Fiction Meets Fact: Juno and Teen Pregnancy

On February 18, 2008October 9, 2025 By econnellIn Karen Sternheimer, Popular Culture and Consumption, Relationships, Marriage and Family, Sex and Gender16 Comments

By Karen Sternheimer

I finally had the chance to see Juno this weekend after practically everyone has told me to go see it. Although I was miffed that I already heard all of the funniest lines on the commercials (but isn’t that always the case these days?), I found it to be a great movie and very different from the typical teen pregnancy morality tale. (Spoiler alert: I reveal some key plot points here, so if you haven’t seen it, go see it, and then come back and read this blog.)

http://www.youtube.com/v/K0SKf0K3bxg&rel=1<\/embed><\/object><\/div>";” />

Unlike the after school special genre I grew up on, this pregnant teen is not a “bad girl” or pariah—she is, after all, the character we are encouraged to most identify with. She is not the pregnant teen we have seen on Jerry Springer, Montel, or years ago on Ricki Lake, boldly promiscuous and claiming that she got pregnant on purpose, as the audience boos mercilessly.

Juno instead is everygirl, the girl who feels slightly out of place in high school (who doesn’t?) and finds the whole situation of adolescence a bit absurd. She is wise enough to know she lacks the maturity to be a mother or to make some of the decisions she now must make, but naïve enough to tell the infertile Jennifer Garner character (and potential adoptive mom) that she’s lucky not to be pregnant.

Juno isn’t the happy-go-lucky sexaholic many teens are portrayed as either. When she is offered flavored condoms at an abortion clinic by teen working at the reception desk, a repulsed Juno tells her she’s “kind of off sex now.”

We see her deal with the judgmental stares of adults and peers at school and with an off-handed insult by a health care worker as she gets her first ultrasound. This film definitely does not make light of the fact that she is sixteen and pregnant, even if it does have its funny moments. Though the funny ads for the movie suggest otherwise, there are as many tears as laughs. Her pain is particularly evident after she gives birth and knows she won’t see the baby again. She weeps uncontrollably as the baby’s father holds her in the hospital.

I was surprised at first that her sort-of love interest, Paulie Bleeker (the father of the baby) isn’t a bigger part of the film. Played by Michael Cera of Superbad and Arrested Development, I thought for sure his great comic timing would be more central to the movie.

But this is part of the beauty of the film—he’s not pregnant, and his life apparently isn’t affected too much. Juno’s father is obviously angry when he finds out who got his daughter pregnant, but he’s also a little impressed. “I didn’t think he had it in him,” he says of the pale, skinny boy.

When she tells first Paulie, he does ask her “what do we do?” and seems to be supportive (and totally freaked out). But she convinces her parents not to tell his, and as her belly grows she reminds him that she is the one who has to deal with the stares and insults, not him. Juno doesn’t even tell him when she goes into labor because he has a track meet that day.

In fact, the only time a classmate mentions to Paulie that he heard he is the father of the baby, he seems impressed. The equally scrawny classmate comments that he will stop wearing underwear to improve his sperm count.

The truth is, when teenage girls get pregnant, they are the ones who bear not just the child, but the scorn of those around them and the broader society. Girls are the ones who get called “sluts” or “whores.” The boy fathers might instead be called "players” or “studs." Promiscuity is largely seen as a female stain; but remember that while females have more to lose by getting pregnant, they can’t get themselves pregnant.

In contrast to this movie, most babies born to teen girls are fathered by adult men, so “teen pregnancy” often involves an adult too. Teen girls are highly sexualized by the society (and adults) around them. The modeling industry, for example, relies on barely pubescent girls told to pout for adult (mostly male) photographers and sexy becomes defined as looking as young as possible.

But as Juno reminds us, teens are more than just naïve victims of the culture and society around them. As Janis Prince Inniss blogged about a few months ago, teen pregnancy rates are significantly lower than they were in past decades (despite a small increase in the last year data were available). Abortion rates have declined to their lowest level since 1974, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has found that teens are less likely to be sexually active compared with the 1990s (about 54% of high school students had sex in 1991 compared with 48% in 2005). When they are they are much more likely to use condoms (up from 46% in 1991 to 63% in 2005).

Even so, we have a much higher teen pregnancy rate in the U.S. compared with other industrialized nations (a topic for another blog), and getting pregnant at sixteen isn’t a great idea. Juno shows us why without being too preachy or requiring the girl to constantly suffer for her mistake.

New Research on Racial Ethnic Attitudes

On February 15, 2008October 9, 2025 By econnellIn Immigration, Population, Aging, and Demography, Race and Ethnicity, Statistics and Methods3 Comments

By C.N. Le

These days, racial/ethnic relations seem to be at the heart of many of the most controversial issues in modern American society. These issues include the long-running debate about immigration (especially illegal immigration), racist imagery such as the noose recently pictured on the cover of Golf magazine, and issues surrounding Barack Obama’s campaign for president.

I think it’s useful for us to try to take a step back and look at these specific issues within a broader perspective. Understanding the social context that forms the framework within which each issue unfolds will increase our understanding of them.

With that in mind, let’s look at the results from two recent national-level surveys about the current state of racial/ethnic relations. Studies conducted by the Pew Research Center and New America Media each provide data on attitudes about different racial/ethnic groups in America.

