Category Articles

Entries 139 Total

The uncertainty of contemporary Higher Education

May 18, ’12 8:00 AM

I wanted to draw attention to a great chapter that I came across on Twitter recently that puts into words really well some of my more troubled feelings about my work life post PhD. Predominantly I try and remain positive about my situation because I enjoy both research and teaching, and feel very privileged to be able to contribute to generating and sharing knowledge. However, I have also had many ups and downs, particularly in my last Teaching Only post, and have sometimes felt trapped by an on-going cycle of short term contracts that have been both rewarding, but very difficult.

In her chapter ‘Breaking the silence…’, Rosalind Gill shares qualitative data from colleagues in academia about their experiences of contemporary academic work, moving away from what might be viewed as ‘moans’ about the job, to a more critical investigation contextualised by relevant literature. Like one of her participants I am now on my third short term academic post since completing my PhD and can strongly identify with the stress of balancing heavy and sometimes unforgiving work loads with finding ‘another’ new job. I still also frequently deal with the same questions; Will I ever get a long term post? What else do I have to do to get there? How much more uncertainty do I have to deal with? I am pleased that Rosalind is trying to put academic work life on the agenda, because as she rightly argues, it is woefully under researched, there are significant structural issues and changes affecting contemporary academics (especially early career) and it really does help to know that my troubled feelings are not purely my own failing.

I am currently really enjoying a new post at Open University which is a 2 year contract and is research only. I hope that this will allow me to develop my career and to capitalise on my teaching only post, which I admittedly found detrimental to my publishing capacity and also very time consuming. I wouldn’t want to deter early career academics from short term posts because often needs must and they can look great on a CV and plug significant gaps, but it is important that these are considered critically, both in terms of their value to students and to early career staff.

Gill, R (2009) Breaking the silence: The hidden injuries of neo-liberal academia in Flood,R. & Gill,R. (Eds.) Secrecy and Silence in the Research Process: Feminist Reflections. London: Routledge

Anna Tarrant is a Social Scientist and Human Geographer currently working at the Faculty of Health and Social Care at the Open University. This article was originally posted on Anna’s blog.

Comments (0)

Government Still failing to address racism in Northern Ireland

May 10, ’12 8:00 AM

A decade and a half ago, racial equality and anti-racism were non-existent in Northern Ireland and important attempts have been made to address racism. But multifaceted and deep-rooted racism is manifest at the individual, institutional and state levels of Northern Ireland society.

Eariler this year two people were convicted for murdering Marek Muszynski in 2009, a Polish man beaten to death in Newry Northern Ireland. The case serves as a potent reminder of the most extreme outcomes of racism and demands that attention should be drawn to how the whole phenomenon is addressed and responded to, not only by the criminal justice system, but by government as well.

Since the murder of Stephen Lawrence in 1993, the UK Institute of Race Relations has documented 96 deaths ‘with a known or suspected racial element’. Two of these deaths were recorded in Northern Ireland, including the recent murder of Marek Muszynski in 2009. According to Detective Chief Inspector Gareth Talbot ‘Marek was a Polish national who came to Northern Ireland to explore the opportunities this country could offer him.’ Instead, Marek was robbed, allegedly racially taunted with ‘go back to your own country, you’re not wanted in Ireland,’ and then subjected to a brutal attack. In January a young man was sentenced to eleven years for the murder and weeks later a young woman was given a life sentence for the same crime.

Earlier in the trial attention was brought to the racially aggravated circumstances of the murder in which one of the perpetrators admitted to racially taunting the victim. In more recent media reports, there is no mention of a racial motivation and it does not appear that racially aggravated circumstances were taken into consideration in the passing of the sentences.

In another case in 2004, Brij Brushan Sharma was killed in the aftermath of a dispute on the street, the year in which Northern Ireland was hailed the ‘race hate capital of Europe’. However, the courts did not recognise the racially infused context of the killing. Convicted of manslaughter, one of the perpetrators was sentenced to 17 months in prison while his brother was given 100 hours of community service for intimidation. While racist remarks had been made, it was revealed in an investigation by the Police Ombudsman of Northern Ireland that this was not taken into consideration by the prosecution, much to the dismay of the deceased’s family who were upset at the brevity of the sentence and felt that it should have reflected the fact that the killing was racially motivated. Overall a report by the Police Ombudsman revealed that the criminal justice system had made a number of errors in the investigation and prosecution of the case. The family of Brij, supported by the Northern Ireland Council of Ethnic Minorities, have since called for a public inquiry into institutional racism within the criminal justice system of Northern Ireland.

More recently the case of Simon Tang, a restaurant owner who was robbed and beaten to death in 1996, was re-opened on the basis of new evidence. Police are now suggesting that this murder was also racially motivated (BBC News 2012).

The deaths of Marek Muszynski, Brij Brushan Sharma and Simon Tsang highlight the continuing problem of racism in Northern Ireland and its most extreme outcome. At the same time, the deaths of these men demand that attention should be placed on how the criminal justice system responds to racism and prosecutes it. Back in 2006 a report entitled ‘The Next Stephen Lawrence‘ by Robbie McVeigh argued that the criminal justice system, particularly the police, were inadequately responding to a growing problem of racist violence, which according to McVeigh, was tantamount to institutional racism.

Surprisingly, the police only began to record racist incidents in 1995; largely as a result of Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) people putting pressure on the police to recognise that racially motivated crime was a problem in Northern Ireland (White 1998). Despite BME people living in Northern Ireland for over a century, Race Relations legislation was only passed in 1997, again this was largely as a result of lobbying and campaigning by BME people in partnership with human rights’ organisations, which now meant, for the first time, individuals had legal redress for acts of racial discrimination. It has been argued that the slow move towards recognising the existence of racism was down to a combination of flagrant denial and sectarian conflict, which not only obscured the reality of racism but also meant that many issues affecting minority ethnic people living in Northern Ireland were rarely taken into consideration. This denial and focus on sectarian issues meant that agencies and policymakers displayed a lack of awareness around issues pertaining to racism and the promotion of racial equality, and as such, their policy responses were non-existent (Mann-Kler 1997).

Since then, racist incidents have increased considerably over the years. In 1996 41 incidents were recorded; by 1998, this had risen to 106 and, in the year 2009, 990 incidents were recorded (PSNI 2011). The most recent figures in 2010 reveal a slight decline whereupon figures now stand at 842 incidents. It has been suggested that the increase in race-hate crime, overall, is partially down to people being more willing to report racism, better recording practices by the police, a change in the definition of a racist incident as a result of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry, and a real increase in racist incidents. Indeed, the figures could be far greater as race hate crime is usually underreported.

This means that a great deal of racist hate crime falls under the radar. This was confirmed at a meeting of the All Party Group on Ethnic Minority Communities, a group that lobbies politicians on issues affecting BME communities, in which one minority ethnic representative argued that 95% of race hate crime is unreported. Consequently this issue is reflective of one of the biggest flaws with race-hate crime statistics; that is, they do not capture the true extent of racist harassment because a great deal of it remains under-reported for a variety of reasons. The most predominant factors that inhibit reporting include: fear of retaliation if the crime is reported to the police; a belief that there is no point reporting as nothing will be done; and poor experiences with the police. On a closer examination it is clear that a lack of trust in the police is a considerable problem, especially for the Travelling community. It has also been revealed that BME people who have had contact with the police, were more likely to say that the police were racist. This issue is, perhaps, reflective of a much wider problem of institutional racism.

