Beyond conflict: recovering the sociology of social progress

Racial and Gender Inequality as a (Non)Crisis: The Discursive Strategies of Academic-Managers in Belgian and Danish universities

The article takes as its starting point my recent ethnography of the Welsh National Opera Company, and the forthcoming monograph Everyday Arias: making opera work. In the course of that work I revisited the theme of performance: the ethnography of performance and the performance of ethnography. I discuss briefly the everyday work of the opera producer and director in the rehearsal studio and in the theatre. I suggest that despite the pervasive nature of 'performance' in contemporary sociology and anthropology, we have remarkably few studies of performances themselves. Performances by directors and performers are complex interactions, in which cultural forms, vocabularies of motive, emotional and cognitive frames of interpretation are explored by the participants. The director displays many parallels with the pedagogue. Both are preoccupied with eliciting and evaluating the performances of others. More generally, we ought to expand the sociology of education to take greater account of a wide range of cultural settings. Sociologists of education could learn much about instruction and learning by paying more attention to masterclasses in music and the visual arts, the work of cultural entrepreneurs such as impresarios, artistic education such as choir schools and conservatoires, and similar environments. Furthermore, the sociology of education could and should benefit from a more thorough engagement with contemporary sociologies of art and culture. While the sociology of culture has become central to many aspects of current sociological research and theorising, the sociology of education seems oddly peripheral to mainstream cultural analysis. It is surely not necessary to identify the sociology of education in narrowly institutional terms and to restrict the research gaze primarily to institutions and settings that are narrowly and commonsensically 'educational' in nature.

Prelims

Popular explanations of inequality as the result of individual failings rather than structural processes are powerful cultural mechanisms that legitimize and reproduce inequality in the United States. How might individuals' experiences of downward or upward mobility shape the explanations they give? We argue that perceived experiences of economic mobility may not only shape how Americans understand economic inequality but may also impact their beliefs about social inequalities more broadly. Using proportionally representative survey data of 1110 U.S. residents, we find that those who perceive that they currently occupy a lower economic class than when they were growing up (i.e., they experienced subjective downward mobility) were more likely than class-stable individuals to reject individualistic explanations of economic inequality and embrace structural ones. By contrast, the upwardly mobile were more likely to reject structural explanations. We find that mobility is similarly related to the likelihood of giving individualistic or structural explanations for race and gender inequality as well. Downward mobility is also associated with greater support of redistributive policies related to economic as well as gender and race inequality. These findings suggest that economic mobility may influence popular explanations of inequality and support for redistributive policy not only related to class inequality but for multiple axes of inequality.