The Pew Research Center study generally concludes that among whites, blacks, and Latinos, large majorities of each group report that they get along "pretty well" or "very well" with members of the other groups. However, there are some differences — black and Latino responses seem to be slightly less positive:

While 70% of blacks say blacks and Hispanics get along very or pretty well, just 57% of Hispanics agree. Meantime, some 30% of Hispanics say blacks and Hispanics get along not too or not at all well; this is the most negative assessment registered by any group in the survey about any inter-group relationship.

It’s important to note that although the 57% of Latinos who report good relations with blacks is lower than what Blacks report themselves, that 57% is still a numerical majority.

The Pew study also reports that generally speaking, those with higher education and income tend to report better cross-racial relations. Perhaps surprisingly, blacks living in rural areas tend to report better relations with whites than blacks who live in urban or suburban areas. Also, there were no significant differences in terms of attitudes by region of country. Finally (and most discouraging), younger blacks report worse relations with whites than older blacks do.

In general, I found the Pew study informative but with one significant drawback — they chose to exclude Asian Americans from the study.

In my opinion, this omission is inexcusable at a time when the Asian American population is close to 15 million, in which Asian Americans are some of the most socioeconomically successful ethnic groups in the U.S., and when Asian Americans increasingly make up large proportions of the population of many states and majorities in many cities.

To remedy that, let’s turn to the other national study on racial attitudes, from New America Media (NAM), in conjunction with Bendixen & Associates. This survey included Asian Americans, Latinos, and African Americans, but because it focused on attitudes among and between racial/ethnic minority groups, the study did not include whites.

I am impressed that the NAM study was conducted in multiple languages to maximize its overall validity and accuracy. A PowerPoint presentation of their major findings is also available for download. To summarize, the study notes:

[The poll] uncovered serious tensions among these ethnic groups, including mistrust and significant stereotyping, but a majority of each group also said they should put aside differences and work together to better their communities.

Predominantly immigrant populations – Hispanics and Asians – expressed far greater optimism about their lives in America, concluding that hard work is rewarded in this society. By contrast, more than 60% of the African Americans polled do not believe the American Dream works for them.

[Regarding tensions and mistrust], 44% of Hispanics and 47% of Asians are “generally afraid of African Americans because they are responsible for most of the crime.” Meanwhile, 46% of Hispanics and 52% of African Americans believe “most Asian business owners do not treat them with respect.” And half of African Americans feel threatened by Latin American immigrants because “they are taking jobs, housing and political power away from the black community.”

[Nonetheless], the poll found “a shared appreciation” for each group’s cultural and political contributions. “Hispanics and Asians recognize that African Americans led the fight for civil rights and against discrimination, forging a better future for the other groups.”

I am saddened to hear that apparently, there is still a lot of racial tension and suspicion between Asian Americans, Latinos, and African Americans. I agree that important issues need to be addressed for these stereotypes to eventually be debunked.

Nonetheless, two points from the NAM survey stand out. The first is that as the Pew Research Center study generally showed, more educated and higher- income respondents are likely to be more positive about cross-racial attitudes and experiences.

With that in mind, it appears that the NAM survey did not disaggregate its responses by social class, and instead lumped everyone from all kinds of educational, income, and occupational backgrounds together within each racial/ethnic group. This categorization unfortunately distorts the findings a little bit.

But I am more disappointed in some of the wording of the questions in the NAM survey. For example, it asked Asian and Latino respondents whether they agreed with the statement "I am generally afraid of African Americans because they are responsible for most of the crime."

The wording of this question is biased, leading, and confusing. First of all, it asks two questions in one — whether they are afraid of African Americans, and two, whether they agree that African Americans commit most of the crime. One of the key rules about questionnaire design is that you should only ask one question at a time.

Second, presenting the statement that African Americans "are responsible for most of the crime" is leading — it should have just asked the question, "Do you agree or disagree that African Americans are responsible for most crimes committed" would have been less leading and more direct. The distinction between the two is subtle, but empirically important.

Another example of a poorly-worded and misleading question posed to African American and Asian respondents is the one that begins: "Latin American immigrants are taking away jobs, housing and political power from the Black community." Again, the problem here is that there are three questions combined into one — whether Latino immigrants take away jobs, take away housing, and take away political power are all three distinct issues and questions that are unfortunately all rolled into one.

Taken together, these two questions may have distorted and exaggerated the overall level of racial tension between Asians, African Americans, and Latinos, especially considering most of the other findings in the NAM study, which generally showed a high level of willingness to cooperate with each other.

Specifically, 86% of Asians, 89% of African Americans, and 92% of Latinos agreed with the statement, "African Americans, Latinos, and Asians have many similar problems. They should put aside their differences and work together on issues that affect their communities."

Ultimately, that is the probably the most significant finding from the flawed NAM survey. Although some tensions and stereotypes still exist between Asians, Latinos, and Africans Americans overwhelming majorities of each group are willing to work together to address issues of discrimination and inequality that they have in common.

Both the Pew and NAM studies offer useful and interesting data, but the shortcomings in their fundamental design compromises their overall value.

Valentine’s Day: Barrier or Conduit to Romance?

On February 12, 2008October 9, 2025 By econnellIn Janis Prince Inniss, Popular Culture and Consumption, Relationships, Marriage and Family3 Comments

By Janis Prince Inniss

A few days ago, my husband asked, “What date is Valentine’s this year?” Date, not day! How would you feel if your spouse or significant other asked that question? Would it be grounds for divorce? Confirmation that he or she is an insensitive and uncaring lout given that everybody knows Valentine’s is February 14^th?