Overall, it is clear that institutional racism is deeply embedded in the architecture of society resulting in a panoply of discrimination and disadvantages for BME people. Recent cases of police racism in the UK, including alleged racist texts sent by the Police Service of Northern Ireland, draws attention to the widespread nature of this problem despite policy changes (BBC News 2012, Channel 4 News 2012).

In relation to the police response to race hate crime, problems have also been encountered by BME people in regard to an inadequate investigation of racist attacks, deficient support, at the time, or soon after reporting a racist incident, as well as poor relations between the police and minority ethnic communities. Overall, a lack of positive engagement with BME people and a lack of confidence in the police service has proved to be a consistent problem, which in the recent past, has been expressed by various regional minority ethnic organisations such as the Northern Ireland Council for Ethnic Minorities, the Belfast Islamic Centre, and the Chinese Welfare Association. In addition, the Northern Ireland Council for Ethnic Minorities has raised concerns about the treatment of minority ethnic communities at the hands of the criminal justice system, stating that:

“Among the ethnic minority population in Northern Ireland there are strongly held beliefs, based on their daily experiences, that they are treated unequally and less favourably by the Northern Ireland criminal justice system.”

The low clearance rate for race hate crime is also problematic. In 2005-2006 the clearance rate stood at 20.5 percent. However since then the rate of clearance has fallen to 12.5 percent between 2008-2009. While some argue that such figures, alongside low prosecution figures, epitomise the inability of the criminal justice system to successfully respond to race-hate crime (McVeigh 2006), it is clear that this also sends out the message that there is no point in reporting race hate crime as a criminal prosecution is unlikely.

In the face of such criticisms it has been argued that the police are making improvements in the recording of race hate crime, and that the appointment of Minority Liaison Officers (MLOs) has helped to alleviate problems associated with engagement. Yet, Patel’s research in 2011 reveals that ‘operational officers tended to equate policing in a racially diverse society, with the need to police BME people themselves. Here, there was a tendency to view the BME communities, especially newer (economic) migrants, as largely deviant and problematic. This was done via a process of ‘criminalisation’ (Patel 2011).

Therefore, it is clear that race hate crime remains a considerable problem in Northern Ireland, which the criminal justice system has ‘failed to address or resolve’ (McVeigh 2006:54). This year, a follow up to ‘The Next Stephen Lawrence’ will be published by the Northern Ireland Council of Ethnic Minorities. The research report aims to examine all criminal justice agencies in Northern Ireland in relation to how they process and respond to racist hate crime. According to preliminary findings there have been few, if any, improvements in the system.

It is worth noting that the impact of race hate crime on BME communities in Northern Ireland is far-reaching. Each attack not only harms individuals, but it also impacts upon an entire community. In a study by Chahal and Julienne in 1999, which focused on four areas in the UK (including Belfast), it was found that the impact of racism goes well beyond the actual event itself. Fear of being targeted shapes how Black and Minority Ethnic people interact with the wider community; for instance, BME people reported that they were apprehensive about leaving home or going out at night. Racism and the fear of racism also have a negative impact upon the health and well being of minority ethnic people.

A similar story is to be found in a study carried out by Connolly and Keenan (2001) and McVeigh (2006); both of which provide an in-depth insight from the perspectives of BME people in regard to how racist harassment is experienced and its impact on a daily basis. Overall, it was found that the impact of both direct and indirect racist harassment is profound, and one tends to feed into and reinforce the other. Direct racist harassment creates fear which restricts freedom of movement, and the unprovoked and random nature of incidents means that minority ethnic people ‘can never feel totally relaxed and ‘at home’ within wider society’.

Meanwhile, the Northern Ireland government have failed to take racism seriously as evidenced in the fact that a high profile policy framework (The Racial Equality Strategy) designed to address racism from 2005-10, was never implemented.

In the research I carried out between 2008-10 which specifically investigated government attempts to address racism, it was clear that moves towards tackling racism in Northern Ireland were largely impeded by a lack of policy and legislative implementation. Ultimately this contributed to a lack of co-ordination in relation to how racism was tackled across local government, resulting in the employment of weak measures to address racism in the majority of councils studied.

More specifically, a number of obstacles also stymied efforts to successfully challenge racism. These included:

- An absence of strategic policy direction and leadership from central government in relation to tackling racism.

- A lack of capacity and confidence within local government to address ongoing racism and put into action strategic policy to tackle the problem.

- Continued poor engagement between local government and minority ethnic people, especially via elected representatives.

- Under-funding and poor management of resources by central government for minority ethnic groups, inhibiting the sector from building capacity – a central aim of the Racial Equality Strategy

- A narrow conceptualisation of racism has, and continues to, limit how racism is tackled, in effect addressing racism on a superficial basis through good relations rather than a strong-anti-racist approach.

- The continuing legacy of sectarianism is also shaping how racism is dealt with. Moreover, the main political parties have sectarianised the debate on racism as divisive, contributing to stalling efforts to address racism.

In 2011 government ministers proposed that a new updated Racial Equality Strategy would be published, broadly similar to the original strategic framework, by March 2012. According to the All Party Assembly Group for Ethnic Minority Communities, this has been delayed and will not be implemented this year as originally planned.

A decade and a half ago, racial equality and anti-racism were non-existent in Northern Ireland and today Northern Ireland has made important moves in aiming to address racism, but these have been foreshadowed by a lack of implementation. Granted, Northern Ireland has moved away from denial to recognition that racism is a problem, yet at the same time its extent is often downplayed or minimised. It is abundantly clear that racism in Northern Ireland is multifaceted and deep rooted. Racism is manifested at the individual, institutional and state levels of Northern Ireland society. For instance, racism at the individual level reveals itself as racial prejudice and race hate crime, as evidenced in surveys, research reports and police statistics. Yet this is only the tip of the iceberg. Perhaps more tellingly, research that has focused on the perspectives of minority ethnic people, reveal more subtle forms of everyday racism that are not amenable to measurement through surveys. These include racist banter or jokes, staring and racial distancing (Connolly and Keenan 2001). The cumulative effect of this type of racism, alongside more overt forms of racism, can be devastating. It has also been found that racism in Northern Ireland tends to be more covert and hidden. In addition, institutional racism is an issue across a broad range of services. This is often compounded by hostile and condescending attitudes, expressed by public sector staff. And finally, racism is also found at the state level; evident in repressive policies on immigration; ineffective responses to race hate crime (as discussed previously); as well as the poor treatment of asylum seekers and refugees.

The quandary remains, racism in Northern Ireland is evidently a widespread problem but so far it is not being strategically addressed by government and difficulties remain in regard to how race hate crime is processed and tackled within the criminal justice system.

