Reflexivity and Education

As I see it, sociologists – and social scientists more generally – have a special problem in the pursuit of higher education.

First, I’d like to point out the fairly obvious differences between schools – and I’m particularly talking about graduate school here. US News recently released rankings of USA graduate schools, showing some not-too-surprising trends: Ivy Leaguers are, as expected, near the top. The differences in tuition between schools near the top and the bottom can be enormous. For example, Harvard (#4) tuition for 2007-2008 (according to the ASA Graduate Guide) was $34,244 for both in-state and out-of-state students. The University of Kansas (#58) charged $4,727 for in-state students and $10,405 for out-of-state students in the same year. Of course, not all highly-ranked programs are so expensive. Berkeley (#2) was $9,579 for in-state students, but $24,567 for those from outside the state.

All these costs are influenced by a variety of factors – reputation, selectivity, available funding, quality of program, and so forth.

However, I’m not specifically interested in the cost alone of the program, but more in what the cost, bundled up as it is with exclusivity and reputation, represents, and how we might be ignoring implications for the field and for ourselves as academics. This is the problem I was referring to: sociology is concerned with broad structures of inequality — and by attending “elite” institutions, we might be reproducing systems of inequality without realizing it.

Of course, there’s nothing wrong with wanting a good education, or with taking pride in one’s skills. And yes, elite schools need to be exclusive to some degree. Still, when we look at a name like Harvard, or Chicago, or Princeton, are we seeing the years of history and developments to come out of those schools, or are we stopping at the name, basking in a kind of brand recognition?

I don’t mean to downplay the motivations of those who are strongly dedicated to furthering the social sciences, but I still think it’s necessary that we take a look at the mass of standardized tests, programs, numbers, tutors, and monetary transactions that are a major part of the application process. It’s important that these numbers don’t blind us to the privilege of our situations, and that we seriously think about the ways in which those situations exemplify racial, gendered, and class-based inequalities in society. As William Deresiewicz puts it:

Before, after, and around the elite college classroom, a constellation of values is ceaselessly inculcated. As globalization sharpens economic insecurity, we are increasingly committing ourselves—as students, as parents, as a society—to a vast apparatus of educational advantage. With so many resources devoted to the business of elite academics and so many people scrambling for the limited space at the top of the ladder, it is worth asking what exactly it is you get in the end—what it is we all get, because the elite students of today, as their institutions never tire of reminding them, are the leaders of tomorrow.

The Science of Prayer

Ian Ayres posts over on the Freakonomics blog about studying the effects of prayer. Two things I thought I’d bring up here:

1. People seem to be willing to try almost anything to bring down gas prices, from not buying on certain days to boycotting specific companies. Praying was just the next logical extension, I suppose. From a certain perspective, at least praying is taking some kind of action. Facebook groups seem to be like the next generation of cause-specific ribbons in that they are a way for otherwise uninvolved people to “jump on” with a popular cause without knowing much about it.

2. My gut reaction is that trying to test for prayer is a little ridiculous. I don’t mean to sound glib, but I propose a very simple test: pray for amputees to regain their limbs, as explained here. Of course, this site is probably biased and I’m not sure how far I’d trust it, but the basic proposition is solid in my eyes.

Standing on the Corner to Stop Sex Work?

This really surprised me when I saw it, being as it is a nearly textbook case of community opposition to sex workers. Obviously, street sex work is problematic. It is dangerous for those working on the streets, and can bring sex workers in conflict with communities. However, I don’t think the solution lies in this form of protest. Why?

Mainly, it’s a question of displacement: activity like this has been shown to merely displace sex work, temporally and spatially. Vigilant groups of citizens standing in areas where sex workers operate might seem effective for the community, but it’s unlikely that sex workers will simply stop working as a result. Rather, they’ll move to other areas, and work at later hours.

This has a safety component as well, in that “regulars” might be scared off, forcing sex workers to take clients they otherwise might not. Removing choice and forcing increasingly risky decisions will likely mean increased sex worker death rates. Fortunately, the article quotes a source who points this out, as well as one who mentions the displacement problem.

Community protests against sex work are unlikely to have any impact. Neither are ideas of “engineering-out” such behaviour through CCTV cameras, increased lighting, and other technological improvements. Residents no doubt have legitimate concerns, but this type of opposition will merely send their problems to other areas, while endangering sex workers themselves.

Sentiments against sex workers (and indeed, many other activities) in one’s neighbourhood frequently rest on the supposed right to “quiet enjoyment” of one’s community. I have my own reservations about these feelings, and they’re something I will discuss at length in the future. In the meantime, if you’d like to read a bit more on the subject and look into the inspirations behind my comments, I’d suggest the work of the excellent Teela Sanders of the University of Leeds on street sex work.

