative meanings. Focusing on ideology as process and technique, Thompson suggests that ideology produces legitimacy, authorizing, sustaining, and reproducing social relations and organizations. By drawing boundaries around objects and processes, ideologies both unify and fragment coalitions and groups, creating and suppressing opportunities for action. Most importantly, ideological processes also reify and deceive. Ideology reifies social relations by masking their social and imagined communities historical character, treating as concrete what is an ongoing process in the making. By naturalizing and thus making inevitable what is a human process of social construction, ideology not only reifies social relations but also deceives and is mobilized to sustain or achieve domination. SUSAN SILBEY imagined communities A theory of nationalism, the phrase entered the lexicon of modern sociology through B. Anderson’s Imagined Communities. Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (1983). Anderson argued, on the basis of a historical study of the struggle for Javanese independence from Japan in Java in a Time of Revolution (1972), that nations are created or imagined rather than naturally occurring entities waiting to be discovered. Although nationalists typically like to think of their nation as existing from the dawn of time, nations are the products of modern revolutions. He defined a nation as an “imagined political community” that is both limited and sovereign. It is imagined because, even in the case of small nations, the fellow-members cannot know or meet each other, but they consider themselves or imagine themselves to be members of the nation. This community is limited in having boundaries, and it is sovereign, because the state attempts to assert its legitimate power over a territory. Finally, it is a community, because irrespective of social class divisions, members of a nation imagine themselves to be what Anderson calls a “horizontal community.” For example, Indonesians, who occupy a complex and sprawling archipelago of islands with diverse cultures and religions, have acquired a national consciousness as a result of their struggle against Japanese and Dutch occupation. The Indonesian nation is an imagined community in this sense. Anderson also argued that the spread of print culture and the growth of literacy in modern times have facilitated or made possible a situation whereby people can imagine themselves as part of an integrated, horizontal, political community. The growth of the novel (in the eighteenth century) and the spread of the mass newspapers (in the nineteenth century) were both important in the spread of the political imagination of the nation. The Protestant Reformation was especially important in the growth of a literate population who consumed print (for example in copies of sermons), and which contributed to the triumph of vernacular languages over the Latin of the Catholic Church. 279 imperialism With Anderson’s thesis the idea that nationalism produces rather than discovers nations became the common assumption of sociological and political discussion. BRYAN S. TURNER imperialism In an article on the “Sociology of Imperialism” (1919), Joseph Schumpeter defines imperialism as “the objectless disposition on the part of a state to unlimited forcible expansion.” In this sense, “imperialism” describes the common tendency of a political unit to grow until it encompasses the earth. In so far as the purpose of any political unit is expansion, all polities are either potentially or actively imperialist. But polities do not all try to expand in the same manner or to the same extent. Only empires aspire to expand themselves indefinitely: both city-states and nation-states are based on a territorial sovereignty, while empires aim directly at a universal sovereignty, a dominium over the whole of humanity. At its best, imperialism is a noble disposition to create a political structure that is both universal and concrete, a desire to unify humanity. At its best, imperialism is also a just disposition: not a disposition to conquer out of an unhealthy libido dominandi, but for the sake of peace, for the sake of an equivalent of the pax romana which political unity makes possible. However, imperialism has often been seen as problematic. In the book of Genesis, God condemns the project of building a tower “with its top in heaven,” Babel, by halting this symbol of human over-reaching with “the confusion of tongues,” thereby dividing humanity into many nations, making human attempts to build imperial projects to unify humanity more difficult. Genesis associates imperialism with hubris and pride, with a vain and evil desire to be like God. Our present unease with imperialism has at least two specific roots. The first is the non-democratic character of empires. In an empire, a ruling individual or a ruling oligarchy imposes its will on the rest of the empire. Empires are built around the opposition of a core and a periphery, the periphery being subordinated to the core. In contrast, city-states and nation-states are not built around the distinction core/periphery but around an opposition between internal and external, with more firmly defined boundaries: these political forms are compatible with the idea of a unified people of equal citizens. Whereas empires exclude democracy as a political regime, city-states and nation-states are compatible with democracy; they are not necessarily hierarchical. A second 280 imperialism root of our contemporary discomfort with imperialism is cultural relativism. In order to justify their imposed order, empires tend to claim that they stand for a higher degree of civilization, that this gives them a right to rule “barbarians.” In a world like ours, which considers itself to be disenchanted with any claim about the superiority of any aristocracy or civilization, empires appear to be lacking in legitimacy. According to Schumpeter, imperialism is an irrational inclination towards war and conquest, and one which he associates with the survival of residual political structures: imperialism belongs to a pre-capitalist era and is an atavism destined to disappear. In order to defend their social position, a ruling class (see social class) foments a jingoistic mood in which ideas such as national honor and prestige play an essential part. But, according to Schumpeter, a purely capitalist world can offer no ground for imperialist impulses. Schumpeter belongs to a tradition illustrated by Auguste Comte and Thorstein Veblen according to which commerce will replace war – a tradition analyzed in Raymond Aron, War and Industrial Society (1958). One dominant contemporary version of this theory, a theory of globalization, has two roots: a belief that commerce will replace war, and an argument turning the ideals of the Enlightenment, ideals which underpinned European imperialism, against imperialism itself. However, imperialism should not simply be confused or conflated with an old-fashioned spirit of conquest, an anti-capitalist and an antidemocratic inclination. Not all empires have been tyrannies, not all empires belong to a pre-capitalist and pre-democratic age. Another school of explanation of imperialism stems from Vladimir Ilich Lenin’s analysis of imperialism as the “highest stage of capitalism.” The claims of this school are the converse of Schumpeter’s: the accumulation of wealth will not be enough to get rid of war, as war is a necessary consequence of economic inequality. This argument and its posterity are described in Wolfgang J. Mommsen, Theories of Imperialism (1977 [trans. 1980]). The preservation of capitalism requires expansionist opportunities. Imperialism is due to the acute competition of surplus capital which did not find profitable employment on the home market. Lenin’s theory echoes Machiavelli’s political philosophy perhaps even more than Marxism. According to Machiavelli, imperialism is favored by all those who try to avoid the conflict between the haves and the have-nots, the oligarchs and the people. Imperialism reorients the activity of the income city or state in a way which enables it to avoid imploding through civil war. On this account, the sociology of international relations cannot be separated from the sociology of social classes and political sociology. As Machiavelli puts it in his Discourses On the First Ten Books of Titus Livius (1531 [trans. 1996]) (an analysis of Rome’s imperial past), the passions of those who want to acquire and of those who do not want to lose combine to form a communal passion to acquire the world. The quarrel between the poor and the rich frees an energy that helps in building up the power necessary to conquer. Imperialism sublimates class conflicts into wars of overseas conquest and external expansion. One can reconcile in part Lenin’s and Schumpeter’s teachings by noticing that there are various types of empires and imperialisms. Empires are more or less military and more or less formal. Although Britain built the immense empire that became the empire par excellence in modern times, the nation’s power was ordinarily exercised in an indirect way that made it easy to rule with a comparatively small army and civil service – Niall Ferguson’s Empire (2003) offers an introduction to its history. In its weakest form, imperialism can be a form of loose economic hegemony. Today, deepening the spirit of commercial societies, the United States of America seem to have superseded the indirect character of the British Empire in exercising their empire without the real burden of an empire. Imperialism is not necessarily incompatible with capitalism and democracy: it can be a product of both. Western nations ruled the world because their individual members set sail for science, victory, and gain. The extension of political and economic liberty at home went hand in hand with the extension of the power abroad. The great discovery of Machiavelli, both a republican and an imperialist, is that freedom is not an enemy of power, but what produces it. The acquisitive passion is equally at work in democracy, capitalism, and imperialism: it leads the have-nots to impose their own regime (democracy), a regime that will allow them to acquire more goods (capitalism) and more territory (imperialism). É M I L E P E R R E A U - S A U S S I N E income In commonsense terms, income refers to the wages that an individual earns through gainful employment (see work and employment) over time. In more technical language, it refers to the flow of money, goods, or services to an economic income unit, which may be an individual or more typically a household. Personal disposable income refers to the income available to a household after taxation and national insurance contributions. The national income refers to the aggregate incomes of the residents of a society in a given period of time. Incomes in this national calculation include all payments for the factors of production, that is wages, salaries, profits, rent, and income from abroad. In economic distribution theory, the incomes of land, labor, and capital are determined by the demand and supply for them. This way of looking at income was an aspect of the classical political economy of David Ricardo (1772–1823) who sought to determine the economic laws that regulate the distribution of the produce of industry between different social classes, namely landowners, capitalists, and workers. In developing these ideas, Ricardo created a theory of income distribution, that is an analysis of the share of the economic output that went to landlords, capitalists, and workers. Whereas landlords depended on rent from land, capitalists seek profit on industrial investments, and workers exist on wages. Ricardo anticipated Karl Marx in recognizing the fundamental conflict of interest between these three classes. Ricardo recognized that the value of any commodity will be determined by the amount of labor invested in it, and therefore capitalists have an interest in controlling wages to increase their profits. Capitalists will attempt to replace labor with machinery, because capital-intensive goods will be cheaper than labor-intensive goods. Ricardo’s theory of the dynamics of capitalism was similar to the demographic theory of Thomas Malthus (1766–1834). Ricardo argued that when wages rise above the subsistence level, workers respond by increasing the size of their families. As population grows, the supply of labor will increase, there will be downward pressure on wages, and as family size increases the standard of living declines. However, population growth increases the demand for land and increases rent. This Ricardian distribution model described the inherent contradictions of capitalism, thereby anticipating the Marxist theory of capitalist crisis. Sociologists have been primarily interested in the distribution of income as a measure of social inequality. Richard Titmuss in Income Distribution and Social Change (1962) showed that in Britain the problems of income distribution and taxation were poorly understood, and that social workers had been too concerned with the basic problem of poverty to the neglect of relative income 281 income inequality. Titmuss’s research was intended to examine whether there had been any equalization of incomes in the postwar period. This question has given rise to much debate, but there is some consensus that, with neo-liberalism, income inequality has increased. Sociologists typically measure income inequality in terms of the gini coefficient. This coefficient is based on the Lorenz curve which shows the extent of inequality in terms of a frequency distribution by reference to personal income. A Lorenz curve is a graphical representation of inequality in which the cumulative percentages of a population of taxpayers are plotted against the cumulative percentage of incomes. A straight line rising at an angle of 45 degrees from the base of the graph will show perfect equality. For example, if 10 percent of the population earned 10 percent of the national income, and 20 percent earned 20 percent, and so on, there would be perfect income equality. When a curve is traced below the 45 degree line, the degree of curvature measures the degree of inequality. The gini coefficient is measured as G¼ Area between Lorenz curve and 45-degree line Area above the 45-degree line Where the frequency distribution is equal, then G ¼ 0. As the welfare state expanded in the postwar period, Britain was characterized by a considerable degree of income equality in the 1950s and 1960s. However, the gini coefficient showed that in the mid-1980s income inequality began to increase, and from the late 1980s it increased rapidly. Taxation has an important role to play in income distribution, and with the reduction in direct personal taxation the income of the rich has increased significantly. The number of millionaires in Great Britain has increased dramatically since the 1980s. Sociologists are interested in income distribution because it provides a proxy measure of social class, and the conflict between wages and profits is an indication of the extent of class struggle. Furthermore, income inequality is closely associated with poor health. In Unhealthy Societies (1996) Richard Wilkinson showed how improvements in mortality rates in Great Britain had slowed down after 1985 as income inequality increased. The economic theory of income distribution assumes perfect competition between factors of production and, in a free market, labor, land, and capital will be fully and efficiently employed. Sociologists have, however, been interested in 282 individualism conditions that limit perfect competition such as the growth of trade unions, wage bargaining, the institutionalization of social conflict, and monopolies over profit. Economic theories of perfect competition between factors of production with constant returns to scale and zero profits have had difficulties explaining such phenomena as waste. Such theories are also limited by their inability to calculate the value of the black market (or informal economy) and crime to economic activity, because such activities are not or rarely subject to taxation, and hence are not easily measured. BRYAN S. TURNER income equality – see income. independent variables – see dependent/independent variables. indexicality – see ethnomethodology. individualism There are two general perspectives on individualism. First, it is a political doctrine associated with liberalism that emphasizes the autonomy, importance, and freedom of the individual in relation to the state. Second, it is a particular type of culture associated with private property rights, personal consumption and individual autonomy. It is typically assumed to be an important aspect of western culture as a whole, having its historical roots both in Greco-Roman antiquity and in the Christian religion. However, individualism had its modern origins in the theology of seventeenth-century religious sects, and it is often held to be the dominant ideology of capitalism. In political theory, John Stuart Mill claimed that the individual is sovereign, and in economic theories of entrepreneurship, Robinson Crusoe in Daniel Defoe’s novel is seen to be the quintessential hero of individualistic capitalism. Individualism is also thought to be a defining characteristic of western culture, in contrast with the emphasis on the family and the collectivity in eastern cultures. In Essays on Individualism (1986), Louis Dumont contrasted the hierarchical caste society of India, with its emphasis on the social over the individual, with modern western society where society is subordinated to the individual. Individualisme was employed in France as condemnation of the rational individualism of the Enlightenment and the French Revolution. For the individualism eighteenth-century English philosopher Edmund Burke (1729–97), individualism and the promotion of individual interests would undermine the commonwealth and create an uncivil, unstable, and repressive society. Nineteenth-century French sociology can also be seen as a powerful criticism of individualism, and in the notion of the social sociologists emphasized the importance of social solidarity against the negative impact of egoistic forms of individualism. Émile Durkheim developed a sustained intellectual attack on utilitarian individualism as represented by Herbert Spencer. While the analysis of individualism has played a significant role in the development of sociological theory, the ideological and intellectual relationship between individualism and sociology is often ambiguous. As a result, understanding the relationship between “the individual” and “the social” remains a perennial issue in sociological theory. The development of individualism corresponds closely with the emergence of western capitalism from the early seventeenth century. Max Weber, in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1905 [trans. 2002]), showed how Calvinism challenged traditional authority by claiming that the salvation of the individual could not be guaranteed by the institutions of the church, such as the Sacraments. Each individual would stand alone before God on the Day of Judgment, and would be held responsible for his or her sins. Protestantism created a radical version of religious individualism that profoundly shaped western attitudes towards political and social institutions. The emphasis on the isolated individual and the anxieties surrounding uncertain knowledge of salvation was part of a “tragic vision” that in France characterized the Jansenist sect, the philosophy of Pascal, and the tragedies of Racine. In early modern history, the Protestant Reformation was a critical turning point, because it made salvation potentially available to everybody, regardless of his or her social standing. This theological differentiation of the individual from society is an important component of the historical development of religion. In theoretical terms, individualism is subject to considerable confusion. It is important to establish a clear distinction between four separate issues. We can distinguish an emphasis on the individual as an autonomous agent with a distinct identity as part of the western tradition. Then there is individualism as a social and political ideology with various national traditions. Third, in European thought, individuality was a romantic view of the uniqueness of the person and is the individualism product of a long process of education and cultivation. Fourth, in modern societies, there is individuation as a process whereby people are standardized by the bureaucratic processes of the modern state. Finally there is in addition an epistemological theory called methodological individualism that argues that all sociological explanations are reducible to the characteristics of individuals. The development of sociological theory has involved various attempts to resolve this dilemma of collective and individual concepts of social institutions. Weber, for example, has been criticized for an artificial and historically static construction of the individual and society. In The Society of Individuals (1991), Norbert Elias criticized Weber for his inability to reconcile the analytical tensions between the individual and society. This failure to deal successfully with this artificial division is a general weakness of sociological theory. Elias offered a solution in which we analyze the two concepts of individual and society as historical constructs that arise from social processes. The balance between society (We) and the individual (I) is not fixed, and hence what he called “processual sociology” or “figurational sociology” was designed to explore the We–I balance in different social configurations, such as feudalism or bourgeois society. In American sociology, there has been a persistent theme claiming that nineteenth-century individualism was undermined by the growth of mass society. The debate starts with Alexis de Tocqueville who, in Democracy in America (1848 [trans. 1968]), believed that the lack of centralized, bureaucratic government in America had encouraged individual initiative and that voluntary associations had flourished to solve local, community problems. Civil society required these associations to flourish, and as a result individualism had not been crushed by centralized administration. However, the emphasis on equality, while a revolutionary doctrine, also threatened the individual with mass opinion. Tocqueville’s fears for individual opinion in a mass democracy influenced liberals such as Mill towards universal suffrage in Britain. Critical theorists in the twentieth century continued to study the impact of mass society on individuals. C. Wright Mills, in The Power Elite (1956), claimed that individuals were increasingly manipulated by public opinion in a society where elites controlled the channels of information. David Riesman, in The Lonely Crowd (1950), analyzed the American personality as the otherdirected character, because it depends on 283 individualization theory constant approval and affirmation from others. Other-directed personalities are conformist, and hence American culture was stagnating. In The Organization Man (1956), W. H. Whyte described the company executives, who are mobile, disconnected from their local communities and families, and dedicated to personal achievement within the organization. These organizational commitments encouraged social conformity. In Habits of the Heart (1985), Robert N. Bellah and his colleagues undertook an influential study of contemporary attitudes towards politics that was intended to replicate Tocqueville’s study. They discovered that Americans were alienated from politics and political institutions, but their commitment to society was expressed through a multitude of local and informal associations. In the 1950s sociologists created a theory of social standardization and conformity that apparently undermined the raw individualism of early capitalism. Contemporary sociological studies have drawn on the theory of postindustrial society to argue that modern patterns of employment, for example in the service sector, are fragmented, and employment does not require loyalty to the company. In the 1990s, work and employment have become casualized, part-time, and discontinuous. The alienated individual of mass society has been replaced by a work force that has no sense of identity with the company, and many people no longer have an experience of a life-time career. Richard Sennett, in Respect (2003), argues that casualized workers have low self-esteem. The implication of these studies is that the rugged individualism of the American frontier is decaying. BRYAN S. TURNER individualization theory Individualization concerns the conversion of identity into a task to be achieved. Life is increasingly lived as an individual project. The decline of class loyalties and bonds (along with growing income inequalities) means that individuals are increasingly thrown back on their own biographies, with human relations increasingly becoming susceptible to individual choice. This does not mean that the self is being increasingly determined by market individualism or by social isolation. In Risk Society (1992), Ulrich Beck argues individualization means the disembedding of the ways of industrial society and the reinvention of new communal ties and biographies. As more areas of social life are less defined by tradition, the more our biographies require choice and planning. Individuals are “condemned” to become authors of their own lives. 284 industrial democracy The partial disintegration of the nuclear family and rigid class hierarchies means we are all released from the structures of industrial society into the uncertainties of a world risk society. There are two main criticisms of these views. (1) The individualized self is dependent upon access to material and symbolic resources that are unevenly distributed in modern industrial societies. The argument here is that the individualized self is a middle-class rather than a universal social condition. (2) This view seriously underestimates the extent to which ordinary lives and sensibilities have been colonized by the imperatives of economic reason. NICK STEVENSON induction – see explanation. industrial democracy This phrase refers to worker participation in management as both a historical and institutional development within industrial relations. The theory of industrial democracy summarizes a range of participatory practices induced by workers, trade unions, state legislature, or management. Common organizational forms are worker self-management, cooperatives, codetermination, work councils, and shop-floor programs (for example autonomous work groups). Participation can be indirect (for example representation through trade unions or work councils) or direct (for example individual worker involvement in teamwork schemes). Politically, the term symbolizes ideological commitment to social rights and economic or industrial citizenship as dimensions of so-called organizational democracy. Towards the end of the twentieth century, the European Union developed a range of industrial democracy initiatives, thus creating legislative support for European employee rights. Collective bargaining by trade unions (to determine wages and conditions) is still the dominant form of industrial democracy, but there has been a decline in the strength, scope, and scale of union action, as well as in the role of the state in industrial relations. Changes in production technologies and production organization as well as changes to firm and market structures, in the context of the ongoing globalization of the economy, have also affected nationally instituted structures and produced different sets of actor choices and opportunities. Diverse organizational forms and actor constellations now exist, in which individual-employee participation represents both more direct participation and leverage industrial relations industrial relations for managers to bypass labor representatives and collective agreements. Although the power balance is generally understood as shifting in favor of management, industrial democracy remains a salient public issue. Crucial to understanding contemporary industrial democracy is the recognition that worker participation is no longer confined to labor interests. Worker involvement has been developed as a programmatic component of management theory and practice, and implemented through so-called human resource management (HRM). This form of management helps institute worker participation through widespread practices of worker consultation, without intending to advance democracy. Compared with actual collaborative decision-making and participation in ownership and profit-sharing, this weaker form, generally welcomed by employees and their representatives, has also been analyzed as undermining the more far-reaching, encompassing, or radical, goals of trade unions and collective action by labor movements more broadly. Distinct national models of industrial democracy exist. There are clear differences between the Anglo-Saxon and German varieties of capitalism. For example, in the United States and the United Kingdom, economic competition from Japan led to experiments with high levels of worker participation (for example so-called quality circles and total quality management) and, from the 1980s, financial participation (for instance, profit-sharing and stock-ownership extended to employees). Germany’s system of industrial relations, on the other hand, involves a dual system of interest representation, with collective bargaining between unions and employer representatives at the industry level that is kept separate from codetermination (Mitbestimmung) at the level of the firm. Legal regulation supports industry-level bargaining, determining the practices of negotiation and arbitration without direct state intervention. Work councils on the firm level are increasingly taking over the role of the unions on the industrylevel of negotiation, but the essential feature of capital–labor co-determination remains. ANN VOGEL industrial relations These are concerned with the relationship between employers and employees, with its regulation, and with the social, legal, and economic influences that shape it. The subject first received systematic study in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, notably with the work of Beatrice Webb (1858–1943) and Sidney Webb (1859–1947) in the United Kingdom, and of John Commons (1862–1945) in the United States. Their interest was a response to the contemporary rise of trade union power and to the industrial unrest that increasingly disrupted the developed world. An underlying concern of the subject was, and remains, collective employee behavior and its regulation. The employment relationship was seen to be inherently conflictual because of the open-ended nature of the employment contract, and the imbalance of power between employer and employee. This distinguishes the subject from personnel management and human resource management, for which the frame of reference is the management of individualistic relationships with employees. For most of the twentieth century, and for most industrialized market economies, the driving force behind the regulation of terms and conditions of employment was formal bargaining between employers and the trade unions representing their employees. This regulatory process, called collective bargaining, gave rise to a patchwork of industrial agreements within countries. Trade unions were seen to play an often controversial role in exacerbating inflation, in encouraging or impeding industrial efficiency, and in upholding decent labor standards. Governments, to varying extents, and with varying degrees of political support from trade unions, legislated a procedural framework for collective bargaining. This provided constraints to strike activity, means (such as conciliation and arbitration) for conflict resolution, and rights to trade union organization. Towards the end of the twentieth century, collective bargaining became eroded by intensified national and international competitive pressure for goods and services. As a result, in most market economies, trade union membership and strike action diminished, and concern with industrial relations declined. In the decades after World War II there was substantial sociological interest in industrial relations. Academic theorists sought to ground their policy prescriptions in sociological analysis – for example, John Dunlop drew on the work of Talcott Parsons for his Industrial Relations Systems (1958) and Allan Flanders’s influential analyses of the breakdown of the British system used conceptions of legitimation and anomie taken from Max Weber and Émile Durkheim. Ethnographic studies such as Alvin Gouldner’s Patterns of Industrial Bureaucracy (1955), Melville Dalton’s Men who Manage (1959), and Michel Crozier’s The Bureaucratic 285 industrial society Phenomenon (1964) inspired a generation of industrial sociologists to explore informal processes and power relationships in industrial relations. Studies such as Alan Fox’s Beyond Contract: Work, Power, and Trust Relations (1974) and Eric Batstone and his colleagues’ Shop Stewards in Action (1977) did much to shed light on the rational bases of what was popularly conceived to be the irrational exercise of union power. In the British context, such studies played an important part in drawing attention to the managerial weakness that lay behind disorderly workplace industrial relations, and thereby facilitated its elimination. The economic pressures of subsequent decades have tended to eclipse the pursuit of sociological explanations of industrial relations behavior. WILLIAM A. BROWN industrial society Modern society is industrial society. When a society undergoes industrialization, it tends to take on the following features. It has an economy in which power-driven machinery replaces human and animal power, and steam, gas, or electricity replaces wind and water as sources of power. Handicraft production in the home or small workshop gives way to mechanized production in the factory. The majority of the adult population work in manufacturing or services, rather than agriculture. Work is based on a complex division of labor, involving generally a considerable degree of mechanization and automation and a strict separation of manual and mental labor. Its organization is based on Fordism (see Post-Fordism) and Taylorism. The industrial way of life also tends to involve a strict separation between home and work, and between work and leisure. For Karl Marx, such features of industrialism give rise to a high degree of alienation. The industrial population is urban, that is to say that a majority live in towns of over 20,000 inhabitants, and many in towns of over 1 million people. Even rural dwellers are dependent on the city, either for work or for most of the required services and amenities. Industrial life also tends to be secular, with religion playing a diminished role in the life of societies. As emphasized in the work of Max Weber, industrial society is increasingly rationalized and bureaucratized. For many nineteenth-century sociologists, such as Ferdinand Tönnies, such features of industrial society lead to fragmentation and a loss of community. The first society to industrialize was that of Britain in the early nineteenth century, as a result 286 inequality of its "Industrial Revolution." Industrialism gradually spread to the rest of western Europe and, by the late nineteenth century, to America, Japan, and eastern European countries such as Russia. By the mid twentieth century, industrialism had become worldwide, and commentators were beginning to speak of a second industrial revolution and the movement to a postindustrial society in the developed world. Industrial society has been, in the main, capitalist society. That, for Marx, was its most important feature, leading to the development of social classes based on ownership or non-ownership of the means of production, and involving more or less permanent class conflict. Eventually, Marx thought, such conflict would lead to socialism and a more stable form of industrial society. That has not happened yet in any advanced industrial society, though a number of less developed countries, such as Russia and China, have tried, with considerable success, to industrialize under the banner of socialism or Communism. Liberal thinkers past and present, such as Herbert Spencer, Émile Durkheim, and Talcott Parsons, have taken a more optimistic view of industrial society and its future, arguing that the early conflicts and discontents would give way to a more orderly integration as social groups adjusted to each other and a normative system governed by fairness and justice gradually established itself in the workplace and in the society at large. As industrial society has globalized, largely under capitalist auspices, the socialist dream has largely faded and some form of liberal democracy has increasingly become the norm. KRISHAN KUMAR industrialization – see industrial society. inequality The unequal distribution of opportunities, rewards, and power among and between individuals, households, and groups is a defining feature of all known societies. The study of such differences, or inequalities, is a core concern of much sociological research. The subfield of social stratification has as its main task the description and analysis of inequalities, or the makeup of the stratification system of any given society. Many other subfields of sociology also examine particular kinds of inequalities (for example, political sociology examines inequalities in the distribution of power, cultural sociologists study the unequal distribution of cultural capital, and so forth). Inequalities can be seen most clearly in inequality two distinct allocations – who gets what? (inequality of outcomes) and who does what? (inequalities of opportunities) – and across four distinct social levels (individuals, groups, organizations and institutions). The interaction between allocation processes and the social levels at which they occur defines the contours within which sociological research on inequality proceeds. Sociologists have also paid considerable attention to the consequences of inequality, and the ways in which inequalities are reproduced and transmitted from generation to generation. Finally, it is important to keep in mind that research on inequality may concern either the distribution at one point in time or dynamic or intergenerational processes. The most basic question about inequality concerns the uneven distribution of rewards. Inequalities of income and wealth are central, but these are fundamentally different concepts. Income refers to the receipt of money or goods over a particular accounting period (such as hourly, weekly, monthly, yearly, or over the life-course). For most individuals and households, it is their earned income that primarily defines their wellbeing and capacity to acquire goods and service. The choice of time period for studying income is important. Take lifetime income flows: the young generally receive little or no income; income typically peaks in middle age, declining later in life. But such generalizations cannot take into account short-term shocks (unemployment, health problems, macroeconomic conditions, the birth of a child, good or bad luck) that may radically alter income level at any particular point in time. The use of averages over longer periods (such as yearly) tends to obscure certain kinds of inequalities. For this reason, analysts have typically considered income insecurity an important supplement to analyses of income inequality. There are multiple possible sources of income: earned income from a job, income received from investments or ownership of income-generating properties or business, income transfers from the government, income received from family or friends, and illegal or “underground” earnings (such as from crime or informal services provided outside a formal labor contract). The source of income is a critical distinction. Individuals who rely solely on paid employment or government transfers have neither the security nor typically the amount of income relative to those who receive income from multiple sources. One may lose a job or a government entitlement and be without income altogether for some extended period of inequality time. For these reasons, analysts of inequality must pay attention to the source of income as well as the amount. In studying income flows, sociologists have highlighted the importance of occupations and/ or aggregations of occupations known as social classes. Occupations vary widely in the level of income they provide to their incumbents; professional and managerial occupations provide far greater incomes and employment security than do routine “white-collar” jobs or skilled and unskilled manual jobs. Occupations are powerful predictors of income, intergenerational social mobility, attitudes, voting behavior, and friendship/ marriage patterns. Within a single “occupation” (however defined), there is wide variation in the types of labor performed and in the compensation provided. The primary alternative analytical method is to examine classes, broad groupings of occupations and/or individuals with similar life chances. Research on class-based inequalities has been a hallmark of the sociological tradition since Karl Marx. Class analysis provides a different way of examining the impact of inequalities across a wide range of social domains. A variety of different types of class schema have been developed as analytical tools. Among the most prominent of these in contemporary sociology are the models of John Goldthorpe, notably in The Class Structure in Modern Britain (1980), and Erik Olin Wright, Classes (1985). The Goldthorpe class scheme is built around an analysis of employment relations (such as the degree of trust associated with particular kinds of occupations), while the Wright scheme focuses on the differential distribution of assets possessed by different classes (principally skill and organizational, and property, assets). A different perspective on class inequalities emerges when analysts focus on wealth. Wealth refers to the total stock of capital resources possessed by an individual or family. The most important types of wealth possessed by most households are their homes, while a much smaller subset of the population owns net financial assets (NFAs) in addition to property. Home ownership is the most widespread type of wealth ownership in the developed capitalist world, and, since homes tend to appreciate over time, home ownership has been one way that modest households accumulate wealth. (The difficulties in securing legal title to property and the barriers to wealth accumulation this posed has been identified as one critical source of slow economic growth in less-developed countries.) Significant net financial 287 inequality assets (the total value of savings, investments, and other convertible assets, less outstanding debts), in contrast, are far less widely held. Upper-class families possess vast NFAs, while many families possess little or no NFAs. Wealth is a critical source of intergenerational inequality, something which affluent parents can pass on to their children to provide them with important starting advantages. Wealth differences between individuals and groups are often far larger than income differences, and the sources of wealth inequality has been an increasingly important topic of investigation in recent years. Of particular note is the role of wealth assets in cushioning families against unanticipated crises such as sudden job loss or health catastrophe. Less commonly thought of in relation to inequality of outcomes is status inequality. Inequality on the basis of status refers not to the amount of income, but rather the prestige of a particular social location. In primitive societies, for example, the social position of “medicine man” or tribal elder meant high social prestige even if there was relatively little extra reward associated with possession of that title. In modern societies, status attaches to particular occupations (occupational status), fame (celebrity status), successful performance within a social location (heroic status), and power. While any of these statuses may be associated with substantial rewards, it is not necessarily the case. For example, the President of the United States commands a very modest salary in comparison with heads of most large corporations, but has infinitely more status. Occupational prestige is an important area of investigation in relation to status inequality. In the influential research of Donald Treiman and his colleagues, most notably in Occupational Prestige in Comparative Perspective, scales for ranking occupations according to the social prestige accorded to them by a cross-section of survey respondents was developed. A robust finding is that, over time and across societies, occupational prestige rankings are remarkably consistent. Much research on income and wealth inequalities has focused on examining trends over time. One conclusion that is now universally agreed upon is that intracountry inequalities are growing, albeit at different rates in different countries. There are a number of different theories about why inequalities in the postindustrial capitalist world are growing. Among the leading explanations are rising returns to education (with the gap between college-educated and non-collegeeducated citizens growing), changes associated 288 inequality with economic globalization in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries (including rising levels of trade and more rapid movement of capital across borders), declining union strength, and the decline of medium-wage manufacturing jobs. Although inequality has risen, rates of poverty have not significantly increased in most countries, as social provision through the public sector continues to play an important role in shoring up the well-being of low-income households. A focus on income or wealth inequality is but one side of the sociological examination of inequalities. All known societies are characterized by a division of labor in which individuals and groups are vested with different responsibilities and powers in the reproduction of their lives and societies as a whole. This division of labor defines a second-core allocation of inequality, the question of who does what. Two types of human labor are fundamental in defining who does what: work (including paid employment) and household labor (housework; see women and work). In the Marxist tradition, this distinction is known as production versus reproduction, and feminist sociologists have brought the study of the latter into the heart of the sociological study of inequality. At the top of any division of labor are social positions imbued with power. In such positions, incumbents are in a position to make decisions that others have to follow whether they want to or not. The most important types of power reside in organizational position (such as in government, the military, or corporate hierarchies), or in command over investment decisions (afforded by the ownership of great wealth). But decision-making power can also exist in much smaller units, such as heterosexual families (where men typically exert far greater influence over household decisions than women). Autonomy is a second critical concept in defining who does what, especially in the world of work. Occupational hierarchies produce wide variation in the level of autonomy provided to individuals. In high-trust occupations, incumbents work without much supervision and are free to define the pace of their work effort. By contrast, in low-trust occupations, continual monitoring of effort and lack of autonomy are defining features of the daily grind. These issues are core questions in the sociology of work and employment. Another critical source of autonomy comes from the ownership of assets, which can be invested to create opportunities for self-employment (or, inequality in cases of extreme wealth, provide for a life of leisure free from involuntary toil). However, only at the top of the occupational structure is selfemployment a vehicle for control over one’s working life. High levels of self-employment in many developing countries, and also in some developed countries like the United States, are frequently associated with long hours, low wages, and high levels of income insecurity. In the developed countries, self-employment is often dominated by immigrants seeking a toehold in the economic order. The division of housework has been a second vital area of inquiry concerning who does what. Feminist sociologists have established that the narrow focus on the world of work, so characteristic of sociologists in the first half of the twentieth century, ignored a second important dimension of who does what in the family. Wide disparities in the division of labor on the “second shift” between men and women, in terms of childcare, elder care, cooking, routine housework, and other household chores, constitute a powerful source of genderbased inequality. Recent debates over whether the distribution of household tasks between men and women have become more egalitarian suggest some evidence of convergence, but in most families women still do far more routine and caring work than men. The link between inequalities in families and inequalities in the workplace has been a widely debated topic. While human capital theorists have postulated that women choose to prioritize family over work and women’s smaller incomes and occupational choices reflect those preferences, feminist sociologists have developed alternative theories which emphasize that women’s subordinate roles in heterosexual families are disadvantaging women in the workplace. These arguments go beyond sexist attitudes to attribute part of gender inequalities to the disruptive aspects of child-rearing (and care-giving for parents) for women seeking to maintain career tracks. Research on inequality frequently starts from the analysis of the difference between individuals. In the classical “status-attainment” model of social mobility, associated with the work of Peter Blau and Otis Dudley Duncan (The American Occupational Structure, 1967), individual inequalities in opportunity and reward reflect family background, individual attainment (such as education), and sociodemographic attributes (such as race / ethnic group memberships), or even such idiosyncratic factors as physical attractiveness. All of these characteristics and attainments inhere in inequality concrete individuals. Some of these characteristics are rooted in ascribed characteristics fixed at birth. Other characteristics are achieved (such as an individual’s level of educational attainment). But later work has argued that this model does not fully theorize the impact of social groups, organizational settings, and welfare states in structuring and altering individual-level attributes. Group membership is in many societies a critical source of advantage or disadvantage. Being a member of a high-status group in a society typically eases access to opportunities. Analyses of the distribution of income frequently draw upon the idea of social closure, or the means by which groups protect access to certain scarce resources, to account for why groups are able to gain and maintain advantages over time. Max Weber argued in chapter 1 of his Economy and Society (1922 [trans. 1968]) that the monopolization of opportunities and/or rewards by particular groups is a vital source of inequality. Examining the history of group-based inequality, Weberians have shown that one of the ways in which groups achieve power is by maintaining formal and informal systems of social closure. Formal systems include legal barriers to entry such as occupational restrictions, while informal systems involve less explicit but nonetheless powerful forms of discrimination. The organizational structure and types of social provision are both a locus of inequality and a potential source of their amelioration. Major institutions such as schools, the health-care system, and the legal system all tend to reinforce the advantages of powerful individuals and groups. For example, public health care or education systems rarely can provide the same quality care or learning as can be acquired by those with the means to acquire private health services or to send their child to private schools. However, public institutions on balance significantly reduce inequality through the welfare state. Welfare states include principally state institutions that provide income transfers on the basis of either a social-insurance model or means-tested benefits based on income or other personal or family attributes. A consistent body of evidence demonstrates that welfare states reduce poverty and inequality, smooth out income fluctuations, and reduce oldage poverty and equalize health-care outcomes, with higher-spending countries (such as the Scandinavian social democracies) getting more of these outcomes than lower-spending countries (like the Anglo-American liberal welfare states). In many postindustrial capitalist countries, 289 infant mortality rates market-based inequalities are growing sharply but these continue to be reduced by welfare state interventions. Finally, it is important to underscore the global character of inequalities. Individuals and households are embedded not just in local and national economies, but also in a world-system that significantly influences the patterns of inequality. The global economy is based on an unequal set of trading relationships between countries that makes some countries far richer than others. However, the most careful recent research (adjusted for demography) suggests that intercountry inequalities are declining, as previously poor but very large countries like China move closer to the global mean. The patterns of global capital investment are also changing in ways that encourage firms to seek profitable sources of investment outside the core developed countries. Globalization may also set limits on the capacities of welfare states to reduce intracountry inequalities, although thus far the impact on welfare effort in the developed capitalist countries has not been manifested in the way anticipated by some globalization theories. JEFF MANZA infant mortality rates – see mortality. inflation This refers to an overall increase in the price of goods and services so that the purchasing power of money declines. It is an episodic feature of capitalism, but became a focus of sociological debate in the 1970s when inflation in many advanced capitalist economies exceeded 10 percent per annum. This tended to redistribute purchasing power between social groups in ways that lacked obvious legitimacy, fueling competition between them (though anti-inflationary state policies could have similar repercussions). Economists offer varied analyses of inflation. These highlight the role of increases in raw materials prices; the capacity of workers or trade unions to gain wage increases above productivity growth; the market power of employers to pass on costs through increased prices; or the role of the state in increasing the money supply to fund state expenditure. Neo-classical economists, however, often view the collectively organized, institutional features of these processes (especially state policies and union leverage) as illegitimate distortions of market mechanisms. By contrast, economic sociologists (and some political economists) argue that analyses of normative orientations, in290 influence stitutional frameworks, and forms of collective organization must be integrated with analyses of market mechanisms to provide adequate accounts of inflationary processes. Thus, M. Gilbert, in Inflation and Social Conflict (1986), compared different advanced capitalist societies in terms of normative expectations, institutional arrangements, productive capacities, and power relations, tracing their implications for the generation, escalation, or mitigation of inflation. Such analyses lead into wider debates about the character, scope, and limits of alternative variants of capitalism, reviewed by D. Coates in Models of Capitalism (2000), where inflation and anti-inflationary state policies are analyzed within a more encompassing international and comparative political economy. TONY ELGER influence A form of power, influence arises in the context of relationships, between individuals, within an individual, and between individuals and the wider world of nature. Influence (when placed in a purely human context) can be defined as a pressure that gets someone to do something that they otherwise would not have done. But the problem with a broad definition like this is that it does not distinguish between the threat of force and social pressures to which people tacitly comply without necessarily being under duress. It is extremely difficult to distinguish sharply between different forms of power since all pressures, short of force, require agency on the part of the recipient. Technically, when asked for “your money or your life” by the proverbial highway robber, a choice is given and the victim must choose. Force is qualitatively different from power, since when force is implemented the recipient becomes a “thing” and no agency is involved. Influence can be more precisely defined as pressures that get someone to do something they would not otherwise do, when this “someone” acts in a conventionally voluntary manner. When we say that a doctor influences a patient, we mean – on this argument – that they employ persuasion rather than the threat of force, so that the person thus influenced believes that they are acting with autonomy. It is complicated by the fact that, whereas a doctor does not threaten force of a kind that he or she would use, it would be wrong to say that no force of any kind is involved. After all, illness can threaten a person’s life, and a doctor might warn that, unless a dangerous operation is undertaken, then force of a “natural” kind informal economy would ensue. Hence, what makes influence persuasive is that sanctions would certainly follow, even if they are not sanctions that a doctor has deliberately and intentionally orchestrated. Hence, influence need not be intentional. A newspaper editor might not intend to influence readers in the way they vote, but this might be the result, nevertheless. Indeed, we are becoming increasingly aware that malign influences on the environment, for example, arise although the people causing them did not intend them to be such. Indeed, it could be argued that, given the fact that we live in a society, it is impossible for an individual to undertake any action that does not influence another. Is it then possible to distinguish between positive and negative influences? The only coherent way of addressing this problem is through an ethic of development – that which influences a person positively is a pressure that enables them to develop, as opposed to a negative pressure that distorts and arrests development. An ethic of development needs to be tied somehow to a concept of autonomy and self-government, so that, rather than imagine that individuals can exist without influence, it should be acknowledged that we are influenced and influencing all the time. The question that arises is basically: do these influences help or hinder us in governing our own lives? JOHN HOFFMAN informal economy This refers to aspects of economic activity that lie outside visible, official, and legally recognized forms of production, distribution, and consumption. While the existence of this kind of activity has been known to social investigators since the nineteenth century, the term informal economy first entered the social scientific vocabulary in the late 1960s. Sometimes known as the black, shadow, or cash economy, this sector of economic activity generally operates outside forms of legal regulation affecting company registration, taxation, and workforce protection. It may involve illegal activity and forced labor, though this is not a necessary feature since forms of cashless exchange and community self-help have also been included under the umbrella term. The term informal economy has therefore been applied to a very diverse range of activities in terms of employment status, sectoral location, and geographical incidence. It embraces forms of self-employment as well as wage labor and applies to survival activities such as rag-picking and scavenging, as well as domestic information service work, small-scale manufacturing, and illegal people-smuggling and criminal extortion. The scale of the informal economy is hard to determine precisely because it remains unregulated and, to a degree, invisible. Variations in definition also complicate analysis of its spatial distribution. International Labour Organization data from the late 1990s suggest that the highest levels of informal employment occur in West and East Africa, South East Asia, and Latin America, at levels of from 30 to 70 percent of total employment. However, informal activity has also been identified with many unregulated or deregulated economic sectors in western Europe and North America, notably in larger cities. Much of this is associated with sweatshops and low-grade service work, employing both native-born and (often illegal) immigrant labor. Geographically, then, the informal economy applies to the developed as well as developing worlds, though in both cases it is associated with significant inequalities of income and lack of access to social regulation and protection. Its ubiquity has prompted some analysts to see it less as a marginal feature of the capitalist periphery, and more as a key feature of capitalism – both historically and contemporaneously. What has come to be seen as informalization emerges wherever producers seek to evade or bypass a regulatory framework to reduce costs and optimize profits. Just as much production in early modern Europe was informally “ruralized” to escape urban guild regulation, so a good deal of contemporary production and service work has been informally “urbanized” in small to medium-sized inner-city locales largely hidden from the gaze of national regulators of large-scale public enterprises. Access to the informal sector is therefore often through networks rather than publicly available information. Contemporary informalization is also disproportionately concentrated among women (see women and work) and ethnic minorities. It is thereby indicative of inequalities that markets have helped to create rather than alleviate. Overall, the persistence of the informal economy renders problematic theories of capitalism that focus solely on large rationalized production units and the public world of organized interests. ROBERT HOLTON information Information may be considered on three different levels: (1) uncertainty reduction, (2) patterned abstraction, and (3) knowledge. The term connotes the recognizing, creating, encoding, transmitting, 291 information decoding, and interpreting of social patterns – in a word, communication – and often involves technology in some way. Information also may be considered at a meta-level: how and for whom the information is created, to what uses it may be put, and with what consequences. By creating, modifying, and framing information, people can use it to alter the opinions and actions of others, and thus future states. Archeological and ancient textual evidence demonstrates that an enduring concern of rulers and sages alike has been the crafting of messages to achieve desired effects. Aristotle and other ancient Greeks systematically analyzed the social context of information construction and delivery as well as its anticipated effect, including how various groups might be served or disadvantaged by its forms of public presentation. Many ancient elites, perhaps as much as modern ones, realized that information exists not as an essence but within a context. In contrast to rhetorical analyses, Paul Lazarsfeld’s empirical studies of information transmission among groups in The People’s Choice (1944) must be considered foundational. He held that there was a two-step flow in interpersonal influence related to political opinions, with local opinion leaders playing a pivotal role. Lazarsfeld and long-time collaborator Robert K. Merton emphasized, in Social Theory and Social Structure (1949), the importance of Weberian concepts of social location, social class, religion, opportunity structures) over mass mobilization processes in political decisionmaking. The dynamic tensions between personal and public information, on the one hand, and social and political structures on the other, have been profitably investigated by Harold Lasswell in World Politics and Personal Insecurity (1935), Hugh Duncan in Communication and Social Order (1962), and Walter Lippmann (Barry D. Riccio, Walter Lippmann – Odyssey of a Liberal, 1994). These scholars have shown how power and leadership influence what comes to be considered knowledge from among various possibilities, and the importance of framing information. From a quite different (and highly technical) tack, Bell Labs mathematician Claude Shannon characterized information as being measured in bits and probabilities. He defined information theory as the problem of “reproducing at one point either exactly or approximately a message selected at another point.” Information therefore reduces uncertainty, and the more uncertainty that is removed, the more information any signal or piece of data contains. Shannon helped spawn several domains of inquiry, including theories of 292 information encryption and data transmission, and also showed how a variety of technical factors (such as bandwidth, reliability, channel numbers, and signal-to-noise ratios) limited certain system functionalities. An essential part of Shannon’s analysis was the concept of entropy in communication systems. He demonstrated that, as the amount of uncertainty that exists in a communication channel increases, the amount of information that can be transmitted also rises (and that the inverse also applies). His work has proven invaluable in information theory for helping determine optimal technical designs for communication technology systems under various practical scenarios. His ideas influenced control theory, which emphasizes coding, sender, receiver, noise, and feedback. Yet Shannon is far more cited than understood in the social sciences, and his definition of information is too technical to be of substantial interest to the sociologist. Yet his parsimonious notions, so elegantly proven in mathematical terms, have some intriguing implications for the social sciences, a point returned to at this entry’s conclusion. Turning to the social structural and process levels, information is also linked to the notion of change – in theory and practice. Information alters lived reality. Information works to reduce uncertainty and thereby increases control over environments, both natural and social. On a macro-level, Manuel Castells in The Informational City: Information Technology, Economic Restructuring, and the Urban–Regional Process (1989) links informationprocessing to culture, seeing it as symbolic manipulation. Information technologies are the systems, devices, and techniques that produce and augment relationships among culture, productive forces, and scientific and other knowledge, and they operate within a cultural or mental setting. Fritz Machlup in The Production and Distribution of Knowledge in the United States (1962) emphasizes the distinction between transmission (information) and understanding (knowledge), yet this traditional distinction has come under siege by some in the Cultural Studies movement who see knowledge as power – power invoked not by Plato’s benign philosopher-king but by exploitative interests. These interests are often exercised along the lines of militarism, capitalism, gender, and social class, and are exploited along the lines of decomposition (Horowitz, The Decomposition of Sociology, 1994) and statism. Mark Poster holds that “information has become a privileged term in our culture . . . and society is divided between the information information rich and the information poor” (The Mode of Information: Poststructuralism and Social Context, 1990). In a related vein, Jean-François Lyotard asserts, in The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge (1979 [trans. 1984]), that information is not simply scientific knowledge but also encompasses narrative knowledge. Although Peter Nilsson in “The Distortion of Information,” in J. Berleur, A. Clement, R. Sizer, and D. Whitehouse (eds.), The Information Society: Evolving Landscapes (1990), links information to change on the level of either real-life practice or thought patterns, it is because information is affecting processes within the human mind. For Castells in The Informational City (1989), information is intrinsically linked to culture because information-processing is actually the symbolic manipulation of existing knowledge. Communication theorists deal with information as a substance that, like other forms of discourse and nonverbal communication, conveys a meaning. For the 1969 Japanese Information Study Group, information “was not merely what is in print, but also any symbol, signal, or image having meaning to the parties at both the sending and receiving ends” (Y. Ito, “The ‘Johoka Shakai’ Approach to the Study of Communication in Japan,” in G. C. Wilhoit and H. de Bock [eds.], Mass Communication Review Yearbook, 1981). In addition, information has a directional utility. Nilsson in “The Distortion of Information” defines the goal of electronic and communication systems as providing quality information, or useful information “in a given problem area for a given subject and all effects on any subject and/or object.” As with the socio-cultural definitions, information is again held to be a social factor that expresses a particular worldview and has discernible effects on social actors. If knowledge is to serve as an intermediary in contemporary society, then the information that it interprets must be transferable. James Boyle argues in Shamans, Software, and Spleens: Law and the Construction of the Information Society (1996) that the easy conversion from one form into another is a central marker of an information society. Ironically, though, Boyle says that, as information expands to include “anything,” it is commoditized to restrict its dissemination and manipulation. While digitalization in theory allows for infinite copies that are identical to the original, copyright laws and technical enhancements can restrict and possibly prevent such copying, and what one has a right, ability, and permission to do continue to be tested. information The two opposing views concerning the ability to copy and reuse information are drawn from a similar inspiration: that society should be regulated to advance the interests of society as a whole and that intellectual property laws should return the greatest good possible to society. Thus the length of time that a copyright restriction may be in force is checked, and some fair use is allowed even of copyrighted material. As an inducement for investing effort to create valuable intellectual property, however, those who create the works are rewarded for their efforts and control the copying and use of their creations. From a social-relativistic view, justice demands that those who are least able to pay for materials ought to be able to use those materials. Advocates often argue that the poor would not have bought the intellectual property anyway or that another digital copy can be made cost-free. These arguments are often used by students or by people in less-developed countries to justify making copies of software. Advocates of copyright-free approaches also hold that worthwhile intellectual property should be created for its own sake and that society benefits by not having barriers to information. This argument for copyright-free reproduction is countered by those who feel that those who create works should decide who gets to use them. Without some incentive, effort (and investments), which allow information to be brought forth to the public, would not be made. In the area of computer operating-system software, one company (Xerox) created approaches that another company (Microsoft) later reengineered and used, leading to the birth of one of the world’s largest commercial empires. But at the same time, open systems that are based on freeware (Linux) have been used on a no-cost basis and a proprietary basis (Red Hat). This area will undoubtedly continue to be contested. No single definition of information society has been universally accepted, but there is convergence on several elements. The term itself seems to have originated in Japan. A society generally is characterized as an information society when information becomes its most significant product. According to a 1997 report by the IBM Community Development Foundation, The Net Result: Social Inclusion in the Information Society, an information society has high levels of information usage by people in their ordinary lives and in most organizations and workplaces; uses common or compatible technology for a range of personal, social, educational, and business activities; and has a 293 information widespread ability to transmit, receive, and exchange digital data rapidly between places irrespective of distance. For most of human history, societies have been concerned with subsistence or, if they were fortunate, with material pursuits. Technological limitations made moving information from one place to another difficult. Many societies were nonetheless deeply concerned with patterned abstraction in the form of religious practices and beliefs, as the great pyramids of Teotihuacán and Egypt attest. Institutions of major religions, such as the Catholic Church, were centrally concerned with pattern interpretation and the communication and reinforcement of these interpretations, and they devoted enormous human and material resources to that end. However, manuscript copying, messengers, heralds, and fire towers were cumbersome systems for distributing information and gaining feedback on that distribution. Technological innovations have yielded tremendous advances in the way that information is produced, processed, and consumed, with important economic, political, and social ramifications. Notably, they have enabled information to be moved more easily (that is, communicated), which has allowed the creation of markets to supply the information and the means for its transmission. By strategically controlling the creation, transmission, and application of information, enormous commercial empires could develop in the fields of telegraphy, telephony, newspapers, television, and radio. Secondary markets quickly developed to use information to adjust for risk; today these take the form of the stock markets and the insurance industry. Tertiary markets also opened to gather and apply information in the institutions of scientific research, higher education, financial accounting, and consultancies. These yielded quaternary markets – including the byproducts of transactions (such as frequent-flyer programs) and location information (such as mobile telephone monitoring systems) – that can be useful for applications including marketing and law enforcement. The most important questions concerning social equity in the information society involve the digital divide – the division between those with and without access to digital data. Increasingly, the utility of information and thus the quality of its meaning are coming to be measured in its price. At the same time, there is continuing policy pressure to adjust marketplace dynamics in light of concerns over differential access to information and to what extent information equity across 294 information demographic groupings should be a target of governmental (by nation-state or international bodies) action. Lyotard, like Poster, sees a progression in the function of knowledge and predicts the increasing commodification of knowledge, losing its “usevalue” to become an end in itself. He goes so far as to claim that learning will circulate as money. In a parallel vein, Lawrence Lessig in The Nature of Ideas: The Fate of the Commons in a Connected World (2001) and other theorists write that technology does not directly lead to the production of original knowledge but creates more paths and links between information – such as linked webpages or Wikipedia functions online – which becomes the source of new knowledge. Indeed, it is possible that the personal, mediated communication typical of the internet, especially when it is further enhanced with mobile applications, will be a qualitative change of a magnitude that equals the change from the industrial era to the information society. In this regard, Irwin Lebow’s criticism in Information Highways and Byways: From the Telegraph to the Twenty-First Century (1995) that the phrase “information superhighway” confuses “information” with “communication” is worth noting: networked information access actually includes communication and entertainment, and from the user’s viewpoint these applications are often the central attractions. The following section highlights some major theoretical perspectives on the social role of information. Of course the various perspectives may be classified in a number of different ways. One general way is to look at information within the context of its ambient society. Alistair S. Duff in Information Society Studies (2000), for instance, examines the information sector, the information explosion, and the information technology diffusion, which contribute to his methodology for finding valid grounds for the phenomenon of the information society. Another general way is to focus on information in a societal setting, that is, in the “Information Society.” Thus Frank Webster in his article “What Information Society?” in Information Society (1994) isolates five analytical approaches to defining the information society (their theorists are in parentheses): technological innovation (Williams, Measuring the Information Society: The Texas Studies, 1988; Michael J. Piore and Charles F. Sabel, The Second Industrial Divide: Possibilities for Prosperity, 1984), economic means (Machlup, The Production and Distribution of Knowledge in the United States, 1962; Porat, “Communication Policy in an Information Society,” in information G. O. Robinson (ed.), Communications for Tomorrow: Policy Perspectives for the 1980s, 1978), occupational breakdown (Daniel Bell, The Coming of PostIndustrial Society: A Venture in Social Forecasting, 1973), and spatial (Goddard, “Networks of Transactions,” in K. Robins (ed.), Understanding Information: Business, Technology and Geography, 1992) and cultural definition (Baudrillard, In the Shadow of the Silent Majorities, 1983; Poster, The Mode of Information). In a blended approach, eight classification categories are used below to sketch understandings of how information shapes and is shaped by social forces. The economic approach, as its name denotes, defines information and the society in which it exists through a lens that emphasizes production, market, and consumption aspects. Researchers pursuing this approach highlight the rapid expansion of the number of people who work in the information sector of the economy. F. Machlup introduced this approach with his study of national data, where he defines knowledge as a state of knowing that “is produced by activities such as talking plus listening, writing plus reading, but also by activities such as discovering, inventing, intuiting.” Knowledge producers transmit or communicate information, receive and process information, invest knowledge, and create instruments for the production of knowledge (such as typewriters, photocopiers, and computers). As a result, according to Machlup, the information industry is composed chiefly of workers in the educational sphere, other white-collar-industry workers who participate in managerial tasks, and some bluecollar workers (such as pressmen, lithographers, and typesetters). Machlup’s 1962 seminal contributions have yet to be superseded. Expanding on Machlup’s argument for socioeconomic transformation through information, theorists have formulated the idea of the “postindustrial society.” Its two most widely recognized proponents – Alain Touraine, The Post-industrial Society: Tomorrow’s Social History – Classes, Conflicts and Culture in the Programmed Society (1969 [trans. 1971]), and Bell, The Coming of Post-industrial Society: A Venture in Social Forecasting (1973) – are influenced by Marxist interpretations of class movement and hold that, in the postindustrial society, the production and processing of information are core activities that are engaged in at all levels of production, distribution, consumption, and management. Touraine’s “programmed society” is structured by its production methods and economic organization. He claims that the present social conflict is between economic and information political decision making, that this new society is “technocratic” (as defined by the nature of its ruling class), and that the working class is no longer a unified political agent. Similarly, for Bell, the labor shift away from goods-producing industries and towards white-collar service and information-producing industries moves society towards sexual equality and communal consciousness. Bell identifies a “knowledge class” that is composed of a dual axis of technology and knowledge as fundamental resources. While Bell takes a more economic approach and Touraine writes through a sociopolitical lens, both theorists see the sociologist as having a privileged place as a “seer” of sorts who can understand and direct the postindustrial society. Marc Porat and Michael Rubin in The Information Economy: Development and Measurement (1977) also see the transition of the labor force from manual to informational work as the foundation of the informational society, as does Robert B. Reich in The Work of Nations: Preparing Ourselves for 21st-Century Capitalism (1991), who writes about jobs that involve symbol manipulation and the international trade issues that arise from this global class. For Bell, scientific knowledge and values will be involved in the political process in the postindustrial society, and intellectual work will be bureaucratized. While he calls this new society “postindustrial” rather than “knowledge-based” or “informational,” clearly one source of power in it is possession or ownership of knowledge. Jacques Ellul in The Technological Society (1954 [trans. 1964]) also posits the coming society as a technological society – not entirely based on technology but rather using carefully planned “techniques” to achieve its goals. Following closely after these theorists, Porat identifies two information sectors – the major information goods and services producers (industries that produce, process, or distribute information) and the secondary public and private bureaucracies (organizations that engage in research, development, record keeping, and governmental planning). Like Machlup and Bell, Porat uses economic statistics to support his claims. While most theorists agree in principle that trends in social and economic organization can be identified and assessed, they have different opinions about the social effects of these trends. For liberals such as Ralph Dahrendorf in The New Liberty: Survival and Justice in a Changing World (1975), economic growth and social change are necessary prerequisites to social improvement and require a free flow of information. For 295 information Marxists, such as Herb Schiller in Information and the Crisis Economy (1984) and Information Inequality: The Deepening Social Crisis in America (1991), however, information is associated with advanced capitalism in crisis. His three themes are that market criteria and pressures are important in information developments; that class inequalities play a large role in the distribution of, access to, and generation of information; and that society, which is undergoing many changes in information and communication systems, is marked by corporate capitalism. For libertarian and conservative advocates such as Peter Huber in Law and Disorder in Cyberspace (1997), the information society has unbounded potential for raising standards of living, increasing comfort, and sparking creativity, if only the hamstringing efforts of governmental entities would get out of the way and stop seeking to impose their collectivist values on others. Those theorists who see the information society as radically different from past societies are inclined to be optimistic about its possibilities, whereas those who see the information society as a progression from past societies tend to predict a downward spiral. The political-regulation-school approach to examining the information society is similar to the economic approach but is linked to political processes. Regulation-school theorists, such as Michel Aglietta in A Theory of Capitalist Regulation: The US Experience (1979) and Alain Lipietz in Mirages and Miracles: The Crises of Global Fordism (1987), examine the mode of accumulation in a given society and the relationship of accumulation to its mode of regulation. After a period characterized by the mass production of goods by bluecollar industrial workers, the mass conception of goods, nation-state oligopolies, and the prominent role of planning increasing globalization brought about a state that was denoted by Lipietz in “Fordism and Post-Fordism,” in W. Outhwaite and Tom Bottomore, The Blackwell Dictionary of TwentiethCentury Social Thought (1993), as post-Fordist. This post-Fordist period has witnessed the disintegration of vertical organization, a strategy of outsourcing, an international division of labor, and an assault on organized labor as a whole, and is marked by flexibility in production, consumption, and employment. When mass production declines, the individual emerges as much more individualistic and consumption-centered, and information takes on an individualistic representation as people find their own information and even become information producers on their own. 296 information There are, of course, other approaches to regulation. One of them is the regulation-analytic school, which focuses on influences on policymakers and the values that come into play. In this vein, Gerald Brock in Telecommunication Policy for the Information Age: From Monopoly to Competition (1998) examines what he calls a theory of decentralized public decision making. According to Brock, this model generates rational outcomes consistent with public preferences. By contrast, neo-Marxist Dan Schiller in Digital Capitalism: Networking the Global Market System (1999), as well as theorists across the political spectrum, fears the convergence of control over all information media in a few large multinational corporations. The nature of public life, the autonomy of consumers, and the quality of education would be the big losers. Schiller holds that cyberspace will be the handmaiden of this unprecedented centralization of power, which will advance consumerism on a transnational scale, particularly among privileged groups in various countries. Other theorists see information as intrinsic to political processes and even the nation-state as a whole. Jürgen Habermas in The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society (1962 [trans. 1992]) builds a theory that information is the center of the public sphere, which is the hub of information qua social knowledge in a democratic society. The public sphere is the source discourse, it functions to construct knowledge, especially political knowledge, out of the information input of its members. Information – while perhaps always a fundamental element of political processes, public spheres, and the nation-state – is playing a larger role in defining the political realm. Webster points out the increasing frequency of information warfare that uses intelligence and informational technologies on the battlefield. This is not simply a metaphor. Rather, information, as has always been the case, is critical to military success. The information-explosion approach to defining the information society looks at the amount of scholarly literature on this topic (Price, Little Science, Big Science, 1965) and the ways that information and knowledge play roles in everyday life. Sometimes this approach joins qualitative understandings to quantitative baselines. This was the case with Derek deSolla Price, an early exponent of this approach, who adopted the term “scientometrics” to describe his efforts. As such, he was information part of the first generation of information scientists, and is most remembered for having documented the exponential rise of scientific publications and knowledge across the globe and across several centuries. On an even grander scale, Manuel Castells uses a world-systems perspective to explore the recent historical transition from development by capitalism to development by information. He posits a strong link between knowledge and economic growth, showing that the heretofore intermediate stage of technological development is unnecessary. Instead, he holds that knowledge can perform the technological function of producing informatization – knowledge alone may be the basis of production in the informational society. How is this new development to take place? According to Castells, information is both the raw material and the outcome of technological change. Information-processing activities in the industrial mode of development were fostered by two major factors – the central organizational capacities of the large corporation and the shift in the sources of productivity from capital and labor to factors such as science and technology. Information-consumption activities were fostered by two additional factors – the need for information-gathering and -distributing flows to connect between buyer and seller in the mass-market environment and the state’s role in assuming collective management of goods and services. The state, in turn, establishes information systems that set the codes and rules that govern citizens’ lives. Reich echoes Bell by observing what he calls the rise in “symbolic-analytic services” as a job category. These services trade not in concrete things but in the manipulation of symbols and visual representations. Workers are problem solvers: “they simplify reality into abstract images that can be rearranged, juggled, experimented with, communicated to other specialists, and then, eventually, transformed back into reality.” Whereas “professionals” of the earlier regime attained mastery of a particular knowledge domain, symbolic-analysts work by using, not learning, knowledge. They draw on established bodies of knowledge to rearrange and analyze information that already exists. In this way, the symbolic-analyst is changing the nature of information from static and isolated to dynamic and integrated. Additionally, the rise of the symbolicanalyst leads to a breakdown in traditional hierarchies of information provision. Workers rise in the job market not because of hard work or information technical expertise but because of inventiveness and creativity: “the only true competitive advantage lies in skill in solving, identifying, and brokering new problems.” For these theorists, the widespread availability of information, and not technology itself, has far-reaching social implications. Perhaps one of the most striking is the way that ideas can flow easily across borders, even while people cannot, which will impact the international economic order and spill over into the quality of lives for millions in both the developed and developing nations. One common framework for interpreting the information society is technological innovation, especially in telecommunications. “Information technology (IT) diffusion” can be measured by the scope of the IT revolution and the proliferation of computer technology (Duff, Information Society Studies). Frederick Williams remarks that the information society “is a society where the economy reflects growth owing to technological advances.” Piore and Sabel use the term “flexible specialization” to refer to independent, small businesses that analyze and respond to markets far more efficiently than large corporations can. Simon Nora and Alain Minc in The Computerization of Society: A Report to the President of France (1980) were the first to propose the term “informatization” to represent the union of computers, telecommunication systems, and social organizations that leads to a greater informational society. Their report presented knowledge as the “engine of growth” and warned of the dangers of noninformational paths of development. Herbert S. Dordick and Georgette Wang in The Information Society: A Retrospective View (1993) enlarge this interpretation to define “informatization” along three dimensions – infrastructural, economic, and social. Informatization therefore is measured by the number of telephone lines, newspapers, computers, and television sets in a society, as well as the number of workers who are engaged in information technology and the size of the information sector’s contribution to a nation’s gross domestic product. As with the economic definition of the information society, the technological-drivers approach treats the information society as an objective, quantifiably measurable entity that has both positive and negative implications. Cultural theorist Mark Poster provides a semiotic account of studying the information society: “an adequate account of electronic communications requires a theory that is able to decode the 297 information linguistic dimension of the new forms of social interaction.” His term “mode of information” (which parodies Karl Marx’s notion of the mode of production) suggests that history can be characterized by stages marked by differing structures of symbolic exchange and that society currently provides a fetishistic dimension to “information.” He criticizes the approach of Bell for making the “postindustrial” idea a model for modern society and for treating information merely as an economic entity. Bell’s perspective thereby ignores the ways in which electronic technology disseminates information through communication. Instead, Poster seeks to interrogate cultural forms of information technology in their modern and postmodern contexts and to examine the role of communication systems in postindustrial society. Within this stream of thought, Jean Baudrillard views information as being produced equally by all people and as having no singular meaning or interpretation. Information can thus be seen as meaningless. However, he sees that people impose their meanings on the information, and the structure, which is created, is largely arbitrary. As yet another meta-framing, Ron Day shows in The Modern Invention of Information (2001) that there have been many information ages, and that the concept itself tends to divorce power from its historical context, thus banishing a troubled history of winners and losers in information’s construction and application. When cheap, digital information is combined with networked computers, new social forms and interaction patterns can emerge. Some predict negative consequences for social interaction from these changes. Sherry Turkle in Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet (1995) sees a wilderness of mirrors in which identity is produced through online interactions, and is basically synthetic. As a result, senses of community and integration are lost as people flee unpleasant “realworld” social situations for a “life on the screen,” that is, for online pretending. James E. Katz and Ronald E. Rice in Social Consequences of Internet Use: Access, Involvement, and Interaction (2002) offer a brighter picture in their study of the social consequences of internet use. Their conclusions are based on surveys of both internet users and those who do not use the internet. These surveys include the earliest comparative publicopinion surveys about the internet as well as cross-national comparisons between the United States and the United Kingdom. They conclude that the internet does not reduce social capital but rather contributes to it and also enables novel 298 information forms of social interaction and self-expression. One such novel form of information and self-expression they discuss is the web log (or blog) phenomenon. Blogs are a novel blending of diary and self-expression that erase the lines of public and private spheres. While blogs have been decried as a “wasteland of self-important nobodies” (Anon., Wall Street Journal Online, 2004), Katz and Rice hold that they provide a valuable opportunity for people to express themselves and create new relationships. While Katz and Rice agree that misuse can occur with any information system, including the internet, they conclude that the internet fosters opportunities for satisfying individual interests while providing collective benefits to society. Incisive social critic and sociologist C. Wright Mills anticipated many of the arguments presented above. He held that “knowledge is no longer widely felt as an ideal; it is seen as an instrument. In a society of power and wealth, knowledge is valued as an instrument of power and wealth.” He went on to identify numerous ways in which this proposition was supported, most famously in The Power Elite (1956). The ancient view that knowledge is power was also picked up by Michel Foucault in Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (1975 [trans. 1977]), who advanced provocative ideas about information in a social context and about why information (and resulting knowledge) is such a coveted commodity. According to him, knowledge is synonymous with power. He presents the Panopticon, a prison in which guards can see into every cell but prisoners see neither guards nor other prisoners. The guards therefore have the advantage of knowledge of the prisoners’ activities. As the prisoners internalize the idea that they are constantly under surveillance, they begin to self-regulate, and thus the guards have attained power over their inmates. However, if a prisoner learns that he is not being watched, he may try to escape; the prisoner attains power over the guard as a result of this knowledge. For Foucault, the relationship between power and knowledge is inseparable, so that knowledge always grows out of power relations and vice versa. In the context of the information society, a reading of Foucault may sensitize us to the inherent power relations that underlie flows of information and the effects that information and social knowledge can have on social order and form. While Foucault takes a highly theoretical approach to power and society, Bell draws a more concrete relation between knowledge-holders and information the ruling class. For Bell, the codification of knowledge, especially in the technical and scientific professions, plays an increasingly important role in maintaining society. As a result, a highly trained and intellectualized elite will lead further social progress. On the other hand, Boyle maintains that the information society may actually lead to horizontal social progress and that the idea of information has become so fluid and pervasive that it completely dissolves disciplinary boundaries. For example, gene-mapping as a topic has escaped from biological discourse to pervade discussions of social scientists, engineers, and artists. At the same time, information has become a value-added dimension of commercial products that needs to be protected. As technological materials (such as DVD disks) become cheaper to use and own, their informational or intellectual content makes up a greater part of the end product’s value. This shift is echoed by Lyotard, who believes that knowledge is increasingly becoming an informational commodity. Because knowledge as a commodity is vital to maintaining productive power, nation-states may “fight for the control of information, just as they battled in the past for control over territory, and afterwards for control of access to and exploitation of raw materials and cheap labor.” The state no longer has a monopoly on the distribution of knowledge and information: as the need for transparent and clear information begins to underpin society, economic interests butt heads with the state, and the state grows powerless to control information and knowledge dissemination and must reexamine its traditional role in guiding technological progress. For the optimists of the information society, notably Yoneji Masuda in The Information Society as Post-Industrial Society (1981), information access encourages people to participate in democracy and to improve the environment by working from home and spending more time in creative, intellectual work. For him and other optimists, informatization can redress and prevent social problems like the unequal distribution of wealth and slow economic development. Melvin Kranzberg in “The Information Age: Evolution or Revolution?,” in B. R. Guild (ed.), Information Technologies and Social Transformation (1985), likewise believes that the increased production of knowledge in the information society will allow people to understand their options and the consequences of their actions better, thus preventing catastrophic wars. Even earlier, the theorist Kenneth E. Boulding information in The Meaning of the Twentieth Century: The Great Transition (1964) proposed the term “postcivilization” to describe the freedom that he expected the information society to bring out of the Marxist socioeconomic class revolutions of the past. According to Boulding, as the information society builds up the sphere of the self-conscious social against the individual, general mental evolution will guide further social progression. Wireless mobile communication promises to be the next information revolution as it changes people’s work and study habits and their activities in public space (Katz, “A Nation of Ghosts? Choreography of Mobile Communication in Public Spaces,” in K. Nyiri [ed.], Mobile Democracy: Essays on Society, Self and Politics, 2003). When mobile communication is combined with the internet, new problems arise, but so do novel social and economic opportunities that are comparable to those precipitated by the computer and that can enrich the lives of vast numbers of people, from all backgrounds and all regions of the world. For many centuries, various experts thought that increased information would lead to better lives, and that enhanced communication would lead to harmonious social interaction, perhaps even an end to strife and war. In terms of material lives, improved technology based on better information has eased many material burdens, so that an ordinary worker in industrial society typically has a life of comfort (air conditioning, antibiotics, TV) that was beyond the reach of the richest mogul. In terms of the second contention, it may be that the opposite is true. While faster flow of information can lead to enhanced material lives, it also speeds misinformation. It is possible that a corollary obtains, namely that new information technologies, such as the mobile phone, can give rise to anxiety: one must be in touch and ready to react. Or that making more information available, such as is the case with internet websites and blogs, can keep alive, and even stimulate, the growth of dissident political movements and attacks on even the largest media empires. Moreover, information flows can lead to demands for transparency and accountability at every level from institutional to micro-social. So instead of being a fountainhead of freedom, increased information can lead to demands for increased constraints and monitoring. From a sociological perspective, there are many ironies in information flow. It is worth noting too that much attention has been paid to sociological analyses of information 299 information society that emphasize potential monopolistic and exploitative practices among the owners of media content. Yet the Marxist-inspired view that the centralized control of the means of production, in this case of information, determines material conditions is being turned on its head due to technological advances. This line of argument was pioneered by Ithiel de Sola Pool, who declared in Technologies of Freedom (1983) that technologies of freedom aim at pluralism of expression rather than a dissemination of prefabricated ideas. Pool’s prescient ideas have become realized, perhaps more profoundly than even he might have imagined. The novel and ever-increasing array of alternative communication systems continues to surprise and amaze social scientists. These range from internet steganography and web-cams to mobile phone videos, alterative reality games and geopositional monitoring. These proliferating and ingenious applications have severely eroded dominant paradigms of elites and the power of traditional monopolistic “one-to-many” technologies (such as newspaper publishing, broadcast TV, and studio films). Because of personal communication technology, information has lost its relevance as part of a Marxist superstructure of production that sits atop society. It has instead become a form of struggle within society. Despite efforts to the contrary at the level of policymaking, information is becoming ever more fungible as a commodity even while its meaning and interpretation becomes more contested. More voices are raised in every quarter, and there is an open contest over knowledge claims. Even while more data is collected at the level of the individual social actor, dictators around the world are confronted by information they would wish to banish. The ultimate irony, though, may be that, while the narrow definition of information discussed above – that information is uncertainty reduction – is germane at local levels, the larger-ranging impact may be the opposite: knowledge leads to growth in uncertainty and psychological tension. Shannon’s axioms, as it turns out, are extremely apposite to social science and public policy: increased information also leads to increased uncertainty. It does this in the soft terms of human lives lived, every bit as much as in the hard terms of communication network efficiencies achieved. JAMES E. KATZ information society – see information. 300 institution(s) information superhighway – see information. information technology – see information. inner-directed character – see David Riesman. instinct – see genetics. institutional theory – see institution(s). institutionalization of conflict – see social conflict. institutionalized racism – see race and ethnicity. institution(s) Émile Durkheim defined sociology as the scientific study of institutions. In everyday language we refer to institutions in terms of a heterogeneous array of concrete social forms such as the family, the church, or the monarchy. Departments of sociology traditionally had mainstream courses that were called “social theory and social institutions” indicating that sociology was the study of the principal institutions that make up what we call society. There is, however, a second and more subtle meaning in which institutions are conceived as regular patterns of behavior that are regulated by norms and sanctions into which individuals are socialized. Institutions are thus an ensemble of social roles. In mainstream sociology, it was conventional to recognize five clusters of major institutions in society. These are: (1) economic institutions for the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services; (2) political institutions that regulate and control access to power; (3) institutions of social stratification that regulate access to prestige and social status; (4) kinship, marriage, and family that control reproduction; and finally (5) cultural institutions that are concerned with religious, symbolic, and cultural practices. The analysis of these clusters was a central feature of social systems theory, and it can be said that the functionalist sociology of Talcott Parsons was a major contribution to this branch of sociology. In The Social System (1951: 39), Parsons institution(s) defined an institution as “a complex of institutionalized role integrates (or status-relationships) which is of strategic structural significance for the social system in question.” Parsons argued that institutions are fundamental to the overall integration of social systems. The contemporary analysis of institutions has, however, been decisively influenced by the sociological writings of Peter L. Berger, whose general sociology was in turn influenced by the philosophical anthropology of the German sociologist Arnold Gehlen. Berger did much to introduce the work of Gehlen to English-speaking social science, for example in his introduction to Gehlen’s Man in the Age of Technology (1957 [trans. 1980]). In general terms, Gehlen argued, following Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900), that human beings are “not yet finished animals.” By this expression, Gehlen meant that human beings are biologically ill equipped to cope with the world into which they are born and they have no finite instinctual basis that is specific to a given natural environment, and depend upon a long period of socialization in order to acquire the knowledge and skills to exist in the world. Gehlen claimed that, in order to cope with life, human beings have “world-openness,” that is human beings have to create and maintain a cultural world to replace or to supplement their instinctual world. It is this incompleteness that provides the anthropological explanation for the origins of social institutions. Berger and Thomas Luckmann, in The Construction of Social Reality (1967), developed this position to argue that, since human beings are, as it were, biologically underdeveloped, they have to construct a social canopy or religion around themselves in order to complete or supplement their biology. Institutions are the social bridges between human beings and their natural environment and it is in terms of these institutions that human life becomes coherent and meaningful. Institutions, in filling the gap created by instinctual deprivation, provide humans with relief from the tensions generated by their undirected instinctual drives. Over time, these institutions come to be taken for granted and become part of the implicit background of social action. The social foreground is occupied by reflective, practical, and conscious practices. With modernization, however, there is a process of de-institutionalization with the result that the taken-for-granted background becomes less reliable, more open to negotiation, culturally fluid, and increasingly an object of critical debate institution(s) and reflection. Accordingly the social foreground expands, and the everyday world becomes risky and precarious. The objective, sacred institutions of tradition recede, and modern life becomes subjective, contingent, and problematic. According to Gehlen, we live in a world of secondary or quasi-institutions. There are profound psychological changes that are associated with these social developments. In premodern societies, human beings had character that is a firm, coherent, and definite psychological structure that corresponded with reliable social roles and institutions. In modern societies, people have personalities that are fluid and flexible, like the precarious institutions in which they live. The existential pressures on human beings are significant and to some extent modern people are confronted with the uncertainties of what Berger, B. Berger, and H. Kellner called The Homeless Mind (1973). This theory of institutions and their decline presupposes a theory of secularization in which the traditional sanctions behind institutions decline with the advent of modern, risk-ridden cultures. However, the contemporary revival of religion suggests that this melancholic picture of uncertainty requires some correction. Berger’s early sociology was also influenced by the work of Helmut Schelsky who, in an influential article, asked the question “Can Continuous Questioning be Institutionalized?” in Norman Birnbaum and Gertrud Lenzer (eds.), Sociology of Religion (1957 [trans. 1969]). His conclusion was that a process of continuous reflectivity was not humanly possible, if enduring and reliable social relationships were to survive. While a number of sociologists, such as Ulrich Beck and Anthony Giddens, have argued that “de-traditionalization” and “reflexive modernization” are the predominant trends of late modernity, there are valid counterarguments, both sociological and psychological, to suggest that people in their everyday lives need stable social structures. Where there is de-traditionalization, there will also be countervailing movements of reinstitutionalization. Whereas traditional sociology was the study of institutions, the speed of social change in contemporary society and the apparent flexibility of social arrangements have meant that sociologists have sought to avoid treating institutions as if they were things, and have looked more towards social processes – that is towards processes of institutionalization, de-institutionalization, and reinstitutionalization – than towards stable clusters of roles. Institutions should not be reified, but 301 instrumental rationality rather treated as maps by which to read social processes. BRYAN S. TURNER instrumental rationality – see rationality. intellectuals Three notions are intertwined in the idea of the intellectual: intellectuals, the intelligentsia, and intellectual labor. The term intellectual came into common usage with the Dreyfus affair in France (1894–1906), during which the novelist Émile Zola wrote a politically charged open letter in a popular periodical. In the public controversy which followed this crossing of the boundary between culture and politics, Zola was accused of being a mere “intellectual,” a publicity-seeking dilettante, a popularizer who degraded cultural values in seeking a wider audience. In response, the term intellectual became a nom de guerre for those who wished to do public battle with the establishment, be they cultural or political. The intelligentsia is historically older, having its roots in sections of the Russian and Polish elite in the middle of the nineteenth century who identified themselves with European modernity. The intelligentsia achieved even greater social cohesion in taking on the missionary task of bringing enlightenment to what it considered the darker regions of eastern Europe and central Asia. As a sociological concept, the idea that the working population could be divided and defined by a division between intellectual and manual labor emerged later as part of an attempt to operationalize the concept. The idea of intellectual labor as the defining characteristic of the intellectual has, however, been projected backward in time by those seeking to identify a material and objective basis for empirical investigation. It has served as a means of distinguishing various strata of the middle class, for example. The “intellect” is here treated as a source of income and social status and “intelligence” as a personal attribute, a form of rent-bearing property: human capital. From this perspective, one may speak of “intellectual professions,” as well as attempting to divide intellectual from manual labor. Common to these three notions is the attempt to define the intellectual as a distinctive social category and to make some judgments about its functions and its behavior. In the 1920s, Julien Benda (1867–1956) railed against the “treason of the intellectuals,” because in his eyes this social 302 intelligence group was not fulfilling its proper role as social reformers and critics, while Antonio Gramsci distinguished “organic” and “traditional intellectuals” on the basis of their role in social change as much as their allotted class position. Decades later, the American sociologist Alvin Gouldner spoke of the intellectuals as a “new class,” to which Georgy Konrad and Ivan Szelenyi, in their Intellectuals on the Road to Class Power (1979), developed the idea that intellectuals, expecially in central and eastern Europe, were moving towards class power. The opposite point of view was proposed by John Goldthorpe in “On the Service Class” (1982) in Anthony Giddens and G. Mackenzie (eds.), Social Class and the Division of Labour, where he defined intellectuals as a service class with conservative rather than radical political orientations. Another point of view is offered by Ron Eyerman in Between Culture and Politics (1994), who defines intellectuals as an assumed social role, rather than an assigned social category or personality type. The intellectual from this point of view mediates and reinvents ideals and traditions in new historical contexts. Facilitating factors in this process are often social movements, which provide opportunities for those without formal “intellectual” qualifications to assume the functions traditionally associated with intellectuals, mediating culture and politics. RON EYERMAN intelligence The publication of Francis Galton’s Hereditary Genius (1869) pre-dates by several decades the period which is normally taken to be the moment marking the beginning of modern sociology. Writing in the aftermath of Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species and The Ascent of Man, Galton maintained the real objective existence both of racial differences and of social class differences in mental ability. Émile Durkheim’s insistence, in Suicide (1896), that this phenomenon was to be explained primarily by collective rather than individual factors can be seen as a deliberate reaction against the prior tendency to suppose that human behavior is biologically or genetically determined. The question of the “heritability of intelligence” was critical in resolving whether or not a sociology of education might be necessary or possible and whether it was justifiable to expend public finance in order to expand educational provision. The acceptance in general that human behavior is at least partly modified by social interaction, that human character is at least partly the product of “nurture” rather than wholly determined by “nature”, is a sine qua non intelligence for sociological research, and the debate about intelligence has provided a case study for this larger issue at significant moments in western social history since 1869. In 1953, Brian Simon wrote a small book entitled Intelligence Testing and the Comprehensive School. In the Preface to the text, a teacher asked: “Have we achieved ‘secondary education for all,’ the reform that was the keystone of the Education Act, 1944? If not, why not? What are the fundamental misconceptions and practices that stand in our way?” What was at stake was the widening of opportunity within the British educational system that was projected immediately at the end of World War II. The teacher believed that Simon had exposed the obstacle to progress towards egalitarianism: “He shows how the practice of intelligence testing is used to justify the curtailment of opportunity from the junior school onwards; he shows also how theories based on intelligence testing uphold a form of school organization, and forms of teaching, which make secondary education for all impossible.” The book was reproduced in entirety in Simon’s Intelligence, Psychology and Education. A Marxist Critique (1971) and he asked in a new introduction why a publisher should want to reprint the earlier text, since the reorganization of secondary education on comprehensive lines was “now well under way.” He indicated, however, that victory was far from secured in the United States. He suggested that “attempts to reanimate the ideology of ‘intelligence’ testing in the United States, as a barrier to the declared policy of desegregating schools, indicate that there are powerful social and political forces in favor of reinstating the doctrine that intelligence is innate and impervious to educational influences, to the detriment of social and educational advance.” He was especially referring to the article by Arthur Jensen which appeared in the Harvard Educational Review in 1969 with the title: “How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?” This article relied on data on identical and fraternal twins reared apart which had been accumulated by Cyril Burt from the 1920s and presented in his Factors of the Mind (1940). Simon’s text of 1971 criticized Burt’s work but, in the second edition of 1978, he was able to quote L. J. Kamin’s The Science and Politics of I.Q. (1977) to suggest that Burt’s research had “fudged” the evidence. Nevertheless, the debate continued and still continues. Robert B. Joynson’s The Burt Affair (1989) questioned Kamin’s criticisms, and a new statement of the heritability thesis appeared in 1994, occasioning much comment and political intentionality dispute. In The Bell Curve (1994), Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein asserted, on the basis of statistics derived from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth in the United States, that intelligence is largely inherited and that genes play a part in the fact that African Americans score lower than whites on intelligence tests. The debate about intelligence has always had important implications for developments in social and educational policy (see social policy). Michael Young’s satire of 1958 entitled The Rise of the Meritocracy, 1870–2033 was sub-titled “An Essay on Education and Inequality.” The book coined the word meritocracy which then became part of the language of subsequent thinking about education and society, linking with the assumption of credentialism that occupational and social advancement are the consequence of individual merit. Young proposed the formula that IQ + Effort = Merit and expressed skepticism that social engineering might be achieved without reference to class assumptions or prejudices. The implications of the debate now seem more serious as rapid developments occur as a result of research in genetics, cognitive neuroscience, and molecular biology. After some discussion in the late 1920s of Charles Spearman’s postulate that there must be a general factor of intelligence, labeled “g,” that is the underlying cause of an individual’s performance in varied tests, Francis Fukuyama commented in his Our Posthuman Future. Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution (2003) that scientific advances will soon generate a more refined understanding of this phenomenon, and that there is a possibility that the consequences of such good knowledge will be beneficial. He suggests that brain imaging techniques can chart blood flow and neuron firings and that it may then become possible to correlate these with different kinds of mental activities so as to determine with some finality whether “g is one thing or many things.” Bad science has been used for bad ends in the past but, as Fukuyama optimistically concludes his discussion of the sciences of the brain and the heritability of intelligence, this should not rule out the possibility that good science may serve us well in the future. DEREK ROBBINS intelligence task – see intelligence. intentionality This is a subject with philosophical origins and identifiable roots, according to some authorities, as far back as Parmenides in the fifth century BCE, 303 interaction and certainly of importance in classical and medieval writings before the contemporary interest, which is usually dated to the work of the phenomenologist Franz Brentano (1838–1917). Mental states are said to be intentional insofar as they have a content. Beliefs, attitudes, desires, purposes, and the like, that are about something – for example, I believe that extraterrestrials are among us, I am in favor of government by extraterrestrials, and I plan to vote for extraterrestrials in the next election – are thus distinguished from other kinds of mental state – for example, affective states such as I am depressed – which do not require a specified content for them to be coherent or intelligible. This particular technical use is to be distinguished from a related use in ordinary language and legal judgments, where the focus of interest is the intended effect of an action. The former became a subject of philosophical and sociological inquiry through John L. Austin’s (1911–60) work on “speech acts,” and the latter have been the subject of work by many jurists including Austin himself. Brentano’s focus on what he termed intentional inexistence – which is to say mental content that is not tied to any known existing state of affairs as in the case of the extraterrestrials above – raises interesting conceptual challenges. For him, the argument from the observation that mental states do not depend on existing cases or experiences and the claim that mental states are qualitatively different to physical states led to a conclusion in favor of dualism, but left open the problem of how a mental state thus defined can become a physical cause. Others, while not subscribing to an overtly dualist position in seeking to avoid this problem have argued that intentionality inheres in computational states of the brain which are themselves physical. However, this account is vulnerable to the problem that there is no necessary correspondence between physical state and belief state, nor between the belief states of two physically matched entities as Hilary Putnam (1926– ) argued with his Twin Earth thought experiment. One response to the problems raised by intentionality has been the proposal that it is an epiphenomenon and plays no role in the determination of individual action. Another, which derives from both certain behavioral and hermeneutical positions, has been to argue that intentional talk effectively attributes intentional states to individuals, by themselves or by other individuals, and is part of the public calculus on which we base the prediction of our own and each other’s behavior. Fundamental to what some refer 304 interaction to as the intentional stance (Donald Davidson [1917–2003] and Daniel Dennett [1942– ]) is the mutual recognition that individual actors have of each other’s interpretations of their actions as intentional. In this view, the analyst’s focus on intentionality is drawn away from unobservable internal psychological states to public events and the external environment. DAVID GOOD interaction In general, the term interaction is associated with micro-sociological studies of social processes involving face-to-face encounters, and of contexts in which people act in relation to one another. But the term also has a broader sociostructural import, involving a macro-sociological orientation, in that many sociologists view social systems as built upon systems of interaction. Such systems arise out of the production of both face-to-face interaction and interaction with others who are physically absent; they thus stretch away in time and space in terms of their wider implications for analysis of the social field. The micro-sociological analysis of interaction derives its central impetus from Max Weber’s concept of Verstehen (understanding), by which Weber sought to underscore the basic role of subjective interpretation in human doing and human action. To understand what a social agent is doing in any particular social context, according to Weber, demands some minimal consideration of how that agent subjectively grasps the meaning of their own behavior. Applying this insight to the normative character of social action, Talcott Parsons wrote of the “double contingency” that shapes interaction. For Parsons, the reactions of the other(s) always frame the acts of the social actor, because the nature of contingent responses is such that it serves as a potential sanction in the broader context of power relations. The micro-sociological study of interaction has taken different forms. One of the most influential has issued from ethnomethodology and analysis of “turn-taking” in conversational interaction. When we engage in conversational talk, for example, much of what we do is based on our recognition that only one person usually speaks at a time (termed the seriality of participants) in order to constitute interaction as meaningful. Another tradition which focuses upon the conventions whereby the communication of meaning in interaction is achieved is that of critical theory, specifically the work of Jürgen Habermas. The reproduction of social life unfolds, according to Habermas, not only through technological modes intergenerational mobility of action but also through “symbolic interaction.” In this sociological communicative framework, interaction is contextualized in terms of the symbolic structuring of communication, with reflection upon human action arising in and through reflexive linguistic interaction. Other sociologists have been critical of the micro-sociological neglect of the role of temporality and social reproduction in grasping how interaction, the social field, and history are closely intertwined. Other sociologists suggest that the micro- versus macro-sociological distinction fails to grasp the radical extension of human interaction in space and in time as a consequence of the overall development of modernity. In this respect, Anthony Giddens has argued that, rather than contrast small-group interaction with larger forms of communal interaction, sociologists should focus on the more profound difference in interaction between face-to-face encounters and interpersonal communication with others at a distance. The development of writing, according to Giddens, radically extends the scope of “distanciated interaction” whereby agents can access the past through interaction with texts. Writing and its technologies also fundamentally alter the nature of the social interactions that can be carried out: the temporal gap between agents engaged in dialogical interaction is obviously much less in the case of someone sending a fax to someone on the other side of the world than would be the case in an exchange of letters. A persistent theme in contemporary sociology is that globalization is reconstituting interaction in complex and uneven ways, principally as a result of radical transmutations in structures of signification. This extension of interaction in time and space concerns not only the new information technologies that people deploy in their day-to-day lives, but also the mediated representations we have of others distant in time and in space. Here the focus is on individuals or groups of people we do not interact with on a daily basis, but with whom, through mediated interaction, we come to forge some sense of cognitive and emotional connection – however minimal. A N T H O N Y E L L I O T T intergenerational mobility – see social mobility. intergenerational processes – see generation(s). internal colonialism – see colonialism. internet society internet society The term internet society has two general meanings. The first is a physical society that has a large proportion of its populace online and active in consuming, communicating, or producing information via the internet. The second refers to the activities of people online, and the extent to which such activities may be perceived as reproducing, imitating, or extending in a virtual sense the activities that are carried on in a physically real society. This second sense is a new layer on an older discussion of the “information society.” In terms of the first sense – a society whose members spend a great deal of time using the internet – two visions are usually offered: optimistic and pessimistic. The optimistic or even utopian vision is that internet technology will enable societies to overcome the digital divide and increase social, political, and economic participation. Use of traditional, often stigmatizing, categories will disappear because users become unable to use such categories and instead will deal with each other on an unbiased basis. The other vision is pessimistic, or even dystopian. It foresees a loss of privacy and other civil rights, “cyber-ghettoes,” exacerbation of inequality, and dominance of modes of communication by malevolent corporations or governments. Clearly, there are some important changes taking place as more activities are transplanted from real-world social settings to online ones. For instance, dating and match-making have a long tradition. These arrangements were carried out via each new communication technology, including the mail, newspapers, telephones, and computers. With the internet, millions of people are now involved in seeking new personal relationships. The combination of the power of the computer with networks means that one can search the world over for a relationship candidate. The seeker is offered unprecedented choices. There are important ramifications for the establishment, maintenance, and termination of real-life relationships. It has been speculated that, as online options increase, people will be less willing to invest in the emotional tasks of real-life relationships, which will suffer as a result. So an internet society, it seems, follows the rubric that applies to other areas of life: when new opportunities arise, they often entail costs to existing structures. As to the second meaning of internet society, theorists have examined social relationships that have grown out of a technology based on physically stationary computers and wire-based 305 interpellation communication links among them. Inquiry has focused on the nature and number of online communities. Boundary creation and reinforcing mechanisms, the motives for participation in virtual societies, and the relationship between these societies and physical ones are central analytical constructs in this endeavor. At the same time, R. S. Ling, in The Mobile Connection (2004), makes clear that the trajectory of use is towards mobile internet, which in turn will require a conceptual modification on the part of scholars. The questions of the use of public space and social relationships stemming from this change have been little studied. One line of reasoning concerning this is that a “walled garden” will develop, in which people become more tightly linked to their primary relationships and exclude those outside these relationships, and also reduce their psychological if not physical presence in public places. Such technological changes will also transform the use of public space as more people physically occupy restaurants and other public venues while being mentally absorbed in the world of the distant other. JAMES E. KATZ interpellation A term developed and made popular by the French Marxist philosopher Louis Althusser, this describes the process by which ideology addresses the individual. The word shares the root of the word “appellation” (name) and interpellation is a hailing, according to Althusser. If a policeman shouts “Hey, you there!” at least one individual will turn around to “answer” that call. At the moment of realization that the addressee is oneself, one becomes a subject of the ideology of law (see law and society). This almost instantaneous process operates not simply at the level of individual interaction, but also is the point at which the police officer, representing an arm of the state, weaves the subject into a web of law. For Althusser this is generally how ideology operates: we are always caught up in processes in which we voluntarily acknowledge the validity of the ideological practices. Interpellation draws on the structuralist theory that the notion of an autonomous human subject is an illusion, since human beings are enmeshed in discursive and social structures that shape their identity. Film theorists in the 1970s used the concept of interpellation to suggest that mainstream cinema acts as an “apparatus” to position the viewers to “misrecognize” themselves through identification with the fictional characters on the screen. They 306 interview(s) thus appear to possess coherent, autonomous personalities solving conflicts, moving from disunity to unity. Ideology is understood here not in the sense of false beliefs but as constructing the nature of experience itself, thus creating an imaginary relation to the real. LARRY RAY interpretation – see Verstehen. interpretive repertoires – see discourse analysis. interval scale – see measurement. interview(s) These are widely used forms of data collection, not only within sociology but across the social sciences. Although intuitively an attractive and inherently “truthful” source of data about matters of sociological interest, data derived by researchers from talking to people (or via the analysis of research participants talking to each other) may also be subsumed under the category of low-inference descriptors – that is, as the sort of data that should always be treated with circumspection. Some critiques from within feminism have dismissed the use of interviews in principle as necessarily reproducing relationships of patriarchal dominance, given the power differential in the roles of interviewer and interviewee, respectively. Interviews are used for a variety of purposes, and may be employed in a variety of forms. Interviews are a routinely used technique in the pilotstudy phase of larger-scale research endeavors where they may be employed to trial alternative questionnaire item wordings or to assist in item generation for larger-scale research. Increasingly, interviews are employed in their own right as a stand-alone research tool: for example to permit the identification of the interpretative repertoires of particular groups regarding social issues by the use of discourse analysis; to survey public perceptions of specific political matters; or to develop novel theoretical understandings of issues via the use of grounded theory. Interview methods vary in terms of the rigidity of the requirement for the interviewer to adhere exactly to a pre-scripted schedule. In terms of this requirement – inspired by a concern for quasi-statistical reliability – interviews may, broadly, be characterized as structured, semi-structured, and “conversational”/open-ended. Absolute fidelity to interview(s) pre-scripted questions is demanded by structured interviews, a degree of flexibility – for example paraphrasis and clarification of items – is allowable in semi-structured approaches, and under open-ended interviewing the simple provision of a number of probe questions permits respondents to elaborate on issues of research interest. Interviews may be employed as individually administered research devices or, less commonly, via the use of carefully selected small groups of participants, as a tool for the generation of data from a number of respondents simultaneously. The focus group may be distinguished from a group interview, in that the moderator of a focus group is usually concerned to facilitate a group discussion via a series of open-ended questions and probes, rather than to elicit a group’s answers to a sequence of predetermined interview questions. Data collected by interviews also varies, that is, respondents’ answers to pre-scripted questions may be field coded and simply recorded as a number (see Extract 1 for an example of problematic field coding); alternatively, the interview may be tape-recorded and transcribed either verbatim (as, for example, are Hansard and court transcripts) or using the more finely grained conventions of conversational analysis which record linguistic details such as prosody, inflection, and emphasis. Whatever the purpose, administration format, and eventual representation of the interview, for the most part the contemporary use of the social scientific interview as research tool depends upon, or rather implicitly accepts, a number of usually unexamined key assumptions. Thus it is assumed, for example, that: all interview questions veridically represent the intent of the designer of the interview schedule and are delivered by interviewers precisely as such; that all interview questions have the same semantic meaning to all respondents; that all interviewer utterances are questions and all interviewee utterances are more or less well-formed responses; and, most crucially, that interview talk is an essentially unproblematic means of transmitting the contents of one mind to another. This frequently unstated belief has been termed the conduit metaphor, or, less kindly, the telementational fallacy. Although the empirical study of a variety of specific settings in which interviews are used as sense-making practices (for example in doctor– patient encounters, psychotherapy sessions, or news interviews) has a long history in ethnomethodology, more recently – particularly since the work of Ludwig Wittgenstein (see Philosophical Investigations, 1958) and the linguistic turn in the interview(s) Extract 1 (from M. Rapley and C. Antaki, “A Conversation Analysis of the ‘Acquiescence’ of People with Learning Disabilities,” 1996, Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology; transcription simplified): Interviewer: D’you feel out of place out an’ about in social situations? Anne: No. Interviewer: Anne? Never? Anne: No. Interviewer: Sometimes? Anne: No. Interviewer: Or usually? Anne: Sometimes I do. Interviewer: Yeah? OK, we’ll put a 2 down for that one then. social sciences – not only have interviews become an increasingly prevalent research method but also, through the use of conversational analysis, a body of work has begun to examine critically the ways that social science interviews themselves are used as academic sense-making practices. For example, Hanneke Houtkoop-Steenstra’s work (Interaction and the Standardised Interview: The Living Questionnaire, 2000) focused on the administration of market-research questionnaires, and Rapley and Antaki’s work (1996) has examined the delivery of psychological tests as interactional practices, rather than as neutral probes into the attitudes, beliefs, or intentions of respondents. This work has started to cast doubt on longcherished social-scientific notions that interviews offer an unproblematic “window to the soul.” Extract 2 (from Rapley and Antaki, 1996; transcription simplified): Interviewer: Erm and I’d like you to answer some questions to tell me how you feel about the – Arthur: They’re not ’ard ones are they? Interviewer: Not very hard Arthur: No Interviewer: No and if you don’t understand them Arthur you can just tell me Arthur: Yeus Interviewer: And I’ll I’ll say them differently. . . Interviewer: So there’s no hurry do you have any questions to ask me? Arthur: Yeers Interviewer: What would you like to ask me? Arthur: I like being I like being er in ’ere Interviewer: You like: being Arthur: Living in ’ere like I like living in ’ere 307 intimacy Irigaray, Luce (1932– ) Rather, from this perspective, with interviews understood as being no different to any other piece of talk-in-interaction, it becomes clear that the local interactional business of “doing interviewing” and “doing being interviewed” may itself become highly salient in its own right; see Extract 2 for an example of how the very business of the interview and its consequences becomes a difficult topic. Interviews remain a staple method in the social scientific armamentarium. However, the canonical assumptions about the precise replicability of interview protocols across respondents – upon which the reliability and validity of aggregate data gathered via interviews rely – warrant critical review. Close attention to the social organization of interaction revealed by interview transcripts suggests that these assumptions are simply not borne out by the data. MARK RAPLEY AND SUSAN HANSEN intimacy This is a relatively new word in the sociological lexicon and, although sociologists have long researched the “private sphere,” or families, or marriage, they have not seen intimacy as a proper focus for sociological theory. This changed, initially with the rise of feminist research which began to identify close personal, heterosexual, relationships as possible sites of oppression for women. In some senses feminist work prized open the black box of close personal relationships and began to challenge the assumption that intimacy was simply personal and/or the realm of psychoanalysis or psychology. The mainstream sociological revolution in understanding intimacy came, however, with Anthony Giddens, in The Transformation of Intimacy (1992), who called to attention the ways in which the qualities of personal relationships were changing in late modern times. He introduced concepts of “confluent love” and the “pure relationship.” The former refers to the quality of a relationship in which it is the mutual sharing of thoughts and feelings that matters most. Confluent love is said to be based on equality, while the more traditional idea of romantic love is based on gender inequality. The pure relationship signifies one which will only last as long as it is mutually fulfilling. Under such a regime it is seen as acceptable to end a relationship which no longer meets one’s needs and interests. In constructing these models of contemporary relationships, Giddens owes much to earlier feminist work which criticized the power imbalances between men and women. Indeed, he argues that it is 308 women who are demanding these “new” kinds of relationships and who are leaving marriages if they are not satisfied with the quality of intimacy, that is established. Moreover, Giddens argues that it is same-sex relationships which are in the vanguard of the new form of intimacy, because they are not based on traditional understandings of gender difference. Giddens’s intimacy is, however, mainly a sexual intimacy; his focus is on the couple, whether heterosexual or homosexual. Other sociological discussions of intimacy have broadened the concept to include friendship, intergenerational relationships, and parent–child relationships. Thus Lynn Jamieson in Intimacy (1998) speaks of “disclosing intimacy” which is of a different sort to bodily or sexual intimacy and can encompass rather different sorts of close relationships. Work on friendship is perhaps the most interesting development because the predominant sociological emphasis on family life and relationships has tended to obscure the significance of intimate friendships. Friends have been treated as being of less significance than family members, and friendships as less enduring than marriages. Social factors such as high rates of divorce, the growth of singleperson households, and the rise of childlessness have combined to ignite a re-appraisal of friendship as an important sociological category. Studies of friendship and friendship networks (often based on the workplace) have replaced studies of communities (based on where people live), and contemporary friendships are now understood to be relationships which endure notwithstanding the fact that individuals may have relationships based on sexual intimacy as well. CAROL SMART invisible religion – see religion. Irigaray, Luce (1932– ) Born in Belgium, Irigaray has made her home since the 1960s in France, where she trained in psychoanalysis with Jacques Lacan. Her first, and most famous work, Speculum of the Other Woman (1974 [trans. 1985]), argued that women have been excluded from both philosophy and psychoanalytic theory. This exclusion is explained by Irigaray in terms of the identification of women with nature and the association of women with motherhood (an identification which applies whether or not women are mothers). In contrast to this, men are identified with culture and subjectivity, a subjectivity which women support. In this analysis, Irigaray employs that distinction Irigaray, Luce (1932– ) between men/culture and women/nature which has become a familiar premise of feminist theory, and she emphasizes – as Simone de Beauvoir had done in The Second Sex (1949 [trans. 1972]) – that the only form of subjectivity in western culture is male. Irigaray’s theoretical antecedents lie in a number of disciplines, of which psychoanalysis and philosophy are perhaps the most dominant. But Irigaray’s own work crosses conventional disciplinary boundaries, in that her concerns are less with specific institutional changes in the social status and position of women (she is not concerned, for example, with social rearrangements of the social role of mothers) than with a iron law of oligarchy rethinking of the ways in which women and men encounter the body and their physical existence. For Irigaray, the most important shift in the reconfiguration of gender is the recognition by men that nature / the body do not have to be controlled and that the “imaginary body” (a concept inherited from Lacan) is not to be identified with that of men. Thus welcoming the possibilities that Sigmund Freud opened up for the study of sexuality, Irigaray also wishes to counter Freud’s theories about women and their sense of loss. MARY EVANS iron law of oligarchy – see Robert Michels. 309 J James, William (1842–1910) An American psychologist and philosopher, James was the founder of pragmatism. Born in New York City, unconventionally educated in America and Europe and a qualified MD, James never practiced medicine. He started his career at Harvard, first as Instructor in Physiology and Anatomy, and, at different times, Professor of Psychology and Professor of Philosophy. Of the books published in his lifetime, the most enduring and of interest to sociology include The Principles of Psychology (1890), The Varieties of Religious Experience (1902), and Pragmatism (1907). All are still in print. James’s influence in sociology is through a number of routes. The Principles of Psychology includes a chapter, “The Consciousness of Self,” that is thoroughly sociological and strongly influenced both Charles Horton Cooley and George Herbert Mead. James proposes the notion of a social self, later elaborated by Cooley as the looking-glass self, and also the distinction between the I and the Me, later developed by Mead. Through his influence on Mead, James contributed to the emergence of symbolic interactionism. But this is not the only route through which James enters sociology. James was also a source and inspiration for Thorstein Veblen, especially in the conception of human evolution directed by consciousness and also the characteristic Jamesian understanding of human instinct, both of which featured in Veblen’s evolutionary approach in economic sociology. Additionally, James’s discussion of religion (1902) was much more important to both Max Weber’s The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1905 [trans. 2002]) and Émile Durkheim’s The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life (1912 [trans. 1954]) than a mere index check could reveal. JACK BARBALET Late Capitalism (1991), and his broad, innovative, and radical cultural criticism, especially The Cultural Turn (1998). Postmodernism, according to Jameson, represents a new mode of representation, life experience, and aesthetic sensitivity, all of which reflect the latest stage of capitalist development. The key features of this stage, which evolved out of market capitalism of the nineteenth century and monopoly capitalism of the early twentieth century, are the global division of labor, intensified consumption, especially consumption of images, a proliferation of the massmedia, and an increasing saturation of society with information technology. Above all, late capitalism integrates aesthetic production into general commodity production, thus intensifying mass consumption of ever more novel goods. Jameson identifies the features of postmodern cultural configuration, a new “mode of production” in late capitalism, as including the blurring of distinction between popular/commercial and highbrow/ classic culture; the weakening of the historical dimension with the emphasis on current experience (here and now), and the organization of space (most conspicuous in contemporary architecture); the spread of electronically reproduced images (“the simulacra” in Jean-François Lyotard’s terms); a wide use of pastiche; and a decline in affectivity that reduces the need for emotional engagement in cultural consumption. In his quest for the “cognitive mapping” of contemporary culture in relation to late capitalist economy and society. Jameson links postmodernity with the popular ethos, lifestyle, and mentality of “the yuppies,” the young segments of a professional– managerial class, and with a new wave of American economic, cultural, and military domination. JAN PAKULSKI Jameson, Fredric (1934– ) justice Professor of Comparative Literature at Duke University, cultural critic, and the key exponent of Marxist postmodern theory and interpretation of contemporary cultural trends, Jameson is best known for his Postmodernism or the Cultural Logic of The question “What is justice?” is at the center of political philosophy but not at the center of sociology. Famously raised by Plato in The Republic, it is a question which sociologists deal with in an anti-Platonic fashion. Plato analyzes justice with 310 justice respect to the soul. His work is organized around an analogy between the city and the soul, suggesting that a proper understanding of justice requires a philosopher to transcend the narrow boundaries of society, portrayed as a cave, an obscure place where little can be understood: for Plato, the truly just can be grasped only in the light of the eternal, beyond the social here and now. Sociologists aim to start not from beyond the cave but, most emphatically, from within the cave itself: when they do study the question of justice in itself, they aim to do so by giving morally detached accounts of the notions of justice held in particular societies. In the preface of his Injustice. The Social Bases of Obedience and Revolt (1978), Barrington Moore notes that, for a while, he thought of calling his book “a study of moral outrage”; but he adds that, after all, “moral outrage suggests too strongly the agonies of intellectuals trying to interpret, judge, and change the world.” Sociologists offer descriptions and analysis of existing ideologies rather than a normative “theory of justice,” an analysis given in terms of values, of ideology, of history, of context. Such accounts of justice often depend on or express historicism and/or relativism. This is why, in spite of acknowledging Montesquieu’s role as a founder of sociology, Émile Durkheim criticizes him for remaining too much of a political philosopher. Montesquieu treats despotic or tyrannical regimes as anomalous, but Durkheim argues in Montesquieu and Rousseau, Forerunners of Sociology (1892 [trans. 1960]) that, from a scientific point of view, every regime must be treated as having its own perfect form. The injustice inherent in a despotic regime does not or should not matter from the politically neutral point of view of a sociologist. Considered as a unified enterprise, sociology offers an alternative to political philosophy, an analysis of the human condition which does not start from the political question of justice. The main reason why sociology tends not to address the question of justice directly goes back to its origins. Sociology was born as a result of the eighteenth-century separation between state and civil society. Originally, sociology took as its proper object civil society, aiming to treat this justice independently from the activities of the state; in this sense, sociology began with a critique of the primacy of the political. It aimed to show that societies obey laws or belong to types that can be described and understood without reference to laws (see law and society) enforced by the state. However, this very critique of the primacy of the political has political consequences, and bears on the understanding of the question of justice. In this respect, Durkheim’s focus on Montesquieu’s legacy is significant. Montesquieu distinguishes law and mores (see norm[s]), developing an account of the autonomy of mores, of the complexity of social phenomena, of a “spirit” of laws that is required to avoid despotism and injustice. To the extent to which Montesquieu can be counted among the founders of sociology, he founds it because he thinks that it will be politically useful. Sociology is the science which, in the hands of rulers and lawyers, should foster political moderation through an understanding of the comparative narrowness of the political category and of the resilience and relative autonomy of social phenomena. A ruler cannot make any law, and become a tyrant: he needs to take into account the “spirit” of the laws – that is, the sociology of law. Besides, a proper understanding of the autonomy of mores paves the way for a proper account of the balance of powers, that is the balance between the state and the representatives of civil society in dealing with the state. From this liberal point of view, an insistence on the limits of the political sphere helps to protect civil rights and minimize injustice. At the other end of the political spectrum, Karl Marx’s theory offers a good example of sociology put in the service not of political moderation but of revolution. Marx’s sociology is built around a critique of the category of the political in the name of the primacy of the economy. The state and its laws are denounced as instruments of the bourgeoisie, developed for the oppression of the proletariat. Although Marx plays on the demand for justice, on a revolt against the fate of the poor in the context of the industrial revolution, he remains faithful to the sociological critique of the category of justice, which he tries to avoid as overly ideological. É M I L E P E R R E A U - S A U S S I N E 311 K Keynes, John Maynard (1883–1946) One of the leading economists of the twentieth century, Keynes held academic positions at the University of Cambridge and also worked from time to time within the British civil service. His significance lies both in his contribution to economic theory and in his influence on public policy. Keynes’s major work is The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money (1935). Writing in the context of global economic depression and mass unemployment, Keynes rejected the prevailing assumption that economic recovery could be left to market forces. In the orthodox view, markets were seen as creating and recreating equilibria through changes in the demand for and supply of goods and services. Keynes argued that, under certain conditions, the market search for equilibrium was incapable of resolving depression and alleviating unemployment. If aggregated demand was low, then depression would remain endemic. In such circumstances, one should look to government action in the form of public spending, rather than market forces, to create economic revival. This theoretical insight had a significant impact on public policy from the 1930s until the 1980s. Government demand management became a pillar of Western economic policy, and the basis for welfare states and national economic planning. Under the impact of Keynesian economics, social programs to promote welfare had an economic as well as a social rationale. In addition to this emphasis on the Keynesian welfare state and Social Keynesianism, Keynes strongly influenced the architecture of global economic recovery after World War II. Institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank originated in the Bretton Woods conference of 1944 which Keynes attended. They were designed, in large measure, to provide an interventionist framework at the international level, to parallel national economic policy initiatives. Keynesian approaches fell out of favor from the 1970s. This occurred in part through the simultaneous onset of inflation and stagnation (stagflation), 312 not anticipated in Keynes’s theoretical framework, and in part because demand management neglected supply-side reforms of labor markets and public-sector efficiency. Deregulation and the rolling back of state activity were more widely advocated as means of optimizing national competitiveness and reaping the benefits of globalization. The Washington consensus on neoliberal economic policy rather than Keynesianism has dominated the Bretton Woods institutions since the mid-1980s, though this has been challenged very recently by Joseph Stiglitz and George Soros, who argue for a return, if not to Keynesianism, then at least to a more interventionist approach to market failure and instability. BOB HOLTON Keynesian welfare state – see John Maynard Keynes. Khaldun, Ibn (1332–1406) A Muslim social philosopher who is often described as “the father of sociology,” Khaldun was born in Tunisia into an upper-class Andalusian family, the Banu Khaldun. He traced his ancestry back through an Arabic-Yemeni tribe from Hadhramaut. He lived at various times in Spain, Tunisia, and Egypt, where he died, in Cairo, shortly after becoming an lslamic judge or qadi. His work concerned the social and political determinants of the rise and fall of civilizations. His sociological theory was presented in The Muqaddimah: An Introduction to History (1958). This “prolegomena” to world history was composed around 1375 when he had withdrawn from politics. This prolegomena concerns the circulation of elites between town and desert in North Africa. The town elites over time grow lazy, rich, and corrupt, while tribal elites remain disciplined and enjoy greater social integration or solidarity. This greater social unity allows them periodically to replace town elites, but in turn they become corrupt, and are replaced by fresh elites. This Khaldunian theory of social and political change was used to great effect by Ernest Gellner in kinship Muslim Society (1981) to explain different forms of Islam (puritanical and egalitarian versus mystical and hierarchical) in relation to political change, for example in Morocco. The development of modern communications technology, especially the telegraph, telephone, and radio, eventually gave urban elites a military advantage over the countryside, and the ancient political oscillation was transformed. Radical reform movements in Islam such as the fundamentalist Wahhabi movement, which was inspired by Muhammad b. Abdal-Wahhab (died 1791), are often said to exhibit the social changes that were originally described by Ibn Khaldun’s sociology. Muslim intellectuals often complain that most histories of sociology neglect Ibn Khaldun, because they are written within the framework of Orientalism. BRYAN S. TURNER kinship Socially universal, this is probably the most basic of institutional modalities of human organization. Anthropology has consistently treated kinship as its special theoretical preserve, and its preoccupations with kinship have consistently focused on three overlapping thematic issues. One of these is typological. From Lewis Henry Morgan’s Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity in the Human Family (1871) onward, the field of kinship studies has preserved the distinction between classificatory (or “merging”) kinship terminologies, which assign a general rubric to relatives of differing genealogical distance from any given ego, and descriptive terminologies, which in their most expansive versions provide each relative with a rubric of his or her own. Morgan’s efforts have given way to the distinction among six terminological schemas, from the expansively classificatory Hawaiian to the meticulously descriptive Sudanese. Another thematic focus has rested on the question of the generative principle of kinship. Its star curiosity is the taboo against incest. Claude LéviStrauss underscores the taboo’s proscription of marriage within the elemental family group in arguing that kinship systems are before all else not systems of descent but of intergroup alliance. A final focus falls on the substantive ground of kinship. David Schneider’s Critique (1984) of the naturalism of even the most ardently conventionalist theories of kinship has not discouraged every psychoanalyst or sociobiologist since, but it has inspired a new effort to establish the grounds of kinship in strictly socio-cultural phenomena. Leading contenders include the symbolization of Kristeva, Julia (1941– ) fertility, the articulation of domesticity, and the dynamics of self-formation. JAMES D. FAUBION Komarovsky, Mirra (1905–1986) Born in Baku in the Caucasus, Komarovsky emigrated to the United States in 1922 and attended Barnard College in New York where she was taught by Franz Boas, Ruth Benedict, and William Ogburn. She became a research assistant on the Westchester Leisure Project (1931–3) that resulted in George L. Lundberg, Mary M. McInerny, and Komarovsky’s Leisure, A Suburban Study (1934). From 1934 to 1936 she was a research associate at the International Institute for Social Research, directed by Paul Lazarsfeld, and on the basis of that work she published her PhD thesis in 1940 on The Unemployed Man and his Family, with an introduction by Lazarsfeld. Komarovsky became an associate professor (1948–53) and later full professor (1954–70). She was influential in the development of the sociology of gender, through articles such as “Cultural Contradictions and Sex Roles,” in the American Journal of Sociology (1946), and “Functional Analysis of Sex Roles,” in the American Sociological Review (1950). Her books, such as Dilemmas of Masculinity (1976) and Blue-Collar Marriage (1964), were highly influential. Her works on social class criticized American sociologists for neglecting the working class and for applying generalizations from the middle class to blue-collar families. The principal theoretical focus of her empirical work – inconsistencies in social roles – was influenced by Robert Merton’s role theory and William Ogburn’s concept of social lag. She had three scientific objectives, namely to understand the functional significance of sex roles, to locate their cultural contradictions, and to assess the possibilities of social change. Her monograph on unemployed men has also been recognized for its methodological contribution to the use of personal documents. She made important contributions to feminist theory in Women in the Modern World (1953) and Women in College (1985). She was the second female President of the American Sociological Association (1972–3); her presidential address that year was, suitably, on “Some Problems in Role Analysis.” BRYAN S. TURNER Kristeva, Julia (1941– ) Born in Bulgaria, Kristeva has spent her life in France since 1965. She is best known for the distinction that she makes between what she calls the “semiotic” and the “symbolic,” and for her assertion of the centrality of the mother (see 313 Kuhn, Thomas Samuel (1922–1996) motherhood/mothers) in human biography and the social world. Kristeva defines the “semiotic” in terms of the drives and rhythms of the human body, and in particular the maternal body. The “symbolic,” on the other hand, is the frame of reference that we use to make sense of our experience. The “symbolic” and the “semiotic” combine to produce signification, and it is Kristeva’s contention that the structure of signification comes from what she describes as maternal regulation. In emphasizing the place of the mother in both the individual and the social world, Kristeva follows Melanie Klein (1882–1960). She takes the centrality of the mother forward in her texts Powers of Horror (1980) and Black Sun (1987) to argue that, within patriarchal cultures, the mother, and maternity, are subject to what she describes as “abjection,” a form of subjectivity in which women become depressed and develop a depressed sexuality. In order to change the degradation of the feminine, Kristeva does not propose ideas of universal equality, nor the development of a specific female language and culture. Kristeva validates what she sees as multiple possible sexualities and a recognition within cultures that there is a need to heal what she describes as wounded narcissism. One of the characteristics of Kristeva’s work is the links she makes between psychoanalysis and the social world: for example, Strangers to Ourselves (1992) considers some of the reasons for racism and the fear of other cultures. MARY EVANS Kuhn, Thomas Samuel (1922–1996) An American historian and philosopher of science, Thomas Kuhn was an undergraduate and graduate student in physics at Harvard, where he came under the influence of the university’s powerful president, James B. Conant, who was himself a physical chemist as well as a member of a small group of politically important scientists. Conant had a strong concern for undergraduate science education. His new strategy was based on the popular Harvard method of the case study that focused on historical cases of far-reaching conceptual changes in scientific disciplines. Kuhn began teaching this course and was asked to develop his own historical research. After a few years at Harvard, he took up a teaching position at Berkeley where he turned this study into his first book, The Copernican Revolution (1957), and worked on The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), a summary 314 Kymlicka, Will (dates not known) and overview of far-reaching conceptual changes in science. The book proved difficult to publish but was eventually accepted in the logical positivist International Encyclopedia of Unified Science (1955). It was also published as a separate volume and became one of the best-selling scholarly books of all time and was the most frequently cited book in the late twentieth century. Kuhn’s key term paradigm passed into common usage. Kuhn did not develop the implications of his argument for the social sciences and was shocked by some of the sociological interpretations of the text. He spent much of the rest of his life responding to issues concerning incommensurability and meaning-change in science. STEPHEN P. TURNER Kymlicka, Will (dates not known) Professor of Philosophy at Queens University, Ontario, Canada, and recurrent Visiting Professor in the Nationalism Studies program at the Central European University in Budapest, Kymlicka has contributed extensively to the analysis of citizenship, ethnic minorities, and cultural rights in liberal democracies. His most influential publication in this field was Multicultural Citizenship (1995). His principal argument is that modern democracies have sought to accommodate national and ethnic differences under the broad umbrella of multiculturalism through the creation of “group-differentiated rights.” He identified three forms of these rights. First, self-government rights recognize some degree of self-determination, for example through federalism. Secondly, polyethnic rights recognize the entitlement of minorities to practice their own customs, religion, and language, such as the in-principle right of Muslim girls to wear the headscarf in secular schools. Finally, there are special representation rights, which would give representation to minorities, for example by allocating a certain number of seats to them in representative chambers (of parliament). Kymlicka’s arguments are controversial because he claims that these group rights are perfectly compatible with the individualistic rights of liberalism. His other publications include Politics in the Vernacular: Nationalism, Multiculturalism and Citizenship (2001), and Contemporary Political Philosophy (2002). He has co-edited Kymlicka and Wayne Norman (eds.), Citizenship in Diverse Societies (2000) and Kymlicka and Magda Opalski (eds.), Can Liberal Pluralism be Exported? (2001). BRYAN S. TURNER L labeling theory Labeling represents not a single sociological theory, but a number of different ideas relating to the notion that no behavior is deviant or criminal unless so labeled. Labeling thus refers to the process by which behaviors come to be categorized as deviant or criminal. Each society makes rules whose breach will constitute deviance or criminality. Labeling is a derivative of the widely used sociological idea of symbolic interactionism. Interactionist theory analyzes the way in which individual actors develop conceptions of themselves on the basis of their interactions with others. This gives meaning to the behavior of individuals and places their actions and behavior in the context of their understanding of the world. Culture, sex, age, and other elements of identity all shape self-conception, of course, but the interactionists give particular emphasis to the meanings which the individual places on various occurrences and interactions. Labeling theory is drawn from this, but focuses on the impact of being labeled in a particular way on behavior. Early 1930s work on juvenile gangs led sociological writers to recognize that the official label of “deviant” had potentially negative effects on the young people concerned. In the 1950s, Edwin Lemert in Social Pathology (1951) refined the thinking by distinguishing between primary and secondary deviation. While primary deviance might be a temporary aberration, secondary deviance was created as a reaction to the reaction of others to the initial deviance. But labeling theory is most strongly associated with Howard S. Becker in his Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance (1963). His perspective on labeling revolved around the social reactions of a group rather than individual reactions. In a series of studies he described the processes of becoming a prostitute or a marijuana smoker and so on. In each case, it was the stigma attached to the label that was critical in shaping future behavior. Thus the labeling processes created “outsiders” and a self-fulfilling prophecy ensued. The processes of criminal justice are thus perceived to be instrumental in making matters worse. By focusing on definitional issues, labeling theory has injected important critical thinking into criminological theorizing. It has revealed how the concepts of crime and deviance are not universally agreed but socially constructed. But labeling theory itself has attracted criticism for being ahistorical, astructural, and atheoretical. First, it is argued that labeling fails to explain why some behaviors are labeled as deviant in the first place; second, it is suggested that labeling theory gives too little attention to the concept and exercise of power; and third, it is thought that labeling theory is hard to test empirically. More pointedly, it is thought that the key question of whose interests are being protected in the labeling of some people’s behavior and actions as “deviant” has been neglected. Other criticisms relate to the neglect of the victim in the analysis. Despite criticisms, labeling theory has had far-reaching effects in sociological thinking that go well beyond the sociology of deviance; for instance, labeling theory has been applied to witchcraft and LORAINE GELSTHORPE mental health. labor This concept has several standard referents in sociology, covering specific forms of paid employment (such as manual labor); generic features of such employment, often conceived as one pole of a relationship between labor and capital; the differentiation and relationships between the whole range of different sorts of paid work (representing the division of labor); and the collective organization of workers in a labor movement or party. All these concepts were formulated in the specific context of the development of capitalism and its associated forms of waged employment, and analyses using these concepts are particularly associated with theoretical traditions (both Marxist and non-Marxist) that have addressed the character and dynamics of social class relations in industrial capitalism. 315 labor However, analyses of labor have moved beyond these core debates about capitalist industrialism in several ways. First, “free” wage labor has been compared with forms of unfree labor (such as slavery and bonded labor), both outside and within capitalism, as in R. Miles’s Capitalism and Unfree Labour (1987). Second, analyses of the social division of labor and specific forms of labor have been extended beyond the formal sphere of paid work to include work in the household (that is, domestic labor), and voluntary and informal economies, as in C. Tilly and C. Tilly’s Work Under Capitalism (1998). Finally, there has been attention to expanding forms of paid work in postindustrial societies, such as knowledge work, insecure employment, and emotional labor, and the extent to which they can be analyzed within a labor paradigm. First, then, labor usually refers both to paid work and to those who do that work, as one side of the relationship between labor and capital or employees and employers. This relationship is central to arguments about the fundamental features of waged employment (see work and employment) and hence the organization of work and industrial relations in capitalist societies. Such features are addressed in different conceptualizations of the labor market, the labor contract, and the labor process in such societies, and link directly with debates about changing social class structures and forms of class mobilization. The growth of labor markets, in which workers become available for hire to work for specified periods for a wage, sets capitalism apart from earlier societies. However, the implications of this development for relations between employers and workers are contentious: some economic accounts treat such markets as the guarantors of equivalent choices and reciprocity between employers and workers, while most sociological accounts emphasize that inequalities of power are intrinsic to the labor market and to social relations between employees and employers within the capitalist labor process. At the nexus of the relationship between the labor market and the labor process is the labor contract, which in formal legal terms summarizes the exchange between employer and employee, specifying such matters as job title, hours, and payment. Different and changing legal frameworks have defined the form, scope, and detail of such contracts in very varied ways. But a fundamental argument of many sociological analyses of labor is that any such summary is necessarily incomplete, with important implications for the character of employment relations. Sometimes 316 labor this argument rests on the claim that all market exchanges depend upon more than the stipulated terms and conditions of exchange, because they rely on wider institutional and normative frameworks which are often taken for granted and would be impossible to specify completely. This theme relates to Émile Durkheim’s notion of the “noncontractual elements in contract” in which informal assumptions and agreements are seen to be a necessary precondition of formal contracts and agreements. More crucially, however, it rests on the claim that the labor contract is quite distinctive in ways that set it apart from the purchase and sale of other commodities, for two related reasons. First, workers do not sell their labor and depart, but have to perform their work through their working hours; thus what they sell is their own capacity to labor, what Karl Marx termed the purchase and sale of their labor power. Second, the demands that employers make of their workers are not fixed, but flow from the changing circumstances of their business, as they exercise “management prerogatives” to reconfigure the duties workers perform while at work. This conception of the open-endedness of the labor contract is central to Marxist accounts of the relationship between labor and capital, setting the scene for an analysis of the changes and conflicts that arise as capitalists seek to impose the requirements of capital accumulation upon workers, and workers experience and oppose the damage this inflicts upon them. However, it has a more general relevance across a spectrum of social science analyses of employment and industrial relations. It excludes those economists who argue that the equivalence of the labor market transaction persistently guarantees reciprocity between employers and workers, and those sociologists who abstract from the labor contract and employment relations in their study of other aspects of work and occupations. But it defines common ground between many other Marxist and non-Marxist materialist and institutionalist approaches, all of which attend to the power relations and social processes implicated in filling out the labor contract, as P. K. Edwards shows in Conflict at Work (1986). Where these positions differ markedly is in their specification of the character and extent of the uncertainties and conflicts that arise around the performance of paid work, and in their analyses of the ways in which, and the extent to which, such uncertainties and conflicts are successfully managed or negotiated. Indeed, some of these approaches (such as industrial relations pluralism) labor devote relatively little attention to analyzing underlying sources of uncertainty and conflict, but concentrate on the processes through which empirically identified contention in the workplace is managed. One way in which these disagreements can be illuminated is by considering the ways in which work processes within capitalist firms are structured and restructured over time, through analyses of management’s organization of the labor process and labor discipline within the workplace. One example is Marx’s analysis of the effective subordination of workers and work processes to the requirements of surplus extraction and capital accumulation. However, during the twentieth century, other sociological traditions – such as those which focus on the institutionalization of formal rationality in bureaucracies or those that see organizational arrangements as heavily influenced by the technology required for particular work processes – have provided alternative bases for analyzing the imperatives governing the organization of the labor process in capitalist (and sometimes noncapitalist) societies. In turn this has prompted extensive debate on the changing character of management strategies and worker responses in the organization of the labor process. These debates have important implications for analyses of the division of labor. From Adam Smith (1723–90) onward, commentaries have distinguished between the social division of labor in the economy as a whole and the technical (or, to avoid implicit technical determinism, the organizational) division of labor in the enterprise and workplace. The former is portrayed as directly subject to the vagaries of market relations, with the growth and decline of demand for different types of product and associated occupations. The latter is seen as only indirectly subject to market relations but directly subject to management prerogatives and strategies. Labor process debates have focused primarily upon analyses of the organizational division of labor. In particular, they have debated the extent to which management strategies have forged relatively homogeneous or heterogeneous workforces in terms of skills, autonomies, and job security. There has also been substantial disagreement about how any heterogeneity is to be conceptualized, in terms of stable hierarchies, or patterns of polarization, or as a shifting kaleidoscope of forms of labor. For example, it has been argued that an important feature of the capitalist transformation of the labor process has been an increasing separation of manual and mental labor, in which labor mental labor conceptualizes and plans work tasks while manual labor performs those tasks. However, it has also been recognized that the extent of such separation, how far it might constitute a basis for hierarchy or polarization in the organizational division of labor, and its implications for wider processes of class formation and conflict, have been varied rather than uniform, while explanations of these outcomes remain controversial. Indeed, some accounts of emergent forms of employment have suggested that networked, rather than hierarchical, relations within organizations and the growth of high-discretion knowledge work have so changed work and employment relations that all analyses using the conceptual apparatus outlined above have lost their relevance. However, the extent and character of these transformations have been strongly contested by commentators who have sought to demonstrate the continuing salience of these analytical approaches for contemporary forms of work and employment, as in the work of H. Beynon and his colleagues on Managing Employment Change (2002). Such controversies relate not only to explanations of key features of the division of labor but also to diagnoses of the possibilities and conditions for ameliorating, transforming, or abolishing those features. Sometimes accounts of the organizational division of labor within enterprises have been set in a wider context, of the changing relations between enterprises and sectors, to address the social processes that constitute the wider social division of labor, as in A. Sayer and R. Walker’s The New Social Economy (1992). This involves analyses of: (1) the ways in which management strategies in recruiting and organizing labor in different enterprises contribute to the structuring of wider labor markets, at a variety of spatial scales from localities to national economies and beyond; (2) the implications of major sectoral shifts, from agriculture to manufacturing to service employment, and also between small-firm, large-firm, and state employment; (3) the changing relationships between enterprises and workplaces, mediated not only through competitive market relations but also through alliances, networks, and production chains. All these aspects of the analysis of the social division of labor can be seen, for example, in debates over the new international division of labor, the proposition that leading enterprises in advanced capitalist societies have sought to relocate labor-intensive production processes to developing societies characterized by low labor costs and poorly organized workers, while retaining knowledge-intensive activities at home. The ensuing debate, outlined in R. Munck’s 317 labor Globalisation and Labour (2002), explored different ways in which such changes were organized, sometimes coordinated within transnational corporations but also mediated through production chains involving hierarchies of enterprises. It also emphasized that corporate policies were often contradictory, and that the outcome was usually more complex than a stable polarization of production activities and forms of employment between advanced and developing capitalisms. Such analyses of the dynamics of the social division of labor have primarily been developed in interdisciplinary research, though with significant contributions from economic sociology. More specifically, sociological commentary has focused on the consequences of the organizational and social division of labor for patterns of social consciousness, solidarity, and conflict. Here intellectual influences range from neo-Marxist and neo-Weberian explorations of the scope and limits of the formation of wider class solidarities from the varied experiences of wage labor, to symbolic interactionist and social constructionist analyses of the negotiation of occupational identities, boundaries, solidarities, and rivalries. However, there has been little recent reference to the more ambitious but problematical Durkheimian program which explored the occupational bases and limitations of modern forms of social solidarity. Meanwhile, one major sociological critique of conventional analyses of the social division of labor grew out of feminist analyses of the sexual division of labor. These analyses problematized biological accounts of the gendered division between male workers in paid employment in the public sphere and women engaged in unwaged household and caring work. At the same time, they emphasized the significance of the latter forms of work in terms of time, tasks, and consequences for societal reproduction. This was conceptualized in terms of domestic labor to emphasize the parallels and linkages between work in paid employment and unpaid work in the household, but also involved discussion of the distinctiveness of the power relations and patterns of work characteristic of gender relations in households and families, often conceptualized in terms of patriarchy. In turn, and in the context of a major change in women’s involvement in paid employment, this has prompted analyses of the ways in which gender, and in related ways ethnicity, have been constitutive features in the restructuring and hierarchization of both paid labor and unpaid work. To address these features, M. Glucksmann has developed the concept of the total social organization of labor, in “Why ‘Work?’” 318 labor markets (1995) in Gender, Work and Organisation, to analyze the varied and changing patterns of articulation and dislocation between different forms of paid, unpaid, voluntary, and forced labor over time and across different social scales. TONY ELGER labor, social division of – see labor. labor aristocracy – see social class. labor-market segmentation – see labor market. labor markets These involve the purchase and sale of a peculiar commodity, as what is bought and sold is actually the capacity of a worker to perform paid work, and the exercise of that capacity is not separated from workers but depends on their conduct at work. The supply of such capacities is influenced by wider institutional arrangements (for example welfare policies, family structures, or professional associations). Similarly, demand is influenced by employment relations within workplaces (for example strategies for securing worker compliance, training arrangements, and negotiations with workers). From this vantage point, labor markets represent an appropriate focus for sociological research. Often, however, they are seen as the specialist preserve of economists, while sociologists focus on social relations within the workplace and treat labor markets as exogenous variables. This leaves unchallenged the dominant economic treatment of the labor market as a competitive arena in which employers and workers freely exercise choices according to their talents and preferences. This neoclassical model views the labor market as a mechanism which, unimpeded, will generate both reciprocity between buyers and sellers of labor and an efficient allocation of labor to different activities. Thus social institutions that influence the supply of or demand for labor are treated as exogenous givens or as distortions that should be removed to allow the market to perform its proper role. In response, some sociological approaches to labor market analysis seek to marry sociological analyses of values and institutions to existing economic models, but others challenge such economic models more directly. Historical sociologists have analyzed the historical conditions in which extensive labor markets were formed, while also insisting that labor market labor markets mechanisms necessarily remain embedded in and conditioned by wider forms of social regulation. However, more specific challenges to neoclassical economic models of labor markets were developed from the late 1960s, initially by institutionalist and neo-Marxist economists critical of the mainstream but then taken up by other social scientists. J. Peck, in Work-Place: The Social Regulation of Labor Markets (1996), identifies several phases in the development of this alternative analysis. The first phase, concerned especially with the experience of advantaged workers, developed a dual labor market model. The primary labor market involved internal job ladders, usually within large organizations, with access to many jobs governed by internal administrative rules and bargains. The secondary labor market remained outside the firm, offering access to insecure jobs with little scope for progression. This model emphasized the role of management in structuring the demand for labor: technical imperatives encouraged managers to retain those workers trained within the firm, who might be tempted to move elsewhere, while those who were deemed unsuitable for training were consigned to the insecure periphery. The next development also addressed the institutional logic of the demand for labor, but within a wider historical framework. This suggested that multiple labor market segments arose from the efforts of capitalist managers to divide and rule the workforce, as recruitment was structured in terms of occupational, gender, and ethnic divisions. Such accounts sought to integrate segmented labor market models into a historical analysis of changing “social structures of accumulation.” This represented a more radical repudiation of orthodox economics, but left considerable scope for arguments about the coherence and consequences of such segmentation. These early analyses were primarily attempts by American scholars to explain and critique entrenched ethnic and gender inequalities. The next phase was primarily European and particularly influenced by feminist accounts of gender inequalities in employment. This drew upon the earlier work on the social organization of the demand for labor by management, but noted that organized workers could also influence this process. More distinctively, it was emphasized that such accounts must be complemented by analyses of the social organization of the supply of labor. Labor supply was influenced by existing institutionalized patterns of labor demand, but also by developments in state policies (involving training, welfare, or industrial relations) and relatively autonomous labor markets features of the social organization of gender relations and households. These arguments prompted particular attention to the ways in which labor market segmentation took distinctive forms within specific local and national contexts, linking to wider debates on varieties of capitalism and changing structures of opportunity and inequality across societies, as in J. Rubery and D. Grimshaw’s The Organization of Employment (2003). Early segmented labor market models were primarily designed to understand enduring divisions and inequalities in the labor market. However, recent analyses have also addressed changing forms of labor market segmentation, especially as employers and state policymakers embraced policies of deregulation and flexibilization of labor markets, but also as “equal opportunity” policies opened possibilities to widen access to internal job ladders. In the late 1980s, the “flexible firm” model provided one influential account of the dynamics of such labor market change. It recommended the strategic construction of a dual labor market: employers would gain labor flexibility by constructing multifunctional teams (rather than job ladders) for “core workers” and extending various forms of disposability (such as part-time, temporary, or agency work) among “peripheral workers.” However, this prescriptive model faced powerful theoretical and empirical critiques, especially from A. Pollert in “The ‘Flexible Firm’: Fixation or Fact?” (1988) in Work, Employment and Society. First, there were important continuities in the institutional structuring of labor market inequalities, while management policies often remained reactive rather than strategic. Second, contemporary developments were poorly captured by the contrast between secure “core” and insecure “peripheral” workforces. Some core workers were becoming increasingly insecure, while the periphery included employees with very different labor market prospects (from well-paid, self-employed “consultants” to day laborers in the shadow economy). Current segmented labor market analyses of the growth of different forms of “nonstandard” employment have built on these criticisms. In these accounts, the boundaries and internal composition of existing labor market segments may be reconstructed by new state and management policies, but such policies remain characterized by unresolved tensions, while the outcomes are also influenced by wider institutional arrangements and social settlements, as shown in A. Felstead and N. Jewson (eds.), Global Trends in Flexible Labour (1999). TONY ELGER 319 labor movement labor movement This refers to a major type of social movement, traditionally addressing socioeconomic inequality by means of its members’ engagement in collective action to improve the living and working conditions of its constituency. Historically, the phenomenon emerged with western industrialization (see industrial society), but its structure, functions, and ideologies have changed with the arrival of postindustrial society. Aside from the United States, most advanced industrial countries have well-institutionalized national union federations, and labor or socialist parties. Industrialization, however, is not a sufficient condition for the emergence of labor movements, as the national histories of developing and export-intensive economies in the twentieth century show. Before the rise of the labor movement, workers’ actions and industrial conflict mostly took the form of disputes about pay and working-conditions, with contenders asking fellow workers from other craft shops to join, while awaiting the outcome of negotiations between strike leaders and trade masters. Nowadays, the labor movement manifests itself in its bargaining agents’ negotiations, through formal organizations, with employer, and often state, representatives. The labor movement has long been studied as a central force of welfare state expansion; post-World War II economic growth is interpreted as conditional upon deals between business, government, and labor. Social policy programs decrease the economic vulnerability of the workforce and stimulate a sense of social responsibility and solidarity among workers. Generous welfare states raise wage floors and increase labor costs, which, in the era of economic globalization, together with complex labor regulation, has been taken by capitalists as a prime argument to relocate production to low-wage and low-regulation economies. Welfare state policies have also brought about new organized constituencies, often autonomous from the labor movement and thus having the perverse effect of weakening the labor movement. Trade unions represent the traditional core of the labor movement, with collective bargaining as their most routinized function, and strikes (see industrial relations) and demonstrations as their preeminent political tactics. First emerging in England in the early nineteenth century, their efforts to create alliances across trades soon became part of a greater political landscape. The national and international labor movement came to involve participation from political parties as 320 labor process well as voluntary associations concerned with workers’ rights, and these became integral, and often respectable, elements in the industrial relations systems of the nation-states where they emerged. De-unionization is often used as a shorthand for the erosion or disappearance of the labor movement as a consequence of the shrinking of the working class (both in terms of new recruitment and retention) and of changes in identity, class consciousness, and ideology. Recent studies of specific industries, for example by Beverly Silver in Forces of Labor (2003), show that patterns of labor unrest shift together with geographic changes in production locations around the globe, and thus collective labor interest reemerges in relocated as well as wholly new industries. Labor movements in some parts of the world have become part of antiglobalization movements, and their international strength much depends on how they navigate the North–South divide, particularly as to their role in industrial protectionism, and the extent to which labor interest can form coalitions with other interest-group-based movements. ANN VOGEL labor process This process occurs when labor power is expended to produce goods and services. Many scholars investigate the labor process mainly in terms of its technical dimensions but explicit concern with its organization in different sites and at different scales is largely associated with studies inspired by Marxism. There is also significant feminist work on the gendered dimensions of the labor process and more general work on its broader social and cultural dimensions. The labor process involves both a technical division of labor (see labor) and a social division of labor. A complete account should consider the articulation of both aspects in specific contexts. The technical division of labor concerns the relation among direct laborers (those who are directly engaged in appropriating and transforming nature), the instruments of production (such as tools and machines), and the matter (raw materials or intermediate products) on which they work – all considered from the viewpoint of specific embodied skills and specific products. It can be studied at particular sites (for example individual plants, offices, shops, or universities) or for particular commodity chains (the entire labor process for a given product from the initial appropriation of nature through to its final consumption). The production of services (for example live performances, labor process sexual services, pedagogy, emotional labor) also has a technical division of labor, even if there is no enduring material product. The social division of labor concerns control over the allocation of labor power within the labor process, over the organization of the labor process, over decisions about what to produce, and over the allocation of any surplus production beyond what is required to renew labor power, instruments of production, and inputs. This raises issues of social domination, class exploitation, and aspects of the labor process that are not directly or primarily grounded in technical aspects of production. Analyses of the labor process in the modern world are often restricted to commodity production in a profit-oriented, market-mediated process of economic organization. But there are also important studies of substantive provisioning outside the cash nexus, such as self-provisioning, unpaid domestic labor, or activities in the informal economy; and of the labor process in the state sector or precapitalist societies. Some argue that only free market competition ensures an efficient technical division of labor and rational allocation of scarce resources to competing ends. Others dispute this. There are also major debates on the normative dimensions of production. Karl Marx analyzed the articulation of the technical and social divisions of labor and argued that this impelled the continual reorganization of the labor process. He shows how capital, driven to incessant innovation as the condition for its own existence in competitive markets, transforms technology and the technical division of labor. Marx’s key innovation here is the distinction between labor and labor power. Labor occurs when the laborer expends energy in production; labor power is the laborer’s capacity to labor. Marx argues that capitalists purchase labor power and must then mobilize this potential to ensure that value is added in production. In doing so they are subject to the pressures of capitalist competition. Marx distinguished analytically between two forms of such mobilization: (1) extending working hours and/or increasing the physical intensity of labor – this increases output based on “absolute surplus value”; and (2) enhancing labor power’s productivity by reorganizing the labor process so that less time is needed for a given commodity – resulting in relative surplus value. Capitalists compete to reduce the socially necessary labor time involved in commodity production and thereby gain extra profits relative to their rivals – but, as new ways of organizing the labor process labor process become generalized, these extra profits are competed away. This creates permanent pressure to reorganize the labor process, putting capitalists and workers alike on an apparently unstoppable treadmill. Whereas the younger Marx studied the capitalist labor process in terms of alienation and dehumanization, the later Marx did so in terms of exploitation and capitalist laws of motion. One feature of the labor process relevant to both approaches is the separation between manual and mental labor that occurs in capitalism, especially during the phase of machinofacture. Marx’s analyses also provide a basis for studying class struggle, trade union organization, capitalist competition, and attempts to control the innovation process. In addition to work on the generic features of the capitalist labor process, there are many studies on its different stages. These include the transition from manufacture based on the use of tools in simple or complex forms of cooperation (for example pin manufacture), through machinofacture (where the worker becomes an appendage to the machine), to new forms of knowledge-based (or postindustrial) production. There is also continuing interest in various labor-process paradigms (for example craft production, mass production, continuous flow production, diversified quality production, flexible specialization). Marx rarely discusses what occurs once workers enter the workplace, apart from allusions to their subordination to the machine, “barrack-like discipline,” and “factory codes.” But industrial sociologists have made many studies of the labor process in fields such as mining, fishing, agriculture, automobile production, offices, schools, and so forth; they have also examined unskilled, semiskilled, skilled, supervisory, nonmanual, professional, and managerial labor. Recent work has also drawn on Michel Foucault’s analyses of disciplinary power: organizing individuals in space, organizing movement in time, and the training of aptitudes, for example in Richard Marsden, The Nature of Capital: Marx After Foucault (1999). There are a few studies on the labor process and the (de) formation of the body. Marx also compared the labor process in class societies with the potentialities of work under Communism. Work would be freely undertaken rather than dictated by demands of nature (essential needs) or the logic of the market (profitability); skills would be acquired as a chosen prowess rather than tied to an assigned function in a rationalized division of labor oriented to a stipulated output; 321 labor process approach and work groups would form voluntarily, based on intrinsic pleasure and solidarity rather than an external goal. Thus Marx argues in Volume I of Capital (1867) that, while Communism cannot abolish the need for humans’ interaction with nature, it can bring that process under the community’s conscious control and deprive it of its independent, coercive force. BOB JESSOP labor process approach – see labor process. labor theory of value – see Karl Marx. Lacan, Jacques (1901–1981) An influential interpreter of Sigmund Freud, Lacan had a major impact upon modern European thought and social theory. A highly unconventional psychoanalyst, he delivered a famed seminar at the École Normale Supérieure (formerly attended by philosophers such as Michel Foucault, Roland Barthes, and Jacques Derrida), as well as founding his own psychoanalytic organization, the École Freudienne de Paris. In addition to his work as a practicing psychoanalyst, Lacan wrote many papers on a range of theoretical issues. He made two major contributions to the analysis of human subjectivity: first, in “The Mirror Stage as Formative of the Function of the I”, which was published in Écrits. A Selection (1949 [trans. 1977]), he proposed the thesis of the self-deception of the ego by considering the infant identifying with a mirror image of a complete unified body. Following closely Freud’s proposition that the ego is fundamentally narcissistic in character, Lacan focused on the notion of a “mirror stage” which, he argued, provided the subject with relief from the experience of fragmentation, by granting an illusory sense of bodily unity through its reflecting surface. Second, in “The Agency of the Letter in the Unconscious, or Reason Since Freud” (1957), published in Écrits, he argued, drawing upon structural linguistics, that the construction of the unconscious, and hence by implication culture and society, is dominated by the primacy of language. The signifier represents the subject for Lacan; the primacy of the signifier in the constitution of the subject indicates the rooting of the unconscious in language. In Lacan’s infamous slogan, “The unconscious is structured like a language.” 322 language Along with Écrits, his principal works included The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis (1973 ANTHONY ELLIOTT [trans. 1994]). language There are at present about, 6,000 languages in the world, 4,000 of which have been recorded or documented. Present estimates suggest that 96 percent of these languages are spoken by a mere 4 percent of the world’s population, and that half of them will become extinct within the next century. Underlying causes for these accelerating extinctions include ecological collapse, military conflict, and political, social, and economic hegemonic influence, whether deliberately wielded or not. Despite the obvious significance of language as a basis of social identity and culture, the topic has not received much attention from sociologists. Karl Marx in the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts (1844 [trans. 1964]) observed that language was a form of what he termed “practical consciousness.” Fifty years later, Émile Durkheim declared it to be an exemplary instance of what he called “social facts” and took an interest in its role in systems of social classification. Subsequently, George Herbert Mead identified language as the crucial means by which persons can “take the role of the other” and thereby become objects to themselves, an insight which was foundational for symbolic interactionism. Finally, the notion of habitus popularized by Pierre Bourdieu serves as a valuable conceptualization of the ingrained skills and practices associated with language use and identity and their resistance to change. These contributions notwithstanding, the theoretical invocation of language within sociology has tended to be holistic and underspecified, and, perhaps because the sociologists of the early twentieth century stressed the significance of acculturation and assimilation, while the anthropologists of the same period celebrated linguistic, cultural, and ethnic diversity, interest in language has comparatively shallow roots within the discipline. The sociological study of language has thus remained somewhat sequestered from mainstream sociology. In keeping with the perspective sponsored by Durkheim, it focuses on the ways in which language serves as a bridge between individual identities and the social group(s) to which persons belong. Its primary interests have cenetred, at the macro-level, on the relationship between language and identity in the context of race and ethnicity and the nation-state, and, at the middle-range level, on the ways in which social language class, community, and gender function as causes and consequences of sociolinguistic variation. At the most macro-level are studies of language shift and maintenance. A number of conditions have been identified as creating the potential for language shift. An essential precondition is bilingualism. A monolingual society will remain monolingual (though its language may evolve over time), until the arrival of an additional language that can influence the economic or power balance among language users. Migration, industrialization, urbanization, government sponsorship of particular languages in schools and elsewhere, and the relative prestige of different languages are all factors that impact language maintenance and shift. Perhaps the most important factor promoting language maintenance is linguistic nationalism, defined by Joshua Fishman, for example, in the Handbook of Language and Ethnic Identity (1999) as the values, attitudes, and behavior of societies acting on behalf of their explicitly stated ethnocultural self interest. Linguistic nationalism involves political organization, language policies that promote chosen vernacular languages, and language codification (the creation, where necessary, of a written form of the language). At the meso-level, sociolinguistics studies the relationship between language use and a wide variety of sociological variables. Emerging out of the study of dialect variation, contemporary sociolinguistics was born with William Labov’s The Social Stratification of English in New York City (1967) which used random sampling of informants, taperecorded data, and quantitative measurements of linguistic data to build a complex but orderly picture of language use. Subsequent research has shown the significance of geography, ethnicity, social networks, class, gender, and age in language variation. The reliability of linguistic markers of group membership means that, for other individuals, sociolinguistic variation can be a sensitive measure of the person’s place in social space, and for sociologists it can be a subtle unobtrusive measure of a variety of social indicators. In the end, sociolinguistics as a field is underwritten by the fact that people speak the way they do because the people they identify with also speak that way. Practices of thinking, acting, and speaking using a particular language constitute a linguistic habitus for each person, and cannot easily be changed. Nonetheless, they are subject to maintenance or change through interpersonal processes. Social psychological research by Howard Giles and others suggests that persons adapt their language use of fundamental components of dialect – vocabulary, grammatical choices, and pronunciation – so as to converge or diverge from their interlocutors. Convergence in any or all of these may occur when a speaker is conversing with a person of higher social status, or from the same geographical area, or simply a person who is likable. Conversely, a speaker may accentuate dialectal divergences when speaking with a social inferior, or with a stranger, or with someone towards whom they entertain feelings of hostility. Accumulations of convergences and divergences can result in a change in habitus at the individual level, and language change at the societal: the recent shift in the direction of so-called estuary English as a dominant dialect of the English spoken in the United Kingdom is a case in point. Languages are not only methods of communication, but systems of classification and conceptualization. While the notion that language influences thought is an old one, it is most associated today with the anthropological linguists Edward Sapir (1884–1939) and Benjamin Lee Whorf (1897–1941). Their thesis, which was based on anthropological studies of the conceptualization of space, time, and matter among Hopi Indians, asserted that language determines our perceptions of the world. Different languages produce different conceptual maps of reality. The original formulations of the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis were dogged by circularity and by a lack of evidence for the cognitive side of the claim. Subsequent work during the 1960s on subjects’ ability to discriminate colors and shapes gave modest but questionable support to their ideas. However, work by Stephen Levinson and others in the 1990s that examined the representation of space in language and cognition appears to give solid support to claims that, in the 1980s, were viewed as far-fetched and tendentious. The most important sociological contribution to the study of language may yet turn out to come from new trends in conversational analysis and discourse analysis. These analytic streams insist on the idea that speaking is a form of social action and that it is subject to the normative constraints that shape and drive action. Since it is within interaction that language choices are made and modified, family-resemblance-based classificatory decisions are indexically attuned, linguistic and conceptual habitus are adjusted, and social solidarity is sustained or undermined, social action and interaction are surely the engine room of language maintenance and change. Moreover, this conceptualization of language as action may contribute to 323 language games releasing studies of language from their traditional written language bias and open the way for a rapprochement between linguistics and the social sciences which is long overdue. JOHN HERITAGE language games Developed by Ludwig Wittgenstein in his Philosophical Investigations (1953) to focus attention on language use and its social context, the concept was a useful means with which to repudiate the exclusive focus on the representational functions of language which dominated his early philosophy. In place of this focus, the language game concept invited attention to the immense variety of uses to which language is put: for example giving and obeying orders; describing the appearance of an object; reporting an event; telling a story or a joke; asking questions; greeting someone; praying, and so on. In his discussion of these uses of language, Wittgenstein stressed both that language games are interwoven with ordinary aspects of everyday life, and that understanding the meaning of utterances involves knowing the nature of the activity in which the utterances play a role. He also observed that language games are malleable: new language games are invented and others become obsolete. Part of this malleability arises because the meanings of words, symbols, sentences, and utterances are lodged, through use, in networks of similarity and dissimilarity which lack an essence. Although the notion of language game is not much employed today, it has been a fecund influence on contemporary linguistic semantics and pragmatics, and has important implications for computational models of language. Within sociology, the concept had a potent influence on Harold Garfinkel’s ethnomethodology and continues to influence a wide range of sociological and cultural analyses of language use. JOHN HERITAGE language rights – see rights. Laslett, Peter (1915–2001) A historian and sociologist, who also worked in political philosophy and on the history of social and political thought, Laslett was elected in 1948 to a fellowship at Cambridge and began his pathbreaking research on the social and political upheavals of seventeenth-century England. He went on to edit and provide a new critical commentary on the work of Robert Filmer (1588–1653) and John Locke (1632–1704). 324 Latino/a studies As a result of his engagement with Locke’s writings on the nature of power within the family, he moved towards demographic historiography and during the 1960s cofounded the Cambridge Group for the History of Population and Social Structure with E. A. Wrigley. His work questioned assumptions concerning the nature of the family and household in early modern western Europe. In The World We Have Lost (1965), basing his evidence on local historical documents, he argued against the widely held view that three-generation stem families predominated in preindustrial England, and that the small nuclear family was a product of industrialization. For Laslett, preindustrial families were also predominantly nuclear, and were in addition highly mobile; resident unmarried servants were the only non-nuclear element within them. In the 1980s he became interested in the aging process, which he discussed in A Fresh Map of Life (1989). As well as his work on social and political demographic history and political philosophy, he was interested in opening up academic life to a wider audience, and with Michael Young he cofounded the Open University. STEVEN LOYAL Latino/a studies Despite their long presence in the United States, and being the nation’s second largest minority group in the 1960s, relatively little was known about Latinos at that time. In many ways, Latinos were strangers in the United States. However, social movements of the civil rights era (1954–68) called attention to the plight of Latinos in the United States, particularly that of Chicanos and Puerto Ricans, the largest Latino subgroups, both of which were incorporated into the United States through conquest. During the 1960s and early 1970s, these social movements would be instrumental in the development of academic programs and advocacy organizations within the Chicano and Puerto Rican communities. The roots of Latino/ a studies can be traced to this period. This entry provides an overview of the development of Latino/a studies with particular attention to the institutional arrangements, curriculum, research, professional associations, and publication outlets related to the study of Latinos. To understand the development of Latino/a studies, we turn to a historical discussion of its beginnings. During the period surrounding the civil rights era, Chicanos and Puerto Ricans protested against discrimination and racism, and demanded equality and dignity. Because Latinos lacked easy entrance to higher education, affirmative action Latino/a studies programs helped them gain a modest degree of access to colleges and universities. On their respective campuses, Latino students found few Latinos as students and, especially, as faculty. Further, they often found academic climates devoid of attention to the social and intellectual needs of Latinos. In a number of campuses in the southwest and northeast, Latino students pressed for the recruitment of Latino students and faculty and for the creation of Chicano studies and Puertoriqueño/Boricua studies, respectively. The formation of these programs represents the roots of Latino/a studies. Latino sociologists played an important role in the establishment of institutions that focus on issues central to the Latino/a population within and outside academia. We highlight here two key sociologists who trained Latino/a students and developed organizations that advocated for the Latino/a population. Julian Samora, who received his PhD in 1953 from Washington University, is recognized as the first Chicano to earn a doctoral degree in sociology and anthropology, as noted in The Julian Samora Virtual Collection maintained by the Julian Samora Research Institute (2005). Samora, who died in 1996, mentored approximately fifty-five Chicano graduate students at the University of Notre Dame before he retired in 1985. He also had a major impact in the development of important Latino organizations outside academia. For example, he was one of the three cofounders of the National Council of La Raza (NCLR) and was instrumental in the formation of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF). While Samora is a pioneer in the Chicano community, his colleague, Frank Bonilla, played an equally important role in the training of Puerto Ricans and in building advocacy groups to promote the Puerto Rican cause. A detailed account of Bonilla can be found in an article entitled “From the ‘Bulge’ to the Halls of Academia: Frank Bonilla’s Hunger for Education Opened His Eyes to the World,” published in Narratives (2004). Bonilla received his PhD in sociology from Harvard University in 1959. He was instrumental in the formation of the Puerto Rican Hispanic Leadership Forum which would eventually become Aspira, an organization focusing on the educational needs of Puerto Rican youth. After stints as a researcher in Latin America and a professor in the United States, Bonilla took a faculty position in 1973 at the City University of New York (CUNY) where he became the Director of CUNY’s Center for Puerto Rican studies. The scholarship Latino/a studies and activism of Samora and Bonilla embody the mission of the Latino/a studies programs that emerged in the late 1960s and 1970s and serve as a legacy for many Latino scholars today. The early Chicano studies and Puertoriqueño/ Boricua studies programs originating in the late 1960s and early 1970s had broad missions that were student- and community-oriented. For example, these programs emphasized the institutionalization of courses and a curriculum for students interested in Latino/a studies. Additionally, the programs helped in the recruitment and retention of Latino students through both their outreach efforts and the provision of social, academic, and cultural services, which emphasized social change and the betterment of local Latino communities. Finally, a distinct feature of Latino/a studies programs continues to be their interdisciplinary focus. Faculty members participating in such programs tend to be drawn from a broad array of social and behavioral sciences, and arts and humanities disciplines. As the Latino population experienced greater diversity associated with immigration from the Caribbean, Central America, and South America, some programs have maintained their focus on the Chicano and Puerto Rican populations. However, many others have broadened their focus to encompass the greater Latino variation with the establishment of pan-ethnic Latino/a studies programs. The latter emphasize the linkages between Latinos in the United States and Latin Americans more generally, and they recognize the transnational and diaspora experience of Latinos and Latin Americans. There are also variations in the academic focus of Latino/a studies programs (note that, for the sake of simplicity, we use the term “Latino/a studies” to encompass the diverse types of specific programs just outlined). One set of programs has continued to serve the primary mission of teaching and is located institutionally as independent academic departments or as programs within academic departments or colleges. In other cases, Latino centers and institutes have the primary mission of generating research on the Latino population. Finally, teaching and research related to Latinos takes place beyond the confines of Latino/a studies programs and Latino research centers and institutes, as courses are taught within sociology and related departments, and research on Latinos is conducted by researchers without affiliations to Latino research centers and institutes. Themes such as “border” or “border-crossing” often emerge within course content of Latino/a 325 Latino/a studies studies. These themes are important reminders of the global and transnational, as well as the transformative, nature of Latino communities in the United States, Latin America, and the Caribbean. Further, these metaphors permit an analysis of the historical and contemporary relationship of Latino communities to the economic, political, and social structures of inequality in the United States. These structures are rooted in the social construction of race and ethnicity, gender, and sexuality and these constructs often serve as catalysts for social change. The ability to understand race/ethnicity as a social construct is evoked in the introduction of the syllabi. Many Latino/a studies instructors recognize that while the term Latino/a connotes themes of similarity and shared interest across groups falling within this socially constructed label, these courses highlight differences that exist within and across demographic, historical, social, economic, and political domains. The diversity within, and multiple experiences of, the Latino community allow for a departure from strict disciplinary boundaries into interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary lenses, allowing the discussion of topics, such as culture or assimilation, to take place beyond the confines of a single discipline. This permits students to view “the Latino/a experience” as one that is diverse, complex, and dynamic, versus one that is narrow, monolithic, and static. The American Sociological Association (ASA) has teaching and instructional materials geared to assisting faculty members who teach Latino courses. In its fifth edition, Chicano/a and Latino/a Studies in Sociology: Syllabi and Instructional Materials, by José Calderon and Gilda Ochoa (2003), is an important source for engaging faculty and students in the understanding of Latino/a studies. A sampling of topics covered in the syllabi comprising the sourcebook include “Introduction and Overview of Latino Population,” “Mexicans: Immigration, Conquest, and Work,” “Caribbean: Immigration, Colonialism, and Work,” “Gender, Sexuality and Women’s Studies,” “Queer Identities in Contemporary Cultures,” and “Institutions and Political Activism.” As suggested by these topics, Latino/a studies courses expose students to sociological theories and analytical frameworks to understand the production, reproduction, and perpetuation of social inequalities that shape the life chances of Latinos. Consistent with the social change theme of Latino studies, courses related to Latinos frequently require students to get involved in their local communities. For example, students in such courses tend to be involved in service learning, 326 Latino/a studies internships, and volunteer work. Such teaching approaches emphasize the intersection between theory and practice and attempt to enhance the academic experience by providing students with experiential training. The major absence of Latino scholars prior to the 1970s is responsible for the dearth of research about Latinos before this time. Rogelio Saenz and Edward Murguia, in their article “The Latino Experience: Introduction, Context, and Overview” in Sociological Focus (2004), observe a steady increase in the amount of sociological research produced about Latinos from the early 1970s to the present. In their general assessment of research on Latinos, Saenz and Murguia highlight four areas that have generated a significant amount of research: gender, immigration, education, and labor markets. One major source for the production of research on Latinos is the Inter-University Program for Latino Research (2005), or IUPLR, a consortium of eighteen Latino research centers based in major universities across the United States. Through our examination of research projects that are being conducted through these partnerships, based on information from the various websites, we find evidence of up to fifty research projects. This list is by no means an all-inclusive summary of research projects that are connected with the various research centers. Rather it is a brief overview from various sites, which allows us to assess the most common research areas focusing on Latinos. We broadly classify the fifty research projects into the following categories: community development; cultural and literary studies; demographic trends; economic issues; education; ethnic relations; evaluation research; health and delivery services; history and political economy; identity politics; and immigration. Of these categories, education receives the most attention, constituting 20 percent of the total research projects, with health and delivery issues accounting for 18 percent, and art and cultural studies also receiving substantial attention. Many of these research projects evaluate current policy initiatives or programs but also encourage other scholars to generate more research. Much of the attention in the area of education is geared towards creating a new generation of educated Latinos. For example, one project assists students with college applications and another assists educators who work with Latino parents and their children. The most common research topics demonstrate the interdisciplinary and action-oriented nature of Latino studies. Latour, Bruno (1947– ) law and society The development of Latino/a studies has also assisted in the establishment of professional associations that have helped further develop this branch of inquiry. The oldest of these organizations is the National Association for Chicana and Chicano Studies (NACCS), originally established in 1972. Two decades later, the Puerto Rican Studies Association (PRSA) was established to focus on academic concerns related to Puerto Ricans. Moreover, Latino caucuses / special interest groups have been formed within larger disciplinary associations. For example, the Section on Latino Sociology within the ASA was formed in the early 1990s. More recently, in the mid-1990s, the Latino Studies Section of the Latin American Studies Association (LASA) was formed, illustrating the transnational and diaspora links between Latinos and Latin America. While there have been various academic journals that originated in the late 1960s and early 1970s to disseminate research results on Latinos, currently there are a few journals that specialize in the reporting of evidence from sociological research investigations relating to Latino communities. These include Aztlan, Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, and Journal of Latino and Latin American Studies. Among the mainstream social science outlets, Social Science Quarterly is the undisputed leader in publishing research on Latinos. Of particular significance are the three special issues that the journal produced in 1973, 1984, and 2000. More recently, Southern Rural Sociology produced a special issue on “Latinos in the South” (2003) and Sociological Focus published a special issue on “The Latino Experience” (2004). This article traced the emergence of Latino/a studies during the late 1960s and 1970s. Pioneering Latino scholars and students forged the development of institutional arrangements, curricula, research, professional associations, and publication outlets. Their efforts, combined with the growth of the Latino population, have contributed to the evolution and continued expansion of Latino/a studies and its contribution to sociology and wider social science disciplines. ROGELIO SAENZ, MERCEDES RUBIO, AND JANIE FILOTEO Latour, Bruno (1947– ) Educated in philosophy and anthropology, Latour, Professor at the École des Mines in Paris, has been one of the most active contributors to the field of science and technology studies, which emerged in the 1970s as an alternative to more traditional approaches to the theory and philosophy of science. Latour has combined a playful, polemical tone with conceptual and methodological innovations, as he has sought to disclose the hidden realities of science in his Laboratory Life (1979), with Steve Woolgar. Latour made seminal contributions to the social and cultural study both of science in The Pasteurization of France (1984 [trans. 1988]), most especially through his book Science in Action (1987) and of technology (among other places in his book Aramis, 1992). He is also well known for his critique of modernism in his We have Never been Modern (1993). Latour has characterized the contemporary world in terms of the “proliferation of hybrids” and has argued that nonhumans – both living and nonliving things – should be considered “actors” and be attributed agency by social scientists. His work is associated with actor network theory. His writings have often been attacked by the defenders of traditional approaches to science, and he was one of the central protagonists in what came to be called the “science wars” of the 1990s, when the kind of science studies that Latour promoted were criticized by writers such as Paul Gross and Norman Levitt (in Higher Superstition, 1994). ANDREW JAMISON law and society This phrase refers to an association of scholars, a journal of academic research, and a collection of empirical approaches to understanding how law works. As a multi-disciplinary paradigm within twentieth-century scholarship, law and society focuses on what legal institutions do rather than what they ought to do. In place of the normative and policy orientations of most jurisprudence, the law and society approach claims that law can be understood best empirically, as a social institution embedded within and connected to all other social institutions. Using what are believed to be the more reliable research practices of empirical social scientific inquiry, law and society scholarship moved beyond purely subjective interpretations and the doctrinal argumentation of traditional legal scholarship by systematically collecting data and developing empirically grounded theory; at the same time law-and-society scholarship offers critical judgment about legal practices because it is independent of the authority and interests of the legal profession. In 1964, a group of sociologists, political scientists, psychologists, anthropologists, historians, and law professors formed the Law and Society Association; in 1967, they began publishing a 327 law and society research journal, the Law and Society Review; and following two national meetings in the 1970s, since 1979 they have been holding annual conferences for scholarly exchange and debate. In the early years, the association and the journal, as well as four research centers located on the campuses of the University of California at Berkeley, the University of Denver, Northwestern University, and the University of Wisconsin, were supported by generous grants from the Russell Sage Foundation, whose interest in social policy and change found a happy target in this nascent intellectual movement. Recognizing law as the central governing mechanism and language of the modern state, the foundation sought to explore ways in which the legal profession might, or might not, provide leadership for progressive social change. Drawing upon diverse historical sources, and the pioneering work of contemporaries such as Philip Selznick at Berkeley, Harry Kalven, Hans Zeisel, and Rita Simon at Chicago, and Willard Hurst at Wisconsin, the birth of the law-and-society group as a formal membership association signaled an organized, long-term commitment to interdisciplinary empirical work that would transcend the boundaries of distinct disciplinary fields and traditional legal scholarship. The Russell Sage Foundation, the Law and Society Association, and the Law and Society Review created a field in which “social science disciplines could be brought to bear on . . . law and legal institutions in a systematic manner.” The Foundation was, as expressed by Christopher Tomlins in Framing the Field of Law’s Disciplinary Encounter (2000), “both responding to and contributing to [a] moment of striking change” as epitomized by the civil rights, anti-war, and emergent women’s and gay rights movements. Because law is a system of both symbols and action, structured reason and regulated force, this social scientific study of law draws from diverse traditions that attend to both normative aspirations and social organization. Attention to the relationship between law and society, the role of reason, ideas of justice, and the regulation of force can be found in ancient and medieval works of philosophy from Plato (427–347 BC), through Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) and John Locke (1632–1704), to Baron Charles de Montesquieu’s canonical work, The Spirit of the Laws (1748). These classical works display European philosophy’s preoccupation with knowledge as a synthesis of universal, timeless truths. The cultural, social, and variable dimensions of law became more prominent in the nineteenth century, when jurisprudential thinkers, such as Friedrich Karl von Savigny 328 law and society (1814–75), in Germany in 1831, described law as the slow, organic distillation of the spirit of a particular people, and when historians, such as Henry Maine (1822–88), in Britain in 1861, described the development of social relations over the millennia as a movement from status to contract. At the beginning of the twentieth century, legal scholars in major North American and European institutions were devoting increasing attention to the sociological aspects of law. The Austrian scholar Eugen Ehrlich (1862–1922) in 1913 described what he called “the living law,” the complex system of norms and rules by which the members of organizations, communities, and societies actually live. Formal law emanating from the state is dependent in large part, he argued, on its informal concordance with the living law. Judge and jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. (1841–1935) perfectly expressed the movement towards a social understanding of law when he described the law as a grand anthropological document, writing in The Common Law (1881) that the life of the law is not logic but experience, a word he used for culture. Roscoe Pound (1870–1964), Dean of the Harvard Law School, pushed the sociological perspective yet further when, in 1910, he named the informal practices of legal institutions the “law-in-action,” contrasting them with the “law-in-the-books,” legal doctrines formally enacted and ideally in force. American legal realists, a collection of law professors and philosophers writing in the 1920s and 1930s, made the exploration of this gap between the formal law and the law-in-action the central focus of their research. Alongside their efforts to expose the illogic of ostensibly logical arguments, the legal realists began the work, taken up by the law and society movement three decades later, to describe the law-in-action. By the end of World War II, the social sciences had developed empirical tools for data collection and analysis (for example surveys of legal use and need, statistical analysis of court records, interviews with jurors and judges) that moved the study of the law-in-action forward with energy and effectiveness. The social sciences had become a respectable third wing of higher education, finally standing abreast the historically more prestigious humanities and the more recently institutionalized sciences. From some perspectives, the social sciences, in adopting methods from the physical sciences, especially experimental techniques and quantitative methods of data analysis (see quantitative data analysis), had begun to pull ahead of the humanities as sources of reliable social knowledge. law and society Turning their gaze to legal processes and institutions, social scientists could also draw upon their own disciplinary traditions to authorize their research. The most important social theorists writing in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries had already recognized law as a central means of rationalized coordination and regulation in modern societies no longer governed as tightly by custom and religion. Post-World War II social scientists were encouraged to look closely at how law accomplished this role as the general societal manager. In this work, they drew upon Émile Durkheim’s models of the different functions of law in societies with lesser or greater divisions of labor and sought evidence of varying degrees of repressive law or restitutive law in more or less industrialized societies. Following Max Weber, others described patterns of litigation and legal doctrine associated with different types of economic and cultural development. In its more than thirty-five years of history, this interdisciplinary movement has produced a body of reliable knowledge about how the law works. Law-and-society research has discovered the role of law everywhere, not only in courtrooms, prisons, and law offices but also in hospitals, bedrooms, schoolrooms, in theatres, films, and novels, and certainly on the streets and in police stations and paddy wagons. At times, socio-legal scholarship, another term for law-and-society research, has also mapped the places where law ought to be but is not. In historical studies of litigation, policing, the legal profession and delivery of legal services, court cultures and judicial biographies, the effectiveness of legal regulation of workplace and business transactions; in reports on access to law and the structure of both professional and popular legal consciousness; and in histories of how particular legal doctrines and offices developed, law-and-society research demonstrates how organization, social networks, and local cultures shape law. This research has also demonstrated how law is recursively implicated in the construction of social worlds – of organizations, social networks, and local cultures – and thus contributes to both the distribution of social resources and the understandings of the world so constituted. These accounts describe how in doing legal work, legal actors and officials respond to particular situations and demands for service rather than to general prescriptions or recipes provided by legal doctrine. Although law claims to operate through logic and formal rationality, it is no different from most other work and, thus, rather law and society than following invariant general principles, proceeds on a case-by-case basis. This is evident in the production of law through litigation and in the creation of precedent through decisions in individual cases; it is true of law enforcement as well. Most participants, professional and lay, operate through reactive, situationally specific rationality. And even in instances of organized campaigns by civil rights organizations, trade union, or the women’s movement for pay equity, legal strategies rely on the ability to aggregate the outcomes of individual cases. While they may not produce specifically material outcomes, they often achieve cultural, conceptual transformations as described in M. McCann’s Rights at Work (1994). Because legal action is not rule-bound but situationally responsive, it involves extralegal decisions and action; thus, all legal actors operate with discretion. Documenting the constraints and capacities of legal discretion has occupied these several generations of law-and-society scholars, whose research provides evidence about how discretion is invoked, confined, and yet ever-elastic. In exercising this inevitable discretion, legal actors respond to situations and cases on the basis of typifications developed not from criteria of law or policy alone but from the normal and recurrent features of social interactions. These folk categories are used to typify variations in social experiences in an office, agency, or professional workload and to channel appropriate or useful responses. These typifications function as conceptual efficiency devices. By relying on ordinary logics, local cultural categories, and norms, legal action both reflects and reproduces other features and institutions of social life. On the one hand, as a tool for handling situations and solving problems, law is available at a cost, a cost distributed differentially according to social class, social status, and organizational position and capacity. On the other hand, law is not merely a resource or tool but a set of conceptual categories and schema that produce parts of the language and concepts people use for both constructing and interpreting social interactions and relationships. These ideological or interpretive aspects of law are also differentially distributed. The most well-cited piece of law and society research summarizes much of these findings by creating a model of the variable capacity of legal actors based on their status as one-time or repeat players in the legal system, concluding that despite ambitions for equality under law, “the ‘haves’ come out ahead,” according to Marc Galanter in his “Why the ‘Haves’ Come Out Ahead” (Law and 329 Lazarsfeld, Paul (1901–1976) Society Review, 1974). This observation does not undermine legality but has become part of the common understanding that helps to sustain the power and durability of law, just as the common knowledge of the limitations of legality serves to protect the law from more sustained critique. In addition to developing a growing body of empirical knowledge about how law works, law and society has also been successful in institutionalizing its field of scholarship. Although the sociology of law in Europe remains a predominantly theoretical and normative enterprise, it is, nonetheless, a required subject for the education and training of European lawyers. In the United States, the original centers of law-and-society research in the law schools of Berkeley, Wisconsin, Denver, and Northwestern remain strong, with additional concentrations of law and society at the University of California at Los Angeles, at Irvine, and at Santa Barbara, the State University of New York at Buffalo, the University of Michigan, and New York University. The influence of law-and-society research on legal agencies is probably much more significant. Most courts, agencies, and legal organizations collect data about their activities. Most recognize the role of non-legal factors in shaping their work and use social variables, among other indicators, to analyze and explain legal work. Law and society scholars regularly serve as expert witnesses in litigations on capital punishment, witness reliability, and gender and racial discrimination, among other topics. Newspapers also report the results of socio-legal research. Thus, alongside a picture of the law as a system of words and documents, law and society has succeeded in painting a picture of law as a social system, an understanding that has been documented in popular and professional consciousness. SUSAN SILBEY Lazarsfeld, Paul (1901–1976) Born in Vienna, Paul Lazarsfeld received his PhD at the university there in 1925. He emigrated to the United States in 1933, became Director of the Bureau of Applied Research at Columbia University in 1940, and became a member of the Columbia faculty from 1949 to 1969. Lazarsfeld is best known for his contributions to methodology, political sociology, and mass communications research. Lazarsfeld was a pioneer in the development of quantitative sociology, first through survey research and later through such sophisticated mathematical techniques as latent structure analysis. He helped change sociological research from the qualitative study of communities to the 330 Le Bon, Gustave (1841–1931) systematic, quantitative explanation of individual characteristics and outcomes. Surveys and other research techniques demonstrated that measurable variables could be causally linked with one another and explain the social influences on individual attitudes. He utilized surveys in studies of voting behavior and audience research. In The People’s Choice (1944), with Bernard Berelson and Hazel Gaudet, and Personal Influence (1955), with Elihu Katz, he developed the idea of the two step flow of communication. Though Lazarsfeld recognized that mass media were increasingly powerful in the modern world, he found that many people’s choices, especially regarding voting, were influenced by the viewpoints of powerful individuals in their communities. Through his directorship of the Bureau of Applied Research, Lazarsfeld helped to inaugurate university based large-scale sociological studies. His association with Robert Merton at Columbia contributed to a theoretically sophisticated, quantitative sociology that moved into the mainstream of the discipline. KENNETH H. TUCKER Le Bon, Gustave (1841–1931) A physician and polymath whose writings ranged from studies of Arab and Indian civilization to treatises on photography and theoretical physics, Le Bon is best known today as the author of The Crowd (1895 [trans. 