Not only do we (well, except my husband) know the date, but we know the “signs” that communicate Valentine’s: candles, Cupid, red roses, and boxed chocolates. It is the cultural event of romance! Last year the average American spent $120 on Valentine’s Day for a total of $16.9 billion. Valentine’s Day is the number one sales day for florists; almost three quarters (74 percent) of all Valentine’s Day rose purchases are made by men for women. Many men propose on this day, and restaurants are booked solid long in advance. Valentine’s Day is about passion, romance, and “true love.”

Valentine’s Day seems to originate from a Roman fertility festival called Lupercalia that was celebrated on February 15. During the festival young women would place their names in a container and single men would draw the names of their companion for that year. Many of these pairs got married. St. Valentine, the Christian priest for whom the day was named, was martyred in A.D. 270. Some legends indicate that St. Valentine was executed for marrying Roman couples despite the edict by Emperor Claudius II not to do so; being married and having a family was thought to interfere with military service. In 498 A.D., the Roman Catholic Church proclaimed February 14 St. Valentine’s feast day as a way to do away with Lupercalia because the pagan tradition reveled in romance – and the church held that marriage and romance should remain separate.

Do you think that everyone falls in love? It’s natural as we mature, right? Western ideas about love, romance and marriage are relatively new, actually. Today, the mere thought of a loveless marriage is enough to make us shudder, but this was very desirable in earlier centuries.

Until the 1800s, marriages in the U.S. and Europe were often arranged by parents and other family members on the basis of pragmatic and economic issues such as property. Another primary purpose of marriage in these days was to rear children; if romantic love was considered at all, it was usually a secondary consideration. It is a modern, Western idea that marriage should be based on love and that young people should choose their own mates.

Romantic love and its relationship to marriage have always been shaped by large cultural and societal influences. Even today romantic love is not a natural or universal experience across the world. Although many countries have similar Valentine’s Day celebrations, some Hindus and Muslims in Eastern countries—many of which continue to have arranged marriages, in which prospective partner opinions may or may not be taken into account—have been fiercely opposed to celebrating Valentine’s Day. With its emphasis on romantic love and passion, the celebration is perceived as a Christian/Western affront to Eastern values.

In some societies where marriages continue to be arranged, the Valentine’s Day focus on romance and public declarations of love is considered at odds with or even offensive to that society’s values. In contrast, in modern western societies we expect happiness and fulfillment in marriage, and we don’t mind proclaiming those expectations publicly.

What does passion and romance mean to you? How much of your definition of romance is based on what you see in the mass media? How much does what you see in mass media influence what you think about and expect on Valentine’s Day? Do you measure your significant other’s efforts based on those depictions? Considering how highly scripted this high holy day of romance is, is there room for individual expressions of love? Based on what I see all around me, I would expect my husband to not only know when Valentine’s Day is, but to appear before me on February 14^th with some token goodies (the aforementioned candy, flowers), and maybe even some diamond, heart-shaped jewelry!

Valentine’s Day is the ultimate symbol of the passion and romance that we expect from relationships today. Paradoxically, many depictions of romance are hard to measure up to, given the heavy market emphasis on fantasy. It is difficult to feel positive about your partner and relationship—especially in relationships that are not going very well—when we compare ourselves and our mates to what we see in the media. We have to find realistic ways to make our marriages and relationships fulfilling, and that takes the year-round practice of responding to our partners’ needs. Like a garden, a marriage or other relationship cannot be tended one day a year.

I appreciate romantic gestures, but expect them all year and don’t expect them to come only in red, heart-shaped packages. What’s meaningful to me? A regular supply of grocery store flowers—and groceries, since I detest grocery shopping!

Getting a Job: Weak Social Ties and On-Line Connections

On February 9, 2008October 9, 2025 By econnellIn Relationships, Marriage and Family, Social Psychology48 Comments

By Bradley Wright

Last summer my wife was looking for a summer job, and she did the usual things—read the employment bulletins and sent out applications. Ultimately, though, she got a job through an acquaintance. We see this person a few times a year, and she heads up an administrative unit here on campus. My wife applied, got the job, and we all lived happily after.

This story illustrates the somewhat cynical mantra of all job seekers that it’s not what you know but who you know. Sociologists call this phenomenon the strength of weak ties.

A “weak” social tie, in every day language, is an acquaintanceship—someone with whom you are familiar with but not too close. In contrast, a “strong” tie would be a good friend or close family member, someone with whom you interact a lot. An “absent” tie would be someone who you know but don’t really have any kind of relationship with.

In a famous sociological study, Mark Granovetter interviewed several hundred business people and asked them how they got their jobs. Seventeen percent reported learning about their jobs from a close friend (strong tie), 28% reported learning about it from someone they barely knew (absent tie), and a full 56% of the respondents reported learning about it from an acquaintance (weak tie).

It’s a bit of a paradox: Why are acquaintances, people we sort of know, more important in the job search process than our close friends and family? Our strong ties, after all, care about us more and would be much more willing to help us.

The answer, according to Granovetter, is that weak ties are a unique social resource: they connect us with a wider set of social networks than do social ties. Your acquaintances each have their own strong ties—family and friends to whom they are very close to. Through your acquaintances, you gain access to their strong ties—and to the social networks to which they belong. All social networks offer various resources, such as information about job opportunities, and so by connecting with a greater number of social networks, via weak social ties, you gain access to more possible employment opportunities.

