content analysis

Last night, The Colbert Report did a special episode on the growing water crisis.  After pissing off the curator of the American Museum of Natural History’s special exhibition on Water, Colbert (in his guise as a conservative pundit as always) discussed how usable drinking water is disappearing.

The social inequalities on this issue are staggering.  According to experts, the minimum amount of water per day needed to survive (for drinking, cooking, and hygiene) is 5 gallons.  Most people in developing nations routinely live on less than 1.3 gallons.  The average American uses between 60 and 90 gallons daily!  Even Europeans use about half as much water per capita.  As guest Dean Kamen made clear, North Americans are able to consume so much water because we are not paying the full cost of replacing the water we use with other purified water.

At the same time, bottled water waste is becoming a serious issue.  According to the director of the Container Recycling Institute, 40 million plastic water bottles head to landfills every day.  As of this morning, 30.1 billion (with a “b”) beverage containers had been sent to landfills so far in 2008.

What to do?  Well, Kamen is doing his part with a machine that can turn anything (even a barrel of human waste or, say, Doritos) into usable drinking water and, at the same time, works as a power generator.  It seems clear that we all need to do our part to cut down on water consumption and container waste.  I used a water consumption calculator and discovered I’m using 78 gallons daily.  So, I’m going to make a concerted effort to cut back on my indulgent showers and start using a reusable water bottle.

But thinking about this issue sociologically, little can be accomplish by isolated people making a decision to behave better.  We need to push for a Bottle Bill to create greater incentives to recycle and find systematic ways of promoting reusable containers.  New technologies like efficient toilets and shower heads can curb our overconsumption of water.  The most essential change is for consumers to start to pay the real cost of the water we use.  That may be a hard pill to swallow for millions of Americans already paying big water bills, but it’s perhaps the only way we can deal with this crisis.

As Kamen pointed out, the oil crisis pales in comparison to the water crisis.

Okay … when you hear this one, you will immediately know it was conceived over a couple of beers.  Imagine the following:

We learn that the Earth will be destroyed in ten years time.  Fortunately, the U.S. government has located a planet with an Earth-like environment.  Perhaps more fortunately, NASA has been able to construct a spaceship with room for 1000 people that could transport us to the planet in one year’s time.  (For whatever reason, NASA is unable to build more ships of this sort within the ten-year window.  Also, there is only enough gas for a one-way trip).

As a sociologist, the U.N. has charged you with the responsibility of selecting the 1000 passengers of the spaceship who will have to rebuild humanity on the new planet.  Who do you choose?

A few thoughts that occurred to us:

• All passengers would need to be of reproductive age (and inclined to reproduce by some means) and would need to be unrelated to maximize genetic diversity in the new population.
• People with expertise in crucial subjects like medicine (particularly an obstetrician and an infectious disease specialist), engineering, construction, irrigation, plumbing systems, and agriculture.
• People who would be able to preserve knowledge and educate in the sciences and the humanities.
• Expertise would need to be overlapping in case of deaths.
• Personally, I would tend toward choosing smart people regardless of current expertise and having them use the ten years to bone up on subjects.
• Given the year long journey and the inherent difficulties of starting a society, it would behoove us to select people who are sociable and likable (misanthropes need not apply).

Disagree?  Have other suggestions?  Think the entire question is stupid?  Reader, I’ll be eager to hear your thoughts.

I’ve been hearing a lot about Easter this year. It seems that everywhere I go people are wishing me a “Happy Easter” or asking about my Easter plans. Maybe it’s a life course issue or maybe I’ve just noticed it this year. But I’d like to propose a different reason: we’re a country badly in need of an Easter.

I don’t mean this in the religious sense, but let’s begin there. In the literal understanding of Christian faith, Easter is the day that J.C. rose from death (and, after making a couple of pit stops, joined his Dad in heaven). Numerous Biblical scholars and theologians have argued that Jesus’ message of social justice and peace was so powerful that, in the wake of his gruesome death, his followers wanted to believe that a) he wasn’t really dead (a la Elvis), and/or b) he would metaphorically live on through their work in spreading his message. In the latter case, some scholars have suggested that the metaphorical meaning was slowly turned literal over time as the story of Jesus’ life was retold in a grand game of “Telephone.” In any case, the primary focus of Easter for practicing Christians should be on the celebrating the life of a man who stood for equality, kindness, and peace (a bit like Martin Luther King Day).

However, there is a component to Easter that is more secular. Let’s see what we can learn from a quote from the Editor’s Letter in my local, small town, weekly newspaper (a publication hardly known for its cosmopolitanism):

Easter is a time of rebirth no matter what religion you are. It is the time of spring and life comes back to trees and flowers; birds come back from the South to their northern homes and the air takes on a fresh smell.