1896]) and as the founder of a school of social psychology that became linked to twentieth-century practices of propaganda and public relations. Born in Rogent-Le-Routrou, Le Bon studied medicine at the University of Paris and traveled in Europe, North Africa, and India before becoming Director of the French military ambulance division. Influenced by Charles Darwin, Auguste Comte, and Herbert Spencer, as well as by Johannson Herder and nineteenth-century race theory, Le Bon became interested in the part played by collective psychology in the character and development of different civilizations. For Le Bon, what united and distinguished a nation or “race” was not biological (since “today there are no pure races”) but a shared depository of beliefs and sentiments, which he conceived as a pre-rational collective unconscious. Changes in ideas – “the only true revolutions” – involved ferment at that level. Hence, as he explained in The Crowd, the historical importance of crowds and crowd psychology. Le Bon had already laid the grounds for this analysis in L’Homme et les sociétés (1881) and Les Lois psychologiques de l’évolution des peuples (1884); he further developed it in Les Le Play, Pierre Guilliaume Frédéric (1806–1882) Opinions and les croyances (1910), Psychologie politique (1910), and La Révolution Francaise et la psychologie des révolutions (1912). Both with regard to peoples and crowds, a category that extended from street riots to legislative assemblies to the rising cultural weight of urban masses, Le Bon parallels Émile Durkheim in his stress on the emergent and irreducible properties of groups. He differed, however, in his insistence on the non-rational and unconscious elements of collective consciousness, and also in his recognition, which anticipated mass society theorists, that industrial modernity was an “era of crowds.” ANDREW WERNICK Le Play, Pierre Guilliaume Frédéric (1806–1882) The son of a customs officer from Normandy, Le Play was the founder of an influential school of empirical sociology. He had a multifaceted career and rose to become one of the most prominent figures in the France of Louis Napoléon (1808–73). Besides his voluminous sociological writings (many of which were field reports in connection with administrative assignments), he was a Professor of Metallurgy at the École des Mines from 1844 to 1856, a member of the 1848 provisional government, and in the Second Empire was appointed a Senator and Grand Commissioner of Expositions. Influenced by Claude Henri de Rouvroy, Comte de Saint-Simon, Auguste Comte, Charles Fourier (1772–1837) and Louis Gabriel de Bonald (1754– 1840), and horrified by the violence of the 1830 revolution, Le Play campaigned for a social-sciencebased reform program that would promote social peace in a new class-divided and individualistic industrial society. The focus of much of his research was on the economic and social conditions of the working class family, particularly as affected by technological, economic, and geographic determinants. His method combined fieldwork, survey research, classification systems, and multi-sided studies of representative cases. To further his scientific work, in 1856 he established the Société d’Économie et de Science Sociale, and in 1871, to promote his schemes for inter-class solidarity, the journal La Réforme. Among his chief works were Les Ouvriers européens (1855), La Réforme sociale en France (1864), L’Organisation de la famille (1871), and La Méthode de la Science Sociale (1875). ANDREW WERNICK leadership The notion of “leadership” arises as a necessary part of a relationship. The only bodies of thought leadership that can deny the necessity of leadership are those that deny that individuals need to develop through relationships with one another. The notion of leadership is taken for granted by preliberal thought since hierarchy is seen as natural and people are differentiated according to the roles they play. Rulers lead the ruled; men lead women; lords lead their serfs; citizens lead slaves; and so forth. The exercise of leadership is linked to factors that cannot be changed. Leadership is permanent and static – it is preordained. Leaders and followers cannot change places. Indeed, the very designation of the leadership role implies that it is irreversible. It sounds absurd to speak of slaves leading citizens since the very notion of a “slave” implies someone who follows. Once a leader, always a leader. It is therefore historically valuable that these notions are challenged by liberalism. In the place of hierarchical relationships, there is abstract equality. Thus the liberal theory of representation argues that, when one person acts as the representative of another, he or she is acting on their behalf. The representative is authorized by those they represent, and therefore the relationship is not one of difference, but of sameness. The individual is re-presented at a “higher” level. No hierarchy is involved. Hence liberalism places individuals outside relationships. Abstract individualism makes the notion of “leadership” theoretically impossible, and it is this abstract individualism that leads anarchists to argue that individuals can spontaneously govern themselves without organization or hierarchy. In fact, since people can identify themselves as individuals only through their relationships with others, real individuals are always in hierarchical attachments to others. Postliberal or relational argument accepts leadership as inevitable, since what makes a relationship possible is that on a particular issue one person leads and the other follows. For this reason, relationships are necessarily hierarchical – two people can relate to one another only because they are both the same and different – and this difference must generate deference of some kind. But although postliberalism stresses the relational character of human activity, it differs from preliberal thought in that the notion of leadership as natural is tied to a concept of nature that is developmental and not static. It is natural for a parent to “lead” a three-year-old across a busy street; it would not be natural for a parent to lead a thirteen-year-old. Moreover, leaders and followers continually change places. The doctor who “leads” a motor 331 legal-rational authority mechanic on medical matters follows such a person when he or she wants a vehicle repaired. Leadership, conceived of in a postliberal manner, is always provisional and specific: a leader who is developmental in one area becomes oppressive when he or she seeks to guide in every issue. Leaders in a democracy dedicate themselves to enhancing and not diminishing the capacity of people to govern their own lives. J O H N H O F F M A N legal-rational authority – see authority. legitimacy The authority of an institution, person, or practice to command obedience can derive from a sense of its rightfulness or legitimacy. People often go along with the commands of others, rules of law or organization, or taken-for-granted norms because of a sense of obligation or moral necessity rather than any immediate or general threat of coercion or promise of reward. Legitimacy, according to Max Weber, can derive from age-old norms (or tradition), from consciously enacted rules (such as law), or from a sense of devotion to an exceptional sanctity, heroism, or magical characteristic of an individual person (charisma). At their core, all forms of legitimacy provide an explanation for the social world as it is, or as it is hoped to be. This explanation or reason provides the meanings that ground social action, for the fortunate and unfortunate alike. According to Weber, human beings are prepared to tolerate extraordinary deprivation, suffering, and torment. What is unacceptable, however, to the unfortunate, is the meaninglessness of suffering, and to the fortunate the meaninglessness of life itself. “Legitimating explanations seek to justify the distribution of fortunes by showing that it conforms to a coherent normative conception of some sort, a conception which not only makes the differences in human fates intelligible but justifies them in an ethical sense as well” (Anthony Kronman, Max Weber, 1983). Thus, legitimations, whether from history, reason, or mysticism, offer accounts of social arrangements and events that make life meaningful and therefore tolerable. Legitimacy attaches not merely to individual actions and relationships but to institutionalized systems of power and domination. If power consists of the probability that one actor within a social relationship will be in a position to achieve intended and foreseen effects (Dennis Hume Wrong, Power, 1969), authority rests on the belief in the rightfulness or legitimacy of that 332 leisure action. Although authority is only one form of power, it is the most stable and enduring according to Weber, because it requires fewer physical or economic resources to sustain. Obedience and deference to authority are secured by its legitimacy, deeply sedimented in social relations and beliefs, through the “internalization of symbolically represented structures of expectation” (Jürgen Habermas, The Legitimation Crisis, 1973 [trans. 1976]). In this sense, legitimacy is a questionbegging avoidance technique that works only to the extent that it is unquestioned and unnoticed, that is, it constitutes a hegemony. Once questioned, the ability of legitimacy to secure obedience is threatened because the belief in a person, organization, or institution as legitimate derives from its being unquestionably right. Once the subject of ideological contest, however, a social order can experience a legitimation crisis, the revelation of a disjuncture between the claims of legitimacy and the validity or actual empirical facts of that order. Embedded in legitimacy claims, therefore, is a truth claim, which, once challenged, undermines the deference legitimacy otherwise secures. In his analysis of types of social orders and legitimations, Weber described a historical development from traditional to increasingly rational systems, punctuated by charismatic eruptions. The systemic rationalization of advanced capitalism and loss of tradition and magic would lead, he suggested, to pervasive disenchantment. Rationality would undermine its own legitimating capacity by its unceasing inquiry, continually eroding the grounds of social construction and thus eroding the possibilities of legitimating narratives capable of commanding unquestioned deference and obedience. SUSAN SILBEY legitimation crisis – see legitimacy. leisure The term derives from the Latin word licere, meaning “to be allowed.” The concept was undertheorized in classical sociology, yet, arguably, it constituted a meta-theme in much progressive and revisionist thought of the time. For example, the Enlightenment looked forward to the leisure society in which individuals would have the freedom at their disposal to explore and cultivate their diverse interests. Karl Marx regarded leisure under capitalism to be constrained by class exploitation, commodification, and alienation. His theory of communist society envisaged the expansion of leisure and the development of social leisure capital. Max Weber’s sociology implied that leisure was subject to the rationalization process and the bureaucratization of society. Ferdinand Tönnies’s distinction between Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft carried with it a critique of work-centered existence and, in as much as this is true, connoted leisure with social well-being. However, most classical sociologists followed Émile Durkheim in regarding leisure as belonging to “the less serious side of life.” The exception was Thorstein Veblen, whose Theory of the Leisure Class (1899) is of axial importance in the emergence of the sociology of leisure. Veblen defined leisure as “the non-productive consumption of time.” He argued that leisure in industrial society is bound up with the allocation of social distinction, which, in turn, reflects social hierarchy. Industrial society is dominated by a leisure class of propertied citizens, who devote themselves to nonpecuniary labor. By engaging in the equestrian arts, cultivating etiquette, learning dead languages such as Latin or Greek, and other non-pecuniary work, the leisure class articulate their exemption from the need to engage in wage-labor. Distinction in leisure forms and practice is further expressed through “conspicuous consumption,” that is, lavish expenditure on fashion, entertaining, and other forms of social display. Veblen predicted that the development of industrial society would intensify conspicuous consumption and erode the work ethic. Sociological interest in leisure expanded in the postwar period. It was first organized around industrial sociology in the 1950s which held that the a priori of leisure was held to be wage-labor. A variety of studies examined the work–leisure relationship and developed compartmentalized/segregated and spillover/extension models of leisure. They also produced a meliorist strain in the study of leisure that essentialized leisure as holding the characteristics of freedom, choice, and self-determination, and related leisure practice narrowly with life fulfillment and social integration. By the 1960s, the coming of the leisure society was a central element in postindustrial society theory. It was assumed that science and technology were on the verge of solving the problems of want and the requirement to spend a large percentage of adult life in paid employment. Leisure Society was presented as a pluralist democracy in which the requirement to work would be minimized and a corresponding efflorescence of the arts, sport, and social capital would ensue. This approach is now regarded as unrealistic and inadequate in its treatment of power and justice. leisure Questions relating to the relationships between leisure and identity and between leisure and citizenship were peculiarly neglected until the 1970s. Interactionist approaches developed a perspective that stressed the situated character of leisure action and explored choice in relation to a variety of social, economic, and cultural constraints. However, the main units of analysis were the individual and the group, and this led to criticisms that the approach could not deal satisfactorily with structural influences of social class, gender, and race and ethnicity. The Marxist tradition revitalized the Frankfurt School perspective that proposed that leisure is a fundamental means of social control. The distribution of free time was directly related to class, and the proposition that leisure is free time for the expression of individual choice was challenged by emphasizing the preeminence of commodification and corporate domination in consumer culture. Leisure forms and practice were analyzed in relation to their ideological functions. The contribution of the Birmingham Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies led to leisure being directly related to hegemony. Leisure forms and practice were studied as contested social processes. At the same time, feminism castigated “malestream” dominance in the allocation of leisure time and the organization of leisure studies. Feminists related leisure to patriarchy and the tendency of commodity culture to fetishize the female body. All of these positions challenged meliorist overtones in the sociology of leisure by emphasizing structural inequalities in access to leisure time and space and by positioning myth and ideology in relation to leisure experience. Recent work in the field has concentrated on questions of embodiment, classification, and globalization. Juliet Schor’s “overwork thesis” raised the profile of the relationship of leisure to embodiment through a critique of the culture of overwork and its consequences for physical and mental health and mortality, such as in her The Overworked American (1991). Overwork was analyzed as a consequence of the general addiction to the acquisitive values of consumer culture. The creation of a revised work–leisure balance is portrayed as the solution to overwork and the ills of the consumer society. Robert Stebbins’s distinction, in Amateurs, Professionals and Serious Leisure (1992), between “serious” and “casual” leisure revitalized the interest in classifying leisure forms and practice. Serious leisure refers to a trajectory of activity based in 333 leisure class Leninism the concept of a career and the progressive improvement of skills. Casual leisure refers to desultory, opportunistic practice which is associated with low attention spans and multi-tasking. Globalization was recognized as a foundational issue in the development of leisure studies in the São Paulo Declaration issued by the World Leisure and Recreation Association in 1998. Citing Article 24 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights which articulated the right to leisure for every member of the world’s community, the Declaration pointed to the need to study the global dimensions of inequality and injustice in leisure forms and practice. One urgent research issue here is the dynamics of sourcing leisure commodities for retail by western leisure multinationals from low-wage developing economies. CHRIS ROJEK leisure class – see leisure. leisure society – see leisure. Lemert, Edwin M. (1912– ) An American sociologist, Lemert has been influential in the development of a social-psychological level of analysis in relation to the onset of delinquency and crime. His particular contribution has been to refine labeling theory. According to Lemert, in order to describe the process of labeling, it is important to distinguish between primary deviation and secondary deviation. Primary deviation refers to the initial deviant action or behavior. Lemert acknowledged the very wide range of reasons for this: social, cultural, and psychological reasons. More particularly, he acknowledged that many people do engage in deviant or delinquent behaviors (underage drinking, smoking cannabis or petty shoplifting) and that for the most part engagement in activities does not lead to a psychological reorientation in terms of self-identity (that is, individuals do not immediately see themselves as a drunk, a pothead, or a thief). There is no fundamental change in identity. Secondary deviation relates to the official or social reaction to the primary deviant behavior which involves the labeling of the individual (as a “young offender” or as a “criminal,” for instance). Lemert’s thesis was that individuals so labeled would begin to engage in deviant behavior 334 based upon the new social status of “young offender” or “criminal” conferred on them by the criminal justice system. Through formal namecalling, stereotyping, and labeling, a deviant identity is confirmed. Lemert’s subsequent assertion that social control causes deviance not only provided impetus for the development of a radical and critical criminology that has flourished since the 1960s, but fueled the abolitionist movement. The “naming and shaming” tactics so favored by politicians in the United Kingdom may thus have unintended adverse consequences. LORAINE GELSTHORPE Lenin, Vladimir Ilich (1870–1924) Famous for his leadership of the Russian Revolution, and for his theory of the party and imperialism, Lenin was born in Simbirsk, Russia. He was expelled from the University of Kazan in 1887 for political involvement, and, after being sentenced to three years of internal exile, he wrote The Development of Capitalism in Russia (1899). In 1900 he became involved with Iskra, the official paper of the Social Democratic Labor Party, and two years later Lenin presented the case for a party of professional revolutionaries in What Is To Be Done? (1902). He returned to Russia during the abortive 1905 revolution. In 1917 (in Switzerland), he published Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism. When the tsar abdicated in March, 1917, Lenin argued the case for a socialist revolution in his April Theses. This was successfully engineered in October. Lenin became head of the Soviet Council of Peoples’ Commissars, and land was distributed to peasants, banks were nationalized, and workers’ control of factory production introduced. An assembly, elected to draw up a new constitution, had a socialist but not Bolshevik majority. It was closed down and other political parties were banned, and, although the Bolsheviks won the civil war, they were faced with an uprising at Kronstadt. Lenin then introduced the New Economic Policy that allowed some market trading and denationalization. His health declined after an attempt was made on his life. Three days after dictating a “will and testament,” in which he called for the removal of Joseph Stalin (1879–1953) from the post of General Secretary of the Communist Party, he died in 1924. JOHN HOFFMAN Leninism – see Vladimir Ilich Lenin. Lenski, Gerhard (1924– ) Lenski, Gerhard (1924– ) An American sociologist, Lenski contributed significantly to the study of inequality, social change, and religion. In The Religious Factor (1981) he made an importart contribution to the development of the sociology of religion in the United States. He is best known for his attempt at synthesizing the functional and conflict explanations of social hierarchy through broad historical comparisons, and for his contribution to the theory of status crystallization (see social status). In Power and Privilege (1966) and Human Societies (1982) Lenski outlined an ecological–evolutionary social theory. All desirable resources, including food, money, prestige, and power, are scarce, and therefore obtained through competitive struggles by the best-endowed individuals and groups. This competitive struggle is reduced owing to routinization of unequal distribution systems. Such systems, legitimized by custom and tradition, reflect the operation of two parallel “laws.” The “law of needs” reflects largely the functional needs of society, such as survival and maintenance of the productive efficiencies of all social groups, including the lower strata. The “law of power” applies mainly to the distribution of “surpluses,” that is resources exceeding basic functional needs. The surpluses are distributed proportionately to differential power, and therefore are concentrated in elites and privileged classes. The implication of this argument is that the less technologically advanced societies have more egalitarian–functional distribution systems, and that social hierarchies become steeper with the advancement of technology and surplus production. This regularity, argues Lenski, does not apply to modern industrial societies owing to enhanced productivity, increasing legal regulation, and democratic ideology. The rule of law changes the power balances in modern societies to the advantage of the lower strata by increasing their bargaining power and widening their access to welfare. Therefore social stratification in advanced societies is multidimensional and complex, and power hierarchies are JAN PAKULSKI open. lesbian feminism In the early 1970s, in the period of feminism usually described as “second-wave feminism,” a number of feminists argued that the only way to end the oppression of women was for women to identify themselves as lesbians. Any other form of sexual identity was, for many writers, merely a way of prolonging sexual inequality and abandoning the possibilities of female autonomy Lesbian Studies and emancipation. Prominent among the writers who suggested this was Jill Johnston, who published two collections of essays (Marmalade Me, 1971, and Lesbian Nation, 1973). In both collections (drawn from essays which Johnston had written for New York’s The Village Voice) liberal feminism, or any feminism which accepted heterosexuality, was seen as merely an extension of patriarchy by other means. Johnston’s vivid prose was very influential at the time and her work contributed considerably to the ideas of her contemporaries Kate Millett, Andrea Dworkin, and Adrienne Rich. All these writers were to follow Johnston in her analysis of heterosexuality as “compulsory” (as it was to be described by Adrienne Rich) or inherently based on male violence towards women (as Dworkin was to argue). The influence of these writers has been considerable, but two other forms of lesbian feminism have been equally important. The first is the integration of the idea of the strength of relationships between women (sexually active or not) into academic literature: Terry Castle in The Apparitional Lesbian (1993) and Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick in Epistemology of the Closet (1991) are two examples of writers who have pointed out the hidden tradition of relationships between women in literature. The second is the considerable strength of the tradition of lesbian feminism which has been influential in campaigns about violence against women and legislation about marriage. In both cases lesbian feminists have pointed out – as have some French feminists – the importance of women, rather than men, defining female sexuality. MARY EVANS Lesbian Studies Like gay studies, this is a product of the identity politics of the 1960s and is closely associated with lesbian feminism, which argued that women could still be marginalized and silenced even within the women’s movement. Radical lesbian activists argued that the interests of women were not best served without the rejection of female heterosexuality, and hence lesbian studies is not identical with women’s studies. In the United States the National Organization of Women adopted a resolution in 1971 that supported lesbians. In 1991 the Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies was founded in the Graduate Center of the City University of New York. A non-profit organization, the Lesbian Studies Institute was formed in 1995. The first National Lesbian Conference in the United Kingdom took place in Canterbury in 1974 and a Coordinating Committee was established in 335 Lesbian Studies 1975. In the 1970s therefore lesbian communities sprang up and were influenced by “second-wave feminism” viewing lesbianism as an expression of alternative values such as co-operation, a caring ethic, and egalitarianism. Lesbianism rejected the competitive and aggressive culture associated with masculinity and patriarchy. Lesbians came to reject the heterosexuality of traditional female social roles embracing androgynous styles such as Tshirts and blue jeans, and rejecting bras, lipstick, and jewelry. In Sex and Sensibility (1997) Arlene Stein has examined how lesbian identities were constructed in the 1970s, but by the 1990s a narrow lesbian identity had become much more diverse, fragmented, and complex. Many black women felt excluded by the primarily middle-class, white lesbianism of the 1970s. There was also a tendency to reject lesbianism as a political category in order to explore sexual desire within a lesbian framework. Lillian Faderman in Odd Girls and Twilight Lovers (1991) describes the diverse subcultures of the lesbian movement, such as “lipstick lesbians,” “punk lesbians” and “s&m lesbians.” The lesbian community is also fragmented around generational differences. Older lesbian women, like older gay men, face special difficulties since they have spent much of their lives hiding their sexuality prior to the lesbian social movements of the 1970s. Several academic journals now publish research on lesbian life and culture. The Journal of Lesbian Studies examines the cultural, historical, and interpersonal impact of the lesbian experience on society. Another journal is GLQ – a journal of lesbian and gay studies (launched in 1994). Hypatia and Lesbian Ethics deal with philosophical and ethical issues. Handbook of Lesbian & Gay Studies (2002), edited by Diane Richardson and Steven Seidman, provides a rich guide to this diverse field of social science research. Research related to lesbianism is organized and promoted by the National Consortium of Directors of Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transsexual Resources in Higher Education in the United States. Lesbian Studies faces the same dilemma as gay studies. There is a need to criticize mainstream social science literature for its neglect of gay and lesbian cultures, but there is also the problem of the academic co-option of lesbian politics and identity. Despite the proliferation of books about lesbian and gay studies, relatively little is known empirically about how gay and lesbian people organize their daily lives, including their sexual practices. While the sociology of sex is underdeveloped, historical, philosophical, and literary studies of 336 Lévi-Strauss, Claude (1908– ) sexuality experienced a vigorous growth in the late twentieth century. BRYAN S. TURNER Lévi-Strauss, Claude (1908– ) The leading French anthropologist of the second half of the twentieth century, Lévi-Strauss has had a discernible impact on thinkers as diverse as Simone de Beauvoir, Fernand Braudel (1902–85), Mary Douglas, and Jacques Derrida (1930–2004). In the first of some dozen major works, The Elementary Structures of Kinship (1949 [trans. 1969]), he demonstrates that unilineal kinship systems prescribing the marriage of cousins are logically equivalent to systems of reciprocal exchange. Against the consensus at the time, he argues that the incest prohibition is not merely the first of all cultural rules but also a prescription in negative form to marry outside the family; hence, kinship systems generally should be understood first as systems of alliance and only derivatively as systems of descent. He is most widely known as part-founder, and the leading exponent, of structuralism. For Lévi-Strauss, function rarely if ever exhaustively determines structure. Structure properly speaking is the property of logical models of a finite number of elements, each of which stands in a fully determinate relationship to every other. Those of proper interest to the anthropologist are generative of meaning. None is more instructive than the linguistic model of the phonemic system, a matrix of binarily opposed phonic qualities specific to each language that in their several permutations yield the minimal functional building blocks of words and sentences. In The Savage Mind (1962 [trans. 1966]), Lévi-Strauss accordingly offers a portrait of the primitive bricoleur or “tinkerer” whose habits of mind tend spontaneously towards the ordering of the finite data of sensory experience into a closed, atemporal totality of analogical pairings of the elements of two fundamental, binarily opposed series, one natural and the other cultural. In the four magisterial volumes of The Mythologiques (1964 [trans. 1969], 1966 [trans. 1971], 1968 [trans. 1978], 1971 [trans. 1981]), he presumes that the same habits of mind and the same binary opposition between nature and culture underlie the genesis of myth. He replaces the model of the source-text and its diffusion with that of the version and its permutations; he rejects psychoanalytic, cosmogonic, and all substantialist interpretations of mythological symbolism and defends instead the thesis that mythology is a recoding of ordinary language, the meaning of whose elements is determined exclusively by the relations they bear to liberalism other elements of the same recoding. Because myths resolve and so mask at the symbolic level metaphysical and social problems that cannot be resolved in fact, they function “ideologically” in the Marxist sense of that term. Lévi-Strauss indeed pronounces his anthropology a contribution both to the science of superstructures and to theoretical psychology. Critics such as Pierre Bourdieu thus object to his relative neglect of human interaction. Others object to his formalistic and speculative excesses. Still other criticisms such as poststructuralism reject in principle his attempt to accord theoretical primacy to structure over history and the event. JAMES D. FAUBION liberalism Liberalism is essentially a modern outlook, although aspects of liberalism can be found among the Sophists of ancient Greece with their argument that the state is not natural, but conventional. Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) was one of the earliest liberals in Britain, and what makes Hobbes a liberal is the abstract individual premises underpinning his argument for a strong sovereign state. Classical liberalism, until the late eighteenth century, subscribed to a state-of-nature thesis, in which humans were seen as naturally equal, living outside both state and society, and consenting to form the latter through a social contract. It is the universality of this freedom and equality that makes liberalism so subversive historically. All individuals are in theory free and equal, so that liberalism refuses to accept that repressive hierarchies are natural. Hobbes is quintessentially liberal in his argument that people, by nature, seek to govern themselves: they have inalienable rights. Although Hobbes supported the conservative side during the English Civil War, it was the liberal premises of his argument that accounted for the reservations felt towards him by the royalists. Much more conventionally liberal is the work of John Locke (1632–1704). Locke makes the case for a constitutionally governed state. Whereas both he and Hobbes saw the state as authorized through consent and contract, Locke limits the prerogatives of the state to a defense of private property and allows radically dissatisfied citizens the right to overthrow an oppressive state. While the classical liberals argued that the state is conventional and artificial, they all take the view that the state is necessary, because, for one reason or another, a state of nature cannot be sustained. Even Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–78), who argues that the individual is reconstituted by the social liberalism contract, states that individuals have a freedom that is natural and inalienable. For this reason, he too is a liberal, even though his critics fear that a “legitimate” state, governed by the general will, might exercise extensive powers in making people “free.” Towards the end of the eighteenth century, liberals came to reject the notion of the state of nature. They accepted that individuals have always lived in a society, and the idea that the state is the creation of a social contract was seen as implausible. Nevertheless, liberals continued to operate with a notion of the individual that abstracts him or her (it is usually a him) from social relationships. Rousseau is unashamedly patriarchal in his assumption that the citizen must be a man (and much else besides), and this led Mary Wollstonecraft (1759–97) to complain bitterly that Rousseau’s support for autonomy and freedom did not apply to women. While the utilitarians may have rejected the notion of “natural rights,” they too accepted that individuals should be conceived as separate, atomistic beings whose freedom can be expressed in a purely abstract way. Society remains external to the individual, even when liberals speak of the social nature of humanity. It is the abstraction of individuals from social relationships that make them what they are, that accounts for the necessary tension between the universal theory preached by liberals and the reality of their actual practice. Liberals historically supported slavery (a property right, after all), elitism, patriarchy, colonialism, and the political power of the middle classes, and it is only in the twentieth century that liberals have supported the case for democratic rule. The key to understanding this apparent paradox is the liberal view that the market is natural and the desire to appropriate private property is linked to human nature. By property is meant not simply possessions, but possessions that can generate sufficient income to sustain people independently. It is because individuals naturally appropriate property privately that men are favored over women; the family is seen as a mechanism for transferring property from father to son; rationality is identified with appropriation; the propertyless are excluded from the franchise; “lesser” people are colonized by the “civilized”; and, given the conflicts that the private ownership of property generates, liberals support the case for the state. It is revealing that John Stuart Mill could argue in his famous On Liberty (1859) that not only is force necessary when individuals 337 life chances life-course harm society, but certain individuals (like Native Americans, for example) are not “ready” for selfgovernment and must be ruled by others. Just how freedom and the state are to be reconciled remains an insoluble problem for liberals, since freedom is (rightly) deemed the absence of force, and yet the state, though artificial in most liberal accounts, is seen as necessary. Critics of liberalism argue that its notion of freedom allows for license and even self-destruction, but we should not take abstract premises of liberal concepts at face value. They are tied to the notion of private property, and therefore the exercise of liberal values is linked to this institution. It is not surprising that liberalism has unwittingly generated a whole range of ideologies that seek to bring liberal theory into accord with social practice. Anarchists argue that the state is a barrier to freedom; socialists, that freedom and equality must be social as well as political and legal. Feminists protest that individuality, if it is to be universal, must apply to women as well as men, while environmentalists and animal rights supporters contend that egalitarian attitudes need to extend well beyond humanity. Modern liberals have extended the notion of freedom into social spheres so that in Britain, for example, the architect of the welfare state was a liberal. Nor do modern liberals see the market as an autonomous, self-regulating entity, but make the case – John Maynard Keynes was another great British liberal – for intervention by the state, and the role of collective institutions such as trade unions and cooperatives, to secure social justice. Social liberals can be quite close to socialists, but arguably social liberals seek to make a capitalist society fair and humane, rather than transform it. The notion of the individual seeking to realize their freedom through the acquisition of private property remains at the heart of the theory. JOHN HOFFMAN life chances This notion refers to the access that an individual has to valued social and economic goods such as education, health care, or high income. For Karl Marx, life chances were determined by social class position, with members of the working classes having structurally determined poorer life chances than those in the ruling class. Max Weber agreed with Marx that the individual’s relationship to the means of production were an important determinant of life chances. However, he argued that there were other sources of power that could also determine them. In particular he 338 referred to the formation of status groups. Highsocial-status groups are accorded honor and esteem and have a lifestyle, based on consumption rather than production, which gives them a privileged position in society, independently of their economic position. While economically dominant classes will successfully consolidate themselves as high-status groups, Weber argued that this was not always the case. For example, some economically successful groups, such as the nouveaux riches, still find themselves excluded from the higher reaches of society. Alternatively, impoverished aristocrats in European societies are accorded high social status and esteem, allowing them to benefit from their access to the economically successful. Weber’s fundamental point in developing the concept of life chances and status groups was to balance Marx’s economic determinism with an account of social life that emphasized that it was the meaning individuals gave to their life experiences that shaped their formation into communities. KEVIN WHITE life-course Although the life-cycle follows a linear biological trajectory from birth to death, sociologists and gerontologists emphasize the role of historical, social, and cultural context in aging and in shaping trajectories of individual development. Indebted to the insight of the German sociologist, Karl Mannheim, who argued in Ideology and Utopia (1936) that different social and historical settings produce different perspectives, life-course researchers investigate how the timing of sociobiographical events, such as graduation or marriage, at a particular age interfaces with specific historical or generational events and the social context in which they are experienced (for example, G. Elder, “The Life Course as Developmental Theory,” 1998, Child Development). They examine how variation in, among other contextual characteristics, family structure and background, gender, race, religion, occupation, and social class differentially impact how aging and life-course transitions (for example, adolescence, getting a first job, parenthood, retirement, or chronic illness) are negotiated. Life-course researchers pay attention to how the contextual specificity of, for example, being a college-age student rather than a preteen or the middle-aged parent of a college-age student in the 1990s will lead to different constellations of experiences that in turn may differentiate the subsequent demographic and other life-course events of these different individuals (and their age peers). The biggest challenge confronting studies of the life-course is life-cycle lifeworld disentangling the discrete effects of, and interactions between, age, cohort, and historical period on life-course patterns. Longitudinal studies that follow the same individuals from multiple cohorts and across time allow researchers to identify what trajectories may be specific to a particular cohort growing up in particular sociohistorical context and what may be generalizable primarily to age or to a particular life-course transition or event. MICHELE DILLON life-cycle – see life-course. life expectancy – see age. lifestyle This refers to relatively distinctive patterns of action and culture that differentiate people. In this respect, the study of lifestyles is less concerned with individual idiosyncrasy than with expressive modes of behavior that forge collective patterns of living. Many sociologists have utilized lifestyle rather than other terms like subculture as it does not necessarily imply a deviant relationship to the dominant culture. Instead the study of lifestyle is employed to emphasize distinctions at the level of practice within wider frameworks of culture and power. In particular, many sociologists following Pierre Bourdieu in Distinction (1979 [trans. 1984]) sought to emphasize how, in modern class-based societies, lifestyles serve to distinguish some groups from others as well as providing the conditions for in-group solidarity. Hence some lifestyles are able to gain a wider social legitimacy at the expense of other ways of life. In this sense, lifestyle is closely connected to the unequal distribution of symbolic resources and power in society. Further, having a lifestyle depends upon certain cultural markers and the ability to establish boundaries on the basis of taste. However, the cultural codes that serve to legitimize some lifestyle groupings are not fixed and are the subject of intense contestation and cultural change. More recently, following the work of Anthony Giddens in Modernity and Self-Identity (1991), there has been a trend to view lifestyle as a reflexive product and to argue that it has certain political connotations that are not limited solely to the competition over social status. Lifestyles in this understanding are still concerned with wider questions of social legitimacy, but become increasingly focused on “how we should live” in a global world. NICK STEVENSON lifeworld This refers to the taken-for-granted world of our experience. It is our “common sense,” our everyday attitude about ourselves, others, and the objective world. It is shaped by shared meanings, symbols, and language. The philosopher Edmund Husserl (1859–1938) developed the idea of the lifeworld in The Crisis of the European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology (1936 [trans. 1970]). He founded the philosophy of phenomenology, which investigates the rules of consciousness which structure experience, the ways in which we organize our reality so that it appears to us as integrated and authentic. For Husserl, the lifeworld supplies the underlying cultural harmony and the rules that govern our beliefs about what is real and normal. The lifeworld also provides the background for science, which extends taken-for-granted beliefs in a systematic manner. Yet Husserl did not explore the social and cultural dimensions of the common lifeworld experience in depth, as he was interested in formal philosophical issues. Alfred Schutz developed a sociology of the lifeworld and a social phenomenology. For Schutz, the lifeworld is a shared, common world of culture. Our lifeworld beliefs are based on typifications, the assumptions and taken-for-granted knowledge through which people interpret and classify one another in everyday life. Individuals draw on their life experience, their biographies, to understand one another. Social scientific research confronts a lifeworld rich in meanings and interpretations. For Schutz, the categories of science derive from the lifeworld. The ideal types, the most general ideas about the social world which social scientists utilize, are based on everyday typifications. All knowledge begins from commonsense and cannot be separated from the social context in which it emerges. Schutz argues that a satisfactory social science must begin with an understanding of the subjective world of its subjects; it must study their lifeworld. The idea of the lifeworld has influenced many sociological perspectives. Harold Garfinkel, the founder of ethnomethodology, explores the activities and performances by which people construct a taken-for-granted lifeworld. Other authors have taken the lifeworld concept in different directions. Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann, in The Social Construction of Reality (1967), argue that we inhabit multiple lifeworlds. Moreover, people with social power can impose their definition of reality on others. 339 liminality The contemporary German sociologist and philosopher Jürgen Habermas has also utilized the concept of the lifeworld. Habermas distinguishes between the “system” and the lifeworld. The system is the economic and bureaucratic spheres of social life, ruled by the criteria of efficiency and calculability. The lifeworld is the arena of family and voluntary associations outside these bureaucratic institutions. It is a realm of background, intuitive beliefs from which people draw the knowledge that they use to reach mutual understanding. The lifeworld is oriented towards unconstrained communication and the development of shared values. Habermas argues that the system has begun to “colonize” the lifeworld, as corporations increasingly shape everyday life, and consumerism and mass media influence social interactions. He fears that more and more aspects of the lifeworld are controlled by the system criteria of money and efficiency. KENNETH H. TUCKER liminality – see religion. linguistic turn This is a description of the revolutionary movement in twentieth-century western philosophy, popularized by the American philosopher Richard Rorty who edited a book with the same title, and embodying the view that philosophical analysis is vitiated by unexamined uses of ordinary language. Reformers (such as Moritz Schlick, Rudolf Carnap, and the early Ludwig Wittgenstein) aimed to construct the basis for an ideal language whose undefined descriptive terms would refer to objects that are directly known, while ordinary language philosophers (John Austin, the later Wittgenstein, and others) maintained that language requires detailed analysis so that the ordinary connotations of linguistic expressions do not become unexamined contaminants of philosophical investigation. The failure of the reformers’ program, most forcefully articulated in Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations (1953), opened the way to widespread recognition of the extent to which language and symbolic systems are intricated in every form of social analysis. In the Anglophone social sciences, this movement issued in the Austin/Searle theory of speech acts which formed the basis of Jürgen Habermas’s theory of communicative competence, and in ethnomethodology, conversational analysis, and a focus on the significance of discourse and narrative in social organization. In European social theory, it 340 Lockwood, David (1929– ) powered an assault on phenomenology that emerged in the structuralism of Claude Lévi-Strauss and the poststructuralism of Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, and others. The methodological questions raised by the linguistic turn remain largely unresolved, though the structuring of subjectivity and social relations by linguistic and symbol systems that are themselves open and revisable is a common theme in most forms of social science influenced by it. JOHN HERITAGE Lipset, Seymour Martin (1922– ) A leading American sociologist, a past professor at Harvard and Stanford, and former President of both the American Sociological Association and the American Political Science Association, Lipset is the author and co-author of over two dozen books, including Agrarian Socialism (1950), Union Democracy (1956), Social Mobility in Industrial Society (1959), Political Man (1960), The First New Nation (1963), Revolution and Counter-Revolution (1969), The Politics of Unreason (1971), Consensus and Conflict (1985), Continental Divide (1990), Jews in the New American Scene (1995), American Exceptionalism (1996), It Didn’t Happen Here (2001), and The Paradox of American Unionism (2004). These writings cover a broad range of topics. Perhaps best known are Lipset’s contributions to political sociology, such as the theories of democracy (especially industrial democracy) and authoritarianism, social stratification and mobility, revolution, nation formation, and the trade union movement. According to the original scheme formulated by Lipset and Stein Rokkan in their Party Systems and Voter Alignments (1967), the major social and political cleavages in modern societies – left versus right, urban–industrial versus rural–agricultural, religious versus secular, and national versus local – were formed during a series of revolutions – industrial, national, and political – between the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. These cleavages gave rise to stable party-ideological divisions common to all modern western societies. Together with other students of social mobility, Lipset also formulated a thesis that the absolute rates of social fluidity increase with industrial modernization, and he helped to demolish some myths concerning the unique social openness of the American society. The Encyclopedia of Democracy edited by Lipset (1998) remains the key source in political sociology. JAN PAKULSKI Lockwood, David (1929– ) A British sociologist best known for his contributions to sociology of social class, occupational stratification, and social conflict, in his study The log linear analyses lone-parent family Blackcoated Worker (1958) Lockwood argued that the clerical occupational strata in Britain were losing social status but maintaining social distinctiveness vis-à-vis skilled manual workers. This was followed by a classic study in England, The Affluent Worker (1969), in which Lockwood participated as a senior researcher. It confirmed an internal differentiation within the British working class, and identified a new segment of privatized, home- and family-centered manual workers, who displayed an instrumental orientation towards work and weak communal ties. In his early work on social conflict and change, Lockwood made an important distinction between social and system integration. The former concerned the relationship between social collectivities (classes, strata, and ethno-racial groups); the latter referred to the relationship between the elements of the social system, that is institutions and their clusters, such as the law, the family, and the economy. Lockwood’s latest theoretical work, especially Solidarity and Schism (1992), focuses on the deficiencies of the Marxist theory of change, and the Durkheimian and Parsonian integrative functionalism, especially the functionalist account of social conflict. While Marxism needs a more explicit theory of action, the functionalist account, argues Lockwood, needs a supplement on the sources of the “systematic distribution and redistribution of material resources” (1992: 97). Popular images and classifications that underlie class and status–occupational divisions have to be causally linked with the actual patterns of resource distribution in society. Norms and perceptions perpetuate social order but do not explain it. JAN PAKULSKI log linear analyses These are a form of multivariate analysis particularly suited to categorical variables. Unlike true measures, such as life expectancy or income, many sociological variables are naturally categorical, such as gender, ethnic group, or economic status (employed, unemployed, full-time carer, student, or retired). For bivariate analyses, the relationship between two categorical variables can be examined by looking at a cross-tabulation of the two variables and calculating the appropriate row or column percentages. However, for more complex problems (for example, to examine the different patterns of economic status in men and women in different immigrant groups) more advanced analyses are necessary to explore the relationships and interactions between variables. Log linear analyses are a class of statistics that can analyze such multi-dimensional tables. One particular type of log linear analysis, logistic regression, is used more than any other in sociology. This can be seen as a direct equivalent of multiple regression, but with a dichotomous dependent variable, instead of a continuous dependent variable. Log linear analyses are a relatively new innovation in sociological statistics. Whereas other statistical techniques were developed at the start of the twentieth century, log linear analyses have only entered common usage since the 1980s. Although functionally similar to regression techniques, log linear analyses are based on more advanced mathematics than correlations or linear regressions. BRENDAN J. BURCHELL logical positivism – see positivism. lone-parent family The terminology used to depict parents (typically mothers) who have borne or who raise children outside marriage has changed considerably since 1900. This shifting terminology reflects changing social attitudes and is a kind of cultural barometer of the acceptance of alternative family forms in Western societies. One longstanding term was “the unmarried mother,” and her child might have been referred to as a “bastard” or, more recently, as illegitimate. This terminology did not depict the mother and child as constituting a family at all, because a socially acceptable family required both a husband and a marriage certificate. From “unmarried mother” the terminology changed to “single-parent” family. This reflected the recognition that fathers too could raise children alone, as well as acknowledging that parents and children living in a household together were, in fact, a family. The subsequent shift to the terminology of “lone-parent family” was an acknowledgment that the most common route into this form of parenthood was divorce rather than nonmarital conception. This means that the status of lone-parent family in the United Kingdom and the United States today is reached through marital breakdown, rather than through contraceptive failure; it also means that lone parents are now much less likely to be teenage (or young) mothers than in the 1950s or 1960s (Kiernan et al., Lone Motherhood in Twentieth-Century Britain, 1999). To complicate this picture further, it is now recognized that many unmarried mothers are not really lone parents at all. They may be unmarried, 341 longitudinal study Luckmann, Thomas (1927– ) but they are often living with a partner in a cohabiting relationship. This shifting terminology may reflect a changing moral climate and a greater degree of acceptance that families come in a variety of shapes and sizes, but lone-parent families remain a particular concern for social policy and governments. Lone-parent families are much more likely to live in poverty than two-parent families, which means, in turn, that their children are more likely to face material hardship than children born and raised in two-parent households (K. Glendinning and J. Millar, Women and Poverty in Britain, 1992). So although moral condemnation may have waned, lone parents are often still depicted as “problem families.” Of course this definition relates to whether the poverty that lone-parent families face is seen as being a consequence of their “choice” to leave marriage or never to marry (that is fecklessness) in which case they are problem families, or whether it is seen as being a consequence of the difficulty for mothers of going out to work while raising children alone, combined with inadequate rates of state benefits, in which case they are families with problems. Right-wing commentators have raised fears that an underclass is developing, with mothers raising sons without discipline or work ethic and daughters without sexual morals (Karen Struening, New Family Values, 2002). Others, who are more left-leaning, point instead to Nordic societies where lone parenthood is much less likely to be associated with poverty and disadvantage because of the state provision of child-care, family-friendly work policies, and higher rates of welfare benefits for those who cannot work. The status and material well-being of lone-parent families (particularly those headed by mothers) is therefore highly dependent on state policies and the extent to which governments wish to discourage lone parenthood in preference for married parenthood (J. Millar and K. Rowlingson, Lone Parents, Employment and Social Policy: Crossnational Comparisons, 2001). CAROL SMART descriptors entail the use of summary descriptions based closely on participants’ accounts, and the use of field notes. A commonly used low-inference descriptor is verbatim quotation. There are, however, a number of potential problems with the use of low-inference descriptors as a strategy for ensuring a study’s validity. Researchers are divided as to the relative merits of descriptive summary and isolated verbatim quotation versus the use of detailed transcripts and conversational- or discourse-analytic commentary. In Discourse Analysis Means Doing Analysis (2003), Charles Antaki et al. identify six possible analytic shortcomings for qualitative researchers working with discursive data. These are: (1) under-analysis through summary; (2) under-analysis through taking sides; (3) under-analysis through overquotation or through isolated quotation; (4) the circular identification of discourses and mental constructs; (5) false survey; and (6) analysis that consists of simply spotting features. As Harvey Sacks noted, we make inferences by a deceptively simple activity: that of giving a description. Herein lies a potential concern for qualitative researchers. By giving a description of a description, one can, at best, lose vital information, through eliding the detail and conversational nuances of the original. Low-inference descriptors, such as summary paraphrasing may, on close inspection, themselves be replete with (high-inference) descriptive psychological language – imputed motives, beliefs, emotions, and so on. This may be problematic in that the interactional details of participants’ own accounts of psychological matters may be obscured. Further, the use of transcribed verbatim quotes, though laudable, and a necessary precursor to analysis, does not, in and of itself, constitute analysis as such. Indeed, the extraction of participants’ utterances from their original conversational context may actually prohibit some variants of discourse analysis (including conversational analysis). longitudinal study Luckmann, Thomas (1927– ) – see panel study. Born in Germany, Luckmann is a sociology professor at the University of Konstanz. Influenced by Alfred Schutz, he played a significant role in making phenomenology more accessible to sociologists through The Social Construction of Reality (co-authored with Peter L. Berger, 1966) and Phenomenology and Sociology (1978). Luckmann sought to bridge the increased differentiation of disciplines, itself the product of modernity and of the secularization of social theory from the looking-glass self – see Charles Horton Cooley. low-inference descriptors These descriptors are one of a range of strategies used to promote the validity of qualitative research. Other strategies include triangulation, deviant case analysis, and reflexivity. Specifically, low-inference 342 MARK RAPLEY AND SUSAN HANSEN Luhmann, Niklas, (1927–1998) control of religious interpretations. He was especially interested in reintegrating sociology’s philosophical foundations with the positivism of social science. Luckmann’s various writings emphasize the centrality of human experience in everyday life and the lived, reflexive intersubjectivity of everyday communication (thus influencing Jürgen Habermas’s theory of communicative action). Extending his modernity/secularization thesis to religion, Luckmann argued that religion would become deinstitutionalized and lose its functional monopolization of social life as a result of the increased differentiation of society. In The Invisible Religion: The Transformation of Symbols in Industrial Society (1963 [trans. 1967]), he described how the religious dimensions of human experience would be forced out of the public sphere and into the privatized inner-directed self, thus making for a new individualized religious consciousness. In later work in R. Fenn, Sociology of Religion (2001), Luckmann highlighted how the “moralizing sermon,” that is instruction in what constitutes a good life – assumed to be a staple in shaping worldviews in traditional Christian societies, though it may have declined within the churches – is intrinsic to human life, and thus variants on it have become part of the communicative stock of public discourse in modern society. MICHELE DILLON Luhmann, Niklas, (1927–1998) Making a substantial contribution to the development of social theory, Luhmann studied at Harvard with Talcott Parsons, who influenced his work. His other influences include general system theory, Émile Durkheim’s evolutionary perspective, Arnold Gehlen’s philosophical anthropology, and phenomenology. He was Professor of Sociology at the University of Bielefeld. Luhmann developed a system theoretical approach to society, which in many respects was at loggerheads with the critical theory of Jürgen Habermas. This led to heated intellectual exchanges between Luhmann and Habermas. Luhmann’s later work was heavily influenced by Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela’s notions of autopoiesis, and he began treating society as a self-organizing system. Especially influential among his works are Social Systems (1985 [trans. 1995]) and Essays on Self-Reference (1990). In Luhmann’s theory, systems can range from the physiological to the social. Systems always operate within an environment and have to reduce its complexity. Complexity depends on the number of actual or possible events; the reduction of complexity refers to the process by which relevant events are selected. In the case of social Lukács, Gyorgy (Georg) (1885–1971) systems, the reduction of complexity is achieved through communication of meaning (Sinn). Central to this process is “double contingency”: the process by which, in interactions, individuals have to take into account the orientation of other individuals towards them. For Luhmann, it follows that a social system is an autopoietic or self-referential system: that is, a system that interprets the environment, potentially undermining its autonomy, so that it reinforces its autonomy. There are three components to any self-referential system: the code, the structure or program, and the process. Codes are binary oppositions through which information is processed (for example, true versus false). Structure refers to the central values, normative regulations, and expectations, and process refers to the ongoing interaction. In self-reproducing systems, the code remains identical. The structure and process can change. Modernity implies more contingency and complexity, so more sophisticated techniques are needed to reduce complexity: for instance, social differentiation and self-reflexive procedures. Differentiation can be either “segmental” (the different parts fulfil the same functions) or “non-segmental” (the different parts fulfil different functions). The non-segmental type can be either “hierarchical” or “functional” (with no hierarchy between the different parts). For reducing complexity, functional differentiation is superior to hierarchical differentiation, which in turn is better than segmental differentiation. Historically, the segmental type comes first and functional differentiation comes last. Examples of self-reflexive procedures are: teaching how to teach, or studying how research is done. They allow for continuous adjustment of the social system to an increasingly unpredictable environment. Luhmann is critical of sociologists who describe differentiation and the shift to modernity in negative terms. Many of them use a premodern logic to describe modernity. Differentiation does not necessary lead to disorder and conflict; it is central to the creation of order and cohesion in modern society. Likewise, it is problematic to talk about contemporary society in terms of alienation or mass culture. Impersonal relations provide us with unprecedented levels of freedom. P A T R I C K B A E R T Lukács, Gyorgy (Georg) (1885–1971) A Marxist philosopher and literary critic, Lukács was born in Budapest, and between 1919 and 1929 he was one of the leaders of the Hungarian Communist movement. He made important contributions to social theory, the study of class 343 Lynd, Robert Staughton (1892–1970) consciousness, and the sociological study of literature. Before World War I he was the intellectual leader of the “Sunday Circle” that included Karl Mannheim, Karl Polyani, Arnold Hauser, and others. In 1918 he joined the Communist Party, and during the Hungarian Commune he was, in 1919, Minister for Education and Culture. In this early stage of his career, he was interested in the historical development of various forms of literature such as the novel, and published Soul and Form (1910 [trans. 1974]), History of the Development of Modern Drama (1911), Aesthetic Culture (1913 [trans. 1963]), and The Theory of the Novel (1920 [trans. 1971]). After the collapse of this revolutionary movement, Lukács spent his exile in Austria, Germany, and Russia, becoming a friend of Georg Simmel, Max Weber, and Ernst Bloch. In the period 1919–29, Lukács wrote several interpretations of Marxist philosophy that had a major influence on European sociology. His work had particular significance for the theory of class consciousness, the sociology of knowledge, and the Frankfurt School. In his History and Class Consciousness (1923 [trans. 1971]), he emphasized the importance of the work of the young Karl Marx on alienation, and noted the role of the reification of beliefs in capitalism. His study of Marx promoted the importance of dialectical thinking and rejected the deterministic and mechanical theories of society promoted by orthodox Marxism, which predicted the inevitable collapse of capitalism through revolutionary struggles. As a result, Lukács had an ambiguous and unstable relationship with the Communist Party. He was criticized by party intellectuals in the 1940s for his views on culture and, in 1956, he was briefly Minister of Culture in Imre Nagy’s government in Hungary, but he was deported to Romania when the government was suppressed. When Lukács withdrew from political life, he turned increasingly to the study of aesthetics and ontology, publishing The Specific Nature of the Aesthetic (1962) and Towards an Ontology of Social Being (1971). He made a major contribution to the sociology of literature in The Historical Novel (1955 [trans. 1962]), Essays on Thomas Mann (1964), and Goethe and his Age (1968), in which he treated the novel as a reflection of the life of the bourgeois class. BRYAN S. TURNER Lynd, Robert Staughton (1892–1970), and Helen Merrell Lynd (1896–1982) Born in Indiana, Robert Lynd received his PhD at Columbia University in 1931. He served on the Columbia faculty from 1931 to 1961. His wife, Helen 344 Lyotard, Jean-François (1924–1998) Merrell Lynd, was born in Illinois, receiving her MA from Columbia in 1922 and her PhD in 1944. She was on the faculty of Sarah Lawrence College from 1928 to 1964. They collaborated on Middletown (1929), and Middletown in Transition (1937), two important studies of changing American values in the face of industrialization. These studies of Muncie, Indiana (under the pseudonym of Middletown), demonstrated the vast changes sweeping the United States through the experiences of a typical Protestant, predominantly white middle-American town. They catalogued the rise of a new culture based on consumerism and competitive individualism which eclipsed more traditional values of thrift, prudence, and public spiritedness. The increasing importance of wealth as a measure of social status was illustrated in the disappearance of a shared sense of community, and its replacement by a class-based hierarchical social structure, in which differences between a business class and the working class became more pronounced. Middletown and Middletown in Transition were the first studies of the corporate, consumer society based on new forms of industrial capital that was arising in the United States in the 1920s. The Lynds demonstrated that the Great Depression of the 1930s only helped to consolidate this new society. Robert Lynd criticized this new culture’s influence on the social sciences in Knowledge for What? (1939). KENNETH H. TUCKER Lyotard, Jean-François (1924–1998) A French philosopher and social thinker, one of the leading exponents of postmodernism in philosophy and social theory, Lyotard is best known to sociologists for his Postmodern Condition (1979 [trans. 1984]), a critical reflection on the state of knowledge in postindustrial society. It contains a radical criticism of the epistemological foundations of scientific knowledge, and a sociological account of commodified knowledge under the impact of new technology and information. Knowledge, according to Lyotard, consists of narratives, that is a mixture of norms, stories, popular wisdoms, fables, and myths. The “postmodern condition” is characterized by increasing public realization that scientific knowledge is no exception: like all social knowledge, it is a type of discourse, a “metanarrative,” or a grand story of a totalizing type. Claims of those who see scientific knowledge as uniquely objective, true, and universal are greeted with incredulity or skepticism. This incredulity extends to all metanarratives, including Marxism (a story of human emancipation) and Lyotard, Jean-François (1924–1998) modern social theory (a story of progress, secularization, and rationalization). Their legitimacy, and their claims to privileged epistemological status, are questioned; and their true nature as language games opens the way for critical revaluation of their substance and social function. Postmodern skepticism permeates popular cultures in contemporary postindustrial or (computerized) societies, Lyotard, Jean-François (1924–1998) in which information and communication technologies undermine the capacity of state elites to control public discourses and legitimize metanarratives. Knowledge turns into a commodity that circulates among increasingly diverse audiences. This increases the diversity of language games and the accompanying pluralism, fragmentation, and eclecticism of knowledge. JAN PAKULSKI 345 M MacIntyre, Alasdair (1929– ) From his early twenties onwards, MacIntyre’s work has been dominated by criticism of moral individualism and moral relativism. The critique of moral individualism led him to sociology, which he taught at the University of Essex in the 1960s. Keen to strengthen a contextual understanding of practical reason in the wake of Ludwig Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations (1953), he has also been concerned to avoid the relativism to which such contextualism led in the work of Peter Winch. Their debate is to be found in Bryan R. Wilson (ed.), Rationality (1970). In After Virtue (1981) and in Whose Justice? Which Rationality? (1988), MacIntyre developed his own position, reconciling contextualism and moral realism on a neo-Aristotelian basis, using an idiosyncratic theory of tradition. MacIntyre denounces the moral emptiness of advanced liberal societies, arguing that their individualism undermines the social practices and communities required for the development of a proper sense of virtue. Turning away from sociology per se, MacIntyre argues that rigorous sociology must engage with moral and political philosophy. His other works include (with Paul Ricoeur) The Religious Significance of Atheism (1966), A Short History of Ethics (1967), Secularization and Moral Change (1967), Marxism and Christianity (1968), Marcuse (1970), and Dependent Rational Animals (1999). É M I L E P E R R E A U - S A U S S I N E macrosociology The sociological study of large processes and social structures, it can be illustrated by such prototypical examples as studies of revolutions (see theory of revolutions), the state, the economy, the social system, and the world-system. Macrosociology is often contrasted with microsociology, which is the sociological study of small-scale phenomena – the prototypical example is the study of face-to-face interaction. In practice the difference between macrosociology and microsociology not only lies in the size of the unit of analysis, but also in their theoretical 346 and epistemological commitments. Macrosociology comprises diverse approaches, including structural functionalism, Marxism, and worldsystems analysis. Nevertheless, it is with comparative-historical sociology that the label macrosociology has come to be principally associated. Characteristic contemporary exponents are Barrington Moore, Reinhard Bendix, Charles Tilly, and Theda Skocpol. With regard to epistemology and methodology, macrosociologists often rely, more or less explicitly, on two of John Stuart Mill’s canons of induction: the method of agreement and the method of difference. Substantively, they have been more interested in political and economic issues than in cultural ones. In fact, Skocpol’s States and Social Revolutions (1979) delineated the contours of the field for nearly two decades. However, a new generation of scholars is increasingly moving away from this paradigm in terms of both their substantive and their epistemological preferences. In contrast, microsociology focuses on interpersonal situations and the contexts in which they occur. Within microsociology, there are two main theoretical orientations: rational choice theory and social exchange theory on the one hand, and symbolic interactionism and ethnomethodology on the other. The former tradition – influenced by microeconomics and the economic approach to human behavior – places the emphasis upon individual preferences and choices, constraints, transactions, and costs and benefits. The latter tradition – whose intellectual resources include Max Weber’s Verstehen and Edmund Husserl’s phenomenology which was channeled through the work of Alfred Schütz – is concerned with individuals’ subjectivity and the construction of meaning. The opposition between macro and micro used to be conceived as a dispute over which one is “more fundamental” or “ontologically prior,” and was often similar to the contrast between collective and individual and to the debate over agency and structure. Nevertheless, this essentialist construal of the micro–macro “problem” is now magic Malthus, Thomas Robert (1766–1834) largely rejected. The point is not to reduce one to the other, but to search for theoretical and methodological linkages. Macrosociology stands on microfoundations and microsociology stands on macrofoundations. In any case, the distinction maintains its value as a linguistic convention by means of which types of inquiries and levels of analysis are classified. One set of criticisms against macrosociology is methodological. Given the magnitude of the objects studied under its auspices and the inclination to study processes over long periods of time, macrosociologists’ samples are generally small. Thus, Stanley Lieberson in “Small N’s and Big Conclusion,” in C. Ragin and H. Becker (eds.), What is a case? has argued that in small-N studies Mill’s methods do not yield valid causal inferences. According to him, this strategy requires implausible assumptions, such as that there be no interaction effects, mono-causality, and that sociological theories be deterministic rather than probabilistic. A second set of criticisms calls macrosociology to task for having conceptualized history as a mere repository of data, thereby failing to historicize social reality and its own conceptual tools in a manner that is convincing. GABRIEL ABEND AND JEFF MANZA magic – see religion. Malinowski, Bronislaw (1884–1942) A scion of the Polish aristocracy, Malinowski studied engineering before pursuing a degree in anthropology at the University of Cambridge. He was not the first anthropologist to undertake fieldwork, but in his classic Argonauts of the western Pacific (1916) was the first to provide it with an articulate methodology and rationale. He urged impartiality, attention to the “imponderabilia of everyday life,” and rigor in investigating “the native’s point of view.” His research among the peoples of the Kiriwana Islands was itself the benchmark of ethnographic excellence for many decades and his reputation survived the sometimes unflattering revelations of the posthumously published A Diary in the Strict Sense of the Term (1967) largely intact. From the social organization and collective psychology of the kula, the periodic sailing expeditions that bound the Kiriwanans into a dynamic interisland ring of trade and alliance, Malinowski extracted the persuasive model of a reasonable, industrious, and practical economic actor who remained “primitive” only in having less passion for profit than for prestige. The model informs Malinowski’s instrumentalistic treatment of magic (see religion) and myth and, in “Group and Individual in Functional Analysis” (1939), a broader argument that each of the basic institutional components of culture is so much technological service for the satisfaction of a correlative psychobiological human need. The argument risks circularity and oversimplification, but is also the manifesto of a pure functionalism resolutely opposed to the Durkheimian reification of society as a thing having needs of its own. Malinowski contributed significantly to the study of religion in Magic, Science and Religion and Other Essays (1948) and to the study of sexuality in Sex and Repression in Savage Society (1972) and The Sexual Life of Savages (1929). JAMES D. FAUBION Malthus, Thomas Robert (1766–1834) Educated at Jesus College, Cambridge, where he won prizes for Latin and English declamation, at the age of twenty-two Malthus became a curate near his family home in Surrey and later in Lincolnshire. In 1805 he was appointed a professor of history and political economy at East India College, Haileybury, a position he occupied until his death in 1834. During his early tenure as a rural clergyman, he published anonymously in 1798 the first edition of his famous book, An Essay on the Principle of Population as it Affects the Future Improvement of Society, with Remarks on the Speculations of Mr. Goodwin, M. Condorcet, and Other Writers. W. Petersen in his Malthus (1979) writes that this publication “immediately established its anonymous author as a controversial figure.” Five years later, in 1803, this time under his name, Malthus published the second edition of the essay, with a different subtitle, as An Essay on the Principle of Population; or a View of Its Past and Present Effects on Human Happiness; With an Inquiry into our Prospects Respecting the Future Removal or Mitigation of the Evils which It Occasions. Petersen notes that this was indeed a new book. The first edition was mainly a “deductive book” of around 55,000 words, whereas the second edition expanded the theory and provided a great deal of illustrative data, resulting in around 200,000 words. Subsequent editions, the final being the seventh edition which was published posthumously in 1872, included relatively minor changes. The best edition is the second, with revisions, contained in two volumes and edited by Patricia James as An Essay on the Principle of Population (with the Variora of 1806, 1807, 1817, 1826) (1989). 347 Malthus, Thomas Robert (1766–1834) The principle of population stated that, if left unchecked, populations would tend to grow geometrically, while food and subsistence would grow arithmetically. But Malthus argued that population growth was held in check by two kinds of controls, preventive checks and positive checks. Malthus referred to the major preventive check as “moral restraint,” or the postponement of marriage. As a clergyman he was not able to recognize birth control as a check. Indeed he was “opposed to birth control on the grounds that such ‘unnatural’ experiments ran contrary to God’s design in placing humankind under the right degree of pressure to ensure its development” (D. Winch, Encyclopedia of Population, 2003). The positive checks included wars, famine, pestilence, and other forms of misery. The positive checks kept the death rate high, the preventive checks kept the birth rate low. Malthus’s essay needs to be placed and considered in historical context. It opposed two very influential schools of thought, mercantilism and utopianism, and cast doubt on the hope of human perfectibility. Winch writes in the Encyclopedia of Population that “Malthus showed that any attempt to create an ideal society in which altruism and common property rights prevailed would be undermined by its inability to cope with the resulting population pressure.” The writings of Malthus are said to have influenced the work of Charles Darwin, Herbert Spencer, David Ricardo (1771–1823), John Maynard Keynes, and many others. For instance, Darwin wrote in his Autobiography (1887) that: Fifteenth months after I had begun my systematic enquiry, I happened to read for amusement Malthus on population, and being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence which everywhere goes on from long-continued observation of the habits of animals and plants, it at once struck me that under these circumstances favorable variations would tend to be preserved and unfavorable ones be destroyed. The result of this would be a new species. Here, then, I had at last got a theory by which to work. Scholars hold mixed views with respect to the influence of Malthus on demography. W. Petersen argues that in the writings of Malthus, modern population theory was born. D. Bogue on the other hand, in Principles of Demography (1969), states that although the writings of Malthus “have attracted worldwide attention and have dominated the thinking of many students of population, his contribution to the development of demography as a DUDLEY L. POSTON science was rather modest.” 348 management Malthusian theory – see Thomas Robert Malthus. management Engineers have long been fascinated by work and employment. Engineering has a natural affinity with work in a profit-based economy, because it is oriented to getting more output from less input as its definition of efficiency. It was an engineer, Frederick Winslow Taylor (1865–1915), whose Principles of Scientific Management (1911) first defined management systematically. Taylor proposed “four great principles of management”: (1) developing a science of work by observing and measuring norms of output, using a stopwatch and detailed observation of human movements to improve effectiveness; (2) scientifically selecting and training the employee; (3) combining the sciences of work and selecting and training of employees; and (4) management and workers specializing and collaborating closely. Taylor regarded science as equivalent to making systematic measurement and observation, after which work would be redesigned on the basis of the data generated and inferences made about existing procedures and how they might be improved. A famous example, which is discussed critically by H. Braverman in Labor and Monopoly Capitalism (1974), was the example of the Dutch worker Schmidt, and the art of shoveling pig iron. Taylor established that even a rather stupid worker, with a carefully designed tool, could increase productivity significantly, as long as what scientific management said should be done was done. Armed with a checklist and a stopwatch, Taylor observed and timed work, and then redesigned it, so that tasks could be done more efficiently. Taylor proposed designing the best way of performing any set of tasks on the shop floor, based on detailed observation, selection, and training. Time was of the essence. Taylor’s ideas had the advantage of being quite easy to grasp and so were as easily adopted as they were opposed. However, it is worth noting that employers tended to adopt his ideas piecemeal: they were keen on the efficiencies from time measurement but not as keen on the rewards in the form of bonuses that Taylor proposed under his recommendations for the use of piece-rates. Taylor and the movement for systematic management were opposed by a number of forces. First, there were internal contractors – people who provided and supervised labor to work within factories owned by remote robber barons, management financiers, entrepreneurs, and industrialists – who stood to lose their livelihoods if scientific managers triumphed and replaced them with systematic managers. Second, there were the owners of capital, particularly those with small workshops, who were already fearful of being devoured or driven out of business by big businessmen, such as the “robber barons” (Andrew Carnegie and Theodore Vanderbilt), gobbling up their assets into new centers of financial control; they were also fearful of the dilution of the power of ownership. Third, the workers, increasingly organizing in trade unions, railed against the loss of craft skills that the project of standardization and systematization of work entailed. Standardization became a wedge that opened the door for a wider adoption of systematic scientific management through linking individual remuneration to individual effort in scientifically framed tasks. Managers would be a new breed of practical scientists managing corporations and organizations empirically, on the basis of facts and techniques, rather than experience, privilege, or an arbitrary position. Functions and responsibilities would be aligned in a scientifically proven manner by engineers trained in the management of things and the governance of people working with and on them. Taylorism did not die with Taylor – it became sedimented deep inside organizations, wherein, eventually, many people would be replaced by robots, in which scientific management would find far better raw material: there were no sources of uncertainty in designing and calibrating pure machines, as compared to the person/machine interface. Of course, one does not have to go to a factory to find Taylorism: check out the system for manufacturing fast food in any burger restaurant such as McDonald’s (see McDonaldization). Another engineer, Henri Fayol (1841–1925), is often regarded as the most significant European founder of modern management, because he provided a basis for systematic authority in the fledgling occupation. In 1916, he published Administration industrielle et générale, in which he argued that better management not only is concerned with improving output and disciplining subordinates but also must address the training of the people at the top. Although other early management theorists (such as Elton Mayo [1880–1949] and Mary Parker Follett [1868–1933]) and many subsequent ones (such as James March and Karl Weick) were to take a less systematic and mechanical view, these early foundations for management thinking have proven remarkably resilient – especially as the thrust towards the managerial revolution rationalization of the world has been carried forward by the managerial project. S T E W A R T C L E G G managerial revolution James Burnham wrote The Managerial Revolution in 1941. Aware that economies based on capitalism had inherent structural flaws, he – as a former adherent of Trotskyism – was nonetheless disenchanted by the Soviet state. The post-World War I years had seen the decline of many of the huge corporations that had dominated United States economic life, particularly as effective anti-trust legislation took shape from 1932. A concern with the concentration of power and the dispersion of share ownership was to become allied with the view that a “managerial revolution” had occurred in United States corporate life. Real power was no longer to be found concentrated in the hands of the robber barons. Power had shifted to the stewards of capital – the managers – and the major concentrations of capital held by the dominant stockholders. With limited liability, the shareholders of a corporation elect a board of directors who then choose the top management officers to run the business. Burnham suggested that, with this split between ownership and control, a new society, neither capitalist nor communist, would develop: a managerial society. Burnham’s central argument was that ownership means control. Without control there is no ownership. If ownership and control are separated, the separated ownership becomes purely a legal fiction and real control will reside in the day-to-day stewards of capital, the managers. Senior executives, however, generally hold major consolidated blocks of shares, so potential conflicts between the interests of the principals, the shareholders, and the interests of the agents, the hired managers, may not be as extreme as one might expect. Shareholders – often professional and institutional investors – frequently have little interest in influencing the way business is run; they use the share price as a proxy of quality management. Managers typically dominate boards of directors as well as being significant shareholders. More recently, Alfred Chandler in The Visible Hand: The Managerial Revolution in American Business (1977) has revised the managerial revolution thesis. He argues that modern organizations arose because administrative coordination was better than the market at enhancing productivity and lowering costs. Administrative coordination created a managerial hierarchy, one that became increasingly 349 Mann, Michael (1942–) Marcuse, Herbert (1898–1979) technical and professional, with a preference for long-term stability and growth over short-term gains (although the markets would sometimes favor these). The move to a rational managerial system encourages growing professionalization, which increasingly saw personal and family-owned enterprises replaced by professionally managed firms. There has been a managerial revolution – but it has not seen family firms disappear: indeed, some of the world’s largest companies remain family firms. However, those that do not employ professional managers are unlikely to be sustainable. A new and significant stratum of professional managers has been created as the custodians of capital and the driving forces behind an increasing rationalization and globalization. STEWART CLEGG Mann, Michael (1942–) Professor of Sociology at the University of California, Los Angeles, Mann has been particularly influential in historical sociology and macrosociology. His analytical framework is a theory of power that is in part derived from Max Weber. Mann argues that there are four types of power: military, political, economic, and ideological. He has examined the historical development of these four types of power in The Sources of Social Power, Volume I: A History of Power from the Beginning to A.D. 1760 (1986) and The Sources of Social Power, Volume II: The Rise of Classes and Nation-states 1760–1914 (1993). Volume III will examine globalization. He has applied this framework to the contemporary United States and its foreign policy in Incoherent Empire (2003), arguing that American power cannot be coherently exercised in these four dimensions. His earlier research in political sociology was on politics and ideology in the western working class in Consciousness and Action Among the western Working Class (1973), and he has argued that citizenship is an institution to regulate and incorporate the working class in capitalism in his article in Sociology on “Ruling-class Strategies and Citizenship” (1987). In his Fascists (2004) Mann developed a controversial interpretation of fascism, arguing that, particularly in Germany, it was not supported by a specific social class, was not attractive necessarily to downwardly mobile or marginal men, and was not initially or overwhelmingly characterized by anti-Semitism. B R Y A N S . T U R N E R Mannheim, Karl (1893–1947) Born in Hungary, Mannheim fled to Germany in 1919 after the failure of the revolutionary 350 government in Budapest. With the emergence of fascism, he moved to Britain in 1933, eventually becoming a professor at the London School of Economics. He made a major contribution to the development of the sociology of knowledge in Ideology and Utopia (1936), Essays on the Sociology of Culture (1956), and Conservatism: A Contribution to the Sociology of Knowledge (1986). He argued that rising social classes embrace utopian systems of knowledge, whereas declining social classes will embrace romantic or reactionary ideologies. Against cultural relativism, he defended the idea that the “free-floating intelligentsia” can be relatively independent of social determination. Against the Marxist emphasis on social class, Mannheim developed the concept of generation as representing the life chances and experiences of age cohorts passing through time. Members of a generation are held together by experiencing events from the same vantage point. This phenomenon of a common experience he referred to as the “stratification of experience” and he conceived of this experience as the dynamic aspect of generational consciousness. Mannheim also wrote extensively on education, social reform, and social policy in Man and Society in an Age of Reconstruction (1940), Diagnosis of Our Time (1943), and Freedom, Power and Democratic Planning (1951). In this work, he argued that sociology can make an important contribution to social planning. BRYAN S. TURNER Marcuse, Herbert (1898–1979) A philosopher by training who studied with Martin Heidegger (1889–1976), Marcuse joined the Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt in 1934 and worked with Max Horkheimer, Theodor Wiesengrund Adorno, Erich Fromm, and others in developing a critical theory of contemporary society. During the 1960s, Marcuse ascended to the unlikely role of guru of the New Left. His book on Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel and Karl Marx, Reason and Revolution (1941), introduced a younger generation to critical and dialectical social theory, and he provided an excellent philosophical interpretation of Sigmund Freud in his 1955 Eros and Civilization. In 1964, Marcuse published a wide-ranging critique of both advanced capitalist and communist societies in One-Dimensional Man. This book theorized the decline of revolutionary potential in capitalist societies and the development of new forms of social control. Marcuse argued that “advanced industrial society” created false needs that integrated individuals into the existing system of manual and mental labor market(s) production and consumption. Mass media and culture, advertising, industrial management, and contemporary modes of thought all reproduced the existing system and attempted to eliminate negativity, critique, and opposition. The result was a “one-dimensional” universe of thought and behavior in which the very aptitude and ability for critical thinking and oppositional behavior were withering away. During the 1960s and 1970s, Marcuse had worldwide influence on the student and anti-war movement. Later works include his 1969 Essay on Liberation, Counterrevolution and Revolt (1972) and The Aesthetic Dimension (1979), while the collections Technology, War and Fascism (1998), Toward a Critical Theory of Society (2001), and The New Left and the 1960s (2005) collect some of his most important work. DOUGLAS KELLNER manual and mental labor – see labor. market(s) In classical economic theory, the market not only establishes the price of commodities, but the economic exchanges it coordinates are also seen as a means of social integration. Specialization and the division of labor require the exchange of goods and services which replaces the selfsufficiency of traditional societies with the mutual advantage of economic interdependence. For economic liberalism, market exchange produces the wealth of nations and simultaneously reconciles self-interest and individualism with social integration. In Bernard de Mandeville’s (1670–1733) aphorism in The Fable of the Bees (1714), “private vices” bring “public benefits,” later more famously described by Adam Smith (1723–90) as the mechanism of the “invisible hand.” Sociology developed to a large extent as the result of a critical dialogue with this liberal economic theory, as in Talcott Parsons’s Structure of Social Action (1937). From Auguste Comte’s early nineteenth-century critique of the “invisible hand” to today’s concern with the social and political consequences of globalization, sociologists have pursued two related lines of attack. First, the market was not a viable basis for social order; indeed, impersonal calculative exchange relations inhibit the formation of social bonds based on trust and cooperation, as F. Tönnies argued in his analysis of the transition from community (Gemeinschaft) to association (Gesellschaft). Second, Adam Smith’s explanation of the existence of markets as the natural outcome of a universal and primitive predisposition to “truck, barter, and exchange” was rejected as being inconsistent with the wide historical and cultural variability in the existence of markets. Karl Polanyi observed that the allocation of goods according to norms of either reciprocity and/or redistribution has been more prevalent throughout human history than allocation by the mechanism of market price. Thus, the existence of markets as social institutions required a historical and sociological explanation – that is, how they came into being and how they worked. Until recently, however, sociology gave more attention to the socially and politically corrosive impact of market exchange. A classic exposition is contained in Karl Marx’s analysis of alienation and the “cash nexus.” Market exchange mediated by money involves the estrangement of individuals from their products and from the social relations into which they enter in the process of production. Most importantly, labor becomes a commodity to be bought and sold and, consequently, people become alienated from their essential humanity, or “species being.” Modern society is based on the fragile “cash nexus” rather than the more robust norms of traditional society. The same general theme is pursued from somewhat different perspectives in Émile Durkheim’s analysis of anomie; Polanyi’s discussion of land, labor, and money capital as “fictitious commodities”; and, more recently, for example, in Amitai Etzioni’s communitarian critique of the “free market.” In The Architecture of Markets (2001), Neil Fligstein systematizes the literature on the macrosociological structure and historical development of modern markets. Markets are social institutions comprising four kinds of rules: (1) property rights; (2) governance structures; (3) rules of exchange; and (4) conceptions of control. (Note also that the existence of stable money, in the form of a stable “money of account,” is necessary to enable the calculations that make large-scale impersonal exchange a possibility.) First, property rights define who has claims, or not, over the profits or surplus of economic enterprise – that is, shareholders, patent holders, creditors, and workers. Property rights are continuously contested in a political process that produces different legal forms of enterprise structure – for example, family firm, corporation, partnership, cooperative. Second, governance structures consist of the rules that define the cooperative and competitive relations within the market. These are either laws, such as monopoly legislation, or 351 market(s) informal norms that define unfair practices such as “cutthroat competition.” Third, rules of exchange specify the transacting parties and the conditions under which the transactions are carried out – for example, contract law, accounting standards, product standards, and health and safety legislation. Without such rules, exchange will remain fragmented. For example, the harmonization of exchange rules is seen clearly in the creation of the European Union’s single market. The continued absence of harmonized accountancy standards across the world inhibits globalization. Fourth, and finally, conceptions of control are the largely informal normative and cognitive definitions of the situation held by the participants in a particular market. These shared understandings concern, for example, competitive and cooperative tactics, the internal structure of firms, and their status ranking. They create a “social field” that enables firms to reproduce themselves routinely, and a stable market order. Max Weber was one of the first to see that the development of extensive markets in capitalism required an explanation. Quite different in scale and scope from the limited exchanges in traditional communities, large impersonal markets became one of the axial bases of society as the result of changes in the social and political structures of early modern western Europe. In his economic lectures (Wirtschaftgeschichte) which were published as General Economic History (1923 [trans. 1927]), he showed that rules for establishing markets as institutions for regularizing the exchange of particular goods, as opposed to relatively disorganized “truck and barter,” were established through political struggle and state power. Capitalist property rights were the result of struggles which produced a balance of power between multiple political elites, economic interests, and classes. With such a dispersion of power, the various interests agreed to rules that established routine competition that prevented any one group from monopolizing power and economic advantage. For a similar analysis, see Douglass North, Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance (1990). The competition that, for Weber, ensured social and economic dynamism also applied to economic competition between nations. So long as these did not give way to a world empire, capitalism would endure. Weber also noted that traditional society’s economic transactions contained an “ethical dualism.” On the one hand, within the communal in-group, transactions were governed by an ethic 352 market(s) of charity, comprising norms of fairness defined by tradition, ritual exchange, customary consumption, and prohibition on usury. On the other hand, outsiders were treated according to the opposite ethic, and routinely cheated and charged exorbitant interest and prices. Both dimensions of the ethic were inimical to large mass markets and a commercialization of economic life in which strangers are treated with an impersonal ethic of fairness. The breakdown of the dualism was the unintended result of modern bureaucratic state administration and the concomitant institution of formally equal citizenship. Citizenship eroded the social closure of traditional status groups, with their substantive sumptuary restrictions, and enabled the mass consumption that made mass production viable and, in turn, made mechanization profitable (note that this analysis reverses the conventional account in economic history in which the sequence of changes is driven by technological developments). Weber’s account may be compared with Polanyi’s analysis of the state’s role in creating markets in land, capital, and labor. On a micro-level, recent economic sociology has criticized economic theory’s “perfect competition,” or “general equilibrium,” models of how markets actually operate. In formal economic models, originally developed in the late nineteenth century by economists such as Alfred Marshall (1842–1924, England) and Leon Walras (1834–1910, Switzerland), the forces of supply and demand interact to produce an equilibrium price for a good at which all demand is satisfied and all supply is exhausted. That is to say, the market “clears.” In order to model this outcome, a number of assumptions are made concerning the structure of the market. It comprises: (1) a myriad of rational, utility-maximizing individuals making independent decisions on the basis of “exogenously” given preferences and tastes; (2) individuals possessing perfect information about the quality and quantity of a uniform good; (3) there is market equality – that is, all participants are “price-takers,” not monopolistic “price-makers”; and (4) there are frequent and regular exchanges. Paradoxically, however, there is no competition in the perfect competition model. Perfect information and foresight would render any competitive bargaining process redundant. In fact, the model describes an end state of equilibrium, but cannot satisfactorily explain how this comes about as a result of the utility-maximizing decisions of independent, isolated individuals. To solve this problem, the early proponents of the market(s) supply and demand model had to add further components in order to make it function. Walras introduced the “auctioneer” to initiate and coordinate the competitive bidding. (Note that real auctions have estimated and reserve prices to “frame” the market interaction.) Marshall realized that myriad uncoordinated actions of producers and buyers with less-than-perfect information and rationality would result in price volatility. He introduced the middleman, or wholesaler, into his example of the corn market to hold buffer stocks in order to balance supply with demand and thereby maintain a stable price and an orderly market. In other words, Walras and Marshall were giving the market a social structure that would enable it to operate, as opposed to the instability that they recognized in the model of the interaction of the subjective preferences of myriad atomized individuals. Alternatively, “Austrian” economic theory advocates markets as the most efficient means of economic decisionmaking and coordination on the grounds of the contrary assumption of imperfect information. According to Ludwig von Mises (1881–1973), for example, it was precisely because we could never have adequate information to plan an economy centrally that decentralized markets were necessary. Competitive market struggle was the best means of establishing the relative scarcity of goods and of ensuring dynamic change. Weber’s incorporation of these ideas into his ideal type of capitalism as a “struggle for economic existence” and the “economic battle of man against man” led him to reject socialism as a viable form of economy. Modern economics recognizes the existence of “market failure” and “imperfect markets,” but sees them as exceptions or corrigible deviations. Market failure is said to occur when the existence of a competitive market cannot establish a price for a good that will clear the market – that is, brings supply and demand into equilibrium. Three types are identified: (1) “public goods” exist when property rights cannot be established securely enough to exclude “free-riding,” which deters the production of the good in question – for example, lighthouses shed light on all passersby; (2) “externalities” refer to the unintended social costs that are “external” to the private production or exchange of a good and that are not included in its price – for example, pollution and road congestion (in general, economics considers externalities to be exceptions, whereas the deleterious unintended effects of markets are the focus of sociological critiques); (3) “perverse market(s) outcomes” such as “moral hazard” in which the production of a good with a single price has contradictory unintended consequences that destabilize the market – for example, single-premium fire insurance that encourages negligence; or “adverse selection” in which a single price stimulates a demand that perturbs the market – for example, the single-premium health insurance that attracts demand from the unhealthy; and a single interest rate for bank loans can never be high enough to balance the costs of defaults without at the same time discouraging low-risk borrowers. Both circumstances give rise to social processes of risk assessment and, in the case of bank loans, credit-rating. Modern economics explains the existence of real-world imperfect markets in terms of “asymmetric information.” This problem was clearly illustrated by George Akerlof in his “The Market for Lemons” (1970, Quarterly Journal of Economics), in which the average buyer’s inability to distinguish good from bad cars (“lemons” in American parlance) depresses the average price and deters the owners of good used cars from putting them on the market. In contrast, John Maynard Keynes’s analysis of the failure of the labor market to “clear” is inherently more sociological in its recognition of capitalism’s asymmetrical power relations. He argued that workers cannot create more employment by accepting lower wages because employers may choose to take advantage of the lower costs to reduce prices and, thereby, gain a competitive advantage. This would result in the same levels of ex ante production and employment. Or, with lower wage costs, monopoly producers might simply take higher profits. All the above problems derive from the inadequate understanding of the market as a socially and politically constructed institution, and from the fact that different kinds of market – labor markets, consumer markets, and production markets – have different social structures. In an “Interview” with Richard Swedberg in Economics and Sociology (1990), Harrison White has gone so far as to say that the “perfect-competition,” or “general-equilibrium,” model is not a theory of the market as such, but rather a theory of “pure exchange.” This might describe the operation of a bazaar or medieval fair where individual buyers and sellers haggle over prices, but this theory of pure exchange does not apply, for example, to capitalist producers’ markets. A producers’ market cannot be understood as the result of discrete independent calculations of cost, revenue, and profit maximization by individual isolated producers that converge to fit objective economic 353 market (s) constraints. Rather, White argues in Identity and Control (1992) and with Robert Eccles in “Producers’ Markets” (The New Palgrave, 1987) that producers’ markets can operate only after two “control projects” have been successfully completed. First, the firm’s internal power struggle must be resolved. Second, the potentially destabilizing effect of price competition has to be dealt with; stable markets are socially constructed by the participants’ comparisons of their similarities and differences and their search for a segment of the market. Either existing prices are taken as benchmark terms of trade which individuals try to better; or they may attempt to differentiate their product by quality in a particular niche which is relatively immune from competition. This can create a stable social structure, which is destabilized when participants actually behave like those modeled in the economic theory, by either calculating marginal costs and revenues and thereby creating “price wars” and “cutthroat competition,” or by imitating a successful strategy and creating overcrowding, which has the same consequence. Not all markets are successfully stabilized – for example, those for haircuts and restaurant meals where intense price competition leads to a large turnover of market participants. A further implication of this approach is that oligopoly, rather than the myriad producers of the perfect competition model, is normal in production markets in order that they can make the structureproducing comparisons. In The Architecture of Markets, Fligstein has interpreted White’s work on production markets in terms of Pierre Bourdieu’s “theory of fields.” As actors can never have the information or market power that will enable them to determine what will maximize profits, activity is directed towards the creation of a “field” in which the participants attempt to produce the social order that will maximize their chances of survival. This kind of approach is developed in Mitchel Abolafia’s ethnographic study, in Making Markets (1996), of the social construction of different levels of competitive behavior in Wall Street money markets. For example, as an outsider, the bond trader, Michael Milkin, was able to make large profits by selecting those stocks – the “fallen angels” – that established elite investment banks had neglected. They responded with imitation that created destabilization and the designation of the underpriced bonds as “junk” bonds. With the market having been destabilized, Milkin was accused of the malpractice that eventually resulted in his imprisonment on accounting 354 marriage and divorce offences. A restabilization of the market followed his removal. It has been noted by the French “sociology-ofconvention” school and actor network theory – for example, Michel Callon, The Laws of the Market (1998) – that the economic theory of perfect competition is now used to construct the “fields” that constitute a market capable of reaching an equilibrium price. M.