sociology – Holley Sociology

Best Writings on Girls’ Relationships: From Which Have I have Learned Most?

Recently I’ve been thinking back over the last 25 years about what has been most helpful to me in academic writing on girls’ relationships. Here are the most memorable and conceptual for me as a sociologist.

Valerie Hey (1997) This founding study of schoolgirls’ relationships never grows old. The dynamics of Erin’s clique are unforgettable. And we are give a conceptualization of girlhood as a social space.

Sarah Baker (2004) Fascinating look at different ages of girls as they learn, share and hide the ‘too grown up stuff’ from younger girls. ‘Performance’ as dancing on the tables is a most memorable moment.

Martha Einerson (1998) First to emphasize centrality of media objects to girls’ groups. In this case ‘New Kids of the Block’ fall from fan idolization as girls deploy their moral judgement. Memorable are the hold-out girls, torn between abandoning their stars and keeping up with their girl peers’ changes.

Monica Moore (1995, 2002) How tween girls learn body language and use it for attraction and rejection signaling. How teen and adult women use this ‘agentically’ as courtship signaling at dances and clubs.

Sharon Lamb (2001) Young girls’ first group activities start with the ‘dare game.’ Madeline’s girl friends visit her house – and surprise her dad! What happens is most memorably described in 133 words.

Today, twenty five years after Val Hey’s classic study of girls in cliques, the original cases and concepts remain great. But never would I have imagined, back then, how little of this good stuff has become familiar in mainstream sociological thinking.

Sources

Hey, Valerie 1997 The Company She Keeps

Baker, Sarah 2004 “It’s Not about Candy” International Journal of Cultural Studies

Einerson, Martha J. “Fame, Fortune and Failure: Young Girls’ Moral Language Surrounding Popular Culture’ Youth and Society 30:2 (1998): 241-257

Moore, Monica M. 1995. “Courtship Signaling and Adolescents: Girls Just Wanna Have Fun.” Journal of Sex Research 32(4):319-328 and 2002 “Courtship Communication and Perception” Perceptual and Motor Skills

Lamb, Sharon 2001 The Secret Lives of Girls

Kylie Jenner and Society 2020

When I’m asked where to start a sociological analysis, I think of how I began, in 2020, to introduce my students to society. I started with this statement; ‘Kylie Jenner is the youngest self-made billionaire.’ Then I asked students to say what they thought about this. Student responses are very revealing. What they understand turns out to provide a perfect starting point for thinking about society.

Some students doubt the claim that Kylie Jenner is truly self-made; they point to the Kardashian family’s earlier fame and success. Some also guess that, in reality, her cosmetics business is worth less than a billion. But what students do all agree on is that she is famous and has a business. These universally known facts are profoundly important. As a sociologist, I see this knowledge as anchoring young people into society in ways that have previously been overlooked.

What is it that students know and how does this tell them about society?

Students learn through objects that express what Kylie is. Items of her cosmetics business are bought, worn, and displayed in photographs. Through these objects, the essence of ‘Kylieness’ is possessed and displayed.
Kylie’s objects are attached to the performance of the feminine.
As a person and as a designer, her objects anchor students’ experience in one particular year on the calendar. Kylie things will be understood and associated with the year 2020 when she was popular.
Kylie’s product-based fame constitutes her ‘price’ or ‘worth.’ This is a valuation of the behavior and activities associated with her objects. This is simultaneously both sociological and economic.
Kylie’s name and products will lose their ‘value of the moment’ as time elapses. In a year or two, these particular objects will no longer signify the exciting features of the feminine. New objects will be needed – which Kylie herself may be able to evolve into and create its replacements.

Taken together, we can see that meaningful objects root people into society in a variety of ways. You don’t yourself have to be feminine or interested in cosmetics for these objects to connect you; being in your age group and knowing your generational peers is enough to involve you in society. Everybody your age will know Kylie Jenner, what her family does, and what Kylie’s personality and brand stand for. The sociological lesson this gives my students is that generational objects connect the entire age group with their society.

Unfortunately for social science, Kylie Jenner and popular culture is absent from current explanations. Serious political and sociological thinking steers away from today’s material objects. Instead, theory directs social scientists toward institutions and word-based explanations. Political theory, of the ‘problem of order’ in Hobbes and Locke, looks to government and economic property to explain people’s behavior. Objects don’t get a look in here; they are not considered capable of influencing people. Sociological theory hasn’t done any better. Durkheim’s ‘anomie’ and Marx’s ‘alienation’ both claim that people are disconnected from society or alienated by harsh money economics. Weber emphasized rational action in the institutions of government and business. But celebrities, meaningful objects, and how we dress to express ourselves in our own generation is totally missing from official social science. This makes it impossible to see how buying and sharing meaningful objects integrates people into society.