Strong ties, in contrast, connect us with fewer social networks. Your best friend in the world would probably do anything for you, but chances are that the two of you know many of the same people. As such, it’s not that your close friends and family don’t want to help you in a job search; it’s just that they have less to offer because you probably already know about most of the contacts that they would offer. You already share many of the same networks with them. So, there’s a trade-off. Strong ties are more willing and available to offer help, but weak ties typically have more resources to offer.

In this context, it’s interesting to think about the many social ties created by the Internet. About a year ago, I started blogging, and through that I have had contact with dozens, if not hundreds, of people with similar personal and research interests as mine. Likewise, most college students have Facebook accounts in order to keep track of their friends and make friends with their friends’ friends (got that?). As a result of this on-line networking, this generation may have more casual social ties than any before.

The question, then, becomes the nature of these online ties. Granovetter studied fairly conventional acquaintances—people you see in person at places like the work place or social gatherings. Online acquaintances are different. If I met some of the people I know from online, I don’t think that I would even recognize them. Yes, we’ve exchanged many comments on our blogs, and I know a fair amount of information about them, how they think, what they do, but I’ve never met them in person.

Would these on-line ties be as useful in a job search? The answer is… I don’t know. The focus of these on-line relationships is social networking, getting to know each other pretty much for the sake of getting to know each other. The interactions with these people tend to be more social—what you’re doing, what interests you share in common. I’m not sure how often instrumental concerns come up. In everyday conversation, it’s easy to drop in the information that you’re looking for a job, but it might fit in more awkwardly in online interactions.

Perhaps more importantly, though, is that the social networks and resources offered by online connections are often too distant to be of much value. For example, one of the people I interact with online lives in Kenya. Now, he may know of great job opportunities for me, and be very willing to help, but unless I’m willing to relocate to Africa they don’t do me much good. This maybe why in-person acquaintances remain so important—by virtue of meeting them face-to-face, you occupy the same physical location, at least briefly. Chances are, therefore, that the social resources they have to offer would also be close and thus of greater value.

So, do you want to get a job? Make sure to let your acquaintances know since they may be very helpful. Your online connections might be as well, but probably not as much.

Latino versus Asian Immigrants

On February 6, 2008October 9, 2025 By econnellIn Immigration, Population, Aging, and Demography, Race and Ethnicity2 Comments

By C.N. Le

As I’ve written about before, immigration (especially illegal immigration) is one of the most divisive issues of our time. Sociologists can help inject a little bit of objectivity and rationality into this ongoing debate by presenting data, statistics, history, and other “academic” knowledge that can provide a little context and perspective.

At the same time, sometimes it’s interesting to hear “regular” peoples’ opinions about immigration. This idea is at the heart of a new multimedia project headed by Eric Byler. Those of you who are familiar with “indie” films might know him as the director of Charlotte Sometimes and Americanese (an adaptation of Prof. Shawn Wong’s novel American Knees), both being critically-acclaimed independent movies about Asian Americans.

Eric’s latest project, in collaboration with fellow independent filmmakers Annabel Park, Jeff Man, and Zhibo Lai, is entitled Project 9500 and deals with illegal immigration in Eric’s home state of Virginia. They are putting together a feature-length documentary film, but the project also involves short video essay clips that capture different aspects of the issue. Here are two introductory clips from their YouTube site:

While much of the focus of this project is on Latino immigrants, Eric notes that Asian immigrants have been brought into the issue because many critics argue that Asian immigrants are "good" immigrants. This is based on the belief that they learn English quicker and are perceived to be more willing to assimilate into American society, as opposed to the "bad" Latino immigrants.

Eric emailed me to ask for my “academic” opinion about the sociological similarities and differences between Latino and Asian immigrants. I basically told him that when people argue that Asian immigrants learn English faster than Latino immigrants, what they’re actually referring to is social class differences.

In other words, I would argue that what people are noticing is not that Asian immigrants are somehow inherently more intelligent or better at learning English, but rather, for whatever reasons Asian immigrants (1) tend to be more fluent in English overall and (2) perhaps are perceived to be more willing to learn English. From a sociological point of view, the first point is probably true, but only because the aggregate data tends to show that Asians who immigrate to the U.S. tend to have more education and job skills and more likely to come from their country’s middle class. By contrast, Latino immigrants tend to come to the U.S. with less education and job skills and are more likely to come from their country’s working class or from a rural background.

In other words, Asians who end up immigrating to the U.S. are more “self-selective” in terms of socioeconomic characteristics. What’s important to note is that this is not due to some inherent superiority that they possess over Latino immigrants — it’s just that the social class (also known as ‘human capital’) characteristics of immigrants from Asia tend to be higher than those of immigrants from Latin America.

On the second point–the perception that Asian immigrants are more willing to learn English once they’re in the U.S.–I would again argue that much of that perception has to do with demographic characteristics, not with individual motivations. That is, because Asian immigrants are a smaller portion of the total U.S. population, they’re more likely to be integrated into “mainstream” American society. On the other hand, because they are a larger group and are more likely to be working class, Latino immigrants are also more likely to live almost exclusively within a Latino enclave and therefore have less interaction with other Americans. This may seem counterintuitive — that a larger population tends to be more segregated. But the larger a group’s population, the more likely it is to be segregated. In many respects, whites are the most segregated racial group in the U.S.

