Whatever happened to military sociology?

There’s a graduate student I know who has a significant interest in what’s called military sociology. Never having studied it, I can’t comment a great deal on what its boundaries are. I just know that it’s not exactly a thriving sub-discipline within American sociology. That’s a little strange, given that we’ve fought two wars that have spanned the past decade and Iraq and Afghanistan are never out of the news. So far as I can tell, military sociology would be located within the ASA section on Peace, War, and Conflict—also not a large section (I suspect—I’m not sure).

Charles Moskos was considered the finest military sociologist of his era, although he’s probably only known broadly for coining the term (and the now-defunct doctrine of) DADT: don’t ask, don’t tell. Apparently he was a fan of restoring the draft, which he believed would fashion a sense of common purpose among diverse groups, as compulsory military service appears to do in Israel. I suspect it’s not been considered closely because it’s not been necessary, and because a very large standing army is too expensive to maintain. And if your odds of being drafted are relatively poor, the “shared sense of purpose” becomes shared rather narrowly, thus probably defeating the point.

A veteran himself, Moskos traveled to numerous areas of conflict for research purposes. I know there have been professional anthropologists who’ve been embedded, at different times, with the US Army in Afghanistan. But I’m not aware of any sociologists who’ve done the same. (Again, I could very well be wrong—it’s rather difficult to keep track of an entire discipline, especially one you’re not a member of.)  A 2009 New York Times article suggests the embedding business wasn’t too popular with the AAA, the American Anthropological Association. A report investigating the Pentagon’s Human Terrain System [Read more...]

Finding God Through Evolution

Did you know that two people independently arrived at the basic assumptions of evolution? Charles Darwin, of course, but also Alfred Russel Wallace. As told in one of my favorite books, The Discoverers by former Librarian of Congress Daniel Boorstein, Darwin started writing about his theory in the 1840s. But… being meticulous, Darwin spent over a decade preparing his work for publication, showing it to few others. During this time, Wallace figured out much the same ideas on his own. In 1858 he sent his essay on the topic to Darwin, which prompted Darwin to publish his work at the same time as Wallace.

Here’s an interesting aspect of the story regarding religion. While Darwin turned from religion in light of his views on of evolution, Wallace turned toward it. According to Boorstein (p.472), Walace “needed a God to explain what he saw in nature.”

To be clear, Wallace wasn’t a Christian (I don’t think so, anyway), but his need to posit a creator in view of nature is a nice counterbalance to Darwin’s need to posit no creator based on the same evidence. Wallace’s views illustrate that the possibility that the theory of evolution (as is much of science) is religiously-neutral. That is, it is neither inherently opposed to or in support of religious belief.

The Superbowl as an American Holiday

By Jeremy Rhodes

The most American of holidays is upon us once again. No, I’m not confusing February with July or November (though I could go for a good Honey-Baked Ham right now). I’m talking, of course, about the Super Bowl. This weekend, millions of Americans will gather around their enormous televisions and equally-enormous bowls of queso to watch the New York football Giants take on the New England Patriots in Super Bowl XLVI (the one time each year when I have to remember how to read Roman numerals). Storylines abound. Will Tom Brady win his 4th ring, extending the Patriots’ reputation as a true sports dynasty? Will little brother Eli eclipse the greatness of his big brother Payton? Will New England enact brutal revenge on the Giants for their bitter loss to them back in Super Bowl XLII? As a sports fan, I’m interested in all of these storylines.

As a sociologist, my thoughts are elsewhere. I’m currently teaching an undergraduate course in the sociology of sports for the first time. It’s been a fun course to teach. Few cultural institutions can shed as much light on American values as the institution of sport. [Read more...]

The Real Taboo: Forget Sex, Let’s Talk About Money (and How Much We’re not Giving)

As the 2012 campaigns are under way, we sociologists are paying close attention to the rhetoric and public responses to the rhetoric. Of particular note are the religious overtones in that rhetoric as the most likely Republican candidate (from what I can tell) is a religious minority (Mormon or Latter-Day Saints) and the Democratic candidate is still viewed as Muslim in some quarters (also a minority religious group). Recently Mitt Romney’s charitable donations were under question and as it turns out he gives a heckuva lotta dough to charity, somewhere on the order of $3 million LAST YEAR ALONE. As the New York Times article shows, that’s a whopping 13.8% of his income that went to charity. For his part, Barack Obama gave 14.2% of his income to charity, which amounts to about $245,000. Its a lot less than Romney’s donation but still, could you imagine letting go of that much money in your account?

This brings me to the bigger point. [Read more...]

A Humorous, Insightful Taxonomy of Sin

We’ve heard of the seven deadly sins, of course, but if we look at all possible pairs of them, we get 21 new possibilities for sin.  Jessica Hagy, at her site Indexed, has done just this, and it gives a new, and humorous, take on the nature of sin.  Enjoy!


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X