“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.”     

International Remittances and Private Schooling: Evidence from Kerala,India

This study investigates the impact of international remittances on private school enrolment in Kerala. Using data from the 2010 Kerala Migration Survey and employing an instrumental variable (IV‐Probit) approach to address the endogeneity of migration, we found that remittances have a positive and significant effect on private school enrolment. After disaggregating the sample into different heterogeneous groups, we found that remittances have greater effect on boys, children residing in rural areas, and those belonging to socially advantageous groups and from higher wealth quintile. Children from lower wealth quintile and belonging to socially disadvantageous groups are least affected by migration and remittances.     

“He invited me and didn't ask anything in return” Migration and Mobility as Vulnerabilities for Sexual Exploitation among Female Adolescents in Mexico

Although human trafficking is recognized as a major human rights violation, there is limited evidence regarding the vulnerabilities that contribute to female adolescents’ risk of being forced or coerced into the sex trade. Vulnerabilities such as gender‐based violence, economic and social inequalities have been shown to shape the risk of sexual exploitation among adolescents. In‐depth interviews (n=18) with current sex workers who reported being deceived or forced into the sex trade as adolescents (<17 years old) were analysed to explore their experiences of migration and mobility in Mexico. Driven by socio‐economic and vulnerabilities in home communities, adolescents often engaged in internal migration and mobility to other Mexican communities and states. Migration and mobility further predisposed them to social isolation, economic hardship and abuse, which were used as tools to trick them into the sex trade. Policies that support safer migration for adolescents in origin, transit, and destination communities are needed.     

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.