While I have not known this editor/writer to do very much (read: any) research, she hits the nail on the head here. In fact, the idea of spring renewal precedes the association of Jesus with the third weekend in March. According to the OED, the word Easter is derived from the Northumbrian Éastre, which was “the name of a goddess whose festival was celebrated at the vernal equinox,” an event that almost certainly had believers rejoicing in the new plant and animal life of spring. In modern times, we make a big deal of “spring cleaning,” a practice that ostensibly renews our living spaces.

It seems obvious to me that we are a country in desperate need of rebirth and renewal. With the economic crisis upon us and so many families struggling with crushing debt, with the environment so badly damaged and continuing to be threatened by human misjudgment, with a world so given to hate and intolerance, we could really use some peace, justice, and kindness.

At first, those Easter wishes that currently seem omnipresent annoyed me, with their imposition of someone else’s faith on me. But I have come to see them as a mixed statement of frustration with the world as it is with a note of hope as we look forward. If Easter means a chance at shaking things up and working toward a more peaceful and sustainable future, I’m all for it.

I’ve always been uncomfortable being served by others. I simply can’t stand putting another person into a position of servitude. So, even when I’m standing at the Subway counter, I feel like saying, “Would you prefer if I just came back there and made the sandwich myself?” But that’s not how things work. To alleviate it this discomfort, I find myself asking people in service positions a lot of questions. The following conversation took place at a local Subway at around 8:30 pm the other night:

Me: So, what’s the most popular sub?
Counter Maven: Definitely the BMT [Editor's note: an Italian combo]
ME: Really? Is that true at all times of the day?
CM: Yeah, people always order pretty much the same things.
ME: Huh, I would’ve guessed that people liked cold sandwiches at lunch, but ordered hot sandwiches for dinner.
CM: Nah, if they want something toasted, they’ll probably get the Chicken Bacon Ranch.

I was reflecting on this encounter later and I was amazed by how quickly I sought to built a predictive model (good sociological training, eh?). Forget the more obvious question: “why is the BMT so popular?” I was trying to find the hidden variation. It called to mind a brief analogy I once read (I can’t for the life of me remember where): Let’s say a sociologist wanted to understand gravity. Rather than noting the remarkable and obvious fact that everything falls, a sociologist might take things of various weights — a barbell, a feather, a tennis ball — to a rooftop and try to measure differential patterns in the speed at which the items fell earthward.

Two things happened in the past 24 hours that got me thinking about communication. First, the friendly folks at scatterplot posted a link to Lindsay Waters’ essay on Inside High Ed calling for greater clarity in the humanities. Second, the political world has been rocked by a speech by Barack Obama on race that goes beyond the typical tendency toward sound bites and actually proposes a nuanced and complex take on the issue. So, I’ve had several ideas bouncing around in my head about the constant balancing act between clarity and complexity in communication.

Like Waters, Jeremy seems to endorse the ideal of “plainspoken social science.” This is an old debate that Stephen K. Roney summarizes well in his article, Postmodernism and George Orwell. Essentially, he pits George Orwell’s argument for simplicity and clarity in writing (spelled out in Politics and the English Language) against the case for obfuscatory language supported by thinkers like Teddy Adorno and Judith Butler. Butler, for example, is paraphrased as saying, “Difficult ideas must necessarily be expressed in difficult language” (pg. 14). While I certainly wouldn’t want to oppress anyone by rejecting his/her right to use impenetrable language, I tend to agree with Orwell that clear expression is essential to putting ideas into practical use. Ideas that are communicated in an obtuse manner are rarely absorbed by the general public (I’m thinking of Marcuse’s One-Dimensional Man in the 1960s as an exception). Because Orwell was more interested in developing ideas for the purpose of political action – rather than knowledge for knowledge’s sake – he advocated a plainspoken writing style that could be widely read.

Unfortunately, to reverse Butler’s formulation, simple writing is often associated with simple ideas. Politicians are masters of developing easily absorbed, media friendly sound bites that communicate very little meaningful substance (see, for example, any sentence ending with “… or the terrorists win”). Even at moments of crisis (maybe especially then), politicians seek to paint a black and white picture with simple answers. As James Carney wrote for Time magazine yesterday, “politicians routinely seek to clarify, diminish and then dispose of the problem. They play down the conflict, whatever it is, then attempt to cut themselves off from it and move on, hoping the media and electorate will do the same.” And this is precisely what made Barack Obama’s very long speech on race so stunning. Though he spoke in perfectly clear language, the speech he gave did not simplify the issue; it revealed it to be more complex. Carney continues:

What [politicians] don’t do is give a speech analyzing the problem and telling Americans that it’s actually more complicated than what they believed. They manifestly do not denounce the offensive comments that stirred up the trouble to begin with and then tell Americans to grow up and deal with the fact that those same remarks, however wrong and offensive, are an elemental part of who they are, and who we are.