-F. Garcia’s study of the construction of the strawberry market in the Solonge region of France in the early 1980s shows how economic textbooks had a “performative” role in bringing about the very same conditions that they described. The product was standardized; demand and supply organized into a competitive structure; and the transactions mechanism established to frame a situation in which the participants were able to calculate prices more efficiently. Modern economic sociology has gone some way towards explaining what are seen conventionally in economic theory as the problems of imperfect information and uncertainty which prevent the achievement of market equilibrium. Information and certainty are not merely found in discoverable objectively given external conditions – for example, costs of production, marginal productivity, consumers’ demand, and so on. Rather, the information that produces an intelligible and shared social world and the certainty, or relative predictability, of the market consist in the socially constructed fields and rules that structure competition. GEOFFREY INGHAM marriage and divorce Although finding a (sexual) partner and forming a couple may appear to be a “natural” or even biologically driven activity, marriage is a social institution defined by laws, culture, religion, and of course historical and social context. This means that what marriage is (and what it might mean to the people who marry) changes over time and can reflect very different social contexts. At present, in most western societies, marriage is regarded in law as an essentially heterosexual contract, entered into with the express purpose of raising children and with the equally important function of joining families together. It is a contract between individuals, but it also involves the state and extended families. So although marriage is popularly seen as the way in which couples can proclaim their love and commitment to each other exclusively, the state has a very strong interest in marriage and has operated, with varying degrees of vigor at different times, to support and marriage and divorce buttress marriage as a social institution. Moreover, extended families maintain a close interest in who their children marry, with arranged and vetted marriages being the norm in some cultures and social classes. Marriage is therefore both deeply personal and private, yet also the business of families, relatives, legislators, politicians, judges, policymakers, and social commentators. Sociological interest in marriage has waxed and waned over the last half-century. Typically, discussions of marriage have been combined with sociological work on “the family,” and the two social institutions tended to be treated together, with marriage being conventionally treated as little more than the threshold to family life. Sociological interest in marriage was understated, and was reflected more in the study of social problems such as unmarried motherhood or divorce, which were, at least in the 1950s and 1960s, seen as deviant forms of behavior. Because marriage was so taken for granted as something that everyone did (which was fairly true in England in the 1960s at least) it was not seen as worthy of specific analysis or debate. For example Ronald Fletcher’s influential work The Family and Marriage in Britain, originally published in 1962, had little to say about marriage, but rather more to say about divorce. On marriage itself, Fletcher was rather complacent in his depiction: In the modern marriage, both partners choose each other freely as persons. Both are of equal status and expect to have an equal share in taking decisions and in pursuing their sometimes mutual, sometimes separate and diverse, tastes and interests. They live together permanently and intimately in their own home and in relative independence of wider groups of kindred. Yet there was an earlier tradition of more critical work on marriage; although it was not strictly sociological, it ultimately provided the basis of later challenges to the taken-for-granted character of marriage and the presumed equality between spouses. These critical perspectives came from the work of nineteenth-century radicals, feminists, and suffragists like Cicely Hamilton, John Stuart Mill, Harriet Taylor, Caroline Norton, and Friedrich Engels. Cicely Hamilton wrote Marriage as a Trade in 1909, in which she outlined the gender inequalities in society which led women to have no alternative but to “snare” a husband in order to achieve economic security and social status in society. Women, she argued, were part of a trade which actually demeaned them and gave too much power to men. Caroline Norton, in the mid nineteenth century, pointed out that in marriage marriage and divorce men had absolute legal control over children and could deprive mothers of contact with them, while Mill, Taylor, and Engels all pointed to the economic inequality between husbands and wives, giving rise to tyrannical powers and absolute control over women in the private sphere. Victorian and Edwardian marriage was depicted variously as a form of virtual slavery, as a form of feudalism, and inevitably as a site of inequality and oppression. Such depictions of marriage did not sit well with mainstream sociology of the 1950s and 1960s. Talcott Parsons, taking a structural functional approach, did not see inequality between the genders, rather he saw complementary social roles in the form of the breadwinner husband and the housewife. By this time the sociological gaze was more firmly fixed on “the Family,” with marriage being left to the anthropologists who could study the marriage practices of less-developed societies and different religions, while the “modern” marriage depicted by Fletcher was treated as a pinnacle of achievement. It took the polemical work of Jessie Bernard in 1976 to disaggregate the unity of husband and wife, to challenge the presumption of equality once again, and to rediscover that, behind the unified front created in the functionalist approach, there could be a man’s marriage and a woman’s marriage, and that these were two very different, uneven lived experiences, albeit going on under one roof. The work of Jessie Bernard was part of a new wave of feminist writing which occurred simultaneously in the United States and the United Kingdom, and which brought a very different perspective on marriage. As with the earlier suffragist writings, the second-wave feminists focused on the legal disparities that were entailed in marriage. Thus it was pointed out that only husbands could sign mortgage documents and so were the sole legal owners of the couple’s home; they revisited the problem of violence against wives and stressed the fact that the law did not take domestic assault seriously; they pointed out that rape in marriage was perfectly legal; they also pointed to the double burden assumed by women who increasingly worked outside the home, yet were required to carry on with all the usual housework and child-care obligations. While Engels had depicted marriage as a form of capitalist exploitation with the husband as the capitalist and the wife as worker, feminist sociologists depicted marriage as a form of patriarchal exploitation in which the husband benefited not only financially from the appropriation of his wife’s labor, but also 355 marriage and divorce materially, physically, and psychologically from her oppression. Intense debates between different strands of feminism ensued, with some feminists arguing that men were the primary beneficiaries of women’s oppression in marriage, while others argued that capitalism benefited because women’s unremunerated domestic labor supported and renewed the labor power of men in the labor market, to the benefit of capitalism. The legal contract of marriage was seen as the device that served primarily to lock women into subservience and to remove many of their basic civil rights. It was, for example, lawful for the teaching profession to sack women on marriage in England and Wales, and, long after this became unlawful, the custom of leaving work on marriage continued in many parts of the United Kingdom. In the United States, Betty Friedan referred to “the problem with no name” in her book The Feminine Mystique (1963). By this she meant the problem of the bored housewife whose horizons in the United States of the 1950s and 1960s had shrunk to encompass little more than finding washing detergents of an adequate power, or buying Tupperware containers to keep food fresh. She depicted women existing on Valium and other tranquilizers in order to get through the meaninglessness of their days, awaiting the return of their husbands and serving his dinner on time. The critical analyses that feminist sociologists developed of marriage were closely linked to political activism in the 1970s and 1980s: for example the Y B A WIFE? campaign in the United Kingdom in the 1970s. The boundaries between scholarly enterprise and political campaigning were blurred in a way similar to the relationship between Marxism and class struggle and the trade-union movement, or studies of racism and anti-racist and/or Black Power movements. These links were controversial. In the academy it meant that feminist analyses were not seen as serious or scholarly, and for a time a kind of parallel universe developed where mainstream sociology continued to be largely indifferent to what might happen in the “private sphere” of family life. It appeared almost as if marriage and the family became an issue for women academics, while the men concentrated on the public sphere and more global issues, this division of labor ironically mirroring the very problem in the “real” world that feminist academics were trying to critique. The feminist focus on marriage as an oppressive institution, combined with the associated criticisms of romantic (heterosexual) love as ideology and/or a form of false consciousness led ultimately 356 marriage and divorce to a kind of intellectual cul-de-sac. This was because it became “unnecessary” to look into the interiority of married relationships because they were always already known to be oppressive. Much evidence was collected on the problems of marriage, but few were concerned to understand its enduring popularity or what this form of intimacy might signify for couples in a positive way. This meant that some early sociological insights were lost, only to be rediscovered again in the 1990s when mainstream sociology became interested once again in issues of intimacy and the private sphere. An example of what I mean is to be found in Ronald Fletcher’s work. He wrote in 1966 of the way in which marriage had been transformed over time from a contractual alliance between families, designed primarily to produce legitimate heirs, into a love relationship based on choice and dependent for its continued existence upon mutual compatibility. He went on, “It is clear, therefore, that the modern relationship between husband and wife must be an extremely intense affair and, as such, is potentially unstable.” This theme is central to his work and it bears a striking similarity to the arguments put forward by Anthony Giddens in The Transformation of Intimacy (1992) and by Ulrich Beck and E. Beck-Gernsheim in The Normal Chaos of Love (1995 [trans. 1995]). A striking difference is the fact that Fletcher speaks only of husbands and wives while, by the end of the twentieth century, contemporary sociologists spoke of couples or partners – in order to include unmarried couples in their remit. Rates of cohabitation were much lower when Fletcher wrote at the start of the 1960s, and unmarried cohabitation was then still seen as shameful or something to be secretive about. But the theme of intensity and intimacy being the core of contemporary relationships, and the commensurate instability that ensues from this, is one that has returned to dominate sociological thinking. The rise of the companionate marriage/relationship is identified as an inevitable outcome of greater equality between the genders, as well as reflecting changing mentalities, but it is also seen as having major social consequences, because the compassionate relationship is paradoxically identified as increasing the chances of divorce or separation with all their attendant hardships. What Fletcher, Giddens, and Beck and BeckGernsheim also have in common is their understanding of the relationship between a particular form of marriage and modernity. Fletcher speaks marriage and divorce of “modern” marriage, which is not quite the same terminology as was deployed in the 1990s; yet the idea that the late modern era produced new styles of marriage based on choice and love is common to all these authors. Unfortunately this analysis tends to condemn other forms of marriage to a less modern form or to a more traditional mentality. Arranged and vetted marriage, and various forms of “sponsored courtship,” are inevitably seen as less desirable, based on a lack of choice and freedom, and as devoid of (romantic) love. The social evaluation of these marital arrangements is now complicated by the prevalence of internet dating. These other forms of marriage are depicted through a very ethnocentric lens, and the meaning and significance of these forms for minority ethnic or religious groups are given little consideration. The significance of arranged marriages for transnational families who may be highly disadvantaged in a dominantly ethnically white community does not seem to have generated much sociological interest, for example. One other silence in much of the sociological work on marriage has been the core fact that marriage is a legal contract that can only be entered into by a man and a woman. This issue became central to the feminist critique in the 1980s because the privileged status of marriage was understood to demote lesbian and gay relationships to insignificance. But the solution to this was envisaged as a rejection of marriage per se. Moreover, for a considerable time after the 1970s it appeared as if marriage was falling out of favor, with the average age of marriage in the United Kingdom rising to almost thirty years at the start of the twenty-first century, and rates of cohabitation rising annually. However, it is no longer clear that these statistics indicate a rejection of marriage. Rather marriage might be postponed, or it might happen when children are born, or it might happen much later in a cohabitation when issues of inheritance and property begin to loom as salient. Marriage may be something that people do at a specific point in their life-course, but it no longer has to occur as a kind of rite of passage into adulthood, as it was in the 1950s or 1960s. The fact that people can actively choose to reject marriage, or elect to marry when it suits them rather than in their early twenties, indicates that the meaning of marriage is changing. It is no longer “compulsory” and many of the legal and personal disabilities that attended marriage for women have diminished. In this context, gay and lesbian groups have begun to challenge the marriage and divorce “heteronormative” assumptions that are still the basis of marriage. Because marriage brings with it certain privileges (such as recognition by the state in terms of social benefits, tax and exemptions, and residence) it is seen as a denial of human rights for a sector of the community to be denied the right to marry. Marriage has therefore become the site of political activism again in both the United States and the United Kingdom, and also throughout Europe, Australia, and New Zealand. Some countries, such as the Netherlands, now recognize gay and lesbian marriage, while others such as the United Kingdom have created a parallel legal institution called “civil partnership” which carries all the rights and obligations of marriage, but which is not given the title of “marriage.” In the United Kingdom and the United States religious groups reject strongly the idea that gay men and lesbians should be entitled to have their relationships recognized and celebrated in the way reserved for heterosexual couples, seeing it as contravening basic religious teaching. Moreover, some gay and lesbian groups also reject the idea of marriage and state recognition of relationships, because they see this as a way of being co-opted into conventional family life when they would prefer to subvert the normative order. Others argue that to offer gay men and lesbians “civil partnership” when heterosexual couples retain the option of “marriage” merely confirms homosexual relationships as second-rate, and they demand absolute equality as a matter of basic civil rights. Marriage is therefore back on the political agenda in much the way it was in the 1970s and at various points since the mid nineteenth century. Sociology (along with political commentators and the media) has had a fascination with divorce rates and statistics since the 1950s. Divorce rates have become the modern equivalent of É. Durkheim’s suicide rates, in as much as they are treated as the measure of the stability of family life and ultimately a measure of social cohesion. This approach to divorce rates originates with functionalist thinking in which “the family” is treated as the foundation of other social institutions. This gave rise to the understanding that instability in the family led to both personal instability (through poor socialization of children) and social instability (through the knockon effects of underachieving, anti-social young people, and personal and economic disruption). Divorce has therefore occupied a particularly significant place in the study of contemporary social problems not only because it has been seen as a problem in itself, but because it 357 marriage and divorce has been seen as giving rise to a host of other difficulties. The tradition of treating divorce as a social problem (rather than a solution to a problem) stems from sociology’s general lack of a critical perspective on the family in the past. Because gender relations in the private sphere were not a matter of (much) sociological interest until second-wave feminist scholarship forced them onto the agenda, divorce could only be envisaged as a threat to social cohesion. Even Fletcher, who did write more positively about divorce in the 1960s, saw it as a route to remarriage and hence a means of re-establishing proper family life, rather than a potential liberation from the institution of marriage itself. Control over the exit from marriage has been closely regulated in western societies, and the Catholic and Protestant Churches strove hard to retain this control, even in increasingly secular societies. In the Republic of Ireland, for example, legal divorce became available only in 1996, and in England and Wales it was only in the 1960s that the Church of England gave up its opposition to the introduction of divorce on the grounds of mutual consent. Prior to this, divorce was only available on the basis of proof of matrimonial offense, and one spouse had to be identified as a guilty party. Divorce courts were full of details of spousal cruelties, adulterous relationships (sometimes faked), and minute details of incompatibilities. Divorce was a kind of public spectacle and humiliation, with details published in the print media, and with “innocent” and “guilty” parties named and shamed. Some early sociological work was critical of this spectacle, and also of the class basis of divorce, since the wealthy could afford to divorce, while the poor could not. There also grew up a presecond wave feminist critique of the poverty and hardship caused to women who were denied divorce, yet were unsupported by their husbands who had deserted them. In the 1960s the apparently new problem of lone mothers (see lone-parent family) was gradually recognized and, although the poverty of women raising children alone was actually not new at all, it gained a new name and a new urgency because of the increasing numbers of formerly married women in this situation after World War II. While mothers alone with children had formerly been divided into the deserving poor (namely widows) and the undeserving poor (namely unmarried mothers), the advent of deserted mothers and then divorced mothers created a new category of women who 358 marriage and divorce were obliged to look to the public purse for support. In both the United States and the United Kingdom divorce rates climbed steeply in the 1970s and 1980s and, although rates of increase have declined, divorce has become a common feature of family life and it increasingly involves children under sixteen years of age. This of course means that more young people reaching marriageable age come from families where either their own parents have divorced, or there has been a divorce within the extended kinship network. The availability of divorce is therefore part of the context of marriage in the twenty-first century. It is this context that has given rise to a new level of concern over divorce as a social problem, namely the problem of the lack of commitment in modern relationships. Divorce is seen to have generated a new psychology in which younger generations “fail” to recognize that they have to work at relationships to make them last, and that much self sacrifice is required. What pro-family commentators depict as a lack of commitment and moral fiber, some sociologists have labeled the individualization theory. Thus authors such as Giddens, Beck, and Beck-Gernsheim have identified a changing mentality in which communication and mutual support become key elements of relationships and where the lack of such components is seen as adequate motivation for leaving one partner to find another. The debate over divorce and commitment reflects wider debates in sociology about the impact and significance of the decline in personal life of external authorities to govern behavior and whether this has led to a form of moral anarchy, or to a new normative order which has different modes of demonstrating responsibility and commitments. The rise in rates of divorce and cohabitation are, for example, for some indicators of the demise of the moral family, while for others they merely indicate that in a more open society, with greater equality between the genders, people can mold new forms of commitment and mutual support. It seems unlikely that there will be a ready resolution to this debate because the social landscape of marriage and divorce is constantly changing and different implications and consequences of changes to personal relationships emerge as social, cultural, and economic conditions change. Two new developments are discussed below, the first being the changing perception of childhood and the second being the changing position of fathers. Until the 1990s children were depicted in divorce literature as the “innocent victims” of marriage and divorce parental divorce. This victim status did not require children to speak, although the children might be assessed in terms of their academic achievements, their social skills, and their conformity to a series of life-course expectations. It was of course expected that the sons of divorced parents would become delinquent and the daughters would become unmarried, teenage mothers. In the rush to calibrate the harms of divorce there was little room for more qualitative or ethnographic research that would seek to understand divorce from the standpoint(s) of children. However, such approaches have begun to emerge and children are increasingly seen as actively engaging with the problems of family transformations and in seeking to find solutions and coping mechanisms, often giving support to their parents, and often critical of their parents’ behavior. The perspectives of children reveal their powerlessness (particularly because children are rarely consulted about their futures when parents separate) but also their growing demands for greater attentiveness from parents in the evolution of post-divorce family life. This concept of post-divorce family life, sometimes referred to as the divorce-extended family, is a recent development. Almost all sociological work on divorce took it for granted that divorce meant family breakdown, indeed the terminology was used interchangeably. It was assumed that children’s family horizons were diminished through the loss of a father (usually) and paternal kindred. But the new attentiveness to children and the possibility of divorce by mutual consent has meant that children can, in some circumstances, retain their family links (including grandparents on both sides). Sociological research now embraces concepts such as “parenting across households” or “shared parenting” in order to capture the ways in which parents continue to be parents notwithstanding divorce and the establishment of different households. The idea that divorce leads automatically to lone motherhood and fatherless children, and that the best solution is for mothers to remarry and create the re-constituted nuclear family with the introduction of a step-father, is no longer seen as accurate. Indeed the new morality of divorce seems increasingly to embrace the idea that parenthood is for life, and that this should be valued regardless of the quality of the relationships between former spouses. These shifts in the moral ordering of divorce are related to another important shift in the landscape of marriage and divorce: the position of fathers. While mothers were seen as the economic Thomas H. Marshall (1893–1982) victims of marriage and divorce throughout the 1970s and 1980s, during the 1990s fathers started to be redefined as the victims of the system. Having been depicted as “deadbeat dads” who fail to pay child support and to maintain contact with their children, fathers are now redefined as being the ones who lose most from divorce because of the tendency for mothers to have the residence of children after separation. The Fathers’ Rights Movement has become one of the fastest-growing and most politically influential single-issue campaigns at the turn of the twenty-first century. This movement requires that, on divorce or separation, fathers should be allocated 50 percent of their children’s time to ensure equality between parents, and also that children maintain their relationships with their fathers. This movement is a complex one. At one extreme it may be seen as a reassertion of paternal authority in which fathers insist on their genetically based rights to a child, quite independent of the quality of any relationship that they may have with the mother of the child. At the other extreme it may be seen as a positive reflection of the new fatherhood in which men seek to share both the burdens and the joys of raising children. In the former model, fatherhood is imposed regardless of the views of mothers and/or children, in the latter, fatherhood arises from relationships of equality and mutual support with both mothers and children. While the impact of this movement is still unknown, it has already reshaped the debates that currently surround the issue of divorce. CAROL SMART Thomas H. Marshall (1893–1982) Fellow of Trinity College Cambridge and subsequently Professor of Sociology at the London School of Economics, Marshall is famous for his analysis of citizenship in Citizenship and Social Class and Other Essays (1950), in which he showed how in Britain social rights had evolved through three stages, namely civil, political, and social rights. These rights had been recognized in such institutions as the jury system, parliament, and the welfare state. He argued that citizenship modified the class system by some redistribution of entitlements to resources, primarily through the welfare state. In his Social Policy in the Twentieth Century (1965), he analyzed the growth of social rights through policy development between 1890 and 1945. In The Right to Welfare and Other Essays (1981), he argued that modern societies are ‘hyphenated’ because there is a permanent contradiction between liberal democracy and the capitalist system. His theory of citizenship was essentially a 359 Martin, David (1929– ) description of the postwar reconstruction of Britain in terms of the tension between social class and citizenship. He has subsequently been criticized for neglecting such issues as gender and race and ethnicity. Marshall was not a prolific sociologist, but his framework has been the foundation of the sociology of citizenship in both the United States and the United Kingdom. BRYAN S. TURNER Martin, David (1929– ) An Emeritus Professor of Sociology at the London School of Economics, and Honorary Professor in the Department of Religious Studies at Lancaster University, Martin was in 1948 a conscientious objector and did his national service in the “noncombatant corps”. This experience influenced his early contribution to the sociological analysis of Pacifism (1965) and to the understanding of the Christian challenge to violence, but his major research has been in the sociology of religion, in which he has been a leading critic of the contention that industrial societies are characterized by an inevitable process of secularization. In A Sociology of English Religion (1967), The Religious and the Secular (1969), and A General Theory of Secularization (1978), he showed that the evidence on belief and practice does not support a theory of uniform secularization in modern societies. He challenged the implicit historical and sociological assumptions behind this analysis of secular society. In Tongues of Fire (1990) and Pentecostalism: The World Their Parish (2002), he explored the global development of charismatic Christianity, drawing a productive comparison between the growth of evangelical Methodism in the early nineteenth century and the expansion of Pentecostalism in Latin America in the twentieth century. Martin argues that there is an important consonance between Pentecostalism and the spread of global liberal capitalism and “the expressive revolution” (see Talcott Parsons). Pentecostalism, which is devolved, voluntary, local, and fissiparous, works within a religious market that offers spiritual uplift, social success, and emotional gratification. While Methodism supplied the work ethic of early capitalism, Pentecostalism is relevant to the work skills and personal attributes of the postindustrial service economy, especially in terms of self-monitoring and a refusal to accept failure. He has throughout his career been concerned with the relationship between sociology and theology, as illustrated in his Reflections on Sociology and Theology BRYAN S. TURNER (1997). 360 Marx, Karl (1818–1883) Marx, Karl (1818–1883) The most influential of the socialist thinkers, Marx changed dramatically the way we view society and the world. Although he dedicated his life to writing a critique of political economy, he also pioneered a theory of society and history, and a view of the world that were truly revolutionary. It is impossible to think of a criticism of capitalist society that does not refer centrally to his work. He was born in Trier, Germany. Although often referred to as a Jew – he came from a long line of rabbis – Marx was technically a Protestant. He grew up in a professional middle-class home, and his father, a lawyer, supported the Enlightenment. His uncle, the Baron von Westphalen (whose daughter Marx married), was enthusiastic about the socialism of the French writer, G. H. Saint-Simon. After schooling in Trier (1830–5) – a schoolboy essay showed him committed to the development of humanity – Marx entered the University of Bonn to study law. At university he spent much of his time socializing and running up large debts. His father insisted that he move to the more sedate University of Berlin. Here he came under the influence of one of his lecturers, Bruno Bauer (1809–82), who introduced Marx to the writings of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, who had been the Professor of Philosophy at Berlin until his death in 1831. In 1838 Marx decided to become a university lecturer. After completing his doctoral thesis on ancient Greek philosophy at the University of Jena, Marx hoped that Bauer would help find him a teaching post. However, in 1842 Bauer was dismissed as a result of his outspoken atheism and was unable to help. Marx’s notion of philosophy was practical and down-to-earth, and he distanced himself from the empty radicalism of many of the Young Hegelians. From Berlin he moved to Cologne where the city’s liberal opposition movement was fairly strong. In 1842, Marx was appointed editor of the newspaper Die Rheinische Zeitung, and interestingly he denied at this stage any sympathy with Communism. The newspaper was committed to liberalism, and Marx certainly demonstrated a deep concern with social questions, as in his defense of peasants’ right to collect wood, or his concern about the poverty of the Mosel wine growers. In 1843, the paper was banned by the Prussian authorities. Warned that he might be arrested, Marx moved to Paris and in the spring and summer of 1843 he wrote a detailed critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right (1821 [trans. 1942]) in which he not only Marx, Karl (1818–1883) identified himself as a democrat, but saw a tension between democracy and the state. He now talked about the need to dissolve civil society – society based upon private property, the market, and the state. He was greatly influenced by the materialism of Ludwig Feuerbach (1804–72) in his Essence of Christianity (1841 [trans. 1957]), although he felt that Feuerbach had placed too much stress upon nature and not enough on politics. In a letter to Arnold Ruge (1802–80) in 1843, Marx emphasized the need to work with social and political realities as they were actually constituted. He became the editor of Franco-German Yearbook, and it was here he published On the Jewish Question (1844 [trans. 1932]), in which he argued that emancipation must not merely be political: it must be social. This text is crucial because it establishes Marx’s concern with transcending the state (which is linked with religion), the market, and commerce, and contains his celebrated attack on liberal notions of citizenship as abstract and limited. His second piece in the Yearbook proclaims the need for the principles of radical philosophy to be realized by the proletariat: for the first time Marx identified the agent that will move humanity beyond civil society and the state. The proletariat is the social class with radical chains, and his piece – an introduction to the critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right – contains the famous characterization of religion as the “opium of the people.” Mixing with members of the working class for the first time, he now described himself as a communist. He championed the revolt of the Silesian weavers in Germany, because it emphasized the importance of a social, and not merely political, solution to their problems. In 1844 Marx wrote Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts (first published in English in 1932), which consisted of a critical assessment of the work of economists like James Mill (1773–1836) and Jean-Baptiste Say (1776–1832), and a critique of Hegel’s dialectic. The work is famous for its characterization of exploitation as a process of alienation, and the argument that religion, the family, state, law, morality, and science are (in their conventional forms) expressions of this alienation. Humans are enslaved by their own creation, and communism is seen as the riddle of history solved. While in Paris, he became a close friend of Friedrich Engels, whose essay on political economy greatly impressed him, and they decided to work together, writing a fierce critique of Bruno Bauer (and his brothers) in a work entitled The Holy Family (1845 [trans. 1932]). Marx, Karl (1818–1883) In 1845 Marx was deported from France and went to Brussels, where he (with Engels) wrote The German Ideology (1845 [trans. 1965]), a work not published in his lifetime. Before writing this work, Marx drafted his Theses on Feuerbach (1845 [trans. 1970]) where he argued that Feuerbach saw abstract theoretical solutions to practical problems. The famous eleventh thesis refers to the fact that, whereas the philosophers have interpreted the world, the point is to change it. The German Ideology elaborates the criticisms of Feuerbach, and deals at great length with the latest manifestations of Young Hegelian idealism, including Stirner’s anarchist theory of egoism. Marx explicitly identifies his position as one of “new materialism,” and the work contains general arguments for a conception of history, society, politics, and culture rooted in the relations of production. While writing this volume, Marx and Engels established a Communist Corresponding Committee (the embryo of subsequent Communist Internationals). One of the socialists he was anxious to recruit was Pierre Joseph Proudhon (1809–65), but by 1847 he had written a fierce critique of Proudhon’s ideas (which he denounced as abstract and doctrinaire) in The Poverty of Philosophy. In November 1847 Marx attended a meeting of the Communist League’s Central Committee in London (it had originally been the League of the Just), and this was the organization that commissioned The Communist Manifesto (1848 [trans. 1968]). Although Engels had written some earlier drafts, the Manifesto in its published form was written primarily by Marx and is the most famous of Marx’s works. With extraordinary brevity and poetic intensity, the work contains a hymn of praise to capitalism as a dynamic productive system, and establishes the argument that communism must arise on the basis of capitalism as a system that becomes increasingly crisis-ridden as it progresses. The Manifesto refers to the way in which more and more sections of society are “proletarianized,” although in Marx’s more specific writings (like the political analyses on France) the uneven nature of this process receives more stress. The work also contains highly suggestive comments on the need for communists to organize as a “party” (although the meaning of this is far from clear), and it contains a denunciation of other forms of socialism and a radical ten-point program, as well as a famous argument that the liberal (“bourgeois”) revolution in Germany must be supported, as a prelude to “the immediately following” proletarian revolution. 361 Marx, Karl (1818–1883) News of the revolution in Paris reached Brussels in February 1848. Marx briefly decamped to Paris but moved to Cologne where he founded the Neue Rheinische Zeitung which published reports of revolutionary activity all over Europe. The program of the paper was a united democratic Germany (democracy interpreted in a left-liberal fashion) and a war with tsarist Russia. But the revolutions were all defeated and the Neue Rheinische Zeitung closed down. In 1849 Marx settled in Britain. He was initially convinced that the defeats were only a temporary setback, and Marx rejoined the Communist League. In his March circular to the League, Marx espouses the strategy of “permanent revolution” – a strategy of continuing an antifeudal revolution until capital itself is overthrown. This rather “optimistic” perspective was continued in the June circular, although Marx was to warn in 1850 that up to fifty years might have to pass before a revolution could succeed. After a split within the League, Marx moved “his” wing of the Communist League to Cologne and had it wound up in 1852. Often depending on the money that Engels could raise, the Marx family lived in poverty. The Neue Rheinische Zeitung Revue, produced in 1850, contained among other things Marx’s analysis of French political developments. These essays were subsequently edited by Engels and published in Germany as The Class Struggles in France (1895 [trans. 1964]) and The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon (1852 [trans. 1934]), often considered his most brilliant political pamphlet. In these works Marx showed the importance of producing a concrete analysis of the nuances of political struggle and the way in which a ruling bloc of different class fractions has to be stitched together to make up state power in a particular instance. After completing his book on the Communist Cologne Trial, Marx turned to his economic studies and during the 1850s he published the first two chapters of what was to be Capital. Despite decades of midVictorian prosperity passed in Britain, Marx made an attempt to get to grips with class structure there in a review he wrote of the pamphlet of 1850 (Pourquoi la révolution d’Angleterre a-t-elle réussi?) by François Guizot (1787–1874). Between 1852 and 1862 Marx published – although in many instances the actual articles were written by Engels – for the New York Daily Tribune as their London correspondent. He tackled the questions of India, the Crimean War, and upheavals in China. Marx wrote an “Introduction to the Critique of Political Economy” in 1861. In this introduction or outline, which was not published 362 Marx, Karl (1818–1883) until 1941 as the Grundrisse, he dealt with the questions of money and capital, with important asides about, for example, alienation and the division of labor in a capitalist society. In 1859, he published A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, which contains the famous “guiding thread” that outlines what came to be called his “materialist conception of history.” He identifies the “Asiatic, ancient, feudal and capitalist modes of production” so that a mode of production embraces both the forces and relations of production of a given system. Critics argue that this analysis “fits” capitalism far more easily than it does precapitalist modes of production. Much of the argument here was rewritten in Capital, but before his magnum opus could be tackled, Marx spent eighteen months attacking Karl Vogt (1817–95) who had been a leader in the Frankfurt parliament. In November, 1866, Marx personally took the manuscript of Volume I of Capital over to his publisher in Germany. The first section deals with the nature of commodities and money; the second, the transformation of money into capital; the third, with the nature of surplus value. Marx argues that what makes it possible for commodities to exchange is that they are the product of labor, but this theory of value is seen by many commentators (including Marxists) to be rather archaic and implausible. This was followed by Marx’s far more readable history of capitalism and the effect of machinery on the worker, and culminated in his assessment of capital accumulation. The other two volumes of Capital have none of the polish of the first. Volume III deals with the relationship of values and prices. By the 1860s, working-class activity was reviving. In September 1864, the First International was formed with Marx as its president. The first years of the International were taken up with arguments against the followers of Proudhon, who were opposed to strikes and political involvement. One of the affiliates to the First International was the newly constituted German Social Democratic Workers Party. Marx supported the causes of Polish and Irish independence. After the defeat of France by Prussia, the Paris Commune was proclaimed. Marx saw this as a heroic if doomed attempt to storm heaven, presenting the commune (which was brutally crushed after seventy-two days in office) in The Civil War in France as a “working-class government,” a state ceasing to be a state. However, after 1870 Marx became increasingly preoccupied with a struggle against the Russian anarchist, Marxism Mikhail Bakunin (1814–76), and the International was transferred to New York where it died a natural death. Capital was translated into Russian in 1872, and Marx learnt Russian in order to read original sources. He became familiar with Russian socialists and declared in the 1882 Preface to the Russian translation of the Communist Manifesto that a revolution in Russia could avoid capitalism and spark a revolution in the West. In 1875 he wrote a critique of the German socialist party program, accusing the latter of liberal formulas and abstractions. But his health continued to deteriorate, and he died in 1883. JOHN HOFFMAN Marxism Karl Marx famously declared that he was not a Marxist, and it is arguable that there is an inherent tension between his ideas and the movements that arose in his name. Marx never saw a Marxist movement seize power during his lifetime. The relationship between Marx’s theory and the Russian Revolution of 1917 is highly contentious. There is evidence to suggest that Marx thought that socialist revolutions could emancipate humanity only if they took place in developed capitalist countries, and western Marxists have held to this view, although without practical results. Soviet Marxism used Marx’s ideas to establish a highly authoritarian form of socialism that replicated itself after World War II in the Communist Party states of eastern Europe. Chinese Marxism emphasized the importance of national independence, the centrality of will-power, and economic self-sufficiency, and Cuban Marxism arose out of the unwillingness of the United States to tolerate radical nationalism. It is certainly true that Marxism has been much more successful where it has been able to integrate itself with anti-colonial and anti-imperialist struggles in the so-called Third World, but only in South Africa has Marxism expressed itself through an independent Communist Party; and even here it is closely integrated into a movement of national liberation. Marxism as a political movement has usually been anti-liberal, except in western Europe where the ideas of the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci led to a Marxism that emphasized the importance of winning popular consent and infusing Marxism JOHN HOFFMAN with liberal values. Marxist sociology Marxism is a theory of society as well as a theory of economics. In its classical form, Marxist sociology Marxist sociology argues that people enter into social relationships independent of their will. This does not mean that they lack agency, but rather that what people wish to do can never be the same as what they actually do. This is why a Marxist sociology is materialist in that it assumes that even though people act consciously, their consciousness is not a reliable guide to the course of action they pursue. In order to survive, people must produce goods and services, and this fact has particular significance for Marxist sociology. Production is possible only if people have technology – what are referred to as the forces of production – and they cooperate with one another in particular ways – what are called relations of production. The forces and relations of production collectively constitute the basis of society: they have primary significance in accounting for events. Marxist sociology assumes that there is always a tension between the forces and relations of production. Hence relationships must continually change, since the technology people employ is itself always changing. This tension occurs in all societies, so that it would be wrong to assume that social development can ever cease. On the other hand, this tension becomes an “antagonism” when society is divided into social classes. Classes arise where those who produce are not the same people as those who benefit from production. Classical Marxism assumes that there is a relationship of exploitation between classes. This makes it impossible for changes in the forces of production to be reflected relatively smoothly in changes in the relations of production, since a particular class has a vested interest in a given set of productive relations. In class-divided societies, the collision between the forces and relations of production creates the necessity for revolution. Marx and his supporters are well aware that production cannot occur on its own. Its organization requires a culture, a legal and political framework, a set of values, and a family structure; these are seen as constituting a “superstructure” not because they are irrelevant, but because they cannot be understood on their own terms. Hence Marxist sociology is not a theory of “economic reductionism” since this would imply that, whereas the base molds the superstructure, the superstructure does not impact on the base. In class-divided societies, the “superstructure” works to entrench a particular set of productive relations, giving the latter religious, political, and ethical legitimacy. This is why class is political and cultural as well as economic, even though 363 masculinity/masculinities masculinity/masculinities the roots of class lie in the way society produces. While certain elements of the superstructure (such as religion and the state) are particular to class-divided societies, others (such as culture, political and social organization, family structure) exist in all societies. They are in tension with the base but this tension can be resolved without the need for revolution (see theory of revolution), since no one has an entrenched interest in a particular set of productive relations. JOHN HOFFMAN masculinity/masculinities At a general level masculinity is understood as the ways of being and becoming a man. As with many of the key terms in sociology, masculinity and femininity were developed against the background of biological definitions that suggest that these concepts are based in nature. Recently, sociobiological and evolutionary psychology theorists have gained increasing popular appeal with their focus on the power of nature over culture in determining gender differences between men and women. Since the mid-1980s, particularly, as a result of feminist, gay, and lesbian writing, and AIDS activism, the changing nature of men’s lives and their experiences have been much debated within a range of literatures, drawing upon sex roles, gender identity, psychoanalysis, and gender and power relations. Sex-role theory, which developed alongside theories of socialization, has been highly influential in the social sciences. Through socialization, sexrole theorists argue, males and females are conditioned into appropriate social roles and behavior. Norms and expectations that are polarized between the genders are central to the definition of masculinity. Sex-role theory assumes that these ahistorical gender essences are quantifiable and measurable. Consequently, attitude tests can be used to measure levels of socialization by the amounts of masculinity that males possess. Within this perspective, masculinity is subject to objective measurement through an index of gender norms. For example, strength, power, and sexual competence are expected of boys in western societies. Hence a wide range of individual men and male groups, such as effeminate boys and gays, are seen as not having enough masculinity, which is explained in terms of deficient levels of testosterone, inadequate role models, or overpowering mothers. In contrast, black boys and working-class boys are seen as having too much masculinity. Second-wave feminism challenged the conceptual and political implications of 364 the commonsense view that biology is destiny. In response, a distinction was made between biologically based sex (females and males) and culturally based gender (femininity and masculinity). Such work opened up masculinity to critical scrutiny, understanding masculinity as situated within a structure of gendered hierarchies, in which particular social practices are used to reproduce social divisions and inequality. Earlier theories of patriarchy (male dominance) used a unitary notion (one style) of masculinity. Later feminist theorists emphasized that gender relations are multidimensional and differentially experienced, and are responded to within specific historical contexts and social locations. In other words, differentiated forms of male power can be explained only by an analysis that takes into consideration the specific conditions that give rise to these situations. Sociological perspectives have been used to explore the social organization of masculinity and the active cultural production of masculinities within institutional sites. One of the most influential theorists, R. W. Connell, building on feminist analysis, suggests that men occupying a hegemonic masculinity are asserting a position of superiority. They do this by winning the consent of other males and females, in order to secure their (hegemonic) legitimacy. Men are able to position other men by way of their subordinated, complicit, or marginalized relationships. This suggests a move away from talking about a single masculinity to that of a plurality of masculinities. In Masculinities (1995), Connell acknowledges the social and cultural variations in being and becoming male. Multiple masculinities is a term used to convey the diversity of ways of enacting masculinity, individually and/or collectively. For example, emerging male gay identities/ subjectivities provide concrete evidence that masculinity is not something one is born with or an inherent possession, but rather an active process of achievement, performance, and enactment. Furthermore, the development of a wide range of gay male styles makes clear that the meaning of the living out of fractured masculinities involves a diverse range of men’s investments, anxieties, fantasy identifications, and contradictory emotions. More recently, poststructuralists and psychoanalysts have produced texts that address the perceived limitations of sociology around issues of the self, subjectivity, the body, and gender and sexual identity formations. For example, J. Butler’s contemporary theorizing on gender as performative, in Gender Trouble (1990), in which she rejects stable categories, has opened up ways of mass media and communications understanding notions of femininity and masculinity. This emphasis on gender as performative has problematized the cultural formation of sex and the interconnections between sex and gender. For example, it provides a framework within which to focus on uncoupling masculinity from male bodies, that is, uncoupling what men do from what men are. Masculinity and femininity in this way can be understood as something that cannot simply be equated with biological sex. The implication of this is that, at particular historical moments, female bodies are able to take on and live out particular masculinities. In particular, this highlights the inadequacy of contemporary theories of gender in accommodating female masculinities. Anthropologists are also critical of the conceptual development of masculinity in the context of western academia, which they argue tends to construct a set of insular concepts and reified types that inadequately describe gender relations in other cultures. This cross-cultural analysis illustrates the limitations of generalizing about what it means to be a man from a western model of masculinity. Work on masculinities has tended to concentrate on the localized production of men’s meanings and experiences. However, recent anthropological studies suggest the need to understand masculinities within a broader social and cultural framework that includes such issues as international politics, intranational economic relations, and globalized desires. Presently, across western societies, the main representation of men and masculinity is that of crisis. For example, masculinity is intimately linked to wider social and cultural transformations within the British nation-state, and the assumed crisis of masculinity can be read as an effect of the wider crisis of late modernity. It is suggested that socio-cultural change is marked by the disintegration of older social collectivities – such as social class – and increased fluidity of social relationships, with an accompanying interest in identity and subjectivity. This is part of a more general trend whereby the ascendant social category in established binaries (for example, men, heterosexuals, and whites) are becoming the new objects of critical appraisal. MAIRTIN MAC-AN-GHAILL AND CHRIS HAYWOOD mass media and communications During the Enlightenment and the period of eighteenth-century revolutions, the press was perceived as a progressive source of information, debate, and political transformation. The nineteenth century, mass media and communications however, saw the rise of a commercial press and sensationalistic pandering to the masses that evoked critique of emergent mass media and communication. With the rise of mass entertainment, broadcasting, and a proliferation of new media in the twentieth century, there were a series of critiques of mass culture and communication, from the right and left. Mass media and communications were linked to the rise of what critics saw as individualism and mass society, which were in turn interpreted as threats to democracy, freedom, and other positive values. Critiques of mass culture and the press began emerging during the late eighteenth century. Leo Lowenthal in Literature, Popular Culture, and Society (1961: 20) cites the comment of J. W. Goethe (1749– 1832) that the press constitutes a squandering of time wherein the reader “wastes the days and lives from hand to mouth, without creating anything.” Anticipating Søren Kierkegaard (1815–55), he criticized the ways that modern entertainment and the press promoted passivity and conformity, noting in a ditty how the press is eager to provide its readers with almost anything except dissenting ideas: Come let us print it all And be busy everywhere; But no one should stir Who does not think like we. Others had more optimistic appraisals of the impact of mass media, and particularly the press. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, famously, compared reading the daily newspaper with morning prayer. Karl Marx in Collected Works (1975, vol. I: 165), had an especially high opinion of the press in the promotion of democracy and civil liberties, writing in 1842 that: The free press is the ubiquitous vigilant eye of a people’s soul, the embodiment of a people’s faith in itself, the eloquent link that connects the individual with the state and the world, the embodied culture that transforms material struggles into intellectual struggles and idealizes their crude material form. It is a people’s frank confession to itself, and the redeeming power of confession is well known. It is the spiritual mirror in which a people can see itself, and self-examination is the first condition of wisdom. It is the spirit of the state, which can be delivered into every cottage, cheaper than coal gas. It is all-sided, ubiquitous, omniscient. It is the ideal world which always wells up out of the real world and flows back into it with every greater spiritual riches and renews its soul. By the 1840s, the press was thus a contested terrain with fervent defenders and critics. Some saw 365 mass media and communications it as an instrument of progress and enlightenment, while others saw it as an instrument of distraction and banality. Different political groupings were developing their own distinct presses and attempting to shape public opinion in various ways. While Goethe and others made some critical remarks concerning the press of the day, one of the first systematic and sustained attacks on the press is evident in Danish philosopher/theologian Kierkegaard’s polemic The Present Age (1846 [trans. 1982]), with the satirical Danish review The Corsair, which published articles making fun of him in late 1845, inciting him into a literary duel with the journal. Kierkegaard’s efforts constitute one of the first critiques of print media as an instrument for the creation of mass audience and political manipulation, producing an early assault against the media and foreshadowing later critical theories of mass media and society. Anticipating later Marxist and conservative critiques of the media, Kierkegaard argues that when “passion and commercial interest determine the issue,” when “the rattle of money in the cashbox” is at stake, the propensity for corruption increases (1982: 172). Kierkegaard reveals insight here into the economic roots of the features of the press that he finds scandalous, arguing that “immoral slander” is “of no benefit whatsoever” and “does great harm because it seduces the unstable, the irresponsible, the sensate, those who are lost in earthly passions, seduces them by means of ambiguity, lack of character and the concealment of brash contempt under the pursuit of the comic” (1982: 179–80). Interestingly, Kierkegaard’s privileged metaphor for the press is that it is a vicious attack dog. He does not theorize the press as a guardian of the public’s interests, as it was initially conceived to be in democratic theory, but rather as a predator that goes after individuals in a contemptible way. The press, he argued, is fundamentally irresponsible because its writers were anonymous and did not assume responsibility for what they wrote. In addition to undertaking an ethical critique of the press, Kierkegaard was one of the first to see that the press is a mass medium which addresses its audience as members of a crowd and that itself helps to create a mass society. The press plays a fundamental role, Kierkegaard suggests, in producing a public, a crowd devoid of individuality and independent judgment, their thought determined by the authority of printed words and editorial fiat. The average man in the street, Kierkegaard suggests, “believes that what appears in the newspapers is public 366 mass media and communications opinion, the voice of the people and of truth” (1982: 186). Kierkegaard thus points to the ways that the press simulates authority and objectivity and can thus make a lie appear as truth, or an opinion as fact. Inverting the liberal theory of public opinion (which is supposed to protect the interests of the public against corrupt authority), Kierkegaard claims that the press creates a phantom public devoid of character and individuality. Consequently, Kierkegaard, like later postmodern theory, ascribes to communications media a tremendous role in producing a mass society without distinction, individuality, or conviction. Devoid of individuality, the masses themselves are an abstraction and the main effect of modern society is a leveling of the population into a mass. Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900) believed that modern society had become so chaotic, fragmented, and devoid of “creative force” that it had lost the resources to create a vital culture, and that ultimately it greatly advanced the decline of the human species that had already begun early in western history. In Nietzsche’s view, two complementary trends were evident that were producing contradictory processes of “massification” and fragmentation -- the extreme consequences of which would be a central theme of some postmodern theory. On one hand, for Nietzsche, modern society was fragmenting into warring groups, factions, and individuals, without any overriding purpose or shared goals. On the other hand, it was leveling individuals into a herd, bereft of individuality, spontaneity, passion, and creativity. Both trends were harmful to the development of the sort of free, creative, and strong individuality championed by Nietzsche, and thus he was sharply critical of each. In their groundbreaking work Dialectic of Enlightenment (1948 [trans. 1972]), Max Horkheimer and Theodor Wiesengrund Adorno coined the term culture industry to signify the process of the industrialization (see industrial society) of mass-produced culture and the commercial imperatives that constructed it. The critical theorists analyzed all massmediated cultural artifacts within the context of industrial production, in which the commodities of the culture industries exhibited the same features as other products of mass production: commodification, standardization, and massification. The culture industries had the specific function, however, of providing ideological legitimation of the existing capitalist society and of integrating individuals into its way of life. mass media and communications For the Frankfurt School, mass culture and communications therefore stand in the center of leisure activity, are important agents of socialization, mediators of political reality, and should thus be seen as major institutions of contemporary societies with a variety of economic, political, cultural, and social effects. Furthermore, the critical theorists investigated the cultural industries politically as a form of the integration of the working class into capitalist societies. The Frankfurt School theorists were among the first neo-Marxian groups to examine the effects of mass culture and the rise of the consumer society on the working classes that were to be the instrument of revolution in the classical Marxian scenario. They also analyzed the ways that the culture industries and consumer society were stabilizing contemporary capitalism and accordingly sought new strategies for political change, agencies of political transformation, and models for political emancipation that could serve as norms of social critique and goals for political struggle. The positions of Adorno, Horkheimer, Lowenthal, and other members of the inner circle of the Institute for Social Research were contested by Walter Benjamin, an idiosyncratic theorist loosely affiliated with the Institute. Benjamin, writing in Paris during the 1930s, discerned progressive aspects in new technologies of cultural production such as photography, film, and radio. In “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” (1934 [trans. 1968]), Benjamin noted how new mass media were supplanting older forms of culture. In this context, the mass reproduction of photography, film, recordings, and publications replaced the emphasis on the originality and “aura” of the work of art in an earlier era. Freed from the mystification of high culture, Benjamin believed that mass culture could cultivate more critical individuals able to judge and analyze their culture, just as sports fans could dissect and evaluate athletic activities. In addition, Benjamin asserted that processing the rush of images of cinema helped to create subjectivities better able to parry the flux and turbulence of experience in industrialized, urbanized societies. Collaborating with the prolific German artist Bertolt Brecht (1898–1956), Benjamin worked on films, created radio plays, and attempted to utilize the media as organs of social progress. In the lecture in 1934 on “The Author as Producer” (1966 [trans. 1978]), Benjamin argued that radical cultural creators should “refunction” the apparatus of cultural production, turning theatre and film, for instance, into a forum of political mass media and communications enlightenment and discussion rather than a medium of “culinary” audience pleasure. Both Brecht and Benjamin wrote radio plays and were interested in film as an instrument of progressive social change. In an essay on radio theory, Brecht anticipated the internet in his call for reconstructing the apparatus of broadcasting from one-way transmission to a more interactive form of twoway, or multiple, communication -- a form first realized in CB radio and then electronically mediated computer communication. Moreover, Benjamin wished to promote a radical cultural and media politics concerned with the creation of alternative oppositional cultures. Yet he recognized that media such as film could have conservative effects. While he thought it was progressive that mass-produced works were losing their “aura,” their magical force, and were opening cultural artifacts to more critical and political discussion, Benjamin recognized that film could create a new kind of ideological magic through the cult of celebrity and techniques like the close-up that fetishized certain film stars or images via the technology of the cinema. Benjamin was thus one of the first radical cultural critics to look carefully at the form and technology of media culture in appraising its complex nature and effects. Horkheimer and Adorno answered Benjamin’s optimism concerning the mass media in Dialectic of Enlightenment. They argued that the system of cultural production dominated by film, radio broadcasting, newspapers, and magazines was controlled by advertising and commercial imperatives, and served to create subservience to the system of consumer capitalism. While later critics pronounced their approach too manipulative, reductive, and elitist, it provides an important corrective to more populist approaches to media culture that downplay the way the media industries exert power over audiences and help produce thought and behavior that conforms to the existing society. Jürgen Habermas, a student of Adorno and Horkheimer, provided useful historical perspectives on the transition from traditional culture and the democratic public sphere to a mass-produced media and consumer society. In The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere (1962 [trans. 1989]), Habermas historicized Adorno and Horkheimer’s analysis of the culture industry. Providing historical background to the triumph of the culture industry, Habermas discussed how bourgeois society in the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries was distinguished by the rise of a public sphere that stood between civil society and the state and which mediated between public 367 mass media and communications and private interests. For the first time in history, individuals and groups could shape public opinion, giving direct expression to their needs and interests while influencing political practice. The bourgeois public sphere made it possible to form a realm of public opinion that opposed state power and the powerful interests that were coming to shape bourgeois society. Habermas analyzed a transition from the liberal public sphere that originated in the Enlightenment and the American and French Revolutions to a media-dominated public sphere in the current stage of what he calls “welfare state capitalism and mass democracy.” This historical transformation is grounded in Horkheimer and Adorno’s theory of the culture industry, in which giant corporations have taken over the public sphere and transformed it from a site of rational debate into one of manipulative consumption and passivity. In this transformation, “public opinion” shifts from rational consensus emerging from debate, discussion, and reflection, to the manufactured opinion of polls or media experts. For Habermas, the interconnection between the sphere of public debate and individual participation has thus been fractured and transmuted into that of a realm of political manipulation and spectacle, in which citizen-consumers ingest and passively absorb entertainment and information. “Citizens” thus become spectators of media presentations and discourse which arbitrate public discussion and reduce its audiences to objects of news, information, and public affairs. As communication studies began emerging in the 1930s and 1940s, and as theorists noted the power of propaganda in World War II, a wide range of texts began appearing on the social effects of the media, promoting debate over the media and social problems, and the media as a social problem. Some of the first empirical studies of the effects of film, for instance, criticized the cinema for promoting immorality, juvenile delinquency, and violence. The Motion Picture Research Council funded the Payne Foundation to undertake detailed empirical studies of the impact of films on everyday life and social behavior. Ten volumes were eventually published and a book, Our Movie-Made Children (1933), sensationalized the Payne findings, triggering debates about the media and how they inflamed social problems like crime, youth problems, sexual promiscuity, and what was perceived as undesirable social behavior. The first models of mass communication built on studies of propaganda, film influence, advertising, and other media studies, assumed a direct 368 mass media and communications and powerful influence of media on the audience. This model became known as the “bullet,” or “hypodermic,” theory, asserting that the media directly shape thought and behavior and thus induce social problems like crime and violence, rebellious social behavior, mindless consumption, or mass political behavior. Based on research by Harold Lasswell, in Propaganda Technique in the Modern World (1927), there were a number of studies in the 1930s and 1940s of the propaganda role of the media in World Wars I and II, reflecting concern about the roles of film, advertising, and other media in intensifying a number of social problems ranging from crime to growing numbers of teenage pregnancies. This model of powerful and direct media effects was questioned in The People’s Choice (1944) by Paul Lazarsfeld and his colleagues Bernard Berelson and Hazel Gaulet who, in a study of the influence of the media on voters, determined that it was “opinion leaders” who were the primary influence in voting behavior, while the media exerted a “secondary” influence. Lazersfeld and Elihu Katz expanded this model in Personal Influence: The Part Played by People in the Flow of Mass Communication (1955). Their “two-step flow” model claimed that opinion leaders are the primary influence in determining consumer and political choice, as well as attitudes and values. This model holds that the media do not have direct influence on behavior, but are mediated by primary groups and personal influence, thus in effect denying that the media themselves are a social problem because they merely report on issues and reinforce behavior already dominant in a society. Yet both conservatives and left-liberal media critics argued that the media had harmful social effects and promoted social problems. Growing juvenile delinquency in the 1950s was blamed on comic books, such as Fredric Wertham’s Seduction of the Innocent (1954), and rock and roll was broadly attacked for having a wide range of subversive effects. In the 1960s, many different studies of the media and violence appeared throughout the world in response to growing violence in society and more permissive public media that increased representations of implicit sex and violence in film, television, and other media. In addition to seeing the media as a social problem because of growing media and societal violence, from the 1960s to the present, left-liberal and conservative media critics coalesced in arguing that mainstream media promote excessive consumerism and commodification. This view is argued in sociological terms in the work of Daniel mass media and communications Bell, who asserted in The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism (1978) that a sensate–hedonistic culture exhibited in popular media and promoted by capitalist corporations was undermining core traditional values and producing an increasingly amoral society. Bell called for a return to tradition and religion to counter this social trend and saw media culture as undermining morality, the work ethic, and traditional values. In Amusing Ourselves to Death (1985), Neil Postman argued that popular media culture has become a major force of socialization and was subverting traditional literacy skills, thus undermining education. Postman criticized the negative social effects of the media and called for educators and citizens to intensify their criticisms of it. Extolling the virtues of book culture and literacy, Postman called for educational reform to counter the nefarious effects of media and consumer culture. Mass culture and communication was of great interest in the United Kingdom and Europe, as well as the United States. While the Frankfurt School arguably articulates cultural conditions in the stage of state monopoly capitalism or Fordism that produced a regime of mass production and consumption, British cultural studies emerged in the 1960s when, first, there was widespread global resistance to consumer capitalism and an upsurge of revolutionary movements, and then emergence of a new stage of capital, described as postFordism, postmodernity, or other terminology that attempted to describe a more variegated and contested social and cultural formation. Moreover, the forms of society and culture described by the earliest phase of British cultural studies in the 1950s and early 1960s articulated conditions in an era in which there were still significant tensions in Britain and much of Europe between an older working-class-based culture and the newer massproduced culture whose models and exemplars came from American culture industries. The initial project of cultural studies developed by Richard Hoggart, Raymond Williams, and E. P. Thompson attempted to preserve working-class culture against onslaughts of mass culture and communication from the culture industries. Thompson’s inquiries into the history of British working-class institutions and struggles, the defenses of working-class culture by Hoggart and Williams, and their attacks on mass culture were part of a socialist and working-class-oriented project that assumed that the industrial working class was a force for progressive social change and that it could be mobilized and organized to struggle against the inequalities of the existing mass media and communications capitalist societies and for a more egalitarian socialist one. Williams and Hoggart were deeply involved in projects of working-class education and oriented towards socialist working-class politics, seeing their form of cultural studies as a progressive instrument for change. The early critiques in the first wave of British cultural studies of Americanism and media culture in Hoggart, Williams, and others, during the late 1950s and early 1960s, thus paralleled to some extent the earlier critique of the Frankfurt School, yet valorized a working class that the Frankfurt School saw as defeated in Germany and much of Europe during the era of fascism, and which they never saw as a strong resource for emancipatory social change. The 1960s work of the Birmingham Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies was continuous with the radicalism of the first wave of British cultural studies (the Hoggart–Thompson– Williams “culture and society” tradition) as well as, in important ways, with the Frankfurt School. Yet the Birmingham project also eventually paved the way for a postmodern populist turn in cultural studies. During this period, the Centre developed a variety of critical approaches for the analysis, interpretation, and criticism of cultural artifacts. Through a set of internal debates, and responding to social struggles and movements of the 1960s and the 1970s, the Birmingham group came to focus on the interplay of representations and ideologies of social class, gender, race and ethnicity, and nationality in mass culture and communication. The Birmingham scholars were among the first to study the effects of newspapers, radio, television, film, and other popular cultural forms on audiences. They also focused on how various audiences interpreted and used media culture in different ways and contexts, analyzing the factors that made audiences respond in contrasting ways to media texts. Like the Frankfurt School, British cultural studies observed the integration of the working class and the decline of its revolutionary consciousness, and studied the conditions of this catastrophe for the Marxian project of revolution. Like the Frankfurt School, British cultural studies concluded that mass culture was playing an important role in integrating the working class into existing capitalist societies and that emergent consumer and media culture was forming a new mode of capitalist hegemony. But John Fiske in Understanding Popular Culture (1989) and other writings attacked the concepts of mass society and mass culture which were said to be overly homogenized and 369 mass media and communications monolithic, neutralizing cultural contradictions and dissolving oppositional groups and practices into a neutral concept of “the masses” which many in the British cultural studies tradition found overly contemptuous and elitist. Both traditions, though, see culture as a form of resistance to capitalist society, and both the earlier forerunners of British cultural studies, especially Williams, and the theorists of the Frankfurt School see high culture as forces of resistance to capitalist modernity. Later, British cultural studies would valorize resistant moments in media culture, and audience interpretations and use of media artifacts, while the Frankfurt School tended, with some exceptions, to see mass culture as a homogeneous and potent form of ideological domination -a difference that would seriously divide the two traditions. Negative depictions of the media and consumerism, youth hedonism, excessive materialism, and growing violence were contested by British cultural studies which claimed that the media were being scapegoated for a wide range of social problems. In Policing the Crisis (Hall et al., 1978), Stuart Hall and colleagues at the Birmingham Centre analyzed what they took to be a media-induced moral panic about mugging and youth violence. The Birmingham group argued for an active audience that was able to dissect critically and make use of media material, arguing against the media manipulation perspective. Rooted in a classic article by Hallen titled “Encoding/Decoding” (1980), British cultural studies began studying how different groups read television news, magazines, engaged in consumption, and made use of a broad range of media. In Everyday Television: Nationwide, Charlotte Brunsdon and David Morley (1978) studied how different audiences consumed TV news, and Fiske wrote a series of books celebrating the active audience and consumer in a wide range of domains throughout the world. Yet critics working within British cultural studies, individuals in a wide range of social movements, and academics from a variety of fields and positions began criticizing the media from the 1960s to the present for promoting sexism, racism, homophobia, and other oppressive social phenomena. There was intense focus on the politics of representation, discriminating between negative and positive representations of major social groups and harmful and beneficial media effects, debates that coalesced under the rubric of the politics of representation. The groundbreaking work of critical media theorists like the Frankfurt School, British cultural 370 mass media and communications studies, and French structuralism and poststructuralism revealed that media culture is a social construct, intrinsically linked to the vicissitudes of the social and historically specific milieu in which it is conceived and that gender, race, class, sexuality, and other dimensions of social life are socially constructed in media representations. Media and cultural studies engaged in critical interrogations of the politics of representation, which drew upon feminist approaches and multicultural theories to analyze fully the functions of gender, class, race, ethnicity, nationality, sexual preference, and so on in the media. The social dimensions of media constructions are perceived by cultural studies as being vitally constitutive of audiences who appropriate and use texts. While earlier British cultural studies engaged the progressive and oppositional potential of working-class and then youth culture, under the pressure of the social movements of the 1960s and 1970s many adopted a feminist dimension, paid greater attention to race, ethnicity, and nationality, and concentrated on sexuality. During this period, assorted discourses of race, gender, sex, nationality, and so on circulated in response to social struggles and movements and were taken up in cultural studies to engage critically the politics of representation. An increasingly complex, culturally hybrid, and diasporic global culture and networked society calls for sophisticated understandings of the interplay of representations, politics, and the forms of media, and theorizing global culture has been a major focus of the contemporary era. Many critics emphasized the importance of connecting representations of gender, race, class, sexuality, and other subject positions to disclose how the media present socially derogatory representations of subordinate groups. bell hooks, in Black Looks: Race and Representation (1992) and other writings, has been among the first and most prolific African-American feminist scholars to call attention to the interlockings of race, class, gender, and additional markers of identity in the constitution of subjectivity. Early in her career she challenged feminists to recognize and confront the ways in which race and class inscribe women’s (and men’s) experiences. In “Eating the Other” (1992), hooks explores cultural constructions of the other as an object of desire, tying such positioning to consumerism and commodification as well as to issues of racial domination and subordination. Cautioning against the seductiveness of celebrating “otherness,” hooks uses various media cultural artifacts -- clothing catalogs, films, rap mass media and communications music -- to debate issues of cultural appropriation versus cultural appreciation, and to uncover the personal and political crosscurrents at work in mass media representation. Since the 1960s, a broad range of theories and methods to analyze the production of media texts, their polysemic meanings, and their complex uses and effects have been developed. Critical theories were developed within feminism, critical race theory, gay and lesbian theory, and other groupings associated with new political movements, making critical theory part of political struggle inside and outside the university. Feminists, for instance, demonstrated how gender bias infected disciplines from philosophy to literary studies and was embedded in texts ranging from classics of the canon to the mundane artifacts of popular culture. In similar ways, critical race theorists demonstrated how racial bias permeated cultural artifacts, while gay and lesbian theorists demonstrated sexual bias. These critical theories also stressed giving voice to groups and individuals marginalized in the dominant forms of western and then global culture. Critical theory began going global in the post-1960s disseminations of critical discourses. Postcolonial theory in various parts of the world developed particular critical theories as a response to colonial oppression and to the hopes of national liberation. Franz Fanon in Algeria, Wole Soyinka in Nigeria, Gabriel Marquez in Latin America, Arrundi Roy in India, and others all gave voice to specific experiences and articulated critical theories that expanded their global and multicultural reach. Focus on the politics of representation thus calls attention to the fact that culture is produced within relationships of domination and subordination and tends to reproduce or resist existing structures of power. Such a perspective also provides tools for cultural studies whereby the critic can denounce aspects of media forms and artifacts that reproduce class, gender, racial, and diverse modes of domination, and positively valorize aspects that subvert existing types of domination, or depict resistance and movements against them. Issues of the politics of representation and violence and the media intersect in the impassioned debates over pornography. For a school of feminism and cultural conservatives, pornography and violence against women are among the most problematic aspects of media culture. Anti-porn feminists argue that pornography objectifies women, that the industry dangerously exploits them, and that pornography promotes violence against mass society women and debased sexuality. Pro-sex feminists and defenders of pornography, by contrast, argue that pornography exhibits a tabooed array of sexuality, provokes fantasy and awakens desire, and can be used by consumers in gratifying ways. Hence, while there is widespread agreement that the media has multiple effects and that its representations are an important part of the social world, there is heated debate over whether the media have positive or negative social effects. Many critics argue that one-sided pro or con positions tend to be simplistic and reductive and that contextual analysis needs to be made on specific media effects of certain technologies or artifacts on specific audiences. This position also asserts that, in general, media have contradictory effects and that in many cases it is impossible to discern accurately or distinguish positive or negative features that are often interconnected. Contemporary debates thus reflect the bifurcated positions on the media and mass communications first debated in the early nineteenth century. DOUGLAS KELLNER mass society A type of society based on social conformity, political complacence, the decline of community, mass production and mass communication, this concept was most influential in the 1940s and 1950s when it was related to theories of social order and manipulation. Following in the footsteps of Matthew Arnold, T. S. Eliot, in Notes Towards the Definition of Culture (1948), refined the distinction between elite and mass culture. Eliot argued that it is the duty of the elite to protect the values of high culture from the onslaught of mass culture, which he associated with pandering to the lowest common denominator. C. Wright Mills argued in The Power Elite (1956) and The Sociological Imagination (1959) that the pluralism upon which democracy depended was being replaced by the standardization of opinion, values, and behavior. Individual freedom was being replaced by programmatic behavior orchestrated by the centralized state and the business corporation. In the popular sociology of Vance Packard in The Hidden Persuaders (1957), ordinary men and women were subject to the “hidden persuaders” who controlled advertising and operated the levers of public opinion formation. The argument paralleled key themes in the Frankfurt School critique of society, especially the proposition that mass culture had become one-dimensional in Herbert Marcuse’s One-Dimensional Man (1964). But it was given a fillip in these years by 371 materialism the Cold War and the increasing knowledge about the centralized regulation and orthodox value systems that operated in the Soviet command state. David Riesman, in The Lonely Crowd (1950), argued that a new general personality type was emerging in mass society. The first settler communities and the generations that succeeded them up to the 1940s were characterized by “inner-directed” personality types based in self-reliance, personally defined convictions, and a strong sense of place. Under mass society they were being replaced by “other-directed” types who assimilated opinions and values from the mass media, were susceptible to advertising, marketing, and other forms of public opinion manipulation, and who expressed a weak sense of belonging and community. Mass society theory came increasingly under fire after the 1960s. It was held to sponsor a dominant ideology thesis that exaggerated the manipulative power of ruling formations and failed to grasp social and cultural diversity. Critical thought shifted to questions of social class, gender, and race, all of which destabilized the proposition of a homogeneous mass of citizens, producers, and consumers. The rise of interest in multiculturalism projected issues of hybridity, diaspora, postmodernism, and postcolonial identity to the forefront of sociological theory. The effect was to expose the over-simplification and inflexibility of mass society theory. Covertly, mass society theory underwent a massive revival in the 1990s in the guise of George Ritzer’s thesis in McDonaldization of Society (1993). Taking over and modernizing Max Weber’s rationalization thesis, Ritzer argued that social life was succumbing to penetrating standards of efficiency, calculability, predictability, and control. The argument invoked again the notions of standardized social practice and mass conformity. Following the train of classical mass society theory, Ritzer concludes that the prospects for resistance are dim. The fate of advanced industrial society is to subject citizens to various processes of standardization of emotions and practice in the CHRIS ROJEK conduct of everyday life. materialism This concept can be understood in two rather different ways. In everyday language, it is used as a moral judgment of a person or philosophy, ascribing to them an excessive devotion to possessions or sensory pleasures. In a more technical vocabulary, it means any secular philosophy or system which accepts only explanations grounded 372 maternal deprivation thesis in material reality. The most widespread materialist system is that of western science, which seeks an account of the physical world without recourse to spiritual or supernatural forces. Anglo-Saxon social sciences and French sciences humaines derive their inspiration from scientific materialism. Typically such approaches emphasize observable behaviors, notably language, rather than intangible elements such as psychological motivations. Equally significant is the scientific socialism of Karl Marx. Marx sought a scientific basis for understanding human history and social formations, and found it in the economic activities of societies. Marx’s dialectical variant of materialism identified the contradictions arising within economic orders as the motor of history. Moreover, in his earlier writings, Marx claimed that the cultural products and symbolic and political systems of a society were products of its economic organization. Later materialists, often inspired by phenomenology’s interest in embodiment, inquired into the material force of communication, power, sexuality, and other factors. One core challenge for materialism is to avoid the mechanical determinism common in Indian and classical materialism and some versions of Newtonian scientific reasoning. Marx’s dialectical materialism, the phenomenological emphasis on lived experience, and developments in contemporary science, especially in cybernetics, have lessened the more extreme determinist aspects of early materialism. A second challenge, to describe structure and change without recourse to abstract ideas, which are difficult to use without ascribing agency SEAN CUBITT to them, still proves elusive. maternal deprivation thesis This thesis originally arose in Britain from the work of John Bowlby, a child psychologist and psychoanalyst, in the 1940s and 1950s, most notably from Child Care and the Growth of Love (1953). The idea of maternal deprivation has been much used and abused since he developed his thesis, and so it is important to contextualize his work. As a clinician Bowlby worked with disturbed children and he began to relate the delinquent behavior he witnessed to the quality of parenting, particularly mothering, that children received. These ideas developed in a more focused way when he observed the treatment of children in hospitals and residential institutions and, also, of those who were separated from their mothers by wartime evacuation. Hospital practices at that time entailed a complete separation of mother and child, and, while in the institution, the infant was neither cuddled, matriarchy comforted, nor played with. Bowlby observed that this resulted in an inability of the child to attach to other human beings. The idea of maternal deprivation was therefore an important component of Attachment Theory. He argued that if the child did not learn to respond to other key individuals, most particularly the mother or mother substitute, s/he could not learn to trust or interact in a normal way. To achieve attachment, Bowlby argued that mothers must form affective bonds with their children and that these bonds should not be disrupted by long absences, or by the introduction of multiple carers. His work was part of a trajectory of work which sought to protect children and to improve their life chances. However, the maternal deprivation thesis became popularized through the growth of social work and health visiting in the 1950s and 1960s, and Bowlby’s originally humane ideas became sedimented into virtual rules for how mothers should raise their children. Mothers were criticized for going out to work, especially if their children were under five, and the idea that mothers were solely responsible for the delinquency or disturbed behavior of their children also became an idée fixe. Feminist work in the 1970s became very critical of the maternal deprivation thesis because it was seen as responsible for closing nurseries in the postwar era and condemning mothers to long, lonely hours of virtual imprisonment with their infants. The thesis was used to deny employment to women with children, and alternative care was also frowned upon. Fathers too became insignificant in this process, with all the attention being on the quality of the mother– child bond and the father being seen solely as the economic support to allow the mother to be a fulltime carer. However, Denise Riley, in The War in the Nursery (1983), has argued that much of the criticism against Bowlby was misplaced because, from a sociological perspective, it is essential to distinguish between the original ideas taken in context (such as the importance of bonding) and the ways in which these ideas were popularized and utilized by others who might have had different purposes. In other words, she suggests that the thesis was treated instrumentally to keep mothers at home, whereas the original aim was to recognize the importance of the mother–child bond and to improve the treatment of children. C A R O L S M A R T matriarchy An anthropological term which describes a society in which descent and lineage are traced through Mauss, Marcel (1872–1951) the mother rather than the father; an example of matriarchal descent patterns is that of Judaism, in which it is the mother who confers the status of Jew on her children. It is, however, not the case that matriarchy can be read as the opposite to patriarchy, since many matriarchal systems do not confer on women the same authority, nor access to property, as patriarchal systems do on men. It is also the case that matriarchy can exist in certain contexts within patriarchal societies; the most obvious and well-known example would be the matriarchal household, in which women dominate the social and personal arrangements of the domestic space, but in which power outside the household belongs exclusively to men. As is the case with the term patriarchy, matriarchy is often used in a more general sense to denote a pattern of female control and authority. MARY EVANS Mauss, Marcel (1872–1951) Mauss was born in Epinal, also the birthplace of Émile Durkheim, who was his uncle and became his teacher and mentor. Mauss led, so to speak, the anthropological wing of the Durkheim school, at any rate after the death in World War I of other anthropologists (or ethnographers, as they generally called themselves) associated with it. His numerous and significant contributions derived their data chiefly from the study of pre-literate society but on Durkheim’s death he took over the editorship of the Année Sociologique, and in 1931 he was called to a chair in sociology at the Collège de France. With his uncle he wrote a seminal essay on Primitive Classification (1903 [trans. 1963]); with H. Hubert, a “Sketch of a General Theory of Magic”; with H. Beuchat, a very successful “Essay on Seasonal Variations within Eskimo Societies.” The latter two essays were published as Sociologie et anthropologie (1906). Some of Mauss’s other writings addressed classical anthropological themes, such as sacrifice, myth, and ritual. Others, however, owed their impact to the novelty of their themes, such as laughter and tears, the “techniques of the body,” and, most especially, the gift. Mauss addressed the latter phenomenon, in The Gift (1924 [trans. 1954]), as a major instance of what he called “a total social phenomenon,” that is one comprising at the same time juridical, economic, religious, and aesthetical aspects, none of which should be studied in isolation from the others. His sophisticated handling of all these topics constituted a major inspiration for the development of structuralism, especially in 373 McDonaldization McLuhan, Marshall (1911–1980) anthropology as practiced and theorized chiefly by Claude Lévi-Strauss after Mauss’s own death. GIANFRANCO POGGI McDonaldization This term was successfully deployed by George Ritzer in his book The McDonaldization of Society, first published in 1993, and promoted in several other volumes by the same author. He defines McDonaldization as “the process by which the principles of the fast-food restaurant are coming to dominate more and more sectors of American society as well as of the rest of the world.” He continues by maintaining that this process affects “not only the restaurant business, but also education, work, health care, travel, leisure, dieting, politics, the family, and virtually every other aspect of society.” The practices of the McDonalds restaurant chain are thus used metaphorically to describe and illustrate more general societal tendencies. According to Ritzer, McDonalds operates in accordance with four basic principles: efficiency, calculation, predictability, and control. These principles, being applied to workers and work organization and to customers, account for the company’s success. Their single-minded pursuit in a business organization have had some detrimental consequences for personnel, work, and their products. Work is boring, and their goods are uniform just as they were in factories engaged in the industrial production of standardized commodities. Applied to other domains of existence, like education or personal care, the principles often have irrational effects, damaging to the social relationships between providers and recipients. The concept is primarily a rhetorical device for redescribing processes which in earlier sociological literature would be described as rationalization. ALAN WARDE McLuhan, Marshall (1911–1980) In the 1960s and 1970s, McLuhan was read as one of the most influential media theorists of our time and is once again becoming widely discussed and debated in the computer era. His 1964 work Understanding Media dramatized the importance of television and electronic broadcasting and entertainment media on contemporary society. The eventual decline of influence of McLuhan’s work perhaps resulted in part from his exaggeration of the role of television and electronic culture in effecting a break from the print era and producing a new electronic age. Yet, in retrospect, McLuhan anticipated the rise and importance of computer culture and the dramatic emergence and effects of personal computers and the 374 internet that provide even more substance to McLuhan’s claim that contemporary society is undergoing a fundamental rupture with the past. Indeed, McLuhan can be read in the light of classical social theory as a major theorist of modernity, with an original and penetrating analysis of the origins, nature, and trajectory of the modern world. Furthermore, he can be read in retrospect as a major anticipator of theories of a postmodern break, of a rupture with modernity, of leaving behind the previous print–industrial– urban-mechanical era and entering a new postmodern society with novel forms of culture and society. McLuhan’s work proposes that a major new medium of communication changes the ratio of the senses, the patterns of everyday life, modes of social interaction and communication, and many other aspects of social and individual life that are often not perceived. “Understanding media,” thus, for McLuhan, requires understanding the form of the media and its structural effects on the psyche, culture, and social life. McLuhan’s analyses of book and print technology, newspapers, roads, modern industry and mechanization, war, radio and television, computers, and other modern technologies and phenomena all illuminate the constitution of the modern world and provide new insights into modernity and the emergence of a postmodern era. His description of specific technologies and how they produced the modern era and anticipation of how new emergent electronic technologies are fashioning a new postmodern era are often highly illuminating. McLuhan, like Jean Baudrillard, Fredric Jameson, and other theorists of the postmodern, presents an ideal-type analysis in which modernity is marked by linearity, differentiation, explosion, centralization, homogenization, hierarchy, fragmentation, and individualism. Postmodernity, by contrast, is marked by implosion or dedifferentiation, decentralization, tribalism, synaesthesia, and a new media and computer culture that would be called cyberspace which would be theorized by Baudrillard and other postmodern theorists. As with Karl Marx and certain versions of postmodern theory, there have been criticisms of McLuhan’s notion of stages of history and his ideal-type delineation of premodern, modern, and postmodern societies. His depiction of premodern societies as “primitive” and “savage” is highly objectionable from the standpoint of contemporary critical theory. Unlike more dialectical theorists, McLuhan does not mediate between the economy and technology in the construction of contemporary media industries, although he Mead, George Herbert (1863–1931) provides unique insights into media form and the powerful effects of specific media. McLuhan thus remains important for social theory and cultural studies as we enter a new millennium. DOUGLAS KELLNER Mead, George Herbert (1863–1931) Best known in sociology as the progenitor of the symbolic interactionist school, which builds upon his ideas on the social nature of the act and its relation to the human self and society, he was actually one of the most original thinkers in twentieth-century American philosophy. In addition, he dedicated much thought and effort to movements for progressive social reform. As David Miller observes in George Herbert Mead: Self, Language and the World (1973), Mead’s pivotal philosophical concept of sociality, which he explicitly articulated only late in his life, refers to processes of interaction among and between phenomena of all kinds throughout the natural universe. Mead developed this idea by referring to such disparate intellectual developments as, among others, Einstein’s special theory of relativity or Charles Darwin’s evolutionary principles. That Mead’s thought is only partially understood by most sociologists is due, at least in part, to his well-known writer’s block. Most of his influential works, including Mind, Self, and Society (1934), were not composed for publication, but rather were compiled from course notes taken by dedicated students. This group included Herbert Blumer, who transmitted edited statements of Mead’s ideas into sociological circles. But there may be other problems as well. It is unclear if Mead modeled his philosophical notion of sociality on his social psychology of human interaction, or vice versa. In addition, Mead never worked out an epistemological position adequate to understanding interactions between phenomena with different properties. Indeed, the absence of an epistemological position in Mead’s thought is reflected in the absence of a unifying method in symbolic interactionism today. Not only are there two methodologically distinct schools of symbolic interactionism, the Chicago and Iowa Schools, but the Chicago School often relies on methods much richer in elegant ethnographic description than in generalized sociological analysis. Mead’s thought has experienced a renaissance in recent years led by Hans Joas, Gary Cook, and Dmitri Shalin. Jürgen Habermas, more ambitiously, has reframed and reconstructed sociological elements of Mead’s thought and incorporated them Mead, Margaret (1901–1978) into his theory of communicative action. Habermas emphasizes Mead’s focus on the coordination of interaction via significant symbols. Mead, in turn, was inspired, with regard to the significance of communication, by C. S. Peirce (1839–1914), one of the founders of the philosophy of pragmatism. Mead was born in 1863, the son of a Congregational minister father and a mother who became President of Mount Holyoke College after her husband’s death. Mead graduated from Oberlin College in 1883 and enrolled at Harvard University in 1887. Though he studied with William James, he had a higher regard for Josiah Royce (1855–1916). The strongest influences on Mead’s thought were Charles Horton Cooley and John Dewey (1859–1952), both of whom Mead met at the University of Michigan, where he took a position in 1891. Three years later he joined Dewey, who accepted a chair in philosophy, as a member of the Department of Philosophy at the University of Chicago, where he spent the rest of his career. IRA COHEN Mead, Margaret (1901–1978) A student of Franz Boas (1858–1942) and protégée of Ruth Benedict (1887–1948), Mead was an anthropologist of unrivaled international celebrity during her long and multifaceted career. She opposed cultures to races (see race and ethnicity) and pointed to the diversity of practices of enculturation as the key to any adequate account of the behavioral diversity of different human populations. Yet she shared with Benedict a relativism tempered by a humanist psychology which licensed the rebuke and even the pathologization of the culture that failed to accommodate the whole array of putatively natural psychosexual human needs and temperamental inclinations of its members. The part-relativist, part-humanist thrust of her critical pedagogy is already at work in Coming of Age in Samoa (1928). It is a motif in more than forty books and hundreds of essays that she would subsequently publish. Mead’s terrains of investigation were many and far-flung; her critical attention consistently returned to the intolerance and the Puritanism of her native United States. Quiet but sustained discomfort with the quality of much of Mead’s ethnographic research erupted into controversy after her death with Derek Freeman’s Margaret Mead and Samoa: The Making of a Myth (1984). Her enduring stature owes more to her long curatorial career at the American Museum of Natural History, her early and persistent advocacy of the use of multiple media of 375 mean ethnographic documentation and multiple genres of ethnographic writing, her leadership as a public scientist and intellectual, and her great success in rendering anthropology accessible to a mass audience. JAMES D. FAUBION mean – see distribution. measurement In the social sciences, measurement consists in the application of numbers to persons, social objects, or events. An identical number may have a radically different meaning, depending on the predetermined rules for its application in a particular measurement context. There are three qualitatively different ways that numbers can be applied to effect such measurement: nominal scales are used to name things, people, or events; ordinal scales are used to rank things, people, or events; and cardinal (interval and ratio) scales are used to represent quantity. First, nominal scales may be used to name, or label, things, people, or events. Scores assigned according to a nominal scale could just as easily be letters, or words. The numbers employed in a nominal scale operate to distinguish between observations – but have no cardinal, or real, value. Examples of the use of a nominal scale include the assignment of a “1” for females and a “2” for males, in a dataset. A student number or social security number is also an example of a nominal scale. The assignment of numbers according to a nominal scale does not permit the sophisticated statistical interpretation of collections of such scores. For instance, it does not make sense to infer that males are twice as valuable as females, according to the scores accorded to each (for it would be equally sensible to accord a “2” to females and a “1” to males). Similarly it would be nonsensical to compute the average social security number. For this reason, variables that are measured according to a nominal scale are termed qualitative variables. Second, numbers assigned according to ordinal scales provide the researcher with more information than do numbers assigned according to nominal scales. In addition to performing the basic function of categorization, such numbers also provide a sense of the relative position of a number in relation to other numbers. In this sense, ordinal scales are quantitative, in that they give a rough indication of the quantity of the entity in question, relative to other entities. A common instance of an ordinal scale is the activity of ranking persons, events, or objects. 376 measurement Thus, it may be stated that X is more popular than Y, and that Y is more popular than Z; however, an ordinal scale can tell us nothing about the intervals between X, Y, and Z. That is, the consistency of the intervals between adjacent ranks cannot be assumed, according to an ordinal scale. There are two kinds of cardinal scales: interval scales and ratio scales. Interval scales provide a third level of measurement. Interval scales, like nominal and ordinal scales, may be used to categorize things, events, or people. In addition, like ordinal scales, scores reflect the property of quantity. That is, different numbers reflect more or less of a particular variable. However, interval scales differ from ordinal scales in that they have the property that numerical distances on the scale represent equal distances on the dimension argued to underlie each scale. Temperature (whether measured by Fahrenheit or Celsius) is an example of an interval scale. The distance between 5 and 10 degrees is identical to the distance between 20 and 25 degrees. Similarly, a log-interval scale of measurement is one in which numbers are assigned so that the ratios between values reflect ratios in the attribute being measured. In log-interval ratio scales, the logarithms of the scale scores form an interval scale, as the ratio a/b ¼ log a
