RefurbedScientist
-
Posts
239 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by RefurbedScientist
-
-
@econsocio: Thanks for your response.
I think we've got our wires crossed. I want to clear up one thing. You've written,
Hierarchy is a fact of social organization, and we would do better to at least entertain the idea that it's on some margin a beneficent social structure. That's after all how one tests a hypothesis -- by leaning hard against it. If you believe hierarchy is a bad thing: examine the case for it. Lean against it.I'm in no way arguing for the unassailable merits of anarchy or flat organizations nor against the possible merits of hierarchy. I'm not making any such normative claim. I'm merely arguing (a) that Occupy makes for a good case study for the OP's "anarchist studies" interest because (2) it is distinguished from other mass movements in North American history for its non-hierarchical structure, lack of directive authority, and diffuse responsibilities for the establishment and maintenance of norms and ideas.
In fact, the points you are making are quite valid, though immaterial, I think, to the matter of whether or not Occupy makes for a good object of study for an anarchist sociology.
*Edit* By way of qualification, I think your normative criticism of Occupy (not to mention anarchist activists) is neither germane to the question at hand nor very scientific, whereas most of the rest of what you said was well argued and evidenced.
-
And for what it's worth, I see now that my initial statement might have been a bit unclear. I said:
For example, I would love to see a challenge to social movement theory's privileging of formal organizations questioned a bit in light of Occupy's extreme horizontality.I was hoping that some kind of "anarchist sociology" would shake the dust off the tired out theoretical debates in social movement studies. I did not mean to suggest that Occupy has no formal organizations and should be studied as an example of anarchy, but rather that an anarchist alternative to say, state theory or resource mobilization or what have you, would be a new take on a novel movement.
I can see how that might have been reasonably interpreted otherwise. It's a distinction between an "anarchist sociology" and a "sociology of anarchy", much like some differentiate sociology of culture and cultural sociology.
-
@econsocio: Points well taken. I'll limit my response to making what I think is an important distinction we haven't drawn out yet and discussing its implications. It should also be noted that we haven't defined anarchy yet, but I'll leave the interpretation open-ended for now.
The distinction cuts our question three ways.
1) We can study the anarchist characteristics of Occupy. That is the extent to which it is internally anarchic (here I use anarchic to mean without a hierarchical authority with hegemony/monopoly on decision making and coercive power).
2) We can study the anarchists in Occupy. Those would be self-identifying anarchists or members of anarchist organizations.
3) We can consider the extent to which Occupy is a pro-anarchy organization that promotes anarchist political objectives, simply put the dissolution of a state.
In the first, case, we might evaluate the movement's strategies, tactics, ideology, rhetoric, organizational structure, objectives, and relationship to other actors along anarchist lines, perhaps arguing that its more/less anarchist than it is socialist/welfare statist/bourgeois/whatever or arguing that its more/less anarchist than its own branding. In the second case, we might look at the role of anarchists in the Occupy movement, their political objectives and skill, the resources they offer, the internal conflicts they cause, etc. I think we would agree that the third case is a non-starter; I've seen very little to suggest that Occupy is a pro-anarchy movement.
It seems to me like you've made points that touch on the first two of these questions. First, that Occupy is not so without hierarchy as it would have us believe. Second, that anarchists in the movement are inauthentic and/or ineffective. I looks like we agree that Occupy, taken as a movement, is not advancing anarchist goals.
I'm not going to make a strong argument about the second of those critiques, but I'd like to see the evidence in support of your claim "that a majority of anarchists are under-read extremists with incoherent ideas and no working alternative to current-form institutions." My anecdotal experience would suggest otherwise, but I wouldn't ask anyone to take my word for it.
As for the first critique, I'll base my response on this point you make: "My point is not that Occupy, and even Adbusters aren't emergent, anarchic social phenomena. My point is that their self-styled definition of anarchy as anti-market, anti-government, anti-hierarchy, and anti-everything-else denies the facts of the hierarchy which allows them to set and agree on institutional standards and conventions, coordinating action."