How the public reacts to this speech is still an open question. Will people reward Obama pointing out the continuing tensions of America’s racial divide? When Obama says, “We can tackle race only as spectacle — as we did in the O.J. trial — or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina, or as fodder for the nightly news … Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, ‘Not this time,’” will people take up that challenge? It’s probably too early to say. However, what’s obvious is that his clear, beautifully-phrased, and breathtakingly inspiring speech has the potential to affect change in much the same way JFK’s inaugural speech pushed a generation into community service. This is a power that scholar writing in recent years has lacked. Scholars like John Kenneth Galbraith have, at times, used the power of clear and inspiring language to move society and policy. But who today has that gift?

On the other hand, maybe social scientists tend to see their obscure and expert language as way of protecting their supposed objectivity. It’s possible that our often incomprehensible sentences and extensive use of the passive voice reflect our desire to appear as scientists and not radicals or “policy entrepreneurs” (as Paul Krugman referred to Galbraith in Peddling Prosperity). To me, this practice seems wrongheaded. As Marx famously wrote, “Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it.” To do so, we’re going to need some nice lucid writing, Obama-style.

Sorry for being absent since Sunday.  Sometimes life and grading intervene.  I’ll be back with a post tonight.

I’ve decided to start a new feature here: the sunday reads. Growing up (and in my own family today), Sunday has always meant bagels and the Sunday New York Times.  It’s a time to sit back and dedicate some time to learning about the world around us. From the Week in Review (which as a pre-literate child I thought was the “Weekend Review”) to the Magazine to Sunday Styles to my beloved Frank Rich, the Sunday Times has much to offer.

In recent years, I’ve discovered that media does exist outside the Times. So, in the sunday reads each week, I will pick out a few key articles that I found significant this Sunday. Apologizes in advance if I end up linking to the entire Week in Review. Here are the inaugural links:

Postfeminism and Other Fairy Tales by Kate Zernike (NYT) – a good story on what appears to be season of growing consciousness about gender.

Five Years by John F. Burns (NYT) – Burns’ broad and inspired look back on our five years (!) in Iraq.

Republicans See Storm Clouds Gathering by Jonathan Weisman (WP) – a discussion of the poor outlook for the GOP this fall. I read this with great glee.

On My Faith and My Church by Barack Obama (Huffington Post) – Senator Obama clears the air about his pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. (See also: The Fox News crew deliberately manipulates the situation an interview with Obama).

Annals of War: Exposure by Philip Gourevitch and Errol Morris (The New Yorker) – The story of Specialist Sabrina Harman, the woman who took the notorious pictures at Abu Graib, gives a new look behind the scenes at AG, told partially through her letters. Written by one of the best journalists around and the documentary filmmaker behind The Fog of War.

Red Baron recast as a German hero by David Smith (The Observer (UK)) – I’ve been interested for a while in the way Germans continue to process their horrific acts during WWII. A new $28 million movie (a lot of money for German films) breaks a taboo by focusing on Manfred von Richthofen, “The Red Baron,” and depicts him as “brilliant and sensitive hero.”

Cuban Players Fled Their Team for an Uncertain Future by Katie Thomas (NYT) – for the non-soccer fans out there, North and Central American national teams are currently competing in their Olympic qualifying tournament (only players under 23 are eligible to play, so no Landon Donovan). As usual, several players have defected from the Cuban team, seeking asylum and better futures in the U.S. This article looks at their hopes and chances for the future.

If any of these stories were interesting to you, please return the favor and leave a link to a good article in the comments!

Sudhir Venkatesh (Gang Leader for a Day) was on The Colbert Report last night. And, man, did he make sociology look bad.

SV: Poor people wouldn’t answer my questions.
SC: Poor people wouldn’t answer your questions? Did you try offering them money? Because I understand that’s something poor people need a lot of.
SV: I tried! But I didn’t give them enough and I gave them bad questions like, “How does it feel to be black and poor?”
SC: Really? But they were too “in it” to really get a sense of it?
SV: Well, yeah. But I gave them choices! “Very Bad, Bad, Good,” you know …
SC: Seriously? [riffed on the absurdity of offering multiple choices]
SV: Well, that’s what sociologists do.