log b. Common examples of logratios are density (mass divided by volume) and fuel efficiency in kilometers per liter. The application of interval scales within the social and behavioral sciences is more contentious than within the natural and physical sciences. Many statistical tests rely upon the assumption that the data represent an underlying dimension of equal intervals. As early as 1946, Clyde Coombs in his “A Theory of Psychological Scaling,” urged social scientists to stick with lower levels of measurement, rather than “quantifying by fiat.” The process of transforming data into higher levels of measurement is known as “scaling” or “quantification.” Critics have argued that quantification or scaling can, if applied without consideration, impose nonsensical numerical values on non-numerical dimensions. In turn, the ubiquity of this practice raises questions about the transferability of scaling, as a concept, from the physical sciences to social phenomena, with the risk of otherwise information-rich qualitative data being subjected to the imposition of a single, linear, underlying dimension. Ratio scales are argued to provide the most sophisticated level of measurement. In addition to possessing all of the properties of an interval scale, a ratio scale also possesses an absolute zero measurement point. Time and length are instances of ratio scales. Temperature is not, as “0” does not equal the complete absence of heat. A discontinuous or discrete variable, or dimension, of interest is one that usually increases by increments of one whole number. Pregnancy and number of children are discrete variables. That is, while it may be true that the average number of children per Australian couple is 2.21, and that the average number of live births per single mother per year is 0.18, these expressions do not reflect any particular real-world pregnancy or child. One cannot be a little bit pregnant; just as one cannot raise 0.21 of a child. In the interpretation of averages based on discontinuous variables, one should identify the closest sensible denominator. For instance, in the above example, we should expect to find 221 children per 100 Australian couples. A continuous variable, or dimension, in contrast, can in theory have an infinite number of increments between each whole number. Height and weight are common examples of continuous variables. When measuring continuous variables, it is always possible to achieve a more precise measurement – and any measurement taken is always an approximation. In consequence, the measurement of continuous variables typically involves the specification of a particular unit of measurement, which specifies the desired level of precision. This specification will result in all measurements taken that fall within a particular interval being recorded as an instance of that interval. The upper and lower real limits of a number are typically one half of the specified unit of measurement. Thus, if one were recording height in centimeters, the real limits for the figure 164 would be 163.5 cm (lower limit) and 164.5 cm (upper limit). If the unit of measurement were tenths of a centimeter, then the real limits for the figure 164 would be 163.95 cm (lower limit) and 164.05 cm (upper limit). Measurement gives rise to consideration of the issues of reliability and validity. Reliability refers to the ability to repeat the results of a measurement accurately (common forms include interrater reliability; test–retest reliability; and measures of internal consistency, including split-half and coefficient alpha). Validity refers to the degree of fit between the measurement taken and the underlying analytic construct (construct validity); or to the resemblance between the measurements taken and their “real-life” equivalent (ecological validity). The measurement scale employed may have consequences for both these issues. Particular measurement caution may be necessary when combining extremely qualitative, or “subjective” social issues, such as racism, or homophobia, with higher-order measurement approaches. Measurement raises a number of issues for sociologists. It engenders at least two basic challenges: the question of finding an appropriate fit between indicators and analytic concepts, and the search for sufficiently accurate data. Sociological forms of measurement are more diverse than those found within other social sciences, including psychology, where the variables of interest are often articulated at an individual, rather than a societal, level. In consequence, sociological researchers encounter issues of measurement in the context of the collection and organization of both primary and secondary sources of data. Census-based data, including Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARs), offer sociologists a rich resource for the measurement of a range of social variables, such as socioeconomic status and poverty, quality of life, and well-being, and other social indicators. The measurement of socioeconomic status is a central activity for sociologists and policymakers alike. However, the precise methods by which socioeconomic status are measured is, at the outset, a reflection of a particular theoretical approach to understanding socioeconomic status and social class. Divergent methods of measuring socioeconomic status tend to be, in turn, based on divergent theoretical approaches. For instance, Marxist and Weberian approaches tend to produce, respectively, categorical and categorial/continuous variables. That is, the very qualities of the underlying dimension may alter, according to the theoretical approach taken. Measures developed using a Weberian framework, which emphasizes a three-fold definition of socioeconomic status (ownership of wealth-producing enterprises and materials; skills, credentials, or qualifications; and social prestige) tend to conceptualize this dimension as either a categorical (discrete) or a continuous variable. In contrast, measures constructed using a Marxist or neo-Marxist approach produce, without exception, categorical, or discrete, variables. This is a product of the centrality of the criterion of ownership or non-ownership of the means of production. Marxist and neoMarxist measures accordingly take the form of at least three distinct class groups: large employers; the self-employed; and workers. Thus socioeconomic status may, in practice, be calculated from either a single measure or from several closely related variables. Single measures 377 measurement tend to be based upon the classification of occupational status. Multiple measures may be drawn from a range of sources, including educational attainment, father’s (and increasingly) mother’s occupation, income, possessions, and home ownership. Multiple measures are often treated as more reliable measures of socioeconomic status than single measures, as these correlate more strongly with such closely related variables as school achievement. However, even single measures based on occupation may be refined. Some systems of measurement (for example the 501 categories of the United States Census Occupational Classification) are capable of classifying occupations into hundreds of categories. These categories, when hierarchically ranked according to criteria such as the prestige, income, entry-level qualifications, and typical workplace injury rates associated with each occupation, may be transformed into instances of a continuous variable, which in turn enables a greater range of statistical operations to be conducted on such data. Within sociology, measurement has long been a topic of critical reflection. In Method and Measurement in Sociology (1964), Aaron Cicourel developed a critique of the unacknowledged reliance of the sociologist as a coder – responsible for assigning numerical values to social phenomena – on “common sense knowledge”: if we must rely on human judges, then we should know as much as possible . . . about how the “human computer” goes about encoding and decoding messages . . . Instead it is often assumed that such meanings are self-evident, that native-speakers of a language are more or less interchangeable, that the manifest content is sufficient for study, or that judges are interchangeable. The structure of common-sense knowledge remains a barely recognizable problem for sociological investigation. Further, the order created by the use of formal instruments is, according to critics, often created by the very administration of such scales and the comparability between units of measurement that they produce. Thus, scales measuring a certain social variable may correlate with other measures of related variables (thus demonstrating construct, or convergent validity) but may bear little resemblance to the lived orderliness of respondents’ lives (thus lacking ecological validity). More recently, Michael Lynch, in his “Method,” in G. Button (ed.), Ethnomethodology and the Human Sciences (1991), studied ordinary and scientific measurement as ethnomethodological phenomena. Lynch has examined the practical accomplishment 378 medical dominance of categorization and classification. He argued that an ethnomethodological approach to the practice of measurement, following Harold Garfinkel and Harvey Sacks’s formulation of “ethnomethodological indifference,” would operate to place matters of methodology back into the everyday settings they emerge from, as “ethnomethodological indifference turns away from the foundationalist approach to methodology and that gives rise to principled discussions of validity, reliability, rules of evidence, and decision criteria.” However, as he notes, many sociologists may find the upshot of these debates unsettling. MARK RAPLEY AND SUSAN HANSEN measurement levels – see measurement. media – see mass media and communications. median – see distribution. mediascape – see mass media and communications. medical dominance Defined as the enormous social, financial, and political power medicine has over the organization and practice of health care, medical dominance is a concept that has been used to explain why doctors asymmetrically have more power than patients in their interactions, but also why doctors have more power than allied health-care professionals such as nurses, social workers, and therapists who use alternative or complementary medicine. Medicine gains much of its power through its exclusive knowledge about the operation of certain mechanisms of the body. The emphasis placed on specialist medical knowledge, as opposed to the subjective opinions of an untrained lay person, is central to medical dominance. The notion that medical diagnoses are scientific, objectively verifiable, and replicable, and the way health care is hierarchically organized, reinforce medical dominance. The professional nature of a career in medicine profoundly affects the interactions between doctors and patients and may reinforce medical medical model dominance. For instance, the professional can control the amount of time spent with a patient, can interrupt the patient’s conversation, or can control the flow of information to a patient in a way which exacerbates inequalities in their relationship. The power to label a patient is also a fundamental source of medical power. As well, doctors have significant power over patients because of their position as gate-keepers of entitlement to certain welfare benefits and ability to influence medical costs and insurance payments. Some authors, such as Paul Starr in The Social Transformation of American Medicine (1982), suggest that changes in the organization of the healthcare industry, including the corporatization of medicine and the rise of managerialism, may result in a decline in medical dominance, because doctors’ clinical decisions are influenced by corporate goals of profitability and efficiency. MARK SHERRY AND GARY L. ALBRECHT medical model – see medicalization. medicalization Defined as the way in which the scientific knowledge of medical science is applied to behaviors or conditions which are not necessarily biological, this concept was developed (originally in the United States) in the early 1970s, associated with the view of medicine as an instrument of social control. Critics of the medical model, particularly in the last decades of the twentieth century, suggested that this model was increasingly being applied in situations where it was not appropriate. Historically, it is common for the medical model of the culture and period to find application in wide areas of life beyond the body and its diseases. Nevertheless it is true that the twentieth century saw the increasing attachment of medical labels to behaviors then regarded as morally or socially undesirable (alcoholism, delinquency, and homosexuality) as well as to many normal stages of life (such as pregnancy and old age). Ivan Illich (1926–2002) in his Medical Nemesis (1976) promulgated the idea that society was becoming increasingly medicalized. Doctors were becoming the new priesthood, and modern medicine was creating overdependence on technical fixes. Irving Zola in his article “Medicine as an Institution of Social Control” in The Sociological Review (1972) analyzed the increasing pervasiveness of medicine in terms of: (1) expansion into more and more areas of life; (2) absolute medicalization control over techniques; (3) access to intimate areas of life; and (4) medical involvement in ethical issues. For instance, the medicalization of behavior extends the concept of addiction to include a variety of activities such as shopping, gambling, and promiscuous sexual activity. Alcoholism offers a particularly clear example of the effects of this, with some divergence of attitude between experts about behavioral models of the condition and the addiction model, which sees it in physiological or psychological terms. The medicalization thesis has been particularly important to feminist sociologists, who have seen expansionist tendencies in medicine applied to women’s bodies and women’s lives, defining natural processes such as pregnancy and childbirth, menstruation and menopause, as illness conditions. Recognition of the major part which medical technology has had in reducing maternal and infant mortality has gone hand in hand with longstanding dissatisfaction with maternity services. Feminist criticisms, such as the British sociologist Ann Oakley in her book The Captured Womb (1984), have accused a medicalized system of ignoring women’s own preferences and experiences. In other contexts, women are similarly seen as the object of patriarchal medical control, for instance over drugs (especially the prescription of tranquillizers) and surgery, and in general the treatment of women within the medical system is accused of serving to enforce passivity and dependence. The labeling of problems as “disease” may have the positive consequence that the individual is absolved of moral responsibility, and offers the prospect of treatment or help. Sociologists point out, however, that the labels do carry moral evaluation with them, defining behaviors which may be normal in particular circumstances as things which should be cured. The French social philosopher Michel Foucault saw medicalization not as the simple exercise of personal power by a profession intent on extending its boundaries, but as a historical process deriving from the power of clinical knowledge and the redefinition of medicine to include psychological, economic, and social “health.” Although the development of holistic medicine is generally welcomed, all aspects of life become medicalized, in need of continual monitoring, self-examination, and education. The British sociologist David Armstrong, in Political Anatomy of the Body (1983), described this as a shift from the biological anatomy of disease to the political 379 men’s health anatomy of disease in which medicine focuses on social life. In late modern society, it is now generally agreed that a degree of demedicalization is taking place, whereby lay knowledge and experience are being given a more important place, and lay people’s knowledge about the body allowed more legitimation. MILDRED BLAXTER men’s health – see health. mental health – see health. meritocracy – see credentialism. Merleau-Ponty, Maurice (1908–1961) A French philosopher who held professorships at the University of Lyon and the Sorbonne, MerleauPonty was the editor of the journal Les Temps modernes which had been founded by Jean-Paul Sartre (1905–80). He broke with Sartre and the Communist Party after the Korean War, becoming increasingly detached from politics. He developed the phenomenology of the everyday world, and was concerned to understand human consciousness, perception, and intentionality. His work was original in applying the phenomenology of Edmund Husserl (1859–1938) to intentional consciousness but from the perspective of corporeal existence. He wanted to describe the lived world without using the conventional dualism between subject and object. Hence, Merleau-Ponty was critical of the dualism between mind and body. He developed the idea of the “body-subject” that is always situated in a social reality. He sought to develop an epistemology that would avoid the dualism between realism and social constructionism. He also rejected behavioral and mechanistic approaches to the human body, and worked towards the development of a phenomenology of the body as a lived experience of the everyday world. He attempted to show that identity and consciousness of self cannot be divorced from our embodiment. For sociologists, his most influential work was Phenomenology of Perception (1945 [trans. 1962]), which has been important for contemporary approaches to the sociology of the body, and therefore his approach is often contrasted with Michel Foucault’s treatment of the body in his concept of governmentality. BRYAN S. TURNER 380 Merton, Robert K. (1910–2003) Merton, Robert K. (1910–2003) Born in Philadelphia, Meyer Schkolnick changed his name to Robert Merlin in adolescence when he was already a gifted magician in need of a stage name. Robert King Merton came later, but his youthful talents for plying the line between the apparent and the real were a promise of things to come. After education in the public schools and libraries of South Philadelphia, Merton attended Temple University where he discovered sociology (BA, 1931). His graduate studies were at Harvard (PhD, 1936), where he distinguished himself both in sociology and the history of science. As a graduate student he published eight articles in the leading journals in academic sociology and science studies, which were the groundwork for his first major book, Science, Technology and Society in Seventeenth-Century England (1938), and his most important scholarly article, “Social Structure and Anomie” (1938). Merton’s place in the history of twentieth-century science and culture is assured by four among his many accomplishments: (1) the founding of the sociology of science; (2) his leadership (with Paul Lazarsfeld) of one of academic sociology’s most important centers of training and research at Columbia University; (3) the introduction of theoretical ideas, always empirically grounded, that simultaneously turned American sociology into a mature social science and renewed its appreciation of the European traditions; and (4) by writing the English language with such clarity and elegance that concepts of his invention (such as “self-fulfilling prophecy,” “focus group” and “role model”) entered the vernacular. Merton’s genius is most simply described as a devotion to empirical social science conveyed without sacrifice of his formidable learning in literature, history, and philosophy. If there was a single handbook for sociological theory and research in sociology in the middle of the twentieth century, it was Merton’s Social Theory and Social Structure (1949), in which he developed concepts like manifest and latent functions, anomie as a structural effect, theories of the middle range, the self-fulfilling prophecy, and reference group theory, among others, including the key ideas upon which the sociology of science was established. Though he is thought of as aligned with Talcott Parsons as a structural functionalist, Merton’s thinking was first and foremost structuralist: for example, in “Social Structure and Anomie,” he revised Émile Durkheim’s theory of anomie to demonstrate how structures can invent Methodenstreit methodology new, if deviant, forms of social behavior when society fails to provide the normal institutional means. He was, thus, the master of discerning the hidden behind the apparent. Merton published some thirty books between 1938 and the year of his death in 2003, the last of which, The Travels and Adventures of Serendipity (2003), stands with On the Shoulders of Giants: A Shandean Postscript (1965) as a work that will long be read by literary and cultural critics as well as by sociologists. Among his many distinctions were twenty-nine honorary degrees, a MacArthur Prize Fellowship (1983–8), a presidency of the American Sociological Association (1957), and the National Medal of Science (1994). Merton was a man of consummate generosity who helped countless people with their work and lives. CHARLES LEMERT Methodenstreit This was a controversy over the method and epistemology of economics in the late 1880s to 1890s between supporters of the Austrian School led by Carl Menger (1840–1921) and the German Historical School of Gustav von Schmoller (1838–1917). The Historical School argued that economists could develop social laws from the collection and study of statistics and historical materials, and distrusted theories not derived from historical experience. The Austrian School believed that economics was the work of philosophical logic and could only ever develop by deriving abstract, universally valid rules of conduct from first principles. Human motives and other causes for concrete interaction were far too complex to be amenable to statistical analysis. At a general level the Methodenstreit was a question of whether there could be a science, apart from history, which could explain the dynamics of human action. The dispute began in 1884 with Schmoller’s critical review of Menger’s Principle of Economics (1871) and Menger’s reply, The Errors of Historicism in the German Political Economy (1884). It subsequently involved thinkers such as Lujo Brentano (1844–1931), Max Weber, and Werner Sombart for the Historical School, and Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk (1881–1914), Friedrich Wieser (1851–1926), and Ludwig von Mises (1881–1973) for the Austrian School. Politically there were overtones of a conflict between the classical liberalism of the Austrian School and the advocacy of welfare state provisions by the Historical School. In sociology the issues were central to Weber’s approach, which attempted to steer a pragmatic course between the pursuit of generalizations and historically grounded and specific analysis. LARRY RAY methodological individualism This concept was introduced by the philosopher of science Karl Popper in his influential work The Poverty of Historicism (1957), one of the two most influential books in the twentieth-century history of the philosophy of the social sciences. The main thesis of this book, developed in the 1930s, was an attack on the notions of the forces of history and ideas of historical inevitability in fascism and Communism, but also in the thinking of academic scholars such as Karl Mannheim and, before him, Ernst Troeltsch, who employed similar “holist” or supra-individual concepts and argued that they referred to concrete realities of a special kind. The use of these concepts was typically associated with the philosophical claim that understanding these concrete phenomena required a special kind of knowledge or methodology beyond that of science. Popper’s point was that such things as society were theoretical constructions, of a kind familiar from science, which were abstract concepts used to interpret our experience, but that the experience which they construct can be adequately captured in the terms that apply to individuals, such as attitudes, expectations, decisions, and relations. This did not imply, however, methodological psychologism, the claim that sociology could be reduced to the laws of psychology. Max Weber is the most prominent and consistent methodological individualist in the history of sociology. In recent years the term has been associated with rational choice theorists who have argued that many social processes formerly explained in terms of society could be better understood as the product of individual choices or decisions which produce collective results through the processes of an “invisible hand.” STEPHEN P. TURNER methodology This term refers to the specialist study of procedures of empirical investigation. Traditionally, in sociology as in other sciences, it is the reliability of the research method which is thought to assure the validity of the research data and the generalizability of the research findings: it is methodology that differentiates sociology from mere anecdotage. A distinction is regularly made between quantitative and qualitative methods. Quantitative methods are primarily those of censuses and 381 methodology methodology surveys, both structured interviews and postal representations of method serve to advance questionnaires, but other examples are content claims to scientific status. analysis in studies of documents and mark-recapture methods of population estimation. Qualitative methods are primarily those of in-depth interviews, ethnography, focus groups, and discourse analysis, but other examples are life histories, group interviews, and rapid assessment techniques. The growth in popularity of qualitative methods in the 1960s and 1970s – and the concomitant dissatisfaction with quantitative methods – was part of a revolt against positivism, a concern that sociology was studying what could be measured, rather than developing measures for social reality. However, the distinction between quantitative and qualitative methods has been overdrawn. Thus, qualitative methods of data collection have often been subjected to realist/positivist methods of analysis (see, for example, Rory Williams’s use of “logical analysis” in A Protestant Legacy, 1990, his ethnography of the health beliefs of elderly Aberdonians). And best practice in large-scale quantitative surveys has long embraced the need for complementary qualitative work. This is seen most obviously in pilot studies, such as focus groups used to develop and refine measures and to test the comprehensibility of research instruments, but the best examples of such complementarity are found in the multi-disciplinary, community-based, randomized controlled trials of health services research, where qualitative methods are typically deployed to generate the “process evaluation” component of the study, that is, to explain why the service being evaluated appears to be more effective in some service-delivery settings – or with some subgroups of clients – than others. The criticisms of a preoccupation with research method have continued to multiply. Critics have suggested that such preoccupations lead to a disabling scientism and political quietism, manifested in a failure to engage with oppressions such as racism. Or they have suggested that the claim to scientific status based on methodological expertise is a political claim to the privileges and rewards associated with professional autonomy; or that the same claim of expertise serves to distance the sociologist from his/her research subjects who lose the right to influence the research findings and collaborate in the scientific representation of their social world; or that the claim that one can accurately analyze the social phenomena of late modernity by carefully following rules of scientific practice, is simply a claim: a postmodern analysis would seek to examine how 382 Yet sociological research flourishes despite these buffets from activists and action research, from Science and Technology Studies, from discourse analysis, and from postmodernism. It flourishes under two dispensations, that of counter-reformatory realism, and that of a reformed methodology which incorporates reflexive awareness of its own limitations. The counter-reformatory position draws on the philosophy of Karl Popper to argue that, by following rigorous methodological procedures, sociologists can be led to reject a pre-existing theoretical assumption or hypothesis as negated by the research evidence and therefore false: research methods assure us of the scientific basis of the investigation because they provide for the possibility of the falsification of a hypothesis. The reformist position recognizes that the unthinking application of rules of methodology cannot of itself guarantee scientific reliability, that no rule can specify all the occasions of its use, and that the everyday application of scientific methods is a matter for pragmatic interpretation by researchers in the situation of action. Instead, the reformist position commits the researcher to the skillful use of certain practices to ensure outcomes such as relatively complete descriptions of the setting/ activity, “saturation” of the analytical categories derived, and the demonstrable credibility of the provisional findings for collectivity members and/or other fellow sociologists. In effect, the reliability of the findings depends on the practical accomplishment of a reflexive researcher, keenly aware of the pitfalls and the limitations inherent in the research process: research methods (including the analysis and write-up) are craft skills practiced with varying degrees of success. The reformist position has been defended from a philosophy-of-science perspective, most notably by Roy Bhaskar’s “critical realism” in Reclaiming Reality (1989) and by Martin Hammersley’s “subtle realism” in What’s Wrong with Ethnography? (1992). Of course, much sociological research takes place owing nothing to Popper on the one hand or Bhaskar and Hammersley on the other, but strictly speaking such research employs the methods, not of sociology but of cultural studies, the methods of textual deconstruction. The study of research methods has progressively broadened from a preoccupation with procedures of research design, data collection, and analysis. Good ethical practice has become a matter for metropolitan fringe external regulation and professional self-regulation as well as academic writing. Methodological writing now also embraces topics such as the negotiation of research access, fieldwork relationships, leaving the field, researcher safety, and public participation in the research process. Much recent writing has been concerned with the authorial voice and the processes of sociological representation, so that reflexive awareness of research practice now extends to the writing of research itself. MICK BLOOR AND FIONA WOOD metropolitan fringe This concept describes a region between 16 and 64 km outside major urban centers where traditional rural industries are giving way to residential, commercial, and industrial development. This new development is mainly located along highways and in the countryside rather than in established settlements. It is often unclear where suburbs end and the fringe begins. One criterion is to register changes in the size of parcels of land through the use of a GIS map in order to identify transformations of relatively small plots to larger parcels of four or more hectares. Many people who live in the fringe have suburban lifestyles, commuting long distances to jobs in the suburbs, edge cities, and the central city. The fringe is attractive because it offers open space, potentially cleaner air and water than a city or suburb, less congestion and noise, and less crime. In the information economy these features give the fringe significant economic development potential. Firms are more mobile than previously, and workers prefer to live in a pleasant environment with access to cultural amenities. The fringe combines environmental advantages with proximity to suburban and urban activities. Since the 1980s developed societies have seen population movement from the suburbs (the predominant growth area of the mid twentieth century) to the fringe, sometimes called “exurbia.” There is a debate about whether this new growth is substantively different from what preceded it and some dispute claims that counter-urbanization in developed societies represents a dramatic break from previous growth patterns. Rather, the development on the metropolitan fringe may be simply the latest incarnation of continued suburbanization. LARRY RAY Michels, Robert (1856–1936) A cosmopolitan political theorist, Michels made an enduring contribution to sociology in his micro–macro theory “iron law” of oligarchy as developed in his book Political Parties (1911 [trans. 1966]). His argument, which is neither a law nor as unyielding as the word iron implies, nonetheless offers acute insights into the general relation between bureaucracy and democracy. Using an empirical case study of the German Social Democratic Party (and associated organizations) to illustrate his general point, Michels observes that bureaucracies, which are organized solely for their effectiveness, can be effective only by relying on a small group of officials with specialized knowledge and skills. These upper-level bureaucrats ultimately become indispensable to administrative operations, especially when bureaucracies are under competitive or political pressures to achieve goals. Even organizations founded on democratic ideals ultimately cede day-to-day authority to these bureaucratic oligarchies. Though the idea is now ubiquitously known as the “iron law of oligarchy,” it was anticipated in many other works, beginning with the arguments regarding democracy made by Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–78) in On the Social Contract (1792 [trans. 1913]), and including Moisei Ostrogorski (1854–1919) in his brilliant comparative study Democracy and the Organization of Political Parties (1902 [trans. 1964]), and Max Weber’s analysis of bureaucracy. Union Democracy (1956) by Seymour Martin Lipset, M. Trow, and James S. Coleman demonstrated the (uncommon) structural conditions for the persistence of democracy in a bureaucratized trade union. Alvin Gouldner went so far as to coin a counter concept of the “iron law of democracy,” which maintains that oligarchy always generates opposition from the dominated (see “Metaphysical Pathos and the Theory of Bureaucracy,” American Political Science Review, 1955). Because of its stress on the unassailability of elites, Michels’s thought is often associated with a broad theoretical tendency, the so-called theory of elites. IRA COHEN microsociology – see macrosociology. micro–macro theory For several decades, sociological theorists have been concerned with how to link conceptualizations of face-to-face interpersonal processes to theories about more meso- and macro-level processes. This concern is often seen as a micro–macro theory “gap” because no theory in sociology fully integrates various levels of social organization. If 383 micro–macro theory we visualize the social world as unfolding at three basic levels — the micro-level of face-to-face interaction in encounters, the meso-level of structures revealing a division of labor (groups, communities, organization) and social categories (social class, ethnicity, gender, age, and the like), and the macro-level of institutional systems, societies, and inter-societal relations — theories tend to focus on one of the three levels. Despite sociology’s concern about the lack of theoretical integration across levels of social reality, the problem is not unique to sociology; all sciences, including the most advanced theoretical science of all, physics, have been unable to develop a unified theory that explains the operative dynamics at all levels in their respective universes. Within sociology, there are several basic strategies for trying to close the micro–macro conceptual gap. At opposite extremes are micro- and macro-chauvinists who posit the primacy of one level of social organization. Micro chauvinists view meso- and macro-reality as ultimately constructed from microsocial processes, such as symbolic interaction or interaction rituals, aggregated over time and across space, whereas macro-chauvinists argue that all micro-processes are constrained by macrosocio-cultural systems. Between these extremes are a variety of alternative strategies. One approach involves building “a conceptual staircase” from conceptions of elementary actions and micro-level units to conceptualizations of ever-more-macro processes and structures, and vice versa. A related approach employs simulation techniques to posit an elementary dynamic at both the micro- and macro-levels that, through iterations, generates, respectively micro- and macro-outcomes. Still another approach comes from formal sociology and revolves around conceptualizing common processes that are isomorphic across levels of reality, ignoring the nature of the unit and, instead, focusing on the form of social relations among all micro-, meso-, and macro-units. Still another mediating approach tries to use the logic of deductive theory to cut across levels of reality by positing axioms about the behavior of individuals from which all propositions about meso- and macro-structures and processes can be deduced. Yet another approach is to invoke the ceteris paribus clause to bracket out, for purposes of analysis, other levels of reality in order to focus on the dynamics of one level, with the presumption that what is bracketed out can be incorporated later into a more robust theory. Another approach is to emphasize the embeddedness of social phenomena 384 migration whereby micro-units are embedded in meso-level units that, in turn, are embedded in macro-level units, with the emphasis on how the more inclusive unit constrains the operation of the forces driving the formation and operation of embedded units and processes. All of these approaches have produced interesting theory, but none has fully integrated at a theoretical level the dynamics operating at the micro-, meso-, and macro-levels of social organization. Perhaps the most important strategy is to recognize that social reality unfolds at all three levels and, while there are isomorphic processes across all three levels, there are also dynamics unique to each level. The goal should be, first of all, to theorize the dynamics of each level and, then, to see how the values of the variables in propositions and models explaining one level are influenced by the values of variables in propositions and models of the other two levels. In this way, bridging propositions are created that can, on the one hand, recognize what is unique to each level of social organization while, on the other, making the theoretical connections among levels. In this way, the micro–macro “gap” can be closed or, at least, reduced. JONATHAN TURNER middle class – see social class. middle-range theory – see sociological theory. migration A change in permanent residence, often of a year or more in duration, migration involves a geographical move that crosses a political boundary. It is common to distinguish two basic forms by whether the move involves the crossing of an international boundary from one country to another, that is international migration, or whether the geographical move involves the crossing of a political boundary, usually a county, within a country, that is internal migration. Several migration concepts require attention: in-migration (or out-migration) refers to the number of internal migrants moving to an area of destination (or from an area of origin); the analogous concepts for international migration are immigration and emigration. Return migration is the number of internal migrants who return to the area of origin; at the international level the analogous concept is remigration. Net migration refers to the migration balance of an migration area, consisting of the number of in-migrants (or immigrants) minus the number of out-migrants (or emigrants); the net balance may be positive (representing a net population gain to the area) or negative (representing a net loss) or, conceivably, zero. Gross migration is the sum total of migration for an area and comprises the in-migration into the area and the out-migration from the area. Rates of migration are developed by dividing the above by the number of persons in the area at the beginning of the migration time interval. Migration efficiency is an area’s net migration divided by its gross migration. A migration stream is a body of migrants departing from a common area of origin and arriving at a common area of destination during a specified time interval. A migration counter stream is the migration stream, smaller in size, going in the opposite direction during the same interval. This entry now focuses on internal migration, and next on international migration. With respect to internal movement, if the permanent change of residence does not involve crossing a county boundary, it is referred to as spatial mobility but not as internal migration. Thus all migrations are instances of spatial mobility, but not all instances of spatial mobility are migrations. In the United States during the oneyear period between March 1, 2001, and March 1, 2002, 14.8 percent of the population aged one year or older changed residences, that is, they were spatially mobile. Of this nearly 15 percent, fewer than half – 6.3 percent of the totol population – were migrants, that is, their changes in residence involved the crossing of a state boundary. The reason for making such a distinction is that a migration is meant to involve a change in one’s community of residence. Migration from one area to another has the effect of decreasing the size of the population in the area of origin and increasing it in the area of destination. A migrant is at the same time both an out-migrant from the area of origin and an inmigrant to the area of destination. With regard to the growth dynamics of human communities, internal migration is the single most important of the demographic processes (fertility, mortality, and migration). Differences in birth rates and death rates in communities of the same country are typically small compared to differences between the communities in migration. Migration is thus the major method for redistributing the population within a country. Among the many theoretical models developed to explain internal migration are: (1) the effects of distance; (2) income and migration; (3) the migration physical costs of migration; (4) information and migration; (5) personal characteristics and the decision to migrate; (6) individual expectations and migration; and (7) community and kinship ties. The distance model states that long distance discourages migration because the costs involved in migration are substantial and closely related to distance. The income and migration model argues that income (and job) opportunities provide a better explanation of in-migration than out-migration; destination characteristics also help determine the location to which the migrant will move. The physical costs model suggests that physical costs influence resource allocation and migration by influencing the private costs of migration. According to Michael J. Greenwood, in “Research on Internal Migration in the United States: A Survey” (1975, Journal of Economic Literature), the information model emphasizes that “the availability of information concerning alternative localities plays a prominent role in the potential migrant’s decision regarding a destination.” The personal characteristics model argues that personal demographic characteristics (such as age, gender, education, number of dependents, networks, and race and ethnicity) exert important influences on the individual’s decision to migrate. The individual expectations model assumes that the dynamics of migration decision making are based on individual expectations about the advantages and disadvantages of the home community versus possible alternative destination communities. P. N. Ritchey, in “Explanations of Migration” (1976, Annual Review of Sociology), notes that the community and kinship ties model points out that “the presence of relatives and friends is a valued aspect of life [that] . . . encourages migration by increasing the individual’s potential for adjustment through the availability of aid in location at an alternative area of residence.” International migration is the permanent movement of people from one country to another for a year or longer time. According to Rainer Münz, in “Immigration Trends in Major Destination Countries” in the Encyclopedia of Population (2003), twentieth-century immigrants to most of the major destination countries may be broadly grouped into four categories: refugees and asylum seekers; migrants from former colonies; economic migrants; and ethnically privileged migrants. Refugees and asylum seekers emigrate involuntarily because of persecution, violence, or extreme deprivation and usually move to a neighboring 385 migration state. Postcolonial migration began in the 1950s as a result of decolonization. Indigenous people moved from former colonial countries to the European countries that had colonized them. Economic migrants are voluntary migrants motivated by economic aspirations and are likely to move from less to more developed countries. Some countries, such as Israel, give priority to migrants with the same ethnic and religious origins as those of the majority population. Douglas Massey and his colleagues, in Massey et al., “Theories of International Migration: A Review and Appraisal” (1993, Population and Development Review) and “An Evaluation of International Migration Theory: The North American Case” (1994), focus on several of the most important theories of international migration, most of which focus on the determinants of voluntary migration. The neoclassical economic model posits that migration results from individual cost–benefit decisions to maximize expected incomes by moving. Workers are attracted from low-wage countries with adequate labor, to a high-wage country with limited labor. The new economics-of-migration theory challenges some of the hypotheses and assumptions of neoclassical economics. It argues that migration decisions are made not only by isolated individuals but also by larger units, such as families and households. The dual-labor-market theory argues that migration results from the labor demands of industrial societies. International migration is caused not only by the push factors of the origin countries, but also by the pull factors of the destination countries. Capitalism tends to separate labor markets into two sectors, the primary sector that produces jobs with tenure, high pay, and good benefits and working conditions; and the secondary sector, with the opposite. Employers turn to immigrants to fill the jobs in the secondary sector. World-systems analysis argues that international migration is the natural result of the globalization of the economy. A large number of people are released from traditional industries, such as farming, creating a pool of people ready to move, both internally and internationally. The market economy attracts human capital to a relatively small number of global cities, among them New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago. Migration network theory focuses on networks: that is, the interpersonal ties that connect migrants, former migrants, potential migrants, and nonmigrants in the origin and destination 386 millenarianism countries. Networks increase the likelihood of international movement by decreasing migrant risks and costs and increasing the gains. Networks make it easier for new migrants to find jobs in destination countries. The above theories and others endeavor to account for the causal process of international migration at different levels of analysis, namely, the individual, the household, the country, and the world. They are not necessarily incompatible. DUDLEY L. POSTON military – see war. Mill, John Stuart (1806–1873) Born in London, Mill was educated by his father, with the assistance of the celebrated legal and utilitarian theorist, Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832). By the age of seventeen, he began publishing in his father and Bentham’s Westminster Review. When he was twenty, he suffered a nervous breakdown and, questioning his father and Bentham’s ideas, he turned to Romantic influences in general and the work of Samuel Coleridge (1772–1834) in particular. In 1843, he published System of Logic in which he argued that scientific method applied to social as well as purely natural phenomena. In 1848 he published Principles of Political Economy and he also championed worker-owned cooperatives. His work Utilitarianism, published in 1861, argued that the pursuit of happiness was to be assessed not merely by quantity but by quality. Most influential of all, however, was On Liberty (1859) – a book influenced by Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America (1835 and 1840 [trans. 1968]), in which he warned that freedom can be undermined as much by a “coercive” public opinion as by arbitrary laws. In Considerations of Representative Government (1861), Mill spoke of the “infirmities” to which universal suffrage is subject, while The Subjection of Women (1869) argued that women’s “nature” cannot be known until women live in a world of freedom. He was elected as a Radical candidate to parliament in 1865, introducing an amendment to the 1867 Reform Act (which he lost) arguing for women’s suffrage. He criticized Governor Eyre’s brutality in Jamaica and was defeated in the 1868 general election. JOHN HOFFMAN millenarianism – see religion. Millett, Kate (1934– ) Mitchell, Juliet (1940– ) Millett, Kate (1934– ) Born in Minnesota, Millett was educated at the University of Minnesota, Oxford University, and Columbia University; it was at Columbia that Millett wrote her doctoral thesis, which was to be published as Sexual Politics in 1970. The book was an immediate bestseller and is one of the bestknown of the works that became known collectively as second-wave feminism. The thesis of the book is that western culture (and in particular its literature) is essentially misogynist; using the fiction of D. H. Lawrence, Henry Miller, Jean Genet, and Norman Mailer as illustrative, Millett argues that heterosexuality is used by men to degrade women. This process of degradation is facilitated by ideologies of romantic love and the patriarchal structure of the nuclear family. Millett’s success with Sexual Politics has been followed by a number of other works: The Prostitution Papers (1973), Flying (1974), and Sita (1977). The last two works were largely autobiographical and trace the impact on Millett both of her considerable fame and of her shift in sexual identity, from that of the wife of the Japanese sculptor Fumio Yoshimura to the lover of the woman who is the subject of Sita. The pressures and demands of fame resulted in the mental breakdown which became the subject of Millett’s The Loony Bin Trip (1990), a searing account of time spent in institutions for the mentally ill. Millett continues to write and speak on feminist issues and her work provides a radical corrective to some of the more liberal politics of feminism in the United States. Millett has not been afraid to confront issues of gender, poverty, and powerlessness, while her own work contains much on the confrontational sexual politics which she has so forcefully contested. MARY EVANS Mills, C. Wright (1916–1962) One of the most influential sociologists of the twentieth century, Mills is perhaps best known for his trilogy on the changing character of political power in the United States. In the three books, The New Men of Power (1948) about the labor movement, White Collar (1951) about intellectuals and the middle classes, and The Power Elite (1956) about the convergence of interests among the military, big business, and the government, Mills developed one of the most sustained critiques of what he and others came to call mass society. In attempting to explain the new sort of society that had emerged in the period after World War II, Mills also provided important sources of inspiration for the student movement of the 1960s. Mills was a self-proclaimed outsider, an “academic outlaw” in the postwar United States, and throughout his life he was critical of what he saw as the subservience of his fellow sociologists to those in power. Mills grew up in Texas, and wrote a doctoral thesis in sociology on pragmatism at the University of Wisconsin. He was Professor of Sociology at Columbia University in New York, and, in addition to his academic work, he wrote articles for such publications as the Nation, Dissent, and Partisan Review. Mills was known for having a colorful personality, and took an active part in the political debates of his times, writing popular books about the Cold War and the arms race (The Causes of World War Three, 1958), and the Cuban Revolution (Listen Yankee, 1960) which he strongly supported, much to the disapproval of his academic colleagues. Throughout his short life – he died in 1962 at the age of forty-six – Mills sought to combine indigenous American social theory, deriving from populism and pragmatism, with the theories of Karl Marx and Max Weber. In addition to his own writings, he edited anthologies on Marxism (The Marxists, 1962) and Max Weber (From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, coedited with H. H. Gerth, 1946). He presented his own approach to sociology in a short volume, entitled The Sociological Imagination (1959), which was based on lectures that he had given in Europe. In that book, he outlined his approach to sociological research, distinguishing himself from what he termed grand theory, on the one hand, and “abstracted empiricism,” on the other. He associated the one style with the work of Talcott Parsons, and the other with the interest in quantitative methods that was becoming the dominant form of sociological research in his day. For Mills, sociology was best seen as a kind of “intellectual craftsmanship,” and the sociological imagination that he tried to foster was meant to help people become conscious of their place in history, as well as the social nature of the problems that they faced. He wrote that such an approach was not “ascendant” at the time, but, in the intervening years, Mills has continued to serve as a model for politically engaged and socially committed sociology. ANDREW JAMISON minority rights – see rights. Mitchell, Juliet (1940– ) Born in New Zealand, Mitchell has been a widely influential writer who is responsible for having 387 mobilization reclaimed Sigmund Freud for feminism and for enabling feminism to use the insights of psychoanalysis to illuminate the understanding of the social and, more particularly, the symbolic world. A long-time student of Marxism, Mitchell in 1971 published Woman’s Estate, which used the work of Friedrich Engels to argue that women, across cultures and social classes, were – as Engels had suggested – the proletariat of the world. But it was Psychoanalysis and Feminism (1974) which made a lasting contribution to the study of gender; Mitchell’s subtle and nuanced reading showed the possibilities of Freud’s ideas about the instability of gender and the dynamics of the formation of gender identity. Contrary to previous readings of Freud (for example, those of Kate Millett), which had assumed that Freud took a rigid view of gender divisions, Mitchell showed that Freud understood the acquisition of gender identity as a fluid and always uncertain process. Mitchell’s work enabled later feminists to use psychoanalysis as a way of exploring literature and the arts: Mitchell’s understanding of the term woman, like Freud’s, was of a possible, rather than a fixed, state. Since the publication of Psychoanalysis and Feminism, Mitchell has continued to work on the politics of feminism (Women: The Longest Revolution, 1984) and on the social pressures that shape ideas about gender (Mad Men and Medusas, 2000). In all her work, Mitchell has maintained a recognition of the divisions of class, as much as of gender, in the social world, and a commitment to a politics of radical and more egalitarian social transformation. MARY EVANS mobilization – see collective behavior. mode of production – see Karl Marx. modeling In its general sense, a model is an attempt to depict or describe in a dynamic manner a social reality, process, or institution. At this general level, a model is synonymous with a theory. A good model should be essential – in that it covers the important characteristics and/or processes of that which it is attempting to model – and simple – the model should be less complex and easier to comprehend than the reality itself. What is essential will depend upon the purpose of the model; for instance, an econometric model that attempts to depict the workings of a nation’s 388 modeling economy will highlight features and processes quite different from a model of the diffusion of popular culture fads through the same society. The use of ideal types – the conceptualizations of social phenomena in their abstract or pure (hence ideal) form which then form a base against which to compare the actual phenomena – can be considered as a form of essentialist modeling. Models imply heuristic prediction and it is for this reason that their attempts to depict must be dynamic rather than static explanations. The ultimate test of a model is not how well it describes the present or the past, but rather how well it is capable of providing reliable predictions of its future as parameters change. Regarding types, models may either be opaque or transparent. An opaque model makes no attempt to duplicate the actual processes that occur during the interim phases between input and result. In effect, the true interim processes are seen as a black box and the estimation procedures of the model do not necessarily in any way resemble what may be occurring in actuality within the box. All that is required for a successful opaque model is that it produces reliable predictions (outputs) for any given change in parameters (inputs) that accurately mimic what occurs in reality. In contrast, transparent models do attempt to depict internal interim phases. In this latter case, the workings of the model itself may be of more interest than the eventual outcomes that it predicts. Statistical or multivariate causal modeling is a more specific instance of modeling in which the principles of modeling are applied to quantitative data. All multivariate statistical models seek to summarize information from a group of individual cases (typically the “cases” are individuals responding to a large sample survey) into an equation or a set of predictive equations. Usually the simplification is taken further by attempting to eliminate redundant measures of characteristics (“variables”) and redundant associations between variables. Some statistical modeling techniques (“measurement models”) go even further by positing the hypothetical existence of ideal-type variables that are essential representations of concepts rather than actual measured variables. The success of the application of a statistical modeling technique can be measured by the amount of variance it explains in its solution. Statistical models are “opaque” models since they are using abstract mathematical formulas to depict qualitatively different social processes. However, there are aspects of “transparency,” in that analysts can: observe the dynamic shifting of modeling coefficient estimates as variables are introduced; evaluate conceptual constructs by the combinations of variables included in a model; discover unanticipated complex patterns of multiple causality through identifying statistical interactions between two or more variables; and construct more elaborate models by stringing a number of equations together. An early use of multivariate techniques in sociology that explicitly claimed to be a model was the use of path analysis by Otis Dudley Duncan and Peter M. Blau to introduce the “status-attainment” model of social mobility in the United States (The American Occupational Structure, 1967). Working with data from a large-sample survey of United States men, Blau and Duncan put together the display of results of a series of regression equations into a single figure, a “path diagram.” Their basic diagram is an attempt to depict the process of intergenerational (inheritance) and intragenerational (career) social mobility in the United States. In it, an index of current occupational position (indexed by a scale of status) is seen as being driven by point of entry into the labor market (indexed by “first job”), educational attainment (indexed by “years of schooling”), and social origin (indexed by “father’s job” and “father’s educational attainment”). The original status-attainment model has prompted four decades of subsequent work and controversy about its validity around issues such as its exclusion of women, the basic conceptualization of its core values, and its implicit stance on social stratification. The salient point here, however, is that it displays the characteristics of a multivariate causal model: a vastly complicated process of social mobility is distilled down into a set of essential relationships. Furthermore, the construction of the model displays dynamic characteristics since it is possible to trace indirect causal effects along the “paths” of coefficients in the model (for example, education may have a direct effect on current occupational position but also could have an indirect effect since education can affect level of “first job,” which in turn affects current occupation). In addition, a change in a parameter, such as increasing the level of education attained, would result in a change in an “output” estimate: for example, the predicted level of “first job” would be higher. The number of multivariate statistical techniques is legion, including: (1) analysis of variance techniques; (2) techniques of regression analysis (general linear analysis of parametric data; logistic regression techniques where the dependent variable is a quality, a nominal category; modernity multilevel modeling where the independent variables exist on at least two levels of aggregation, such as individual data plus group, area, and/ or organizational data) that have in common the prediction of the values of a dependent variable based upon the values of one or more independent predictor variables; (3) techniques of data reduction, such as factor analysis in which the values of a number of observed variables are assumed to reflect the presence of a smaller number of unobserved “essential” variables; (4) “measurement models” that are a combination of prediction of regression with data reduction; and (5) loglinear analysis techniques for the multivariate modeling of relationships between non-parametric data. Like modeling in general, all of these multivariate techniques have simplification and essentialism in common. BERNADETTE HAYES AND ROBERT MILLER model(s) – see modeling. modernity Modernity is a civilizational epoch in the same sense as Greco-Roman antiquity. Though modernity originated in western Europe and North America over two centuries ago, today it extends to cosmopolitan centers around the globe and its consequences affect all but the most isolated communities in every country on earth. Modernity, like all epochs, includes distinctive forms of economic and political organization, characteristic cultural institutions, and persistent tensions between antithetical civilizational trends. It is also an epoch that generates a distinctive set of ambivalent reactions. A number of these tensions and ambivalent reactions will be discussed in itemized fashion in later sections of this entry. Social theory as we know it today developed when intellectuals began trying to make sense of modernity as it matured during the nineteenth century. However, early modern theorists disagreed on how modernity should be defined, and many of these disagreements have continued in subsequent generations, albeit with numerous additions and revisions. The parameters of modernity can be grasped by noting the dynamic forces that various early modern theorists maintained were the prime movers of the history of modernity. For Adam Smith (1723–90) and Karl Marx, capitalism in the form of markets (Smith) or profit-oriented production (Marx) was the mainspring of modern social life. Henri Saint-Simon and Auguste Comte maintained that scientific 389 modernity knowledge and technology ultimately would direct modernity in a rational, orderly manner. Alexis de Tocqueville stressed the transition from aristocratic political organizations and the cultural values of aristocratic elites to representative democratic institutions and a culture based upon egalitarian values. Émile Durkheim stressed the modern culture of individualism and the division of labor. Until quite recently (see especially Michael Mann’s The Sources of Social Power: Volume I, 1986, and Volume II, 1996), social theorists had dealt with the intensively developed and extensively organized nationstate as a central feature of modernity only obliquely (see especially the works of Max Weber). However, most contemporary theorists consider the nation-state, including its military forces, social services bureaucracies, judicial system, educational systems, and sources of revenue, as yet another dynamic force of modernity. Each of these dynamic forces contributes to modernity’s most obvious defining trait: namely its endless bouts of disruptive change. In fact, it can be said without hyperbole that modernity is the most unstable epoch that humanity has ever known. The radical mutability of modernity is most easily understood against the backdrop of premodern cultures and civilizations, most of which did not welcome dramatic change. Prior to modernity, most rulers discouraged all but the most pragmatic changes in the societies they controlled. Abrupt change, with its unforeseeable results, might threaten their dominion. (The conduct of wars and the construction of empires were notable exceptions in this regard.) Rulers sought the stabilizing support of orthodox religions and they also encouraged stable customs and traditions that made commoners as suspicious of change as were the rulers themselves. Only incremental changes were quietly absorbed into everyday life. Modernity makes the sharpest possible break with the propensity for stasis in premodern social epochs. Each of the dynamic forces of modernity, capitalism, scientific technology, the nation-state, and the culture of individualism not only pushed through the cake of custom during the historical transition to modernity, but also proceeded to foster change after change so that the social circumstances of each generation differed from those of its predecessors. Intellectuals have been profoundly impressed by the sharp contrast between the tradition-bound cultures of the past and the ever-changing social conditions of modernity. For example, Marshall Berman entitled his influential commentary on modern cultural ways of life All That Is Solid Melts 390 modernity into Air (1982), echoing the powerful closing trope of a passage from Marx and Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto (1848), that evokes the agitation and disruption caused by capitalism and, by extension, modernity at large. Agitation and disruption were on the minds of other early modern thinkers as well. In Democracy in America (1835 [trans. 1966], p. 298), de Tocqueville correctly foresaw that the rise of democratic political institutions would generate chronic instability in which governmental regimes and even basic principles of government would recurrently come and go without relief. In his well-known essay, “The Metropolis and Mental Life” (1903 [trans. 1971]), Georg Simmel went so far as to propose that human beings were incapable of taking in all of the rapidly changing experiences they encountered in a typical urban environment. To fend off excessive stimulation, individuals were forced to distance themselves psychologically from many of the people they encountered and the events they observed. Until the last decades of the twentieth century, social theorists were divided on a key question about the history of modernity: does modernity have a historical teleology with a foreseeable destination, a terminus ad quem? The question itself is thoroughly modern. No other epoch in any civilization has ever been as unsettled by what the future might hold. If social thinkers knew where modernity was headed and if they knew the mechanisms that were propelling it in this direction, then they could recommend rational steps to hasten the day when the best possible organization of society would finally emerge. Smith, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Comte, Marx, Herbert Spencer, Durkheim, and Talcott Parsons all did their best to discern systematic trajectories in the history of modernity. However, even in the nineteenth century, de Tocqueville and Weber maintained that the history of modernity rarely runs true to a teleological course for very long. By the late twentieth century, most social theorists had come around to the open-ended historical view that modernity has no ultimate destination. The disintegration of the Soviet Union marked a theoretical watershed in this regard, since very few social scientists foresaw these world-historical events. But, in retrospect, no theorist of modernity foresaw the onset or the profound consequences of two world wars, multiple instances of genocide, the rapid collapse of colonial rule in the Third World, and the transformative power of information processing and global communications technologies. modernity No single force is responsible for the relentlessness of modern social change. Capitalism is subject to cycles of expansion and contraction in all of its markets from investments and finance to job markets and markets for consumer goods. Equally important, capitalism endlessly seeks to increase profitable operations and reduce costs, a trait that leads to swift transitions between geographical locales of operation, constant searches for cheaper sources of labor, and a host of other propensities to change as well. Modern scientific technology is a vast engine of unpredictable change. Members of modern societies in the nineteenth century had to adjust to the steam engine, the industrial factory, the railroad, the telegraph, and electrical power. In the first half of the twentieth century, people had to adjust to the mechanized assembly line, automobiles, movies, radio, and telephones. And today we are adjusting to computerized information processing, global communication via satellites and the worldwide web, and new forms of biotechnology that have the potential in the not-too-distant future to change the definition of human life itself. Modern states are engines of change as well. From global and regional wars fought with mechanical weapons of previously unimagined power, to more benign changes such as state-run schools and social health and welfare institutions, the modern state recurrently transforms the social circumstances in which its citizens live. Even modern culture, with its multivalent emphases on the rights, prerogatives, and opportunities that encourage individuals to pursue changes for the better in their own lives, creates expectations that the future will not be the same as the past. Not only is it impossible to foresee where the open-ended history of modernity will lead, it is also impossible to say when modernity began. If we again focus independently on each of modernity’s dynamic forces, the exception to the rule is the modern state, which many historians believe emerged in its distinctively modern (albeit not very democratic) form in Otto von Bismarck’s (1815–98) Germany after 1870. Beyond this there is little consensus on when any of the principal forces of modernity began. Consider modern capitalism. Some elements of capitalism, such as long-distance trade and short-term profit-seeking investments, were already on the scene before 1500. According to Weber in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1905 [trans. 2002]), the cultural ethos of the profit-oriented entrepreneur first evolved during the seventeenth and modernity eighteenth centuries. However, capitalism as the primary system for the provision of material goods in everyday life did not fully supplant local agrarian production until sometime after 1750, and then only in the most advanced cosmopolitan centers of Europe and North America. Next, consider technology. According to Lewis Mumford (1895–1985) in Technics and Civilization (1934), the development of the modern machine predates the industrial revolution of the late nineteenth century by at least 700 years. But modern machinery entered the factories of western Europe only during the nineteenth century, and only during the period from 1880 to 1920 did modern technology reach into the households and everyday lives of modern populations at large. The origin of the culture of modern individualism is difficult to date as well. According to Jacob Burckhardt (1818–97) in The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy (1860 [trans. 1954]), the humanistic appreciation of the power and the beauty of the individual began in the time of Michelangelo (1475–1556). But the belief in the equality and liberal rights of human beings as citizens moved from the pages of political philosophy to the constitutions of governments only following the American Revolution of 1776, and even today these values are still partially ideals rather than realities. The idea that every individual should be entitled to realize her or his own potentials and choose her or his own lifestyle is more recent still. Even in the 1950s cultural critics such as David Riesman worried about the degree to which modern, middle-class individuals conformed too closely to homogenizing cultural norms. It is only in the current generation that theorists such as Anthony Giddens and Ulrich Beck highlighted new trends towards alternative lifestyles and self-identity that carry the culture of individualism into how citizens of modernity pursue their personal lives. One final point on the history of modernity. While it is true that modernity is driven by multiple engines of social change, what makes the history so difficult to predict is that all of these forces interact with one another in complex ways. For example, it is easy to see that capitalists were already investing in potentially profitable developments in industrial technology as far back as the late eighteenth century. But technology has produced surprises to which capitalists have had to adjust as well. This is no more evident than in the transformative effects of modern information and communications technology which have dramatically accelerated everything from the 391 modernity intensity of economic competition, to the rapid intensification of global markets and networks of production, to new means of data gathering and analysis that enable sophisticated firms to market their wares in different forms to targeted consumer groups in every corner of the world. Equally complicated interactions are found between capitalist industries and nation-states. On the one hand, nation-states depend upon a prosperous capitalist economy for their economic well-being. Therefore they must adapt and adjust to changing commercial and industrial conditions. However, when states are engaged in warfare, capitalist firms are compelled to support the war effort even if this reduces their profitability. Nationstates also adjust their operations to new technologies as well. However, states also sponsor a great deal of technological innovation. This is especially true with regard to the military. Indeed, things as various as computers and global satellites were promoted and perfected to suit military needs. Modernity as an epoch may have no determinate starting point nor a historical destiny, nor even a predictable historical trajectory, but if the epoch at large lacks a teleological pattern, modernity has generated a number of less enveloping developmental trends. Some of these trends emerge in many institutional contexts; others are confined to a specific institutional order. But the most important trends almost inevitably encounter paradoxical opposition. Paradoxical opposition refers here to trends and countertrends that are each evident in the fabric of modernity, yet radically inconsistent with one another. Democratic ideals such as equality, liberty, and impartiality in the public sphere, and the right to privacy in personal life, are modern values. Though never fully realized, they are proclaimed in the constitutions of most modern states and judicial levers that social movements use for social change. If modernity has a creed, it is grounded in what Durkheim terms the cult of the dignity of the individual, where human dignity is the lowest common denominator for all of the values. But the paradox is that, though these values apply universally as ideals, state policies determine to whom they apply. All modern states leave some populations unprotected. Some exclusions do minimal harm. But many render certain groups (for example, racial and ethnic minorities, immigrants, gays and lesbians) vulnerable to damaging discrimination and harsh stigmatization. Even worse, states sometimes pursue barbaric policies to punish and slaughter peoples they leave 392 modernity unprotected. Modern states have been responsible for the worst genocides in history. Michael Mann, in a controversial argument in his Dark Side of Democracy (2005), argues that strong modern states, mainly in the northern hemisphere, may now be less inclined to genocide than weak states south of the equator. Even if this speculation proves true, modern states are still capable of ruthless war, systematic torture, and callous oppression of minority groups. Paradoxically, the only institution that can pursue democratic ideals can sometimes cynically forsake or ignore them with cruel, inhumane results. Weber coined the phrase “disenchantment of the world,” by which he meant the replacement of belief in other-worldly forces such as the will of God that once were held to govern the world by impersonal scientific laws and formal rationality that leave no room, at least in public life, for unfathomable forces of any kind. Disenchantment need not imply an end to religious faith in private life, but it does signify the end of religious faith as a basis for modern forms of jurisprudence, legitimate government, economic enterprise, and knowledge of the natural world. The accent placed on spirituality in public life in many premodern societies disappears. As demonstrated by recurrent waves of religious fundamentalism in western societies, even a trend as broad and seemingly ineluctable as disenchantment cannot sweep through modernity without encountering paradoxical opposition. Such waves are nothing new. Papalist political and cultural movements have been a recurrent feature in reaction to the rise of modernity in Spain and France, and waves of Protestant fundamentalism have opposed the disenchantment of public life in the United States periodically since its origin. Fascist ideologies (including Hitler’s Nazi ideology) stem from passionate sacralization of secular symbols (for example, the motherland, ethnic purity) in opposition to the disenchantments of modernity as well. Less inflammatory civil religions and nationalism may serve as vehicles for reactions to disenchantment as well. Material inequalities are not unique to modernity; however, as Karl Marx observed, material inequality takes a unique form in capitalism. The bourgeoisie and the managerial classes are not just rich, as were aristocracies in the past: these classes systematically prosper, their wealth expands. Classes in poverty lack structural possibilities to prosper. Though some individuals may increase their wealth, the entire class cannot escape in this way. Like all elements of capitalism, modernity today poverty must be understood globally. Large populations of the desperately poor reside in every Third World conurbation. Meanwhile, local and global capitalist enterprises generate prosperity for the upper classes. In The Great Transformation (1944), Karl Polanyi identifies a historical cycle in the relations between capitalism and the state that can be generalized as one of the great paradoxes of modernity. Capitalism as an economic system prefers unregulated markets for wage-labor, which generally allow capitalists to pay the lowest possible wages and thereby increase their profitability. However, when wages sink too far (and/or the cost of living rises), workers mount political movements (often in alliance with other groups) to enlist the state in protecting them from impoverishment. States often respond with extensive welfare services for the economically disadvantaged. This constitutes the first phase of Polanyi’s double movement. The second phase develops on two fronts: on the one hand, workers ultimately become excessively reliant on state aid and withdraw from the labor markets. On the other hand, states reach certain practical limits to the amount of funds they can spend on social services to the poor. In a very simplified sense, over time the double movement operates like a pendulum pushing towards free labor markets until a reaction sets in and the pendulum moves back towards the protective policies of the state, and then a counterreaction sets in and the pendulum begins to swing back the other way. Though Keynesian policies of state regulation seemed to moderate the double movement for a period after World War II, reactions set in against the welfare state in the mid-1980s, and the “double movement” once more asserted itself. Consider a paradox of modern development that was already evident 100 years ago. On the one hand, the increasing division of labor in capitalist production and in bureaucratized organizations of all kinds was dividing labor into a vast array of highly specialized tasks and establishing deep divisions between public and private life. But counterposed to these trends towards differentiation, there were also trends towards centralization, the most obvious being the centripetal forces that drew (and still draw) people from the countryside into densely populated cities and conurbations. The same paradox is evident on a global scale. On the one hand, capitalism, both historically and in recent times, has established regional sectors of global inequality based upon what Immanuel Wallerstein terms the principle of unequal exchange. There are shifting global divisions based upon modernity military and diplomatic alliances as well. Moreover, as peoples come into closer contact with one another around the globe, certain cultural differences (for example between China and the West) loom larger than they did in premodern times. Yet there is no denying that modern modes of communication and transportation, from the telephone and the steamship to data transmission by global satellites and transportation by jet aircraft and high-speed pipelines and ships, increase both the velocity and intensity of global interaction that enable durable economic and political networks to concentrate the control of many resources on a global scale. In the early days of the modern era, technology was often welcomed as an unalloyed good. No one regards technology as thoroughly evil today. Very few critics would completely eliminate industrial production or modern medicine. But technology now seems a two-edged sword. Pollution, the most obvious byproduct of technology, threatens our health. Global warming is changing our climate with as yet unforeseeable consequences. And it is already evident that biotechnology will change the very meaning of life during the twenty-first century. But there is more. Technology facilitates unprecedented forms of total war in which the object is to destroy civilian populations. Moreover, though genocide is possible without technology, the Nazis demonstrated the horror of genocide by industrial means. Technology is simply a means to make tools, and, as with all tools, the virtues and vices of technology depend upon how it is used. From Marx’s notion of the alienation of the proletariat to Jürgen Habermas’s writings on the excessive colonization of cultural life-worlds by impersonal and lifeless social systems, social theorists have been sharp, sometimes hostile, critics of the inequalities, injustices, and oppressive conditions and consequences of modernity. Modernity is certainly open to criticism on many counts, from capitalism’s exploitation of labor to the practice of total war, where the object is not to defeat a rival military force but to destroy the homeland of the enemy by lethal technological means. Yet even the most comprehensive and justified criticism of modernity contains a certain degree of ambivalence. Modernity, as previously said, is easily the most comfortable set of material circumstances human beings have ever established for themselves. Where is the Luddite who would forfeit central heating in the winter or air conditioning when the temperature is high? Modernity has also spawned a portfolio of political and cultural values such as the equality 393 modernity and rights of individuals, and the notion of social justice to which even the most acerbic critics of modernity subscribe, even as they use these values to highlight modernity’s shortcomings and its hypocrisies. As Durkheim observed, the moral ideals of modernity treat the rights and prerogatives of individuals as sacred. Each of us should possess these rights to an equal extent. But these ideals are contradicted by some very deep-seated modern realities. Capitalism intrinsically generates vast inequalities between the rich and the poor, whether it is in the British slums Dickens described in nineteenth-century England or the slums found in every Third World conurbation today. Merely noting the vast difference between average age of death among modernity’s rich and poor alerts us to how dramatic these inequalities are. But, as Pierre Bourdieu observes, modernity also includes many forms of cultural inequality that are insidious insofar as people unselfconsciously reproduce their habitus, even though in doing so they may put themselves at a cultural disadvantage vis-à-vis dominant groups. Some prominent inequalities between women and men, racial and ethnic minority groups, and minority groups based upon sexual differences can be understood in this way. But critics of these inequalities have had a measure of success. From socialist movements a century ago to women’s movements today, periodic rebellions against inequality are as modern as the forms of inequality to which they object. Social estrangement has been a recurrent theme in social theory. Marx’s notion of alienation refers both to the loss of control over labor by workers and to the estrangement of workers from their material relations with fellow workers and members of their community. In Suicide (1897 [trans. 1951]), Durkheim conceived estrangement in two forms: anomie, which is the sense of profound confusion brought about by the social disruptions to which modernity is prone, and egoism, an excessively selfish, utilitarian form of individualism which is the unappealing underside of the moral individualism of which Durkheim approved. Georg Lukács saw modernity in Kafkaesque terms as subject to reification, that is, the sense that we live a social world with hard realities that seem too vast and powerful to change. Habermas’s notion of the colonization of the life-world speaks to estrangement in the sense that the instrumental policies of capitalism and the modern state invade areas of public culture and private life, suppressing meaningful ties of social integration in favor of calculations of organizational 394 modernization advantages and efficiencies. (A good example is the bureaucratization of universities and schools.) Though each of these notions of estrangement makes a specific point, all of them underscore one of modernity’s enduring problems, the inability of modern civilization to generate groups to replace the local communities that provided cultural meaning, moral solidarity, and spiritual assurance in premodern forms of social life. There is no single great impediment to the maintenance of communal ways of life in modernity. Capitalism, the bureaucratized social policies of the state, the impersonality of scientific technology, and modern individualistic culture – each adds its own share of obstacles in this regard. However, estrangement is not an all-or-nothing matter. Community groups, stable intimate relationships and personal friendships, and close extended families remain a part of the modern social scene. But, then, there is no denying that feelings of powerlessness, meaninglessness, loneliness, and insecurity are common experiences in modern social life. And to the extent that these feelings are found, the critics of estrangement in modernity are right. Ironically, all of these complaints hinge on modern values. Other epochs had different complaints. IRA COHEN modernization As the United States emerged as the world’s hegemonic power after World War II, the structural– functionalist modernization paradigm became the dominant perspective in United States sociology and world social science. Elaborated by Harvard’s Talcott Parsons, the lead figure in American sociology, the modernization paradigm saw societies as a relatively stable set of interrelated parts changing along similar lines, from traditional agricultural to modern industrial societies, part of a global pattern. The models for this transition from developing to developed societies were the industrialized states of western Europe and their settler offshoots in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States, along with countries such as Japan. Poor underdeveloped traditional societies were believed to be in the earlier phases of this transition, having yet to go through the modernization process. Here, the weight of traditional cultural beliefs and practices supposedly inhibited the industrialization, differentiation, and specialization of occupational roles necessary for success. Parsons aimed to provide a holistic analysis of this process, discussing the host of structural requirements necessary for modernization the orderly functioning of the social system, so as to promote their diffusion worldwide. Nils Gilman’s important book, Mandarins of the Future: Modernization Theory in Cold War America (2003), analyzes how United States social scientists and policymakers converged on this model in the context of American superpower competition against the Soviet Union, including in the struggle for the hearts and minds of those in the Third World. Third World states were seen as being held back by traditional beliefs and cultural practices, thought to be barriers inhibiting the steps required for successful growth. Perhaps the classic work of modernization or development theory and its vision of elite-guided democracy was economist Walt W. Rostow’s The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto (1961). Rostow argued that all countries could pass through these stages to achieve high mass consumption as had the United States. Rostow, a former Rhodes Scholar, became an important member of a host of United States presidential administrations, playing a significant role in planning the Vietnam War as part of the group of men David Halberstram called The Best and the Brightest (1993), eventually becoming President Johnson’s National Security Council adviser. As critics pointed out, many social scientists working within the modernization framework, from Rostow to Parsons to Samuel Huntington, saw their task not just to analyze reality but to try and shape it to the benefit of the capitalist nation-states of which they were a part. In the context of the Vietnam War, such dual roles raised many questions about the objectivity of social scientists, and became an important part of the critique of modernization theory. While the modernization perspective dominated United States and world social science up until the 1960s, the tumult of this period, from civil rights through the anti-war movement, to the related worldwide revolts of 1968, ushered in a sharp critique of this view and the forwarding of radically different perspectives. Forming an influential critique here were the various brands of international political economy, including worldsystems analysis formulated by Immanuel Wallerstein and followers, which borrowed from Third World radicalism and a host of critical perspectives in world social science. Wallerstein and others traced the rise of the modernization paradigm to the shift from biological to cultural racism, not surprisingly given the horrors of the Holocaust, the political context of the civil rights movement, and the progress of decolonization. modernization Rather than simply arguing for the racial inferiority of the colonized as during the heyday of colonialism, now Third World backwardness was seen instead as the result of cultural differences and traditions, views critiqued most recently in Jared Diamond’s landmark Guns, Germs and Steel (1999). This culture of poverty argument also saw cultural traditions as the cause of minority poverty in the advanced core states. While modernization was thus seen as an ideological formulation designed to uphold power and inequality, Wallerstein nonetheless recognized that there were many liberal scholars honestly concerned with the plight of world poverty and seeking to add knowledge that could aid in its overcoming. That being said, it was argued, the modernization view seriously distorted the actual history of the capitalist world-system, within which development and underdevelopment were part of a single historical process, whereby the minority in powerful core states benefited from the exploitation of the great majority in the periphery, the semiperiphery and the internal peripheries of the core. There were many critical blows to the paradigm which represented the dominant consensus in sociology and the social sciences. In particular, profound criticisms of the underside of modernization came from the Frankfurt School of critical theory – Walter Benjamin, Theodor Wiesengrund Adorno, Max Horkheimer, and Jürgen Habermas – and from Zygmunt Bauman’s Modernity and the Holocaust (1989). There were also periods of revival, expressed in the 1980s and 1990s, as in Francis Fukuyama’s The End of History and the Last Man (1992). Today, modernization theory appears to be making something of a comeback, this time not so much by analyzing national backwardness, but in the clash-of-civilizations discourse. Increasingly, in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, United States scholars such as Bernard Lewis have sought to explain the failure to modernize of Islamic civilizations in ways that provided ideological support to the Anglo-American argument that it is necessary to bring democracy to the Islamic world, if necessary through force, as with the United States’ and United Kingdom’s retrospective justification of the 2003 invasion of Iraq and subsequent military occupation. Yet in spite of the nominal transfer of sovereignty and elections, the revelations of United States torture in Iraq and elsewhere have undermined American claims of promoting freedom and modernization. Sociologists such as Paul Lubeck criticized this new modernization approach, relating the decline of Islamic civilization 395 money and its contemporary resurgence as a form of ethno-national political mobilization to culture and issues of global wealth and power. The rise and demise of modernization theory formed a critical part of the changing structures of knowledge in what observers have called “the American Century,” and thus in the twenty-first century the modernization project will likely be subject to an increasingly fierce debate. THOMAS REIFER money As a medium of exchange, money has been a pivotal social technology in the development of human societies. With numbers and writing, money was a basis for the world’s first large-scale complex societies in the ancient Near East during the third millennium BC. (Note that these societies did not possess coinage, but used an abstract money notation – money of account – for making budgetary calculations and expressing prices and debts in monetary value.) Today, globalization is driven by the electronic transfer of money across national boundaries and by the rapid changes in the value of money wrought in the foreign exchange markets. According to the familiar economic textbook list, money performs the following crucially important functions: medium of exchange, means of unilateral payment (settlement), store of value, and money of account (measure of value). (Note that these functions describe, but do not explain, the origins and existence of money.) A medium of exchange makes possible the operation of the division of labor and the subsequent exchange of products in markets of large-scale impersonal multilateral exchange. Second, money is a store of value – that is, of abstract purchasing power. It enables decisions to be postponed, revised, reactivated, or canceled. In his An lnquiry into the Meaning of Money, John Buchan (1997) defined it as “frozen desire.” Third, as Max Weber and John Maynard Keynes emphasized, money’s most important attribute, upon which the others are based, is as a measure of value. The abstract notation of money of account (pounds and pence, dollars and cents) enables the calculation of prices, costs, benefits, debts and credits, profits and losses – that is to say, the rationalization of economic life. However, money has a dual nature. This useful social technology expands society’s capability, or infrastructural power; but it can be appropriated by particular interests and used as their despotic power. The power of money is not simply found in the form of amassed wealth; but also in the power to control the actual production 396 money of money in mints and banks. Today, for example, the interplay between central banks’ interest-rate decisions and the money markets’ reactions to them in their pricing of currencies and every kind of financial asset is one of the most important institutional axes of modern capitalism. Two problems have beset the sociological analysis of money, which has remained relatively underdeveloped. First, there is considerable disagreement about the nature of money between and within the different social sciences. Second, sociology has taken money’s existence for granted and, rather, has focused on its social and cultural consequences, especially as an expression of the “disembedded” economic relations of “modernity,” as in Anthony Giddens, The Consequences of Modernity (1990). With some exceptions – for example, Geoffrey Ingham, The Nature of Money (2004) – modern sociology mistakenly assumed that economics offered an adequate explanation of money’s existence. Two developments account for this situation: the division of intellectual labor in the social sciences after the Methodenstreit during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, in which money was deemed to be within economics’ province; and the general influence of Karl Marx’s political economy. During the Methodenstreit, Joseph Schumpeter observed that there were two theories of money – the commodity theory and the claim (or credit) theory – and that they were incompatible. Orthodox economic theories of money are based on the commodity theory in which money is seen as a thing that functions as a medium of exchange in order to overcome the inconveniences of barter that arise in the absence of a double coincidence of wants. According to this theory, barter transforms myriad bilateral exchange ratios between goods into a single market price for a uniform good. Money originates as one of the commodities in barter transactions that eventually function as media of exchange – for example, cigarettes in prison. As a commodity, the medium of exchange can have an exchange ratio with other commodities. As a medium of exchange, money is a neutral veil that has no efficacy other than to overcome the inconveniences of barter. In Karl Menger’s classical formulation in “On the Origins of Money” (Economic Journal, 1892), money is the spontaneous result of market exchange and the unintended consequence of individual economic rationality. In order to maximize their barter options, traders hold stocks of the most tradable commodities which, consequently, become media of exchange – beans, iron tools, money cigarettes. Precious metal has additional advantageous properties – durability, divisibility, portability. By being weighed, struck into uniform pieces, and counted, precious metal becomes money. The progressive dematerialization of money and eventual disappearance of precious metal coinage broke this explanatory link between individual rationality and system benefits. Why should the individual, Menger asked, be ready to exchange his goods for useless base metal disks or notes? Modern neoclassical economics tries to resolve the problem by showing that using (noncommodity) money reduces transaction costs for the individual. There are three major problems with this analysis. First, this methodology cannot distinguish money from any other commodity – that is to say, it does not specify the moneyness of money. In this regard, economics misunderstands the significance of the abstract, or nominal, money of account – that is, pounds and pence, or dollars and cents. Medium of exchange is the key function of money and it is assumed that the others (money of account, means of payment, store of value) follow from it. The market spontaneously produces a transactions-cost-efficient medium of exchange that becomes the standard of value and subsequently the nominal “money of account” – as in the above example of precious metal coins. However, there are both a-priori and empirical grounds for reversing the sequence. In A Treatise on Money (1930), John Maynard Keynes argued that money of account, or the abstract measure of value, was the “primary concept of a theory of money.” Money of account provides the description of money, and specific forms – coins, notes, cigarettes – “answer the description.” Similarly, according to John Searle in The Construction of Social Reality (1995), we know that various material objects – coins, notes, plastic, electronic impulses, and so forth – are forms of money because of the monetary functions that we have “collectively assigned” to them. In this view, money of account is logically anterior and historically prior to the market, but cannot be produced by it. It is improbable that a measure of value (money of account) could emerge from myriad bilateral barter exchange ratios based upon discrete subjective preferences. One hundred goods could yield 4,950 exchange rates. What transforms discrete barter exchange ratios of, say, 3 chickens ¼ 1 duck, or 6 ducks ¼ 1 chicken, and so on, into a single unit of account? A “duck standard” cannot emerge spontaneously, as the equilibrium price of ducks established by supply and demand, money because, in the absence of a money of account, ducks would continue to have multiple and variable exchange values. Moneys of account are authoritatively fixed abstract measures of value. In order for a duck to be a measure of monetary value, it is necessary that a sovereign power declares that one duck is equal to two chickens and promises to exchange ducks and chickens at this rate. (The gold standard was not based directly on the market price of gold, but on the central bank’s promise to buy gold at a fixed monetary price per ounce.) But how did agreed measures of value originate? Can an intersubjective scale of value (money of account) emerge from myriad subjective preferences? The question is at the heart of a problem that distinguishes economics from sociology. Is social order the result of the individual calculations of advantaged interdependence or of supra-individual social norms? (See Talcott Parsons, The Structure of Social Action, 1937. For an account of the social origins of money of account, see Ingham, 2004.) Second, the explanation of money’s existence in terms of transaction-costs reduction exposes the problem with methodological individualism. It is only advantageous for an individual to use intrinsically worthless money tokens if all other agents do likewise. The advantages of money for the individual presuppose the existence of money as a social institution. Third, the model of the barter economy with its neutral veil of money is inappropriate for the understanding of capitalism. Financing of production with bank loans of credit-money does not take place in the model of the barter exchange economy, where money exists only as a medium for gaining utility through the exchange of commodities. Capitalist banks are not merely intermediaries between savers and borrowers; they create new money by extending loans that are not directly matched by incoming deposits. As the bank’s debtors spend their credit, it is transformed into money, which may then be deposited as money in other banks. Thus, the banking system as a whole creates a money multiplier (Ingham, 2004). Neoclassical economics’ explanation of money’s existence was tacitly accepted in Parsons’s early work, which confirmed the division of intellectual labor between economics and sociology. Later, in Economy and Society (1956) with Neil Smelser, he saw money as a generalized medium of communication that facilitates the integration of the functionally differentiated parts of the social system – in an analogous way to prices in the economy. They followed neoclassical economics’ 397 money axiom that value is only realizable in the actual process of exchange and that money is no more than a symbol of “real” value. This does not acknowledge the obvious fact that money is socially constructed as abstract value; it is, according to Georg Simmel, “the value of things without the things themselves” (The Philosophy of Money, 1907 [trans. 2004]: 121). The production of money as a social institution was also neglected by Marx, who was more concerned with money as an expression of alienation in capitalism. He starts with the classical economic labor theory of value in which precious metal can be a measure of value because the labor of mining and minting can be expressed in “the quantity of any other commodity in which the same amount of labour-time is congealed” (Capital, vol. I, 1976: 186). However, in a critical departure from classical economic theory, Marx argued that money is a double “veil.” As orthodox economics maintains, it veils the real relations between commodities; but for Marx this also masks the underlying unequal social relations of production that appear as monetary relations. For example, the level of money wages appears to be the result of an equal economic exchange between capital and labor, but is in fact an expression of exploitative power relations. Tearing away these monetary veils will demystify the alienation and capitalism will become “visible and dazzling to our eyes” (187). This points to money’s role in the ideological naturalization of capitalist social relations – as, for example, in modern economic theory’s concepts of the “natural” rates of interest and unemployment. But Marx follows classical economics in not granting a relative autonomy to the value of money; it is fundamentally a commodity whose value cannot be separated from the material base of either its costs of production or the embodiment of labor time. The other side in the Methodenstreit – the German Historical School – advanced the credit, or claim, theory of money. Here money’s role as a final “means of payment” for the unilateral settlement of a debt is emphasized. A “means of payment” denominated in money of account stores abstract value in the form of purchasing power, which enables it to be removed temporarily from the circulation of commodities. This gives freedom and flexibility to the modern world. As Simmel noted in The Philosophy of Money (1907 [trans. 2004]), when a feudal lord demanded a specific quantity of honey or poultry from his serfs he directly determined the nature of their labor. But as soon as a money levy is imposed, the peasant is free to pursue any 398 money activity that will raise the sum. But there is another side to this capacity to store abstract value. Saving money removes it from the process of production and, according to Keynes’s “paradox of thrift,” may cause unemployment. From this perspective, money is a token credit that is assigned a nominal value by a money of account – pounds, shillings, dollars, cents, euros. Money does not take its value from its substantive commodity content, but from the existence of goods that can be bought and, more importantly, debts that can be discharged. This alternative theory stems from attempts to understand early capitalist credit instruments – private bank notes or bills of exchange – and from works such as Georg Knapp’s The State Theory of Money (1924 [trans. 1973]). States issue money to pay for their purchases, which the population must accept in order to meet their tax payments. Moneyness is assigned by the issuers’ (banks and states) denomination of credit in abstract value (money of account) and in their promise to accept it back in payment of a debt – the repayment of a loan or a tax demand. The promise may be backed by precious metal, or some other commodity; but this is not essential – as modern dematerialized money demonstrates. Money is constituted by the social relation of credit–debt. As Ingham (2004) argues, for something to be money it has to be issued as a liability of the issuers – that is to say, the issuer promises to accept it in payment of a debt owed. Weber’s analysis of money was influenced by both sides of the Methodenstreit dispute: by von Mises’s economic theory and also, more importantly, by Knapp’s historical “state theory.” In Economy and Society (1978), Weber notes that, as the largest maker and receiver of payments, the state’s role in the creation of money is inevitably paramount. Moreover, for Weber, money is not a “neutral” medium of exchange, but a “weapon” in the “struggle for economic existence.” The production of money and the regulation of its “scarcity” and the value of money are socially and politically determined by the clash of interests. “The public treasury does not make its payments simply by deciding to apply the rules of the monetary system which somehow seems to it ideal, but its acts are determined by its own financial interests and those of important economic groups” (172). Money consists in abstract value (media of exchange and means of payment) which is also its own measure (money of account). According to Simmel, “Money is one of those normative ideas that obey the norms that they themselves money represent” (The Philosophy of Money, 1907 [trans. 2004]: 122). Money is essentially a promise, denominated in the money of account, made by the issuer that the issued tokens will be accepted back in payment of a debt. This makes it acceptable for the discharge of any debt within the sovereign monetary space, circumscribed by the state’s imposition of the money of account, in which prices are posted and debts contracted. This quality of moneyness has been made more obvious with the disappearance of all precious metal monies and monetary standards. States pay for goods and services with their issue of tokens which become sought after because they are the only means of discharging tax liabilities. Private issues of bank notes are also accompanied by the promise that they will be accepted in payment of any debt owed to the bank. But, until banks joined the giro network headed by a statesponsored public, or central, bank, their issued money was unstable. Money is an expression of sovereignty (Michel Aglietta and André Orléan, La Monnaie souveraine, 1998). Weak monetary systems are as much the result of a weakness of the state as they are of any economic weakness – for example, post-Soviet Russia and Argentina. After moneyness has been established this way, it can become a commodity whose value is determined by its exchangeability for goods (purchasing power) and other moneys in foreign exchange markets (exchange rate). In other words, once money has been produced, then economic analysis is applicable; but it cannot explain money’s existence. Furthermore, the economic analysis of the exchange value of money in relation to goods, and other currencies, needs to be supplemented by sociological analysis because the scarcity of money is socially and politically determined. At the macro-level, the supply of money is structured by the rules and norms governing fiscal practice (for example, sound money principles), which are the outcome of a struggle between economic interests in which economic theory plays a performative role. In capitalism, the major struggle between creditors and debtors is centered on forging a real rate of interest (nominal rate minus inflation rate) that is politically acceptable and economically feasible. On the one hand, too high a real rate of interest will deter entrepreneurial debtors and inhibit economic dynamism. On the other hand, too low a rate or, more seriously, a negative rate of interest (inflation rate in excess of nominal interest rate) inhibits the advance of money-capital loans. On the micro-level, creditrating produces a stratification of credit risk that Montesquieu, Baron Charles de (1689–1755) regulates the demand for money by means of differential interest rates and the refusal of loans. This has an autonomous impact on the reproduction of inequality through “Matthew Effects”: the rich receive low-interest credit and the financially excluded fall prey to “loan sharks.” Other important areas that require sociological analysis are the social and political construction of inflation expectations by central bankers and the financial press. A sociology of inflation flourished in the 1970s in Fred Hirsch and John Goldthorpe, The Political Economy of Inflation (1978), but waned with the decline of its subject matter. This was closely related to Keynesian theories of “costpush” inflation which reverses the implied causal sequence in the quantity theory of money. Rather than the quantity of money determining the price level, it is the market power of economic interests, in the Weberian “struggle for economic existence,” to bid up their prices and (especially) wages that triggers inflation. This increased demand for money is met in the capitalist system by the power of banks to create money by extending loans. This monetization of private debt is a distinctive characteristic of the capitalist system, as Ingham has argued. This depiction of the monetary process in capitalism is now acknowledged insofar as monetary policy does not attempt directly to control quantities of money, but rather attempts to dampen the demand for money by the manipulation of interest rates. GEOFFREY INGHAM monogamy – see family. Montesquieu, Baron Charles de (1689–1755) A political theorist, social critic, and an early precursor to sociological analysis, Montesquieu was born into a wealthy French aristocratic family and studied natural history, law, and physiology, before becoming a lawyer. As a result of a generous inheritance, he traveled widely in Europe, spending considerable time in England. In 1721, he published the Persian Letters, ostensibly a satirical portrait of French and especially Parisian manners as seen from the perspective of two Persian travelers, but on a deeper understanding a caustic social critique of the church, Louis XIV, and the aristocracy. In 1734 he published his Reflections on the Causes of the Grandeur and Declension of the Romans, which charts the historical rise and decline of the Roman Empire using ideal types as a methodological device. His major work, however, remains the Spirit of the Laws (1750 [trans. 1914]), which, 399 Moore, Barrington, Jr. (1913– ) moral panics written over twenty years, comprises thirty-one books. Among the achievements of this great work was to delineate the laws of society (see law and society) as well as to classify governments according to their underlying principles: the republic based on virtue; the monarchy based on honor; and despotism based on fear. As a leading Enlightenment liberal, he championed republicanism and, as a means to prevent despotism, advocated the separation of powers – that judicial, executive, and legislative powers should remain independent – modeling his arguments on what he had witnessed in England. As well as examining universal laws, he also sought to explain the differences between societies, seen holistically, in terms of the influence of various ecological and social factors such as climate, religion, education, and the maxims of government. He also made significant contributions to the study of law and demography. STEVEN LOYAL Moore, Barrington, Jr. (1913– ) One of the few American-born sociologists to pursue questions of classical dimensions, Moore was a contributor to themes as disparate as Soviet studies, the history of privacy, and social scientific method. Moore’s preeminent work is his historical sociological study, Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy (1966). The legacy of this book extends into the twenty-first century on two fronts. First, Moore’s works (in company with those by Reinhard Bendix, Jr.) renewed the Weberian tradition of comparative historical sociology, which had been almost brought to a halt as the Nazis came to dominate Europe before and during World War II. Second, in an era when Marxist theory set the standards in left-wing sociology and normative political theory, Moore concentrated on the semiautonomous rise of the state, in addition to capitalism, as a key to understanding the development of modernity. Subsequent comparative historical sociological studies of political power, the state, and social revolution, notably including works by Michael Mann and Theda Skocpol, owe enormous debts to Moore’s extraordinary work. In Social Origins, Moore explains the differing paths towards the modern nation-state taken as the result of the political movements of lords and peasants – independently and in relation to one another – in premodern agrarian states. Spanning six major cases (England, France, the United States, Japan, China, and India), with secondary observations on Russia and Germany, Moore asked one simply stated question of the utmost 400 significance: under what conditions do lords or peasants, or both, push historical developments towards parliamentary democracies or authoritarian regimes or communist systems? In the course of his work, he identifies three historical paths. The first two are “top-down” paths – the bourgeois revolutions leading to (in his terms) capitalist democracy and the abortive bourgeois revolutions leading to fascism. He also finds one “bottom-up” path: the peasant revolutions leading to communist regimes. In all cases he finds that the ways in which lords and peasants reacted to the challenge of commercial agriculture played a leading role. But this summary is much too schematic to do justice to Moore’s sensitivity to the variations between historical cases. Like Max Weber’s comparative studies on economic ethics of the world religions, Moore refuses to sacrifice the messiness of history for the sake of analytical clarity. His work poses challenges to readers, but it has a stronger ring of truth as a result. Another of Moore’s works, Injustice: The Social Bases of Obedience and Revolt (1978), takes a different methodological approach. Here Moore concentrates on one case, the German working class from 1848 to 1920, to ask: why do people quietly accept being victims of society in many instances, yet passionately rise to take action in certain situations? In a reflective epilogue, Moore suggests as one lesson of his book that obligations between rulers and the dominated should be reciprocal. Here again, the lesson of the book gains its credibility from the detail. Other books include Morality and Persecution in History (2000), Privacy: Studies in Social and Cultural History (1984), and Political Power and Social Theory (1958). IRA COHEN moral panics A disproportionate public reaction in response to actions deviating from established social and cultural norms; such actions range from acts of provocation of cultural and historical sensibilities to criminal offenses. Moral panics often arise in relation to subcultural groups and youth culture, addiction and religious deviations such as satanic rituals. Further targets of moral panics have been other marginalized or disadvantaged social groups such as welfare recipients or refugees. A distinct set of moral panics surrounds acts of sexual transgression and violence. Moral panics are based on a perceived threat to mainstream society. Often this threat is constructed in relation to third parties, usually children and adolescents, who are seen as potential victims of illicit practices (sexual abuse, or drug moral statistics morality pushing) or deemed liable to deviant practices themselves (for example, the panic surrounding violence and homosexuality in American comics sparked by Frederic Wertheim’s Seduction of the Innocent, 1954). While moral panics as a response have an original cause for concern and are thus to be distinguished from forms of mass hysteria or delusion, they, as Stanley Cohen observes in Folk Devils and Moral Panics (1972), diverge from other forms of public reaction to a perceived moral or social malaise, such as the formation of social movements in relation to ecological risk, gender discrimination or poverty, in that they are based on an exaggerated threat: exaggerated either because the actions that trigger moral panic are represented inaccurately or because the threat itself is portrayed as more serious than it is in comparison to other problems. The different processes and actors that are involved in the exaggeration of perceived threats are detailed in Cohen’s study of Mods and Rockers in 1960s Britain which first coined the phrase moral panic. Crucial to the portrayal of subcultures as “folk devils” are, according to Cohen, both legislative and executive sections of the state and the mass media, both impacting on public perception. The mass media in particular have been implicated in the formation of moral panics in subsequent studies: Stuart Hall’s Treatment of Football Hooliganism in the Press (1979), Chas Critcher’s Moral Panics and the Media (2003), and Sarah Thornton’s Club Cultures (1995) all highlight the indispensable role of mass media, and the (British tabloid) press in particular, in creating moral panics. Thornton’s study furthermore highlights the complex interplay between subcultures and mass media in which subcultural credibility is derived from hostile media coverage, whereas mainstream media approval spells the death of subcultures. CORNEL SANDVOSS moral statistics – see social pathology. morality This is a term that refers to injunctions of what to do, and how to behave, in particular circumstances. All societies require notions of morality, since individuals cannot conduct their lives without norms to guide them. It is tempting but erroneous to divorce moral norms from the time and place in which they arose: hence the institutions of slavery or cannibalism, while repellent to modern mores, cannot be regarded as inherently immoral, since they seemed normal and natural in particular societies. Behavior becomes immoral when groups in society begin to question particular lines of conduct and espouse practical alternatives. This is not, however, a purely relativist view of morality since underlying particular historical examples are wider notions of autonomy and self-government which are crucial to morality. The point is that these absolute values emerge and it would be wrong to think of them as having “stopping points” as if they are to be fully realized in one society or another. Indeed, the notion of morality has been bedeviled by religion and the idea that an absolute value has to be timeless in order to be absolute. God is seen as embodying this absolute and is conceptualized as the repository of a timeless absolute truth. There are absolute values (autonomy and self-government have been mentioned), but these absolute values can only express themselves in relative form, that is, in a particular time and place. The influence of theology on morality has been to instill a dualistic divide between the absolute and the relative so that the individual is to “choose” one or the other. Contemporary public debates often polarize around relativists who argue simply that “beauty lies in the eye of the beholder” and “there is nothing good or bad but thinking makes it so,” and fundamentalists who react against this relativism by seeking to abstract values from their historical context. The modernist belief in timeless absolutes is not adequately dealt with by simply turning it inside out, so that morality is merely denied. The modernist view of morality must be transcended, moved beyond, so that morality is seen as the combination of the absolute and the relative, the utopian and the realistic. The problem with expressing morality as a timeless absolute is that it inevitably becomes imbued with a perfectionism that cannot be matched by historical practice. A gulf between theory and practice acts not as a stimulant to activity, but as a paralyzing frustration – a distinction becomes a dualism, an unbridgeable gulf that inevitably generates cynicism and despair. Of course, every individual acts in a way that breaches morality, and the more serious the breach, the more explicit the articulation of the moral norm. But where morality is expressed in a historically conscious fashion, this gap is an incentive to develop and improve, not a source of impotence and passivity. Morality becomes problematic when focused upon the state. It could be argued that it is difficult to see how the state can act morally when its 401 morality distinctive attribute is the use of force to tackle conflicts of interest. The “morality” of the state is of a distinctively propagandist quality, designed to bully and coerce people into compliance. As long as society was seen as “naturally” divided into citizens and slaves, Christians and atheists, men and women, and so on, then the use of force against the others is not problematic. However, once all are deemed to be individuals – all equally entitled to natural rights – then the force of the state becomes problematic from a moral point of view. Liberals are right to see force as antithetical to morality since it is impossible to act autonomously and govern your own life if you are subject to the coercive will of another. The use of force destroys relationships since, to form a relationship with another, one needs to be an agent and one cannot be an agent if one is damaged, to a great or lesser extent, by the acts of another. To use force against another is to see them as a thing, an inanimate object, and not a fellow human being. The use of force by the state can be “justified” as the lesser of two evils since there are all kind of contexts in which the failure to employ counterforce against a bully or thug makes a bad situation worse, but it is hard to see how the use of force itself can ever be moral. The problem with liberalism is that it seeks to justify the unjustifiable since its postulates of freedom and equality are themselves projected as timeless absolutes. Antisocial behavior cannot be given a historical explanation. It is “naturalized,” that is, illicitly presented as natural in the sense of being unchangeable, so that the need for a state, an institution claiming a monopoly of legitimate force, is presented as eternal and inevitable. Morality is sometimes seen as norms that are imposed from on high. This accounts for the view by youth in liberal societies that morality is inherently hypocritical and corrupt. The word moral is used pejoratively – a bad thing. There is something to be said for this argument since state functionaries cannot practice what they preach, and religious figures present a theoretical piety which their practical behavior belies. But it is important not to see morality through the eyes of those who deform it through hypocrisy and equivocation. It is better to say that those who say one thing and do another are negating morality since neither they nor their victims can be said to be governing their own lives or acting autonomously. When morality is imposed from above, threats accompany it. Those who abide by norms out of fear of the consequences cannot be said to be acting morally. Morality cannot be treated as a 402 morality purely subjective attribute: “I am moral because I think I am.” Although it is true that a person must intend to be moral in order to be so, it would be naive to suppose that the consequences of an act can be ignored: the use of physical chastisement in our contemporary world by authority figures may be intended to instill morality, but its effects are crippling and deforming. The same can be said about the lack of knowledge of the alternatives. Of course relativism makes an input here, since knowledge that is withheld must exist and be available. One can hardly say, in a world in which research into lung cancer and passive smoking has not taken place, that smoking is inherently immoral; it becomes immoral when knowledge is available but not utilized. This point is crucial in linking morality to an objective interest. An act is contrary to objective interests if an individual would act in a different way if he or she knew what others know. There have to be what some call “counterfactuals,” that is, meaningful alternatives which can be chosen. Authoritarian deformations of morality divorce the objective and subjective in a dualistic way. The norm is imposed from on high – the authority figure knows best – or, as a reaction to this explicit authoritarianism, the norm is not advocated at all on the grounds that each must do as they please even if this destroys the individual concerned or the well-being of others. This holds whether moral norms are being developed in children or adults. Context is crucial, and the way that a moral norm is expressed for a three-year-old obviously differs dramatically from the way in which it would be expressed for a young person of thirteen. Morality is both objective and subjective, since an individual must believe in the rightness of an action and that action needs to contribute to their autonomy and capacity to govern their own lives. The “moral” injunctions associated with authoritarian rule – whether of a personal or institutional kind – undermine rather than further morality. The attempt to present the study of society as a science devoid of moral or normative implications is misguided. Science itself, whether natural or social, has moral implications. It is true that the natural sciences study a realm outside human activity, and it would obviously be perverse for a zoologist to describe a queen bee as autocratic or dictatorial. But this does not mean that the study of nature is value-free. Humans are part of and interact with the wider world of nature, and therefore the study of nature cannot but affect their lives. The discovery that the earth went around morality the sun was seen understandably as a threat to a medieval outlook, and extraordinary lengths were taken to repress those taking this view. To this day, social Darwinism has proved controversial to those who cling in fundamentalist fashion to what they see as the letter of their holy text. Modern ecology rightly poses the human–nature relationship as crucial to our well-being, even though there is sometimes the temptation to invert traditional attitudes so that our equality with nature is treated as though we were the same as the rest of nature. This leads to the inversion of traditional humanism rather than to the development of a new and more concrete humanist position. The point is that the notion that factual statements must be morally neutral treats the facts in an atomistic way. Factual statements pose relationships. Skeptics dismiss these necessary relationships as purely metaphysical (that is, subjectively imposed) while philosophical idealists present these relationships as evidence of a higher spiritual power. In fact, relationships derive from movement in the material world and it is impossible for an entity to move if it has no relationship with its environment. All factual statements imply relationships: sometimes these relationships are commonplace in our culture and therefore they are not controversial, but a lack of controversy does not mean that there is an absence of values. It merely means that the values are shared. The statement that the World Trade Center in New York was destroyed on September 11, 2001, is agreed by terrorist and state functionary alike, and the relationships which this statement postulates between an act and a point in time are not particularly important (although those who argue that the act was somehow created by the media may inject controversy into a statement even like this). Values derive from the relationships which factual statements imply. There is therefore no qualitative difference between the statements of natural and social scientists in this area, although (as the example of the zoologist illustrates), the language appropriate to actions of humans differs significantly from that appropriate to the behavior of other natural beings and entities. At the height of the behavioral revolution (a movement that rejected the difference between humans and the rest of nature), it was common to argue in voting studies that apathy among ordinary members of the public was functional for a democracy because it enabled politicians to take decisions with unimpeded expertise. Whatever one mortality thinks of this statement, it is not, as was claimed at the time, a value-free discovery, since the notion of functionalism smuggled in a moral judgment. If apathy was functional, it was in practice a good thing. The relationship that the functional implies contains the values – whatever the intention of the author. Morality is thus inherent in society because relationships are inherent in society. This morality is both relative and absolute. It links to our autonomy and capacity to govern our lives – a value that we can only move towards but never absolutely realize. Morality is subverted if values are expressed in timeless fashion. Morality cannot be developmental unless it is integrated into human practice so that it helps us to improve and does not stand over the individual us an alienated set of unattainable ideals. Morality is inherently all statements; it is a positivist argument that scientific statements must be value-free. This position ignores the relational character of factual statements, and the way in which values derive from the relationships implied. This position holds for the natural as well as the social sciences for, although there are undoubtedly differences between the two, neither are morally neutral. JOHN HOFFMAN mores – see norm(s). mortality The relative frequency of death in a population, mortality is both a biological and a social phenomenon. Demographers distinguish between two aspects of mortality, namely, the life span, that is, the oldest age to which humans survive; and longevity, that is, the capability to survive from one year to the next. Longevity has both biological and social components, whereas life span tends to be mainly biological. An easily understood and interpreted method for quantifying mortality is the crude death rate (CDR), that is, the number of deaths in a population in a given year, per 1,000 members of the population. It may be expressed as follows: CDR ¼ Death in the year  1,000 population at mid-year Using data for China for 2004, the equation becomes: CDR ¼ 7; 800; 000  1; 000 ¼ 6 1; 300; 000; 000 This means that in China in 2004, there were six deaths for every 1,000 persons in the population. Crude death rates among the countries of the 403 mortality world in 2004 ranged from lows of 2 in Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates to 26 in Botswana and 29 in Sierra Leone. The range of crude death rates is narrower than that for crude birth rates. Crude death rates, however, must be interpreted with caution. When crude death rate comparisons are made between countries, differences are sometimes due to differences in age composition. Countries with high proportions of young people will usually have lower crude death rates than countries with small proportions of young people. When the countries of the world are categorized into more developed and less developed and their crude death rates examined, countries with low death rates are found in both groups. This does not mean that the more and less developed countries have the same mortality experiences. For although crude death rates are low in many countries of the world, members of the populations of the more developed countries have greater longevity, that is they live longer, than those in the less developed countries. Age-specific death rates and age-standardized death rates should be used to compare the mortality experiences of countries with known differences in age composition. The quantification of mortality is central to demography. A key measure of the mortality experiences of a population is the life table, and this dates to John Graunt and his analyses of the Bills of Mortality. The life table starts with a population (a radix) of 100,000 at age 0; from each age to the next, the population is decremented according to age-specific mortality probabilities, until all members have died; the mortality schedule is fixed and does not change over the life of the population. The basic life table consists of seven columns including the probability of dying between age x and age x þ n (nqx), the number of survivors at exact age x (lx), the number of deaths between age x and age x þ n (ndx), years lived between age x and age x þ n (nLx), and life expectancy after exact age x (ex0) . Alfred J. T. Lotka (1880–1949), whom many refer to as the person most responsible for the development of modern demography, used life tables in his development of the theory of stable population. The concept of a stable population was actually first set forth by L. Euler in “General Research on Mortality and Multiplication,” Mémoires de l’Académie Royale des Sciences et Belles Lettres (1760 [trans. 