1. The Sociological Perspective. The Sociological Perspective. The Origins of Sociology. Sexism in Early Sociology. Sociology in North America. Theoretical Perspectives in Sociology. Doing Sociological Research. Research Methods. Ethics in Sociological Research. 2. Culture. What Is Culture? Components of Symbolic Culture. Many Cultural Worlds: Subcultures and Countercultures. Values in U.S. Society. Technology in the Global Village. 3. Socialization. What Is Human Nature? Socialization into the Self, Mind, and Emotions. Socialization into Gender. Agents of Socialization. Resocialization. Socialization Through the Life Course. Are We Prisoners of Socialization? 4. Social Structure and Social Interaction. Levels of Sociological Analysis. The Macrosociological Perspective: Social Structure. The Microsociological Perspective: Social Interaction in Everyday Life. The Need for Both Macrosociology and Microsociology. 5. Social Groups and Formal Organizations. Social Groups. Bureaucracies. Working for the Corporation. Group Dynamics. 6. Deviance and Social Control. What Is Deviance? The Symbolic Interactionist Perspective. The Functionalist Perspective. The Conflict Perspective. Reactions to Deviance. 7. Social Stratification in Global Perspective. An Overview of Social Stratification. What Determines Social Class? Why Is Social Stratification Universal? How Do Elites Maintain Stratification? Comparative Social Stratification. Global Stratification: Three Worlds. How the World's Nations Became Stratified. Maintaining Global Stratification. A Concluding Note. 8. Social Class in the United States. What Is Social Class? Sociological Models of Social Class. Consequences of Social Class. Social Mobility. Poverty. 9. Inequalities of Race and Ethnicity. Laying the Sociological Foundation. Theories of Prejudice. Global Patterns of Intergroup Relations. Race and Ethnic Relations in the United States. Looking Toward the Future. 10. Inequalities of Age and Gender. Inequalities of Gender. Issues of Sex and Gender. How Females Became a Minority Group. Gender Inequality in the United States. The Changing Face of Politics. Inequalities of Aging. Aging in Global Perspective. The Symbolic Interactionist Perspective. The Functionalist Perspective. The Conflict Perspective. Looking Toward the Future. 11. Politics and the Economy. Politics: Establishing Leadership. Power, Authority, and Violence. Types of Government. The U.S. Political System. Who Rules the United States? The Economy: Work in the Global Village. The Transformation of Economic Systems. World Economic Systems. Capitalism in a Global Economy. 12. Marriage and Family. Marriage and Family in Global Perspective. Marriage and Family in Theoretical Perspective. The Family Life Cycle. Diversity in U.S. Families. Trends in U.S. Families. Divorce and Remarriage. Two Sides of Family Life. The Future of Marriage and Family. 13. Education and Religion. Education: Transferring Knowledge and Skills. Education in Global Perspective. The Functionalist Perspective: Providing Social Benefits. The Conflict Perspective: Reproducing the Social Class Structure. The Symbolic Interactionist Perspective: Fulfilling Teacher Expectations. Problems in U.S. Education-And Their Solutions. Religion: Establishing Meaning. What Is Religion? The Functionalist Perspective. The Symbolic Interactionist Perspective. The Conflict Perspective. Religion and the Spirit of Capitalism. Types of Religious Groups. Religion in the United States. The Future of Religion. 14. Population and Urbanization. Population in Global Perspective. A Planet with No Space to Enjoy Life? Population Growth. Urbanization. The Development of Cities. City Life: Alienation and Community. Urban Problems and Social Policy. 15. Social Change: Technology, Social Movements, and the Environment. How Social Change Transforms Society. Theories and Processes of Social Change. How Technology Changes Society. Social Movements as a Source of Social Change. The Growth Machine Versus the Earth. ONLINE CHAPTER: The Sociology of Human Sexuality. What Does Sociology Have to Do with Sex? The Incest Taboo. Homosexuality. Heterosexuality. A Concluding Note.

In this essay, I respond to Racial and Ethnic Inequality in Poverty and Affluence, 1959–2015 (hereafter Racial and Ethnic Inequality). I argue that Racial and Ethnic Inequality does not fully explain racial inequality in poverty and affluence—particularly among black Americans and American Indians compared to white Americans—because the manuscript follows conventional approaches to the study of racial inequality that obscure racial domination and oppression in the US. These conventional approaches include (1) highlighting the racial gap in a given outcome without conceptualizing and historicizing the social construction of race, (2) theorizing human capital as race-neutral to account for racial inequality, and (3) employing data analyses that reflect analytic bifurcation, which treat racial groups as real essences, monolithic, and position white Americans as the standard against which people of color are measured. These conventional approaches are not unique to Racial and Ethnic Inequality. My goal is to use Racial and Ethnic Inequality as an illustrative example of how conventional approaches address the idea of “race” in sociological research, and whether these approaches provide readers with the most optimal ways to understand racial inequality in the US. I make several recommendations to move research on racial inequality forward. My intention is to spark a conversation about what can be considered “best practices” in addressing the role of race in racial inequality research.