Originally posted on Open Democracy

Further references

BBC News (2012) Simon Tang murder in 1996 is focus of Crimewatchhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-17433444

BBC News (2012) PSNI officers suspended in racist and sectarian text messages inquiry http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-17637450

Chahal, K. and Julienne, L. (1999) ‘We Can’t All Be White!’ Racist Victimisation in the UK’. London: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

Channel 4 News (2012) Police racism: 293 cases, five Dismissals http://www.channel4.com/news/police-racism-figures-reveal-293-cases-and-five-dismissals

Connolly, P. and Keenan, M. (2001) The Hidden Truth: Racist Harassment in Northern Ireland. Belfast: NISRA.

Hainsworth, P. (1998) Divided Society: Ethnic Minorities and Racism in Northern Ireland London: Pluto Press

Jarman, N. and Monaghan, R. (2004) Analysis of Incidents of Racial Harassment Recorded by the Police in Northern Ireland. Belfast: OFMDFM.

Mann-Kler, D. (1997) Out of the Shadows: An Action Research Report into Families, Racism and Exclusion in Northern Ireland. Belfast: Barnardo’s.

McVeigh, R. (2006b) The Next Stephen Lawrence? Belfast: NICEM

Patel, T. (2011) ‘Policing racist incidents: views and experiences of officers within the Police Service of Northern Ireland’ The Journal of Criminal Justice Research 1(2)

PSNI (2011) Trends in Hate Motivated Incidents and Crimes Recorded by the Police in Northern Ireland 2004/05 to 2010/11 Annual Bulletin Belfast: PSNI Central Statistics Branch

White, C. (1998) ‘Law, Policing and the Criminal Justice System’ in Hainsworth, P. (ed.) Divided Society: Ethnic Minorities and Racism in Northern Ireland. London: Pluto Press. 70-103.

Fiona Haughey is currently a lecturer in Sociology and Criminology at Belfast Metropolitan college. Her doctoral research looked at racism in the context of Northern Ireland from a policy perspective. You can follow Fiona on Twitter here

Comments (1)

“Members of the ‘Golden Dawn’ passing in the street”: The emergence of far right extremism and the elections of the 6th of May in Greece

May 6, ’12 2:00 PM

The Greek MYPLACE team at Panteion University Of Social And Political Sciences on the forthcoming Greek elections and the emergence of the extreme right “Golden Dawn.”

This was originally posted on the MYPLACE blog. Follow MYPLACE on Twitter here. For more information on the MYPLACE project, visit the project’s website here.

Less than a week before the most crucial elections in Greece after the restoration of democracy in 1974 it seems that far-right extremism, as it is expressed by the organization ‘Golden Dawn’, is going to be part of the forthcoming parliament assembly for the first time in almost forty years. This extremist organization was founded in the first place as a periodical in 1980 by his current General Secretary. In 1983 stops its publication and it reappears next year (1984). The General Secretary of the Golden Dawn, Nikolaos Michaloliakos, was the leader of the party the Dictator G. Papadopoulos founded while he was in prison after the fall of the military junta and he founded the political party National Popular Movement – Golden Dawn in 1985. The first activities of the movement were the participation in the rallies about the so called ‘Macedonian issue’, i.e. the name of the Former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia and of course the participation in the civil war in Yugoslavia supporting the Serbs. It is very interesting, that Golden Dawn did not participate in the elections of 2007 and in 2009 received 19,624 votes (only 0.29% of the votes). However, in the local elections of 2010 in Athens received 10,222 votes (5.29%) and managed to elect its General Secretary as a local counselor, who in one of the first assemblies of the municipal council gave the fascist salute (they argue that this is a ancient Greek salute and not a fascist one), something that almost all the members do in their gatherings. Today, all the polls agree that Golden Dawn is going to receive between 4 and 7% of the votes and it is almost certain that approximately 15 PMs are going to be elected.

Even though the Golden Dawn begun as a Nazi organization, also supporting ancient Greek civilization and religion, during the last two years and in order to gain the support of the Greek society it denounces its Nazi past and declare its Greek-Orthodox character. They are against globalization, against the corrupted political system and of course against the troika and the austerity measures imposed on the Greek society. However, their main interest is immigrants (legal and illegal), because according to their ideology the Greeks belong to Arian race and as a consequence all other races are considered inferior.

Furthermore, they argue that unemployment is caused by the too many illegal immigrants who take the jobs of the Greeks and that criminality is in such high rates only because of the immigrants. In many cases, they have attacked immigrants, who in their majority are afraid to press charges against them, they have attacked leftists and members of anti-racist/ anti-fascist organizations, and also they have attacked politicians of the main political parties. Recently, they started to give food supplies to those who are poor, homeless and unemployed and they are very proud that they managed to ‘clean’ of the immigrants the square of Aghios Panteleimon of Athens in the center of the city. In addition, some of the organization’s members have been convicted for participating in activities of the common penal law (e.g. robberies, murders, etc.). During, the last days they attacked many left-wing electoral stands in many regions of Athens and they were also accused of attacking immigrants, who were begging for some money in Crete.

They are very active in a local level, but they are considered a dangerous and closed organization. Recently, Reuters and the Associated Press did some research about them but they were not willing to answer questions about the issue of violence against the immigrants. They argue that if they are elected they will bring back the minefields in the borders with Turkey in order stop immigration and also that they will abolish the ‘alternative military service’ for those denying it because of conscience reasons. Additionally, those denying the military service will lose their citizenship. It is evident, that the reason of the increase of their percentages is the immigration issue.

They are also very active in the internet, and even though they accuse the mainstream media of preventing their public presence they themselves ask the Greek citizens to close their TVs because they can find them on the internet, where they have their blogs, their websites, their twitter account, special sites for the youth division (http://www.resistance-hellas.blogspot.com/) and special sites for women (http://whitewomenfront.blogspot.com/).

However, one of the specialists we interviewed for WP 3 said that there is no special participation of youth in this organization to the point that it would be worth mentioning it or at least to the point that it is different from youth participation in other parties and coalitions.

Comments (0)

On The Impossibility Of Being Original – A Sociological Perspective

May 2, ’12 8:00 AM

This is a follow up to this earlier post

     When analysing anything through a social lens, an important understanding I believe is needed; that is of the true impact of social structure on individuals. While the chosen form of functioning – easily recognised by the terms Communism, Socialism or Capitalism for example – can be naively viewed as causing isolated forms of behaviours by those within that society, a more accurate and proven understanding is that the system in place merely accentuates and brings to light certain innate human characteristics more than others; all of which are a part of every human being. For example, the Communist Nazi regime didn’t turn German citizens into blindly obedient tools for the exploitation of Jewish people, but instead created a context in which fear and a lack of social capital among the masses resulted in those behaviours being carried out. More importantly, just as there were such practices as concentration camps and gas chambers, individual and, at times, even collective examples of love and self-sacrifice also existed – as have been brilliantly documented in numerous films, such as The Pianist and The Great Escape, of which there are probably too many to count. Therefore, through this rational idea of social influence, originality can be further explored.

