Search results

In an age when many professors, politicians, and everyday people are harassed and threatened for their political views and lifestyles, this presidential address asks that we reflect about people as historical and social actors. It urges us to be resolute in the face of a changing world and generous enough to recognize change is an outcome of people's actions. As such, can unmake what we the people create. The address contends that it is essential for social scientists to direct our attention to the great struggles and issues of our time in a collaborative effort with everyday people to create a truly beloved community. Consider that most academicians are not in a collaborative mood C. Wright Mills's poignantly stated: "it is one thing to talk about general problems . . . , and quite another to tell an individual what to do. Most 'experts' dodge that question. I do not want to." This address urges reluctant social scientists to step into struggle for creation of the beloved community. It asks us to consider the contributions of actors and epistemologies of regions in the nation and around the world. Moreover, the address asks that we confront the obstacles fueling our reluctance to engage struggles for liberation.

"Race" is a human invention that is deeply institutionalized within society as racial practices and understandings shaping how people interact and perceive reality. By changing how it is approached and discussed "race" as an ideology is adept at transforming and adapting to societal shifts and resistance without significantly altering its basic structures. The ideology of color blindness represents a new "race" alteration. This study evaluates how color blindness as a normative sensemaking frame operates as a rhetorical mask that obscures researchers' racial thinking in genomics. Drawing on 20 open-ended primary interviews with genomicists from various subfields, the article demonstrates that it is impossible to comprehend the persistence of racial thinking in genomics without considering how color-blind racial definitions and engagements mediate genomicists' understanding of genomics.

AbstractGenomics is a complex field of study involving researchers and practitioners immersed in the social milieu from which their genetic theories and comprehensions in part emerge. Genomic researchers' embeddedness in social formations with distinct ideologies predisposes them to construct hypotheses about genetics with value‐laden assumptions. Given genomics' inseparability from social influences this article explores how its use with marginalized groups has eugenic implications. Several important links between eugenics and genomics are identified suggesting eugenic implications in genomics.

This study evaluates the extent to which the moneyed establishment influences Obama's politics and policy positions. Drawing on insights from power structure theory, the article elaborates on how Obama's acceptance of the moneyed elite's political, economic, and cultural hegemony as normative and determinate of everyday reality configures his policies. Drawing primarily on secondary sources (i.e. journal articles, public speeches, newspapers, magazine interviews, and Internet sites) that scrutinize government policies and the appointees who formulate them, this study suggests that the American political system's narrow commercial parameters incline Obama to govern as the presidential facilitator and protector of private financial interest.

4 References.

Although the human genome exists apart from society, genomicists' thinking is informed by their inability to escape the wake of the "race" concept. The book reveals that genomicists' preoccupation with race-regardless of good or ill intent-contributes to its perception as a category of differences that is scientifically rigorous.

In this article, we argue that the concept of racial microaggression is a white supremacy construct that is an ideological and discursive anti‐Black practice. We discuss how microaggressions' reduction of historical and hegemonic white supremacy to everyday relations that are merely performative, not integral to sustaining such larger forces, is an analytical shortcoming. We contend that without the adequate heft of historical white supremacy as a part of capitalist and colonial expansion, genocide, and Indigenous erasure, microaggression scholars will remain enthralled with the idea that individual behavior changes can eradicate anti‐Black violence.