Student understanding of Kylie Jenner reveals that seeing, possessing and performing with key objects connects an entire generation with its society. This is a great way to start thinking about sociology. People’s choice of stars and merchandise gives each generation shared bonds. If a celebrity like Kylie can be known and admired through her image and her products, the way is opened up to discover what else binds generations to their society – which is the purpose of studying sociology.

How Students See the World: Inequality or What?

I’ve noticed that, when my students get the chance to write, they don’t focus on inequality, even though their professors understand this as ‘the dominant research paradigm in sociology’ (fabiorojas orgtheory.net April 28, 2020).

Recently, the topics freely chosen by undergraduate students got me thinking about this again. Asked for their own experiences of youth, students in a recent class chose to write about such topics as popular culture, consumer objects, strict parents versus more modern ones, and the transitions between phases of life such as between middle school, high school and college life. These should have given scope for identifying unfair and difficult aspects of their lives. But their papers really didn’t complain about anything they faced.

Those students who did talk about difficulties – for example having been forced to parent younger children, deal with the death or divorce of parents, or having very strict parents – saw these as factual realities which could be dealt with. Adapting to a different sequence of phases in their life, having foreign born parents, being first generation college, or having sports injuries, were all seen as conditions which could be overcome, balanced with their own personal needs, and understood as aspects of personal identity. Children of foreign parents or strict ones just saw this as an opportunity to possess both a foreign and an American identity, and to balance their own needs with the expectations of their parents. There wasn’t a problem here; nobody saw themselves as, in essence, different from other students. All the features they described were seen as the general pattern by which all people grow up.

Looking at these answers, I had to ask whether students were expressing their true feelings. Was it possible that my presence as the instructor was preventing them from complaining? Alternatively, are students generally suffering from some nation-wide ‘false consciousness’? Were they unable to discern the reality of the world around them or recognize the kind of suffering they are living under? These thoughts suggested a ‘hermeneutic’ problem here. How do people learn to understand the world correctly? But the complexity of any hermeneutic analysis is deciding on which side the misunderstanding lies. Which people need help here? Could it be that students are simply occupied with more important concerns than the inequalities that sociologists worry about? Are our students showing us that the real world has different priorities, things more important than the inequalities professional sociologists stress?

It seems certain that somebody is understanding the world incorrectly. But is it the students or their professors in the universities? The hermeneutic says that one of these two sides needs re-educating, but which one is it – the students in their papers or the sociologists in their professional thinking? Definitely, there is a problem here; in this case I cannot see how both sides of this can be right.

Getting Your Theory Paper Published

As someone who works on theory myself and would love to have my own articles published, I was excited to read a recent Twitter thread by a journal reviewer who tells us how to correct common faults. Cite previous publications, help build theory, add only one or two new things, and include the empirical evidence that your ideas explain – these are some of the big do’s. This advice is practical, straight forward, and shows us how to give journal editors what they are looking for. So, maybe, all we have to do is follow the rules. But strangely, it seems that authors of papers keep repeating the errors; they start afresh, ignore past theory, are too complicated, and don’t include empirical evidence. Something strange is clearly bedeviling sociological theory.

Could the persistent failures of theory authors be telling us that educated sociologists cannot keep it simple? Why can’t they build on past sociologists? Is there a deeper problem here? Are sociologists wrongly trained or is it just that existing theory is impossible to build on? To me, this situation looks like it needs a ‘reverse hermeneutic’ analysis.

‘Building on past work,’ I twist the ideas of Habermas (1970) and Giddens (1982) around and run the hermeneutic in the opposite direction. Sociologists should not assume that the clients of any institution, in this case the publisher of a journal, are simply stubborn and resistant to learning. ‘Using the empirical evidence’ that writers get things wrong, we can draw a reverse inference. Perhaps theorists, and sociologists generally, cannot get from current theory what they really need. Maybe popular ‘ignorance’ is telling us that current theory, even when added to bit by bit, isn’t delivering for them? Isn’t the real problem that aspiring sociologists need practical explanations of society and how its people connect with it? If adding ‘itty bitty’ to theory is itself the problem, because it doesn’t weave society together conceptually, this may explain why every new article attempts to create, de novo, what is currently absent from theory.