It's an interesting argument. First, as we've already laid out, it doesn't look like Occupy has a self-styled definition of anarchy, though its anarchist element might. Second, there's no reason why anti-market, anti-government, etc. ideas necessarily preclude the possibility of a decision-making form that coordinates action and establishes collective expectations and norms that is fundamentally non-hierarchical. I say "fundamentally" because Occupy does use a division of labor which manifests in, in a given moment, an individual facilitating meetings, an individual managing outreach, an individual leading trainings. But these roles are remarkable fluid and, even if they weren't, the distribution of decision-making power does not seem systematically tied to role in the organization. (Caveat: does this mean Occupy's horizontality is not marred by inequalities of race, class, gender, ability, etc. that are part of the larger structure in which is operates? Absolutely not. But, as I will maintain, anarchy and equality are quite different things.) The fact of Occupy's history of action in spite of/because of its internally anarchic structure (relative to most mass social movements, not to mention other types of organizations) suggests to me that hierarchy is not a necessary precondition to action. Whether it's a precondition to political success or organization durability is an entirely other question.
-
I fail to see what is particularly egalitarian about an organization of people lead by Adbusters, the world's best-selling counter culture magazine produced by well-to-do Canadian art directors, a very loud and upset assistant professor from America's ivy league.
You've confused a few categories here.
First, I said horizontal, not egalitarian, and I was referring to its organizational structure, not the distribution of wealth among those involved. How well-to-do its "leaders" are has, at least on the surface, little to do with the extent of horizontal organization, lack of hierarchy, diffuse power to incentivize and coerce, etc. Whether or not those conditions are in fact present in Occupy is up for empirical validation, I suppose. But from my experiences, Occupy approximates them about as well as any (mass) movement has.
Second, you've referred to Occupy as an organization. It's better understood as a loose coalition of organizations enlarged by a mass of otherwise unaffiliated individuals, at least in New York and, perhaps, other major metro centers. The best term we have for it is social movement, which are usually composed of many organizations and constituents.
Third, while Adbusters was of course an initiating organization, the extent to which it lead or leads Occupy is unclear at most and, in my estimation, probably very minimal. The very absence of Adbusters' or any other single organization's hegemony over the movement is precisely what makes it organizationally non-hierarchical, along with its well documented organizational forms (e.g. People's Mic) and, perhaps, ideology.
Fourth, and minor, I don't see how magazine sales exclude an organization from acting in an anarchistic fashion or moving toward anarchy. Corporations can exist under anarchy (as some libertarian-type anarchists might tell you).
It seems like you've mixed up anarchist with concepts like working-class, popular, egalitarian, anti-corporate. While these concepts do commonly figure into anarchistic conversations, they are not inherent to anarchism.
I think the lack of consensus here illustrates precisely why an anarchist sociology would be in order. What exactly constitutes an empirical case of anarchism? If not Occupy, then what? That's a rhetorical question, but I hope it suggests to the OP that we do indeed need this kind of research.
-
Also, as for "only publishing in second or third tier journals", he had an ASR (OP, it's one of our two top journals--the equivalent to APSR) with Margaret Somers in 2005 (it has more than 200 ciations on Google scholar)...it's not like he's entirely a washed up hack or anything, if that's what you're worried about.
Woops. I missed the 2005 ASR. Strange that he doesn't list it on his faculty bio. In any case, I should clarify for the OP and others not in sociology that a "second tier journal" is anything below basically the top two or three generalist journals in the discipline, so it in no way reflects poor quality scholarship. It usually means the author is targeting a specific audience, rather than the whole discipline. It looks like Block, for instance, is mostly talking to political and economic sociologists, in which case he's published in the journals they're likely to be reading.
-
Howdy friends:
I recently had a chance to listen to a podcast from Against the Grain that featured a Canadian named Max Haiven which really got me thinking about radicalizing some of my own ideas a little bit more. I know that this might sound strange but I think that subjects like gender and race don't seem to interest me as much as the anarchist political stuff (Ex: Occupy Sandy). Likewise, there is so much political stuff that anarchists do that resonates in the fields of squatting and alternative eco communities that might make sociology actually more radical and useful to the lay-public. What do you yall think? Could sociology mix with anarchism studies on the side?.Would it be embraced by sociology institutions or face rejection and even censorship?
