The Roots of “Radical Interactionism”

A plea has been made for replacing the perspective of “symbolic interactionism” with a new interactionist's perspective—“radical interactionism.” Unlike in symbolic interactionism, where Mead's and Blumer's ideas play the most prominent roles, in radical interactionism's, Park's ideas play a more prominent role than either Mead's or Blumer's ideas. On the one hand, according to Mead, the general principle behind the organization of human group life was once dominance, but it is now “sociality.” On the other hand, according to Park, this general principle is now and has always been dominance. Blumer takes a position much closer to Mead's than Park's arguing that the general principle underlying the organization of human group life is sociality. Under certain special conditions, however, it can become dominance. Although like radical interactionism, symbolic interactionism is rooted in pragmatism, unlike in radical interactionism, symbolic interactionism is still plagued with strains of utopian thought, among which the notion of sociality is the most virulent. Sociality may be the principle on which human group life is organized in heaven, but, down here on earth, it remains organized on the basis of domination. Thus, radical interactionism provides a much‐needed antidote to the idealistic overtones still found in symbolic interactionism.     

Protective legislation: The “third pillar” of the welfare state

Welfare states are built upon three central social policy pillars: (1) income programs, including an assortment of income maintenance and security benefits; (2) social services, comprising a diverse constellation of provisions, which furnish care such as health care and education, and “in kind” benefits; and (3) protective legislation, encompassing a dense web of proactive and preventative laws, rights, and entitlements, such as health and safety legislation, minimum wage laws, child protection acts, rent controls, and laws governing evictions and foreclosures. Despite its centrality to the welfare state and to our well‐being, this third pillar has received considerably less attention in comparative social policy research. The dominant welfare state typologies have focused almost exclusively upon income measures and, more recently, on social services, to construct their welfare state categories or “worlds” of welfare while largely neglecting this crucial third pillar. A greater focus on protective welfare legislation can help sharpen the distinctions among welfare states within and across the welfare worlds, which is particularly valuable in light of the ongoing erosion of the other two pillars over the past few decades.     

“Risk Society”: The Cult of Theory and the Millennium?

The relation between theory and empirical data in sociology and social policy is explored through a critique of Ulrich Beck's influential book, Risk Society . Consideration is given to the extent to which a book that purports to describe contemporary societies in general is actually rooted in the unique circumstances of postwar Germany. The various arguments of Risk Society are reviewed and tested against relevant empirical reports from England. Many of the historical and contemporary generalizations made by Beck are shown to be questionable. The conclusion reflects on the popularity of the genre in which Beck is working and questions the consistent glumness of its attitude to contemporary societies—whether those of the 1890s or the 1990s. The new millennium might be a time for a new spirit and the rejection of the nostalgia and conservatism of humanities-oriented scholarship.     

The Myth of “Security Moms” and “NASCAR Dads”: Parenthood,Political Stereotypes,and the 2004 Election*

Objective. The objective of this article is to explore the impact of being a parent on political views and to test the accuracy of the “Security Mom” and “NASCAR Dad” labels that were pervasively applied in the context of the 2004 presidential election. Methods. The methods we employed consist of using data primarily from the 2004 National Election Study to determine whether parents differ from nonparents in terms of their political attitudes on a wide range of issues. We argue that parenthood affects women and men differently, so we analyze the sexes separately. Results. Mothers have important political distinctions from women without children, mostly in the case of social welfare issues. They do not, however, appear to be “Security Moms” in the post‐9/11 world. As for fathers, for the most part it makes little sense to talk about dads as a distinct voting bloc, as in very few cases do their political attitudes differ from men without children. Conclusions. The media's use of the labels “NASCAR Dad” and Security Mom” promoted an inaccurate understanding of the political preferences of parents. Beyond debunking these media myths, our results provide one of the first comprehensive looks at the impact of parenthood on political attitudes, an overlooked area in the adult socialization literature.