Incarcerated Resistance: How Identity, Gender, and Privilege Shape the Experiences of America’s Nonviolent Activists

IF 0.3 4区 社会学 Q4 SOCIOLOGY
Carolyn Levy
{"title":"Incarcerated Resistance: How Identity, Gender, and Privilege Shape the Experiences of America’s Nonviolent Activists","authors":"Carolyn Levy","doi":"10.1177/00943061231181317hh","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"result in this case is a fair bit of wheelreinventing alongside assertions that would likely puzzle experts in any of the given subfields Schutz traverses. For example, an extended section on education is based on a classic 1976 reference, while an extended discussion of labor management and managerial bureaucracy is based on contributions from 1976, 1989, and 1996. The claim of everincreasing ‘‘numbers of supervisors, overseers, checkers of various sorts, and associated staff’’ (pp. 120–21), based on decadesold sources, is not very convincing in light of two decades of research on downsizing, outsourcing, offshoring, vertical disintegration, and lean production. His brief discussion of the core concepts of social and cultural capital refers to a single, 1997 source on (rather than by) Pierre Bourdieu, while the extended discussion of professional power does not cite anything from the extensive literature on professions. The assertion that ‘‘financial capital . . . is the main foundation of people’s ability to attain professional positions’’ (p. 126) reduces complex processes of cumulative advantage and disadvantage over the life course, which happen within and across institutional domains of the family, schools, the state, and the labor market, to a single variable. Noting that human, social, and cultural capital are all involved minimizes the reductionism, in principle, but after introducing the different forms of capital he does not systematically develop the analytical framework. The book is equally light on evidence, either from existing studies or from original data analysis. The discussion of poverty seems to suggest the main issue is unequal access to credit for education, again ignoring decades of literature on cumulative dis/ advantage occurring across key institutional domains of society and taking many forms (financial, psychological, institutional, etc.). He bases his entire case—that lending for education is biased toward those with a previous endowment—on private lending in the United States, failing to mention government subsidies (e.g., Pell Grants), governmentguaranteed loans, or fee-free university in many European countries. Descriptive charts on productivity, wealth inequality, income inequality, and other key topics come mainly from the work of other economists. At one point (p. 111), Schutz speculates about the size of the rentier class (based on secondary data) rather than attempt to derive an estimate based on his own data analysis. There is no attempt to provide evidential support for or tests of the theory. It is possible there is some mileage in bridging relational power-structure and gradational forms-of-capital approaches, and it is possible the theoretical framework could be used productively for empirical research, though the book does not offer any broad explanatory narrative, specific hypotheses about the drivers or contours of inequality, or guidance on how the theory might be operationalized.","PeriodicalId":46889,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Sociology-A Journal of Reviews","volume":"52 1","pages":"379 - 381"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contemporary Sociology-A Journal of Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00943061231181317hh","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

result in this case is a fair bit of wheelreinventing alongside assertions that would likely puzzle experts in any of the given subfields Schutz traverses. For example, an extended section on education is based on a classic 1976 reference, while an extended discussion of labor management and managerial bureaucracy is based on contributions from 1976, 1989, and 1996. The claim of everincreasing ‘‘numbers of supervisors, overseers, checkers of various sorts, and associated staff’’ (pp. 120–21), based on decadesold sources, is not very convincing in light of two decades of research on downsizing, outsourcing, offshoring, vertical disintegration, and lean production. His brief discussion of the core concepts of social and cultural capital refers to a single, 1997 source on (rather than by) Pierre Bourdieu, while the extended discussion of professional power does not cite anything from the extensive literature on professions. The assertion that ‘‘financial capital . . . is the main foundation of people’s ability to attain professional positions’’ (p. 126) reduces complex processes of cumulative advantage and disadvantage over the life course, which happen within and across institutional domains of the family, schools, the state, and the labor market, to a single variable. Noting that human, social, and cultural capital are all involved minimizes the reductionism, in principle, but after introducing the different forms of capital he does not systematically develop the analytical framework. The book is equally light on evidence, either from existing studies or from original data analysis. The discussion of poverty seems to suggest the main issue is unequal access to credit for education, again ignoring decades of literature on cumulative dis/ advantage occurring across key institutional domains of society and taking many forms (financial, psychological, institutional, etc.). He bases his entire case—that lending for education is biased toward those with a previous endowment—on private lending in the United States, failing to mention government subsidies (e.g., Pell Grants), governmentguaranteed loans, or fee-free university in many European countries. Descriptive charts on productivity, wealth inequality, income inequality, and other key topics come mainly from the work of other economists. At one point (p. 111), Schutz speculates about the size of the rentier class (based on secondary data) rather than attempt to derive an estimate based on his own data analysis. There is no attempt to provide evidential support for or tests of the theory. It is possible there is some mileage in bridging relational power-structure and gradational forms-of-capital approaches, and it is possible the theoretical framework could be used productively for empirical research, though the book does not offer any broad explanatory narrative, specific hypotheses about the drivers or contours of inequality, or guidance on how the theory might be operationalized.
监禁抵抗:身份、性别和特权如何塑造美国非暴力活动家的经历
在这种情况下,结果是一个相当多的轮子重新发明,同时断言可能会让Schutz所穿越的任何一个子领域的专家感到困惑。例如,关于教育的扩展部分基于1976年的经典参考,而关于劳动管理和管理官僚机构的扩展讨论则基于1976年、1989年和1996年的贡献。鉴于20年来对裁员、外包、离岸外包、垂直解体和精益生产的研究,基于数十年来的资料来源,不断增加的“主管、监督员、各类检查人员和相关人员的数量”(第120-21页)的说法并不令人信服。他对社会和文化资本核心概念的简短讨论引用了1997年关于(而不是由)皮埃尔·布迪厄的单一资料,而对职业权力的扩展讨论没有引用任何关于职业的广泛文献。“金融资本。是人们获得专业职位能力的主要基础”(第126页)将家庭、学校、国家和劳动力市场等机构内部和跨机构领域发生的人生过程中累积优势和劣势的复杂过程简化为一个变量。注意到人力、社会和文化资本都参与其中,原则上最大限度地减少了还原论,但在引入不同形式的资本后,他并没有系统地发展分析框架。这本书同样重视现有研究或原始数据分析的证据。关于贫困的讨论似乎表明,主要问题是获得教育信贷的机会不平等,再次忽视了几十年来关于社会关键制度领域中出现的累积劣势/优势的文献,并采取了多种形式(金融、心理、制度等),政府担保贷款,或许多欧洲国家的免费大学。关于生产力、财富不平等、收入不平等和其他关键主题的描述性图表主要来自其他经济学家的工作。在某一点上(第111页),Schutz推测了租房者阶层的规模(基于二次数据),而不是试图根据他自己的数据分析得出估计。没有人试图为该理论提供证据支持或测试。在连接关系权力结构和资本方法的分级形式方面可能有一些好处,理论框架也可能被有效地用于实证研究,尽管这本书没有提供任何广泛的解释性叙述、关于不平等驱动因素或轮廓的具体假设,或指导如何操作该理论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
202
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信