1970]), but its current development stems from the work of Lotka, who first introduced the concept in a brief note in 1907. Later, F. R. Sharpe and A. Lotka in “A Problem in Age Distribution” (1911), proved mathematically that 404 mortality if a population that is closed to migration experiences constant schedules of age-specific fertility and mortality rates, it will develop a constant age distribution and will grow at a constant rate, irrespective of its initial age distribution. The mathematical bases and foundation of stable population theory are laid out and discussed in many places, one of the better expositions being A. J. Coale’s masterpiece, The Growth and Structure of Human Populations (1972). A. J. Coale and P. Demeny, in Regional Model Life Tables and Stable Populations (1983), developed model life tables to generalize about mortality under various different conditions. A primary aspect of quality of life, directly derived from the life table, is life expectation. In 2004, life expectation at birth in the world was 65 for males and 69 for females. In more developed countries it was 72 and 80, and in less developed countries, 63 and 67. The highest life expectation at birth was in Japan, 78 for males and 85 for females; the lowest was in Sierra Leone (34 for males, 36 for females), Zambia (35 for both males and females), and Botswana (35 for males and 36 for females) (Population Reference Bureau, 2004). Maximum potential life span refers to the theoretically highest known age. The longest known life span is 122 years and 5 months authenticated as the age at death of Frenchwoman Jeanne Louise Calment who died in August, 1997. Another aspect of quality of life is the infant mortality rate (IMR), or the number of deaths in a year of infants under 1 year per 1,000 live births. It is expressed as: IMR ¼ deaths in the year to persons under age 1  1; 000 live births in the year The infant mortality rate is a combination of the neonatal mortality rate (NMR) – deaths to babies of 28 days of age or less per 1,000 live births – and the post-neonatal mortality rate (PMR) – deaths to babies of 29 days to 1 year of age per 1,000 live births. A major explanation of mortality change has its origins in demographic transition theory (DTT). DTT proposes four stages of mortality and fertility decline that occur in the process of societal modernization. The first is the pre-industrialization era with high birth and death rates along with stable population growth. With the onset of industrialization and modernization, the society transitions to lower death rates, especially lower infant and maternal mortality, but maintains high birth rates, with the result of rapid population growth. The next stage is characterized by decreasing Mosca, Gaetano (1858–1941) population growth due to lower birth and death rates, which lead then to the final stage of low and stable population growth. Epidemiological Transition Theory (ETT) focuses on the society-wide decline of infectious disease and the rise of chronic degenerative causes of death. According to epidemiological transition theory as postulated by A. R. Omran in “The Epidemiologic Transition: A Theory of the Epidemiology of Population Change” (1971), there are three stages. The first is the age of pestilence and famine in which the primary causes of mortality were influenza, pneumonia, smallpox, tuberculosis, and other related diseases, with a high infant and childhood mortality and a life expectancy averaging between 20 and 40 years. The second is the age of receding pandemics in which there was a decline in mortality due to improved sanitation, increases in standards of living and public health, resulting in a steady increase in life expectancy to between the ages of 30 and 50 years. According to R. G. Rogers and R. Hackenberg in “Extending Epidemiologic Transition Theory: A New Stage” (1987), the stage of receding pandemics was around 1875–1930. The third stage is known as the era of degenerative and man-made diseases (heart disease, cancer, and stroke), in which mortality declines are due to medical advances in the prevention and treatment of infectious diseases. The life expectancy at birth rises rapidly so that fertility becomes the primary factor in population growth as life expectancy exceeds 70 years. About three-quarters of deaths in this stage are the result of degenerative diseases in the advanced years. Rogers and Hackenberg have noted a fourth “hybristic stage” where mortality is heavily influenced by individual behavior or lifestyle choices, and deaths are due to social pathologies such as accidents, alcoholism, suicide, and homicide, as well as lifestyle issues such as smoking and diet. The impact of mortality has been shown to vary significantly according to social demographic characteristics. People in higher social classes live longer than those in the lower classes. In the United States, Asians and whites live several years longer than blacks and Hispanics, with blacks having the shortest life expectancy. Married people live longer than the single, separated, or DUDLEY L. POSTON divorced. Mosca, Gaetano (1858–1941) An Italian jurist and political theorist, Mosca was active in politics and administration. With Vilfredo Pareto he contributed to the theory of elites. motherhood/mothers Mosca was the author of two works of abiding significance, Elementi di Scienza Politica (1896) which was translated as The Ruling Class (1939) and Lezioni di Storia delle Istituzioni e delle Dottrine Politiche (1933 [trans. 1972]). In his critique of parliamentary democracy, he argued that all political regimes exhibit, or seek to hide, one fundamental fact: the superiority/inferiority relationship between the political class or ruling class, who possesses political power, and the remainder of the population. But the possession of power itself is gained through a “struggle for prominence” between competing groups, and a significant aspect of that struggle is constituted by the political formula employed by each group to assert itself over the others, and to justify its own tenure of power. Democracy is one such formula, capable of generating legitimacy, although, like all other formulas, it is at bottom irrational. However, there are significant qualitative differences between political regimes, and Mosca maintained his own preference for a liberal one even when its Italian version was destroyed by fascism. GIANFRANCO POGGI motherhood/mothers By its very nature, the term motherhood is a relational category. Thus women who are defined as mothers are primarily understood in terms of their relationships with their children. This means that studies of motherhood can tend to focus solely on the dyad of mother/child relationships. However, from a sociological perspective, analyses of motherhood have attempted to locate themselves in the context of the social organization of much broader themes such as (hetero)sexuality, conception, birth, child rearing, child care, and paid work. Because becoming a mother tends to be understood to be a natural or biological process, it has been the task of sociology to reveal the ways in which motherhood changes in relation to other social transformations and, within this, to explore how different elements of motherhood (such as the ideologies of motherhood or the experiences of motherhood in different class or ethnic contexts) shift and adjust over time. Early functionalist sociology treated motherhood as a self-evident role for women in the context of the married, nuclear family, and the sole component of this role was seen to be the proper socialization of children. This narrow perception was challenged by feminist research in the 1970s and 1980s when motherhood started to be analyzed as a form of women’s oppression. This oppression was seen to encompass two forms, in line with the influential neo-Marxist framework of the 405 motivation time. These forms were the material conditions of motherhood and the ideology of motherhood. The former paid attention to the fact that motherhood isolated women from the labor market and made them dependent upon the male breadwinner for their economic survival. The latter identified the ways in which women were seduced into becoming mothers through a belief system which imposed the idea that women could not be fulfilled without children and which insisted that it was natural for all women to be mothers (and hence unnatural not to be). Radical feminists coined the term “compulsory motherhood,” used by Adrienne Rich in Of Woman Born (1977), thereby suggesting that in a heterosexist and patriarchal culture women had little choice but to become mothers – not least because they could not refuse to have sex with men, but also because they did not have control over contraception and reproduction. Alongside these structuralist approaches to motherhood there developed an interest in women’s experiences of being mothers, as illustrated by Ann Oakley in Becoming a Mother (1979), and these accounts gradually shifted the concentration away from just the oppressive elements of motherhood, towards some of the everyday benefits and problems associated with becoming a mother, such as negotiating with the professions who take charge of motherhood, and combining motherhood with paid employment. Mothers themselves were increasingly seen as agents in the process of mothering, rather than just the victims, and emphasis was given to the idea that mothers’ voices should be heard, in particular by the medical and health care professions. More recently, research on motherhood has taken into account the significance of new reproductive technologies which are seen as disruptive of the taken-for-granted genetic link between mothers and the children to whom they give birth. The rise of surrogacy, embryo and egg donation, and post-menopausal childbirth is changing further the idea that motherhood is simply a natural CAROL SMART phase of women’s life course. motivation Central to both lay and technical uses of this term is the conception that motivation is why people do what they do. None of the abilities or potential of an individual will result in action without him or her being motivated to act. The range of meanings included in everyday talk encompass the full range of meanings to be found in the academic literature, and thereby foreshadow the conceptual difficulties and wrangles 406 motivation present in analyses of motivation. Standard dictionaries refer to conscious and unconscious stimuli, which are characterized either in terms of internal psychological desires or beliefs, or in terms of physical or social environmental conditions leading to behavior which may be novel or habitual, and learned or innate. While these different elements can be used promiscuously and speculatively in daily conversation, substantial and different theoretical consequences follow from each of them. Careful technical use needs to bear in mind five important distinctions. First, does a person do something because of an internal need or desire which must be satisfied, or are they stimulated to action by an external event? Second, are they pursuing specific goals, or are they motivated by general drives? Third, is their motivation based on a cognitive calculation or judgment, or on an emotional reaction? Fourth, is it something of which the individual is conscious and aware, or something of which he or she has little awareness? Finally, is it a function of innate and inherent properties of the individual, or is it developed over time? Many otherwise quite incompatible theories, for example, psychoanalysis and sociobiology, have argued that there are fundamental underlying drives which are part of a person’s biological endowment. Individuals seek the satisfaction of these drives through the pursuit of pleasurable stimuli and the avoidance of noxious ones with highly significant consequences for the character of persons, their social relations, and the social order that follows. Necessarily, an account of a generalized drive towards, for example, sexual engagement, presumes a cognitive apparatus that can organize one’s behavior in the light of a specific demand or opportunity, but often these theories are less forthcoming on this matter. In contrast, many more cognitive accounts – for example, expectancy value theory – prioritize the cognitive component in the individual’s pervasive motivation to maximize benefits and minimize costs without paying much attention to how value is determined. Many authors have proposed that motivation may be an important area of individual difference. Abraham Maslow (1908–70) proposed that societies as a whole will vary as a function of a hierarchy of human needs. In this, individuals will first be motivated by physiological needs such as food and water. When that need is satisfied, the motivation will be for safety, followed by social engagement, then personal esteem, and finally self-actualization. As a society or social group enables the easy satisfaction of these needs, multicultural citizenship so the individuals will be motivated by the higher levels in the hierarchy. DAVID GOOD multicultural citizenship – see citizenship. multiculturalism There are two tensions within multiculturalism that sociology inherits. First, multiculturalism has come to define a set of state policies to manage (neutralize, nullify, subdue, or conquer) difference (multiculturalism as policy). Second, it also has come to define those strategies that mount resistances to state management policies of difference (multiculturalism as politics). Thus, multiculturalism has come to express both a will to difference and a will to sameness (equity, equality, fairness) simultaneously. These tensions are not unique to multiculturalism. In the second half of the twentieth century, many struggles for social justice have mobilized identity and difference and placed new demands on citizenship. There are two reasons for this. First, which may be called the politics of identity, many social movements (civil rights and women’s and indigenous peoples’ rights being principal examples) called into question the shortcomings of the ideal of universal citizenship in practice, signaling that, while being formally citizens, their identities still excluded them from rights of citizenship. Second, which may be called the politics of difference, many social groups articulated rights that accrued to them on the basis of their difference. Struggles for minority rights in language, schooling, and public appearance were often waged on this basis. The politics of recognition (combining the politics of identity and difference) has, therefore, increasingly mobilized itself as simultaneous and conflicting claims to sameness and difference, inclusion and exclusion, and rights and obligations. Multiculturalism, both as policy and politics, inherited these tensions from other forms of politics of recognition but displayed unique characteristics (see, for example, Danielle Juteau, “Beyond Multiculturalist Citizenship: The Challenge of Pluralism in Canada,” 1997). These tensions can be traced to the origins of the concept itself (for example, Mark Lopez, The Origins of Multiculturalism in Australian Politics 1945–1975, 2000). On the one hand, multiculturalism meant rights for cultural minorities but, on the other, their assimilation into the dominant culture. Both these tensions can be observed in its official incarnation when, on October 8, 1971, Canadian Prime multiculturalism Minister Pierre Trudeau spoke in the House of Commons to proclaim Canada’s policy of multiculturalism. He said, “There is no official [Canadian] culture, nor does any ethnic group take precedence over any other. No citizen or group of citizens is other than Canadian, and all should be treated fairly.” With astonishing clarity, what Trudeau was proclaiming was both the absence and presence of a dominant (in this case, “Canadian”) culture. This proclamation announced the acceptance of the material conditions of the politics of recognition, which was brewing in North American but also European and Australian cities. The shifting patterns of global migration and immigration resulted, within a few decades in the second half of the twentieth century, in cities such as Toronto, New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Amsterdam, London, Sydney, and Melbourne becoming home to large numbers of foreign-born residents with ostensibly radically different cultural backgrounds from those of their host cities and nations, as illustrated by Leonie Sandercock, Towards Cosmopolis: Planning for Multicultural Cities (1998). Yet, this pattern was not so different from the massive sea-change experienced in almost all those cities at the turn of the twentieth century when their populations had “welcomed” vast numbers of foreign-born residents. It is often forgotten that, proportionally speaking, there were more foreign-born residents in New York and Chicago at the turn of the twentieth century than at that of the twenty-first. Yet at the turn of the twentieth century the decisive requirement was assimilation. This is probably the source of the paradox of multiculturalism. While, at the turn of the twentieth century, sociology, especially what came to be known as the Chicago School and its urban ecology, emerged out of a milieu that had asked assimilation of its minorities, by the late twentieth century society could no longer do so, at least not explicitly (for example, Bhikhu C. Parekh, Rethinking Multiculturalism: Cultural Diversity and Political Theory, 2000). If, at the turn of the twentieth century, the service that sociology was pressed into was the achievement of the assimilation of these minority cultures into the dominant host culture, by the end of the century confidence in that possibility, for various complex reasons, was shaken, and thus was born the policy and politics of multiculturalism. As policy, multiculturalism still clung to “integration,” “cohesion,” and “inclusion” as euphemisms to stand for assimilation but, as politics, multiculturalism also increasingly 407 multilevel models multivariate analysis articulated demands for differentiated citizenship as rights and obligations, as shown by Seyla Benhabib, The Claims of Culture: Equality and Diversity in the Global Era (2002) and Will Kymlicka, Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights (1995). The sociology of multiculturalism embodies these tensions by pressing itself, on the one hand, in the service of integration, cohesion, and inclusion, and, articulating, on the other, new ways of being different yet equal in postnational states and their cities. Multiculturalism, either as policy or politics, may well have exhausted its possibilities. It was never as accepted and embraced in the United States and Europe as it was in Canada, and it has had a variegated history in Australia. The growing securitization of the state and politicization and racialization of borders, and the growing conflicts between Muslim minorities and dominant cultures, have already shifted the discourse in the United States and Europe from multiculturalism to euphemisms of “integration” and “cohesion.” Whatever the concepts deployed, the tensions of the politics of recognition will continue to influence the research and political agendas. ENGIN ISIN multilevel models – see modeling. multilevel regression model – see modeling. multiple level regression – see regression. multivariate analysis This is the generic term for analyses that involve many variables, such as multiple regression, cluster analysis, or log linear analyses. Typically, they are used to determine the relative importance of a number of independent variables on one dependent variable. An example of this is given in the description of regression. The most important reason for using multivariate analyses in sociological research is that many sociological phenomena have multiple overlapping causes, and it is difficult to unravel the relative importance of each of them by simply examining the correlations between pairs of variables (bivariate analysis). (The other type of analysis, alongside multivariate and bivariate is univariate analysis – looking at just one variable at a time, such as when examining the averages of individual variables.) 408 It is often noted that children whose parents get divorced during their childhoods experience disadvantage later in their lives (for instance, in their educational outcomes or the status of their jobs as adults). But this simple correlation tells us little about the relative importance of a number of factors that could have brought this about. Is being brought up by one parent inherently inferior to being raised by two parents? Or could it be that other factors are to blame? For instance, many single-parent families live in poverty, are forced to live in poorer neighbourhoods where the schooling might be of lower quality, or experience prejudice in society. Or perhaps it was living in households with higher levels of conflict before the separation or divorce that caused the disruptions to the children’s development? Such a complex web of interrelated variables would be nigh impossible to unravel with simple bivariate analyses. But, given an appropriate dataset (for instance, a birth cohort study) and multivariate analyses, the relative importance of each of these factors, and many more, can be understood in detail, as in, for example, B. J. Elliott and M. P. M. Richards, “Children and Divorce: Educational Performance, and Behavior, Before and After Parental Separation” (1991, International Journal of Law and the Family). Another great advantage of multivariate interactions is that they permit the investigation of the complex way in which independent variables combine to influence other variables. For instance, there is evidence that individuals with larger social networks cope better with stressful life events, such as unemployment. So unemployment or social networks might only have mild effects by themselves, but, for those individuals with limited social networks, unemployment might have a greater effect on their well-being. In this case there is an interaction between unemployment and social support affecting well-being – a relationship that cannot be adequately described by the bivariate relationships between social networks and wellbeing or unemployment and wellbeing. Multivariate analyses can also be performed where there are several dependent variables that might be considered simultaneously. For instance, in medical sociology, if one is interested in health outcomes, rather than analyzing a whole raft of health measures separately (such as blood pressure, body mass index, cholesterol levels, cortisol levels, and self-rated depression), they could all be analyzed simultaneously using multivariate analysis of variance. Mumford, Lewis (1895–1990) Before the advent of computers, multivariate analyses were considered an advanced technique, only attempted by the statistically most competent social scientists. More recently, computer packages such as the Statistical Package for Social Scientists (SPSS) have made them more accessible to all social scientists, and multivariate analyses are taught in most sociology undergraduate degrees. BRENDAN J. BURCHELL Mumford, Lewis (1895–1990) Recognized as an architectural critic, Mumford’s most enduring legacy may well have been as a social and political critic, raising fundamental questions about modernity and its drive towards technological progress. An independent scholar, he followed his The Story of Utopias (1921) with imaginative and original books including Sticks and Stones: A Study of American Architecture and Civilization (1924), the widely acclaimed The Culture of Cities (1938), and the trenchant The City in History: Its Origins, Its Transformations, and Its Prospects (1961). His Technics and Civilization (1934) provided the first glimpse of his developing critical views on technology. His later The Myth of the Machine: Technics and Human Development (1967) and The Myth of the Machine: The Pentagon of Power (1971) fully developed these early critical thoughts on technology, power, and democratic imagination. Mumford was independent in at least two senses. According to D. L. Miller, Lewis Mumford, a Life (1992), he did not have an institutional employment all his life and, perhaps consequently, developed an original and prodigious mind along with a powerful literary style. This combination gave him an independent voice that was as resolute as it was agile, highlighting, in equal measure, the darkest and brightest aspects of being social throughout human history. In his The Culture of Cities (1938), he had already developed an idea of the city both as being the institution for fulfilling the brightest possibilities of being social and as enacting its darkest nightmares. He did not flinch from calling the city a war machine right from its inception and yet believed that it could, and indeed it did in certain periods of human history, become the crucible of the outmost possibilities of being social. Similarly, his views on the increasing reliance on technological progress did not deter him from investing in human capacities for collective responsibility, whether that meant planning urban regions or stopping nuclear proliferation. ENGIN ISIN myth Myrdal, Gunnar (1898–1987) A Swedish economist and sociologist, Myrdal was educated and subsequently taught at the University of Stockholm and held a Chair in Political Economy and International Economics. He was also active in Swedish politics and was elected to the Senate as a member of the Social Democratic Party in 1934, and again as Minister for Commerce in 1945–7. In 1974 he was jointly awarded the Nobel Prize for Economics together with F. A. Hayek. He, together with a research team of thirty-eight members, was commissioned by the Carnegie Corporation to study the social, economic, and lifestyle conditions of black Americans in the United States. The result was a carefully and extensively documented 1,500-page report which was published as The American Dilemma (1944). The report pointed to the gap between the American democratic ideal of the equality of man, and the reality of racial segregation and denial of civil and political rights that American blacks experienced. It discussed the caste-like relations between blacks and whites and the processes of cumulative causation that maintained and reinforced racism. The work was crucial in the Supreme Court’s decision to rule against the “separate but equal” law in the 1954 Brown versus Board of Education of Topeka case, which outlawed racial segregation in public schools. His other major publications include The Political Element in the Development of Economic Theory (1930) and a three-volume study of South Asia, Asian Drama: An Inquiry into the Poverty of Nations (1968). STEVEN LOYAL myth From the Greek muthos (plot or story), this term now circulates in religious studies and in anthropology largely free of the association with error, delusion, or childish flights of imagination that it had for many scholars of the nineteenth century and still has in popular usage today. Bronislaw Malinowski is transitional; myths are for him primarily functional instruments deployed in ritual contexts to lay claim to specific properties or titles, but their specific messages are barely interpretable at best. From Sigmund Freud to Bruno Bettelheim (1903–90), myths are collective displacements onto the symbolic plane of common but illicit desires whose literal representation would be unbearable. For Carl Gustav Jung (1875–1961) and his still considerable following, the motifs found so widely in mythologies throughout the world arise from a collective – indeed, pan-human – unconscious of a 409 myth less exclusively libidinous nature and serve less defensive than therapeutic purposes. Both of these psychoanalytic approaches must be distinguished in turn from the existentialist approaches of religionists such as Mircea Eliade (1907–86) and Joseph Campbell (1904–87), who claim to find in mythologies everywhere a common store of enduring human concerns and virtues. Methodologically, psychoanalytic and existentialist interpretations of 410 myth myth are largely substantialist; most presume that the same symbol conveys the same meaning in every one of its occurrences. In this respect, they are typically at odds with Claude Lévi-Strauss’s structuralism, which rests in a positionalist theory of meaning and whose decryptions uncover in myths themselves socially specific messages having a specifically ideological function and force. JAMES D. FAUBION N narcissism Associated with the doctrines of Sigmund Freud and psychoanalysis, the term has come to enter sociology as an account of certain pathological trends of modern social life. Often interpreted as a consequence of consumer society and the West’s obsession with surface appearances, the rise of narcissism is said to have played a significant role in the shrinkage of public political life, thus promoting a defensive, painfully empty search for self-gratification. The sociological analysis of narcissism has been plagued by lack of conceptual precision. It is important to distinguish between three related issues: first, psychodynamically, narcissistic disorders have their origin in what Freud termed “primary narcissism” – with the child remaining stuck in a destructive omnipotence, which thus prevents the development of healthy boundaries between self and others. Second, in terms of generations, narcissism is reproduced in capitalist society through parents relating to their children primarily as “investments.” Third, culturally, narcissistic pathology is said to arise not only from capitalism but as a result of globalization, mass communications (see mass media and communications), and the decline of tradition. Contemporary patterns of narcissistic identity-formation are thus conceptualized in sociology as at once thin and precarious, as the self is outstripped by the dislocations and terrors of modernity. The sociological critique of narcissism is best known through the writings of Richard Sennett, Christopher Lasch, and Joel Kovel. ANTHONY ELLIOTT narrative analysis Narrative as a topic of sociological investigation has a long and diverse history. Interest in narrative has always been predicated on the assumption that to grasp adequately the nature of some aspect of the social world one must analyze one’s research subjects’ own understandings of their circumstances. However, many different approaches to accomplishing this project have emerged over the years. The earliest exemplars for narrative analysis in sociology used a combination of data sources including oral histories, biographies, interviews, diaries, letters, and archival records to construct life histories of research subjects. These life histories were sometimes held up as important sociological chronicles in their own right, but they were usually valued for the contributions that could be made to more general sociological topics by their use. Hence, individual life histories have been compared to more general narratives either to enrich what is known about the experiences of ordinary people in particular historical periods or to evaluate critically more general theoretical claims about those periods. Narrative analysis has thus been used as a prominent resource in fulfilling the mandate for sociology to understand the relations between history and biography which C. Wright Mills famously set in his book The Sociological Imagination (1959). More recently, theoretical and political trends within the discipline have further invigorated narrative analysis while simultaneously shaping the direction of its development. During the 1960s, several theoretical movements converged to suggest language is the medium through which personal experience is made meaningful. This “linguistic turn” in sociological research highlighted the “storied” character of personal experience and inspired research on the structural characteristics of both oral and written narratives. While still flourishing, the structural approach to narrative analysis has been criticized for reifying narrative structures and under-emphasizing how narratives are accomplished in the ongoing course of social interaction. It is much more common now for analysts to consider narratives not for their intrinsic structural characteristics but for the ways in which these characteristics are themselves socially contingent. Most analysts now appreciate that both oral and written narratives are best understood as collaboratively constructed by storytellers and the myriad audiences for whom stories are told. Therefore, most contemporary narrative analysis 411 nation seeks to discover how the work of storytelling is itself responsive to the wider round of social activities within which storytelling is embedded. Narrative analysis has also been profoundly influenced by political developments both within the discipline of sociology itself and in neighboring disciplines. Social scientists once prided themselves on their professional ability to use the information they elicited from their research subjects to generate superior understandings of those people and their social worlds. Without necessarily forsaking their claim to objectivity, many researchers are now a good deal more attentive to the fact that they do not possess a monopoly on the capacity to describe social events objectively. Feminist scholars, in particular, have promoted the view that narrative analysis is not merely a project of generating scientific accounts of the narratives of others but of giving “voice” to those historically denied the authority to speak for themselves. DARIN WEINBERG nation – see nationalism. nationalism This is an ideology that holds that the nation is the natural basis of social life and that the best and most natural political units are states based on nations, that is, nation-states. Correspondingly, it gives rise to movements in which groups which define themselves as nations demand that they have their own independent national state. Thus understood, nationalism is unproblematic. The difficulties have to do mainly with the concept of the nation, and the different understandings of nationhood. Who belongs to the nation? In one tradition, the nation is seen largely in political, civic, and territorial terms. This has been the dominant understanding of nationhood in such countries as Britain, France, Spain, the Netherlands, the United States, and Canada. To belong to the nation, in this view, has nothing to do with religion, race and ethnicity, or any other cultural marker, and everything to do with political membership of a particular, territorially defined, state. In principle, all one needs to be a national of, say, Britain or France, is to be born on the territory of the state or to become naturalized as a citizen. National belonging and citizenship, in this tradition, are more or less synonymous. Hence the famous commentary by Ernest Renan in his lecture “What is a Nation?” at the Sorbonne in 1882 (published in G. Eley and R. Suny, Becoming National, 1996) emphasized the willed, voluntary 412 nationalism nature of civic membership (What is a Nation?, 1889). The other tradition of nationhood puts the stress on blood and belonging, on deep or primordial ties of race, ethnicity, religion, history, and other cultural factors. Membership is a hereditary, involuntary, matter, especially as this concept tends to stress an assumed common descent. Nations, in this view, are born, not made. This is the cultural or ethnic understanding of the nation. It had its birth in eighteenth-century Germany, from where it spread to eastern Europe and other parts of the world. The power of the ethnic concept of the nation is that, though it normally aims at statehood, it can exist without statehood. It therefore has wide appeal to those peoples who feel themselves to be nations but who do not have their own states or who exist as – often subordinate – groups in states dominated by other nations. There can in this concept be nations without states, commonly given examples being the Catalans of Spain, the Scots of Britain, and the Québécois of Canada. Not all such nations necessarily want states, and whether or not they actually get their own states is largely a matter of power politics – the 20-million Kurdish nation, for instance, has been waiting and fighting for a very long time for statehood, but international politics have stood in the way and are likely to do so for the foreseeable future. Nationalism as a doctrine arose in the late eighteenth century in Europe, and received powerful definition in the course of the French Revolution. This was also the time when the two principal concepts of nationhood were identified, though the French themselves tended to promote the civic concept – leading, by reaction, Germans and others to stress the ethnic concept. But whether the nation was politically or ethnically defined, in the first half of the nineteenth century nationalism was widely identified with the progressive currents of democracy and liberalism. Its earliest and one of its greatest prophets, Giuseppe Mazzini (1805–72), saw individual nations as subdivisions of a larger family of mankind, and envisaged a future world order in which nations would live peacefully and harmoniously together. In the later nineteenth century, nationalism, affected partly by the Social Darwinism of the time, took on a sharper edge. It now tended to be hijacked by right-wing thinkers and statesmen, and to become aggressive and intolerant (a form of nationalism known as integrative nationalism). Nationalism in this period was often allied with imperialism, and sought through the acquisition of colonies the nationalism aggrandizement of national power at the expense of other nations. This form of nationalism reached a climax in the 1930s in Europe, when it was often transformed into fascism and other totalitarian ideologies and movements. With the defeat of fascism, nationalism also suffered a rebuff, the more so as liberal hostility to nationalism was also echoed by the left-wing movements of socialism and Communism. Socialism historically had always been opposed to nationalism as a bourgeois, class-based, ideology with which the international proletariat should have no truck (which did not stop most socialist parties from supporting their nations during the two world wars). But while nationalism was under a cloud in the post-Second World War western world, it was the central inspiration behind the liberation movements of the developing, non-western, Third World as they sought to throw off colonial rule. Even where the movement took a communist form, as in China, Vietnam, and Cuba, its driving force was clearly nationalist. In some cases, especially in Africa and the Middle East, the nationalism was made problematic by the fact that many of the nations were of recent invention, usually the creation of western powers under colonialism. They might contain several ethnic groups of widely differing character, though usually one managed to achieve dominance during the independence struggle. This threw up a welter of conflicts after independence as different ethnic groups claiming national status tried to free themselves from “alien” rule. Examples were the Biafrans in Nigeria, the Tamils in Sri Lanka, and the East Timorese in Indonesia. But it was not only in the developing world that nationalist conflicts continued to flourish. In the West too, after a relatively short period of quiescence, nationalism revived vigorously, with strong movements in such places as Britain, Belgium, Spain, and Canada. Further East, the collapse of communist regimes after 1989, and the break-up of the Soviet Union in 1991, were accompanied by a powerful surge of nationalism throughout the region – leading, for instance, to the separation of Czechs and Slovaks and, in a bitter and bloody conflict, to the disintegration of Yugoslavia and the rise of five new nations in its place. Nationalism, it is clear, far from being the passing phenomenon that most nineteenth-century thinkers assumed, remains one of the most powerful forces in the world, overriding most other distinctions of social class, gender, and region, and apparently thriving even amidst the current currents of globalization. KRISHAN KUMAR Nelson, Benjamin (1911–1977) nature – see environment. nature/nurture debate – see genetics. neighborhood In sociology, neighborhood is a largely undertheorized and commonsense term referring to urban locales based on residential proximity. The context for neighborhood studies in urban sociology was provided by early twentieth-century sociologists (for example Georg Simmel, Ferdinard Tönnies, and Louis Wirth), who emphasized the impersonality and anonymity of the modern city. Against this view, neighborhood studies (for example Michael Young and Peter Willmott’s Family and Kinship in East London, 1957) found that neighborhoods can be the site of close kinship and personal ties that are not a residue from the past but, on the contrary, have been facilitated by modern cities. Urban living enables people to form associations based on kinship, or religious, ethnic, political, or other interests which become the basis of local networks and subcultures. Cities may thus facilitate a level of diversity not found in rural areas. In recent work the idea of neighborhood decline or regeneration has been linked to the concept of social capital drawing on the work of Robert Putnam and James S. Coleman. This has focused on the neighborhood’s potential as a site of integrative social networks and solidarity. The level of social capital in a neighborhood is often related to factors such as stability, integration, trust, solidarity, and tolerance, which in turn are used to explain such things as differential economic growth or levels of crime between regions. Two problems should be noted. The specific influences of the local environment may now be mitigated by global factors. The argument is often circular in that the evidence for and conditions of social capital in neighborhoods may be the same. LARRY RAY Nelson, Benjamin (1911–1977) A sociologist and historian who trained as a medieval historian at Columbia, Benjamin taught social sciences at Chicago, Minnesota, and the State University of New York, before becoming a professor of history and sociology at the New School for Social Research. His classic work remains The Idea of Usury: From Tribal Brotherhood to Universal Otherhood (1949), which engages with and extends Max Weber’s 413 neoliberalism historical and comparative work on religion and rationalization. Nelson examined the expansion of the moral community and the problems of conscience and moral regulation. Drawing on numerous medieval books, he elucidates the manner in which the original dualistic injunctions against usury, found in Deuteronomy 23:19–20, were inverted and extended by the rise of Christian universalism. An ethic of tribal brotherhood and communalistic association, which excluded the quest of gain and treated outsiders as enemies and morally out of bounds, was first extended to universal brotherhood from the twelfth century onward, and again by John Calvin (1509–64) in the sixteenth century, to an ethic of universal otherhood in which “all become brothers by becoming equally others.” The breakdown of the inherited structures of consciousness – where a triangulated regulation of “conscience, casuistry, and the cure of souls” existed – resulted in competition and calculation replacing cooperation. His later work emphasized the intracivilizational study of social action and cultural change, and highlighted the necessary interconnection between sociology and psychoanalysis. Both of these preoccupations are evident in his comparative historical sociology of science which compares the development of science in the West with that in China, and extends his discussion of the two great revolutions in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the Reformation and the scientific revolution. STEVEN LOYAL neoliberalism Referring to a broad range of economic policies adopted since the 1970s by western capitalist nations, this doctrine advocates measures to promote economic development, and is used to guide the transition from planned to market economies in former communist countries. In the United States, neoliberalism is often referred to as “neoconservatism,” thereby creating some confusion in social-science debates. This “new” economic liberalism is based on the late eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century classical political economy of Adam Smith (1723–90) and David Ricardo (1772–1823), and on Austrian economic theory – especially, that of Friedrich von Hayek (1889– 1992). It came to prominence in the wake of the demise of the Keynesian macroeconomics that had informed economic policymaking after World War II. In a critique of the two older approaches, Keynesian theory argued that the labor market was not self-adjusting and that it could not secure full employment unless the government 414 network theory manipulated its expenditure and fiscal policy to maintain the necessary aggregate demand in the economy. Following classical political economy, neoliberalism maintains that the most efficient allocation of resources is achieved by the competitive market. To function effectively, the market requires that property rights are clearly defined by law and that prices are not distorted by the power of monopolies – such as governments and powerful trade unions. Thus neoliberal policies advocate the reduction of direct government participation in the economy; the privatization of the supply of goods and services; and the reduction of trade union power and job security in order to create labor markets that are “flexible” enough to exert a downward pressure on wage levels if economic conditions dictate. Rather than spending to maintain demand and employment and thereby fueling inflation through an increase in the money supply, governments should try to maintain balanced budgets and a stable supply and, consequently, stable value of money. Direct control of the money supply by means of “monetarism” failed, but the anti-inflation goal is now pursued by interest-rate policy administered by central banks that are independent of government. These policies of privatization, competitive markets, and stable money are advocated by the International Monetary Fund and World Bank as the framework within which individuals, and not governments, in underdeveloped economies can create wealth. Von Hayek’s contribution to neoliberalism was in arguing that economic planning would inevitably fail because states could never have sufficient knowledge. Only competing individuals could establish the real scarcity value and prices of goods. At the international level, neoliberalism takes a pro-globalization stance in following Ricardo’s advocacy of free trade based on “comparative advantage.” Global economic welfare will be maximized in the long run if there is an international division of labor in which nations produce and then trade the goods for which they are best suited. The neoliberal policy-set is often referred to as the “Washington Consensus” and is frequently criticized for ignoring, in the same way as classical political economy, the fact that economies are characterized by a power structure in which freely competitive markets tend to increase the power and wealth of the powerful at the expense of the weaker participants. GEOFFREY INGHAM network theory – see networks. networks networks The study of social networks first emerged within postwar sociology and anthropology as a way of studying multi-centered micro-level connections between individuals. Since then the network idea has expanded in scope and significance as a means of characterizing macro-level qualities of social structures, and as a means of linking micro- and macro-levels. The controversial idea of network society advocated by Manuel Castells in The Rise of the Network Society (1996) and The Internet Galaxy (2001) represents a leading contemporary example of social network theory, linking large structures to individual settings. The recently expanded scope of network theory is connected, at least in part, with new information technology and the creation of virtual communication networks such as the internet, e-commerce, and broader processes of globalization. While debates continue on the precise connection between electronic and interpersonal networks, a proliferating typology of social networks has emerged, focusing on one or more areas such as business and commerce, policy and governance, advocacy, knowledge, science and the professions, migration and diaspora, religion, empire, and terrorism. Despite all of this, skeptics ask what exactly is distinctive about networks. Are we dealing with a metaphor that simply alludes to informal patterns of social connectivity, or does the concept carry more analytical purchase? In its original form as micro-level sociology, network analysis was applied to phenomena such as the support systems at work in rural– urban migration, or interactions within the classroom. A major landmark was Mark Granovetter’s “The Strength of Weak Ties” (1973, American Journal of Sociology) on how people gained information about job opportunities in professional and technical labor markets. He found this typically occurred less through intimate associates than through more distant acquaintances. This generated the micro-level insight that “weak ties” could have “strong” social consequences. A neglected application of network theory to larger social structures was undertaken by Ira Lapidus in “Hierarchies and Social Networks; A Comparison of Chinese and Islamic Societies” (1975) in F. J. Wakeman (ed.), Conflict and Control in late Imperial China, which developed a theory of social organization in Islamic societies by comparison with China. While he saw Chinese society as dominated by a hierarchy of levels binding networks together lineage, gentry, bureaucracy, emperor, and world order, in Islamic society, in contrast, there was a vast mosaic of small groups with little unity. These are better described as networks. This distinction between hierarchies and networks anticipated a major development in social scientific approaches to organization, systematized by, amongst others, W. W. Powell in “Neither Market nor Hierarchy: Network Forms of Organisation” (1990) in Research in Organisational Behaviour (12:295–333). This argument distinguished three organizational forms: markets, hierarchies, and networks. While markets are high on flexibility and spatial reach they are by themselves low on trust, and prone to opportunistic self-interest and exit. Hierarchies are stronger on co-ordination and formal control but often inflexible and poor at incubating innovation. Between the two stand networks which typically combine the flexibility of markets with some of the co-ordinating capacity of hierarchies, albeit based on interpersonal trust. This is the nearest network analysis has come to a general theory. Castells’s recent work offers an alternative perspective on network society. This proposes a new form of global capitalism that draws on network flexibility, enabled by information technology and digitalization. Flows of capital, information, organizational interaction, images, sounds, and symbols occur through the hubs and nodes of virtual networks. For Castells, the centrality of virtual networks extends to politics, which is increasingly conducted through electronic media, and to culture, where the new technology encourages networked individualism. Network society, however, is dominated by mobile cosmopolitan elites, and creates new forms of social exclusion of the immobile poor. This powerful body of work may, however, be stronger on speculative plausibility than empirical accuracy. Critics point out that most economic communication is not transacted electronically. Even those transactions that are electronically enacted are not usually interactive. Nor is activity on-line strongly networked since much of it takes the form of mundane interpersonal emails. Even more damaging, there is no necessary connection between information technology and globalization. A contrasting, more historically informed approach to networks is provided by Randall Collins in The Sociology of Philosophies (1998). Philosophical ideas are neither engendered by heroic individuals nor do they arise spontaneously from the 415 new class theory operation of structures or cultures. Rather they develop within a finite number of interpersonal networks. Particular networks link the relatively small core of key individuals that constitute schools, while debate and conflict between schools is mediated through networks. Network analysis helps explain why only a relatively small number of philosophical schools form in any given epoch, since ideas require articulation and reproduction through teachers to pupils and through wider connections between peers, in order to be sustained in a robust and distinctive form. In the work of Castells and Collins, social network theory offers two contrasting approaches to micro–macro linkages. The empirical research programs entailed by these approaches remain underdeveloped however. ROBERT HOLTON new class theory – see social class. New Deal – see welfare reforms. new institutionalism The relationship between institutions and society, long a central concern for sociology, was revitalized in the 1990s with the growth of interdisciplinary theories of institutions known as the “new institutionalism.” The new institutionalism is diverse, with different versions found in economics, international relations, political science, and sociology (and differences within disciplines between rational choice variants, comparativehistorical institutionalism, and organizational institutionalism). At the core of the new institutionalism in sociology are several key insights. At the level of organizational field, new institutionalists have argued that organizations operate in distinctive environments which exert pressures for conformity, a process known as institutional isomorphism (see the influential collection of Walter Powell and Paul DiMaggio, The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, 1991). Over time, institutional environments become coherent, predictable, and ordered as organizations inexorably respond to isomorphic pressures. A second set of insights examine institutional influences on individual behavior within organizational settings. Institutional rules and norms have long been understood to shape individual behavior, irrespective of the beliefs or orientations of an individual before s/he enters the organization. 416 new religious movements To this traditional focus of institutional analysis, however, the new institutionalists have added a focus on cognitive factors. In particular institutional settings, taken-for-granted understandings of acceptable behavior rule out alternative choices. In this way, institutions exert cognitive control over actors’ range of possible actions. Most notable here have been the contributions of Richard Scott and his colleagues; see his Institutions and Organizations (2001). In historical institutionalism, the role of institutions in shaping political actors’ strategies and influencing political outcomes is emphasized. Political institutions create certain kinds of “path dependence” that favor some outcomes and discourage others. These institutional constraints influence the strength of contending groups, public opinion, and the content of specific political or policy proposals that actors may propose, as illustrated in Sven Steinmo and K. Thelen et al. (eds.), Structuring Politics: Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Analysis (1992). In all of these ways, the new institutionalism has argued that institutions have independent, autonomous impacts on organizations, individuals, and social and political conflicts. They are powerful carriers of embedded social norms and rules, and modes of acceptable behavior. JEFF MANZA new religious movements The term new religious movements (NRMs) usually refers to the diverse range of religious groups that emerged mostly in western countries in the 1960s and later. Although the presence of new religious movements or sects (see church–sect typology) has a much longer history, especially in the United States, the phrase is customarily applied to movements that are seen as outside the culturally established religious traditions. As part of the broader critique and declining authority of social institutions associated with the political protest and identity movements of the 1960s, many college-age youth in particular were drawn towards participation in the alternative or countercultural norms articulated by NRMs and the alternative values and lifestyles they promoted and/or required of members (see C. Glock and Robert N. Bellah [eds.], The New Religious Consciousness, 1976). Within Christianity, these movements included Jesus-oriented groups such as “The Children of God” (now called “The Family”) and the Charismatic Renewal Movement (which revolved around Catholic prayer groups seeking a more biblically grounded and emotional Catholicism), as well as crossing religious traditions (such as “Jews for Jesus”). The increasing appeal of eastern new reproductive technologies non-profit organizations religious traditions was exemplified by the visibility and popularity of the Hare Krishna movement, the Nation of Islam, and the Unificationist movement of followers of the Korean spiritual leader, Sun Myung Moon, popularly known as the Moonies. Although new religious movements represent a small proportion of religious adherents in any given society, their cultural exoticism relative to the routines of institutionalized churches and to accepted norms allows them to achieve a massmediated presence in the public sphere that bears little relation to their numerical strength. Part of this attention derives from the recruiting strategies (such as indoctrination and allegations of brainwashing) and the somewhat volatile charismatic leadership associated with many of the movements, and more generally from the disruption these movements, to a greater or lesser extent, pose, or are seen as posing, to the moral order (see E. Barker, The Making of a Moonie: Choice or Brainwashing?, 1984). The communal living and the values of communal property and interfamily parenting that characterize some NRMs challenge established definitions of private property, marriage, and the functions of the family. The disruptive power of new religious movements is illustrated most visibly by the violence associated with some movements, notwithstanding the many complexities that may surround the specific circumstances of any particular movement’s recourse to violence. Most notably, the mass suicide of followers of Jim Jones at Jonestown in Guyana in 1978; the fire that killed the Branch Davidian leader, David Koresh, and some of his followers during the stand-off with federal law-enforcement agents in Waco, Texas, in 1993; the subway gas attacks in Tokyo in 1995 by the Japanese movement, Aum Shinrikyo; and the Heaven’s Gate suicides in southern California in 1997 – all these insure that the typification of violence with new religious movements becomes imprinted in the public imagination (see J. Hall, P. Schuyler, and S. Trinh, Apocalypse Observed: Religious Movements and Violence in North America, Europe and Japan, 2000). Such negative associations, in turn, attenuate efforts to shift attention to the sociohistorical reasons why particular religious movements emerge at the time and place and in the form that they do, and to why they succeed, however temporarily, in attracting followers. MICHELE DILLON new social movements – see social movements. new working class – see social class. Nisbet, Robert (1913–1996) American sociologist and historian of ideas who emphasized the importance of conservative ideas for sociology, Nisbet attended the University of California, Berkeley, where, under the supervision of the cultural historian Frederick J. Teggart, he pursued his doctorate on the thinkers of the “Reactionary Enlightenment.” The arguments and ideas of a number of these thinkers, including E. Burke, A. de Tocqueville, J. de Maistre, L. Bonald, and F. R. Chateaubriand, formed the basis for the rest of his work, which attacked rationalism, individualism, and socialism, whose exemplary embodiment he considered to be Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–78). In his first major work, The Quest of Community (1953), he examined the disappearance of intermediate associations, such as the family, the church, and the local community – which existed as a crucial buffer between the individual and society – as a result of the growing concentration of power in a centralized, and potentially totalitarian, political state. The ensuing personal alienation and cultural disintegration that followed led to a broadly based quest by individuals for moral guidance and community. These arguments were reworked in his classic study of The Sociological Tradition (1966), in which he examined five “unit ideas,” all deriving from conservatism, and which formed the nucleus of the sociological tradition: community, authority, social status, the sacred, and alienation. As well as examining the adverse consequences of politicization for the university and the social sciences in The Degradation of Academic Dogma (1971) and The Idea of Progress (1980), he edited two influential books, Contemporary Sociological Problems (1961) with Robert K. Merton, and A History of Sociological Thought (1978) with Tom STEVEN LOYAL Bottomore. nominal measurement – see measurement. non-parametric statistics – see statistics. new reproductive technologies non-profit organizations – see reproduction. – see voluntary associations. 417 non-response non-response – see sampling. normalization Defined as those social processes which pressure individuals to conform to culturally desirable or appropriate norms of behavior, the practice of normalization produces certain ideals or standards against which the members of a society are judged. Through this process, individuals are socialized into believing that certain forms of behavior or self-presentation are acceptable and valuable, while other behavior that transgresses social expectations is not as acceptable or legitimate. Normalization is a key concept in the study of social control. It helps sociologists understand how societies develop rules governing conduct, how they deal with deviance, how individuals resist or challenge such norms, and how social values and expectations within a society change over time. One way of defining norms is through simple statistics. However, the standards which are produced and reinforced through the process of normalization are often regarded as more than statistical averages. They are often socially valued and presumed to be good, or even ideal. Certain rewards (such as esteem, money, or access to resources) are often provided to those who conform to, reinforce, or exceed, social norms. However, those who do not conform to social norms may be punished, socially excluded, or stigmatized. They may be defined as “deviants” or “non-conformists” and they may also be pathologized, and treated as if they had a disease or disability. Within the area of disability service provision, the idea of normalization has a more specific meaning. It is commonly identified with the work of Wolf Wolfensberger whose theory of “social role valorization” revolves around ways to find normative social roles for disabled people. This approach to disability makes a strong effort to ensure that both service delivery and the social relationships which disabled people have reinforce their image as “normal,” socially valued citizens. Much of the sociological interest in the process of normalization can be traced to the influence of Michel Foucault, whose work suggested that normalization is reproduced through various institutional frameworks (including education, medicine, the military, and the judicial system). Foucault argued that these social institutions are involved in various disciplinary practices which 418 norms overlap and support one another, with the overall effect of producing bodies that conform to certain ideas, which he called “docile bodies.” Normalization is not only created through pressure from social institutions though, Foucault’s later work suggested that a major element of normalization stems from the way people think about their own bodies and their own behavior. An example of the self-regulation of individuals in this manner can be found in Susan Bordo’s discussion of the behavior of anorexics in Unbearable Weight (1993). She suggests that anorexics are not only victims of gendered social pressures to have slender bodies, but are also engaged in self-regulation that requires considerable will, and self-determination. The behavior of anorexics can be understood, Bordo argues, by focusing on the normalizing pressures which lead women to have a preoccupation with fat, diet, and slenderness. In this way, social norms about the physical body are seen to reflect wider cultural codes around gender and other social vulnerabilities. The study of normalization begs the question, “Who defines the norms?” Sociologists are therefore very interested in unpacking the power dynamics that underpin normalization. They study the ways individuals are encouraged, compelled, and coerced to regulate their behavior so that it seems “normal,” but also how people resist such pressures (both collectively and individually). In this way, a study of normalization shows how pressure to conform to social norms operates within social interactions, as well as through a person’s own desires to control their behavior or image. MARK SHERRY AND GARY L. ALBRECHT norms These are expectations shared by members of a group or collectivity that more or less effectively determine individual behavior. Norms typically attach to social roles rather than human individuals, who in performance of their roles conform to a greater or lesser extent to norms. The concept of norm is located in various categories associated with the development of sociology. William Graham Sumner, for instance, in Folkways (1906), holds that collective life, necessary for individual survival, requires the preservation of efficacious experience, stored in and communicated as custom. Custom is the collective form of individual habit. Folkways are produced, according to Sumner, in the frequent repetition of petty acts. Folkways are accepted because of the conviction that they are conducive to societal welfare and norms can therefore be defined as systems of persisting expedient customary behavior. Sumner says that, within a group, folkways are uniform, universal, imperative, and invariable; over time they become increasingly arbitrary. Socially formed and selected inferences derived from folkways, Sumner calls mores. Mores consist largely but not exclusively of taboos (see sacred and profane dichotomy), things that should not be done. A characteristic of mores, as coercive ethical principles, is the likelihood that they will contain an explicit rationalization or reason for adherence to them, for example don’t eat pork because pigs are unclean. Sumner’s approach was related to Social Darwinism. Believing that social change is achieved through the evolution of folkways and the development of folkways into mores is no longer in vogue. Talcott Parsons argues that, through social interaction, persons are able to communicate because signs and symbols acquire common meaning. By virtue of a shared meaning system there arises a mutuality of expectations and sanctions that constitutes what Parsons calls a normative order in The Social System (1951). Thus norms operate through internalization of a standard of group expectations and are maintained by the reactions of others, both positive and negative. These reactions are sanctions that reward conformity to role expectations and punish departure nuclear family from expectation such as deviance. For Parsons, the institutionalization of both expectation and sanction constitutive of norms is achieved in varying degrees. Anomie occurs in the absence of institutionalization. Norms therefore are not to be located at the level of individual social actor but necessarily function in the institutionalized activity of a plurality of social actors. While the notion of norm can adequately describe the habitual institutional patterns of a society, explanations of societal processes in terms of norms risks accounting for regularities of social action in terms of expectations. In fact, interaction in groups or societies may result from a number of possible factors, of which norms are only one. One alternative approach to explanation of social process points not to the system of norms, but to power relations and the balance of power that is the outcome of social conflict between groups. Exponents of this approach include Ralph Dahrendorf in Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society (1959) and John Rex in Key Problems of Sociological Theory (1961). David Lockwood’s Solidarity and Schism (1992) developed a sophisticated critique of the normative approach that avoids the problems of conflict theory. JACK BARBALET nuclear family – see family. 419 O John O’Neill (1933– ) A distinguished research professor emeritus at York University, Canada, and a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, O’Neill developed a critical interpretation of sociology in his Sociology as a Skin Trade (1972) and Making Sense Together (1974). His work is characterized by an attempt to bridge the gap between the humanities and the social sciences, which is illustrated in his Essaying Montaigne. A Study of the Renaissance Institution of Writing and Reading (1982). He contributed to the development of the sociology of the body in his Five Bodies. The Human Shape of Modern Society (1985) and The Communicative Body (1989). He was critical of postmodernism in his The Poverty of Postmodernism. More recently, he has made two important contributions to the sociology of citizenship in which he has been concerned to examine the status of children in modern society in his The Missing Child in Liberal Theory (1994) and Civic Capitalism. The State of Childhood (2004). He is a founding editor of the Journal of Classical Sociology. BRYAN S. TURNER Oakley, Ann (1944– ) A British sociologist who has worked on diverse issues related to the specific condition and experience of women, Oakley’s earliest work was a study of the politics and gender relations of housework (The Sociology of Housework, 1972, and Housewife, 1974). Informing both those texts was a concern with the isolation of women in the home and what was – at the time – a refusal of the social world to recognize the unpaid domestic work of women (see women and work). Oakley’s later work has been concerned with medical aspects of women’s lives, particularly childbirth and the transition to motherhood. In a number of studies (Becoming a Mother, 1979, and The Captured Womb, 1984), Oakley criticized the male control and medicalization of childbirth and the loss of an autonomous female voice in questions related to women and reproduction. Oakley’s work has been widely influential in the management of childbirth in the United Kingdom. 420 In recent years, Oakley has written fiction (for example The Men’s Room, 1991) and studies of the way in which gender informs global politics and the universal organization of social life (Gender on Planet Earth, 2003). Throughout her work Oakley has argued that it is socialization that creates and maintains the social prioritization of the male and the masculine; her many crosscultural references demonstrate her awareness of cultural difference in the construction of gender roles and behavior. Oakley has worked with Juliet Mitchell on collections of essays discussing the meaning of feminism and has maintained a consistent loyalty to a politics which affirms the voices and concerns of women. MARY EVANS objectivity A quality of mind such that the investigator is enabled to discern the true properties of the phenomenon being studied by remaining free from bias or prejudice, objectivity is often considered to be a goal of scientific investigation. Researchers have deployed a number of strategies to aid impartial investigation. These include attention to validity, reliability, and sampling. Finally, because published research reports are available for public scrutiny, and in many cases have been peer reviewed, the authors’ claims can be critically assessed for personal prejudices. The distinction between scientific facts and social (or political) values was important for both Émile Durkheim and Max Weber. Weber argued that scientists can only report on facts and, while they may involve themselves in political polemics, they may maintain objectivity through compliance with scientific protocols and proceeding in accordance with standard rules of evidence and proof. In Alvin Gouldner’s 1962 analysis of Weber in Social Problems, “Anti-minotaur: The Myth of a Value-free Sociology,” interpretation of facts may be infused with personal values, but the research techniques that produce those facts are value-neutral. The quest for objectivity has been met with resistance on a number of points. One of the occupational segregation arguments against objectivity concerns the debate between realism and relativism. Relativists argue that scientific truth may be different seen from different perspectives, thus there can be multiple and non-contradictory reports of the same phenomenon. There is also opposition to the positivistic notion that sociologists should seek to imitate the natural sciences. While sociology may employ systematic methods of inquiry and evidence-based theories, human activity and interactions may require different approaches to investigation from objects of nature. The reality of sociological research means that access and rapport with one’s informants is often a consequence of a personal approach from one human being to another rather than from scientist to subject. If sociologists are determined to maintain their objective stance they are at risk of damaging their fieldwork relationships. Emotional distance will in turn affect what the subject allows the researcher to observe or hear about their lives. Feminist research has led the main challenge to the positivist orthodoxy that sociology should strive to be objective, arguing that it is only by a transition to friendship and a collaborative approach to research that a more insightful account of women’s experiences will be generated. It has also been argued that sociological work cannot be objective in that it is influenced by sociologists’own experiences and values. Sociology is by its very nature ideologically driven, thus the notion of value-free social inquiry is unsustainable. Thus, Howard S. Becker, in his paper in Social Problems, “Whose Side are we on?” (1967), maintained that sociologists are constantly presenting someone’s point of view and have traditionally been unable to remain neutral in the face of moral and political controversies. The issue therefore focuses less on whether objectivity has been maintained but rather whose interests are served by the sociologists’ subjectivity. Sociologists may therefore be caught in an ethical tension between a desire to present themselves as objective to their audiences and their commitment to principles of social justice. MICK BLOOR AND FIONA WOOD occupational segregation – see occupations. occupations In complex societies with a high division of labor specialized work roles develop. On the one hand, Émile Durkheim argued in the Division of Labour in occupations Society (1893 [trans. 1960]) that this increased interdependence of each of us on others leads to social integration. On the other hand, Karl Marx claimed that such specialization leads to alienation and the fragmentation of the self. What is clear, however, following the work of Max Weber, is that occupational roles provide the basis for a social hierarchy, with some being positively valued status groups and others negatively valued. The Registrar General in the United Kingdom explicitly recognizes this hierarchy, providing a list of social classes based on occupation. These are: I. professionals; II. managerial; IIIN. skilled nonmanual occupations; IIIM; skilled manual occupations; IV. partly skilled occupations; V. unskilled occupations; and VI. the armed forces. Occupational inequalities thus provide sociologists with a proxy measure of class differences. For example, sociologists use this classification to examine the impact of occupation on life-chances, and sociologists of health and illness have demonstrated that people in socio-economic classes V and VI have lower life expectancy and higher morbidity than people from the non-manual classes (I, II, and IIIN). Feminist sociologists have also demonstrated that occupations are structured by gender, with women pooling in the “pink-collar occupations” of nursing, teaching, and service and secretarial work, a phenomenon known as “occupational segregation.” Even where women participate in male occupations, they find it difficult to rise to the top, either because of the existence of a “glass ceiling,” as informal sanctions are applied, or the “mommy effect” as they break their careers to rear a family. Women also tend to be concentrated in the “caring occupations.” This impact of gender on the structure of occupations is reflected in the fact that, even when women medical practitioners go on to specialize, they do so, for example, in psychiatry and pediatrics, reflecting wider social assumptions about their caring and nurturing roles. Occupational groups protect themselves to enhance their social status and income, a process known as social closure, through credentialism. That is, they set entry criteria, usually marked by tertiary-sector qualifications, that are not necessary to the performance of the occupational role. This closure has the effect of keeping out lower social-status groups, and especially ethnic minorities, who do not have access to the resources (such as time and money) to pursue these qualifications. The occupational structure of society thus both reflects and maintains patterns of social inequality based on class, gender, and race and 421 Ogburn, William F. (1886–1959) online communities ethnicity. Participation in an occupation is less likely to be structured as a career, as is the case for the professions, to be more discontinuous, and in postindustrial society, to be insecure and, increasingly, part-time. KEVIN WHITE Ogburn, William F. (1886–1959) A lifetime proponent of empirical positivism, Ogburn pioneered the study of social change and the systematic use of social indicators. Born in Butler, Georgia, and raised in a middle-class home, Ogburn studied under Franklin Henry Giddings (1855–1931) at Columbia University and received his PhD in sociology for a statistical analysis of child labor laws in 1912. He spent most of his career at the University of Chicago (from 1927 until retiring in 1951) where, during a time of ascendant qualitative studies, his quantitative approach attracted a number of distinguished scholars, including Samuel Stouffer and Otis Dudley Duncan. While he was skeptical about the value of social theory, Ogburn’s work Social Change (1922) had a huge impact on the theory of social evolution. He argued that social change is brought about not by social action but by “inventions” – novel combinations of existing cultural material. Social problems, in turn, emerge from disjunctures, or “cultural lags,” between one aspect of culture that changes due to invention, and another aspect of culture that must adjust accordingly. In his 1929 presidential address to the American Sociological Society, Ogburn predicted that sociology would become increasingly a science of “verification and proof.” The methodological domains he cultivated include ambitious projects of interdisciplinary cooperation, techniques to measure social change, and large-scale government surveys to inform policymakers (largely through work as Director of the President’s Research Committee on Social Trends [1930–3]). Through his study of secular social trends, Ogburn came to argue that such trends usually persist even in the face of disruptive events – so much so that deviations from these trends are more noticeable than the overall course of change. DONALD N. LEVINE oligarchy According to the classic Aristotelian typology, oligarchy is a system of rule by a few, exercised in their own interest. It is contrasted with monarchy, aristocracy, tyranny, democracy, and polity. Classic elite theorists Vilfredo Pareto, Gaetano Mosca, and Robert Michels, who popularized the term, 422 saw oligarchies as synonymous with consolidated elites. Michels in Political Parties (1958) coined a famous “iron law of oligarchy”: all complex bureaucracies give rise to elites. For some social analysts, oligarchy acquires a more specific meaning. In The Class Structure of the Advanced Societies (1973), Anthony Giddens analyzed effective power in relation to elite formation (consolidated versus diffuse power), and “issue-strength” (broad versus issue-specific). He defined oligarchic rule as involving consolidated “strategic” elites with power over a restricted/specialized set of issues. Such oligarchic elite power was contrasted with autocracy (consolidated elites and broad power), hegemony (diffused and broad), and democracy (diffused and restricted). Traditional oligarchies consisted typically of top aristocratic families (magnates) controlling monarchs. Modern oligarchies take many forms. Power elites involve the leaders of big business, the top government officials, and the top echelons of the military. Strategic elites include a number of well-integrated but sectorspecific elite groups. Ruling class (see social class) is an oligarchy consisting of owners and controllers of corporate capital. The inner circle consists of executives of the largest corporations. Some students of communist elites refer to “party– state” power oligarchies (the nomenklatura). The term oligarchy is seldom used in contemporary sociology of politics; it has been largely superseded by the term elite(s). JAN PAKULSKI online communities Both the idea and practice of communities have always been an essential component of sociological theorizing. Such communities were originally location-based constructs. But as studies of them deepened, another category has developed, namely the idea of conceptual communities. Thus, one could for instance speak of the scientific community. The enormous growth in online activities has led scholars to question whether communities could exist online, and what differences might arise between traditional physically based communities and their online counterparts. C. Arensberg and S. Kimball in Culture and Community (1965) identify three elements to the concept of community: environment, social form, and patterned behavior. I. Sanders in The Community (1966) asserted there were four: a place to live, a spatial unit, a way of life, and a social system. Using the former, it can be argued that online groupings that have these elements can qualify as a community. Reliance on the physical and ontology spatial dimensions of the term, by, for example, Sanders, would force one to dismiss the possibility of online communities at all. Yet despite their lack of physical reality, it seems plausible that, since communities are mental constructs in the first place, they could be virtual as well as physical in their nature. Interestingly, the absence of the necessity of overcoming geographical distance, combined with computer processing power, makes many new types of communities possible. J. Meyrowitz in No Sense of Place (1985) has argued that communities, both online and off, can be viewed in a context that is both upward to institutions and downward to social roles. He analyzes social roles and identities in terms of information systems that comprise patterns of access to social information, determined by the mix of physical settings, media, and mental constructs. Regarding mental constructs, he extends George Herbert Mead’s notion of the generalized other to the mediated generalized other. He describes how people gain a sense of who they are in part by imagining how others, both live and mediated, view them. Additionally, he anticipated much discussion of virtual life by advancing the notion of the generalized elsewhere, wherein one imagines how distant others imagine one’s own location and general environment. With considerable variation, this schema allows one to have a grasp of the general theoretical outlines possible in attempting to pin down, then contrast, online communities to their physical counterparts. JAMES E. KATZ ontology In sociology, an ontology responds to generic (that is transhistorical and transcultural) questions about the properties of social life. Though quite fundamental to all disciplinary concerns, ontological issues in sociology are more modest than ontological issues in the broadest philosophical sense. In philosophy, ontology refers to metaphysical issues concerned with the nature of existence and the structure of reality at large, a concern that has intellectual precedents reaching as far back as Aristotle (384–322 BC). Whereas most philosophical schemes are hierarchical, with some form of human “being” or “existence” at the top, sociological ontologies may be more loosely structured and do not concern themselves with “being” at all. Thus, the twentieth-century ontologies by Martin Heidegger and the early Jean-Paul Sartre have no correlated sociological ontologies. Examples of sociological ontologies include structuration theory, which identifies structured social organicism practices as the basic constituents of all aspects of social reality. Karl Marx’s preface to Critique of Political Economy (1849 [trans. 1859]) includes a crude materialist ontology. The well-known first chapter of Émile Durkheim’s Rules of Sociological Method (1895 [trans. 1958]) makes an elementary case for a collectivist ontology. Some commentators interpret Max Weber’s basic concepts of social action in ontological terms, though others disagree. Though social theorists have always relied upon ontologies, the term only recently entered the lexicon in the wake of the declining influence of positivism in the 1970s. Positivists tried to deny that what they termed metaphysical issues had any legitimate place in scientific thought. The term ontology gave these issues a place to stand in post-Kuhnian sociological theory. IRA COHEN Operationalization – see Falsification. organic anology – see organicism. organicism Sociology has often linked human society to organisms. Herbert Spencer, for example, drew attention to the fact that low animals or the embryos of high animals have few distinguishable parts, their elements becoming more numerous and differentiated during evolution or lifetime development. Similarly, he suggested, societies become increasingly complex and subdivided as they grow. Émile Durkheim’s well-known distinction between “mechanical” and “organic” forms of sociology also relies on an organic analogy, one in which society becomes more complex as it develops. In the middle of the twentieth century, Talcott Parsons argued for a general evolutionary law, change again taking the form of increasing differentiation between elements of the social “subsystem” – the home and the factory, for example. Forms of organicism are alive and well, especially among German sociologists strongly influenced by Parsons. Niklas Luhmann, for example, envisaged society as a set of distinct subsystems with their own rules and codes, making society very complex and difficult to manage. Analogies between societies and organisms were important in establishing sociology as a new discipline. But they are highly misleading when carried too far. Organicism can easily become teleological, social change apparently having a direction, purpose, and maturity, processes 423 organization man organization theory analogous to human growth and which all societies must inevitably experience. Another questionable implication is that of an unproblematic “progress” being steadily made, “simple” societies being replaced by more complex social forms. More generally, organicism can be criticized for implying that human societies, with all their power relations and divisions of labor, are somehow a product of nature. Despite such criticisms, however, organicism has had an important heuristic value, suggesting new hypotheses about social change and social organization. PETER DICKENS organization man William H. Whyte’s The Organization Man (1956) was a famous commentary on American business culture, but it belongs to another era: one in which careers could be foreseen in a large organizational bureaucracy, in an era before feminism, with its demands for a new type of man as well as the equal participation of women, a new approach to parenting, and a new set of commitments. It was also an era before downsizing, rationalization, and outsourcing threatened individual careers and lives. The organization man of the title was expected to be a loyal and conformist member of the organization. Indeed, in mid-1950s America, he was expected to be a loyal and conformist American. Whyte was doubly well placed to produce an outstanding ethnography of the organization man. First, the times were right: he wrote during the height of the Eisenhower administration (1953–61), when corporations appeared to provide all the necessities of modern life – careers, consumer goods in abundance, and suburban lifestyles. Second, as an editor of Fortune, Whyte could observe corporate America up close, and what he saw belied what he and many others believed. America was shifting from a land of individual initiative to one of corporate control. Whyte observed that the young men who entered organizations saw their whole working lives as being committed at that point: their interests were inexorably tied to those of the organizations that employed them. The assumption was that they would be rewarded in their career for the time they invested in the organization. The Organization Man showed the white-collar employee as increasingly shaped by employer demands: focused on advancement through the firm, he became narrow, conformist, and unwilling to innovate. This figure’s fear of original thought and his lifestyle (situated in rationalized 424 suburbs and marked by consumption rather than community) stood in direct opposition to the ideology of American competitive individualism. As recently as the 1980s, Whyte revisited the organization man and claimed little had changed. Today he would have to draw different conclusions. The social contract has been broken. Managers and professionals work harder than ever – but more often than not for their individual as much as organization interests. While organizations seek to align individual and organization interests with inducements and salaries, they do not promise lifelong careers. Project-based careers are increasingly becoming the order of the day. Downsizing does not produce loyalty but survivor syndromes, where loyalty is contingent, bought with high salaries, bonuses, and stock options, until a better offer comes along or until the manager is dismissed. Pay is performance-related, and managers cannot afford to slacken the intensity of their work if they are to maximize their income. The expectation is, increasingly, of a career in projects and parts, rather than a commitment to one organization, with the expectation of the pursuit of central life-interests occurring outside work rather than through the job. Organizations have increasingly become de-bureaucratized and more marketized, with correlative shrinkage of organization-man opportunities. While cultural consent may still be valued, it is increasingly bought and specifically contingent on the risk/reward package negotiated. STEWART CLEGG organization theory The work of Max Weber was initially influential in shaping the sociological analysis of organizations. It offered a unifying frame – the theory of bureaucracy – within which to research organization processes and, unlike early management theory, did not offer prescriptive and mutually contradictory principles. Typically, researchers first started to interpret organizations using Weber’s ideas, which they then revised as they attended to features of reality that were not captured in his model, producing an influential body of postwar work (see, for example, that reviewed in S. Clegg, M. Kornberger, and T. Pitsis, Managing and Organizations, 2005). Until the mid-1950s, the case study was the dominant method of research and Weber a central resource. These were based on substantive aspects of specific cases, and thus their generalizability was low and hard to cumulate into a consistent body of interrelated theoretical knowledge. In the 1950s, after the emergence of the journal Administrative Science Quarterly, the systems organization theory perspective came increasingly to dominate organization analysis. The perspective solved some problems inherent to the typological approaches. Systems perspectives such as that of Talcott Parsons promised a general approach to any and every organization, conceived as a system of inputs, transformation processes, and outputs. General systems theory was scientifically influential and organizations became a specialist domain of its analysis. Emerging out of systems theory in the 1960s was the approach known as contingency theory. Organizations were still seen as systems but they had to deal with specific contingencies that shaped their structure, such as their size, technology, environment, and the national culture in which they were embedded. While the earlier generation of researchers used case studies, contingency research was characterized by survey methods and larger samples, seeking to operationalize factors identified in the earlier literature, such as Weber’s fifteen dimensions of bureaucracy. From the 1970s onwards, a number of new currents emerged. First, the influence of the labor process approach, derived from H. Braverman’s Labor and Monopoly Capitalism (1974), spawned a renewed fascination with case studies, such as the work of M. Burawoy on Manufacturing Consent (1979), many of which were reported in a series of edited volumes that represented the work of the labor process conference, held annually from 1983. Second, from the early 1980s onwards, there was a renewed interest in Weberian theory, as a result of two related trends. One was the reemergence of institutional theory, after the publication of P. DiMaggio and W. W. Powell’s seminal paper on the “iron cage” in the American Journal of Sociology (1984); the other was the popular success of G. Ritzer’s Weberian-inspired analysis of organizational rationalization in The McDonaldization of Society (1993). Further, from a sociological perspective, one would have to count the influence of population ecology, an approach influenced by general ecological theory, which concentrates on populations of organizations and changes at the population level, typically dealing with big changes over large datasets, across significant periods of time, often using datasets that were not generated by the researchers themselves but which were available or constructed from available sets. The approach was based more on the statistical testing of relations between constructs than upon intimate research knowledge. It was a sociological approach organizational culture premised on biological models but one whose peak of influence seems to have passed. More recently, in the 1990s and beyond, the influence of Foucauldian-inspired genealogical analysis has begun to make an impact on the field, perhaps best represented in A. McKinley and K. Starkey’s Foucault, Management and Organization Theory (1997). Closely related, but hotly contested, are more postmodern approaches, debates about which may be found in E. Locke’s Postmodernism in Organizational Thought (2003). All of the above may safely be thought of as a part of sociological approaches to organizations. However, with the massive growth in business and management programs across the world in the recent past, today the vast majority of organization theory is taught not in sociology but in business and management faculties. Typically, the definition of what constitutes organization theory in such places may be less sociological than the currents identified here. For instance, a number of economic approaches to organization theory have developed, the most significant of which is known as transaction-cost analysis, as seen for example in O. E. Williamson’s The Economic Institutions of Capitalism (1985). Increasingly, organization and management theory is being taught by people with little or no trained capacity as sociologists – a situation quite dissimilar to the generation of work done in the aftermath of World War II. Nonetheless, organization theory remains one of the more populous and significant homes of applied sociology. STEWART CLEGG organizational culture T. Peters and R. Waterman’s In Search of Excellence (1982) placed organizational culture center stage. The message was simple: great companies have excellent cultures. Culture was typically defined in terms that stressed a pattern of learned and shared basic assumptions, framing how organization members perceive, think, and feel. It was presumed that if you forged a strong culture – one that incorporates all organization members in shared beliefs and commitments – then everything else – good morale, performance, and results – should follow. Having such a widely shared and integrative culture in organizations became seen as a panacea for management and an algorithm for corporate success. Organization theorists were relative latecomers to the consideration of culture in the pantheon of social science but may be said to have discovered it quite early in the development of their field. 425 organization(s) organization(s) F. W. Taylor sought to create a single utilitarian culture to minimize employee resistance and maximize productivity – and, of course, earnings. However, it is clear that Taylor in his Principles of Scientific Management (1911) did not have an explicit analytical focus on culture. The earliest confirmed sighting seems to be when F. Roethlisberger and W. Dickson realized, in Management and the Worker (1939), that the most significant variables governing the output at the Hawthorne Plant appeared not to be physical but social. As N. Mouzelis pointed out in Organization and Bureaucracy, they defined the “culture of the group” (1967: 99). Since at least E. Mayo’s The Social Problems of an Industrial Civilization (1975), managers have had available the use of various types of expert knowledge (psycho-technological and managerial) for the management of culture. Increasingly, managers have sought to regulate workers through attending to their thoughts and emotions as well as securing compliance for shaping workers’ attitudes and sentiments. Recent approaches argue that organizational culture will always be fragmentary (and contingent on identities deriving from occupational, regional, social class, ethnic, gender, and other forms of social marker, under highly variable local conditions). However, all approaches understand cultures (whether fragmented or homogeneous) as extremely important patterns that shape organizational realities. Understanding organizations means understanding their culture. STEWART CLEGG organization(s) Although the medieval monastery became the template for rational bureaucratic organization, the transfer of the organization form to secular society occurred primarily through the modern state developing extensive bureaucracies, in areas such as education. These forms were later replicated in commerce and industry. In industry, the central issue became the maximization of private profit. Owners of capital had to be able to exercise regular and routine dominion and sway over the working lives of those on whom its reproduction depended. Industrial property owners could not rely on feudal fealty to deliver able and willing bodies, as did the lords of old; however, it was a matter of record that they often found religious deference and piety to be invaluable assets. Authority that could claim it had God on its side stood a better chance of 426 success, as Max Weber realized in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1905 [trans. 2002]). In the early days of industrialism, a combination of heavy doses of paternalism, rough discipline, and an efficient labor market buttressed less secular sources of moral authority with sheer necessity. More traditional relations could often overlie the wage relations that mostly bound production. In lieu of internalized religious ritual or deference to feudal hierarchy, management control seemed best assured through the routine disciplining of those employed. In small craft workshops, discipline was relatively easy to enact, organized around mastery of a specific knowledge, such as how to make barrels, fabricate metal, or weave wool. In such a structure, the master was presumed to know the craft, which apprentices were presumed not to know and had every motive for learning, so that they too could become skilled workers. The master exercised power by getting the apprentice to do things in the favored way. Authority was based on power unified with knowledge: masters owned the workshop as well as expert knowledge of how to work in it. Effective oversight was by direct control of people in the workshop. The early days of modern management and organizations were bootstrapped. Primitive methods of surveillance and drill were adapted, panopticons proposed, and elements from preindustrial craft relations incorporated. Bootstrapped solutions worked appropriately for as long as the scale of enterprise remained small. There were two distinct shortcomings associated with expanding scale. To grow large meant expending capital. The capital in circulation in the early industrial economy was relatively small compared to that invested in landed estates. It was raised mostly through merchants combining credit with rented buildings and machinery, together with cheap sources of labor. Keeping costs low meant that, if the enterprise were to fail, the liability and exposure of the emergent entrepreneurs would be limited. It was the institutional innovation of limited liability legislation, pioneered first in Britain in 1856, but widely copied internationally, that enabled enterprises to grow by separating the private fortunes of entrepreneurs from their investments in business; if the latter failed, personal fortunes were sequestered and the debtors’ prison was avoided. Limited liability legislation did not resolve the problem of how to manage the vastly expanded Orientalism Orientalism enterprise. How was the master to achieve effective governance over a vastly increased scale of operations? Two resolutions to the puzzle of how to ensure mastery were proposed: one adopted a market solution while the other copied what had already occurred in the large-scale public service of the day and threw in its lot with bureaucracy. In firms that were taken over by use of the new financial instruments, owners of previously independent businesses were re-employed as internal contractors to oversee the processes of labor. One consequence of internal contracting – where the contractor used materials, plant, and equipment supplied by the owners but managed the labor contracted to deliver a certain quantity of product – was that quite different methods of internal control could flourish in different plants in the same industry. Standards were highly variable. However, under pressure for more standardization from both financial controllers and emergent unions, internal contracting gave way to a bureaucratization of relations of production in large concerns, such that, by the early twentieth century, Weber noted that bureaucracy had become the fate of our times. Weber argued that no special proof was required to demonstrate that military discipline was the ideal model for the modern capitalist factory in the early twentieth century. Since that time, standardization – as the blueprint for designing modern organizations – has increasingly stressed being disciplined and being visible. Order, discipline, and authority were to become the organizational watchwords of the new world under construction, and have remained at the core of much organization ever since. STEWART CLEGG Orientalism The modern debate about western views of the Orient was significantly influenced by Edward Said’s Orientalism (1978). However, the anthropological controversy about “other cultures” can be traced back to the European encounter with its colonies, and hence, over an even longer period, between Christianity and its antagonists. Said’s controversial paradigm had the effect of establishing the notion of “Orientalism” as a specific and pervasive ideology about Asian societies. His critique has laid the contemporary foundation for an extensive inquiry into the problematic relationships between power, sexual desire, religious identity and cultural dominance. Orientalism is a largely implicit paradigm within which Oriental civilizations have been understood by the West. It makes a clear distinction between the Orient and the Occident, emphasising the rationality, reflectivity, and dynamism of the latter. In its sociological versions, Orientalism has been associated with theories of modernization, in which the Orient is regarded as stationary and unchanging. One illustration is the comparative sociology of Max Weber who regarded rationalization and asceticism in Christian sects as unique characteristics of western modernity. The general argument of Orientalism has been that the Orient has not experienced the revolutions that shook the West, and hence has not experienced an independent form of modernization. Orientalists argue that, for example, Islam is inherently incompatible with democracy. Orientalism has been criticized, for example by Andre Guider Frank, on the grounds that the paradigm seriously underestimates the dynamic nature of economic and social change in India and China. In recent sociological debates about “otherness,” Said’s criticisms of the Orientalist tradition are typically associated with the critical social theory of Michel Foucault. Representations of the Orient are seen to be manifestations of an enduring ideological paradigm that constructs the Orient as an object of scientific knowledge. Said’s analysis of Orientalism was also influenced by Erich Auerbach’s Mimesis (1946 [trans. 1953]). Written in Istanbul between 1942 and 1945, and published in German, it was a study of the literary practices by which reality was represented through definite stylistic conventions. Said’s Orientalism can be said to do for French literary representations of the Orient what Mimesis attempted more generically to do for western literature as a whole. Said also relied heavily on Raymond Schwab’s The Oriental Renaissance (1950 [trans. 1984]) that first provided the concept of Orientalism in a study of western attitudes towards India. In short, Said’s account of Orientalism belongs to a recognizable heritage of western self-reflection in the context of the engagement with other cultures. Said’s account of Orientalism has been criticized because it failed, for example, to differentiate clearly between French, British, and Spanish views of the Orient. His work was largely focused on the Middle East, and had little to say about Asia. Despite the criticisms of Said, the debate about Orientalism has produced a rich, critical literature on the consequences of colonialism, and the attempt to explain modernization comparatively still remains a major task of the social sciences. BRYAN S. TURNER 427 Ossowski, Stanislaw (1897–1963) Ossowski, Stanislaw (1897–1963) A Polish sociologist writing on social structure, methodology, social psychology, aesthetics, and art, Ossowski led the post-Stalinist revival of Polish sociology, served as a President of the Polish Sociological Association (1956–63), and cofounded the International Sociological Association. While his analyses cover a wide range of topics, Ossowski is best known for his synthesis of humanistic (interpretive) sociology with rigorous empirical analysis, and for his influential study of Class Structure in the Social Consciousness (1957 [trans. 1963]). He analyzed the three major interpretations of the class structure: the functional, stressing complementarity; the gradation (“social ladder”) highlighting hierarchy; and the polar one (owners versus workers) emphasizing social antagonism. He identified the social functions of these three interpretations: while functional and gradation schemes were typically embraced by the supporters of the social order in the upper strata, the polar schemes served as idioms of radical social contestation. The concept 428 oversocialized conception of man of “classlessness” was used by Ossowski in his analyses of gradation schemes popularized in the United States and the “non-antagonistic” class visions promoted in the then Soviet Union. In this context, he pointed to the inadequacy of Marxist class schemes for the analysis of social hierarchy and division in modern industrial society. Anticipating the criticism of class orthodoxy by the students of industrial society, he suggested that modernization brings increasing complexity of social divisions. The social distribution of privilege and disadvantage reflects not only the control of the means of production, but also – and increasingly – the control of the means of compulsion (authority), and the means of consumption. JAN PAKULSKI other-directed character – see David Riesman. oversocialized conception of man – see Dennis Hume Wrong. P panel study paradigm These studies offer researchers the opportunity to follow the same group of research participants over time; they differ from cross-sectional studies (although they may represent sub-components of some cross-sectional studies) in that they allow researchers to track changes in the views, attitudes, and reported behaviors of a defined panel on a longitudinal rather than “snapshot” basis. Panel studies promise to analyze the effect of “real-world” events on particular social groupings. For classic examples of such studies, see the British Household Survey or the University of Michigan – Institute for Social Research’s Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID), which has followed a representative sample of 8,000 United States households, or 65,000 individuals, since 1968. Panels may be any social unit with a sufficient degree of theoretical homogeneity to make the study empirically compelling: thus panels may consist in households, university graduates of a given year (otherwise known as age-cohorts), or other groupings with a common and datesensitive life experience such as the birth of a first child. Panels, once constituted, are regularly mined for data, most often using interviews or other standardized surveys, to explore the relationships between lived experience, social factors, and period effects. Difficulties with panel studies are attrition (if people are followed over months and years some leave the area forgetting to provide a forwarding address, emigrate, or die) a difficulty that may be ameliorated by the adoption of a dynamic sample panel whereby matching “replacement” panel members are substituted for those who drop out. Alternatively, the dynamic methodology may be used to control for “experience bias” – that is to say, respondents becoming practiced at providing material that the researchers wish to hear. The concept of paradigm, used by Thomas Samuel Kuhn in his classic book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), was taken from its use to describe model “correct” sentences in Latin. Kuhn argued that in science, scientific discourse was rooted in exemplary achievements, such as experiments, which served as models of the correct way to approach scientific problems. Kuhn further argued that major conceptual changes in science, which he called scientific revolutions, typically consisted of changes in what constituted a paradigmatic achievement, what constituted a scientific problem, what counted as evidence, and the meanings of the terms themselves, which derives from their place in practice and in the conceptual scheme. He used psychological terms such as Gestalt and sociological terms such as worldview to characterize paradigms, emphasizing their pervasive worldconstituting role, and emphasized the role of scientific communities in sustaining them. The most distinctive of the ideas making up the concept of paradigm was also the most problematic to Kuhn, namely incommensurability, meaning non-comparability. Kuhn’s notion of scientific revolution raised the question of what sense could be given to the notion of progress in science or to the notion of science as increasingly approaching higher degrees of STEPHEN P. TURNER truth. MARK RAPLEY AND SUSAN HANSEN panopticism – see Michel Foucault. Pareto, Vilfredo (1848–1923) An Italian economist and sociologist, active also in Switzerland, his contributions to sociology fall into two components. The first consists in aspects of his outstanding work as an economic theorist which have a direct bearing on questions of social policy – for instance, a notion of “optimality” which still bears Pareto’s name, or a statement of the narrow limits within which policies for redistributing wealth must operate. The second aspect largely coincides with his expressly sociological work, the massive Trattato di Sociologia (1916) which was translated as The Mind and Society (1935). 