As goes the well-known cliché, money makes the world go round; and it is this ‘fact’ that largely deprives us of our originality. The vast majority of individuals in both Western and developing countries almost always have to consider their economic situation with every decision they make, without having the luxury of inherited or fluked wealth. Indeed, except for the lucky – or some would argue unlucky – few, money permeates every aspect of life: family, work, leisure and, most crucially, art. Art is, and should be, in my opinion, a reflection of one’s self. Therefore, what one creates is a true testament to their honesty and passions. On the surface this might be seen as a deliberate effort to avoid originality, as many people share similar views, passions and flaws, and all humans are generally driven and inspired by similar themes. Thus, without the conscious effort to deviate from the typical trends of fiction, music, fashion and film (to list four popular means of artistic expression), one’s creations will be seen in those of others. However, while ignoring the lengthy nature/nurture debate that would be required to truly explore such an issue, I believe that anything created solely through one’s own desires is true art, and is therefore evidence of originality. The problem arises when external influences come into play; of which I believe have never been so dominant as they are in today’s world.

It has already been mentioned that money is the most powerful of all, and this should not be understated or assumed to be a universal clique that has always existed and has therefore become an organic and, therefore, irrelevant issue. With the Industrial Revolution and, in turn, the growth of, and migration of, people towards large cities all over the world, has arrived an almost universal form of comparison – that of financial capital. 150 years ago, and still just about existing in very isolated villages and, of course, more so in the underdeveloped regions of the planet, each member of the community had their own unique value adding to that of the society; usually a trade, skill or responsibility cast upon them. This allowed every citizen to be both unique in their contribution to the community, but also of equal social capital to everyone else. The farmer would have been in his own way as invaluable as the baker, the builder and the tool maker for example. Of course, in the 21st century, population growth in cities across the world and policies of free enterprise and open markets, particularly in the Western world, has meant that every field of work is immensely competitive, has the scope for huge gains in wealth, but also the likely chance of complete failure. The spread of wealth in America – that of 99% of the population owning 1% of the wealth, and 1% owning 99% – underlines the resulting effects on society.

Crucially, one’s originality naturally suffers from this. While before the baker, being the only one in his small village, had guaranteed – if not booming – business, now he would have dozens of other bakeries to compete with; and with such a large population living in such a small area (think Tokyo or Beijing for example), it is quite possible for just 2 or 3 of his rival businesses to reap the overwhelming share of customers. Within this climate, the constant fight to survive financially means that money must take priority ahead of any artistic motives; whether they are ethical, goal-oriented or just one’s personal interests that they wish to carry out. Not only this, but the results of the chosen practices are now, for the first time, universally measurable – economy being the only detail compared and, essentially, the only factor that ever can be compared (because any form of art is inevitably subjective and, therefore, incomparable). The resulting awareness of one’s competition, their judgement of, and potential success over, one’s self further negates any ability to carry out artistic practices. Furthermore, work that was once a means to make a living while the remaining leisure time could still be spent on a person’s interests and hobbies has necessarily become a life-investment, with working hours increasing to the extent of leisure time being almost non-existent for millions of people, particularly in large, modern cities. Indeed, it is not uncommon for bankers to work for 12 hours a day, 6 or 7 days a week. As a result, the overwhelming majority live their lives through their work: work in which becomes the same generic practices – usually through systematic, hierarchical institutions – that everyone else takes part in. Consequently, the industrial working world has become a means of trying to carry out the same proven, standardised procedures more efficiently and intensely than everyone else.

Modern capitalist methods have further heightened the difficulties caused by our human tendencies; particularly for those that are socially aware or rely on cultural acceptance in order to live even the most trivial of lifestyles. Indeed, this is inherent among the vast majority of society anyhow, due to the immense, unjustifiably wide gap between the rich and poor that exists synonymously in both developed and developing nations around the world. This social hierarchy, while inevitably causing a handful of National, and global, role models to be idolised beyond belief, and broadening the numbers that follow a particular idolised fashion trend, music genre or political belief for example, has two particularly significant, and largely unrealised, properties. Firstly, the extreme bottom-heavy structure of such hierarchies is such that those few remaining at the top avoid the intense struggle that persists beneath. As seen by youth football academies in England, or the hip-hop gangs that continue to battle in the suburbs of large American cities, this ruthless battle is almost always underneath the person or institution that they are trying to associate with or overtake. Of course, there may be small windows of opportunity (trial days, book signings, talent contests etc.), but just as you throw your dog a bone so he will keep coming back to you, human beings also react to that small slice of hope. Inevitably, and tactically on behalf of the dominant institutions, they will stay inspired and motivated towards their targeted goal, no matter how unrealistic. Indeed, the individuals responsible for the idolised message have the money and social capital to ensure things stay that way. Secondly, and crucially for the first property to be seen as both pertinent and ridiculous, the wave starters at the hierarchy’s peak need the brawl beneath if they are to stay on top. It is the cd’s, merchandise, packed stadiums of fans, and giggling swarms of girls that gift their idols their superhero status and, unfortunately, their financial and social capital needed to float above the social majority. Of course, as Karl Marx has dramatically underlined, the vast majority of society therefore have the opportunity to rise up against the minority in power and, consequently, are able to become themselves, at least to a greater extent than at present. Unfortunately, the whole process becomes a never ending cycle, with superstars becoming has-beens, up-and-coming others replacing them and the new batch of young hopefuls imitating their new heroes once again.

If this is indeed the case then originality – while ignoring the initial social influences on the individual – can perhaps exist in a very short, temporary form. Essentially, just until the masses listen, read, watch or understand the message and, in turn, absorb, copy and spread similar themes elsewhere. Of course, it is not unknown that this is a significant part of human nature. The music industry, for example, regularly demonstrates this process, with fresh new artists releasing a first record and rising to global fame and success in just a few months before never being able to have the same effect on their audience during their second or third attempts. It’s incredible how so few musicians have been able to consistently release music that is both original and successful. As already explained through ‘social hierarchies’, the nature of such institutions means that the two are almost always mutually exclusive anyhow. Consequently, the ‘artist’, through almost any possible form, either conforms to the label that is first placed upon them or gravitates to other popular trends in order to stay relevant; negating the artist’s uniqueness when compared to the social majority, but also in the falseness of their expression – their ‘art’.

Through various processes within our modern social structure, as explained, our originality can be largely undermined. Predominantly through the emergence of new standards of living, working and, in turn, treatment of our lives and others, our time, opportunities and motivation for artistic endeavours and, in general,  behaviours stemming from our true personal make-up has become severely restricted. I am, however, confident – or should I say hopeful – that we will break through this stagnant period and rediscover our individuality and, more importantly, confidence to express it. The clear niche in industrial markets for more humanistic means of working practice suggests that it could also be a largely profitable, as well as refreshing, way of functioning. It is perhaps these solutions that are more realistic and, therefore, required for change to take place. As for the dominance of financial capital and the ‘celebrity’ over our everyday lives, we can only hope that more artistic and – I would argue – more fulfilling avenues in life can eventually overcome their presence. The recent economic recession and continued exploitation of celebrity icons could surely pave the way for change, even if our wonderfully original selves somehow fail.