It is now widely acknowledged that, in the sociology of education, as indeed in many other areas of sociology [1], sexual differentiation has been grossly neglected. In the enormous literature that has grown up in the post-war years demonstrating the existence and persistence of educational inequalities and searching for their explanation, the emphasis has been almost wholly on either social class or, particularly in the United States, race. It is true that girls have usually, if not always, been included in such studies as a normal part of the sample. Similarly, the documentation of social class and racial inequalities as well as regional variation has often thrown up evidence on sexual inequalities as well. There have also been times, as in the case of the Plowden Report as early as 1967, when special emphasis has been laid on the wastage of ability amongst girls [2]. The charge of neglect should not, therefore, be taken too far. Nevertheless, it remains true that little attention has been paid to sex as a principle of educational discrimination and that little effort has been made to search for the explanation of such discrimination as can be found. An examinaton of any standard text-book in the field will demonstrate this clearly enough. So will a look at the most prominent theorists working in this area [3]. This is not the place to consider in detail the reasons for this neglect, but perhaps most fundamental of all has been the absence of any serious questioning of the pattern of sexual differences whether in education or elsewhere. Indeed this topic perhaps more than any other demonstrates the truth of the observation that changes in direction within a discipline are due to new questions as much as, if not sometimes more than, new answers. Just as social class inequalities seemed 'natural' to nineteenth century observers, rooted as they were believed to be in the nature of the working classes and in the nature of society, so sexual inequalities in the educational and the occupational systems seemed 'natural' to those who accepted a Parsonian interpretation of the position of women in the family and society [4]. To those inclined towards a conflict model of society, and particularly to those influenced by Marxism the central position given to class relationships within these

This chapter addresses a long-standing issue in the sociology of education — the problem of knowledge. It argues that the way in which the problem has been a problem for so long constitutes a problem in its own right — hence, ‘the problem of the problem’. Its persistence represents a ‘blind spot’ within the field regarding the question of knowledge (Moore and Maton, 2001). However, as questions of knowledge and curriculum return to the centre stage of educational policy and debate, the sociology of education urgently requires a powerful theory of knowledge in order to positively engage with and influence them (Beck, 2012b).

INTRODUCTIONBlacks are generally disadvantaged at both the macro and micro levels of U.S. society. At the macro level, Blacks have historically suffered from low rates of social mobility. This holds whether mobility is measured as educational attainment (Kao & Thompson, 2003), residential mobility (Massey & Denton, 1993), or wealth accumulation (Oliver & Shapiro, 2006). At the micro level, Black students in U.S. schools are more likely than students from other backgrounds to have negative interactions with peers, teachers, and other school authority figures (Solorzano, Ceja, & Yosso, 2000). Both levels of inequality contribute to racial disparities in educational experiences and outcomes (Diamond, 2006). How should sociologists of education conceptualize these dual processes?As early as 1898, Du Bois argued that Blacks' micro level educational realities-number and condition of schools, illiteracy rates, and being unwelcome in schools and colleges with Whites - were inseparable from a macro level peculiar environment (Du Bois, 1898). Denials of Black humanity, anti-Black discrimination, fear of large scale Black socioeconomic mobility, and resistance to widespread educational opportunities for Blacks characterized this environment. Paradoxically, it would take education for Blacks to fully recognize the extent of their oppression. Because Du Bois articulated the interplay between education and oppression in this way, his writings and speeches on education reveal an innovative conceptualization of the macro-micro link. His work, therefore, also presents one resolution to the macro-micro issue within the sociology of education (Hammersley, 1984; Mehan, 1992; O'Connor, Lewis, & Mueller, 2007; Shilling, 1992; Willmott, 1999).In this article, the author outlines a Du Boisian framework for the sociology of education. The framework is based on Du Bois's numerous writings and speeches about the education of Black students. Also considered are sections of his major works (e.g., The Souls of Black Folk, 1994) that touch on education. The author uses Du Bois's work as qualitative data from which to generate a grounded theoretical framework (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Doing so demonstrates one way to connect Du Bois's broader educational philosophy to the investigation of specific educational realities facing Black students today. Du Bois is quoted at length whenever possible to enter his own words into the lexicon of the sociology of education, from which he currently remains largely absent.The Du Boisian framework's central problematic is the macro-micro feedback loop between racial inequalities in the U.S. political economy (Marable, 2000) and discriminatory treatment of Black students in schools (see Figure 1). The feedback loop perpetuates multigenerational educational inequality. That is, discriminatory treatment of Black students in schools is made possible by, and reinforces for another generation, racial inequalities in political economy. Du Bois's theoretical points of view on education will be identified as neo-Marxism (Bowles & Gintis, 1972, 2002, 2013) at the macro level and structuration theory (Giddens, 1984) at the micro level. Given the framework's central problematic of the macro-micro feedback loop, it is not surprising that both points of view focus on the bidirectional relationship between individuals and society, or agents and structures.The Du Boisian framework reconceptualizes issues currently facing Black students, who are the focus of much sociological and educational research (see O'Connor, Lewis, & Mueller, 2007). Issues are seen as ways in which political economic inequalities affect another generation of Black youth through or by way of the institution of schooling. This new intuition applies both within and between schools. Individual schools, even racially integrated ones, can be internally organized on the basis of race. Furthermore, the distribution of educational opportunity between schools and neighborhoods in the U. …