I sympathize with these struggling theorists. I too want to work in a discipline that can define its main macro concept, society. I’m working on the answer myself but I would love to discover that someone else has done the hard work and put together a connected theory. What I am sure of is that this won’t happen by adding a few bite-sized concepts to existing theorists. So, while the reviewer offers us practical advice for getting published, my bet is that authors will continue to submit awkward, complex and non-incremental theory manuscripts. Sociologists evidently want something better from their theory; let’s hope we can soon explain society’s big questions in a conceptually connected way. On that day, authors, journal editors, reviewers, and practical sociologists will all be happier.

Are Sociologists People?

When they are dead they are. Even persons who are men and Marxists can speak touchingly about a deceased colleague’s personal qualities. Consider a recent newsletter obituary in a sociology sub-field. On Twitter, the serious challenges of work-life balance are presented through the sociological head, and the private side remains voiceless.

The rest of the time, what should we consider sociologists to be? Are they personal life deficient mouthpieces spouting structural concepts? Sociology speakers cannot talk about love; it’s non-admissible in our professional vocabulary. What other essential features of life are prohibited when sociologists talk?

For a sociologist, does it matter who you kiss? Does it make any difference who you commit to marrying, how you bring up your children, and what jobs you won’t take because they’re not where you want to live? Do people ‘compose a life,’ evaluate opportunities, and have long term goals? A visitor from another planet reading our published sociology would conclude that these personal activities do not exist or are not relevant to our collective life.

At what cost to our profession do we ignore private life? Is this the reason we leave non-marriage, fertility, and stratification to other professions – economists, demographers, and IQ hunters, for example? Ultimately, is this why sociologists cannot define society? Without love, without marriage, and without society, how much of sociology’s subject matter is actually left?

It is paradoxical that a profession which prides itself on helping others cannot talk about what matters most in people’s lives. Sociology’s vocabulary gap is a huge problem. Are sociologists going to wake up to this any time soon? Or will they go on forever ignoring, what Harriet Martineau declared a hundred and fifty years ago was the core of ‘morals and manners,’ namely what people care about most but talk about least – which is what is in their hearts? Let’s create a sociology that starts with love and then moves on to the hopes and fears about these relationships. The woman founder of sociological methods long ago stated that this is where we should begin. Can we afford to wait another century before this work of reconceptualizing sociology gets started?

Watching “The Bachelor” as a Sociologist

Recently, I heard a mother apologetically admit that, with her tween daughter, she watches “The Bachelor.” Is this something that needs forgiveness because it’s embarrassing? However involving, isn’t this just trash television and watching it a waste of time? Educated people often condemn popular culture, even if they indulge in it privately. I think this is due to people knowing of no justifying reason for it. But looking closer at “The Bachelor,” isn’t this show really about relationship sociology?

Photo Credit: “The Bachelor” ABC Television

The sociology here is romance; it’s about finding your life partner – the end of the show is expected to be a marriage proposal! Seen as evaluating potential suitors, “The Bachelor” discusses an essential life skill. The contestants make revealing choices – which partner to pick and how to deploy their own courtship. Audiences get involved by evaluating the evaluators. Like all reality television, the show is contrived and largely scripted. So it’s not giving us real life. But isn’t any kind of judging people something bad?

In response, I would remind us that the choices here aren’t moral universals or political discrimination. The decisions are profoundly personal; they involve identifying the right person, meaning ‘right for me, personally.’ Half this process requires us to learn about ourselves. Making this romantic decision involves discovering what we ourselves want and imaginatively projecting who would be compatible with us. There is a profound question behind a marriage proposal – “Could I spend the rest of my life with this person?”

Watching “The Bachelor” may be a great way of improving life’s most significant skill – picking the right person to live with. In my view, this is a great way to spend mother-daughter bonding time. And sociologists should be proud of these two watching the show together!

Do Sociologists Know what “Ghosting” is?

I teach a course called “Sociology of Romance” but I wasn’t familiar with the term “ghosting” until my students explained it to me. Class discussion quickly made clear that ending relationships by sudden non-communication was deplored by students; no one would speak to defend it. But for me that raised layers of problems about how sociologists explain courtship behavior.

Why do students continue to use a mechanism that makes them feel bad? A lot of easy explanations fall away when we look at this closely. For example, calling this ‘youth culture’ needs a lot of caveats because courtship changes every decade or so. It isn’t the same culture, indeed different generations find each other incomprehensible. Older people note today’s absence of dating and are suspicious of a “hookup culture” where there is no dinner and a movie Undergraduates today can’t believe older singles “dated people they didn’t know.” Each generation finds its own courtship familiar and acceptable while that of others is baffling.