‘Life is too important to be taken seriously’ Oscar Wilde

Comments (1)

Social Class and Life Chances as seen through Survivor Rates on the Titanic

Apr 26, ’12 8:00 AM

We have just eclipsed the 100 year anniversary of the sinking of the Titanic – an incredibly horrific tragedy that resulted in the deaths approximately 1,500 individuals.  Astonishingly, this accounted for over two-thirds of the individuals onboard. This from the ship that was dubbed “unsinkable” and was so confident in its invincibility that its lifeboat capacity could accommodate only about half of the individuals on the ship (they decided that they didn’t want the “extra lifeboats” to ruin the aesthetic beauty of the ship’s decks). In short, the Titanic was not well-equipped for a possible tragedy, which ensured that a great deal of individuals were to be doomed when tragedy did strike.  While this means that most of the individuals wouldn’t have survived (which the survival numbers verify), it does not mean that everyone on the ship had an equal chance at surviving. In fact, quite the opposite was true.

This real-life occurrence can be a useful starting point for instructors trying to introduce the concept of social stratification (inspired by David M. Newman’s Exploring the Architecture of Everyday Life textbook). The Titanic represents a very clear-cut example where social class divisions provided different opportunities to individuals occupying different classes (you can use “life chances” quite literally in this instance). An individual’s odds of survival were greatly shaped by his/her structural location aboard the ship (i.e. your social class, gender, and age).

Here is an interesting chart illustrating the survivor rates by gender and class:

This chart is the official report from the British Board of Trade on the survivors.  Clearly, members of some social classes were more likely to survive than others.

While I have yet to use this specific example in class, I am sure that it can be effectively utilized to illustrate structural location and access to resources and one’s “life chances.”  The survivor rates are so stark and pronounced when broken down by social class that it makes for a very clear example of differential access to resources.  This is why this chart is so powerful.

I would imagine that a couple of potential challenges you may encounter are “That’s just the way it was back then,” or “That was just one specific instance onboard a tragic ship’s sinking at sea.”  While it’s true that social class probably isn’t quite as rigid now as it was in the days of Titanic, it should make for smooth transition to social class as a means to greater access to resources (i.e. better school systems or nicer neighborhoods).  These more modern examples can help to show that social class remains an important consideration when thinking about one’s access to resources and how this may shape life chances.

The movie, Titanic, could obviously be used or shown in clips in conjunction with the official report.  Throughout there are many examples of differences in treatment, expectations, and norms of individuals based on social class.  It may also be fruitfully analyzed as an illustration as to women’s “second-class status” and treatment (at times being treated as property).  The main female character, Rose, is presented as a strong and independent female, though it is made obvious throughout the movie that she is the exception to the norm (all for a good storyline!).

Whether you choose to use the actual film or simply the above survivor statistics, this can be a powerful example and metaphor; it takes some pieces of information that students are probably aware of, but perhaps have never thought about sociologically – a powerful tool to use when teaching.

You can follow Mike on Twitter here or read his blog here

Comments (0)

Sarah Burton, a postgraduate student at Cambridge University, reflects on her first BSA conference

Apr 24, ’12 8:00 AM

Having spent nearly a decade with English literature as the prevailing academic thrust of my studies I’ve recently been exploring other avenues of research. During my Master’s I got very interested in social history, psychology and various aspects of the social sciences in terms of how they relate to literary studies. In particular I’ve become fascinated by social theory and even more so by the people who write it. I’m intrigued by the notion of sociology as an ‘improving’ discipline, to quote Zygmunt Bauman, especially in terms of the idea that it should be freely and easily accessible to the ‘ordinary man’. My experience of social theory is very much that it is ratherinaccessible, indeed in discussion with other academics this idea seemed to be prevalent.

So it was with this burgeoning interest in social theory that I decided to jump headlong into the sociological community and join the British Sociological Association. I figured (hoped) that it would help me meet similar lost souls suffering from the most dire of imposter syndrome because they had never actually done a degree in sociology but were nevertheless engaging academically with it. Fortuitously I was right, an event remarkable in itself for its sheer rarity. The annual conference held last week was one of the most enlightening experiences of my recent education – personally, politically, socially and academically. To detail the events of the conference in detail would be prosaic and tiresome so in order to be brief and hopefully witty, à la Polonius, I will concentrate on the standout moments.

I’d like to say that these came in the plenaries, roundtables, lectures, keynotes, streams etc but it would be a lie. Many were very good, introducing me to new thinkers, new faces, new thought connections and were absolutely worthwhile. But really, they made very little impact on my thinking aside from: ‘Nice, well done you. Very clever.’

What made a massive difference was talking to everyone that I possibly could – bunking off all of the organised stuff in order to sit in the hall drinking endless cups of coffee and talking about whatever came to mind with whoever crossed my path. The most common question of the conference was surely an enquiry into your area of study and as a literature student I think they found me curious but were always very open to my particular reasons for an interest in sociology. I found it interesting that so many current PhD students or early careers people had come into sociology from such a wide background: art, music, sport science, history, literature to name but a few. I noticed too a certain surprise at anyone wanting to write a purely theoretical PhD and couldn’t help thinking of the apparently arse-over-tit way they must see me approaching my proposal, though coming from literary studies it feels entirely natural to do wholly library based research.

Particular highlights for me academically were the Race and Violence stream plenary which being the last thing on the last day did well to keep our attention and enthusiasm; several papers on feminist activism, access to higher education and Bourdieu were really interesting and done well; the podcasting session on the PG day was possibly the most enlightening and really got me thinking about what I could do with that and how it could be usefully used to engage with sociology. I think, considering the nature of my investigation, that it could be an especially worthwhile format to learn. Zygmunt Bauman’s talk on the PG day was inspiring, there was a definite sense of optimism in his rhetoric. Strangely for something attended by nearly 700 people it didn’t feel enormous and overwhelming. On the other hand the catering was *ahem* questionable which would be fine and expected if the conference fees weren’t so high. But I achieved my objectives – I regaled most current sociologists with my PhD idea and took on their feedback, I met far too many brilliant new people and I learned things about how sociologists do stuff and how it’s different to literature. I even came away wanting to read a book on Italian football….

 Originally posted on Sarah’s blog.

Comments (0)

Paola Tubaro, Senior Lecturer in Economic Sociology at the Business School of the University of Greenwich, reflects on #BritSoc12

Apr 23, ’12 8:00 AM

I have just come back home from the annual conference of the British Sociological Association in Leeds. Lots of participants, excellent organisation, and a surprisingly nice (though rainy and chilly!) town with a modern, functional, well-equipped campus.