Actually, not all sociologist use questions that ridiculous.  Or response categories that bad.  Not all sociologists use survey methods.

Many people have voiced their concerns with Venkatesh’s research.  But he did nothing in this public forum to mention that what he did was out of keeping with what most sociologists do.  Pretty annoying.  Colbert was good at pointing out several problems with the research though.

After staring at Stata’s horrifically ugly user interface for hours, I often develop an overwhelming sense of anomic meaninglessness. After all, no matter how advanced our methods are, no matter how many deliberately obfuscatory terms we put before the word “models,” no matter how good our datasets, ultimately, we’re just talking about correlations. Obviously, this point has been made unendingly. Some people find this point so damning as to quit the enterprise altogether. Others feel it’s true, but unimportant (“back to the multi-level models”). So, I’m either preaching to the choir or being quickly dismissed here.

What often gets lost in this debate are the dual questions of meaning and truth.  In the end, we are all guided by our a priori social sense.  If a finding is in line with what we know to be true about the world, then we keep the model we have.  If it doesn’t, you spend the next six weeks trying to figure out what’s need to make it sure it reflects your a priori expectations*.  When someone says something that is just clearly sociologically true, you can feel it.  A social truth is easily recognizable.  In the same way, a stretch of methods and assumptions to secure a finding is also apparent.  But only when something is really true — when the finding is durable across methods and datasets, when it’s so apparently genuine that we can drop our insecurities about our methods just being correlations — is our work really meaningful.  Of course, it’s hard as hell to find something palpably true to say that hasn’t been said already.

Okay, back to the hunt for meaning.

*Very occasionally we can be surprised by a finding that holds up.  Isn’t that rare though?

A good article in The Times today about the travails of Silda Wall Spitzer and a brilliant commentary on the same topic by by Samantha Bee of The Daily Show last night.

While I’m not going to dive whole-heartedly into the Spitzer scandal, I will say that it once again brings issues of gender and politics into the spotlight. Of course, we’d expect that they’d already be in the spotlight, what with a female presidential candidate and all. But there seem to be a different set of rules for Hillary Clinton. Yes, she has suffered innumerable unfair criticisms because of her gender (e.g., nasty jibes about her appearance or framing her emotional reactions as gendered behavior). Nonetheless, before Hillary became a candidate, I would have guessed that the American public would have doubted a female candidate on security issues (buying into the stereotype that women aren’t tough or decisive enough). That has not been the case. Of the two Dems, she’s clearly regarded as the tougher one. Together with Bill Clinton, she is a member of a take-no-prisoners political team. The Clintons have always succeeded with a two-for-the-price-of-one sales pitch. Perhaps that kind of framing diffuses concerns about her gender.  Or not (see NewSocProf on this).

For whatever reason, HRC is an anomaly. To better understand the way women linked to politics are normally treated, we need to look to Silda Spitzer and Michelle Obama. Both Spitzer and Obama are highly intelligent women and Harvard Law grads (Michelle was a sociology major!). While both have frequently been forced into the role of the attractive and supportive arm piece, they have also gotten into trouble for being independently-minded and making the occasional sarcastic comment, qualities that are often prized in male politicians by the press. It seems the media (and the public?) wants a political wife to be: a strong supporter of her husband, a caring mother to her children, self-deprecating and kindly; outspoken on a singular political issue that affects the hearth and home (say, education); faithful and supportive, if hurt when her husband betrays her. It is important that she be attractive, but not distractingly so. It is better if she looks like a Mom (friendly, a little overweight, a bit wrinkled, knowing). If she’s too attractive, too skinny, or too smart, it suggests an independence that is worrisome in a female political companion. In many ways, Elizabeth Edwards was the ideal political wife; she was often described as “a real woman” who suburban moms could relate to. The press seems less willing to accept a glamorous, independent woman who was also a successful lawyer (and who continued working while having kids).

So, Silda Spitzer had to stand there beside a man who she may still love, but certainly loathes at the moment (and she had to stand next to him again today). She stood there because that is the role that has been carved out for political wives and one played by many others (e.g., Dina Matos McGreevey). While it may be better than the way Rudy Guiliani treated Donna Hanover (the surprise press conference), it is still a humiliating ritual which grants her no opportunity to publicly express her anger and upset, or the legitimate choice to keep the entire situation private. I’m not sure what it will take to change it, except for a generation of political husbands who almost certainly would not accept being pushed into the same position.

***
Somewhat related update: Seriously. This is what it took for New York to get its first black governor? In the midst of these unfortunate circumstances, it is worth recognizing this achievement by David Paterson (who also legally blind).