Suchergebnisse

AbstractThe discipline is at a crossroads. Will sociology answer ASA past president Aldon Morris' call for an emancipatory sociology? Or will sociology, as Morris puts it, "continue pretending to be an aloof, objective, detached science"? Recently, Hirschman and Garbes issued a call for an economic sociology of race, wherein they contend that race and racism are not central to economic sociology and that economic sociologists don't engage with contemporary race scholarship. In this paper, I assess and build upon their call. I argue that while the article importantly calls for understanding race and racism in economic sociology, in practice, it—used here as an example of a broader pattern within economic sociology—re‐centers whiteness and men, reifies elitism, and erases marginalized scholars and their contributions. I set forth an alternative perspective. To rise to the Du Boisian challenge, scholars need to critique racialized modernity as Itzigsohn and Brown importantly argue. We must also root our sociological consciousness, citation practices, and conversations in existing, yet marginalized, research. Failure to do so means future research risks reproducing inequities in the discipline and continuing to marginalize the very people, theories, and research that an emancipatory sociology is meant to address.

In 1992, the US military withdrew from its bases in the Philippines. But they left behind environmental toxins that continue to pollute the land and people. Why was the US military able to leave without cleaning up this environmental damage? What can the environment tell us about the broader Philippine–US relationship? In this article I analyse a 2002 class action lawsuit against the United States regarding environmental damages caused by the US military. I argue that at the heart of these legal arguments are different understandings of time and history, what I call a contractual timescape versus a stewardship timescape. (J Southeast Asian Stud / GIGA)

This article examines the place–making of global borderlands—semiautonomous, foreign–controlled geographical locations geared toward international exchange. I use the case study of the Subic Bay Freeport Zone (SBFZ), Philippines, as an example of a global borderland that resides within a space formerly occupied by a colonial power. I show how elite Filipinos adapted and transformed the spatial boundaries the U.S. military initially erected. The earlier boundaries differentiating Americans from Filipinos and military personnel from civilians helped the native elite to perpetuate familiar patterns of inequality based on nationality, class, and skin color. This differentiation occurs through: (1) the indirect and direct exclusion of the poor vis–à–vis the SBFZ's sociospatial organization and (2) the maintenance of cultural practices (litter, traffic) and moral discourses (of what is "good" and "bad") formerly associated with the base, so that the SBFZ remains distinct from the surrounding city of Olongapo. Places of power have legacies, structural and spatial residues that continue to influence cultural practices and discourses even after the original uses of a place are transformed.

Utilizing data from the UNWTO, IMF, World Bank, and UNESCO, this article analyzes the global structure of travel and its deep asymmetries, revealing that travel is not global but is highly concentrated among a handful of countries. Furthermore, I find that the effects of globalization are neither universal nor consistent but depend upon the identities of countries involved and their relationships with one another. This article conceptualizes travel as a result of the relationship between country attributes within a given country-pair. More specifically, it investigates the relationship between travel and relative inequalities, institutional connections, and cultural wealth. I find that measures of inequality and cultural wealth differ depending on the relationship between country-pairs while institutional connections are significant across models.