Suchergebnisse

Genealogy necessitates historical records, the majority of which derive from government sources, despite families' "private" lives. State records weren't intended to service future family historians, but were a means to state-formation and power. Consequently, records used by family historians reflect statist concerns, not state subjects'. Genealogy databases and censuses were analyzed to determine how many derive from state sources. An individual, anecdotal example focused upon a US Census record illuminates genealogical insight and misunderstanding; despite relevance, interpretation problems confront family historians. Genealogical research is limited by modernity's governmentality and the state gaze, impacts generally under-acknowledged by the average family historian.

ObjectivePropose a conceptualization of trust that acknowledges varying levels of power between trusting partners. The weak, positive statistical correlation between social and political trust conceals very different experiences of trust. While many people possess either high or low levels of both forms of trust, others have divergent levels of the two forms of trust. Present a simple typology of sociopolitical trust that categorizes individuals as trusters, distrusters, hierarchicalists, and horizontalists.MethodsExploratory analysis of United States using the World Values Survey. Multivariate analysis of sociopolitical trust's effect upon protest and voting.ResultsAmericans have low levels of political trust and higher levels of social trust. Protesters possess social trust and political distrust, and voters are both social and political trusters.ConclusionThe combination of social trust and political trust impacts public participation preferences. Protesters embody a libertarian‐socialist orientation toward sociopolitical trust, while voters possess a social‐democrat orientation.

AbstractAlthough the period of highest activity for anarchist movements peaked in the early 1990s, such movement continues in the present. Contemporary antiauthoritarian movements are a product of the 1950s and New Left, as well as the USSR's demise. Antiauthoritarian movements are either explicitly anarchist or implicitly anarchist (thus, simply "antiauthoritarian," "autonomist," or "libertarian‐socialist"). Anarchist identity is diverse, although anchored around an opposition to dominant culture, institutions, and hierarchical norms. The values and goals pursued revolve around a principled adoption of horizontalism, direct action, antiauthoritarianism, decentralization, anticapitalism, and mutual aid. These anarchist movements are unique movements, yet they also run parallel to certain movements—in both the adoption of anarchist strategies and membership overlap—such as antifascist, global justice, and squatter movements. Confrontational and playful street tactics combine with strategies of reclamation of radically egalitarian space, in opposition to hierarchical society. Despite their association with violence, contemporary anarchist movements are fairly nonviolent; however, many anarchists do not disavow the selective use of violence. Thus, massive efforts of social control through police and mass media attempt to moderate, disrupt, and suppress anarchist movements.

Racial justice social movements often fragment when their goals do not seem completely achievable. Former participants in the radical Black freedom struggles of the 1960s and 1970s, most of whom were Black Panther Party (BPP) members (and also participants in the Black Liberation Army) and identified with Marxist-Leninism, became disaffected with the hierarchical character of the Black Panthers and came to identify with anarchism. Through the lens of radical factionalization theories, Black anarchism is seen as a radical outgrowth of the Black freedom struggle. Black anarchists were the first to notably prioritize a race analysis in American anarchism. This tendency has a number of contemporary manifestations for anarchism, including Anarchist People of Color caucuses within the movement, and, more indirectly, the many anarchist strategies and organizations that share similarities with the BPP, prior to its centralization.

Anarchism has not had a noticeable impact upon sociology. The two traditions diverged in their interest in society and their relationship to it. This paper contrasts the practitioners or thinkers of one tradition against the other. The analysis shows some strong antagonisms, many instances of close analysis and critique of each other's perspectives, and a number of friendly and supportive relationships between anarchists and sociologists. Anarchists tended to admire the intellectual rigor of sociologists, but thought sociologists were insiders – mere reformers at best, reactionaries at worst – content to study society, but rarely to act for its improvement. Sociologists viewed anarchists with an even wider range of opinion, including considering them principled and admirable revolutionaries, slightly naïve utopians, or criminals and chaos-lovers bent on the destruction of social order. These factors contributed to the exclusion of anarchist ideas and anarchists themselves from the sociological canon.

The goal of this article is to explore the characteristics of North American anarchists who are union members. New social movement (NSM) theories suggest that movements have changed in recent decades to focus less on economic issues and have divorced themselves from the working class. The union membership of anarchists is related to subjective working‐class status, age, being from North America, economic anarchist ideology, anarchist movement participation, and activist identity. Given these findings, it is questionable how well the arguments offered by NSM theories—specifically a postmaterialist focus and emphasis upon collective cultural identity—are able to describe anarchists.

Anarchy and Society' explores the many ways in which the discipline of Sociology and the philosophy of anarchism are compatible. The book constructs possible parameters for a future "anarchist sociology", by a sociological exposition of major anarchist thinkers (including Kropotkin, Proudhon, Landauer, Goldman, and Ward), as well as an anarchist interrogation of key sociological concepts (including social norms, inequality, and social movements). Sociology and anarchism share many common interests-although often interpreting each in divergent ways-including community, solidarity, feminism, crime and restorative justice, and social domination. The synthesis proposed by 'Anarchy and Society' is reflexive, critical, and strongly anchored in both traditions