If a room of 100 people has a racial composition equal to that of the U.S. as a whole, there would be about 66 white, 12 Blacks, 14 Latinos, 5 Asians, and 3 who are American Indian or multiracial. In this room of 100 people, the average white person has a 31% chance of interacting with a non-white (with an even lower chance of interacting with a Latino, Asian, or Black specifically) while the average non-white has a 66% chance of interacting with a white.

Thus working-class Latino immigrants are more likely to be segregated from whites than Asian immigrants are. I believe it is this higher rate of segregation that leads many whites to conclude that Latino immigrants are less willing to learn English than Asian immigrants are. Because In fact, since Latino immigrants are more likely to be segregated in neighborhoods with large concentrations of other Latinos, they can get by in their daily lives without fluent English.

But that does not mean that Latino immigrants are less willing to learn English — it just means that because of their demographic situation, it is not as crucial for them to do so. But are they less “American” as a result? A few months ago, I posted in my other blog about a new study that shows rather clearly that Latino immigrants generally want to be just as ”American” as anybody else.

Ultimately, there might be some truth to perceptions about immigrants, but such points have little to do with individual motivation. They are based largely on social class differences and institutional-level demographic trends and patterns. Nonetheless, research consistently shows that the overwhelming majority of Latino immigrants, legal and illegal, want to become just as American as anybody else.

Organizational (In)consistency: Twelve Feet Make a Big Difference

On February 3, 2008October 9, 2025 By econnellIn Janis Prince Inniss, TheoryLeave a comment

By Janis Prince Inniss

In a previous post, I recounted the horrors I experienced when my mother was hospitalized. These difficulties could have been prevented if the hospital staff—the nurses and technicians—had done their jobs! (Two nurses were notable exceptions). Unfortunately, I have been able to observe a lot more in that same hospital ward, as my mother has been hospitalized twice more since her surgery. Stunningly—and mercifully—these two later experiences have been as different from the first as chalk is to cheese.

The ward floor is separated into “East” and “West”. I suspected that there was a substantial difference in the quality of care between East and West when I heard the surgeon request a specific side after Mum’s surgery; if they are the same, why ask for one and not the other?

I remembered that during her initial hospital stay Mum did not get a room on the side he requested. After that initial stay I thought that the lack of care must be endemic to that hospital and likely an indication of the state of medical care in the U.S. (The lack of data to make such broad generalizations did not faze me in my traumatized state!) It was inconceivable to me that a room a few feet away would result in different care.

Stay II has made me a believer in the differences between East and West! The night before Thanksgiving Day, Mum experienced such excruciating pain that her doctor admitted her to the hospital. Out of her sight, I wept, remembering the lack of care awaiting her in the hospital. Recognizing that I could neither provide her relief, nor did I have the ability to diagnose the problem, we headed for the hospital. By the time we arrived, Mum was looking better than she had in the hours since her ordeal had begun and I fantasized that she no longer needed medical attention. Although reluctant, I escorted her to admitting.

When we got up to the ward floor, I realized that Mum’s room was “on the other side”. In an effort to orient her nurse staff to Mum’s needs, I began with the truth—that her last hospitalization had so traumatized me that I cried upon learning that she was to return to the hospital. The nurse was sympathetic, and promised that they would take very good care of Mum. The staff seemed to encircle Mum and in less than two hours all of the x-rays and other tests had been completed, an NG tube and an IV were inserted and Mum was resting comfortably.

I had never seen such responsiveness during Stay I. I went home that night feeling surprisingly relaxed based on the care being shown to my mother. As was my practice during Stay I, early the next morning I called the hospital to “orient” the new nurse (I knew that most of the nurses work 12 hour shifts – from 7 to 7) to my expectations and concerns and was told by that nurse that she had read about my fears in Mum’s chart! Again, this nurse was reassuring. When I went to visit the next day, I was disappointed that one of the nurses I knew from “the other side” was assigned to Mum. To my surprise, Mum said the nurse had actually nursed her: touched her, gave her pain medication promptly when it was requested, visited the room without being called, and even scolded Mum for going to the bathroom without calling for her help. I became so comfortable with the care Mum was receiving that I no longer kept my detailed field notes about her stay and even stopped logging the name of every single nurse and technician assigned to her. Mum came home that Saturday afternoon—and I was filled with nothing but gratitude for the staff!

In case I was fooled into thinking that the Stay II staff
was unusual, I have had a chance to observe that unit for an even longer
period. Mum returned to the hospital and remained there for four weeks. The
staff has been wonderful, but when Mum underwent surgery again all of the
anxiety I felt about her care during Stay I resurfaced.

The vision of her chapped lips and yearning for ice chips
haunted me from Stay I, but my silent concession to going home was to call and orient
her night nurse to my expectations. “To Do List” in hand, I called, but before
I could complete my warm-up chat, the nurse was smoothing my feathers by
saying, “Don’t worry I’ll take good care of her.” I recognized the nurse’s voice
and demeanor from Stay II and with a word of thanks, hung up, crumpling my
list. I slept well that night and the next day Mum looked great! She said the
nurse was in her room all night, moistening her lips, swabbing her tongue with
cold water and attending to all her other needs.