Link to podcast:
http://www.againstth...ming-wed-103112
HM
Thanks for sharing the podcast. In short, my answer to your main question is yes please! I think that, in so far as it can challenge any of the prevailing assumptions in sociology, an anarchist paradigm should be part of sociological conversations. Political and economic sociology has institutionalist, statist, Marxist varieties, etc., but I don't think we learn much in the way of an anarchist alternative (nor do I even know what that looks like).
But, on your critically important final question, I think anarchism's relative marginality in sociology does not bode well for a warm reception to self-declared anarchist scholars. There might be more room for that in anthropology or geography. However, if you were to put your interest in anarchist political sociology into dialogue with other paradigms, especially around a well-defined substantive topic, then I could see you getting some real traction. For example, I would love to see a challenge to social movement theory's privileging of formal organizations questioned a bit in light of Occupy's extreme horizontality.
I don't think your post is about admissions, per se, but it's generally ill advised to make explicit one's theoretical commitments in a statement of purpose.
Now, if you mean studying anarchists politics according to the standard political sociological theories (as opposed to studying politics with anarchist theories), then I see no reason why that wouldn't be a valid topic, if framed delicately.
-
Full disclosure: I am not authority on who's who in sociology, nor do I speak for all sociologists. His name rings a bell. From his profile at UCD's website, he's an active political sociologist, but I think 'one of the world's leading sociologists' is a stretch. It's almost impossible to say that about anyone in sociology though because the field is so diffuse (not to mention the idea of being a "leading sociologist" is a little nonsensical).
But based on his books and publication history, he does look influential in economic and political sociology, although perhaps part of the "old school."
The best metric (depending on what you're looking for) to assess a sociologist's credibility is to see where she/he has published. Recent publications listed on his UCD profile page are in 2nd-3rd tier journals, but he's a tenured faculty working in a field that is not super high profile in sociology (political economy), so his motivation for publishing in the top tier journals is diminished, perhaps.
My response is fuzzy, but I suppose it all depends on why you ask. If you ask if he's credible enough to cite, then absolutely yes.
-
Not sure about what different it makes during the application process, but you will very likely be asked at recruitment weekend what other schools your considering. It's extremely awkward and, if you really like the program and faculty, can be emotionally difficult to manage people's expectations, not to mention you own. However, it can also work to your advantage. One program offerend me a fellowship that came with extra funding in order to induce me to accept their offer over higher-ranked and better funded programs. I imagine that, if you're weighing a few options, this can be exploited to get a better package. Don't be an ass about it, of course, but no one can blame you for trying to eek out a living as a grad student.
That's after being accepted, though. I'm not sure what purpose indicating your other choices plays during the admissions process, except perhaps for data collection purposes on the part of the graduate school/program.
-
Huh -- socialgroovements is right that it's PhD only. I swear I read about an interdisciplinary masters at Chicago. Maybe just crossing wires. Anyway sorry about that.
That's the Masters Programs in Social Science. MAPSS. If the OP searches MAPSS on grad cafe, she/he will find a great deal of opinions about that program. It's a one year, interdisciplinary social science degree. Partial funding is sometimes available, making it an attractive stepping stone to PhD. As far as I know, it's not generally useful except for the purpose of pursuing academia.
-
Check out Chicago's Committee on Social Thought. Two things, though. The thesis titles tell me it's a humanities-leaning culture of social scientists. Claims to be completely open to interdisciplinary study are not in my (limited) experience true anywhere. And two, their placement rates are self-published. So yes, among students whom they've recommended and supported, gobs have been accepted to good programs. That says nothing about how many students have left the program without support.
I would just do a business PhD in marketing, which have competent sequences of core courses set up, advisers prepared to land within at least buck-shot range of your interests, and a yet-still broad enough field to afford you independence. Outside accounting and economics specializations in business departments, the specializations seem extremely broad.
Based on what you've briefly said, AsterNox, I do not think the Committee on Social Thought at UChic is what you're looking for. First off, it's only PhD. Second, it very much leans humanities. If you're even remotely considering a marketing or management degree, then I doubt you'll want to spend 10 years working on hermeneutics of Proust and Mao, or whatever they do there.