Overall, however, a sense of unease prevailed. Perhaps it was the very theme of the conference: “Sociology in an age of austerity”. Though not too strictly applied to all sessions (fortunately, a variety of issues and topics found a place in the variousstreams), it gave the general tone to discussions. Participants repeatedly voiced concerns about the current government’s policies –privatizations, reforms of the University system and the NHS, reduced welfare benefits. Many raised the question of the role of sociologists in this context –all the more so as funders, regulators, and the government itself tend to increasingly make sociologists (and generally speaking, academics and intellectuals) accountable for the “impact” of their work. Is impact the right measure of the contribution of sociology to society –or should we rather think in terms of “value”, as John Brewer (outgoing president of BSA) suggested? Is the notion of “public sociology” of Michael Burawoy (a keynote speaker at the conference) still practicable, and how can it be adapted to today’s challenges?

It is indeed an important question. Yet I’m afraid there weren’t many answers around. (I was particularly happy of something that Burawoy said – we need a new theory of social movements – but it’s just because it’s one part of my research). By and large, nobody had a clue.

Still, there are some directions to explore. With the few who, like me, tweetedintensely during the conference, a sort of implicit consensus emerged that sociology should engage more with social media. To be part of an important development of today’s society, and most of all, to engage with wider publics than just academia, policymakers or business “clients” of sociological insight. The traditional press is no longer enough. Our bunch of tweets is a small step in this direction –we should now jump to a larger scale to make a difference.

Another direction for development is more openness to junior researchers. It was a bit sad that many delegates left the auditorium after the Burawoy-Bauman plenary, before the prize ceremony that was to reward two “newer generation” sociologists. More generally, there should be more to support junior participants, be they PhD students, post-docs, or freshly appointed lecturers. If we need novel ideas, it is only from them that we can expect them. The Burawoys and Baumans have already done their job, and outstandingly so –we can’t ask them more.

Finally, I’ll draw on Burawoy (again!) for an appeal to method:

“we desperately need methodology to keep us erect, while we navigate a terrain that moves and shifts even as we attempt to traverse it.”

The conference saw the usual quarrels between the qualitative and quantitative camps, but that’s not the point. Both methods have their legitimacy and usefulness, and so do all their variants and combinations (I’ll write more about this). What matters is that in all cases, methods should be applied seriously and rigorously: I regret to say, it was not always the case in Leeds. We need to be more careful about that. If we fail to stay erect, no notion of “impact”, “value” or “being public”, however innovative, can come to our rescue.

Originally posted on Paola’s blog

Comments (0)

The Importance of Being Ernest #4

Apr 20, ’12 8:00 AM

A week in hospital has been like placing Ernest in a sociological sweet shop with a months worth of pocket money. The mentally unwell, the fights, the nurses, the elderly – it’s all there, like a box of quality street waiting for Ernest to unwrap with his sociological analysis, each one a shiny coloured nugget of the distress of humanity.

Being placed on an observation ward is like being plonked right in the middle of every social class, gender, culture, ethnicity, age and mental state available. What was most interesting to me was the mentality of the patients and nurses. During a four day stay, six people were dragged in having overdosed or self harmed. Of these six people two were taken on to a mental institution instantly, the rest waited for a bed for several days, after which a psychiatric assessment revealed them to be of no threat to themselves and they were released from section and allowed home. Of course the six day wait for one bed clearly had nothing to do with the number of those patients sent home… however, it seems to be that anyone who has recently been in such a state of distress that they are willing to take their own lives is probably not in a great state of mind.

Speaking to one of these patients, a drug addict struggling with withdrawal who had overdosed several times, I realised just how dire the mental health system is. This woman knew the tricks of the trade, how to appear the exact level of normal in a psychiatric assessment, how to self harm in a ward and how to hide your tools. Yet she was deemed well enough to leave the hospital and resume a life she clearly could not cope with. Why is it that self harm is not enough? It appears that it is only when the extreme occurs that anyone is taken seriously and yet we wonder why we have such high rates of suicide? Why is it that a broken bone is worse than a hurt mind and that it takes a suicide attempt (athough only the right kind mind you!) for someone to listen? Why is a psychiatric assessment needed to decide if our own bodies are struggling? Who decides who is mad and who is sane?

Until we start listening to the mentally unwell, assume their minds are not broken but different and their voices have equal status to that of a psychiatrist, we will never create a system which serves the needs of mental health patients.

Comments (0)

Teaching Through Rocky: Stratification and the American Dream, Race, and Gender

Apr 19, ’12 8:00 AM

Rocky. An American classic. The epitome of the American Dream through a rags-to-riches story (in a documentary on the making of Rocky, Sylvester Stallone describes the writing and making of the film as its own real-life American Dream as well). A well-made film that won Best Picture in 1976 along with several other awards. Largely considered to be not only one of the great sports films of all time, but a great film of all time for any genre.

Along with its renown as a classic, award-winning film illustrating cultural values and beliefs that many Americans hold dear, the movie also happens to be quite useful and valuable as a teaching tool. It’s one that I like to use in my Sociology of Sport class, though it could easily be applied to a non-sport sociology class as well. There are several different areas in which Rocky may be usefully applied.  Here I focus on stratification and the ideology of the American Dream, race, and gender.

Rocky, Stratification, and the American Dream

As previously mentioned, Rocky embodies the American Dream and our belief in rags-to-riches stories. This is the idea that in America, thanks to our system of open mobility (the ability to move freely between different social classes – though take note that we do not live in a perfectly open system!), anyone with the right amount of hard work and determination can “make it.” In the beginning of the film, we see Rocky’s current situation – fighting in cheap clubs in the slums of Philadelphia while working on the side as a collector for a local bookie. From these humble beginnings, we can track Rocky’s improbable (and lucky) shot at the heavyweight boxing title (and especially as the movies go on, we are made aware of the wealth that Rocky has accumulated).

Our belief in the American Dream as realistic relies on the ideas of competitive individualism and meritocracy. The idea of competitive individualism is that a person’s successes are due to that individual’s hard work, determination, and skills/abilities, while any failures must result from laziness or a lack of determination and skills/abilities of the individual (effectively ignoring any larger, structural forces at play). This is the main thrust behind each of the films in the Rocky series: Rocky’s heart, determination, and incredible work ethic lead him to improbable victory. He is willing to give whatever it takes – clearly illustrated through the grueling training montages that are a centerpiece of each of the films. This is closely related to what we think of as a meritocracy – that individuals end up where they “should be” based on their individual merit; they earned it (or failed to earn it).

In a system designed this way, we can look directly to the individual to understand why he/she did or did not succeed. Indeed these rags-to-riches stories are exemplars that show us that hard work and determination can pay off. In fact, it’s quite important for these rags-to-riches stories to be highly visible and well-known for us to maintain our strong belief in the American Dream and “opportunity for all.”

However, what many conflict theorists argue is that the high visibility of these *very rare and improbable* rags-to-riches stories have created a sense of false consciousness where those who are actually systematically harmed and disadvantaged by the system, actually believe in the system and do not realize their own disadvantaged structural location within it. In fact, when Rocky is asked by Adrian why he fights, he quips, “because I can’t sing or dance.” This illustrates the idea that he views sport and entertainment as his only two ways of escaping life in the slums. He has internalized this and sees the system that promotes it as legitimate and normal – thus adding to the sense of false consciousness. It’s absolutely certain that we do not live in a complete meritocratic system. One’s race, class, gender, sexual orientation, and network ties (among other things) shape opportunities and advantages/disadvantages.