Two further points on how we study this. First, the scant academic studies that do appear miss important aspects. Early discussions of the hookup dating scene missed the intense “talking to someone” by messaging and “Facebook stalking” which was going on. Young people were still getting to know each other, it was just being done though social media.

Second, the terminology sociologists use is inconsistent and doesn’t fit with broader explanations of society. Was “rating and dating” a tradition or a practice? Is today’s “hookup” best described as a culture, a script, an intimate tie, a fad, or even a social movement? Is a “group chat” something we should study as a formal organization? The difficulty of conceptualizing courtship suggests a broader problem. Perhaps sociologists aren’t much interested in romantic relationships because they aren’t prestigious in the profession. Ghosting cannot influence society; it just isn’t part of the conceptual framework. Sociologists generally dismiss private relationships because they are ephemeral, full of rapidly obsolete slang, and lack any sustained way to influence society. ‘Structural’ explanations have more prestige. So, with courtship outside sociology’s knowledge base, sociologists aren’t able to ‘know’ about dating in a serious professional and theoretical way.

But what if we can show that courtship matters? Does the way we date shape later life choices and indirectly create a cohort-wide understanding? Perhaps the speed with which courtship practices appear, along with universally understood rules, is a model of broader change in society? In this case, ghosting, and things like it, reveal a lot about society’s future.

Just being a professor and listening to undergraduates doesn’t change our profession’s concepts. Personally, we can acquire commonsense knowledge from many sources – as participants in dating, being parents and friends of young people, consuming media entertainment, and working as teachers in a classroom. But none of this theorizes ghosting or adds it to sociology’s professional knowledge. Without concepts, theories and cases that explain its importance, personal familiarity with current dating leaves the discipline of sociology without professionally “knowing” what ghosting is. Without concepts and a theoretical framework, none of us can use it in our writing, our lectures or in our critical assessments of the readings we assign. Hookups continue to be outside how we explain society.

In a recent paper I have tried to fill some conceptual gaps about courtship. I present this at ASA 2019 in New York in August. Please come. You will be most welcome and, with your help, we may all soon have courtship ghosting as part of sociology’s professional knowledge. Then we will truly be able to say that sociologists “understand” ghosting and we will all be able to write, teach and increase public understanding of it.

China, Desire and Progress

People’s Republic of Desire is Hao Wu’s recent film on fan gift giving to live-streamers in China. Often poor, young people are shown spending their scant pay on gifts to online stars like Shen Man, who talks to her fans, or Big Li, a married but vigorously assertive exemplar of masculinity. Behind this fan worship are ideals of gender; young people in China now have a vast media apparatus with which to express their ideals and desires – for feminine beauty, manly assertiveness, and the personal enjoyment of fame.

Shen Man and a Diagram of the YY Entertainment Network

Behind this new industry are owners and investors; they make the big money in this live-streaming industry. The stars are shown struggling, with competition to be number one and with their relationships. Shen Man tries to stay focused because she has to support her parents and their family. And Big Li’s relationship with his manager wife is stressful for both. But beyond the money and stardom, other things are going on. Still authoritarian, the government is letting new desires be expressed; China is tolerating public fandom by millions. It is these fans who are the focus of this film. Millions of ordinary people are now deciding for themselves what they admire and who they want to see. They show this in a serious way, backed by their own precious money. Within themselves there is now space for considering desires and externally these can now be freely shown. This is recognizably progress.

While resisting the protests in Hong Kong, China’s authoritarian government is opening itself up to private life. Hao Wu shows how millions of people can now indulge personal desires and spend their money impecuniously. With government no longer campaigning for people to adopt serious purposes, the desires of private life are now tolerated. Is this because it distracts people from political protest? Or has the Chinese Communist Party glimpsed a deeper, more future-oriented possibility? Are private life ‘vices’ going to result in ‘public benefits’? Is Hao Wu’s film showing us China at its Mandeville moment?

Seen sociologically, private desires could be what is most needed to push society into its next phase. Future personal relationships may transform manners, lead people to expect romantic courtship, and result in a personally timed lifecourse. Does People’s Republic of Desire show China embracing intimate attractions and generational enthusiasms? Are we seeing a future private identity that will become a source of social change? Fantasizing about a star or hero, joining an informal association, and interfacing with the economy by consumption may preview for us what China’s future holds – a more sociological society.