How are such enormous differences in one unit, let alone one institution? Theorist Michel Foucault highlighted the idea that organizational architecture is related to authority. Foucault noted that subordinates are easily seen and supervised when under surveillance. As is typical of many organizations, hospitals are designed with many open spaces, although there are private ones such as patient rooms. Indeed, the open nurses’ station where I saw staff congregate was the site of much time wasting on “the bad side”. The fact that staff did not try to hide their time wasting is an indication that floor staff conformed to what was expected and accepted within that side’s culture.

Structurally, a few factors have created and reinforced the differences between East and West: Staff is assigned to one or the other side (although they may go to another side when there is a shortage); they socialized separately and even had separates staff meetings. Although there has been no predictability across the two sides, for the most part there is predictability within each side—one side is predictably poor the other is predictably good. A change in unit leadership has meant challenging the low performers of “the bad side” to step up their work ethic and tearing down of structural factors to create one predictably stellar unit.

First Name Basis: Gender and Familiarity

On January 31, 2008October 9, 2025 By econnellIn Behind the Headlines, Karen Sternheimer, Sex and Gender12 Comments

By Karen Sternheimer

If you are a person of a certain age, you might remember a time when first names were reserved for those closest to us.

When I was growing up, all adults were to be addressed as Mr., Miss, Mrs. (this was before Ms. became common), or Dr. We did call some of my parents’ closest friends by their first names, but for the most part every adult had a title. Even my friends’ mothers would sometimes call my mom “Mrs. Sternheimer” if they didn’t know her well.

This has changed quite a bit in recent years, as formality has given way to more egalitarian communication (particularly here in laid-back southern California). In-laws are seldom “mom” or “dad” but addressed by their first names. Some kids are encouraged to call their teachers by their first names. Most of my friends’ kids call me Karen (although one acquaintance insists that her daughter call me Ms. Karen), and many of my students do too.

I am on the fence about this; on the one hand it challenges the hierarchies of status and age; I want people to feel comfortable communicating with me. It is possible to maintain respect for someone in a position of authority when everyone is on a first-name basis. At several companies I have worked for it really helped foster communication when the president and vice presidents insisted on being called by their first names.

But there is a definite gender factor at work here. Women sometimes have to try harder to establish their authority, especially if they are young and/or small in stature. There is a fine line between familiarity and disrespect; it’s not always clear when it is crossed.

I have noticed this especially on political talk shows recently. Hillary Clinton is nearly always referred to as “Hillary”, while her male counterparts are mostly identified by their last names. I watch a lot of Sunday morning talk shows, and this seems to be a reliable pattern each week—regardless of whether the pundits are male or female. They speak of a war of words between “Hillary and Obama,” not “Hillary and Barack.” While they may mention the other candidates’ first names, it is nearly always followed by their last name.

So this is not just about men devaluing women, nor is it the work of the political talking heads alone. After all, her campaign placards and bumper stickers say “Hillary” in big letters.

There is of course another unusual factor at work here: distinguishing herself from her husband and his presidency in her campaign. She could have called herself “Rodham Clinton,” but curiously dropped her original last name. Perhaps this is an attempt to appeal to more traditional voters (ironically in a very non-traditional situation).

Her campaign might have chosen the “Hillary” logo to try and overcome the aloofness that critics chide her for. Calling her by her first name is an invitation to familiarity.

But this still strikes me as deeply intertwined with gender. Think back to other presidential candidates. Did we see big, bold “George” “John” “Bill” or “Al” bumper stickers? Maybe it’s that male names are so common in national politics that we need their last names for clarification. After all, there are lots of Johns running for office (interesting double entendre, no?) but any woman’s name really stands out.

John Edwards 2008 No matter how much we might like to think otherwise, gender is central to the way people view presidential elections in particular and authority more generally. Part of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s challenge is to somehow seem to adhere to our gendered expectations while defying them at the same time.

First names can be a slippery slope—I notice that occasionally students’ papers will cite female authors by their first names only, but will not do the same for males. Or, even worse, some students will cite female authors’ ideas and last names but refer to them as “he.”

Gender constantly weaves its way into our relationships, even (or especially) when we are not thinking about it. So let’s think about it…what does using first names mean to you?

Real or Imagined: What are You Watching on TV?

On January 28, 2008October 9, 2025 By econnellIn Popular Culture and Consumption, Sally Raskoff39 Comments

By Sally Raskoff

Given the current writer’s strike in the entertainment industry, our television viewing habits may have to change. While late night and scripted shows are in early re-runs, “unscripted” shows are sure to vie for our attention. Reality shows are sold to us as unscripted quasi-documentaries or as competitions rife with drama (although they do employ writers). In any case, these shows have multiplied dramatically in recent years because they are inexpensive to produce and profitable.

Are you already a frequent viewer of reality shows? Do you have your favorite? Do you prefer the competitions and drama of Survivor or Road Rules? How about American Idol or Rock Star? Cowboy U or Coyote Ugly? The Bachelor, Beauty and the Geek, or A Shot at Love with Tila Tequila? Extreme Makeover or Tim Gunn’s Guide to Style? The Apprentice, Miami Ink, Iron Chef, or Project Runway? The Real World or Amish in the City? The Simple Life, Tommy Lee Goes to College, or the Two Coreys? Dancing with the Stars or So You Think You Can Dance? Kid Nation?

Each of these shows offers a slightly different take on the reality formula: collect a group of people to take on tasks that seem formidable and watch to see who annoys you the most, who you want to prevail, and who actually wins or stays the course.