(As well, I apologize for linking to so many scholarly articles — I understand that many people don’t have access to them. I presently do not either, as I’m living away from the university. I’ll work on this and try to find alternative sources, which are more accessible, such as Google Books.)

Unlucky for some…

In the wake of a murder aboard a Manitoba Greyhound bus last week, two very different advertising stories have appeared. First, Greyhound perhaps wisely removed their line of “bus rage” ads (“There’s a reason you’ve never heard of bus rage.”). Now, in perhaps the complete opposite of the situation, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals are trying to capitalize on the violent event.

A print ad compares accused Vince Li’s alleged cannibalism to the serving of animals in restaurants. I think they’ve anticipated the reaction the ad is going to have for many, but are going ahead with it regardless. I don’t think ads like this really do anything for social movements. People who aren’t involved are probably going to be disgusted and might even begin to oppose the group. Those who already support the group are likely to be divided by the extreme comparison. It seems like all an ad like this does is weed out the hardliners from the more moderate people in the organization, polarizing support.

If they wanted to get people talking, they’ll likely accomplish their goal, so maybe PETA is just looking for a good dose of mainstream exposure. Still…they say any press is good press, but in this case I’m not so sure…

Festinger Meets Facebook

Bradley Wright posted an interesting article on Facebook over at Everyday Sociology today. I’d bet that a lot of people who use Facebook have at least heard of the Compare People application he discusses — it has 4,910,351 “monthly active users”, according to its information. I’ll admit that the desire to know where I stand amongst my Facebook friends was once too strong for me, and I added the application. I removed it soon after, but it’s not hard to understand why those nearly five million people are using it. As Wright points out, they want to know where they stand according to their friends.

I’d tend to agree with Wright that the application is a little frightening. Although it tries to smooth over any possible hurt feelings (“People are different, it’s a fact of life!”) I wonder about the possible impact of low ratings on self-esteem. It doesn’t bother me, for instance, that my best attribute is that people would “like to hang out with me”, and I’m only ranked 13th or so. As well, I wasn’t aware of Facebook in high school, and applications like these weren’t released yet anyway. However, and it’s unbelievable how old it makes me feel to say this, but apparently even middle-school aged adolescents are using Facebook, which is really hardly surprising. I think it’s worth looking into the effects applications like this can have on self-esteem and image, and it would certainly make for an interesting research project.

Australia Closes Camps — Now What?

Australia is ending the system of detention camps for asylum seekers, aside from one reserved for the especially suspect. One quote from an opposition party claimed that the people in question were “over-stayers”. I suppose the reasoning goes that loosening controls makes it easier for illegitimate refugees to enter the country, and of course, there are probably those who would like to tighten up all immigration.

Pointing the finger at (and deriding) asylum seekers is exceedingly easy to do. Most of the concerns can be divided into three categories:

1. They Want Our Jobs: In the USA, it’s Mexicans. In the UK, it’s Poles. The threat of losing one’s livelihood is a powerful motivator, but it’s made even more salient when combined with feelings of “deservedness”. Of course, the idea that immigrants “steal” jobs is ridiculous, economically, since they often take jobs other citizens don’t want. As well, many people see asylum seekers as not taking jobs like other immigrants, but instead as being…

2. Welfare Tourists: Opening of borders and wide social safety nets have sometimes been seen as a recipe for welfare tourism — the idea that those from other countries will immigrate not in hopes of finding employment, but to enjoy substantial government benefits. Leaving aside the arguably absurd picture of people in other countries flipping through the Lonely Planet’s Guide to European Welfare States, it may be more of an electoral tactic than a tangible problem:

While politicians may choose to believe that generous benefits will attract welfare beneficiaries from other sub-state territories, there is little evidence to support such claims. Even in a federal country such as the USA –where there is a much greater geographical mobility than in Europe– there is little empirical evidence to suggest that ‘welfare tourism’ or ‘voting with their feet’ actually takes place (Weissert and Weissert, 2002; Berry et al., 2003). (Moreno 2005)

3. Fear of the Other: Specifically, fear of Muslims — this has informed much anti-immigration rhetoric, especially among the extreme right. The construction of Muslims as an “other” creates a cultural fear which sits alongside the financial concerns. Among extreme right-wing groups, it’s an easy jump from Muslim immigration to declining traditional national culture — and the former is said to cause the latter. Even among more moderate types, fears that refugees won’t integrate exist.

Unfortuntely, simply closing down containment camps is unlikely to do much to alleviate any of the concerns surrounding asylum seekers. Those of us who don’t buy the above concerns cheer from the sidelines — those who do will grumble and possibly see this as the wrong move. If the government is committed to fully integrating asylum seekers into the country, it’s going to have to convince the public that it’s the right thing to do. And given the research, it’s going to be a tough job.