In the case of Rocky, there was a great deal of luck involved. Rocky was chosen largely because Apollo wanted to put on a show – he liked the public relations gimmicks that could come from fighting the “Italian Stallion” (Rocky’s nickname). This would be a great representation to show that an immigrant could make it in the “land of opportunity” (said several times in the film!) on America’s bicentennial birthday. However, people tend to ignore the luck and other factors involved (other fighters being injured, Apollo’s thirst for a good story, etc.), and focus on Rocky as an individual – how all of his hard work paid off.

While there’s no doubt that Rocky worked hard, we cannot neglect the broader context in our hurry to pin all of his success on his own individual hard work and determination. There were plenty of other individuals who were working just as hard and had just as much skill/talent (and likely many who were working even harder with more skill/talent), yet did not get a shot at the title. Did Rocky truly merit this opportunity more than anyone else? Was it all based on his individual hard work and achievements?

Rocky and Race

In the movie, Rocky’s opponent is the current heavyweight champion, Apollo Creed. Creed is an African-American – not at all uncommon for many heavy-weight boxers over the years. However, his portrayal and some of the themes we may see are not inconsequential when thinking about race.

While Rocky’s story focuses on his intense training and hard work to overcome his clumsiness and lack of “natural ability,” Apollo’s is the direct opposite. We do not see any of Apollo’s training regimen – we are actually led to believe that there probably wasn’t much of one at all!

Apollo is portrayed as a naturally gifted and extremely arrogant athlete. His first priority is to put on a “show” for the fans. This was what inspired his decision to select Rocky as a challenger; we see him ignore his trainer’s advice to take Rocky seriously because he is more concerned with planning the event; and we can see his emphasis on putting on a show at the actual fight when he shows up dressed as Uncle Sam alongside the Statue of Liberty.

This feeds into common stereotype that many have: that when it comes to sport, African-Americans are simply “naturally gifted” and are able to be lazy at times because of this extra skill/talent they have been endowed with. The white athlete, on the other hand, has to make up for this lack of “natural ability” through extra hard work, or “knowing the game” better (designing some sort of superior strategy – relying on intellect). This downplays the amount of work and effort that African-Americans do put into particular sports, instead relying on these ideas of “natural” or “genetic” ability.

We can see variations of this theme over and over throughout the subsequent films. In Rocky III in particular, Rocky fights Clubber Lane (Mr. T), another African-American fighter. Though not portrayed as arrogant as Apollo Creed was, Lane is the epitome of the stereotype mentioned above: the black man as naturally gifted and a physical specimen. Many early sportswriters (especially those covering boxing) explicitly described black boxers as being “instinctual,” “coming straight out of the jungle with other wild animals,” and other similar metaphors. Again, this characterizes the black male as a physical specimen born to fight – it is a part of his intrinsic nature.

In fact, the only reason that Rocky is able to defeat Lane in their second matchup (Rocky loses the first), is because Rocky outsmarts him. He sets a “trap” by allowing Lane to dole out some heavy punches anticipating that this will “tire him out.” Again, this puts emphasis on using his superior strategy in order to “keep up” and eventually win the fight.

The final point of interest with respect to race that I’ll point out here also comes from Rocky III. After Rocky initially loses to Lane, Apollo and his trainer decide to take Rocky under their wing and train him to fight. Rocky accompanies them to their gym and there is some immediate racial tension as Rocky enters the gym with Adrian and Paulie to see only African-Americans there. Paulie also constantly remarks that Rocky “can’t be trained like a colored fighter because he’s got no rhythm.” Again, this reinforces the idea that African-Americans have these types of physical abilities come to them much more naturally and without the amount of hard work and effort it takes others.

Rocky and Gender

When it comes to Rocky and gender, this may seem like a moot point to some – “this is a film about boxing, it’s not supposed to have anything to do with gender.” Well, that very idea explains one reason exactly why it does matter with respect to gender. The idea that we don’t expect (or perhaps don’t want) a boxing film to have any type of gender dynamics is telling. This is a sports-film that centers on the experience and identity of *surprise* a male. Check out this link for an interesting analysis of the lack of female-centered award-winning films in general.

In fact, the only real female role in the film is that of Adrian, Rocky’s eventual girlfriend and wife. And Adrian does not embody a strong, independent, important female character. Exactly the opposite, in fact. Adrian embodies the ideals of very traditional femininity: passive, shy, timid, dependent, frail, unable to take care of herself, nurturing, supportive, and not especially financially successful.

Adrian is viewed in two main ways in the film by men: as an obstacle, and as a source of social support.  Adrian is viewed as an obstacle by both Mickey (Rocky’s trainer), and Paulie (Rocky’s friend and Adrian’s brother). According to Mickey, “women weaken legs,” showing his belief that she is only in the way of Rocky’s training. Paulie claims that Adrian cannot survive on her own and is thus his responsibility, which has limited his options in life (a rather far-fetched claim coming from a raging alcoholic who has trouble himself of maintaining a job). For Rocky, Adrian is there to support him, both emotionally and physically. While this is helpful for Rocky, it still clearly places Adrian in the role of care-giver while Rocky’s career and well-being takes precedent. Both her role as an obstacle and as a source of support display her as status as a woman as being of secondary importance to the men in the film.

Gender analysis, however, should not be limited to looking at how females and femininity are often marginalized in society. We can see the characterization of masculinity (a specific kind of masculinity) and how that is portrayed as well. First of all, it is a film about boxing; it doesn’t get much more masculine than that. Secondly, we can see Rocky’s identity as a fighter as central to him. Males have a tendency to create their sense of self and identity to be closely tied to athletics and sport. This can be detrimental to other aspects of one’s life as different relationships and other areas take a backseat to the importance of sport. Finally, Rocky gets the girl (in large respect by ignoring Adrian’s initial refusals to his advances). What is more masculine than a male, heavy-weight prize fighter, who is heterosexual and ends up getting the girl? I don’t have an answer for that.

I have used Rocky mainly to illustrate a rags-to-riches story and tie it in with stratification while also attempting to touch on at least a couple of salient points on gender and race mentioned here.  It is worth noting that there are other aspects of the film that could be equally fruitful to examine, as well as some of the other films from the series (Rocky III, and Rocky IV immediately come to mind).

You can follow Mike on Twitter here or read his blog here

Comments (0)

Terry Wassall, Principal Teaching Fellow in the School of Sociology and Social Policy at the University of Leeds, reflects on #britsoc12

Apr 18, ’12 2:15 PM

I enjoyed the BSA 2012 conference in Leeds that finished yesterday and came away re-enthused about sociology as a vocation and as a political project and mildly optimistic about its future. I have come away with my head buzzing with half formed ideas, fragments of talks and conversations, pages of barely legible notes and a dozen or more issues I want to follow up and projects I want to start or be involved in. It seemed to me that in the presentations I went to and in conversations I had a few interconnected themes kept recurring – the problem of sociology’s publics, the necessity for sociology to de-objectify society and social actors, and the practice of sociology as a normative and politically engaged vocation. While I can still remember them, these are a few initial notes and observations around these topics.

