Sociological Research Online

This paper uses interview data from retired households to inform a discussion about economic models of consumption. It is divided into two parts. In the first part, the economic models are described. The paper then discusses several different types of reasons for finding them unhelpful in explaining consumption. The second part of the paper considers the role of ‘middle range’ theories in developing plausible models of household behaviour. Phenomena which the interviews suggest are important in explaining consumption, such as time allocation, the labour supply decision, the ubiquitous durability of goods and the structure of the household, are not typically supported by middle range theory in current models. Without the constraints of such theory, it is very hard to distinguish models providing genuine explanation from those that merely fit the data. The latter part of the paper also discusses aspects of a new middle range theory of consumption suggested by the interviews.

Reacting to the attacks on September 11th and subsequently, governments in both the USA and UK have identified a need to enhance the social control apparatus in order to protect citizens from forms of ‘asymmetric warfare’ conducted by terrorist groups. These attempts to reform the provision of security and control cannot be understood in isolation. They are connected to a deeply entrenched process of ‘control creep’, whereby the social control apparatus progressively expands and penetrates (or ‘creeps’) into different social arenas, in response to a set of inchoate fears about a sense of security in late-modernity.

This piece, completed one month after the events of 11 September, examines the sociological presuppositions of the major intellectual and journalistic frameworks used to understand the unfolding ‘war on terrorism’. The major frameworks include sociobiology, theodicy, political realism and ‘the clash of civilizations’. Mainstream sociological theorizing has been largely absent from the debate, and some of its more fashionable claims (e.g. about our ‘informatized world-order’) may even be cast into doubt. In general the discussion has resembled the old ‘Cold War’ rhetoric that was supposedly laid to rest with the fall of the Soviet Union, with ‘terrorism’ and ‘Islam’ replacing the threats previously posed by ‘totalitarianism’ and ‘Communism’. The sociology we teach our students may influence whether this tendency continues.

This article suggests that, in the wake of the events of September 11th, it would be an error for sociologists and political analysts to concentrate on revisions of economic and political theory while not paying equal attention to the moral tensions between Islamic and Western cultures. It proposes that economic and geopolitical research be expanded to include bilateral studies of Western and Islamic conceptions of morality and standards of right and wrong. The argument is based on the proposition that certain Western liberal attitudes threaten Islamic peoples’ commitment to the traditional family, thereby delaying conflict resolution and providing terrorists with additional venues for “justifying” their acts.

Commentaries on September's acts of terrorism have tended to rely upon secular accounts to explain both the terrorism and the wider, less violent Islamic resurgence. This has meant that the explanatory focus has been upon threats to Muslims, the negative impact of globalization and interrelated modernization and the role of America within global relations and the Middle East in particular. These generalisations are problematic because they fail to explain the broader appeal of Islam, the character and contemporary nature of Islamic movements and in the instance of the terrorists and al-Qa'ida, the relatively wealthy and educated backgrounds of a significant number of the terrorists.

As a corrective, the paper expands the focus to include the awareness of contemporary problems and the historical origins and successes of Islam that are both seen to legitimise the need for a radical form of Islam, interpreted as a comprehensive way of life. This awareness has been significantly aided through contemporary developments in technology, mass communications and transport networks allied to the rapid growth of education across Muslim countries. These factors, rather than diminishing the appeal of religion, as secularists have argued, are instrumental in the Islamic resurgence generally and specifically in facilitating terrorist activity.

This paper adopts a qualitative approach to argue that direct action social movements originating within the environmental and anti-nuclear milieu of the 1970s can be characterised by a process of capacity building. Capacity building adopts Melucci's argument that social movements are ‘networks of networks’. The notion of capacity building is elaborated in terms of the mobilisation potential of movement actors and the diffusion of movement repertoires within the public sphere more generally. Empirically the paper draws on fieldwork covering 1970s / 1980s movement cross-overs in the UK and the conclusions are informed by recent ESRC sponsored work (R 000 22 3486) on the global ‘anti-capitalist’ movement.

This paper draws on one of the first published studies of gay fatherhood to explore some experiences of those who were married or divorced. Focus on their stories reveals some of the complexity of our emotional and sexual landscapes, and provides interesting evidence of the socially constructed bases of sexuality. Mapping their parenting circumstances and relationships with ex/wives, I apply a feminist analysis in an attempt to understand the unusual patterns found. I suggest that in a contemporary context whereby increasing numbers of people are questioning and rejecting conventional forms of family life and gender practices, the exploration of non-heterosexual experience provides an important opportunity to consider alternative models of parenting, gender, and relations across and within gender categories.

