“With Whom no White Scholar can Compare”: Academic Interpretations of the Relationship between W.E.B. Du Bois and Max Weber

Max Weber (1864–1920) is considered one of the canonical founders of sociology, while W. E. B. Du Bois (1868–1963), author of The Philadelphia Negro (1899), The Souls of Black Folk (1903), and Black Reconstruction (1935), has only recently been included in the sociological canon. We provide a historical review of what we know of their relationship in order to first ask, what did Du Bois say about Weber, and second, what did Weber say about Du Bois? We then analyze the extant scholarly discourse of published English-language academic journal articles that substantively mention both Weber and Du Bois in order to address a third question: what did other scholars say about their relationship? We provide an analysis of the variation of scholars’ perceptions on the relationship between Du Bois and Weber to illumine the dominant assumptions about founding figures and the origin story of American sociology writ large. We argue that three mechanisms of white group interests configured the marginalization of Du Bois from both mainstream and sub-disciplinary sociological theory: (1) reduction or “knowing that we do no know and not caring to know” (when knowledge is perceived as irrelevant to white group interests), (2) deportation or “not wanting to know” (when knowledge is systematically exiled), and (3) appropriation or “not knowing that we do not know”) (when dominant knowledge usurps or assimilates challenges to that knowledge).     

Reintegrating Theories,Methods, and Historical Analysis in Teaching Sociology

We discuss ways of bringing theory and methods into conversation with each other within courses and across the sociology curriculum. Theory is often taught completely separately from research methods, which in turn are simplistically divided into quantitative and qualitative. To counter this fragmented approach to the discipline we discuss two major paradigms, a social-forces paradigm often linked to quantitative research and an interpretive paradigm often linked to qualitative inquiry. But at a deeper level both paradigms require an understanding of historical context. The relationship between these two paradigms and more familiar categories of theory such as "functionalism" and "conflict theories" is not straightforward. We conclude the discussion by describing classroom-tested strategies that help students explore the complexity of the linkages between theories and empirical inquiry.     

Advancing Social Capital Measurement: Using General Social Survey Cycles to Develop an Efficient Survey Instrument

The General Social Survey (GSS) has provided significant insight about the state of societies around the world through the International Social Survey Programme (ISSP). Although broadly applicable, in this study the context for developing a new social capital survey instrument covers the Canadian GSS since 1985. Questions in the GSS are often used by researchers who are interested in specific questions or themes for use in some form of re-sampling. Given significant social and relational themes, GSS cycles from 1985 to 2013 were reviewed using a social capital framework to produce a new Social Capital GSS survey instrument. A process of vetting and sorting questions led to development of a 41 question instrument that includes 16 demographic and context variables and 25 social network and trust variables. After testing and refinement, the instrument was used with a randomly sampled group across selected East Hamilton Census Tracts that are differentiated by median income and a standard deviation above and below respectively (n?=?97).     

The Human Habitat: a Systemization and Critique of Park’s Theory from a Radical Interactionist Perspective

When Park died, he left his theory of the human habitat not only incomplete, but in considerable disarray. Although few present-day scholars have demonstrated much interest in building on this critical body of Park’s work, which he based on dominance, it probably represents his most important contribution to American sociology. I argue that the key to systemizing his highly discursive account of the human habitat is to view it from an emergent social evolutionary perspective, which makes it possible to differentiate his notion of “community” from “society,” as well as explain how the two concepts can logically be viewed as both separate and unified entities. A community is not only a necessary stage in the social evolutionary process of producing a society, but it also provides the habitat needed for a society’s later emergence. Among other things, Park’s theory of the human habitat is also criticized for its failure to (1) distinguish dominance from domination, (2) identify the reciprocal relationship existing between power and domination, (3) accurately characterize the nature of the economic order operating in communities, and (4) demarcate a pre-lingual, lingual and literate communal stages that precedes in the social evolutionary process the possible development of a society. In passing, I also point out critical, but often overlooked aspects of Park’s theory of the human habitat that contradict popular characterizations of his work as being purblind to the operation of dominance and power, social Darwinist, conservative, sexist, and racist. Finally, I deduce the implications of his theory for the future emergence of a “world society.”     

Verzerrte Beteiligung

To cope with the erosion of civic engagement, the expansion of public participation is postulated an efficacious remedy. Many authors notice the drawback of low turnout with unequal and biased participation compared to institutional elections. As the very first, this article not only emphasizes biased participation, but empirically analyses the biased output of participation methods.The example is the referendum on Stuttgart 21 (S21) in the year 2011. The counterfactual result for nonvoters is predicted by linking macro and micro-data. Estimations on municipality-level show participation-bias above elections, but below petitions and demonstrations. The counterfactual result predicts an enhanced rejection of S21.     

Social Impact Bonds und der Disput um die Wohlfahrt

Social Impact Bonds are novel financial mechanisms for social welfare programs. What’s new about them is that they include professional financial investors into state provision of welfare. Its promise is to help states save public money in times of austerity by becoming more effective and selling their risk of failed social investments to the financial market. Against it, its critics see a further mode of capitalization of the public sphere (Landnahme). This article investigates Social Impact Bond s between the poles of de- and repolitization. On the one hand, the Social Impact Bond prevents public and democratic debates over welfare by means of privatization and methodical rationalization, on the other hand it addresses the welfare state and public expenditures to be important again. This is new, after decades of diminishing welfare states. Which sort of dispute the Social Impact Bond will bring about depends on the institutional context of its implementation.     

Die Finanzialisierung von Unternehmen

Since the 1990s the financialization of the enterprise is an increasingly important aspect of capitalist development also in Germany. However, more recently a growing number of scholars point at a problematic conceptual stretching of financialization. The term has been defined too differently and ambiguously and has not been distinguished sufficiently from seemingly similar concepts. Financialization has been prematurely identified with a set of fixed effects often condensed to stagist concepts of capitalist development. When analyzing effects financialization has been regarded in isolation without considering interaction effects with other structurations of fields and hence the multi-referentiality of the enterprise. In order to overcome these shortcomings the article proposes a concept for the analysis of firm level financialization which draws on a more general sociological concept of field structuration and dynamics in which the “multi-referential enterprise” operates. Based on this concept the article analyses episodes of financialization in Germany showing its dynamics and limits. Financialization of enterprises proves to be structurally limited, institutionally contested, and unfolds its effects in deferent actor constellations at firm level due to its multiple and contradictory embeddedness.     

Much Ado About Nothing? Macro-Prudential Ideas and the Post-Crisis Regulation of Shadow Banking

Post-crisis, macro-prudential ideas have challenged the epistemic authority of private risk management technologies, declaring them to be pro-cyclical contributors to systemic risk. This discursive challenge has been most critical of the shadow banking system, where private risk management instruments are central. This challenge, however, has not been translated into regulatory tools which reflect these convictions. This paper studies this process of discursive challenge to (failed) regulatory intervention for the case of the repo-market, the heart of the current shadow banking system. It traces regulatory efforts on the global and EU level from regulatory statements to (lack of) action, documenting both the persistent articulation of macro-prudential ideas challenging private risk-management systems and timid to no regulatory intervention. It links this hiatus to international coordination problems, the need for macro-prudential action to span regulatory communities, involving banking and financial market authorities and disagreements between micro- and macro-prudentially oriented regulators. The lack of evidence and the difficulty to generate it are identified as major impediments for regulatory consensus, further aggravated by ambiguities about the goals of anti-cyclical regulation. Beyond governance problems and the persistent appeal of private risk-management systems, the paper thus points to difficulties operationalizing macro-prudential ideas as a major explanatory factor.