Zygmunt Bauman in his talk to the PG Forum on Tuesday and in his keynote on Wednesday acknowledged there is the perception of a crisis in sociology. This is usually construed as sociology losing touch with its public. For Zygmunt this is a due to the public that sociology emerged historically to serve – legislators, managers, bureaucrats, administrators, more generally those concerned with and responsible for social control, social order, making people and processes predictable – having changed so that it no longer requires the services of a sociology of order and control, or as Zygmunt termed it, a sociology of unfreedom. Without going into much detail, he puts this down to some key aspects of what he calls liquid modernity. This includes a growing awareness of the fact that change is the only constant and the only certainty is the permanence of uncertainty. This has had a profound effect on institutions and organisations, effects that can be evidenced and demonstrated in many ways. It has also had a profound effect on individuals. Organisations deal with uncertainty by developing new organisational forms and management techniques. These are based on strategies that externalise aspects of organisation, risk and responsibility coupled to what Zygmunt calls ‘the managerial revolution Mark II’ and new forms of social control and domination. The effect of outsourcing, contracting out, off shoring and subsidiarising shifts responsibility to often far flung complex chains made up of units of ever diminishing power and control. This was amply demonstrated by the last keynote where we were told how financialisation has led to virulent forms of profit seeking and has changed the way businesses are structured and organised and their relation to their employees. The shift indicated in this presentation from ‘managerial capitalism’ to ‘financial capitalism’ seems to map quite nicely onto Zygmunt’s claimed shift between the first wave of ‘scientific’ management to the less easily characterised managerial revolution Mark II. Somewhat flippantly, I tend to think of this as, let a thousand flowers bloom (to slightly misquote Mao Zedong) and we will find a way of making money out of all of them, passing as much risk as possible to suppliers, labour, governments and the public. It is evident that not everyone is equal in a world of uncertainty. Those closer to the sources of uncertainty have greater risks and more precarious lives. In the corporate and financial world this is signalled to some extent by a shifting emphasis from the ‘sustainability’ of business and operations to their ‘resilience’, a rather less inclusive term that implies processes of casting adrift and sacrificing in order to protect the ‘core’ business and key objectives – basically to extract profits and preserve shareholder value.

Business now is geared to an operational environment and a world of uncertainty that does not require explicit micromanagement of populations. Individuals, faced with uncertainty, with no guarantees of a final destination or happy ending, the withering of public goods like the welfare state, etc. relate to this new world as competitors seeking security as best they can. Social control is now largely exerted through a combination of fragmentation, individuation, debt and fear alongside forms of persuasion and the manufacture of desire. As Burawoy pointed out in his talk, many of the precariat and unemployed are seeking opportunities to be exploited. Trades Unions are fighting on behalf of their members to be exploited. Zizek, in a recent article, described this as being one of the main driving concerns of recent student protests. To a certain extent, historically, the middle classes have been incorporated and controlled by being given a reasonable share of the surplus and secure employment. Increasingly sections of this class have seen their job security diminished, their wages and conditions of work eroded and are, in short, becoming part of the precariat. Precariousness is not new. It’s just novel for a much larger section for the population who have not experienced it and don’t expect it. According to Zizek, student protest can be seen as a reaction to and a resistance against the attack on the sections of the occupational structure they assumed they were destined for and its, up to now, taken for granted privileges. In other words, an attack on their futures. I would say there is some evidence of this from my own experience and observations but personally I am much more hopeful of the sorts of politicised consciousnesses and concerns that I see in play. This, I think, points to the continuing and growing importance of encouraging the spread of a sociological imagination.

On the question of the public, John Holmwood made some interesting observations in one of the sessions drawing on, I think, the ideas of Dewey. Publics are not a given. They are in any case, intrinsically, or at least originally, passive, made as they are by forces external to individuals that create the conditions for them to form a public, recognise themselves as members of that public and therefore have the potential to become active citizens. (This sounds a bit like Marx’s ideas on the socialisation of an industrial proletariat and the development of class consciousness in the context of factory organisation and work, etc. A problem today is that with the shift to a society of individualised consumers and a fragmented competing precariat, the conditions for developing forms of solidarity are much harder to identify). Citizenship in this (Dewey’s?) view depends upon individuals coming to see themselves as members of a public with interests in common with other members. If this is the case sociology by itself cannot conjure up its putative public but must look for trends and circumstances where publics are being formed and hitch their wagon to these as partners. I guess this is tantamount to looking for processes of politicisation where individuals and groups, through force of circumstance, are developing a reflexive and reflective capacity to confront their problems and issues. Then the question is how to engage with these individuals, groups and processes.

Several things follow from this that are worth thinking about. Seeing yourself as a member of a public, the notion that your individual worries and problems are in common with others in a similar position and are linked to conditions you have in common and that your fate as an individual is tied up somehow with other members of that public is itself an act of sociological imagination. Everyone has the potential to be, in fact is to some extent, a sociologist in this sense. Taken further, a sociological imagination can be seen as a requirement of citizenship, in fact is a constitutive component of citizenship. This has implications for professional and institutionalised sociology and the teaching of sociology. Whatever else we do as teachers of sociology, we are sending tens of thousands of individuals each year into the world of work and, hopefully, active citizenship, whatever they end up doing for a job. Employability is important and it would be a dereliction of duty not to help students prepare for the world of work. But with the ever increasing colonisation of the public by the private, the uncoupling of power from politics that so many people spoke about at the conference, the hollowing out and destruction of our democratic institutions and processes, and the rapid destruction of spaces and forms of public discourse and/or their hijacking by the neoliberal agenda and ideology, active citizenship informed by sociological imagination is more important than ever. To end for the moment on a more optimistic note, according to Zygmunt Bauman, the decoupling of sociology from its old public of legislators, bureaucrats and managers, far from being a crisis is a great opportunity for sociology to rediscover its true vocation as a science of freedom. Rather than seeing sociology as in crisis he sees it as having a crucial role in relation to what he calls the current ‘crisis in agency’. He claims, and who am I to disagree, that in his over 60 years of being a sociologist, this is the most exciting and important time for sociology he can remember. I have been a sociologist for 34 years and the statement certainly rings true for me. Obviously there is a lot more that needs to be said about what sort of sociology he and/or we are talking about, its practice, its relation to the experience, the commonsense and knowledge of the public we wish to engage with and how that engagement can take place. For the moment I will be pursuing this personally through Zygmunt’s ideas on what sociology should be and its role today. He certainly sees sociology as a vocation and a way of being in the world. To repeat one of his favourite quotes from Jeffrey Alexander – “sociology’s future, at least its immediate future, lies in an effort to reincarnate and re-establish itself as a cultural politics in the service of human freedom”. But I would add to this, as Burawoy stated at the beginning of his talk, we need a theory of capitalism. To be of service in the cause of human freedom we need a pretty good understanding of the causes of unfreedom.

Originally posted on Terry’s blog. You can find Terry on Twitter here.

Comments (0)