Shows like Snoop Dogg’s Father Hood, the latest in the Anna Nicole Smith and Osbournes tradition, don’t have winners or a specific competition as they are based on witnessing the life of the subjects. However, competitive elements may intervene as family members vie for attention or they realize better ratings come from upping their “odd” quotient.

Celebrity reality shows have gained such popularity that a new word has emerged: celebreality. Language does change in response to how cultures accept or reject ideas and concepts about which people communicate. We’ll have to wait a few years to see if this word makes it into the dictionary. If it does, that would signal the cultural acceptance and lasting appeal of watching celebrities ostensibly live their lives in front of the cameras.

Most people are aware that reality shows, whether competitions or quasi-documentaries, really do not depict reality. The first show on television that documented family life was on PBS in the 1970s, called An American Family. However, that show has more in common with the documentary genre than what we now think of as reality TV.

Game shows are similar to reality shows in that they are unscripted and relatively cheap to produce, but there are some important differences A competition on a game show typically last only an episode and do not intend to depict any type of reality outside the studio in which it is filmed. Some competitive reality shows (such as The Bachelor) are similar to game shows but the competition spans the entire season and the drama of the experience is emphasized over the game.

The difference between reality shows today and those in the past has to do with the degree of reality that is presented and assumed. Contestants on the Dating Game and the Newlywed Game (popular shows in the 1960’s) never left the studio. The shows were limited to asking and/or answering questions, often about sex. These dating game shows are vastly different from current dating reality shows. The current shows encourage obvious sexual references and activities, offer a range of racial and ethnic pairings and do not restrict their participants to those who appear heterosexual.

In addition, on the current shows participants tend to date many different people at one time whereas on the Dating Game the bachelor or bachelorette could not date all three of those vying to be chosen. I welcome the diversity of participants in the newer shows, as it is a step towards living up to many of our country’s ideals, not the least of which is equality for all. Depicting those who are not heterosexual, white, protestant, or middle class, has the potential to normalize those formerly subordinate or deviant groups of people. This can happen if they are presented, not as foils or best buddies, but as people equivalent to those who fit the dominant status model.

Reality shows are similar to the more traditional soap operas that have long dominated day time TV. The differences rest not only with the “actors” but to whom the show is marketed: reality shows are aimed at the younger generations while soap operas target women who are home during the day. With the advent of Tivo and DVD recorders, not to mention changes in our economy and labor practices, a more diverse audience may be watching daytime soaps, however, one look at the advertising between show breaks tells you quickly who they define as their audience.

Take a closer look at the television shows that you watch: do they reinforce or challenge our society’s norms? To whom is the show marketed? Does the advertising that is paired with your show illustrate any notions the network, station, or producers have about their audience? If you do not watch television, what is your reaction to this discussion?

Broken Windows

On January 25, 2008October 9, 2025 By econnellIn Crime and Deviance46 Comments

By Bradley Wright

A funny thing happens in our kitchen sink. Sometimes it doesn’t have any dirty dishes in it (okay, not that often, but it does happen). When the sink is empty, my family and I usually put our dishes straight into the dishwasher. At other times, however, there are dirty dishes sitting in the sink. When this happens, we all put any additional dishes straight into the sink, not even considering the extra several seconds it takes to put them into the dishwasher. Why in the world am I writing about my kitchen sink? It turns out that what happens with the sink is a reasonable analogy for one of the more important crime-prevention theories: the theory of broken windows.

The theory of broken windows originated from a 1982 article by James Q. Wilson and George Kelling in The Atlantic Monthly. They started with the idea that some broken windows in a building invite more broken windows. In their words:

“Consider a building with a few broken windows. If the windows are not repaired, the tendency is for vandals to break a few more windows. Eventually, they may even break into the building, and if it’s unoccupied, perhaps become squatters or light fires inside.”

“Or consider a sidewalk. Some litter accumulates. Soon, more litter accumulates. Eventually, people even start leaving bags of trash from take-out restaurants there or breaking into cars."

According to Wilson and Kelling, the same holds true for neighborhoods and crime. Just as broken windows invite rocks, and dirty sinks get more dishes, so too certain characteristics of neighborhoods attract and promote crime. A neighborhood that is riddled with vandalism, litter, abandoned buildings and cars signals that no one is taking care of the neighborhood. A neighborhood that has lots of petty crime, such as public drunkenness, pickpockets, traffic violations, this signals that crime is accepted. In both cases the neighborhood is sending out a signal that crime is tolerated if not outright accepted. This encourages crime among residents of the neighborhood and it attracts criminals from other neighborhoods as well.

The importance of this theory is its implications for crime prevention. The way to cut down on crime in a given location, according to the broken window theory, is to change its physical and social characteristics. This can be done by repairing buildings, sidewalks, and roads, and fixing anything that makes a neighborhood look run down. It also means enforcing the law for even the smallest infractions. Police should ticket and/or arrest people for things as small as jaywalking, illegal panhandling, and public disorder. The logic is that by cracking down on small problems, the police are preventing more serious crimes.

The best known application of broken windows theory occurred in New York City, and depending on who you talk to, it was a smashing success in preventing crime, an irrelevant policy, or an invasion of individuals’ rights.