429 Park, Robert Ezra (1864–1944) Pareto considered sociology a science complementary to economics. The latter deals with rational conduct oriented to the maximization of individual utility, while sociology deals with all other forms of conduct, where non-rational motivations and reasonings prevail. The Trattato transcended this negative understanding of the near totality of social experience by classifying the accounts of actions generally given by actors or observers. It distinguishes between the few fundamental, most recurrent accounts (the “residues”) and their multiple, less significant variants (the “derivations”). The resulting classification is clumsy and unworkable; but the process of producing it yielded further significant results, particularly a theory of elites. These small groups, all distinguished from the masses by some outstanding quality and attainment, differ according to the respective weight in their makeup of two contrasting types of “residue” – those leading to “combinations” (the foxes) and those favoring “the persistence of aggregates” (the lions). This difference leads to competition between elites and their inevitable “circulation.” GIANFRANCO POGGI Park, Robert Ezra (1864–1944) Perhaps best known as the key figure of the Chicago School of sociology, Park led the University of Chicago sociology department from 1914 to 1934. Born in Harveyville, Pennsylvania, he studied under luminaries John Dewey (1859–1952) and, at Berlin, Georg Simmel, whom he introduced to American audiences. He also worked for twelve years as a journalist, experience that shaped his methodological penchant for scrupulously accurate reporting. Park held a clear view of sociology as genuinely scientific, a view manifest in the classic text he co-authored with Ernest W. Burgess, Introduction to the Science of Sociology (1921). By directing his many students towards accurate reporting of events observed first-hand, he notably extended the use of ethnographic methods in early American sociology. Park’s major theoretical contributions include the notion of “self-conception” and how it relates to the organization of social roles; the idea of the “marginal man” – one who moves in plural social worlds, where he is nowhere at home; and clarification of the concept of the public and how it differs from the crowd. Several areas of modern sociology owe a huge debt to Park. He pioneered the field of race relations, owing in good part to his earlier work with 430 Parsons, Talcott (1902–1979) Booker T. Washington (1856–1915) and his eyeopening accounts of Belgian atrocities in the Congo. His definition of the modern American urban setting as a natural laboratory formed a point of departure for the sprawling field of urban studies. Relatedly, his work on human ecology foregrounded the understanding that humans both compete for resources and are interdependent. Even so, he balanced a purely economistic view of urban communities by insisting that they are constituted by a moral as well as a spatial order. DONALD N. LEVINE Parsons, Talcott (1902–1979) A leading social theorist of the twentieth century, Parsons’s work is much criticized. However, his contribution to sociological thought is immense and has seen something of a revival since the mid1990s. Parsons, while justly noted as a general theorist of society, also made influential contributions to particular areas of sociology, including medical sociology, the study of the self and the human condition, economic sociology, family and socialization, and the sociology of religion. These contributions attain a level of concreteness that contrasts with the high levels of analytical abstraction found in the general theory. Born in the United States, Parsons studied in North America, Britain, and Germany, before taking up a position at Harvard. Deeply influenced by European sociology and social thought, Parsons may also be seen as a distinctly American contributor to the evolution of social theory, providing a new set of priorities and emphases within a tradition previously dominated by Europeans. Parsons’s overriding ambition was to provide a systematic general theory of the social. This meant the establishment of boundaries between the social and what lay beyond, as well as accounts of the most salient features of social life, embracing culture, personality, and social structure. Reflecting an early interest in biology, Parsons maintained an interest in the boundaries between social life and the biological organism, and between social life and the metaphysical world of ultimate values. His first and possibly most important book, The Structure of Social Action (1937), argued that a general theory of social life could be constructed, taking into account the strengths of previous traditions, while remedying their weaknesses. The task was one of reconciling positivist thinking that saw action determined by external structures with idealist thinking that emphasized individual and interpersonal constructions of meaningful Parsons, Talcott (1902–1979) action. While the former emphasized analysis of the means by which objectives were pursued, the latter stressed the significance of the values or ends that were pursued. A general theory, for Parsons, should pursue patterned means–ends relationships, and sociology was par excellence the discipline equipped for the task. In contrast with current attempts of economics to colonize sociology via rational choice theory, Parsons saw economics with its utilitarian emphasis on choice of means, as a subfield within a broader social theory, able to analyze ends and their connection with means. For sociology, ends were endogenous not exogenous to social analysis. The building of a general social theory that was neither exclusively materialist nor idealist was Parsons’s major intellectual task, and in this he followed the multidimensionality of Max Weber, whose work he helped make widely known in the United States. Further key elements in the development of this theory include the pattern variables, and concepts of social differentiation linked with the so-called four-function paradigm. Parsons’s pattern variables offer a striking set of conceptual dichotomies, between universalism and particularism, achievement and ascription, diffuseness and specificity, neutrality and affectivity, and lastly self-orientation and collectivityorientation. The first term in each pair signified for Parsons a constitutive element in the nature of modernity. This involves a higher level of freedom of individual action from what went before, but set within a normative framework founded on generalized values, such as universalism and achievement. Modernity is therefore very far from a free-floating individualism, though Parsons’s ostensibly universalistic account was strongly inflected with North American versions of the secularized individual vocation. This pattern of modern variables was linked with the performance of a set of social functions, which Parsons believed were necessary for any social system to survive and develop. There were four of these, namely adaptation [A] (the securing of material resources available for distribution), which might be called the economic function; goal-attainment [G], akin to the political allocation of resources; integration [I], involving the development of a stable set of norms, as, for example, embodied in law; and latent pattern-maintenance [L], involving ordered patterns of value-commitment. For Parsons, all social systems, whether national, supranational, or subnational, can be analyzed in terms of functional differentiation into four subsystems corresponding to the AGIL Parsons, Talcott (1902–1979) paradigm. The further task is then to explain interaction and integration between them through mechanisms of exchange such as power and influence. This highly abstract and much-criticized theoretical edifice, widely referred to by others as structural functionalism, was developed via both theoretical commentary and analysis of empirical phenomena, as exemplified in The Social System (1951). Empirical themes included the development of the modern professions as exemplars of modern pattern-variables, and the emergence of the sick role as a normative regulator of sickness and health. The sick role draws on a distinction between feeling sick and being sick, the latter carrying social expectations including temporary withdrawal from normal social roles, a responsibility to work for recovery on the incumbent, and a duty to seek out appropriate professional advice, embodied in the neutral universalistic modern professional. This argument made a striking contribution to the development of an autonomous medical sociology distinct from the perspectives of the biomedical model. Parsons’s pattern variables and four-function paradigm also fed into his evolutionary approach to social change. Contrary to those who argue that Parsons had no adequate theory of change, his two books Societies: Evolutionary and Comparative Perspectives (1966) and The System of Modern Societies (1971) argued that certain human institutions such as markets, democracy, and the rule of law possessed an evolutionary advantage over alternative types of economy, polity, and social integration, in meeting social functions. This provided much of the intellectual grounding for modernization theory in the 1950s and 1960s. Many critics of Parsons have attacked structural functionalism for a variety of reasons. Some of these are very wide of the mark, while some are damaging. The most misconceived criticisms impute to Parsons a structural determinism in which human agency is lost, while Parsons aimed at what he called an action-systems perspective in which norms and values are central. Other problematic criticisms include the idea that Parsons saw integrative values as the prime mover of social life, to the exclusion of material issues and conflicts of interest. While he opposed Hobbesian and Marxist accounts of society as a war between constellations of coercive power, he was mindful both of the centrality of economic functions to system survival, and of the existence of forms of social stratification, such as racism, that inhibited equality of opportunity. 431 participant observation More telling criticisms may be made of his assumption that the integration of social systems typically occurs through normative integration (that is, if it occurs at all). More specifically, he was criticized for making the following assumptions: that socialization processes are typically successful in binding individuals to the social order, that the nuclear family offered ideal solutions for women’s domestic roles within it, and that modernization on the western model would unambiguously enhance the welfare of Third World populations. The advent of political and student unrest throughout the western world in the second half of the 1960s was but one of a number of instances of more fundamental value conflict that challenged Parsons’s optimistic liberal world-views, requiring revisions and additions to his sociological position. One instance here is the idea of the expressive revolution, whereby new value orientations were seen as emerging around forms of countercultural expression, beyond the work ethic and family-centeredness. Even so, Parsons’s system remained incapable of providing accounts of coercive and discursive power functional to the self-interest of economic and social groups rather than to overall normative order. Similarly the emergence of a rich social history of social and political contestation has rendered Parsons’s accounts of human agency unduly abstract and formulaic. What does remain intact is the breadth of his synthetic program for a unified social theory, a resource drawn on even by other thinkers of a more radical disposition such as Jürgen Habermas. ROBERT HOLTON participant observation A technique used by adherents of interpretative methods in sociology in which the researcher participates in the practical activities of institutions, social groups, or communities in order to ground observations in naturally occurring practices. The method may vary according to the setting and the disposition of the observer. The observer may become a full participant in the practical action (for example Susan Krieger in Mirror Dance: Identity in a Woman’s Community, 1983); or he/she may be unable to pass as a full participant (for example Elliott Liebow, in Tally’s Corner, 1967). The strength of the method is that participation allows the observer to examine social events at close hand, which can lead to additional sources of information such as informants, members of the group observed who are willing to disclose their understandings of the local practices. The weakness of the method is that the validity of 432 path analysis the observations is limited to the setting studied, making it difficult to generalize in precise language. This problem can be ameliorated somewhat by triangulation, the technique of crosschecking observations in the local setting against data acquired by more formal methods including surveys and demography, such as in William Julius Wilson, When Work Disappears (1996). Participant observation is widely used by academic sociologists, though at the beginning of the twenty-first century it became common to call it ethnography, which had long been in use by anthropologists. The method can also lead to a romantic attitude whereby the observers overstate the realism of their accounts of groups; see Patricia Clough, The End(s) of Ethnography (1991). CHARLES LEMERT paternalism This term has two important meanings: the first is the set of informal expectations and codes of manners held by men about how to behave towards women, and the second is the assumption that the more powerful and the better-off in any society have obligations towards the less powerful and the poor. What unites these two assumptions is the idea that it is the responsibility of the more powerful to demonstrate concern for the less powerful, but without disturbing existing power relations or taking steps to ensure that those in weaker social positions are enabled to improve their situation. Paternalism is frequently associated with nineteenth- and twentieth-century attitudes towards the poor: paternalistic strategies advocated acts of individual charity to alleviate poverty while rejecting more radical attempts to provide social assistance that did not depend on acts of individual goodwill. In the latter part of the twentieth century, western feminism has identified paternalism as a masculine pattern of conduct that maintains male power and is essentially random and individualistic. At the same time, other critiques of paternalism have identified it as a set of expectations that are always organized around the presumption of the authority of the powerful (whatever the source of power) over the less powerful. MARY EVANS path analysis This describes a class of statistics that aim to understand how a set of variables relate causally to each other. The analysis typically starts by sketching out a diagram consisting of variables joined by arrows to represent the researcher’s conception of a particular system. The statistical patriarchy analysis is then computed to evaluate the relative importance of each of those causal links, by assigning them a coefficient representing the strength of the relationship. The computations of those paths can be done by simple multiple regression, but increasingly now it is done through a more advanced technique called “structural equation modeling” (SEM), that permits a more complex analysis of the data and the error that is inherent in the measurement of many sociological variables. By isolating the effects of this error, truer estimates of the size of the relationships between variables can be obtained. In more conventional statistics, the focus is on using the data to develop a model. Path analysis reverses that order. One starts by carefully theorizing a model (or several models) that describes the links between variables in one’s theoretical view of the world. Only after that theorizing has been done is the data then used to test how well it fits the model, or which of several models best fits the data. Until the 1990s structural equation models were the preserve of the most mathematical social scientists. But more recently, the advent of userfriendly statistical software packages that perform structural equation modeling have made them commonplace in many areas of research. BRENDAN J. BURCHELL patriarchy The concept of patriarchy is one which is widely used across a number of disciplines in both the social sciences and the humanities, even if the way in which the term is used differs between particular contexts (for example, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels write about the “patriarchal” family, whereas literary critics might employ the term to indicate a bias towards the masculine). Whatever the discipline, however, the term always indicates the rule of men, not just over women but also over the general structure of social relations. The term is therefore about the power of men, a power which extends to the individual jurisdiction of men (or a man) over a family and its members, as well as the more general power of “the male” over the organization of a social group or a society. The discussion of the term patriarchy, and its general use within social and political theory, can be traced to the seventeenth century. In 1680 Sir Robert Filmer’s Patriarchia. A Defence of the Natural Power of Kings against the Unnatural Liberty of the People asserted the right of one man to rule the patriarchy many; an assertion challenged by John Locke (1632–1704) in Two Treatises of Government. The liberal tradition, of which Locke was a crucial founder, consistently challenged the assumption of the “natural,” patriarchal, rights of the monarch. However, it was not until the nineteenth century that the discussion of the term was widened to include the context of gender relations. Engels, writing in 1884 in The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State (1972) wrote of the defeat of “mother right” but also claimed that in monogamy and individual sexualized love (coupled with the entry of women into social production) lay the basis for the emancipation of women. For Engels, there were crucial relationships between the power of men in the private realm (the family) and in the public sphere, a connection which has been consistently important in mary of the social sciences. The emphasis on the loss of the power of the mother and the appearance of the father as the crucial authority figure in human social relations is drawn from the work of the German writer, Jacob Bachofen, who, in 1861, wrote of the historic struggle between the old order of matriarchy (the social authority of mothers) and the newer, emergent, authority of fathers in Myth, Religion and Mother Right (1861 [trans. 1967]). The struggle, Bachofen suggested, was articulated in Greek tragedies, for example Aeschylus’ Eumenides in which Orestes murders his mother, Clytemnestra, in revenge for her murder of his father, Agamemnon. The Greeks were to be a later source of inspiration for Sigmund Freud, who drew on the story of Oedipus for his conjecture about the nature of psychic competition between father and son, a competition fueled by their mutual wish for primary access to, and control of, the mother. The power of the mother, as interpreted by Freud and others, was a power to attract men, and excite their wish to control, rather than an autonomous power which allowed authority over others. The development of the social sciences in the nineteenth and twentieth century saw an emphasis on the study of different societies, in both historical and geographical terms. The term patriarchy became a crucial organizing concept for social anthropologists, whose discipline placed a particular emphasis on the study of kinship and kinship relations. By the second half of the twentieth century, anthropologists had generally concluded that the majority of human societies were explicitly patriarchal, in that authority, lineage, and descent were situated in men, the social function of women (as Claude Lévi-Strauss was to 433 patriarchy point out) being as objects of the exchange process which cemented and continued social relations and structures of power. Nevertheless, there were some societies (for example in regions of West Africa) where kinship was inherited through the mother. These societies, undeniably matriarchal in their patterns of inheritance, nevertheless invested other forms of social power in the mother’s brother, ensuring that even in apparently matriarchal societies it would be wrong to conclude that social relations were represented and ordered as the reverse of patriarchy. In the second half of the twentieth century the authority of patriarchy, and the patriarchal, has come to be contested in a number of ways. Patriarchy was identified by second-wave feminism as the conceptual apparatus, both symbolic and material, through which the social inferiority of women was maintained. In this re-thinking of the ways in which male power is both socially and psychically reproduced, psychoanalysis, post Freud, has questioned his emphasis on the part of the father in the life of the infant and the child. Although debates still continue about the meaning of the father, there is a general consensus that his authority cannot be understood without a more dialectical account of relations between women and men, mothers and fathers. This discussion provides the context for work on language and the recognition that it is saturated with assumptions about the relative power of women and men. These exchanges (involving figures such as Jacques Lacan and Monique Wittig) have informed the study of literature, just as the recognition of the almost universal authority of men has informed studies of the law (see law and society), work, the body and politics. For example, it was through the recognition of patriarchy as a crucial research term that feminist historians were able to demonstrate the ways in which patriarchy was a form of authority which crossed class and ethnic boundaries: as Barbara Taylor was to write in Eve and the New Jerusalem (1982), her study of gender and labor relations in Britain at the beginning of the nineteenth century, “the men are as bad as their masters.” For many feminist historians and social scientists this comment reflected their own findings on the ways in which human society worked and represented itself: in a wide range of contexts and meanings it was the male, and the interests of men, which were given priority over those of women. At the same time it was also observed that the recognition, from the eighteenth century onwards, of the detailed biological differences of men and women made possible the 434 peace studies emergence of social understanding which did not understand women as, in biblical terms, “Adam’s Rib.” Many parts of the West have now attempted to produce “gender neutral” (and non-patriarchal) forms of social practice and regulation, although in other societies the patriarchal authority of men, endorsed by religion, remains dominant. MARY EVANS patrimonialism This term is used to describe relationships that distribute power and authority within organizations. Usually referring to Max Weber’s use in Economy and Society (1922 [trans. 1968]), patrimonialism is a system of rule that is based upon personal–familial, rather than rational–legal relationships. Central to the notion of patrimonialism is that the leader of the organization distributes power and authority according to his or her wishes. At the same time, patrimonialism also refers to systems in which authority may be claimed, based upon birth right, heritage, or tradition. Patrimonialism derives from the Latin patrimonium that refers to a “paternal estate” and the model of the traditional patriarchal family, where a man, in a system of patrilineage, is the ruler of the household. As relationships with the patrimonial organizations are based upon personal patronage (or lack thereof), the exercise of power is highly informal, subjective, and open to change. In contrast, state bureaucracies in western democratic societies operate through the formal separation of public and private spheres. Such organizations insist on the primacy of rational or technical competency as legitimate sources of authority and social status. More recent work has blurred the neat distinction between the two forms of organization by suggesting a notion of neopatrimonialism. In these accounts, organizations (often implicitly or clandestinely) combine both rational– legal sources of authority and those of patrimonialism. An example of this might be where the head of a privately financed company nominates or promotes close friends or family members. MAIRTIN MAC-AN-GHAILL AND CHRIS HAYWOOD pattern variables – see Talcott Parsons. peace studies Peace studies is an interdisciplinary academic enterprise that is the institutional outgrowth of various political and ideological programs of the global left in the 1960s. As an intellectual field, peace studies focuses on the development of peasant society nonviolent strategies for redressing interpersonal, institutional, national, and global conflicts. As such, peace studies represents a significant challenge to dominant perspectives in social science and philosophy, such as realism, elite-centered analyses of conflict, and just war theory. In contrast to such perspectives, peace studies stresses ideas such as pacifism, mercy, reconciliation, constructive engagement, and forgiveness, and has been primarily concerned with nuclear disarmament, the avoidance of international conflict (especially war), and redistributive efforts in the name of social justice. The field is characterized by a strong activist agenda: knowledge about various types of conflicts is seen as a means towards conflict resolution at all levels of social life. Peace studies is a utopian intellectual movement, characterized by a historicist and teleological view of progress defined as the absence of war, a preference for nonviolent means of conflict resolution, and the desire for more equitable distribution of economic resources. Much of the discourse of peace studies focuses on the critique of western political and cultural formations, to the detriment of understanding other systems of social, political, and cultural domination, such as communist totalitarianism (see Communism) and religious fundamentalism. While a widespread movement with many notable practitioners, the overtly ideological agenda of peace studies has made it difficult for the field to gain legitimacy as an intellectual endeavor in the contemporary academic environment. TOM CUSHMAN peasant society – see peasants. peasants For centuries, peasants were the internal other of European society but also its “folk,” lingering repositories of primitive innocence but also of superstition and dull conservatism in the midst of a progressive and enlightened civilization. In classical social theory, they are of central concern first to the Marxists, who from Marx onward had little confidence in their revolutionary potential. Max Weber addresses them most systematically in The Agrarian Sociology of Ancient Civilizations (1909 [trans. 1976]). They become the specific subjects of ethnographic research only in the 1920s and not in significant numbers until the later 1940s. Their politico-economic condition is the key to their typological distinctiveness. Thus, in Peasants (1966), Eric Wolf characterizes them as “rural cultivators whose surpluses are transferred to a peasants dominant group of rulers that uses the surpluses both to underwrite its own standard of living and to distribute the remainder to groups in society that do not farm but must be fed for their specific goods and services in turn” (1966: 3–4). As A. V. Chayanov in The Theory of the Peasant Economy (1986) was the first to underscore, the peasant economy is further a family economy. Its labor units are households. Its goal is not profit but securing the survival of the household through the course of its yearly cycle. In The Moral Economy of the Peasant (1976), James Scott characterizes its attendant ethic accordingly as a “subsistence ethic.” Wolf appropriately notes that subsistence itself demands more than the provision of a nutritional minimum over and above what must be expended as tribute or the rental of land. It further requires the production of a surplus sufficient to cover the expenditures of sociality and the ceremonial life, including those associated with such central rites of passage as marriage and death and dying. Peasants are indeed noted for their religious devotion around the world, but also for a devotion that is often at odds with the churches to which they might belong. Their systems of belief tend to be syncretic, relatively informal, and practically oriented – popular heterodoxies at the fringes of the cultivated orthodoxy of a clerical or elite tradition. Such a tendency led Robert Redfield in Peasant Society and Culture (1956: 70) and elsewhere to press a broader distinction between the “little tradition” of the typical peasantry and the “great tradition” of “the philosopher, theologian, and literary man.” The distinction is an appropriate register of stratification not merely of a political but also of a cultural order. Spatially, such stratification is often manifest as the distinction between the countryside and the city, but peasantries can and do exist in societies, such as that of early feudal Europe, having no urban centralization at all. Temporally, it is almost always manifest as what in Vasilika (1962) Ernestine Friedl describes as “cultural lag” (see W. E. Ogburn). In their beliefs and practices alike, peasantries reveal the influence of the great traditions that encompass them and frequently seek to emulate their stylistic and even intellectual standards. Distortions in the processes of cultural diffusion, however, leave them stylistically and intellectually behind or out-of-date, even in the age of effectively simultaneous media of transmission such as television. That peasants are inclined to emulate the advanced cultural fashions with which they happen to come into contact suggests, after Norbert 435 peasants penology Elias’s and Pierre Bourdieu’s work, that they middle classes seem in ever greater numbers to harbor certain values more similar to those of be joining them. The future may not thus bring aspiring middle classes than those stereotypically ascribed to them. There are in any event no clear empirical grounds for declaring the destiny of peasants in developing or developed capitalist economies to point any less to embourgeoisement – at least the petite embourgeoisement – than to proletarianization. The egalitarian but sometimes proto-fascist populism of which peasants everywhere are putative carriers is similarly ambiguous. In part, these ambiguities reflect the often notable socioeconomic diversity of peasant populations, whose better-off and sometimes even rich members may find themselves in overt social conflict with their poorer relations. In another part, however, they inhere in what even charitable analysts judge to be a political sensibility that remains as personalistic and short-sighted as its economic counterpart. Peasants can and do rebel; as Wolf (1966: 107) and others have pointed out, and in further contrast to their stereotypical conservatism, they often heroize the rebel figure. What galvanizes them when they rebel, however, is rarely the unbroken domination and exploitation to which they are subject, but instead the unexpected imposition of some particularly onerous collective burden. What inspires them is rarely an articulate program of socioeconomic change, but instead a millenarian vision of imminent and total redemption. Norman Cohn in The Pursuit of the Millennium (1957) and Eric Hobsbawm in Primitive Rebels (1959) document the long European history of peasant millenarianism (see religion), and examples are readily available from elsewhere. Peasants so inspired have almost never furthered their practical interests. Most often, they have been brutally repressed. Yet the destiny of the peasants of the future is probably neither redemption nor complete failure. It may rather be much the same as the destiny of the majority of the peasants of the past – to drift towards other socioeconomic positions, of greater or of lesser means and prestige, that only add to the ambiguities of the position from which they began. As Michael Kearney has argued in Reconceptualizing the Peasantry (1996), typologization can do more to obscure than to elucidate the frequency and the ubiquity with which peasants keep one foot in the household but another squarely planted in the market. It can also obscure the frequency and ubiquity with which petits bourgeois and proletarians do the same – and with the advent of consumption-driven and flexible capitalism, the higher reaches of the 436 the disappearance of the peasant; it may instead bring the peasantification of ever broader fractions of the market society as a whole. JAMES D. FAUBION pedagogical practices The sociology of education took a specifically practical turn in the 1960s and 1970s in relating to the problems of the science of pedagogy – the science of the communication of knowledge content. Whereas the political sociologist Harold Dwight Lasswell (1902–78) had developed a theory of mass communication, arguing for distinct kinds of control, content, audience, and effect analyses, the work of Marshall McLuhan destroyed this neat categorization, claiming that the “medium is the message.” The study of the transmission of knowledge raised questions about the a-priori status of curriculum content as well as about the status of language as a medium of transmission. These issues related to those highlighted by poststructuralism. The work of Pierre Bourdieu at this time focused more on the epistemological dimension of pedagogy, while the work of Basil Bernstein was part of the contemporary linguistic turn of analysis. These forms of sociological pedagogy defied the attempts made to absorb it into the science of sociolinguistics or, by Jürgen Habermas, to generate a theory of autonomous communicative action. The most systematic attempt to produce a sociological pedagogy was made by Bourdieu and J.-C. Passeron in Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture (1970 [trans.1977]). They defined pedagogic action (PA), pedagogic authority (PAu), pedagogic work (PW), school authority (SAu), educational system (ES), and the work of schooling (WSg), in order to present a framework within which the functioning of pedagogical practices can be understood, both within the confines of institutionalized education and in relation to more general processes of cultural communication within society. DEREK ROBBINS peer group – see group(s). penology This term is used to refer to theories of punishment, forms of punishment, and penal conditions. It refers to the systematic application of clinical, social scientific, or managerial expertise to the penology study and evaluation of penal measures, especially prisons. The birth of the modern prison or penitentiary occurred in the eighteenth century. Prior to industrialization, life was cheap, and capital and corporal punishment predominated. The modern prison represented progress from a brutal and barbaric system of punishment to benevolent discipline. The social role of the prison has been of considerable interest to Marxist historians such as George Rusche and Otto Kirchheimer in Punishment and Social Structure (1939), to historian David Rothman in The Discovery of the Asylum: Social Order and Disorder in the New Republic (1971), and to philosopher/historian Michel Foucault in Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (1975 [trans. 1977]) among others. Certainly, it is thought that the prison might have an ideological function as well as representing progress from previous barbaric punishments. The inception of modern penological thinking with questions such as “what is punishment for?” can be partially attributed to Christian reformers such as John Howard (1726–90) – who believed that punishment should be about the religious reformation of the offender and reflect humanitarian magnanimity – and utilitarian rationalist Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832), who thought that punishment should be directed more instrumentally at the refinement of techniques of behavioral control – hence his idea of the Panopticon: a circular architectural structure in which complete surveillance of the offender was possible. Thus, while Howard traveled the world denouncing poor prison conditions that would arguably militate against the reclamation of the offender’s soul, Bentham was concerned with the formation of discipline via prison architecture as if surveillance would lead to order within and without prisons. Bentham’s thinking went beyond this, however, and he promulgated consequentialist theories of punishment. Consequentialist theories of punishment are essentially those that justify punishment by making claims about the desirability of its future consequences. These theories are sometimes known as reductivist, because they claim that the incidence of crime will be less than it would be if no penalty were imposed. Bentham’s “felicific calculus” is thus that punishment of the individual is justified if it can be shown that the good derived thereby outweighs the pain. Such consequentialist theories include those of general deterrence, individual deterrence and incapacitation, and rehabilitation. Nonconsequential theories of punishment revolve personality around retribution and desert theory. The idea of retribution derives historically from the Roman concept of lex talionis, illustrated by the biblical phrase “Wherever hurt is done, you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, bruise for bruise, wound for wound” (Exodus 21: 23–5). Classical desert theory was predicated upon the assumption that offenders are rational, autonomous individuals who, having made the decision to offend, “deserved” punishment for their wrongdoing. Modern desert theorists focus on notions of proportionality in sentencing according to the seriousness of the crime, and on desert theory as a communicative device for censuring wrongful behavior in such a way that it permits the offender to rejoin the moral consensus. For much of the twentieth century, penological projects focused on the monitoring of sentencing and the manipulation of penal regimes both within and outside custodial settings. Optimism that penal interventions could work were at their highest in the 1960s (the so-called rehabilitative ideal), but this was short-lived because systematic analysis of the effects of such interventions led to the sobering conclusion that “nothing works.” Since the mid-1990s there has been a resurgent international interest in “what works?” Research findings from meta-analytical studies have prompted the development of a panoply of institutional and community-based programs based on cognitive-behavioral ideas. The findings from these studies, however, are not encouraging and early 21st-century penological thinking indicates moves away from such programs towards education and training for offenders. LORAINE GELSTHORPE personality The study of personality builds on the everyday recognition that people around us are different in their social behavior, and seem to be disposed to react in particular ways. It seeks to characterize in a rigorous way the basis of that difference by identifying characteristic patterns of behavior that are distinctive and consistent across time. Some accounts of personality try to use these characterizations as a basis for predicting future behavior by establishing lawlike generalizations about factors that underpin variation in all people. These accounts, sometimes referred to as nomothetic statements, adhere to a scientific model of inquiry which sees the testing of predictions, ideally in an experimental setting, as the best way to establish a secure understanding. They 437 personality phenomenology are part of a tradition in psychology that focuses on individual differences, for example intelligence. Other accounts, sometimes referred to as idiographic accounts, focus on the individual in depth and pursue an understanding of that individual using a variety of interpretive or phenomenological approaches. Many nomothetic theories have antecedents in classical descriptions, and many can ultimately be linked to Hippocrates (470–410 BC) who defined the four humors: yellow bile, black bile, phlegm, and blood. This system had two dimensions (hot and cold, and dry and wet) on which all people could be placed, with different individuals being characteristically hotter or colder, and wetter or drier. These terms still exist in everyday speech as choleric, melancholic, phlegmatic, and sanguine, but in personality theories the humors are now referred to as “traits.” Five traits (extraversion, neuroticism, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness) are widely accepted as defining the essential descriptive framework that best captures individual variation. Idiographic theories have often drawn on the same tradition, but in the modern era are much more closely associated with clinical work and individual psychotherapy. The clinic is where many of them were first developed, and the best known is Sigmund Freud’s work on psychoanalysis. The personality literature is very diverse in terms of its theoretical and methodological assumptions, and most of the critical debates from across the social sciences are to be found here. One important critical line that intervenes in these debates concerns how much of the individual’s behavior is to be understood in terms of personality. At one time, grand claims were made for the range and types of behavior that personality theories could explain, but now personality theorists are more circumspect, and recognize the significance of other social characteristics such as age, gender, and race and ethnicity, or other personal determinants of behavior, such as attitude. Apart from the application of idiographic accounts in psychotherapy, personality theories from the nomothetic tradition are of interest and value to those selecting people for different roles in organizations and teams, or advising individuals on career choices. Personality tests such as the Myers–Briggs test, which identifies four dimensions akin to the five traits mentioned above, is typical in this regard, and in over sixty years of use and development it has a reasonable degree of reliability and validity in many eyes. DAVID GOOD 438 petite bourgeoisie – see social class. phenomenology A philosophical school, which gained prominence in the course of the twentieth century, etymologically speaking, phenomenology refers to the study of phenomena or of how the phenomena appear to the individual. It investigates the structure of various forms of experiences and assumes that this analysis provides a better foundation for philosophy than, for instance, epistemology or metaphysics. Amongst phenomenological philosophers, Edmund Husserl (1859–1938), Martin Heidegger (1889–1976), and Maurice MerleauPonty are particularly well known. Some hermeneutic philosophers like Hans-Georg Gadamer and Paul Ricoeur (1913–2005) partly draw on the phenomenological tradition. Existentialist philosophers like Jean-Paul Sartre (1905–80) and Karl Jaspers (1883–1969) also rely on insights from phenomenology. Phenomenology had a significant impact on sociology, especially through the work of Alfred Schutz. Phenomenological sociology is a particular version of interpretative sociology. It shows affinities with other types of interpretative sociology such as ethnomethodology (which was strongly influenced by phenomenology), symbolic interactionism, and hermeneutics. Phenomenology also influenced the writings of Peter L. Berger, Harold Garfinkel, Georges Gurvitch, Thomas Luckmann, and Maurice Natanson. Phenomenological sociology pays attention to the ways in which people make sense of social reality and act accordingly. It tends to oppose neo-positivist appeals for a unity of method between the social and the natural: contrary to the natural, the social is already “pre-interpreted,” and this begs for an interpretative methodology. In American sociology, phenomenological sociology emerged in the 1960s in opposition to the dominant orthodoxy of structural functionalism. The aim of Husserl’s phenomenology was to capture the universal structures of people’s subjective orientation towards their external environment. Schutz was a student of Husserl and very much influenced by him. Where Husserl’s preoccupation was purely philosophical, Schutz on the other hand explored the sociological relevance of phenomenology. Max Weber and George Herbert Mead also impacted on Schutz’s thought. In The Phenomenology of the Social World (1967) and in his Collected Papers (1962–6), Schutz was particularly interested in the way in which individuals use interpretative schemes to make sense of their phenomenology everyday surroundings. This “stock of knowledge” enables them to attribute meaning to what others say or do. People are not normally aware of the stock of knowledge they employ; it is part of tacit knowledge. In this context, Schutz talked about everyday rationality as opposed to scientific rationality. Whereas scientific rationality is characterized by theoretical knowledge and systematic doubt, everyday rationality draws on practical knowledge and suspension of disbelief. Schutz’s phenomenology paves the way for a sociological inquiry into how people attribute meanings to their surroundings. Influenced by Schutz and Sartre, Berger and Luckmann’s The Social Construction of Reality; A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge (1967) focused on how everyday conceptions of reality are constructed and maintained. Harold Garfinkel and Aaron Cicourel’s ethnomethodology drew on Schutz’s writings, but unlike Schutz – who remained a pure theorist – their research was empirical. In Studies in Ethnomethodology (1967) Garfinkel investigated the interpretative procedures that people employ to make sense of their social environment. In a number of experiments, Garfinkel and his team also studied what happened when these encounters do not square with people’s expectations. In those situations, they discovered that people did not question their presuppositions. Rather, individuals drew on their presuppositions to make sense of their surroundings, and they did so in ways that maintained or reinforced those very presuppositions. Garfinkel called this the “documentary method of interpretation.” For a long time phenomenology remained on the margins of sociology, because its premises were in opposition to the reigning orthodoxy. Phenomenology contradicted Émile Durkheim’s guidelines in his Rules of Sociological Method (1895 [trans. 1958]), notably his dictum that social facts need to be treated as “things.” In the 1970s sociologists became interested in phenomenology, partly through the writings of Anthony Giddens and Pierre Bourdieu. Ironically, this interest went hand in hand with a growing recognition that this philosophical tradition was one-sided. Phenomenology focused too much on how individuals make sense of the world, and it ignored the constraining and external nature of social structures. Sociologists became preoccupied with bridging the gap between phenomenological approaches and structuralism, taking insights from both. In The Constitution of Society; Outline of the Theory of Structuration (1984), Giddens proposed a structuration theory, which investigated how people draw on tacit, practical knowledge in their everyday Phillips curve life, and, in so doing, contribute to the reproduction of society. Likewise, Pierre Bourdieu’s Outline of a Theory of Practice (1972 [trans. 1977]) attempts to transcend the opposition between “subjectivism” (phenomenological approaches) and “objectivism” (structuralist approaches). Bourdieu’s notions of habitus and hexis rely on phenomenology. The habitus is a set of “dispositions” that allow for the perception and account of the world in a particular way. The hexis points at the bodily aspects of the habitus. In Bourdieu’s writings, however, the habitus is linked to broader structural concerns and to the reproduction of inequality. More recently, sociologists have been drawn to Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenology at the expense of Schutz’s, especially Merleau-Ponty’s The Phenomenology of Perception (1945 [trans. 1962]). In this work, Merleau-Ponty paid attention to the role of the body in perception. His notion of the “phenomenal body” (in opposition to the “objective” body) undermined the objectivism at the core of the natural sciences. Although in some respects close to Sartre, the closing chapters of The Phenomenology of Perception include strong criticisms of Jean-Paul Sartre’s ideas. The increasing interest in the body explains why sociologists have recently been drawn to Merleau-Ponty’s work. Bryan Turner’s Sociology of the Body (1984) was one of the first books to point out the relevance of MerleauPonty for sociological purposes. PATRICK BAERT Phillips curve In A. W. Phillips’s famous article “The Relationship between Unemployment and the Rate of Money Wages in the UK 1861–1957,” in Economica, he argued that when the unemployment rate was low, the labor market was tight and employers had to offer higher wages to attract scarce labor. At higher rates of unemployment, there was less pressure to increase wages. When the economy was expanding, firms would raise wages faster than “normal” for a given level of unemployment; when the economy was contracting, they would raise wages more slowly. Policymakers used the Phillips curve to determine economic policy. For example, if unemployment increased, the government might stimulate the economy to lower it. Monetarist economists challenged the theory by arguing that only real wages mattered: the inflation-adjusted purchasing power of money wages. Thus, the more quickly worker expectations of price inflation adapt to changes in the actual rate of inflation, the less successful governments will be in reducing unemployment through monetary and fiscal policy. 439 philosophy of the social sciences There are more fundamental objections: the meanings of both unemployment and inflation are not constant over time. The former is measured by the definition of what being employed constitutes: in Australia today, for instance, if employees are employed for more than one hour a week, they are classified as “employed,” and thus the unemployment rate can be represented as 5.3 percent. If the measures used to define unemployment twenty years ago were still used, it would be closer to 15 percent. Similarly, inflation is constructed from an index that measures the price of a bundle of commodities. As these items are changed, or their weights change, then what is being measured ceases to be constant. The measures are socially constructed. STEWART CLEGG philosophy of the social sciences Philosophy of the social sciences is a metatheoretical reflection on the workings of the social sciences. Some philosophers of social science prescribe guidelines for social researchers, for instance about how to make research scientific or how to make it a proper critique. Some philosophers focus on other issues, for instance, the relationship between values and facts or the validity of particular theoretical frameworks. Initially, sociology had strong links with a positivist philosophy of social science. Positivism assumed a unity of method between the social and natural sciences. If the social sciences employ the method of the natural sciences, then they will uncover scientific laws or law-like generalizations. In addition, some positivist authors argued that we should keep a clear separation between facts and values (one cannot be inferred from the other) and between theory and observation (observations ought to be theory-independent). Since the mid twentieth century, various schools within the philosophy of the social sciences have developed in reaction to positivism. Karl Popper introduced falsificationism or critical rationalism. According to this view, scientific theories are falsifiable rather than verifiable. That is, they can, in principle, be refuted. Various psychological and sociological theories purport to be scientific but are not, because they are immunized against refutation. For example, Alfred Adler (1870–1937), Sigmund Freud, and Karl Marx present non-falsifiable theories. Influenced by hermeneutics (see, for instance, Charles Taylor) or Ludwig Wittgenstein (see, for instance, Peter Winch), some anti-naturalist authors stress the differences between the study of the social and that of the natural. According to 440 pilot study this view, there are no significant laws or law-like generalizations in the social realm. Critical realism rejects the positivist “regularity” notion of causality, according to which the regular observation that “X is followed by Y” is both sufficient and necessary for saying that X causes Y. Critical realists argue that both natural and social sciences try to uncover the underlying structures or powers that affect the observable level. These structures or powers are not necessarily immediately accessible to observation. Critical theory disagrees with the view that social research is a purely descriptive or explanatory endeavor. Critical theorists like Theodor Wiesengrund Adorno, Max Horkheimer, or Jürgen Habermas contend that social research should also aim at a critical assessment, possibly leading to self-emancipation. This calls attention to the question of what criteria or procedures can be used in order to arrive at a judgment. Habermas believes that the notion of an open, unconstrained debate provides the key to answering this question. Pragmatism argues against foundationalism (any attempt to find atemporal foundations of reliable knowledge) and against the spectator theory of knowledge (any view that sees knowledge as representing the inner nature of the external world). Instead, pragmatists prefer to see knowledge as active and tied to cognitive interests. Habermas’s critical theory relies heavily on Charles Peirce’s pragmatism. For Habermas, different types of knowledge accomplish different goals. Empirical-analytical knowledge aims at prediction and control, hermeneutics is directed towards understanding, and critical theory combines both to achieve self-emancipation. PATRICK BAERT pilot study Just as naval pilots guide larger vessels safely into port, so too are pilot studies intended to secure the passage of research projects from a tentative and questioning approach to the issue in question, to a secure berth as a substantive contribution to knowledge in sociology. As such, pilot studies are often designed to act as either smallscale replicas of a much larger research project and/or to act as a “test bed” upon which potentially problematic methodological or procedural issues can be tried out and resolved. The size of any pilot study will be variable, and determined by the nature of the research methodology being used. Some pilot studies may thus be much larger than full-scale studies using tried and tested instruments. plural society pluralism For example, if a study in a new area of enquiry wished to examine the relationship between, say, religious affiliation and car-buying intentions, questionnaires may be designed to effect the measurement of both variables via a representative sampling of the wider population to which inferences are to be drawn. A pilot study, using a small (possibly even a convenience) sample, may then be used to trial the newly minted questionnaires to ensure that items are not infelicitously phrased, ambiguous, or incomprehensible to research respondents. Should problems be identified at this stage of the research process (via debriefing of interviewers, for example), steps may be taken to rewrite or otherwise disambiguate the measures in question prior to the execution of the full-scale study. It is not unknown for second pilot studies to be required to confirm the successful rectification of methodological, study, and measure design difficulties. MARK RAPLEY AND SUSAN HANSEN plural society This concept refers to a society that respects differences. In one sense, all societies are plural since it is impossible for individuals to relate to one another unless they have differences that each respects. But a plural society is one in which these differences are explicitly and consciously accepted, and they are seen as a strength rather than a weakness. But differences generate conflict and these conflicts have to be resolved. A plural society is not therefore a society without conflict, but a society in which conflicts can be managed, rather than suppressed, in which compromise and conciliation prevail over the use of force and violence. Should conflicts be violent, then the case is likely to be made for a strong state able to employ counterforce, so that instead of a plural society we have an authoritarian one in which differences are seen as disloyal and problematic. In an increasingly globalized world, societies are becoming more and more obviously plural as people from different cultures and language groups come together in large, heterogeneous communities. However, it would be naive to imagine that differences can be respected unless there is toleration and accommodation. People need to have common values if differences are to strengthen a society, and not cause it to break down and divide. Living within a society has to be both a unifying and diversifying experience. Without conscious plurality, society becomes suffocating, but without mechanisms for accommodation, a society ceases to exist. JOHN HOFFMAN pluralism Arguments about the virtues or otherwise of pluralism span from the works of ancient philosophers to recent times. It stands as a protest against “monism” or one-ness, and emphasizes that difference and multiplicity must be taken seriously. In its more recent social science form, pluralism is identified with the argument that, in a liberal democracy, interests are diverse so that, although some groups may (say) be wealthier than others, it is wrong to regard one factor as ultimately predominant since other groups may enjoy popularity or represent large numbers of people. This doctrine became discredited in the late 1960s and during the 1970s. The notion that in liberal societies different groups “balanced” themselves out was considered to be propagandistic and inaccurate. A pluralist view of politics and society excluded the idea that, in the liberal form, a particular interest might prevail in the form of an elite or ruling class. More recently, critiques of the liberal pluralism of the 1960s have themselves been criticized on the grounds that an emphasis upon underlying structures that unify society generates dogmatism, exclusivity, and authoritarianism. Feminists, for example, argued that society consisted of two sexes, not just one, and that liberal (and left-wing) notions of the individual and humanity viewed the world through the lenses of men. Some feminists (the “radicals”) turned liberalism inside out and argued for the primacy of women and their outlook, and argued that women need to keep aloof from men. But why should plurality “stop” with the acknowledgment that individuals can be either male or female? The postmodernist argument enshrines pluralism as its key value. People can identify themselves only through their difference from others, so that it becomes invidious to privilege one difference over others. Postmodern feminism argues that not only are women different from men, but they are different from one another. An infinite range of other factors need to be taken into account – a person’s social class, religion, language, culture, and region. Traditional concepts like the state and conventional religion, and thought systems like Marxism and liberalism, are challenged since they appear to ascribe primacy to one particular factor over all others. The search for the Truth or the belief in Reason are dogmatic 441 pluralization political economy and authoritarian postures that must be challenged and rejected. The problem with pluralism is that it can operate its own system of “privileging.” The danger with a dogmatic pluralism is that differences themselves are seen as more important than similarities. All forms of unity become dissolved into differences, and these differences lack anything to hold them together. If women differ among themselves, does this mean that feminism itself is impossible since the whole notion of “women” has been dethroned? If individuals are plural and each individual may have numerous identities, does this mean that individuals no longer exist, so that the concept of the subject becomes redundant? Pluralism can only be sustained as an outlook and approach if it operates alongside, and not to the exclusion of, a monist stress upon sameness. JOHN HOFFMAN pluralization This involves an ethos of deep diversity, as in, for example William E. Connolly, The Ethos of Pluralization (1995). While pluralism can be seen as either accommodation and tolerance of differences or distribution of power among competing interest groups, pluralization is an ethos to deepen and multiply differences that involves a refusal to flatten them under any kind of pretense or goal: unity, common ground, or union. The concept of pluralization emerged out of a discontent with various forms of politics of recognition that either essentialized identities (multiculturalism, integration, assimilation) or imagined their boundless proliferation (tolerance, accommodation). By contrast, pluralization aspires to recognize the depth and multiplicity of differences while recognizing the necessity for crossing them, for example, Paul A. B. Clarke, Deep Citizenship (1996). As such, it remains as a research and activist ethos rather than a celebrated policy or avowed politics. ENGIN ISIN Polanyi, Karl (1886–1964) Born in Vienna and brought up in Budapest, as a student Polanyi knew Georg Lukács and Karl Mannheim and became acquainted with the works of Karl Marx, Max Weber, and Georg Simmel. While he did not, strictly speaking, profess sociology, these influences and those of Émile Durkheim are to be found in his major work, The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time (1944), which was started during his stay in England in the 1930s and finished after emigration to the United States. 442 He sought to explain the breakdown of nineteenth-century liberal capitalism which led to the turmoil of the 1920s and 1930s. In a critique of orthodox economic theory, he argued first that its analysis did not apply to all forms of economy, and, second, that the market was not selfregulating. Before market capitalism, economic exchange had been embedded in social structures regulated by norms of either “reciprocity” and/or “redistribution.” The determination of economic exchange exclusively by market price destabilized social and political order; and the fundamental economic “factors” – land, labor, and moneycapital – were, in fact, “fictitious commodities.” The free market in land created environmental degradation; in labor, human misery; and in money, inflation and financial crises. This led to a “double movement” in capitalism between, on the one hand, states’ creation of these socially and politically “disembedded” markets and, on the other, the efforts to regulate their worst effects. Thus, by the end of the 1930s, there was a swing towards regulation in all sectors of the economy and the beginnings of the modern welfare state. Polanyi’s critique of the self-regulating market has experienced a revival following the economic liberalization and globalization of the late twentieth century. Other important works by Polanyi are, with Conrad Arensberg and Harry Pearson, Trade and Market in the Early Empires (1957), and the posthumous The Livelihood of Man (1977). GEOFFREY INGHAM political economy Classical political economy emerged as a distinct field of scholarship and policy-oriented analysis during the eighteenth century, in rough parallel with the development of a distinct sphere of profit-oriented, market-mediated economic activities that was nonetheless seen as dependent on a wider nexus of legal, political, social, and moral conditions. In contrast with the later discipline of neoclassical economics, which studies such activities in isolation, classical political economy was a predisciplinary field of inquiry insofar as it tried to put the emerging capitalist economy in its wider social context. Adam Smith (1723–90) is exemplary here, writing not only An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776) but also A Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759) and studies of jurisprudence, politics, logic, and language. Other key figures in this tradition are David Malthus (1766–1834), and David Ricardo (1772–1823) political economy whose work On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation (1817) made him its leading figure. Classical political economy is linked to the rise of a commercial and industrial bourgeoisie that sought to challenge the economic, political, and ideological domination of feudalism and the absolutist state. It is part of the more general European Enlightenment. A parallel tradition in Germany, which was an economic laggard, was more oriented to the political dimension of the emerging system of political economy – reflected in the Polizeiwissenschaften (“police” or policy sciences) that were concerned with good economic, political, and moral government on behalf of the population of a given state. Following the rolling back of feudalism and the consolidation of capitalism, the rise of organized working-class resistance, and the recurrence of capitalist crises, classical political economy was slowly displaced by vulgar political economy. This downplayed the class relations between capital and labor and the origins of value in the labor process, began to focus on the efficient allocation of scarce factors of production to competing uses, and sought the causes of economic crisis in factors external to the nature and dynamic of capitalism itself. Although their work is often mentioned as a key part of the tradition of political economy, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels developed an explicit critique of classical and vulgar political economy both as scholarship and as the basis of economic policy and practice. They elaborated an alternative account of the capitalist mode of production based on radically different philosophical assumptions and a political commitment to the proletariat rather than the bourgeoisie. Thus a significant part of their studies was concerned to critique the economic categories and analyses of orthodox political economy. Two major examples are Marx’s Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts (1844 [trans. 1964]) and the three-volume Theories of Surplus Value (1861–3 [trans. 1963]). They also built on this critique to provide an alternative account of the capitalist mode of production, its social foundations, its dynamic, and its crisis tendencies. Marx’s Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (1859), the Grundrisse (1857 [trans. 1973]), and the incomplete analysis in the three volumes of Capital (1867, 1885, 1894 [trans. 1970]) are his best-known work here. Their guiding theme is that capital is not a thing (a simple, transhistorical factor of production) but a social relation that is a historically specific class relation between persons, mediated through the instrumentality of things. political economy Marx argued that the best starting point for such a critique was to ask why wealth in societies where the capitalist mode of production is dominant presents itself as an immense accumulation of commodities. He regarded the commodity as the “cell form” of capitalism and, on this basis, unfolded the key contradictions of capital as a social relation. He defined the historical specificity of capitalism in terms of the generalization of the commodity form to labor power, arguing that the nature and dynamic of capitalism were rooted in the inhuman treatment of labor power as if it were a commodity. Capitalism is the first mode of production based on the existence of formally free wage-labor and a labor market in which workers sell their labor power in a formally free and equal commercial transaction to the owners of the means of production, who in turn need this labor to set the labor process into motion. The resulting goods and services belong initially to the capitalists for whom the proletariat works, who are therefore free to sell these commodities in the marketplace. Beneath the surface appearance of free and equal market exchange, however, lay a despotic world of production in which capital sought to maximize the production of surplus labor as the basis for economic exploitation and the accumulation of capital. Marxism became a crucial reference point for the subsequent development of radical, heterodox, and more orthodox forms of evolutionary and institutional political economy. This trend is sometimes signified in the idea that authors such as Max Weber, Werner Sombart, Joseph Schumpeter, and Karl Polanyi engaged in a debate with the “ghost of Marx.” Evolutionary political economy holds that time matters: there can be no valid transhistorical analysis of economic activities because the nature of economic institutions and conduct, the sites and stakes of economic conflict, and the scope for economic change depend on their prior developmental trajectory. And institutional political economy argues that institutions matter: there can be no pure, isolated economic calculation and conduct because these are always shaped by specific economic institutions and market relations and their embedding in a complex extra-economic environment. It is on this basis that political economy has not only studied the development of different forms of economic organization but has also identified a number of more or less distinct varieties of capitalism. Vulgar political economy was the basis for neoclassical economics. This tries to develop a universal, transhistorical analysis of economic activities 443 political parties based on a general model of rational economic calculation about the most efficient allocation of scarce resources (factors of production) to competing ends. Neoclassical economics is associated with “economics imperialism,” that is, the extension of economic analysis to social spheres that are not dominated by profit-oriented, marketmediated economic activities but are nonetheless marked, it is claimed, by individual utility maximization within defined rules of the game. The extension of this model is the basis for rational choice institutionalism, theories of constitutional design and public policy, and a new form of political economy. BOB JESSOP political parties A political party is an association of like-minded individuals that seeks to gain power in a community (usually a state) in order to promote its chosen social order. As a social organization, a political party has two main functions: interest articulation and interest formation. Interest articulation is simply the process of bringing together within a single organization all the members of a community who share relatively similar political views on an issue or set of issues, and to voice this position in such a way that existing political institutions heed it. Interest formation is the process by which a party is able to shape and influence the political views of the members of the community at large. This dual function that political parties perform creates internal tensions that are solved in different ways according to the political and organizational outlook of the parties. At the interest articulation end of this spectrum, populist parties behave in a demagogic way and shape their political discourse and program of governance primarily according to what is popular in the community at any one time. At the interest formation end, by contrast, authoritarian party systems claim that the party’s primary function is to teach the population how to behave in a politically enlightened way. In between are competitive party systems, such as the ones present in most contemporary electoral democracies, where this tension is resolved through compromise. In modern electoral systems, the legitimacy of the government rests principally on political parties. However, party politics acquired a bad reputation as it came to represent the (sometimes violent, sometimes petty) struggle between different factions vying for power. During the period of formation of modern democracies, key thinkers and politicians such as James Madison (1751–1836) 444 political parties and Alexis de Tocqueville saw this factionalism as one of the main drawbacks of the new era of democratic politics. From outside the political establishment, Karl Marx took an equally dim view of the (bourgeois) political parties that dominated the scene in his days. In The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon (1852 [trans. 1934]), he equated them with propaganda tools that the ruling class used against the proletariat to give the latter the illusion of participation, while entrenching their own interests. Marx’s followers on the Leninist side would take this characterization of party politics as the starting point for their construction of the one-party political model that came to symbolize socialist and communist states in the twentieth century. In pluralist political systems, however, political parties have become the most common form of social mobilization for participation in politics. As Max Weber pointed out in “Politics as Vocation” (1919 [trans. 1994]), with the bureaucratization of the state and the growth of mass politics, political associations had to manage more effectively the drawbacks of electoral competition, and the professionalization of their party machinery was an effective means of ensuring the survival of the organization over time. Today, therefore, the vast majority of politicians are professional politicians, paid by states (if elected) or parties to fulfill their role. In modern multiparty systems, the most common distinction between parties is that between left and right. Historically, this terminology referred to the physical location of the parliamentary groups in the French Assembly after the revolution of 1789. Those on the right side of the assembly represented principally the interests of the nobility, while those on the left side of the assembly represented the bourgeoisie and the Third Estate. The right tended therefore to be more conservative and the left more reformist. This left–right distinction was compounded throughout the nineteenth century by the industrial revolution. In effect, the right came to represent principally the interests of the upper classes (the former aristocracy) as well as those of an increasingly wealthier section of the middle classes (the petite bourgeoisie), while the left represented the former Third Estate, which became the working class. Throughout most of the twentieth century, this left–right opposition dominated pluralist political systems, be they based on a two-party model or a multiparty one. In the late twentieth century, however, with the apparent weakening of class distinctions, this left–right configuration began to lose its sharpness. At the politics same time, helped by the drop in electoral participation in most advanced industrial democracies, single-issue parties as well as new political movements (for example green parties) began to reshape the parameters of party politics. The level of predictability that multipartyism gave, to electoral democracies particularly, proved wrong many of the earlier assumptions about the negative influence of party politics on political stability. Although the debate about the pros and cons of party politics is still alive in many developing countries, the arguments put forward by Robert Dahl (1915– ) in A Preface to Democratic Theory (1956) and in Polyarchy (1971), concerning the stabilizing influence of political parties, remain powerful explanations of this phenomenon today. According to Dahl, what political parties provide is a multitude of powerful minorities that ensure that pressure is applied to the faction in government to take into account the interests of many different social groups in society. In order to rule effectively, parties in government find it practical to reach out to some of the opposition factions and to create as wide a consensus on their policies as possible. Besides directly entering ruling coalitions, what political parties (and the bargaining process in which they repeatedly enter) create is a cohesive political culture that underpins the formal institutions of the polity and strengthens a consensual model of political rule. This phenomenon is most obvious in mature party systems with a strong tradition of pluralism. In developing countries, as granting the franchise to vote to the population at large is often a recent development, the competition between mass parties and cadre parties (which do not rely on mass support but simply represent a political front for groups of powerful interests), remains a source of instability. FREDERIC VOLPI politics This term refers to the process of organizing social power in a community. Politics takes place at various levels of social interaction, from the microlevel – the politics of friendship, family politics, and so on – to the macro-level (international politics and global politics). Most commonly, within its broad field of application, politics is concerned with the activities of human beings, as Aristotle’s (384–322 BC) description of human beings as political animals (zoon politikon) indicates. However, in the late twentieth century, biologists and specialists in animal behavior – particularly primatologists – have argued that non-human animals living in complex societies could also be described politics as having political activities. Aristotle’s The Politics (c. 350 BC) introduced the terms politic into our vocabulary from the word politikos meaning “of, or pertaining to, the polis” (city-state). For Aristotle, the object of politics was the good of the community and social order embodied in the polis. As a practical activity, it was therefore prescriptive in nature. And the role of the politicians, whom Aristotle likened to craftsmen, was to ensure the good functioning of the polity in order to allow the community to reach its normative goals. The task of those involved in politics was, and remains, to establish and implement laws and rules of government that promote the good of the community (though not necessarily or systematically that of each single individual within it). Because politics is concerned with harnessing the social forces of a polity into an effective organization, those models of collective action that can achieve this feat on a large scale have traditionally been highly valued. The highest organizational units for politics have varied significantly over time, from small city-states to large empires. In the contemporary context, however, the most complex form of institutionalized political order is the nation-state. Today, we may be witnessing the emergence of an international community (for example the United Nations) and of powerful supranational regional organizations (for example the European Union) but the ability of these institutions to dictate the rules of the political game remains tied to the behavior of the states that compose them. Because of the enormous power that the state can muster, its political institutions have always received a high degree of attention. In this respect, politics is tightly connected to the science (or art) of government. It is this art that all the great political thinkers have tried to describe in new and ingenious ways over time. Probably the foremost question that political thinkers have traditionally been asking regarding the politics of government is whether a rule ought to be moral in order to be effective. Classical Greek philosophers like Plato in The Republic (c. 360 BC) or Aristotle in The Politics generally argued that it was so – and so did most Roman humanists and Christian medieval thinkers in their footsteps. It is not until the Renaissance that the notion that a political rule needs not to be just to be successful began to take the ascendancy. At this juncture, the works of Niccolò Machiavelli (1459–1517), such as The Prince (1513 [trans. 1988]) and The Discourses (1531 [trans. 1996]), were of particular importance. From this conceptual transformation 445 politics comes the notion of raison d’état – the idea that, for the greater good of the political community, the state (and its representatives) could and should behave outside the moral framework that applies to ordinary individuals. As theorized in works such as Six Books of the Commonwealth (1576 [trans. 1955]) by Jean Bodin (1530–96) and, most notably, Leviathan (1651) by Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679), this rationale for politics was increasingly put to the service of the absolutist powers that ruled Europe and its growing number of colonies in the early modern period. The inadequacy of absolutist politics and of authoritarianism were highlighted by thinkers like John Locke (1632–1704) in Two Treatises of Government (1690) and Baron Charles de Montesquieu in The Spirit of the Laws (1748 [trans. 1989]). However, it is only in the late eighteenth century with the French Revolution and the diffusion of writings such as the Social Contract (1762 [trans. 1997]) by Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–78) that politics increasingly became a matter and an activity for the people as much as for the aristocracy. In the nineteenth century, with the extension of the voting rights to an increasingly larger proportion of the population (the poor, women, slaves, and so forth) politics truly became a mass phenomenon. This transformation of the nature of the political community had important implications for earlier notions of “government,” conceived as the greater good of the state and the monarch. Now, the state was redefined to include the nation and a new brand of raison d’état was introduced, which was influenced by the philosophy of classic utilitarianism – often known as “the greatest happiness for the greatest number.” The notion of utilitarian politics developed from works such as the Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789) by Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) and John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty (1859), but also in a different vein from those of Karl Marx. Under various guises, utilitarianism and the notion of the good of the people have remained important justifications of the politics of government throughout the twentieth century and up to the present day. It is only towards the end of the twentieth century, most notably under the impulse of John Rawls’s A Theory of Justice (1971), that the utilitarian logic that underpinned politics slowly began to be partially superseded by a more ontological and procedural approach to the political good, grounded on notions of fairness and justice for each member of the community. This conceptual evolution, in its turn, reinforced the articulation of identity politics by minority 446 politics groups who were forcefully incorporated in the nation, and who increasingly began to challenge the political organization of the contemporary nation-state from within. Historically and geographically, the issues that have been deemed political always varied enormously. In western Europe, for over a millennium, religion was a political issue par excellence. However, with the rise of secularism in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, particularly in western democracies, religious preferences increasingly became an essentially private matter, which political actors endeavored to maintain outside the boundaries of the political debate. (But the revival of religious politics at the beginning of the twenty-first century illustrates clearly that any such historical trends are always susceptible to being reversed.) If some issues can become de-politicized over time, other previously nonpolitical matters can also enter the political debate. Some issues have long been recognized as having political implications without being selfreflectively acknowledged as a political matter. Gender is one of them. In most political systems, political opportunities are influenced by gender status (typically to the detriment of female participants), but it is only with the rise of women’s movements in the nineteenth century and of feminism in the twentieth century that gender issues have become legitimate political concerns. Finally, other issues acquired a political status simply because of the realization that the requirements for the survival of a growing human population in limited spatial settings demanded that such concerns be formulated in political terms. The environment is one such aspect; and the rise of environmental movements and green politics increasingly contributes to redefining the boundaries of the political in the twenty-first century. The boundaries of politics are always and necessarily highly contested because of the range of issues that can potentially be considered as political – from the economy to the environment, and from morality to sex. Drawing from the genealogy of the term, it is generally acknowledged that politics is an activity that concerns the polis, in other words the public sphere. But even such a general statement about public affairs is not easy to sustain systematically The identification of public goods and the distinction between the public and the private, in particular, have been continuously questioned by social groups arguing for a better (more effective, fairer, and so on) organization of wealth and power in the community. These debates and challenges underscore the politics fact that an element of force is always necessarily involved in politics. From this perspective, politics can be conceived in the terms of Harold Lasswell’s book Politics: Who Gets What, When, How (1936) (or encapsulated by Vladimir Ilich Lenin’s saying, Kto? Kogo? [Who? Whom?] – who does what to whom?). Yet, in so far as politics, as a social activity, is distinct from the exercising of brute force, it also consists in the art of resolving public disagreements and conflicts by engaging collectively in dialog and bargaining. The boundary between politics as a means of resolving social conflict, and politics as a cause of conflict, is a porous one. As the military strategist Carl von Clausewitz pointed out in On War (1832), in international affairs it is often the case that war is the continuation of politics by other means – even though this difference of means cannot be underestimated from a social perspective. Even in domestic settings, politics, and particularly party politics for the followers of Marx, involves an element of oppression of the masses by the ruling classes in the ongoing struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie for the control of the means of production and the institutions of the state. Yet, in contemporary political systems, as the discourse on democracy has come to dominate the global debate on politics, this activity tends to be seen as more discursive and consensual than might otherwise be thought. In the contemporary context, one can distinguish at least four main levels of political interaction for analytical purposes: global/transnational, international, domestic, and local/intimate. Despite appearances, these categories cannot be neatly located along a well-defined spectrum as the two ends often meet – religion, for example affects politics on a global scale, as well as intervening in this process at a very intimate level, and so do economic issues that have both macro- and micro-political implications. Traditionally, state politics has been at the heart of people’s understanding of what politics stood for. State politics has two main aspects: an internal dimension (domestic politics), and an external one – international politics or international relations. In domestic politics, the ordering of society by the state is probably the most common yet intense form of political activities in which individuals are repeatedly involved, as well as being subjected to. In this context, politics is simply the way in which individuals act collectively (usually by joining political associations) in order to mold the political community in to the shape that they see fit. Whether this process is in fact Popper, Karl (1902–1994) bottom-up or top-down depends on the type of political system that is in place at any one time – for example democratic on autocratic contexts. In the field of international politics, individuals outside the ruling circles hardly have any direct involvement in the decisionmaking process, except in the form of the proverbial public opinion. International politics, especially at its war-like end, can, however, have a massive and direct impact on all the members of the political community. Local and even intimate politics, by contrast, represent the sphere of political activities in which social interactions are the most common for most individuals, most of the time. The networks composed by the family, friends, kin, neighbors, and other formal or informal proximity associations constitute a ready-made receptacle for politics, albeit one with usually limited resources for action. Finally, the process of globalization of politics – be it through the activities of transnational non-state actors (for example Al-Qaeda) or supranational institutions (such as the International Monetary Fund) – increasingly has such an impact on every aspect of life that it is becoming the one single set of factors that redefines the concept of politics in the interdependent global system that is emerging in the twenty-first century. FREDERIC VOLPI polyethnic rights – see rights. Popper, Karl (1902–1994) Born in Vienna, Karl Popper attended the University there, and worked as a cabinet maker and primary school teacher. He received his PhD in 1928. From 1937 to 1945 he taught at Canterbury University College, New Zealand, and from 1945 to 1969 at the London School of Economics. Popper is best known as a philosopher of science and defender of open societies. In books such as The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1959), Popper contends that the study of nature and society share similar logics. Yet social scientists and philosophers often misinterpret the logic of natural science while attempting to imitate it, creating pseudo-scientific theories that cannot be refuted. Popper counters such claims with his theory of critical rationalism. In Popper’s view, scientific theories must be falsifiable. Any theory can find evidence to support it. Only those theories that can stand the rigors of empirical testing and attempted refutation can claim to be scientific. Popper devoted The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945) and The Poverty of Historicism (1944) to the 447 popular culture analysis of theorists such as Plato and Karl Marx, who assert their discoveries of universal truths. Popper criticizes such theories as unscientific and anti-democratic. They do not promote open discussion, tolerance of opposing views, or a pragmatic and piecemeal approach to social change, the ingredients of a good society. For Popper, the growth of knowledge is tied to a community of scientists who freely and rationally criticize one another’s viewpoints. Institutions guaranteeing such debate and dialog are crucial for the advancement of science and an open, democratic society. KENNETH H. TUCKER, JR. popular culture The early waves of studying popular culture emerged out of Great Britain during the 1950s and 1960s. Figures such as the literary and cultural critics Raymond Williams and Richard Hoggart and the historian E. P. Thompson (1924– 93) sought to discover within the study of popular culture the political contestation of values and ways of life. If high culture was enjoyed by the few, then most popular culture, it seemed, reproduced the dominant orientations of a capitalistdominated marketplace. However, historically the working class and the Romantic movement had sought to produce alternative forms of popular art and culture that had sought to criticize the status quo. These arguments led many in sociology, cultural studies, and history to investigate how the people had been actively involved in making their own culture (or cultures) from below. Such views were at this time contrasted with the ideas of the early Frankfurt School, that tended to reduce the study of popular culture to that of mass culture. Whereas mass culture captured the way in which the production of culture was centrally organized in terms of the needs of a culture industry (rise of mass audiences for television, press, and consumer goods), a genuinely popular culture was made by and for ordinary people. From the 1970s onward, the work of Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci and his conception of hegemony were to influence these debates deeply. The idea here was that popular culture was constituted by a set of institutions, practices, and forms that aimed to win the consent of the people. This was more than a simple act of dominant groups establishing their domination, but always required the active incorporation of subordinate groups and cultures. This approach became strongly connected with a number of writers who associated with the Birmingham Centre for Contemporary Cultural studies (including Stuart 448 popular culture Hall, Angela McRobbie, and Paul Willis). The study of youth cultures, popular magazines, sport, and the media then were undertaken to reveal processes of containment and resistance in respect of the dominant culture. In particular this tradition has placed intellectual emphasis upon the various and contested meanings of popular culture and its role in disrupting or securing relations of domination. There are three main criticisms of these arguments: the emphasis on meaning leads to a relative neglect of changing institutional features which organize the production and distribution of popular culture; the critical role which the avant-garde or more elite forms of high culture have played in creating critical consciousness historically tends to disappear from the analysis; and little of the actual theorizing about cultural resistance pays much attention to the need to formulate more adequate social and political environments that would seek a more just settlement between competing cultures. Since the early 1990s many have become aware of the need to promote more global understandings of the operation of popular culture. The new mode of popular cultural studies has sought to understand its formation both within and in opposition to cultural nationalism. This has further broken with the idea of homogeneous national cultures in order to investigate the ways in which, in an increasingly global culture, different groups have been able to maintain interconnections with one another. In particular the development of transnational forms of mobility in respect of tourism and the media, as well as the development of counter-publics on the basis of race and gender, have pushed the analysis of popular culture beyond the nation-state. Paul Gilroy, in There Ain’t No Black in the Union Jack (1987), argued that black popular music has been the key cultural location for the articulation of a sense of diasporic connection between Africa, America, and Britain. This has operated in a number of ways, including the borrowing of musical styles and influences, protesting about injustice, the recording of struggles, and in certain rap songs the display of misogyny. Through the fostering of a distinctively black aesthetic, Gilroy argues that music has provided a uniquely connective culture in a globalized civil society. Such features have not only proved to be important in the study of the complexity of popular forms but have also warned against many postmodern arguments which simply assumed that distinctions between high and popular culture had evaporated. population studies However, many remain critical of these and similar studies for neglecting to analyze the continued power of the nation-state and popular discourses of nationhood that continue to exert a considerable amount of influence over the organization and meaning of popular culture. Further, many are now less concerned with the meanings of particular popular texts and more with how a diversity of audience members actively constitutes the popular. John Fiske, in Reading the Popular (1989), has gone farthest in this respect, arguing that the art of everyday life is commonly involved in the transformation of consumer products. All popular culture is the site of struggle where meanings are never controlled by the producers, but are actively and pleasurably produced by the consumers. These irreverent forms of jouissance erupt from below and are opposed to the disciplinary techniques utilized by the power bloc. Here there is a double pleasure involved in the audience’s reading of popular texts. The first is the enjoyment involved in the symbolic production of meanings that oppose those of the power bloc, and the second concerns the actual activity of being productive. In this scenario, the market, by contrast with the declining high culture of the powerful, brings certain cultural products within the critical horizons of the people. Many have been extremely critical of these developments, arguing that, unlike those who first sought to study popular culture in the 1950s and 1960s, such views end up endorsing an uncritical culture of consumption. If popular culture depends upon what we do with culture rather than what it does to us this would seemingly cancel any criticisms we might want to make of the power of cultural producers. Most popular culture continues to be shaped by the practices of a dominant capitalist culture, whatever role it might play within the domains of everyday life. NICK STEVENSON population studies – see demography. populism This began as a movement of small farmers in the South and Midwest in the late nineteenth-century United States who desired control of the federal government, which they believed was dominated by northern industrialists and bankers. Populism has resurfaced as an ambiguous political concept, designating political positions from a call for a more equitable distribution of wealth to criticisms of liberal beliefs regarding abortion, gun control, affirmative action, and the like. populism Late nineteenth-century agrarian populism attempted to preserve a way of life against an encroaching industrial society. During this era, technological growth was unprecedented, as railroads, the telegraph, and eventually the telephone increased the scope and pace of business activity. Immigrants from southern and eastern Europe streamed into the United States, transforming the countenance of the working class. Large corporations and an aggressive federal government centralized economic and administrative power, and local communities lost control over their destinies. As wealth flowed into railroad and manufacturing industries, the incomes of many small farmers declined. They were driven into debt by falling agricultural prices, increased transportation costs, and a shortage of credit. The populist movement grew as many farmers banded together in order to pool resources and break the monopoly on lending held by banks. Populists developed a political and economic program, advocating a more egalitarian economic system. They attempted to democratically reform federal and state governments, supporting a progressive income tax, the direct election of United States senators, and more reliance on popular initiatives and referendums to change government policy. Many of these demands were stripped of their radical impulse and incorporated into the platform of the Democratic Party, as populism faded in the early years of the twentieth century. The populists called for the power of the people versus the elites. It provided a distinctive language of American radicalism, different from the Marxism more popular in Europe. Yet the definition of who constituted the “people” was ambiguous. Many populists harbored nativist prejudices. Racism against African Americans sometimes intertwined with a fear that a vast conspiracy of moneylenders, often either Catholic or Jewish, controlled the economy and the government. This ambiguity continues to haunt the meaning of populism. Many politicians embrace populism, calling for a more egalitarian economy, and criticizing the power of large corporations. But a conservative cultural populism has arisen in the United States in the wake of the controversial era of the 1960s. Often tied to a fundamentalist view of religion, contemporary cultural populism feeds on animosity towards government taxation and affirmative action programs, and policies aimed at helping the (largely nonwhite) poor. Yet it favors government action to suppress forms of behavior considered immoral, from restricting 449 positional goods abortions to controlling the distribution of pornography. Scholars such as Seymour M. Lipset in Political Man (1960) contend that populism arose as the United States political center broke down, and people embraced authoritarian beliefs that gave voice to their economic and cultural frustrations. Progressives such as Thomas Frank in What’s the Matter with Kansas (2004) state that American conservatives have convinced many working-class people that their enemy is an ambiguous cultural elite, rather than the wealthy. KENNETH H. TUCKER, JR. positional goods – see consumption. positivism The term positivism was coined in the 1830s by Auguste Comte as the name for his philosophy of science. Philosophie positive, as the theory and history of the positive sciences, whose full range was deemed to have been completed by Comte’s own sociology, would provide the mental framework for industrial society. In contrast with theology and metaphysics, positive (or scientific) knowledge was based on impressions externelles, and was oriented to the discovery of laws, understood as regularities in phenomena, rather than ultimate causes. Positivism thus had a relative rather than absolute view of truth. “Positive,” at the same time, meant affirmative and constructive, as opposed to critical and negative. The “metaphysics” that Comtean positivism sought to expunge was not only an obfuscatory residue of religious belief. In the context of the grande crise that marked the birth of industrialism, it expressed the rising up of individual reason, which, in itself, was abstract, anarchic, and “incapable of building.” By the same token, positivism adopted a social, rather than individual, viewpoint, a shift that was not only epistemological but linked to the altruisme that gave knowledge its ends and fixed the mind on objects outside itself. While positivism has continued to be associated with Comte, his totalizing philosophy and program have long been abandoned, and the term has come to have a more generic meaning. In this wider sense, positivism encompasses a diverse spectrum of positions which champion a scientific viewpoint, and insist that knowledge claims, including in the social domain, should confine themselves to what can be derived from observable phenomena. Such positions range from the classical positivism of Comte and his followers, to 450 post-Fordism the more astringent logical positivism of the Vienna Circle, as well as, more generally, to operationalist, quantitative, and statistics-based tendencies in sociology and other human sciences. Whether sociology itself, as Comte claimed, can be a positive science, and in what sense, has been hotly debated throughout its history. Besides issues about causality and agency, and about the constructed nature of “facts,” there are difficulties conceiving and treating the social as an objectively knowable domain. Social reality has an interior, subjective, dimension, and sociology itself is a social phenomenon, so that, for sociology, the subject of knowledge is part of its object. For classical sociology, which grappled with these issues, a science of society was not impossible, but it had special features, and could not be modeled on other sciences without reductionism. Karl Marx thought that the capitalist economic base could be analyzed with the precision of natural sciences, but not the superstructure where “social antagonisms become conscious and are fought out.” In Germany, sociology came to be classified among the Geisteswissenschaften, implying an interpretative and non-quantitative approach which Max Weber sought to imbue with a “value-neutral” spirit through an emphasis on formal structures, chains of cause and effect, and comparative civilizational analysis. In France, Émile Durkheim criticized Comte’s sociology as itself metaphysics, and adopted a neo-Kantian conception of knowledge, but still affirmed that social facts could be studied “according to the methods of the natural sciences” so as to establish “laws of concomitance and succession.” However, the Post-Durkheim Annales school shifted from laws to structures and abandoned developmentalism, while philosophical issues about positivism in the social sciences were raised anew by phenomenology and critical theory. These resurfaced in the 1960s with a new round of the late nineteenth-century “positivism debate” (Positivismusstreit) between Jürgen Habermas and Karl Popper, as well as in the controversies surrounding Louis Althusser’s intervention “for Marx,” which resurrected Comtean themes ANDREW WERNICK in a Marxist form. post-Fordism This is an ambiguous term that describes a relatively durable form of economic organization that happens to follow Fordism and/or resolves the crisis tendencies of Fordism. A basic problem is that this concept lacks any positive content – its chronological prefix indicates only that it comes after Fordism. This is why some theorists propose post-Fordism substantive alternatives such as Toyotism, Fujitsuism, Sonyism, and Gatesism or, again, informational capitalism, the knowledge-based economy, and the network economy. However, to understand the rationale behind such terms, we must first consider Fordism and its crisis tendencies. Fordism is widely used to describe the system of mass production pioneered in the early twentieth century by the Ford Motor Company and/or the typical postwar mode of growth in North America and western Europe. In the latter respect, Fordism has been analyzed, often without adequate distinction, in terms of four dimensions. First, the Fordist industrial paradigm involves mass production of standardized goods on a moving assembly line using dedicated machinery and semi-skilled labor. Second, as a national accumulation regime, it involves a virtuous cycle of mass production and mass consumption. Third, in line with regulation theory, it has been analyzed as a mode of regulation with five dimensions: (a) an institutionalized compromise between organized labor and big business such that workers accept capital’s right to manage in return for wages indexed to productivity and inflation; (b) monopolistic competition between large firms based on cost-plus pricing and advertising; (c) centralized financial capital, deficit finance, and credit-based mass consumption; (d) state intervention to secure full employment and enable all citizens to share in mass consumption; and (e) the embedding of national economies in a liberal international economic order. Fourth, as a form of social life, it involves a mass society with mass consumption, mass media, mass transport, mass politics, and so on. Despite (or perhaps because of) its wide use, the notion of “Fordism” is contested. Key disputes concern: (1) the extent and significance of mass production for postwar advanced capitalist economies; (2) whether economies as varied as the United States, Germany, Denmark, Italy, or Britain can all be usefully described as Fordist; (3) the extent to which the social and political contexts in which mass production and mass consumption developed were similar, and, in turn, how far the growth of mass production and mass consumption was shaped by these contexts; and (4) whether social phenomena such as McDonaldization derive from the Fordism industrial paradigm or from broader social processes. The Fordist accumulation regime and mode of regulation allegedly became dominant in advanced capitalism during postwar reconstruction and then facilitated the long postwar boom. During the 1970s, however, crisis tendencies post-Fordism started to show in each of its four dimensions. This is seen in the gradual exhaustion of the growth potential of mass production and an intensified working-class resistance to its alienating working conditions; an emerging market saturation for mass consumer durables; a declining profit rate combined with stagflation; a growing fiscal crisis and a declining state capacity for economic management due to internationalization; a popular rejection of standardized, bureaucratic treatment in the welfare state; and a weakened international order due to declining American economic dominance and political hegemony. These conditions promoted various economic and political actors to search for solutions to the crisis of Fordism, either by restoring its typical growth dynamics to produce a neo-Fordist regime and/or by developing a new accumulation regime and mode of regulation. Social scientists have adopted three main approaches to giving a positive content to such a new, hence post-Fordist, regime: (1) focus on the transformative role of new technologies and practices in regard to material and immaterial production – especially new information and communication technologies and their facilitation of a new, more flexible, networked global economy; (2) focus on the leading economic sectors that enable a transition from mass industrial production to postindustrial production; and (3) focus on how major crisis tendencies of Fordism are overcome through the consolidation of a new and stable series of economic and extra-economic regulatory fixes corresponding discursively and materially to new and profitable growth potentials. Even thirty years after the crisis of Fordism became apparent, debate continues over whether a stable post-Fordist order has yet been consolidated and, indeed, whether the stability of Fordism was an exceptional period in an otherwise typically disorderly and crisisprone pattern of capitalist development. Those who are committed to the assumptions of a stable post-Fordist order regard its key features as: (1) a flexible production process based on flexible machines or systems and an appropriately flexible workforce; (2) a stable mode of growth based on flexible production, growing productivity based on economies of scope, rising incomes for polyvalent skilled workers and the service class, increased demand for differentiated goods and services favored by the growing discretionary element in these incomes, increased profits based on technological rents and the full utilization of flexible capacity, reinvestment in more flexible production equipment and techniques and/or 451 postcolonial theory postcolonial theory new sets of products, and a further boost to economies of scope; (3) a post-Fordist wage relation based on polarization between multiskilled workers and the unskilled and a decline in national or industrial collective bargaining; (4) the rise of flexible, lean, and networked firms oriented to their distinctive core competences and strategic alliances; (5) the dominance of hypermobile, rootless private bank credit and forms of cybercash that circulate internationally, and the subordination of government finance to international money and currency markets; (6) a shift from the primacy of the postwar Keynesian national welfare state to a political regime concerned with international competitiveness and innovation, with promoting a flexible workforce and full employability rather than jobs for life, with coordinating economic and social policies on local, regional, national, and supranational scales, and with developing new forms of economic and social governance to compensate for state as well as market failure; and (7) the shift from international regimes that secured the conditions for the survival of national economies and sovereign states to supranational or even global regimes that address economic and political problems that transcend national boundaries. These supposedly generic features of postFordism are very unevenly developed and, where they exist, they assume quite different forms – neoliberal in some contexts, statist or social democratic in others. There is also continuing debate over the extent, significance, and durability of these features in the face of the continuing contradictions in global capitalism. Nonetheless, attempts to identify the positive content of postFordism have contributed to the emerging shape of an after-Fordist economic and political order. BOB JESSOP postcolonial theory This is a field of inquiry and collection of concepts aimed at illuminating, as well as criticizing, the cultural, intellectual, literary, and epistemological dominance of the modern West over countries previously colonized by western imperial powers. Postcolonial theory is not a theory in the tradition of positivism or realism but rather a range of premises, analytic approaches, and conceptual tools for understanding the legacies of colonialism and imperialism in formerly colonized societies, with a primary focus upon cultural legacies. Postcolonial theory also carries an explicit political agenda. It examines the cultural bases and legacies of imperialism in order to identify 452 and support resistances to them. Its main contributions include: advancing colonialism and imperialism as categories of social analysis on a par with categories like social class, gender and race and ethnicity; identifying the cultural processes involved in colonialism and imperialism; and questioning the position that European knowledge and culture has normative supremacy. The origins of postcolonial theory are disputed, but three sources from the humanities are typically identified. One lies in Commonwealth literary studies, a field of study that began in the 1960s in former British colonies among literary critics seeking to contribute their voices to an academy seen as “Anglocentric.” Another source is Edward Said’s Orientalism (1978), which argued that imperialism had been facilitated by forms of knowledge and categorical binaries. A final source is the field of Subaltern Studies, advanced by historians of British colonialism in India seeking to uncover the voices and agency of peasant groups in the making of colonial history. Further proponents of postcolonial theory include literary critics: Homi Bhabha and Gayatri Spivak are among the most notable. Writers in the field of postcolonial theory have also sought to expand the base of its founders by turning to African intellectuals like Franz Fanon, Ainé Césaire (1913– ), and Albert Memmi (1920– ). Given these diverse origins and developments, postcolonial theory does not offer a unified theory or a single methodology. There are, however, at least two key theoretical claims upon which its key concepts and lines of inquiry are based. The first is that imperialism did not only involve the use of coercion or economic domination but also discourse and associated forms of knowledge and representation. Said’s Orientalism is seen as the foremost innovator of this thesis. Said argued that British imperialism in the Middle East was enabled by a “style of thought,” field of academic study, or “discursive formation” called “Orientalism.” Orientalism constructed a fundamental “ontological and epistemological distinction . . . between ‘the Orient’ and ‘the Occident’” or “the West” and “the East,” akin to the socialpsychological distinction between self and other. It likewise portrayed westerners as “rational, peaceful, liberal, [and] logical” while portraying Orientals as uncivilized, irrational, inferior, and lacking and therefore in need of control by the West (1978: 2). According to Said, Orientalism was critical for imperialism and colonialism because it enabled the West “to manage . . . the Orient politically, sociologically, militarily, ideologically, postcolonial theory scientifically, and imaginatively” (1978: 3). Said therefore identified a cultural or epistemological dimension to imperial domination that worked in conjunction with other dimensions of power. One of his targets was Marxism, which was seen as either overlooking the importance of Orientalism in facilitating imperialism or reducing it to mere ideology. Said instead drew upon Michel Foucault’s theory of power and knowledge to argue that Orientalism did not reflect the economic bases of imperialism but was productive of imperialism itself. Orientalism allowed for a “flexible positional superiority, which puts the westerner in a whole series of possible relationships with the Orient without ever losing him the relative upper hand” (1978: 6–7). The other key claim of postcolonial theory is that decolonization did not bring the dissolution of political, social, and economic inequalities between former imperial powers and previously colonized societies. Postcolonial theory insists that those inequalities have continued through the postindependence period. World-systems and dependency theories make a similar argument, but the contribution of postcolonial theory is to suggest that persistent inequalities are related to the epistemological and cultural legacies of colonialism. The dominating discourses and knowledges that facilitated imperialism persist into the postindependence period, contributing to a form of cultural hegemony and rendering postcolonial peoples without the cultural tools or critical consciousness to challenge western dominance. The persistence of colonialism’s effects is important for postcolonial theory because it underlies one of its key suggestions: that the former colonial status of societies could be seen as a category of social analysis alongside race, class, and gender. It also led postcolonial theorists to employ the term “postcolonial” rather than “post-colonial.” The latter hyphenated term posits the end of colonialism, but the unhyphenated term is meant to signify the continuation of colonialism’s effects despite formal decolonization. The main lines of research and thinking in postcolonial theory have been guided by these two main insights. The idea that colonialism and imperialism were facilitated by knowledge and discourse set the basis for colonial discourse analysis, which seeks to examine colonial forms of representation and their relationship to power. Literary critics, for example, examine novels and other forms of popular representation for the ways in which they portray colonized peoples. Historians working from a postcolonial perspective extend postcolonial theory Said’s analysis by arguing that the idea of “history” itself, like Orientalism, has served to portray postcolonial societies and peoples as inferior and lacking. Western historical knowledge is rooted in a Hegelian logic that encourages further binary distinctions between the Occident and the Orient while privileging the former as the agent of history. Other postcolonial theorists have stressed the incoherence of colonial discourse and representations. These theorists accuse Said of portraying Oriental discourse as uniform and monolithic and argue that colonial discourse was fractured and incomplete. H. Bhabha drew from poststructuralism and deconstruction to argue that colonial stereotypes were contradictory and “ambivalent” or “undecided”: they offered images of the colonized that were presumably fixed and natural but the images themselves were shifting and at times contradictory. The colonial subject is portrayed as “savage (cannibal) and yet the most obedient and signified of servants (the bearer of food); he is the embodiment of rampant sexuality and yet innocent as a child; he is mystical, primitive, simple-minded and yet the most worldly and accomplished liar” (Location of Culture, 1994: 82). The premise that the cultural effects of colonialism persist through the postindependence period also guides postcolonial studies. Some postcolonial theorists turned to the work of Fanon and Memmi as a new source of inspiration. Fanon and Memmi argued that colonialism had psychological effects that were detrimental to colonized peoples and which continued even after decolonization, and so postcolonial theorists extend this theme in various ways. A. Nandy’s The Intimate Enemy (1983) argued that the superiority of the West portrayed in Orientalism became deeply rooted in the psyche of the colonized. While Fanon argued racial hierarchies were internalized, Nandy argued that geographical and civilization hierarchies were also internalized. Nandy also took up Memmi’s idea that the psychological effects of colonialism extended to colonizer and colonized alike. Postcolonial theory’s key insights have also guided its explicit political project. If imperialism was supported by discourse, forms of representation, and knowledge, and if its cultural legacies persist through the postcolonial period, postcolonial theory aims to construct an alternative basis of knowledge that might challenge or resist those effects. In Orientalism, Said raised one of the key questions to which postcolonial theory has tried to respond: “How can we know and respect the other?” To meet the challenge, literary critics who 453 postcommunist societies work with postcolonial theory look for ways in which literary representation might subvert Eurocentrism. Historians advancing postcolonial theory aim to write historical narratives that highlight the experiences, agency, and voice of colonized subjects so as to question in turn the authority of European experiences and perceptions. Here postcolonial theory can be seen as having an affinity with postmodernism in that it questions rather than presumes linear narratives of historical progress and development. Yet its distinct contribution is to stress that those narratives have helped to subjugate colonized peoples in particular. The key dilemma for postcolonial theory, as G. Spivak pointed out, is to produce alternative knowledges without reproducing the forms they aim to resist. How can one write a history of colonialism and postcolonialism while “history” itself is a form of knowledge that facilitates imperialism? To meet this challenge, some have turned to deconstruction. Postcolonial theory cannot cast off western knowledges and so the best it can do is show that those knowledges are incomplete and fractured. Bhabha expanded his analysis of colonial discourse to introduce the idea of hybridity as a potentially resistant form. As colonial discourse was fractured and ambivalent, colonized subjects were able to appropriate it and use it in ways that challenged its authority. The task of postcolonial theory is to examine these instances. Others, employing the genealogical method of analysis proposed by Foucault, suggest that proper postcolonial histories should offer narratives that “provincialize” Europe, that is, treat European dominance as a contingent or accidental rather than a necessary or linear outcome, thereby challenging the West’s representation of itself. Marxist critics, however, suggest these methods run into difficulties because they lead to a selfreferential textualism that ignores the material bases of domination. These debates with Marxism constitute one of the main turning points for postcolonial theory in establishing its research agenda and orientation. JULIAN GO postcommunist societies This concept refers to the countries of eastern Europe and the republics of the former Soviet Union which, during the anticommunist revolutions of 1989–91, gained full sovereignty and autonomy, and introduced comprehensive regime change towards western models of political democracy, market economy, and open, pluralistic culture. They include two groups of countries. 