The objective of this first chapter is to provide an understanding of the ways in which educational systems, structures, and processes connect with various aspects of society, including dominant values, political goals, and ideologies. Key terms, major concepts, and theories in sociology of education will be introduced so that the reader is equipped to reflect on, contextualize, and understand the content of the subsequent chapters from both an insider’s (emic) as well as outsider’s (etic) perspective. In the first section of this chapter we give a definition of sociology; many of the terms and concepts in sociology of education come directly from sociology. The main part of the chapter then provides a general outline of the functions of schooling, several of which lie outside our taken-for-granted assumptions about the purposes of education. Next comes a discussion of the ways in which education systems vary worldwide. Finally, the reader will find a thumbnail sketch of the dominant theories in sociology of education.1

The interaction and co-operation between the sociology of education and comparative education may lead to the realisation of the three basic functions of science: descriptive, explanatory and operative. A presentation of these issues is difficult because of the blurring of lines of division between related scientific disciplines. In the past two decades, Polish sociology has developed without experiencing any serious inner conflicts. Two basic orientations — empirical and humanistic — have co-existed, and the Marxist approach has gradually become more firmly established. The sociological approach applied to the sciences can be viewed as first, the adoption of sociological concepts and theories; and secondly, the application of the methods and techniques used in sociological research. The history of the relationship between the sociology of education and comparative education goes back to the works of J. Chalasinski in the 'thirties: he approached the school as a social institution functioning in a system of social relations and social groups, such as classes, vocational groups, nations and states. The application and impact of the sociological approach is evident in the methodological foundations of pedagogy — as e.g., in the work of Muszynski in 1975 — and also in many specific fields of comparative education. The so-called humanistic orientation and the descriptive function have predominated over empirical studies and the explanatory function in these areas.