You could look into an organizational behavior/studies program. I hear good things about Sloan's Org Studies program. In general, MIT will afford you access to academic resources outside of the more narrow B-school model. http://mitsloan.mit.edu/osg/
That won't really get at consumer behavior though.
I will be the first to pose one question that is common around here. What do you want to do with a masters degree specialized in "consumer behavior"? It's an interesting topic, from what you describe, but interesting topics are really only valuable in academica (for which you would need a PhD, most likely). If you plan on a career in the private sector, then you'll probably want a professional degree like an MBA, which will necessarily be mono-disciplinary. I think MBA programs at schools like Stanford, Northwestern, and MIT might be somewhat more open to cross-fertilization. But there's usually standardization. Now, if you just want to pursue a masters for the sake of learning, or as a stepping stone to some other advanced education, then that's another thing. In that case, Harvard Extension is great. As far as a degree that will get you a job, it's not so valuable.
-
I won't add much to jacib's characteristically comprehensive response.
I see two ways in which mathematical sociology might differ from quantitative methods. The first is formal logic or formal theory, which uses mathematical notation to show causal relationships between variables that may or may not have measurable values or quantities. It's all about postulates and predictions, logically derived. This kind of theory building seems to be a small niche in sociology. Here's one prof who does this sort of work.
Then I see the fields the OP mentioned, like graph theory, simulations, etc. These are essentially computational methods that do not rely on statistics or probability per se. That is, social network analysis uses a lot of computation and math to calculate certain measures like centrality, but these measures don't have much meaning independent of the analysis. Graph theory gives a value do relationships, but it's all sort of a stand-in or proxy measurement for something qualitative (e.g. location in a social network).
Then there's people in sociology who more closely resemble statisticians, but who shape the development of new statistical methods toward application in social science. Kenneth Bollen at UNC, for example. We don't usually think of these people as mathematical sociologists, but they're doing a lot more math than your average quantitative methodologist who just does regression analyses all day.
-
Hey thanks Calamaria. That's reassuring. I'll also definitely check out Polity.
-
Maybe one place to start, beyond talking to your undergraduate professors for advice, is looking at the different ASA sections: see who are officiers in at least 1) Global and Transnational (notice the World Systems-y people) 2) International Migration (this is maybe a good place to sell yourself, depending) 3) Racial and Ethnic Minorities (notice that almost everyone just studies the U.S., with a few other high immigrantion societies like France, Brazil, and New Zealand occasionally being mentioned. Nothing on indigenous ethnic minorities in places like China or Malawi or Burma.). Then there's also 4) cultural sociology, but the section might be too big and diffuse to be of much use to you, but probably worth a look (look at what wins awards and try to imagine what couldn't be nominated) and 5) Political Economy of the World System which is probably not for you, and generally a shrinking field. Go to each sections' website, see who has won awards recently, who are officers; see where those people teach, and if they're young, where they got degrees. The Global and Transnational section even puts who was on the awards committees for some years, so you know those are well-respected scholars in the subfield. Get a sense of what kind of work is valued, and where.
Great advice, Jacib. ASA sections are not something I paid attention to when I was applying. Looking at award winners over the past 5-10 years is an especially good way to get a sense for department strengths. It might go without saying, but I suppose people should be wary that these are by no means exhaustive representations of whose in a sub-field, but definitely a good starting point.
-
Hey all,
Sorry this is a really specific question and applies only to the social science types out there.
Is anyone familiar with the Banks' Cross-National Time-Series Data Archive (CNTS)? Details are here: http://www.nsd.uib.no/macrodataguide/set.html?id=10&sub=1
I'm looking to find relationships between country-level economic and political characteristics (e.g. gov't expenditure per capita) and different political event counts.
Has anyone worked with this or know of its reputation? The data have been compiled from other sources, so it's all second- or third-hand collected, leaving me a little dubious about its reliability, especially given its scope over time and nations.
Thanks so much,
SG
-
As magog said, you might want to consider philosophy or comp. lit. programs too. I'm not sure if "Foucault studies" exists in sociology. That sort of thing sounds more like a history of thought or comp. lit. field. Sociology is more likely to use Foucault as a theoretical framework for empirical research into things like sexuality, penal systems, social control, etc., than to study Foucault's writing as such. As one example, I recommend looking into David Garland at NYU.