454 postcommunist societies First, those which fell under the political, economic, and ideological domination of the USSR after World War II as the result of the Yalta and Potsdam agreements among the Allied powers: Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, the German Democratic Republic (central–eastern Europe), Albania, Bulgaria, Romania, and Yugoslavia (Balkan states). Their number has grown in the 1990s owing to the separation of the Czech Republic and Slovakia, as well as the breakdown of Yugoslavia in the wake of Balkan wars into Slovenia, Croatia, Macedonia, and Bosnia-Herzegovina, only Serbia and Montenegro retaining the label of the Yugoslav Republic. The second group consists of the fifteen successor states to Soviet republics: the Russian Federation, plus Ukraine, Belarus, and other members of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), with Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia (the Baltic states) remaining outside the CIS. After World War II all these countries became part of the Soviet Empire, and were ruled or dominated by the largest and most powerful country of the region. The republics of the Soviet Union constituted an internal empire, over which Russia exercised direct rule, whereas the countries of eastern Europe constituted an external empire, whose countries had limited sovereignty and imposed regimes patterned on that of the Soviet Union (they were satellite countries). The chief commonalities of these regimes were the oneparty state and monocentric authority in the area of politics, and central planning and state ownership in the area of the economy. These features were combined with a controlled official culture (marked by extensive censorship), and the suppression and limitation of civil society. Apart from these principal similarities, there was great diversity in their concrete implementation. In the Soviet Union itself there were temporal differences in the repressiveness of the regime, ranging from the dictatorial Stalinist period on one hand, to a relatively liberalized system under Mikhail Gorbachev (1931– ). Among “satellite” countries Yugoslavia under Tito (Joseph Broz) (1892–1980) was the first to obtain political sovereignty, and approximate a market economy, but it retained strong ideological control. From the middle 1950s Poland under Wladyslaw Gomulka (1905–82) and Hungary under Janos Kadar (1912–89) became exceptional in allowing the rudiments of an economic market and entrepreneurship, as well as some liberalization of politics, for example the unique phenomenon of the Polish Catholic Church possessing considerable autonomy, or postcommunist societies the emergence of organized democratic opposition in Poland and Czechoslovakia as early as the 1970s. Romania under Nicolae Ceaucescu (1918–89) was able to conduct relatively independent foreign policy, otherwise sticking to communist orthodoxy. At the other extreme, tight political and ideological control and direct Soviet influence were characteristic of the GDR (East Germany – the frontier country against the West), Albania, Bulgaria, and – after 1968 – Czechoslovakia. The breakdown of the communist empire started from eastern Europe, with the revolutions of 1989 typically originating from below and mobilizing pro-democratic and opposition movements (Poland’s Solidarity movement being the biggest and most powerful). The concrete processes of extrication from the communist regime differed markedly: for example in Poland and Hungary it was by means of round-table talks and the peaceful, gradual exit from power by communist elites; in Czechoslovakia, by means of a bloodless “velvet revolution” in the streets; in Romania, by means of the bloody uprising against the communist dictatorship; in the GDR by direct incorporation into the political and economic system of West Germany, through the process of unification. The disbanding of the Soviet Union itself followed soon after, in 1991, as the result of a process initiated from above, by Gorbachev’s reforms of glasnost and perestroika, and carried further in the direction of democracy and capitalism under the leadership of President Boris Yeltsin (1931– ). Calling the societies which emerged in these processes “postcommunist” draws attention to their continuing dependence on the communist past and their incomplete reshaping into the western model. The legacies of Communism are to be felt in four areas. In the political domain, there are deficiencies in the operation of the democratic system, which are most pronounced in the countries devoid of earlier democratic traditions (for example in Russia, some post-Soviet republics, Bulgaria, and Albania), and relatively smaller in the countries which had experienced periods of democratic rule in their earlier history (for instance Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic). But everywhere one observes: incompetent, illprepared, often corrupt, and nepotistic political elites, chaotic and amorphous party systems, lack of an independent apolitical civil service, weak rule of law, continued influence of former communists able to convert their earlier political capital into personal enrichment (“new nomenklatura” or “oligarchs”). In the economic domain the consolidation of the market has been favored postcommunist societies by the existence of earlier capitalist traditions (as present, for example, in the Czech Republic), as well as where the initial economic reform was of the radical, “shock therapy” variety, while gradual or evolutionary steps have proven less effective. But everywhere it was slowed down by the continuing presence of inefficient large state sectors, resistance to privatization, an overgrown agricultural sector, as well as unresolved issues of restitution of private property nationalized under the communist regime. In the cultural area, the readiness to embrace the western way of life depends on the strength of earlier pro-western orientations (higher, for example, in the countries existing formerly in the orbit of the Habsburg Empire, with a dominant Catholicism, than in those which were in the orbit of the Ottoman Empire and the Orthodox Church). But everywhere there are mental and value deficiencies covered by the concept of civilizational incompetence: in particular, attitudes not adapted to the new conditions of democracy and capitalism, such as collectivism, egalitarianism, avoidance of responsibility, aversion to risk, claims to social security and welfare directed towards the state, system-blame for personal failures, and indifference to the public good. In the area of civil society, its suppression under Communism, and the flight of citizens to the private sphere of the family, friends, and “connections,” results in the persistent opposition between “us” and “them” and a reluctance to engage in public participation and in voluntary associational activism. Nevertheless the process of development and consolidation of democracy, capitalism, and free culture proceeds consistently, and has already led to the rebuilding of key institutional structures, to new cultural and mental orientations and to changes in the everyday life of postcommunist societies. A significant role has been played in this process of shedding of the legacies of the communist past by the incorporation of leading countries of the region into supranational economic and political organizations of the western world: the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the World Bank, and most significantly NATO (with Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic joining first, in 1999, and Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia invited in 2004), and the European Union (with the accession of Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia in 2004). In sociology the complex social changes occurring in postcommunist societies have become the 455 posthistoire postfeminism subject of various theoretical accounts. They describe the process under the headings of transition, transformation, modernization, and traumatic sequence. The idea of transition assumes that we witness the simple replacement of one regime by another, and that by imitating western institutions the postcommunist societies will quickly reshape themselves in the likeness of leading societies of the West (namely the United States and western Europe, and westernized countries such as Japan, and so forth). The idea of transformation sees the process as a more complex, path-dependent, and open-ended construction of a new form of society, partly patterned on the West, but also revealing specific historical experiences within the region. The idea of modernization focuses on the continuation and extension of the incomplete, “fake modernization” under Communism – limited to industrialization, urbanization, and educational emancipation – into the political and cultural domain, as well as on the reemergence of civil society. The idea of traumatic sequence emphasizes the negative, unintended side-effects of the process: a certain disorientation and anomie in the domain of values, adverse effects of reforms (for example unemployment, raised levels of crime, and impoverishment of considerable segments of the population), and the resulting post-traumatic moods of the people (distrust, apathy, and nostalgia for the past). The key process is conceived as a long-term effort to cope with such traumas, by mobilizing entrepreneurial energies, educational aspirations, and citizens’ activism. And the fulfillment of the ultimate promise of success is entrusted to the turnover of generations, where young people are already immune from communist legacies. PIOTR SZTOMPKA postfeminism This has two meanings. First, it is used as a comment on what some writers see as the disappearance of feminism in the West, and, second, it can be used as a description of societies that have changed various social practices as a result of what is known as the “second wave” of feminism in the 1970s. In the first case, the term postfeminism can be interpreted as a fervent hope by some critics of feminism that this social movement, which they find to be profoundly disturbing, has lost its impact and support and that feminism no longer exists as a viable movement. Right-wing critics of feminism have been quick to assume, report, and state the “death” of feminism while hailing a return to the halcyon days of 456 more traditional relationships of gender. The evidence of the demise of feminism is usually anecdotal information about women choosing to become full-time mothers; other arguments (for example, that the current arrangements of the labor market are rarely supportive of parents) are seldom part of the same discussion. Tabloid newspapers throughout the West have played a considerable part in the popularization of the idea that feminism is dead and that it was only ever a minority social movement, associated with lesbian sexuality. The second use of the term postfeminism recognizes the impact of feminism on the social world (for example, the calculation of unpaid work in the household as part of the Gross National Product, the greater equalization of the law in relation to women and men), but tacitly assumes that the work of feminism has been done. A “postfeminist” society is thus one that has put into place equal rights legislation, recognized disparities in social power between women and men, and questioned practices that were related to the social inferiority of women. For many feminists, the term postfeminism has been created out of the backlash against feminism from the political right and the rise, most significantly in the United States, of a religious right which has increasingly challenged the liberalization of laws relating to reproduction that were achieved by feminists in the 1970s. Postfeminism can thus be read as a construct of those social groups that were always opposed to feminism. MARY EVANS posthistoire A theorem associated with postmodernism and notions of the end of history, posthistoire refers to the analysis of the social beyond the horizon of the Enlightenment self-understanding of modernity. The term was first made popular by Lutz Niethammer in his Posthistoire Has History Come to an End? (1989 [trans. 1992]). Often interpreted as spelling the collapse of modernity, its analysis has played a central role in sociological debates about the exhaustion of ideas stemming from the European Enlightenment. Posthistoire has taken two key sociological forms. Arnold Gehlen argued that, in an age of intensive modernization, there is an uncoupling of rationality on the one side and the cultural self-understanding of modernity on the other. For Gehlen, posthistoire means the guiding assumptions of the Enlightenment are dead; only their consequences live on, and unpredictably so. From this perspective, processes of modernization have posthumanism postindustrial society become unhinged from any internal connection with the conceptual horizons of western rationalism in which the project of modernity was founded. The idea of posthistoire also arises in sociology as a result of the postmodern turn, but in this reading it is both society and culture that are deconstructed. In postmodern sociology, the end of cultural modernity spells a similar eclipse of advanced modernization. In posthistoire, society is directionless, producing itself only in the fleeting transparency of pluralistic discourses. ANTHONY ELLIOTT posthumanism Associated with postmodernism and poststructuralism, posthumanism is a form of postmodern philosophy predicated on the notion that the human species is self-limiting. Posthumanists seek to promote a radical political agenda, pushing beyond the ideas and images from the European Enlightenment on the “natural” constraints of the body and towards alternative utopias promoting artificial intelligence, nanotechnology, cyber technologies, and biomachines. In this sociology beyond humanism, in which society is said to have entered a post-Darwinian era, the political aim is to eradicate distinctions between humans and machines. The historical emergence of posthumanism is closely connected with the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900) and his unearthing of an imminent process of continual self-overcoming, such that an erasure of the “subject of man” was the theoretical premise from which the Overman (Ubermensch) might be conceptualized. Yet whereas Nietzsche’s analysis of evolution – human and nonhuman – was concerned with the spontaneous growth of productive desire, posthumanists focus on the mutations of machine intensities, biomachine becomings, bodily transpositions. Specifically in terms of sociological analysis, there is an emphasis on radicalizing human forms through the use of technological and other means. Developments in artificial life, particularly neural networks and biomorphs, promise a nonlinear conceptualization of evolutionary life; so, too, computer models and digital technologies offer a revaluation of the fundamental sociological concepts through which self-organization and sociality are constituted. These arguments advanced by posthumanists suggest that sociology needs to embrace interdisciplinarity in order to engage critically the dynamism of configurations of nature, sociality, and technology. In Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature (1991), Donna J. Haraway noted that human and nonhuman “actants” are mixed in “material–semiotic entities”; these are biotech knowledge objects, such as the database, the chip, the neural net, the ecosystem. Haraway suggests that, from this perspective, complex socialities can be analyzed otherwise, from the micro-physical to the macro-physical. A persistent theme in posthumanism is that social memories and socialities are multiple. Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari argue in A Thousand Plateaus (1980 [trans. 1987]) in favor of molecular memories, of open, complex systems, where mutant “lines of flight” initiate forms of becoming that call into play novel forms of communication between heterogeneous phenomena. Refiguring established epistemologies and ontologies in terms of the posthuman, some argue – like Hans Moravec in Robot. Mere Machine to Transcendent Mind (1998) – that biotechnologies can expand human horizons indefinitely, refiguring our understanding of speed, vision, strength, and intelligence. However, there are other posthumanists who caution against the more extreme flights of utopian vision concerning the transhuman condition. Keith Ansell Pearson argues in Viroid Life (1997) against the biotechnological vitalism of cybergurus. While the posthuman condition involves sociology in thinking beyond the “beyond,” as Pearson argues, the intellectual task concerns, above all, mapping creative intelligences and productive becomings. ANTHONY ELLIOTT postindustrial society This argument is that, following a period of almost two centuries of industrialization, some societies of the advanced industrial world have undergone further changes which require that we now speak of “postindustrial societies.” The most important exponent of this view is the American sociologist Daniel Bell, though it has also been echoed by several European sociologists such as Alain Touraine. According to these thinkers, postindustrial societies are characterized by the following features: economically, a move from a goods-producing to a service economy; occupationally, the decline of the manual working class and the rise of a professional, managerial, and technical class; culturally, the growing importance of universities and other research institutions, to some extent replacing the business enterprise as the source of innovation and growth; in politics and decision- making, the creation of a 457 postindustrial society new “intellectual technology” involving computer-simulations, game theory, scientific forecasting, and other types of theoretical systems that increasingly displace the deliberations of “amateur” politicians. Overarching all this, what Bells calls the “axial principle” of the new society, is “the centrality of theoretical knowledge” as the source of innovation and policy formation for society as a whole. In later writings, moved by the rapid developments in computers and communications technology, and the links between them, Bell has increasingly come to see postindustrial societies as information societies. Others, such as Peter Drucker (1909–2005), for similar reasons have spoken of “the knowledge society,” for example in his Post-capitalist Society (1993), while Zbigniew Brzezinski (1929– ) writes of “the technetronic society” in his Between Two Ages (1970). In all these accounts, central features are the emergence of a new type of worker, the “knowledge worker,” the significance to the economy and society as a whole of the new information technology, and the increasing proportion of Gross National Product that is devoted to research and development. The United States, western Europe, and Japan are the countries that by common consent have advanced farthest in the direction of postindustrialism. But east European theorists, putting a Marxist slant on it, have also hailed the advent of the “scientific–technological revolution” in their region, incorporating many of the central changes identified by Bell and others. It is seen as heralding a new mode of production in industrial societies, whether socialist or capitalist. Certainly there is no doubt that the majority of workers – somewhere between two-thirds and three-quarters in most cases – in all industrial societies are now service workers; nor that between 30 and 50 percent of the tertiary education age cohort now goes on to some form of higher education. At this most basic level no-one can deny that there have been fundamental changes in industrial society, leading, for instance, to a significant decline in the power of trade unions and forcing traditional socialist parties to modify their programs away from an exclusive focus on the proletariat. Many of these changes have been discussed under the heading of embourgeoisement. The question is whether these changes add up, as Bell and others claim, to a new principle of society. Here there can be serious doubts. The driving forces of the postindustrial society appear to be much as they were in industrial society: capital accumulation, technical innovation, and rationalization. Neither Karl Marx nor Max Weber 458 postmodern theory would have been much surprised at the new developments, which were indeed implicit in their KRISHAN KUMAR theories of industrial society. postmodern theory As the very prefix post- indicates, postmodern theory reflects uncertainty as to the direction of change and critical skepticism about the grand narratives of modernization, including ideological constructs of socialism, liberalism, conservatism, and welfarism. The term refers both to a postmodern theorizing, that is a specific form of analysis and explanation of contemporary society, and to the theoretical accounts of postmodern understood as either a new socio-cultural configuration (postmodernity) or a new trend in social change (postmodernization). The former usage (postmodern theorizing) has been associated with such thinkers as Michel Foucault and Jean-François Lyotard who analyze the discursive and narrative foundations of knowledge (language games). This predisposes them towards cultural criticism and philosophical reflections that engender postmodern sensitivity to language–power relations. The latter usage (theory of postmodernity or postmodernization) is associated with writings of such thinkers as Fredric Jameson, Zygmunt Bauman, and David Harvey, who analyze postmodernism as a new configuration, and Jean Baudrillard, Stephen Crook, Jan Pakulski, and Malcolm Waters in Postmodernization (1992), who study postmodernization as an ongoing process and directional trend. Postmodernism typically refers to changes in cultural representations, mentalities, feelings, and lived experience. While the idea of postmodernism has been gaining currency since the 1970s in relation to the visual arts and architecture, its origins reach back to the second decade of the twentieth century, when radical artistic avantgarde movements, such as Dada, attempted to link art back to life through the use of images drawn from popular culture and found objects, such as the hatstands of Marcel Duchamp (1887– 1968). It has been argued that this makes Dada an early forerunner of postmodernism. However, the Dada avant-gardism is usually seen as a failure in the sense of its confinement to the isolated modernist establishment. By the 1950s, modernist art started to lose its isolation and radical edge, becoming sanitized, popularized, commercialized, and internationalized – a step in a postmodern direction. The Pop Art of the 1960s has also been seen as a forerunner of postmodernism. Pop used images from popular culture, hyperrealism, postmodern theory collages, jokes, and parodies (for example Soft Toilet). Recent decades have seen a bewildering variety of postmodern styles: a resurgence of figurative work, realism and hyperrealism, historicism, and a deliberate superficiality that rejects the psychological depth of modernism. Postmodern architecture, like postmodern art, rejects the elitist and avant-garde orientation of modernism. It is programmatically popular, immediately attractive to the eye, diverse, and eclectic. The term has been applied to decorative designs, neo-classicism, neo-vernacular, parody, and pastiche. These styles are united in their double coding of modernist techniques and materials, and contain stylistic references to something else. In one view, postmodernist architecture and art are welcomed as popular, accessible, and playful. In another view, they are deplored because they become the decorative façade of contemporary niche-marketed consumerism. While there seems to be a consensus on what constitutes postmodernism in art, there is no agreement about contemporary notions of social postmodernity. Some (like Mike Featherstone) contrast the postmodern epoch with the modern era; postmodernity implies a break with and shift away from the organizing principles of modern society. Others such as Jameson in Postmodernism or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism (1991) see it as a continuation of modern trends; postmodernism constitutes just the cultural reflection of modern capitalism, an expression of American domination, and a lifestyle of the “yuppies.” Jean Baudrillard, in turn, sees social postmodernity as a correlate of expanding mass media and communications and mass consumption, and as a new era brought by the proliferation of mediated communication, symbolic consumption, and the compression of time and space. This results in a proliferation of self-referential signs, intensified consumption of signs (for example brands), and the emergence of social order based on symbolic consumption. There are differences in the view of how widespread the postmodern features are and how advanced the postmodern trends are. Bauman and Jameson see the advanced societies as already postmodern. By contrast, Crook and his colleagues analyze postmodernization as an ongoing – and by no means even or complete – social process. Postmodern trends include social fragmentation, differentiation, and the increasingly ephemeral nature of social formations; flexible specialization; progressing cultural pluralism, depthlessness, commercialization, and populism; widening postmodernism eclecticism and syncretism of styles; and generational libertarian shifts in values and sensitivities. Critical culturalists, such as Ronald Inglehart, focus on changes in values and the rise of diverse identity politics. Others, like Lyotard and Baudrillard, highlight the decline of ideological meta-narratives and the return to the local and vernacular, and the ascendancy of autonomous but empty symbols or simulacra. For Baudrillard, the world is saturated by sounds and images from mass media, eroding the distinction between representation and (social) reality and producing the “end of the social.” Postmodernization typically means the processes that accelerate and reverse modern trends. One can see the accounts of postmodernization as ranging from less radical, pointing to some continuities, to more radical, suggesting discontinuities. Jameson and Harvey, for example, analyze postmodernization as involving continuities: a gradual commodification of culture, collapse of styles and high/low cultural tastes, populism of standards, fragmentation of social classes, and political realignments as reflected in the proliferation of ephemeral movements. Crook, Pakulski, and Waters (1992) see postmodern trends in the “reversal through acceleration” of the key processes of modernization: commodification to hypercommodification, social differentiation to hyper-differentiation, and rationalization to hyper-rationalization. They identify postmodern trends in the domains of culture and identity, the role of the state, politics, work and production, and weakening class relations. Hypercommodification extends market relations to formerly non-commodified regions (for example intellectual property, and televangelism). Hyperdifferentiation breaks up institutions into fragments that combine in an unpredictable manner (for instance syncretic lifestyles, multimedia, transdisciplinary science). Hyperrationalization splits off inaccessible “expert cultures,” produces “irrational” social responses and pluralizes rationalities (for example fundamentalism and new age cults). On this view, postmodernization involves also the blurring of the boundaries between social, cultural, and political domains. For Crook and his colleagues this means that flows of social action (as in new social movements) are no longer contained in social institutions. JAN PAKULSKI postmodernism Associated with postindustrial society and poststructuralism, postmodernism arises as a consequence of advanced modernization, in particular 459 postmodernism the fragmentation of the West’s institutionalization of unilinear history and systems of meaning. A conception of history as having a single direction, the endeavor to develop a rational program of collective emancipation, the grounding of all human experience and representation in reason: these are some of the key criteria of modernity. Yet in our own time, paradoxically, it is precisely such modernist aims for self-mastery and control that fall victim to the very social processes they seek to colonize. Recent decades have powerfully shown that the ethos of modernity has come to haunt us. Global risks, threats, and pandemics, from AIDS to terrorism, have served to highlight the gross limitations of modernist perspectives, generating in turn the emergence of new social and political agendas. Postmodernism confounds identity, theory, and politics in a scandalous way, with its leveling of hierarchies, its dislocating subversion of ideological closure, its interpretative polyvalence and its self-reflexive pluralism. In this sense, postmodernism refers to certain currents of cultural and critical discourse which seek to deconstruct the ideological affinities of totalizing thought, the operations of power, the legitimating functions of knowledge and truth, and the discursive practices of self-constitution. A growing appreciation of the limits of rationality, various postmodernists have argued, has led to the abandonment of the epistemological illusions of emancipatory declarations made in the name of freedom, truth, equality, liberty, and so on. As the pioneering postmodern analyst JeanFrançois Lyotard put this in The Postmodern Condition (1979 [trans. 1984]), postmodernism is defined as an “incredulity toward metanarratives.” The grand narratives that unified and structured western science and philosophy, grounding truth and meaning in the presumption of a universal subject and a predetermined goal of emancipation, no longer appear convincing or even plausible. Instead, in the anti-totalizing, postmodern perspective, knowledge is constructed, not discovered; it is contextual, not foundational. Social transformations are understood to be of central importance in this erosion of the grand narratives of the modern era. Globalization and especially the proliferation of new information technologies introduce a qualitative transformation in the experience of space and time, the result of which is a dramatic acceleration in the turmoil and flux of personal and cultural life. The overall effect, as Jean Baudrillard argues, is an implosion of all boundaries, an erasure of the 460 postmodernity distinctions of high and low culture, of appearance and reality, of past and present. Postmodernity is thus inherently decentered and dispersed: everything is of the same value, which means that nothing much counts in terms of meaning, distinction, hierarchy. There are two major criticisms of postmodernism, one sympathetic, one critical. The sympathetic argument is that sociology should remain critical of the postmodern turn by attempting to develop a sociology of postmodernism, rather than succumbing to a postmodern sociology. This case has been vigorously argued by Zygmunt Bauman. The second response within sociology has been to reject the view that postmodernism spells the end of modernity. ANTHONY ELLIOTT postmodernity The idea of postmodernity has until recently been the focus of a contested debate amongst intellectuals. Those seeking to defend the concept (it has many detractors) use it as a way to imply a change in modern social conditions and a new way of relating to modernity. The changes in modern social conditions usually include the development of new technologies, the decline in the power of tradition, the erosion of a strong version of secularism, globalization, the role of culture and communications, and the emergence of ecological issues and of other world regions challenging Euro-American modernities. New ways of relating to modern times have led to an enhanced questioning of ideas of progress and a reflection upon the limits of reason. These arguments and others have begun to emerge in a political and intellectual context that has begun to debate the limits of specifically western modernity. A growing realization that there are other non-western civilizations and the idea that Euro-American forms of development have a number of negative side-effects, making them unsuitable for universal application, have aided thinking on these questions. In addition, the cultural turn in sociology has led to an increasing recognition of both the complexity and cultural plurality of modern societies. Zygmunt Bauman has arguably gone the farthest in pressing the claim that the condition of postmodernity is more than just changing social conditions. Postmodernity articulates a particular crisis for intellectuals who have suffered a period of relative displacement. First, intellectuals are unable to offer authoritative solutions to questions of truth, the normative claims of justice, and taste. Their position of poststructuralism influence in modern society then can be said to be in decline. In this respect, Bauman suggests that they become interpreters of knowledge rather than legislators of new social systems. Second, the recognition of the inevitably pluralistic features of modern life disrupts universal claims and introduces questions of relativism into the production of knowledge. Finally, modern social conditions have also changed, introducing the development of a society based upon consumption rather than production. This means that the system now requires the pleasurable consumption of commodities rather than the deferral of gratification and thrift. Political domination is no longer achieved through the legitimation of social values as much as through a combination of seduction and repression. The requirement that we recall our unconditional responsibility towards the other without trying to reinvent the existential security of rules and expert systems takes us to the heart of postmodernity. In this respect, processes of globalization and individualization offer new opportunities for responsible political engagement beyond the now permeable walls of the nation-state. Many intellectuals have sharply disagreed with these and similar ideas. They have suggested that ideas of postmodernity signify not so much a new social order, but a form of intellectual defeatism. The failure of intellectuals to offer up new blueprints for alternative social orders exhibits a lack of social responsibility. The global triumph of capitalism, new imperialist wars, the continuation of nationalist violence, and a planet that is being pushed beyond its ecological limits are reason enough to reject the label of postmodernism. Rejecting any notion of new times, many point to both the continuation of a largely capitalist-driven modernity and the need to develop solutions to social problems. NICK STEVENSON poststructuralism This is concerned with the relations between human beings, the world, and the process of making and reproducing meanings (see Catherine Belsey, Poststructuralism. A Very Short Introduction, 2002). There are at least two historical narratives which relate to this definition, offering different routes leading to the intellectual position which became dominant in France in the last quarter of the twentieth century and, by extension, globally significant through the translations into English of the work, in particular, of Louis Althusser, Roland Barthes, Jean Baudrillard, Pierre Bourdieu, Jacques Derrida (1930–2004), Michel Foucault, Julia poststructuralism Kristeva, and Jean-François Lyotard. One route tends to locate poststructuralism in the context of language and literature, whereas the other associates it with philosophy and the social sciences. The first account takes the work of Ferdinand de Saussure in linguistics as the main starting-point. In analyzing “signs,” Saussure distinguished between the “signifier,” which is the sound or appearance of words being deployed, and the “signified,” which is their meaning. Linguistic signs are arbitrary. Particular combinations of signifiers and signifieds are arbitrary entities. There is no natural correspondence between signifiers and what they signify (the signified). To analyze language, one has to analyze the relations between signs rather than the relation between those signs and any prior reality which they might be thought, fixedly, to represent. Language is not a nomenclature but a relational system of signs. But Saussure also distinguished between “langue” and “parole,” between the systemic structure of language and contingent speech-acts. It was his contention that the primary purpose of linguistic science was to understand the structure of the non-contingent system of non-referential signs. In this account of the origins of poststructuralism, the work of Barthes was critical in following Saussure’s notion of signification while rejecting his attempt to generate a universal analysis of signs. At the beginning of his S/Z (1970 [trans. 1975]), Barthes has commented that there are said to be Buddhists whose ascetic discipline enables them to perceive a whole landscape within a single bean. He asserted that the first analysts of narratives worked on this premise, attempting what is ultimately undesirable because the text as a result loses its distinctiveness and difference. Barthes’s science of signs, semiology, was poststructuralist in emphasizing “difference” rather than structural uniformity, but for a poststructuralist social scientist like Bourdieu, Barthes persisted in operating with the fundamentally structuralist assumption that an a-priori, systemic “langue” regulates speech practice. Bourdieu wanted to de-regulate “langue” as well as liberate signs from referential constraint. The second account of the development of poststructuralism incorporates the influence of Edmund Husserl’s phenomenology and the ontology of Martin Heidegger (1889–1976). These influences from philosophy pushed the social sciences towards a recognition of the primacy of agency, towards the recognition of difference at the level of signifying actions rather than at the level of objectivized 461 poverty signs. There is a close relationship between the development of poststructuralism and postmodernism. One could say provocatively that postmodernism exposed the extent to which poststructuralism remained parasitic on structuralist assumptions. DEREK ROBBINS poverty This concept describes an empirical reality, both globally and in individual societies, but the meaning of which is contested. What constitutes poverty depends on how it is defined and measured. The main debates around definition concern the role of material resources, in particular income, and whether poverty should be understood in absolute or relative terms. The nature of the debates differs according to context, in particular that of the global South or North. Disagreements about the role of income revolve around a number of issues. One concerns the relative importance of income versus living standards, which may also reflect factors such as access to services and quality of the local environment. Another raises wider questions about the significance of nonmaterial aspects of poverty that are often raised by people in poverty in both the North and the South. These include disrespectful treatment, loss of dignity, lack of voice, and of power. With regard to nonmaterial aspects, it is possible to resolve any disagreement by making a distinction between the (narrower) definition and (broader) conceptualization of poverty. The latter is better able to embrace the relational aspects of poverty while the former focuses on poverty as a material condition. The other key definitional debate has revolved around whether poverty should be understood in absolute or relative terms. Definitions deployed in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries by Charles Booth (1840–1916) and Seebohm Rowntree (1871–1954), the pioneers of modern poverty research, were supposedly absolute in the sense that poverty was said to be understood as lack of sufficient money to meet basic physical needs to subsist and survive. The alternative, relative definition was pioneered by Peter Townsend. In his major study Poverty in the United Kingdom (1979), he defined poverty in terms of exclusion from the living conditions, and inability to participate in the activities, taken for granted by the wider society because of lack of material resources. Central to his approach was the concept of relative deprivation, but understood as an objective condition rather than a subjective feeling as in W. G. Runciman’s formulation. 462 poverty In judging whether relative poverty exists, comparison is made with others living in the same society at the same point in history. This means that historical and global North/South comparisons are misplaced. Such a comparison also highlights any inequality of resources between groups in a society, although relative poverty and inequality are not synonymous. The latter does not necessarily imply the inability of some members to participate fully in society because of lack of material resources. A relative definition also involves a particular reading of human needs not merely as physical but as socially and culturally constituted. One implication of an understanding of even the most basic physiological needs as socially conditioned is that the conventional notion of absolute poverty falls apart. Indeed, contemporary scholarship questions the conventional wisdom that Rowntree promulgated a definition of poverty, in terms of subsistence, that was absolute. There have also been attempts to develop a framework that treats absolute and relative as complementary rather than competing formulations, which can be applied to both North and South. The first was by Amartya Sen (1933– ). He identified an absolutist core to poverty, the most obvious manifestation of which is starvation and malnutrition. He suggested that what one is able to do or be (capabilities) is a question of universal absolutes, whereas the goods (or commodities) needed to translate this ability into actual being or doing (functionings) takes us into the sphere of relativities because commodities vary according to cultural and historical context. A heated debate with Townsend ensued in the early 1980s, which was confused because of a failure to clarify different interpretations of absolute and relative. More recently, Townsend and colleagues have promulgated a two-part definition of poverty – absolute and overall – which emerged from the 1995 United Nations (UN) Copenhagen summit. This, it is argued, can be applied to both industrialized and poorer countries. The capabilities approach has been developed by Sen and Martha Nussbaum (1947– ) in numerous books and papers, most recently, Development as Freedom, 1999. Their approach has been particularly influential in development circles, providing the framework for the annual UN Development Program Human Development Report. The essence of Sen’s thesis is that what matters is not income or living standards as such but the kind of life that a person is able to lead (functionings) and the choices and opportunities open to people in poverty leading their lives (capabilities). Money, Sen argues, is just a means to an end and the goods and services (commodities) it buys are simply particular ways of achieving functionings. Thus, poverty should be defined in terms of failure to achieve minimally acceptable capabilities. In order to identify and count those defined as poor, measures are needed. These too generate controversy, involving choice of indicators and the standard, often called the poverty line, against which indicators are assessed. Questions include whether poverty should be measured in terms of income, living standards / consumption, or expenditure; increasingly the view is that a combination of approaches is needed to improve the accuracy of measures. Official measures tend to use income levels to establish a poverty line. Examples are 60 percent of median national income, as used within the European Union, and the World Bank’s (much-criticized) $1, $2, or $4 a day. In addition to headcount measures, poverty-gap measures have been devised to gauge the extent to which people fall below the poverty line, although these are used less frequently. A focus on the numbers below the poverty line or on the poverty gap can point to different policy priorities. This is one of the criticisms made by those who query the very construction of poverty lines. At the heart of such criticisms is the question as to whether there exists a clear threshold which neatly divides the poor from the nonpoor or whether the relationship between the two is better understood as a continuum, with gradations among both groups. The idea of a simple dichotomy between poor and nonpoor has also been questioned in the light of the growing use of longitudinal datasets to measure the dynamics of poverty. These show considerable movement in and out of poverty (although not usually very far), which is obscured by traditional snapshot measures. The length of time in poverty also affects the degree of deprivation of necessities experienced. An alternative approach to drawing a poverty line is based on estimates of the income levels at which people are unable to afford items specified as essentials by either experts or the population at large. Typically, budget standards are calculated, based on the cost of a basket of goods and services. In the United Kingdom, a number of poverty studies have used a list of necessities agreed by a survey of the general population. Yet another device is to ask a sample of the population directly a question aimed at gauging what they think the poverty line should be for their household. poverty Although poverty estimates generally refer to individuals, they are typically based on measures of combined household/family resources. This is problematic where resources are not shared fairly within households, as research indicates can be the case. The result can be hidden poverty experienced primarily by women. It is one example of the ways in which poverty is gendered, although this was largely ignored prior to the intervention of feminist scholars. Even on conventional measures, women are more likely than men to be in poverty. They also tend to take the main responsibility for managing poverty and often go without to protect other family members, especially children, from its full impact. The stress involved can damage both physical and mental health. Poverty is also racialized in terms of its incidence, racialized stereotyping, and the effects of discrimination and racism. This dimension is most marked in the United States where race and ethnicity and urban segregation figure prominently in the sociological poverty literature. Segregation is one aspect of the geography of poverty, which is a manifestation of wider spatial inequalities. Explanations of poverty can broadly be understood as behavioral or structural. Behavior-based explanations attribute poverty to the values, attitudes, and behavior of the poor. An example is Charles Murray’s writings on the underclass (including The Emerging British Underclass, 1990). In the United States, the earlier notion of a culture of poverty drew attention to the ways in which a subculture, marked by fatalism, an inability to defer gratification, and pathological behavior, was passed down through the generations. Although Oscar Lewis, who coined the term in the 1960s, emphasized that the culture of poverty represented an adaptation to rather than cause of poverty, it was used to argue with the latter meaning by others who blamed the poor for their poverty, as both supporters and critics of Lewis have observed. A related notion in the United Kingdom, in the 1970s, was that of the cycle of deprivation. In The Other America (1967), a pivotal intervention in the United States, Michael Harrington linked the culture of poverty to a structural analysis. Structural explanations of poverty focus on economic, social, and political structures and processes – from the global to the local/familial. Examples are unemployment, low pay, and women’s position in the family. Another perspective is institutional, which points to the failure of government policies. For example, the term poverty trap was coined in Britain to highlight the way in which means-tested benefits can trap the 463 poverty line working poor: the interaction of the withdrawal of means-tested supplements with taxation and insurance contributions meant that a pay rise could leave a low-paid worker worse off. Although the system has since been reformed to avoid this extreme situation, large numbers of lower-paid workers can still lose a significant proportion of a pay increase because of the poverty trap. An example of an explanation that combines the behavioral and institutional is that which locates the cause of poverty in a dependency culture said to be created by welfare benefits. Recently, some poverty analysts who subscribe to a structural explanation have married this approach with a sociological account of agency in order to understand better the ways in which people cope with poverty. One formulation, taken from the development literature, is of people deploying a range of resources (personal, social, cultural, and material) to compose their livelihoods. Structure and agency also combine in some sociological accounts of the concept of social exclusion, which emphasize the agency of the more powerful in excluding the less powerful. Labels such as “socially excluded,” “poor,” and “underclass” are examples of how the more powerful name those without power. They are not labels with which those experiencing poverty necessarily want to identify. Organizations of people in poverty are, however, developing alternative discourses that have also been promulgated by some more powerful bodies such as the United Nations. This is a discourse of human rights, citizenship, voice, and power. Two key principles underpin the conceptualization of poverty in terms of human rights and citizenship: recognition of the dignity of all humans and the interdependence of civil, political, social, and cultural rights. In addition, this perspective emphasizes participation in society and the polity and the right to be heard in decisionmaking. In both North and South, people in poverty identify lack of voice and associated powerlessness as critical to understanding their situation. Calls for their voices to be heard in policymaking and campaigning are becoming more emphatic. In the South and, to a lesser extent, the North, the case is being made for participatory research that involves people in poverty as experts in their own lives. The argument is that sociological accounts will provide a better understanding of poverty if they reflect the analyses of those with experience of poverty. RUTH LISTER poverty line – see poverty. 464 power poverty trap – see poverty. power In a discipline such as sociology, notorious for the difficulty it experiences in establishing widely and durably agreed definitions of its concepts, that of power (at any rate social power, which is our only concern here) stands out as one whose definition is particularly contentious and unstable. This in spite (or perhaps on account) of the fact that, however understood, this concept signals a particularly significant social phenomenon, arguably entitled to a central position in the discipline’s vocabulary and discourse. The most significant of the controversies taking place among sociologists and political scientists in the twentieth century around the concept-ofpower concern, expressly or otherwise, concerns the definition of power (Macht) offered at the beginning of the century by Max Weber. In Economy and Society (1922 [trans. 1968]), that definition characterizes power as “the chance of a man or a group of men to realize their own will in a communal action even against the resistance of others who are participating in the action.” In fact, some expressed or implied elements of this definition were not widely considered as controversial. In particular, it was generally agreed that one should think of (social) power not as a substance but as a relationship – a point implied in Weber’s reference to both parties’ “participation” in “communal action.” In other terms, power is not something to be held, so to speak, in one’s hand or pocket, but as something obtaining between two parties, such that A may hold it vis-à-vis B, but not vis-à-vis C. Weber’s expression “chance” entails two further plausible, closely related characteristics of power. First, power refers to a probability, not so to speak to a “dead cert,” to the complete assurance of a given party’s success. Second, power is always potential because it refers not so much to the doing of something (to the actual “production of effects,” proposed by others as an alternative definition of power) but to the capacity of doing something, of producing effects if and when one chooses. In other words, power does not need to be exercised (by overcoming opposition or otherwise) in order to exist. Paradoxically, the exercise of power may consume it and/or expose it, when actually brought to bear, to the risk of being found wanting, of failing to do its number as it were. Rather, power is at its most powerful when those power subject to it practice their subjection to it without its being actually exercised, when it operates through the power subjects’ memory of past exercises of it or their imagination of future ones, when it needs to be at most symbolically represented rather than actually put into action. (One may connect to this intuition a number of enlightening discourses by political scientists, historians, and sociologists, on the symbolism of power – and of related phenomena.) Other aspects of Weber’s definition became controversial in a wide ranging post-World War II discussion of the power concept, involving both political scientists – for instance Robert Dahl, Modern Political Analysis (1963) – and sociologists such as Steven Lukes in Power: A Radical View (1974) and Dennis Wrong in Power: Its Forms, Bases, and Uses (1979). In particular, Weber’s reference to the “will” of the party in power became an issue. It was questioned whether that reference implied intentionality. Does the existence of a power relationship depend on the powerful party’s awareness of its own preference for a given, existent, or future state of things and its conscious commitment to obtaining it? Does it depend on its ability to superimpose its own over the other party’s will? Is the overcoming or the potential overcoming of actual or virtual resistance an essential component of the relationship? What of situations where the asymmetry between the parties is so great that the inferior party is not even aware of having interests contrary to those of the superior party, but routinely cooperates in the attainment of the latter, or at any rate does not seek to hinder that attainment? Is not the superior party’s ability to keep certain present or future states of things from becoming an issue between itself and the other party – its ability to control the agenda, it was said – a particularly privileged condition? Some contributors to the debate, while assuming that Weber’s conceptual construct was essentially acceptable – whatever the qualifications and modifications to it suggested by the answers to some questions we have mentioned – labored to establish its boundaries by comparing and contrasting it with cognate concepts, such as authority (or domination), influence, force, or manipulation. In the second half of the twentieth century the concept of power, with reference to the Weberian definition or otherwise, was also the object of methodological arguments concerning the possibility of grounding it empirically. The discussion involved both sociologists and political scientists, especially those associated with the behaviorist approach, itself much inspired by sociology. It power often concerned, besides the power concept itself and its elaboration in the notion of “power structure,” the analysis of elites. Attempts to put such concepts to use in empirical research, through varying methodological approaches, were conducted both at the local level – for instance by Floyd Hunter, Community Power Structure: A Study of Decision Makers (1953), and Robert Dahl, Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an American City (1961) – and at the national level – for example by C. Wright Mills, The Power Elite (1956). This led to interesting developments, for instance the study of “interlocking directorates,” carried out with reference to numerous corporations or other economic units, such as banks and firms, or the study of decisionmaking within political bodies. Some scholars went further in the attempt to operationalize the power concept and indeed to measure various parameters of a power relationship. Some aspects of these are in principle amenable to quantitative assessment. For instance, over how many subjects can the holder of power exercise that power? Over how many aspects of their existence? How significant are those aspects? Also, assuming that power entails the ability to inflict negative sanctions on those subject to it, one can put those sanctions in some kind of ordinal sequence. The power over life and death which Roman law attributed to the paterfamilias can plausibly be assumed to stand at the high end of that sequence, although there are variations in the manner in which a subject can be put to death. This side of killing lies, for example, banishment from the polity, often accompanied by the confiscation of the patrimony of the banished. The sequence goes down to a rich variety of less and less blatantly damaging sanctions, such as the dismissal from employment of a worker, the blackballing of someone seeking admission to a club, or the exposure to gossip of a member of a social circle. But it is a demanding task to subsume this ordinal arrangement of sanctions into a more sophisticated metric, comprising other aspects of the power relations, and allowing their comparison – the comparison, say, between the threat of a lockout and the threat of a strike. In fact, some scholars adopting high standards of methodological rigor were led by the difficulty of measuring power to the conclusion that one might as well dispense with the concept itself! Fortunately, few scholars took that suggestion seriously. The rest continued, more or less explicitly and consistently, to abide by the notion that power was an indispensable concept, pointing to a most significant social experience or indeed a 465 power critical dimension, overt or covert, of all social structures. From the late 1950s through the mid 1970s, in the protracted sociological argument over a theoretical perspective focused on order versus one focused on conflict, the power concept was often invoked by students associated with the latter perspective. However, it could be employed also to challenge that alternative, arguing that order need not be grounded on normative consensus among all involved in systematic interaction, but rather on the pressure which one part of society, the powerful part, imposed upon the other, powerless part. Even those situations where significant structures were in fact underwritten by some kind of normative consensus valid across society could be interpreted as outcomes of particularly protracted, routinized, long-unchallenged power inequalities. Another advantage of the emphasis on these was that it gave some conceptual purchase even on social change, on situations where existent arrangements were called into question and order broke down. In its Weberian framework, the concept of power implied the possibility of resistance. It thus allowed that sometimes the power-less but resistant part of society could gain the upper hand and succeed in restructuring society to suit its own interests. Or, a group not favored by the existent power structure could challenge it by developing alternative power sources. Finally, even within a stable power structure, its very existence gave rise to contentions over the occupancy of the favored positions within it, and thus to further occasions for change. Arguments of this kind, as we have seen, often appealed to Weber’s intellectual authority. The debate became more intense, and more significant, when the central imagery of the Weberian construction was called into question. To simplify matters, an intrinsically tough-minded view of power was challenged by a tender-minded one. The Weberian imagery, we have suggested, emphasized the asymmetry between individuals or between groups acting in the presence of one another, and the advantages enjoyed by those located at the upper end of the asymmetry. It implied that, at any rate in a stable and consistent power relationship, whatever its sources and scope, all the power there was lay at that end – in other words, the relationship was a zero-sum one. Yet Weber himself had connected that relation with the involvement of both parties in “communal action.” Whether Weber meant this or not, this consideration suggested to some authors 466 power that one could view the power relation, in spite of its intrinsic asymmetry, as a functional feature of that communal action, a fixture, as it were, of a shared social space, rather than something appropriated by one party and by the same token denied the other party and used to keep it at bay. A given party’s power over the other could be viewed also as something both parties benefited from, as a component of their power to attain some shared end, as a collective facility. This bold reconceptualization of power was put forward in the late 1950s by Talcott Parsons, in a belated but impressive rebuttal of a criticism often made of his theories, to the effect that these ignored the phenomenon of power and the related reasons for conflict and change. It was taken further by Niklas Luhmann, who expressly reproached Parsons’s critics, and his own, for their bloody-minded insistence on the asymmetry of power, on the distribution of power within a group. The time had come to consider the extent to which the institutionalization of power relations empowered the group as a whole, made it more capable of pursuing collective goals. Power should be considered as a medium through which selections made in one part of society could be transmitted to others, and thus as analogous to money. In the same way that money allows and fosters the rationalization of economic activities in a society where it has been invented or adopted, the development within it of power relations could strongly assist a society’s pursuit of non-economic goals. The gain a group or society derives from being the locus of a power relationship deserves serious consideration, irrespective of the way in which or the extent to which such a relationship favors in the first instance one part of society over the others. It allows the society as a whole to respond more promptly and energetically to new opportunities and dangers in its environment, to promote and manage new modes of cooperation. It can be likened to a cybernetic device, monitoring the environment, collecting, storing, elaborating information, forming decisions which can be the more promptly, coherently and predictably implemented, to everybody’s advantage, the more they are backed by sanctions available in principle exclusively to one part of society – the superior part. Put otherwise, power does not empower only those who hold it. The fact that power can be, and, according to this argument, typically is, generated and accumulated on behalf of the whole society, although managed by one part of it, is suggested by one power significant aspect of political power, namely its tendency to seek legitimacy, that is to generate in those subject to power a disposition to obey, grounded on a sense of moral obligation. Yet, Parsons’s own strong emphasis on legitimacy (and the attendant processes of legitimation, and its variety), while in keeping with his own strongly normative (and Durkheim-inspired) conception of the social process at large, is only to a limited extent supported by Weber’s own discourse on power. Here, the ideal-typical discussion of the subjective processes presiding over the subjects’ obedience points also to other motivations to obey – a subject’s totally unreflected, automatic habit of submission, or a subject’s calculation of the advantages and disadvantages of obedience versus nonobedience and of the probability of the attendant application or non-application of sanctions. Obedience grounded on a sense of moral obligation comes in only as a third answer – though one on which Weber himself lays emphasis, by offering a particularly creative treatment of it. Weber in fact treats legitimacy itself as a significant but contingent qualification of a power relation previously established on strictly factual grounds, and which can if necessary reassert itself and maintain itself, at any rate in the short to medium term, even in the presence of a legitimation crisis. Furthermore, in the context of big-time politics – the context, that is, of international relations, where the competitive interactions between sovereign polities take place – there is not much place for legitimacy, which is instead a property, if of anything, of domestic political relations. In the international realm, instead, sheer, military might is necessarily the ultimate stake and medium of political action. Because legitimacy is irrelevant to such might, only its effectiveness counts. Furthermore, Weber was keenly aware that political power itself, that to which the notion of legitimacy could apply, as we have seen in the domestic context, was only one form of social power. Weber argued that social classes, status groups, and political parties are all phenomena of the distribution of power within a community. In Weber’s view, power exists between a community’s component groups if, and to the extent that, one of these secures exclusive or highly privileged access to and control over a critical social resource. This allows the group to lay enforceable boundaries on the activities of the other groups. The powerful group can induce the others to desist from opposing or hindering the pursuit of its own interests, or indeed direct them to commit power some of their own activities, willy-nilly, to that very pursuit. The power phenomenon, then, can be differentiated conceptually by considering the social resources a group must appropriate in order to gain this degree of control over others. In Marxian language, those resources are of three kinds: means of production (on which is based economic power, the main theme of the relations between classes); means of violence (these ground political power, and the possession and employment of them is contended over by parties – in a very broad meaning of this expression); and means of interpretation. This last concept needs some further elaboration, for it points to the elusive domain of the imaginary. Michael Mann, in The Sources of Social Power (1986), without using the expression “means of interpretation,” convincingly argues its significance on the basis of three “anthropological” considerations. Human beings need cognitive frameworks by means of which to experience and to handle reality; need normative frameworks to sustain and routinize their cooperative activities and to moderate and settle their contentions; and need ritual and aesthetic practices by means of which to express particularly meaningful emotions and symbolize and sustain their identities. “Ideological” power emerges to the extent that a distinctive group establishes privileged control over the social activities and the cultural artifacts relating to the satisfaction of these needs, and to that degree can direct those social activities and the access to those cultural artifacts. Mann, however, dissents from this tripartite classification of the power phenomenon by giving separate conceptual status also to military power. Other students dissent from it by explicitly or implicitly subscribing to the identification of power itself with political power. A sustained argument to the effect that social power can manifest itself in different ways was developed, towards the end of the twentieth century, by the German sociologist Heinrich Popitz (1925–2002). The title of his book, Phänomene der Macht: Autorität, Herrschaft, Gewalt, Technik (1986) conveys this meaning, for Phaenomene is a plural noun. In particular, Popitz argues, power can be acquired and managed also to the extent that, through “technical action,” some people can shape and modify to their own advantage the objective circumstances under which other people live, the constraints under which they operate. Technical action has three essential moments, all in the first place relating individuals with things: 467 power “making use of,” “modifying,” and “producing” objects. But such subject-to-object relations always affect also those between subject and subject. This does not simply mean that technical action has social conditions and consequences. Rather, such action plays a role in establishing the social conditions of human beings. Behind the “making use” of objects necessarily lies the question of property claims, behind the “modifying” of objects a particular form of the exercise of power – and not just power over the objects themselves – and their “producing” entails the differentiation of activities and thus a form of division of labor. Another of Popitz’s significant contributions, however, is chiefly concerned with political power, which he, with Weber, grounds in violence, and particularly with its institutionalization. He conceptualizes three main aspects of this process: the depersonalization of power, the formalization of its exercise, and its integration (the latter meaning the increasing extent to which power gears itself into other social activities, is supported by them, and contributes to them). Popitz also outlines an ideal-typical sequence of phases in the institutionalization of political power. The recourse to violence (or the threat of it) as a way of inducing others’ compliant behavior may go beyond its sporadic phase insofar as means of violence are made ready for repeated uses, and brought to bear on recurrent situations, from which those threatened with violence cannot easily escape. Power can then move on to a norm-making phase, where it does not just induce the subjects to momentary compliance but seeks to program and routinize their compliant activities and dispositions. Further, it can be positionalized, that is, connected with the occupancy of distinctive social roles (the earliest of which have been those of the patriarch, the judge, and the war leader). In the next phase, those and other such positions come to be surrounded and supported by a staff, an apparatus – a set of individuals who steadily and reliably collaborate with each position’s holder. The final phase sees the emergence of a state. Here the ensemble of the holders of power positions and of the related administrative agencies effectively claims the monopoly of three essential functions: norm-making, jurisdiction, and enforcement. The recognition that social power has different sources and takes different forms, including at least political and economic power, brings to bear a specifically sociological perspective on a phenomenon – power itself – which for centuries 468 power has been attributed primarily or indeed exclusively to the political sphere. Indeed, according to Luhmann, until the advent of modernity western philosophers and other students of social and cultural affairs “thematized” society itself chiefly in its aspect as a polity, as a “realm,” as the bounded territory whose inhabitants are perceived in the first place as suitable objects for rule. Only in the course of modernization has the sphere of the economy strongly asserted its autonomy from that of politics, and economic power has separated itself institutionally from political power. But according to Franz Neumann, this historically unique development has by the same token posed the problem of how those two power forms would relate to one another, whether and how they would assist or contrast with one another, establish alliances with one another or seek to maximize their own autonomy over one another, their own superiority over one another. This problem cannot be settled by conceptual fiat, for it has different aspects, and finds different solutions, in varying empirical circumstances. For instance, the Marxian characterization of the state as “the executive committee of the bourgeoisie” was not wide of the mark when it was proposed, but it needs at the very least strong qualifications and modifications, if one wants to apply it in later circumstances. Here it became more enlightening to think of politics and the market as the institutional loci of intrinsically different, and potentially competing, power processes. The title of Thomas H. Marshall’s Citizenship and Social Class (1950) points in this direction. The duality in question finds an echo in other contemporary theoretical debates in the social sciences. The superiority of the economy is implicitly asserted in the extension of the rational choice approach to spheres of social existence, including the polity, where previously other approaches prevailed. In particular, the economist Oliver Williamson construed the emergence of hierarchy itself (the key political phenomenon) as the outcome of particular circumstances where the individuals’ purely market behavior, which he viewed as the paradigm of all social conduct, generated inefficiencies. These are remedied by complementing the mechanism of coordination constituted by mere exchanges by a different one – “do as I say.” Whatever the insights yielded by these economic perspectives, one must note their persistent tendency to identify power with political power, and thus to treat the power phenomenon itself as something in principle extraneous to the pragmatism economic realm. Power so conceived can be at best complementary to that realm, servicing its need for political support and regulation. At worst, it tends to prey upon it, and thus to damage its unique capacity to produce efficiency (once more an intrinsically economic criterion, unproblematically put forward as the one criterion by which to judge all social arrangements). As long as such perspectives prevail, they do little to prepare the sociological imagination to deal with the continuing story of the relationship between economic and political power. The main content of that story is, in the early twenty-first century, the globalization process. This can be roughly conceived as a (partly) novel way in which economic processes seek to proceed with a maximum of support, and a minimum of interference, on the part of political power centers. The novelty lies in the ever-growing availability to economic forces of largely deterritorialized spaces and resources. This deeply challenges the still prevalent power centers – states which exercise jurisdiction over distinctive territories, and extract resources from economic units stably located within those spaces. An appreciation of the extent to which these ongoing phenomena find in social power both their target and their medium requires among other things the continuing awareness of the significance and complexity of the power concept itself. Once more it is not a conceptual question whether the relationship between political power and economic power, in particular, is primarily one of collusion or collision. But one can assume that the answer to that question – or indeed the answers, since these will continue to vary from time to time and from place to place – will throw light on historical phenomena of great human significance. GIANFRANCO POGGI pragmatism This philosophical school, founded in the United States in the nineteenth century, originates in the belief that philosophical standards, and especially the standards of truth, should be grounded in the efficacy of the practices that would result from their use. Pragmatism is averse to all metaphysical, moral, and social ideals that claim priority over the solutions to practical problems. While several current sociological projects draw inspiration from C. S. Peirce (1839–1914), the father of modern pragmatism and the scholar who made communication central to pragmatic thought, Charles Horton Cooley and John Dewey (1859–1952) built more well-established bridges to pragmatism topics of sociological interest from pragmatic philosophical positions. George Herbert Mead expanded and extended these bridges. Thereafter, some of Mead’s leading insights were institutionalized in sociology via Herbert Blumer’s interpretations of him. The Chicago School of symbolic interactionism followed Blumer’s lead. However, the influence of pragmatism in sociology extends beyond the symbolic interactionist school. After arriving in the United States, Alfred Schutz worked several pragmatic insights into his social phenomenology, paying special attention to the works of Dewey and the pragmatically inspired psychology of William James. Erving Goffman was inspired by James as well when writing Frame Analysis (1973). Arlie Russell Hochschild draws central elements of her groundbreaking conception of emotion work from Mead, which is quite helpful because most pragmatists other than James are inclined to emphasize cognition over emotion. On a more abstract level, Mead’s pragmatic analysis of social action is reworked and plays a central role in Jürgen Habermas’s extraordinary model of communicative action. Though Mead is far more widely cited by sociologists than any other pragmatist, John Dewey’s analysis in Human Nature and Conduct (1922) provides the most clear-cut illustration of the application of pragmatic principles to sociological theory. Dewey builds a theory of social action upon an insight into social praxis that more recently has figured prominently in Anthony Giddens’s structuration theory and the ideas of habitus and field devised by Pierre Bourdieu. The insight is that most actions in everyday life are performed with only tacit consciousness in habitual ways. This widely shared view does not derive from pragmatism per se. But Dewey takes the pragmatic turn when he observes that, when habitual routines are blocked, sharply focused thought concentrates on eliminating the blockage, whether by removing it or by creative innovation. Dewey proposes that basic human psychic impulses become associated with habits. Their frustration motivates the actor to conscious thought. However, these efforts may be derailed through various kinds of dissipation. Drug abuse, promiscuous sexuality, daydreaming, and psychological distress all follow from the dissipation of impulses to overcome frustrating problems. The proper aim of scientific practice is to expedite an end to these frustrations. Dewey, like most pragmatists, underrates the role of domination in both social routines and focused thought. His social psychology also lacks a deep appreciation of the 469 prejudice structured nature of social conduct. Moreover, unlike Peirce and Mead, Dewey neglects communication. Nonetheless, his emphasis on cycles of routine and frustration in action epitomizes the pragmatic view of social conduct. IRA COHEN prejudice In sociology the concept of prejudice refers broadly to systematic and durable subjective assessments of groups, or members of those groups, in unfavorable terms. The concept has been at the center of sociological research on race and ethnicity for many years but has also played an important role in sociological research pertaining to age, social class, disability and impairment, gender, and sexuality. Research on prejudice overlaps to a considerable extent with research on the closely related phenomena of discrimination and stigma. However, the study of prejudice tends to focus more on the causes and characteristics of people’s prejudicial attitudes, discrimination research focuses more on their prejudicial or injurious behavior, and research on stigma tends to focus on the experiences and behavior of those who are victimized by prejudice, discrimination, and stigmatization. While some social scientists believe prejudice entails evaluations based on erroneous preconceptions regarding an out-group, others suggest it can be based on objective conflicts of interest between in-group and out-group members. Scholars belonging to the first school of thought tend to take a more optimistic view of the prospects for overcoming prejudice insofar as they see the problem as essentially one of changing people’s attitudes through a sustained campaign of enlightened education. Proponents of the second school of thought see the problem as more deeply entrenched in people’s social structural circumstances and relationships, and hence are rather less optimistic about the prospects of remedies that do not attend to the social structural, as well as the social psychological, causes of people’s prejudices. Another important and pervasive distinction in the literature on prejudice concerns the extent to which prejudicial attitudes are conscious or unconscious. The earliest research on prejudice tended to focus on overt forms of bigotry or the explicit espousal of prejudicial attitudes towards various out-groups or individual out-group members. However, it is now much more common for social scientists to consider how systematic biases against particular out-groups or systematically discriminatory behaviors towards them are maintained despite research subjects’ conscious commitments to an image of themselves as 470 prejudice non-prejudiced against that group. This issue is particularly salient in debates as to whether prejudice is maintained primarily by social psychological or by social structural processes. Those who lean towards social structural explanations of prejudice tend to be more amenable to the view that individuals may often be unwitting, or unconscious, agents of prejudice and discrimination despite consciously espousing egalitarian values. At least as far back as Émile Durkheim’s classic work on the value of deviance ascriptions for the maintenance of in-group solidarity in his analysis of crime in The Rules of Sociological Method (1895 [trans. 1958]), sociologists have recognized a certain social functionality in explicitly designating, and discriminating against, groups other than one’s own. While sometimes drawing on this longer legacy from classical sociology, research on prejudice has more recent origins. It was only in the wake of World War II, following revelations about the Holocaust and other horrors of Nazi Germany, that social scientists began to investigate how it was possible for such powerfully chauvinistic sentiments to arise. While ethnocentrism, xenophobia, and chauvinism were certainly recognized features of the social landscape before this time, they were not made the topic of systematic sociological analysis until World War II. One early approach to explaining prejudice against minority groups in society drew upon the frustration– aggression hypothesis formulated by John Dollard and his colleagues in Frustration and Aggression (1939), wherein it was argued that an agent frustrated at the hands of a more powerful actor will sublimate the sentiments of aggression created by these frustrations by focusing them on less powerful scapegoats. Thus, met with the frustrations surrounding World War I, the Versailles Treaty, and subsequent reparations, Germany was held to have taken this out on the Jews because they could not express their aggression directly towards the Allies. Another major theoretical approach to emerge on the topic of prejudice was that put forward by Theodor Wiesengrund Adorno and his colleagues regarding what they called the authoritarian personality. Drawing upon the principles of Freudian psychoanalysis, Adorno focused on early childhood learning processes to explain the propensities of some people to adopt rigid, inflexible, and prejudicial attitudes towards certain minority groups and their members. According to this theory, the early childhood experience of growing up in a highly regimented, strictly disciplined household could often produce prejudice a personality structure in children that is highly submissive to the dictates of established authority figures and intolerant of people(s) who do not conform to those dictates. This personality structure predisposes individuals to chauvinistic persecution of people who do not subscribe to the ethnic and/or cultural values to which they were compelled to adhere as children. Once established in the deep psyche of the individual, this personality structure becomes relatively impervious to rational critique and hence relatively resistant to change. These earliest approaches tended to locate the cause of prejudice in psychopathological learning processes and thereby to delimit the focus of analyses to only those people thought to have undergone them. While certain segments of the human population were held to be guilty of prejudice, the vast majority were not seen to be implicated in the reproduction of prejudice and discrimination. Research following on from the pioneering work of Harvard social psychologist Gordon Allport (1897–1967) has suggested that prejudice is not only the result of psychopathology but also results from much more routine and pervasive learning processes. This research opened the door to much more encompassing theories concerning both the causes and the prevalence of prejudice. According to Allport, the human mind cannot dispense with what he called categorical thinking, and what is now more commonly known as stereotypical thinking, because it is the function of the mind to simplify and systematize the diverse sensory and cognitive inputs to which it is exposed. Were it not to do so, we would be hopelessly ill-equipped to act in the world. However, this natural mental function can serve to create significant social problems when our stereotypes are based on flawed information and are applied indiscriminately to whole minority groups and their members. While acknowledging the role played by psychodynamic pathologies in creating prejudice, Allport insisted in The Nature of Prejudice (1954) we must supplement psychodynamic explanations with explanations that speak to the whole spectrum of processes, both normal and abnormal, that figure in the development of our personalities. These include social, cultural, and economic processes as well as psychodynamic ones. Allport properly insisted that any adequate understanding of prejudice must allow that it can be caused by many different kinds of things occurring in a person’s life. However, as a social psychologist he was quite understandably predisposed to focus on the personality of the prejudice individual actor as the critical apparatus upon which these various processes must act if they are to become manifest as prejudice. For Allport and his followers, prejudice was most fundamentally an “antipathy based on a faulty and inflexible generalisation.” And just as he focused on the social psychological processes that give rise to prejudicial attitudes, his proposals for alleviating prejudice focused on efforts to correct the erroneous mental predispositions of individual actors rather than the social structural circumstances that compel those mental predispositions. From this social psychological perspective, the basic nature of prejudice is seen to reside in the mistaken judgments of particular individuals rather than in the inter-group conflicts and tensions endemic to a social system. As one might imagine, sociologists have sometimes been dissatisfied with what they have taken to be the over-emphasis on individuals in this approach and the concomitant under-emphasis on macro-structural causes of persistent prejudice and discrimination. Several theoretical approaches have been taken in research aimed at exploring such macrostructural causes. One suggests that prejudicial attitudes express what are in fact realistic group conflicts. Far from expressing mistaken understandings of the threat posed by out-groups and/ or their individual members, members of ingroups are prejudiced against members of those out-groups with whom they actually, or might potentially, struggle over objectively scarce resources. Another related theoretical approach follows in the tradition of Herbert Blumer’s group position model. According to Blumer, in a variety of publications relating to “Collective Behavior” in A. M. Lee, New Outline of the Principles of Sociology (1946), and “Social Movements” in A. M. Lee, Principles of Sociology (1955), members of an in-group must share an outlook comprised of four key features for prejudice to arise: (1) a feeling of superiority, (2) a belief that an out-group is intrinsically different and alien, (3) a sense of proprietary claim to certain privileges and resources, and (4) a sense of threat from members of subordinate groups upon the dominant group’s prerogatives. In contrast to the realistic group conflict model, Blumer’s group position model focuses on the perceptions of in-group members that their prerogatives are under threat rather than the objective reality of the threat itself. This highlights not only that prejudice may arise from perceptions that may or may not be accurate, but also the notion that there is an affective, as well as a purely instrumental, dimension to the felt conflict 471 pressure group between members of an in-group and an outgroup. More than merely observing an objective conflict of interest, in-group members feel a normative sense that this conflict ought to be resolved in favor of their own group and that not only their own personal prerogatives but the prerogatives of their group as a whole ought not to be threatened. This highlights how prejudice must be understood as not just the negative attitudes of an individual towards an out-group, but negative attitudes necessarily mediated by a sense of group membership and commitments to the well-being of that group as a whole in comparison with other groups. Other important approaches to the study of prejudice include the ideological control and paternalism model, the social dominance model, and social identity models. While not necessarily conflicting with the realistic group conflict and group position models, these models tend not to focus as much attention on overt conflict and threat. The ideological control and paternalism model argues that prejudice arises when efforts are made by members of a dominant group to legitimize their expropriative relationship with a subordinate group ideologically. In this effort they will seek to minimize overt hostilities by proffering deflated images of the aptitudes of subordinated group members and a paternalistic sense of obligation to look after them. This approach suggests that prejudice may not always be expressed in hostile terms but may also be expressed in terms connoting warmth and concern for the welfare of subordinated group members. The social dominance model highlights a sense of entitlement felt by in-group members to dominance in their relations with out-group members, but does not call so much attention to their felt sense of competition with and threat from members of an out-group. Finally, social identity models point to the fact that prejudices against out-groups and their individual members may often arise as a consequence of in-group loyalties as such and the wide range of instrumental and affective satisfactions that come from our self-categorization as members of an in-group. DARIN WEINBERG pressure group – see group(s) prestige Referring to influence, reputation, or popular esteem, this concept is often mistakenly treated as a synonym for social status. Status refers to the social position a person occupies in a social 472 prestige hierarchy. Prestige refers to the esteem assigned to social position. Prestige comes in two general forms. Ascribed prestige refers to the generation of esteem based upon rank. For example, a people assign prestige to a monarch by virtue of bloodline; or to a physician on the basis of the honorific value of the occupation. Achieved prestige refers to the assignment of esteem on the basis of the accomplishments of the individual. For example, John Lennon (1940–80) of the Beatles was esteemed as a result of his success as a popular entertainer and campaigner for peace, and Nelson Mandela (1918– ), the founder of the African National Congress in south Africa, is honored for his stance on human rights and anti-racism. The trend in modern democracies is for ascribed prestige to be replaced by achieved prestige. However, because democracies create opportunities for achievement that generate unequal rewards in economic wealth and distinction, they support new types of ascribed prestige. For example, in the United States, Caroline Kennedy does not occupy a formal rank in society. Nonetheless, she commands a type of ascribed prestige by virtue of the accomplishments of her parents, John and Jackie Kennedy. Democracies weaken traditional status hierarchies, but they create the conditions for new hierarchies based on achievement, which in turn confer prestige through inheritance. Because esteem has value it is subject to contrivance and imposture. In traditional society this often took the form of illegal claims to bloodline. In contemporary society they more commonly take the form of the tabloid media constructing celebrities for public consumption and pecuniary gain. The magnification of celebrity culture is often held to result in the leveling down of prestige and is linked with secularization, rationalization, and bureaucratization. Prestige may wax and wane according to the performance of the individual who occupies a status position. For example, a monarch may behave in ways that offend his people, or a doctor may misplace the trust placed in his occupation by behaving in a way that is harmful to others. In cases like this, we speak of dissonance between prestige and social status. The inverse of prestige is notoriety, which is a condition in which the dissonance between status and performance has been scandalized. In mainstream American sociology the concept is more narrowly associated with research on occupation and occupational ranking. Quantitative sociology has devised a series of scales which purport to measure prestige. CHRIS ROJEK primary group primary group – see group(s). primitive society In prototype, primitive society was an explicit object of philosophical speculation and naturalhistorical curiosity from the moment that the first European explorers returned from Africa and the Americas. By the middle of the nineteenth century and until the 1920s, it was the analytical preserve of anthropology and analytical attention accorded it was anthropological by definition. As Adam Kuper points out in The Invention of the Primitive (1988), it was, for nineteenth-century theorists, of a piece with ancient society; if distinguished from the latter at all, it was distinguished as the most ancient of the forms of society that, as a matter of historically particular fact or general evolutionary law, had preceded the modern present. Examples of it survived, but they were in the present without being of it, “living fossils” that had somehow refused or failed to change. If the first hallmark of primitive society was thus its primordiality, the second was its simplicity or elementariness. It manifested little if any institutional differentiation. Its primary matrix of the distribution of roles and statuses was that of kinship and its typical system of kinship a classificatory system that pressed relationships of differing degrees of mutual propinquity into a common pigeonhole. Technologically, it constrained its members to hunt and gather. Cognitively and intellectually, it exhibited an analogous lack of rigor and discernment. Most theorists could agree that primitive man was endowed with the same basic powers of perception and judgment as his modern counterpart, but those powers had yet to develop beyond those of a child. He might be practical enough to survive, but not yet sufficiently astute to recognize even the principle of physiological paternity. He could engage in the wildest flights of mythological fancy, but had no sense of history and no means either of fashioning or of grasping moral and conceptual abstractions. The concept of primitive society underwent three notable changes in the course of the twentieth century. At the vanguard of the first are Bronislaw Malinowski and American cultural anthropologists such as Ruth Benedict (1887–1948). With them, primitive society is divested of its primordiality and retains a simplicity no longer differing in kind but only in degree from the societies that abut or otherwise invite comparison with it. The second change owes something to the Privacy ethnography of India but even more to Claude Lévi-Strauss. In its aftermath, primitive society is neither bereft of intellectuals nor ignorant of history. It instead joins its qualitatively more complex but still traditional societies in resisting the existential and social significance of the difference between the past and present and future. The third of the changes comes with the rejection of the subliminal evolutionism and the subliminal progressivism that inform the distinction between primitive and modern. Its key texts remain Renato Rosaldo’s Ilongot Headhunting (1980), Richard Price’s First-Time (1983), and Johannes Fabian’s Time and the Other (1983). JAMES D. FAUBION Privacy The importance of privacy is often associated with the “quarrel between the ancients and moderns.” This expression came from the title of a famous lecture on “The Liberty of the Ancients Compared with that of the Moderns” in 1819 by the French political philosopher Benjamin Constant (1767– 1830), which is reprinted in his Political Writings (1988). This lecture compared the respect for public institutions and public space in the ancient world with the emphasis on conscience and individual subjectivity in modern society. Constant argued that the liberty of the ancients, which arose from their active engagement in politics, required the sacrifice of their personal interests to those of the polis. By contrast, the moderns pursue their personal pleasures, regarding politics as merely a means to protect their private lives. The concept of privacy is thus interconnected with a range of other key concepts in political and social theory, such as individual rights, the state and the social contract. In contemporary thought, privacy is closely associated with individualism, because private space outside the public realm is assumed to be important for cultivating and protecting the individual from social scrutiny and political surveillance. In the liberal theory of John Locke (1632–1704), the protection of the rights of individuals is held to be essential to guard against the threat of arbitrary rule by authoritarian governments. Civil rights refer to the legal entitlements of free and rational agents, who combine, by means of a social contract, to form a state, whose sole purpose is to guarantee their enjoyment of these privileges. The minimalist theory of the state, for example the night watchman state, is a product of liberalism, because the only justification for the state is the protection of the liberties of individuals to do as they please, namely to enjoy their privacy. 473 Privacy In classical Greece, private affairs were often negatively defined in opposition to the public sphere and public duty. The private arena was associated with deprivation (privatus), while the public sphere was one of freedom and reason, where citizens congregated for political debate and economic exchange. The autonomous individual could only exist and develop in the public domain. In political philosophy, this contrast has been an important aspect of the modern theory of totalitarianism. In The Origins of Totalitarianism (1958), Hannah Arendt argued that in modern society people are forced out of a shared public world into a lonely, isolated, and interior space. In their isolation, pressures towards social uniformity undermine their individual autonomy, and they are psychologically exposed to totalitarian forces. According to Arendt, this clear distinction between private and public has been confused in modern times by the emergence of “the social.” In modern society, people are bound together, but these common threads are paradoxically the private desires of consumption and a common mass culture. In a mass society, the social becomes the basis for mass conformity and the moral calling of the political sinks into petty politics. The noble art of politics as a life of virtue becomes merely a trade in power and influence. Arendt’s vision of modern society was debated by David Riesman in The Lonely Crowd. A Study of the Changing American Character (1950), in which he contrasted the tradition-directed personalities who are conformists and merely reproduce traditional culture with the inner-directed personality who emerged with the Renaissance and the Reformation. By contrast, the other-directed personality of modern America (and other societies dominated by the mass media) craves approval from others. The social relations of the other-directed character are mediated by the flow of mass communication, and their demand for social approval is an aspect of liberal, middle-class socialization. Riesman’s criticisms of American society in the 1950s bore a close resemblance to Herbert Marcuse’s analysis of the ‘happy consciousness’ in his One-Dimensional Man (1964), but they were also related to the study of individualism in colonial America by Alexis de Tocqueville. In his The Idea of the Self (2005), Jerrold Seigel has shown how, especially in the social philosophy of J.-J. Rousseau (1712–78), there is a well established view that the conscience of the individual requires protection from public opinion, and this protection is an important aspect of privacy. 474 profession(s) In contemporary sociology, writers like Amitai Etzioni in The Limits of Privacy (1999) have raised critical questions about the benefits of the protection of privacy for public life, but one can also argue that privacy has been further transformed by modern technologies (such as closed-circuit television) which allow the individual to be under constant surveillance. In addition, changes to the law relating, for example, to notions of sexual harassment in the workplace mean that the private /public distinction has broken down, because the law can intervene into people’s “private” sexual activities. BRYAN S. TURNER private and public spheres – see public sphere. process sociology – see Norbert Elias. professionalization – see profession(s). profession(s) A group of occupations (for example, doctors, lawyers, and clergy) who provide highly specialized services, based typically on an esoteric body of knowledge, which only they can assess. They thus experience autonomy over their own work, and direct others in the conduct of their occupations. They have monopolistic control in their area of expertise (only doctors can practice medicine), and they exercise dominance over subordinate occupations. Their claims to monopoly and dominance are backed by state legislation. In return for this autonomy, they govern themselves by abiding to a code of ethics by which they are required to put their client’s interests ahead of their own, are in a fiduciary relationship with their client (that is, one of trust), and put their client’s needs ahead of any self-interested profit-making. For Émile Durkheim professional associations played a central role in fostering trust and stability in a society otherwise driven by utilitarian selfinterest, an argument captured in the title of his work Professional Ethics and Civic Morals (1957), a posthumous translation of the Leçons de sociologie (1950). This line of analysis was further developed by Talcott Parsons in the Social System (1951, especially chapter 10). Taking the medical profession as an example, Parsons argued that it was characterized by a number of distinctive practices which distinguished medical practitioners from other occupations in a market economy. They are universalistic in their orientation; they provide profession(s) services independently of the particular characteristics of their patients, such as gender; they are affectively neutral in that they do not stand in moral judgment of their patient’s condition; they are oriented to the good of the collective; and they are functionally specific, dealing only with the issue at hand and using the best scientific knowledge. In contrast, contemporary sociologists of the professions emphasize their self-interested practice of social closure, thereby maintaining occupational autonomy to enhance their incomes and keeping competitors out. While Parsons pointed to the long period of training for professionals as central to their socialization into the profession’s ethical standpoint, contemporary sociologists regard such training as a protracted gate-keeping exercise. Eliot Freidson in Profession of Medicine: A Study of the Sociology of Applied Knowledge (1970) and Professional Dominance: The Social Structure of Medical Care (1970) argued that the medical profession dominates in the health sector, not as a consequence of its scientific, humanitarian ethos, but because it is politically well organized. Medicine maintains its aura of high standing, despite the often degrading nature of its work, effectively passing such dirty work onto subordinate occupations such as nursing. Sustained analysis of the actual ways in which doctors practice, carried out by sociologists in grounded theory, demonstrated that doctors were not universalistic in their orientation to treatment, with significant variations in their dealings with women and ethnic minorities. In fact, the profit motive was a significant factor in their clinical decisionmaking. Overall then, the positive evaluation of the professions that is the legacy of Durkheim and Parsons has not fared well following empirical analysis of the ways in which the professions actually operate in society. Other social changes, particularly the rise of neoliberalism in the political sphere, are having a substantial impact on the structure and work of professionals. Economic policymakers in the state sector are now disposed to view professional associations as anti-competitive cartels, and to regard professional self-regulation and exclusion of competitors (who may perform the same services more cheaply) as merely self-interested. Other social changes, such as the rise of an educated public, make consumers of professional services more cautious and skeptical of professional knowledge claims. The organization of consumer groups provides a platform to question such expert systems. Furthermore, the inability or lack of will on the part of professional organizations to discipline progress errant members has led to far greater legal control over practitioners as the public takes to the courts as the first line of action. Technological changes have led to the routinization of much professional work and the claim to practice on the basis of an esoteric body of knowledge has been considerably weakened, especially in medicine, engineering, and architecture as computer programs replace professional judgment. Linked with a decline in self-employment and the rise of corporate employers, it has been argued, following Karl Marx, that the professions are being proletarianized. This proletarianization can take two forms: ideological proletarianization refers to the loss of autonomy over the setting of policies, goals, and objectives of and by the profession; and technical proletarianization refers to the loss of control over work practices by the professional. While there is considerable debate over this claim, it is clear that there has been significant de-professionalization as doctors, lawyers, and architects, for example, perform work under the control of bureaucratic superiors. Furthermore, under these conditions of employment their responsibility is not to their client but to the shareholders who expect a profitable return on their investment. In turn the professions themselves have started to fragment, a process in which the elite within the profession continues to enjoy considerable autonomy, and a dependent stratum are supervised by superiors. This erosion of autonomy occurred especially in law and general practice, where, increasingly, female employees perform routine tasks that are monitored by superiors in the professional hierarchy. These changes in professional medicine were clearly documented in Paul Starr’s The Social Transformation of American Medicine. The Rise of a Sovereign Profession and the Making of a Vast Industry (1982). While the professions may still enjoy reasonable social status, high incomes, and have more freedom than those in other occupations, they have also experienced significant inroads into their autonomy and all indications are that this will increasingly be the case. KEVIN WHITE progress The view that the human world has advanced, is advancing, and will continue to advance in the future. It is opposed to all ideas of a past Golden Age, or the sense of decadence and decline. It expresses a basic optimism and confidence in the ability of humans to resolve their problems, and to increase in prosperity, morality, and understanding with the passage of time. 475 progress Historically speaking, the idea of progress is relatively new. It first arose in western Europe in the second half of the seventeenth century. In a battle of the books between the Ancients and the Moderns, the Moderns achieved a decisive victory in arguing that modern people could advance as far and indeed farther than the ancient Greeks and Romans, who for much of the past thousand years had continued to be accepted as the unsurpassable leaders in learning and civilization. What made the arguments of the moderns convincing then, in a way that they had not been earlier, was undoubtedly the dazzling achievements of the seventeenth-century Scientific Revolution. The work of scientists such as Kepler (1571–1630), Copernicus (1473–1543), Galileo (1564–1642), and especially Newton (1643–1727), with their unlocking of the basic mechanisms of the universe, indicated that modern societies had the capacity to be as enlightened and creative as any past society. The philosophers Bacon (1561–1626) and Descartes (1591–1650), with their call for a new method in the understanding of nature and society, also expressed a sense of the originality and novelty of the times, together with a confidence that the modern age had within it the seeds of unlimited progress. The idea of progress became a central feature of most of the leading social philosophies of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. It was accepted by most Enlightenment thinkers, even as they criticized the conditions of their own societies and times. Their faith in reason gave them the confidence that they could discover and remedy the outstanding abuses in their societies. Nineteenth-century thinkers, such as Herbert Spencer, Auguste Comte, and Karl Marx, similarly looked forward to a future of freedom, equality, and prosperity for all, even as they lambasted the forces holding back progress in their own times. The idea of progress appeared to find satisfyingly scientific confirmation in the evolutionary theory, in which a misunderstood Social Darwinism was applied to the idea of the ascent of man from savagery to civilization. There was, from the time of the French Revolution onwards, always a contrary current of thought that radically questioned the idea of progress, which in the case of some thinkers of a religious persuasion, such as Joseph de Maistre (1754–1821), was thought actually impious and blasphemous. European Romanticism, with its criticism of industrialism and materialism, and its idealization of the Middle Ages, added its own passionate and persuasive critique. Towards the 476 property end of the nineteenth century, a fin-de-siècle pessimism became a distinct and increasingly powerful strand of thought among European thinkers, such as Friedrich Nietzsche, Max Weber, and Sigmund Freud. World War I and its aftermath, with the unprecedented slaughter of men followed by two decades of economic depression and the rise of totalitarian dictatorships, buried the idea of progress for most artists and intellectuals. But the defeat of fascism in World War II, and the strong economic recovery of the postwar era, brought about a significant revival of the idea of progress, though it has never regained the central position that it held in previous centuries, being subject now particularly to the criticisms of ecologists. KRISHAN KUMAR proletarianization – see profession(s). proletariat – see Marxist Sociology. property Property implies ownership, to which may be attached rights. In liberalism, property rights have a distinctive and foundational role. Distinctive because since John Locke (1632–1704) property rights have been attached, not just to possession of land and movable objects, but also to a human being’s own person and the person’s capacities, especially the capacity to labor. The notion of a person’s proprietorship of their own capacities has become foundational in liberal theory for other rights of the person, including civil and political rights. In Marxism, on the other hand, property is not primarily a right but a relationship, especially a production relationship. Thus property is concerned with (but not reducible to) power. Karl Marx holds that ownership or possession of property is the principle of organization within relations of production and distribution. Those who possess property have direct access to the means of consumption; those who do not must offer their labor services to owners, who pay them wages in order to bring their property into productive use. In this exchange the reciprocity between property owners and property-less workers is asymmetrical, with the material benefits being greater for owners and the opportunity costs being greater for non-owners. This Marx characterizes as exploitation. Marx adds that the form of property yields to historical variation, corresponding to historical stages of societal Protestant Ethic Thesis development, namely primitive Communism, Asiatic society, feudalism, and capitalism. Sociological discussions of property typically derive from either liberal or Marxist accounts. Max Weber offers an account of property in his Economy and Society (1922 [trans. 1968]) in terms of appropriation and closed social relationships or closure. The appropriation of economic opportunities, from which others are excluded, is the basis of an advantage, according to Weber, which may take the form of a right. If this right is enduring and can be transferred between individuals, then the appropriated advantage is property. Weber goes on to discuss how appropriation and property have taken different forms under different historical conditions and in different economic settings. Émile Durkheim argues in The Division of Labor in Society (1893 [trans. 1960]) that inheritance of property is responsible for a forced labor, through which a natural distribution of talents is distorted and anomie results. Apart from this, Durkheim does not develop a theory of property, even though his largely descriptive account of property rights in Professional Ethics and Civic Morals (1950 [trans. 1957]) is historically insightful. Frank Parkin in Marxism and Class Theory: A Bourgeois Critique (1979), following Marx, distinguishes between personal property and property as capital. Property as capital, he argues, following Weber, is exclusionary closure. Out of these relations arises class exploitation. The problem with Parkin’s account is its exclusive focus on distributional relations and competition for resources; it considers only the production of life chances and fails to address the question of the production of means that are necessary to bring those life chances into existence. Marx does this by treating property as an economic relation, and Weber and Durkheim by treating property as possessing a legal dimension. Parkin treats property as an essentially political facility. JACK BARBALET Protestant Ethic Thesis – see Max Weber. psychoanalysis This refers to the type of psychotherapy that was founded by Sigmund Freud. In psychoanalysis the therapist, or analyst, seeks to aid patients to recognize their unconscious motivation. According to psychoanalysts, all people have unconscious desires and thus everyone would benefit from undergoing psychoanalysis. The term psychoanalysis is also sometimes used to describe the ideas of Freud and his followers about the unconscious structure psychoanalysis of the mind. It is in this second sense, as a theory of mind rather than as a psychotherapeutic practice, that psychoanalysis has had a major effect on sociological thinking. Initially Freud began his career as a psychiatrist using hypnosis to treat patients who displayed neurotic symptoms. He found that the symptoms often disappeared when patients could be induced to recall forgotten memories under hypnosis. Freud, with his colleague Josef Breuer (1842– 1925), hypothesized that the symptoms were related to painful memories or shameful desires that the patients had pushed, or repressed, from conscious awareness. Although the experiences and desires may have been repressed from awareness, they continued to exert an unconscious influence. If the patients could be encouraged to recognize their unconscious thoughts, then, according to Freud, it would be possible to treat their neurotic symptoms. Thus, there could be a talking cure. Freud and Breuer published their results in Studies on Hysteria (1893–5 [trans. 1953–74]). In this book, Freud outlined the concept of repression, which he later was