This article explores the sociologically neglected practice of hitch-hiking. It demonstrates the paucity of research on what is potentially a fascinating instance of social interaction and it argues that hitch-hiking provides an interesting test case for the applicability of recent social theories of risk and trust. The reasons for the relative decline in hitch-hiking in Britain are discussed and comparisons are made with continental Europe and the U.S.. The article suggests that despite the increasingly risk-averse nature of public bodies, attention to this subject could provide interesting possibilities for policy makers concerned with the development of sustainable modes of transport, as well as for those concerned with the re-vitalisation of civil society.

Despite recent interest in the character of individual dissonance in the workplace less attention has been given to the nature of collectivism in the context of restricted trade union behaviour. While findings on conflicts associated with collective practices have been given reasonable space these have tended to focus on the association between collectivism qua trade unions and the presence or absence of conflict. Moreover, where the relationship between conflict and individualism provide the focus of study, this often serves to herald the demise of forms of collectivism or collectivism in general. The paper identifies three forms of collectivism in two Japanese manufacturing plants. These are; ‘trade union collectivism’; ‘work place collectivism’ and, the ‘social collectivism of everyday life’. By moving away from the conflict-consensus polarity, the intention is to shift the terms of debate over the nature of individualism and collectivism in the context of LLPs. The perceived conceptual and empirical gap is not to be closed by highlighting only incidents of dissonance, whether individually or collectively construed.

Steve Fuller's article on the events of September 11th raises a number of important questions about the role of sociology in public discussion and debate. This brief response, in taking up this challenge, focuses on the issue of bio-terrorism. In doing so, a balance sheet is provided of the potential threat this poses, drawing both on the history of biological and chemical weapons to date, and the potential epidemics of fear they unleash in the aftermath of September 11th. Medical sociology, it is argued, alongside the sociology of emotions, is particularly well placed to address such issues, including questions of the biological and broader themes of war and health, medicine and the military.

Current commentary on non-manual employment suggests that we are moving into an era of ‘contingent careers’ where current performance is the only valid criterion for reward and advancement. New-style jobs may be intensive and insecure, it is argued, but they are also less freighted with gender-based assumptions. Newspaper journalism, with its lack of bureaucratic organization, varied tasks, tradition of high employee mobility, and deep-seated belief in meritocracy would seem to fit well within this model. Interviews with women working in the UK regional press indicate, however, that the occupation is less egalitarian that many in the industry believe. Newspaper organisations and status hierarchies continue to be built around ‘hard news’, despite the commercial importance of other elements of content. Consequently management experience in newsgathering is a key stage in promotion, but this work as currently structured is incompatible with primary domestic responsibility for dependants. Even those without such concerns, or with limited ambitions, find the intensified work règime in today's regional press hard to sustain. Considering why these working practices have remained largely unchallenged, the paper identifies five contributing factors. The epistemological individualism characteristic of women and well as men in journalism, a culture of vocation, the construction of editorial power as charismatic rather than bureaucratic, the commonsense populist style of most regional papers and, not least, journalists’ own entrenched belief in the contingent nature of their employment combine to make the profession particularly resistant to acknowledging structural barriers to advancement.

International terrorism is frequently categorized as one element of ‘uncivil society’ or as the ‘dark side of globalization.’ The paper examines these concepts, finding them unhelpful in understanding the context for the September 11 attacks in the US. Their weakness derives in large part from the uncritical usage of the terms ‘civil society?’ and ‘globalization’ characteristic of much contemporary sociological work. In consequence, sociology is in danger of being marginalized from public debate about the most important issues of our day.

As societies forfeit increasingly their homogeneous character and cross-cultural encounters are being multiplied, demands for multicultural and Other- oriented education appear legitimate and convincing. However, to endorse such demands does not suffice on its own, if it is not accompanied by appropriate theoretical shifts in sociological core assumptions. In this article, I propose that one such shift should concern the old coupling of modernization with societal rationalization. By discussing Habermas's conception of rationalization, I defend the rejection of the identification of modernization with rational development. I show the benefits of this rejection for multicultural education by highlighting what ethnocentric vices (Martha Nussbaum's term) it staves off. I conclude with some suggestions for a sociology of education that is sensitive to otherness.

The aftermath of terrorist attacks on September 11 2001 includes widespread tightening of surveillance. The responses are a prism that puts several things in perspective. One, it is premature to see decentralised and commercial surveillance simply supplanting nation-state power. Rather, the nation-state now draws upon an augmented surveillant assemblage for its own purposes. Two, reliance on high tech surveillance methods is undaunted by the low-tech attacks or the failure of high tech security systems already in place. While they may not work to curb terrorism they are likely to impede civil rights for citizens who will be even more profiled and screened. Three, the struggle to make mushrooming surveillance systems more democratically accountable and amenable to ethical scrutiny is being set back by panic regimes following September 11.