Kosovo's post-status status and the status of EU conditionality
In: Südosteuropa-Mitteilungen, Band 46, Heft 1, S. 18-29
ISSN: 0340-174X
In: Südosteuropa-Mitteilungen, Band 46, Heft 1, S. 18-29
ISSN: 0340-174X
World Affairs Online
In: World politics: a quarterly journal of international relations, Band 73, Heft 2, S. 358-391
ISSN: 1086-3338
World Affairs Online
In: Thesis eleven: critical theory and historical sociology, Band 154, Heft 1, S. 28-37
ISSN: 1461-7455, 0725-5136
This paper focuses on what could be learned about statuses and status groups from the work of Randall Collins in the 1980s, and in particular from Weberian Sociological Theory (1986). I mention how I myself found this book useful at that time to further my own work in the sociology of science and in sociological theory, and emphasise its value in appreciating the fundamental and irremediable deficiencies of individualistic rational choice theory in both contexts. I go on to note how Collins, a 'macro' sociologist in the 1980s, was nonetheless well aware of the indispensable role of micro-sociology in advancing the fundamental understanding of the field as a whole, and his singling out of Erving Goffman and Harold Garfinkel as primus inter pares for their special theoretical importance at this time. I say a little about why these two did indeed have much to contribute to an understanding of statuses and of status groups and still do even today, and end by noting how effectively Collins has used and built upon the work of Goffman in particular since the 1980s.
In: Economics of Legal Relationships; The Legal-Economic Nexus, S. 104-116
In: Economics of Legal Relationships; The Legal-Economic Nexus, S. 117-138
In: Leipziger Schriften zum Völkerrecht, Europarecht und ausländischen öffentlichen Recht 12
Millions of unauthorized immigrants in the United States have no legal immigration status and live in constant fear of deportation. There are millions more who do have some sort of status, like lawful permanent residency, asylum, or a nonimmigrant visa. In between is the netherworld of nonstatus. Here live noncitizens who possess government documentation but few rights. They have no pathway to lawful permanent residence or citizenship and cannot receive most public benefits. If nonstatus is denied or revoked by a prosecutor or bureaucrat, there is no right to a hearing or an appeal. If the Executive Branch discriminates in how it allocates nonstatus, there may not be a legal right to challenge it. The Obama Administration's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DA CA) and Deferred Action for Parental Accountability (DAPA) programs are the most recent and largest categories of nonstatus, but there are many others: parole, administrative closure, supervision, Deferred Enforced Departure (DED), and stays of removal, to name just a few. What these categories have in common is that they are discretionary, unreviewable, weakly described by positive law, and officially temporary, although individuals often live for years or even lifetimes in the purgatory of nonstatus. They occupy a paradoxical middle ground between legality and illegality, loosely tethered to this country by humanitarian concern or prosecutorial discretion. Those with nonstatus have fewer rights and remedies than those with immigration status. At the same time, they must register, disclose biographic data, be fingerprinted, and regularly update their address. Yet nonstatus is not just a government surveillance program: it is the only way for many individuals to claim some measure of dignity and legitimacy from a society that places a strong stigma on unauthorized immigrants. This Article will provide the first description of immigration nonstatus and its impact on the individuals who have it. It will describe the growth of nonstatus over time and the acceleration of that growth following late-1990s immigration reforms that restricted the means to acquire immigration status. The Article will contend that nonstatus is growing in part because it offers a means to authorize the presence of undocumented immigrants without offering them rights and benefits that have become controversial for immigrants with full status.
BASE
In: Research on managing groups and teams 7
Examines the effects of status on individuals and groups. This volume considers both the role of status within groups and how the status of groups within their context affects members and group effectiveness. It is useful to individuals interested in understanding the effects of status on individuals and the groups in which they are embedded
In: Advances in group processes volume 20
Advances in Group Processes publishes theoretical analyses, reviews and theory based empirical chapters on group phenomena. Volume 20, the second volume of a five-series set, includes papers that address fundamental issues of power and status. Chapter one integrates social influence network theory with core ideas from affect control theory and the expectation states programme. The second chapter compares reciprocal exchange to negotiated exchange in terms of the power development, trust and perceptions of fairness. Chapter three examines the entire population of unique exchange networks up to size nine, giving predictions using power dependence theory and the resistance branch of network exchange theory. As a set, these chapters address major issues of power in social exchange relations. The next four chapters are aimed at important issues of status in groups. Chapter four theorizes the complex connection between power and status, showing that power can produce status only if negative emotional reactions are mitigated. This analysis sheds new light on theories of collective action. Chapter five extends reward expectations theory by offering a new model of allocative behaviour, and comparing that model to previously collected data. The sixth chapter extends status construction theory to incorporate the effect of social identification. This new formulation is then tested and supported with data from thirty five dot-com organizations. The final two chapters incorporate theories of legitimacy to provide insights into power and status. Chapter eight reviews and explicates the basic principles of legitimacy in the Zelditch and Walker research programme. This paper traces the successes and failures of two dozen studies across several decades. Finally, chapter nine uses legitimacy theory to resolve two anomalies in the status literature, one dealing with gender saliency and the other with the enactment of identity- versus status-related behaviours. Overall, the volume includes papers that reflect a wide range of theoretical approaches to power and status and contributions by major scholars that work in the general area of group processes.
SSRN
In: Debating Democracy's Discontent, S. 149-158