In 1993, Rudy Guiliani—a current presidential candidate—was elected mayor of New York City based on his “get tough on crime” platform. He hired William Bratton as the police chief. Bratton, who was heavily influenced by George Kelling, applied the principles of broken windows theory. Bratton initiated a program of zero-tolerance in which the NYPD cracked down on all sorts of minor infractions, including subway fare dodging, public drinking urinating in public, and even the squeegee men—people who would wipe the windows of stopped cars and demand payment. A friend of mine who lived in New York City at that time even saw police telling people they could not sit on milk crates on the sidewalk– apparently that was against the law as well.

Almost immediately rates of both petty and serious crimes dropped substantially. In the first year alone, murders were down 19% and car thefts fell by 15%, and crime continued to drop ever year for the following ten years.

So, was this application of broken windows an unqualified success? Some critics say no.

In the same time period, crime dropped significantly in other major cities around the country, cities that had not adopted broken windows policy. (See figure below). Crime dropped nationwide in the 1990s, and various reasons have been given for this overall crime drop. The crack epidemic of the 1980s was subsiding, and there were fewer people in the 15 to 25 year age group, which accounts for so much crime. As such, the declines seen in New York City did not result from new police policies but rather they would have happened anyway.

(The light blue line represents crime in Newark, NJ, purple Los Angles, red New York, and black the U.S. as a whole)

Other critics argue that regardless of the effectiveness of broken windows, it was too costly in terms of individual rights. They claim that the police, emboldened by the mandate to enforce even the smallest of laws, frequently crossed over into harassment of individuals, especially racial minorities and the poor. The application of broken windows, with its zeal for reducing crime, produced unacceptable police behavior.

Nonetheless, the results in New York City were sufficiently interesting that various police departments around the country have adopted principles of broken windows theory. In fact, William Bratton is now the police chief of Los Angeles.

P.S., this post shows that everydaysociologyblog.com covers everything of social importance, including the kitchen sink.

Reality Life

On January 22, 2008October 9, 2025 By econnellIn Class and Stratification, Karen Sternheimer, Popular Culture and Consumption, Theory5 Comments

By Karen Sternheimer

Confession: I am fascinated by reality shows. Not the game show kind, where there is a contest or people get eliminated (although I was into them at first). My weakness is for the ones that follow people around and promise to give us a glimpse into their everyday lives. I don’t admit this very often, but I have often thought about the significance of shows like The Osbournes, Hogan Knows Best, Hey Paula, My Life on the D-List, and Newlyweds. (Yes, I have watched several episodes—okay, every episode—of all of these shows…and others like them).

Most of these programs feature the daily lives of people at various levels of celebrity, or people who become celebrities based on their appearance on their show. We get an inside glimpse of what it is like to be one of “them” and temporarily feel like members of their inner circle. There’s a bit of a paradox working here: on the one hand the shows present their everyday behaviors that make them seem more like “us,” but the fact that they even have a reality show reinforces (or creates) their celebrity.

If you’ve ever seen the Geico insurance ad, you might have noticed that in spots like this one they pair a “real person” with a celebrity, as if the terms were mutually exclusive.

Even though some of the shows, like The Real Housewives of Orange County, The Hills, and My Super Sweet Sixteen focus on people who are not famous (at first), they do have one thing in common with “celebreality”: all the people we are watching are rich.

Are the lives of wealthy people really more interesting than everyone else’s?

It all depends on what a large number of people find interesting. And it just so happens that living in a fabulous home in an exclusive community filled with great stuff is interesting to a lot of people (myself included). This has something to do with how we currently define the American Dream: having financial independence and, of course, fame. What is it like to have all that? What’s it like to be the child of somebody rich and famous?

The flip side to all this should be lost on no one who has ever seen one of these shows, which are edited in such a way to help us feel a bit superior to them. Now, I would not say that the people on the shows are just “made to look bad,” as some reality show participants later complained, and that it is only because of the editing. But in addition to watching reality denizens bask in their high tax bracket status, we get to judge them too. Remember how Jessica Simpson seemed to be, er, intellectually challenged? Or all the dog doo lying around the Osbourne house? The temper tantrums when the “sweet” sixteen-year-old didn’t have her way?

The wealthy people we see on television aren’t always admirable, either. Often shows like The Real Housewives of Orange County (which don’t really feature “housewives” since nearly of the women work outside the home and some aren’t married, but that’s the topic of another post) highlight the excesses and superficiality of their subjects. So in a way these shows both celebrate wealth and criticize the wealthy. If we’re not in the exclusive club of being wealthy, watching them might make us feel better about our relatively modest lives.

All of these examples point to the combined fascination and disgust that celebrities often generate. They have come to define what sociologist Thorstein Veblen called the “leisure class” in America. The real upper crust, whose money is not nearly as new, would probably not allow cameras in their home or want to call any attention to themselves, so they remain largely invisible. This helps to maintain the illusion of a completely open society, since it appears that anyone with an interesting personality can be famous, and perhaps rich. As of 2006, only 17 percent of American households earned $100,000 or more, and the wealthiest one percent of Americans hold about one-third of all wealth.

The continued focus on the newly-minted rich serves to mask how the real elite got that way. CEOs of major corporations, families with multi-generational wealth and power are off of the pop culture radar screen. Sociologist C. Wright Mills called these people the “power elite.”

Are they less interesting than the Hogan family of wrestling fame? Who knows. But one thing is for sure: no matter how wealthy (and strong) the Hulk might be, he has a whole lot less power than the invisible rich in the grand scheme of things. And our continued focus on wealth coming from hard work, talent, and being on a reality show masks the reality of where wealth mostly comes from in America.