Announcement of the kingdom of God The gospel of Luke describes John the Baptist going throughout Jordon, proclaiming a baptism of repentance: "The voice of one crying out in the wilderness: 'Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight'" (Luke 3: 4-5). When the people ask John, "What then should we do?" John doesn't moralize, but responds proactively: "Whoever has two coats must share with anyone who has none; and whoever has food must do likewise." Even tax collectors came to be baptized, and they asked him, "Teacher, what should we do?" He said to them, "Collect no more than the amount prescribed for you." Soldiers also asked him, "And we, what should we do?" He said to them, "Do not extort money from anyone by threats or false accusation, and be satisfied with your wages." (Luke 3: 11-14) In other words, to prepare the path for God's kingdom is to actively do justice and destroy the consequences of the sin. What we have in the words of John the Baptist is an expression of Christological eschatology, i.e. the kingdom of God is going to be given to us as a gift, but at the same time we have been called to "make the path smooth" in our acceptance of the gift. In that sense, eschaton is God-human endeavour, the kingdom that we're awaiting from God is anticipated and expressed in history through the praxis of human beings that should iconize the new eon. In Gustavo Gutierrez's words, "The hope which overcomes death must be rooted in the heart of historical praxis; if this hope doesn't take shape in the present to lead it forward, it will be only an evasion, a futuristic illusion." (1) Christological eschatology means one important thing: it is divine-human synergy, just as Christ has divine-human nature as defined by the ecumenical council of Chalcedon. It isn't a communist utopia in which heaven on earth will be brought about by the proletariat, or a utopia of Zealots during the time of Jesus that human will is capable of bringing kingdom of God. We sometimes forget this truth and make ourselves passive in history through the expectation that God will do everything exclusively. We forget sometimes that "from the very beginning Christianity was socially minded. The whole fabric of Christian existence is social and corporate. All Christian sacraments are intrinsically 'social sacraments,' i.e., sacraments of incorporation ... To build up the church of Christ means, therefore, to build up a new society and, by implication, to re-build human society on a new basis." (2) The New Testament reveals the kingdom of God as a new mode of relationship, a new quality of life. The kingdom is proclaimed when the sick and the poor are healed, when the dead are resurrected, when the disenfranchised are accepted, when abundance of food is offered to many, when justice, love, peace, harmony, and solidarity rule (Matt. 4:23, 5:10, 25:34; Luke 9:2, 9:12-18; Rom. 14:17; 1 Cor. 6:9). Let's look at the words from the beginning of the liturgy in the Orthodox Church: "Blessed is the kingdom of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit." Through these opening words, the liturgy is supposed to open up toward the eschatological kingdom, "a progressive movement towards the fullness of the kingdom of Christ, toward His cosmic and historical triumph." (3) The kingdom of God should be manifested in all of its social implications through historical limitations. It means that the liturgy should not reflect a patriarchal mode of relationship, the degradation of women,4 * disregard of lay people/ and inaccessibility for the sick and elderly. Primacy should be given to these issues that collide with the values of God's kingdom. Genesis 3:16 argues that man should rule over woman, but this verse comes as a consequence of the sin--the fall. This verse only expresses how the male-female relationship has been lived or conducted in our communities where the ideology of men rules, and not God's given/original order. …

Trust is a key term in social sciences and organizational research. Trust as well is a term that originates from and speaks to our human relational experience. The first part of the paper explores trust as it is interpreted within contemporary sociology and organizational research, and systematically questions five basic assumptions underlying the interpretation of trust in organizational research. The last part of the paper reviews selected phenomenological methodological studies of trust in work life situations, in a quest for how experiential trust can emerge and be studied in professional organizations. We suggest looking for the “in-betweens” or spaces of possibilities within organizational structures, roles and tasks for emerging, experiential trust.

Research in the sociology of education has been restored and rebuilt for more than twenty years and has gained brilliant results. However, people are profoundly aware that educational sociology research still does not have its own scientific methodology. Many researchers still lack the necessary training in methodology and are unable to consciously assimilate the research results and methods of related disciplines, to say nothing of constructing a methodological system with disciplinary characteristics. This will inevitably prevent improving research in China's sociology of education.

Special educators have historically used psychological theories to explain students? disruptive and oppositional behavior. Sociological research and theories have played a secondary or even nonexistent role. The sociology of education tradition within general education has developed an extensive literature examining student misbehavior. This article presents the resistance theories, one strain of the critical sociology of education. Given the preponderance of students of lower social class and minority group status within special education, these theories offer insightful and useful ways for special educators to understand the political nature of oppositional behavior. These theories provide suitable ways of interpreting the underlying political tensions that reside behind behavior and guidance for teachers who want to develop the school as a community enacting the social ethics of democracy.