-
@faculty gave good suggestions for programs. Irvine and Duke are both strong in SNA. Irvine's anthropology department also has some Internet studies stuff, so maybe you can pull some committee members from there. Harvard has network scholars plus a center for the study of internet and society, which is not degree granting. I would also consider looking outside of sociology. You can check out some comm and anth programs. I know Northwestern's Comm school has some Internet scholars. The good thing about Comm is that you will find SNA in several departments. It might be harder to find SNA in Anth departments, but it's somewhat more common for anthropologists to look at online communities than sociologists.
All that being said, I don't think research into online communities is very common in sociology. That may be in a position to change in the near future, though.
As for your second question, interviews are fairly rare in sociology admissions. I know Harvard has done interviews in the past, but it's not the norm across the board. In any case, I wouldn't expect any programs holding it against you that you're abroad at the time. I'm sure you could do a skype or phone interview.
-
How likely am I to get into a phd program with a 3.6 g.p.a. ? I just finished my MA in Soc... I have three strong letters of recommendation, some extracurricular work in the field, and 80th percentile GRE's. What are your thoughts? Thanks.
Likely. Just apply widely, tailor your application the programs you want to attend, and recognize now that nothing is guaranteed.
-
What are your research interests? Postmodern theory has had greater inroads in some subfields than others. I think sociology of the body, sexuality, and social control/discipline have been influenced more-so than, say, economic or political sociology. You could justify as a new perspective on your area of study.
-
External funding from the armchair industry lobby.
-
-
Witty banter at conference receptions.
-
It can depend on your major. If your major has a reputation as being very difficult or having grade deflation (e.g. engineering), then a lower GPA might not reflect so badly on you. Also, some schools claim to care only about GPA in the second two years of undergrad (though they request your whole transcript). Moreover, GPA is a tricky metric because it's hard to compare across institutions and programs. That's why the GRE is so critical.
All that being said, GPA matters. It might be worth it to apply to some masters programs as backups. That will give you an opportunity to improve on a week undergrad GPA while making connections and getting a paper into the publication pipeline. Funded programs do exist, and you can search these boards to find some good ones.
Also, don't think that admissions is all a numbers game. I'm not sure we've collected much data, but the consensus around here is that factors like research experience and the quality of your statement of purpose are of critical importance (though perhaps only as a qualitative measure after applicants have been sorted by GPA/GRE).
-
You will find that, unlike anthropology, sociological ethnography tends to focus on the U.S. context. Notable examples (that I've read, so take with a grain of salt) include Javier Auyero (UT), Sujatha Fernandes (CUNY), and Jocelyn Viterna (Harvard), who actually does multi-method research very well. All three of those scholars do research in Latin America/Carib.
Woops, I meant to say that notable exceptions include... That is, a lot of ethnography in sociology focuses on the (urban) United States, but the names I mentioned there are exceptions to that norm in that they do research in/on Latin America.
Can't edit for some reason...
-
Whaaaaaaat?
That's so cool.
Mixing sociology with anarchist studies on the side?
in Sociology Forum
Posted · Edited by SocialGroovements
It's only for the inner sanctum at Yale to know I think...
Here's a post on orgtheory about the difference. I've seen Jeff Alexander make the difference somewhere too. Put simply, it's a difference between culture as the object of study (sociology of culture) and culture as the lens (cultural sociology). Gabriel Rossman, for instance, studies culture (music industry) using "structural" terms (i.e. diffusion patterns, networks). Contrast that with, I dunno, Bourdieu, who studied class through the lens of cultural tastes (better examples of cultural sociology are out there). Another example is Francesa Polletta, who has written on storytelling in social movements. Whereas the social movements literature was predominantly structural for a long time (a la Tilly), she talks about movement narratives and emotions. It's a fine distinction, but important when you compare the poles.
EDIT: Here's Alexander's essay on the "strong program in cultural sociology." Skip down to the section on "Fault Lines" and you'll see his take.
Here's a 1996 newsletter from the Culture section in which Alexander advances the argument for cultural sociology.
And here's Penny Edgell's (Minnesota) breakdown of the concept.