Veterans, Holidays, and Health

You know those thoughtful friends who remind us every year around the 4th of July and New Year's Eve that many vets are hurt by the fireworks and gunfire around those celebrations? They are good, thoughtful people, and we should thank them. They are also wrong. OK, maybe not "wrong," but I think they unintentionally are missing a chance to address the root cause of the issue. When vets are hurt when we celebrate our national birthday and the beginning of our year, we shouldn't question our celebrations; we should question war. Let's end war. No one should need to suffer PTSD or TBI for my freedom. Freedom may not be free, so we're told, but we should be fully aware of who bears the cost for whom.

Some Notes for Later Use on Campus Carry

Governor Deal signed the campus carry bill into law. I wrote about the lead-up last year. I'm angry. Here are two thoughts for future reference:

First, I'm contemplating buying a costume bulletproof vest to wear in protest while on campus next year.

Second, Freedom of Speech is regularly constrained on college campuses. I do not allow students to use the N-word in my classrooms, for example. Students are generally expected to shut up when told to by a professor. This is, for better or worse, how college classrooms work. Colleges also have so-called Free Speech Zones. One (purported) reason for these is to limit protest to areas that are not disruptive to regular campus activities, like holding classes. The courts have regularly allowed colleges and professors to curtail First Amendment rights. Why should Second Amendment rights be any different?

TED Talks: 'Our Story of Rape and Reconciliation'

This video popped up in my YouTube subscriptions today:



I'm honestly not sure how to process this. I have such ambivalent feelings toward it. I'm not even sure how to articulate all of my competing emotions. I think the best I can do is to say that this is worth watching and then thinking about and then talking about. I feel like it is good--but I'm hesitant.

Racist Policing without Racist Police

I read a blog post recently at Gin and Tacos, a blog and Facebook feed that I recommend, that got me thinking. It's worth a read first.

I find myself disagreeing with Ed. We know that individual level racism has been in decline for decades. Implicit bias and institutional racism, however, are persistent because they are subtle (i.e. difficult to recognize). I don't see any reason to believe that police officers and police departments are any different from the rest of society. The proportion of police officers who are overtly racist have likely been in decline for decades even as most remain implicitly biased against people of color and even as police departments organize in ways that unintentionally lead to racist outcomes (e.g focusing policing on "bad" neighborhoods). If we envision the disproportionately unjust experiences of people of color with police (including but not limited to being killed) as attributable to "bad seeds," we miss the larger social trend, but more troublingly, we miss the opportunity for actually make things better.

See Racism without Racists.

Irrationality and Symbolic Fear, College Campus Edition

Back in January, I was required by our university system to sit through the hour-long Plan-Prepare-React training. Right at the top of the hour, our presenter told us in no uncertain terms that we were more likely to struck by lightning than to experience any of the scenarios that were to be covered. She then launched unflinchingly into the training (which included instructions to be on constant alert and to imagine a violent altercation at every new place I go). I joked on social media: "When can I expect my state-mandated SALSA™ (Survive a Lightning Strike Alive) training?" The answer of course is never. None of this is about rationality. This is the kind of hypocrisy that drives a person who teaches critical thinking and sociology absolutely batty.

Guns Are (Likely) Coming to Georgia Higher Ed (and How Faculty Should Respond)

The stage is set for guns to be allowed on college campuses in Georgia. As I have blogged before, I have a longstanding policy of not allowing guns in my classrooms or office. As far as I am concerned, this policy will not change, regardless of the law. Nevertheless, if House Bill 859 passes the State Senate and is signed by Gov. Deal as is currently expected, guns will be allowed around me, my colleagues, and my students, which is unacceptable for two major reasons.

First, the purported spirit of HB 859, that it "is about personal safety and the ability of Georgians to defend themselves as needed," is not rooted in reality. Study after study has shown that the presence and prevalence of guns is correlated with a decrease in safety, not an increase. This is essentially settled science. At the very least, HB 859 seems to violate OSHA regulations, if not reason.

Second, our lawmakers and governor lack the courage of their own convictions as they continue to restrict firearms and other weapons from the State Capitol, the Governor's office, and the State Supreme Court, among other government buildings. If our elected officials actually do believe that permitted carriers of concealed firearms increase safety, they should move to immediately rectify the inconsistency of the law so that guns could be carried into the galleries of the House, Senate, and Supreme Court; into congresspersons' offices; and indeed, into the Governor's office. If, as I suspect, our lawmakers will refuse to allow guns in their place of work, this belies what they claim is the motivation of HB 859.

Many would note that the business of governing is a contentious matter that makes it more vulnerable to acts of violence, especially to weapons capable of mass carnage from a distance, such as firearms. I would agree, and for those same reasons, firearms also have no place in colleges and universities. My job regularly requires that I teach about and moderate discussions involving highly contentious issues, such as abortion, capital punishment, crime, climate change, gender, homosexuality, immigration, poverty, racism, religion, terrorism, war, and indeed, gun control itself. If lawmakers are uncomfortable debating these issues in the presence of guns, they should not require me, my colleagues, and students to do so.

Here is my proposal:
As professors and instructors, we should respond to HB 859 by simply taking rational steps to protect the safety of ourselves and our students, that is to hold our classes and office hours in the few remaining places where firearms are still logically not permitted, in government buildings and offices, and indeed in the State Capitol itself! By making ourselves visible in first the statehouse and then in local halls, we can draw attention to the hypocrisies noted above. We ask for nothing more than the legal consideration that governmental figures bestow on themselves.

Music: "Happy Birthday, Jesus (The Kids Are Dead)" - Brad Koch

This is an original Christmas punk rock protest song. (Fair warning: it is not uplifting, will not be many's cup of tea, and likely will offend some of you, but I sincerely hope that it is motivating). I started writing it nearly three years ago. I dedicate it to the memory of the dead at Sandy Hook Elementary--and Santa Monica College and Washington Navy Yard and Fort Hood and Isla Vista and Emanuel Church and Chattanooga and Umpqua and Colorado Springs and....

When I'm not professoring or parenting or husbanding, I do my best to keep up my musical chops. This is my latest effort.

Happy Birthday, Jesus (The Kids Are Dead)

Happy birthday, Jesus; the kids are dead ×4

What’s the deal with angry, white men
clinging to their guns as if they’re
artificial extensions of their dicks?

It’s like they’re crying to their mommies
“How are we to fight the commies,
defend against the blacks and browns with sharpened sticks?”

They’ve lost their status and their power
so come the holy, ordained hour
they’ll stand their ground and proudly take it back

They’re blind to privilege and to reason
As everyone sings, “‘Tis the season”
they’re loading up their magazines for the attack

But as the “good guys” prophesy the coming doom
that one’s going rogue inside a classroom

ch

They’ve memorized the Constitution
fomenting a revolution
taking back America from “them”

Inerrant and Divine-inspired
Amendment that should not be mired
Higher than the Savior born in Bethlehem

What’s the point in conversation
with soldiers for the liberation
of those who only look like them and theirs

They got their open-carry permit
Forgive me if I cry a moment
for the dismal state of domestic affairs

And as I sing this dirge of lament and of gloom
another child is shot dead in a classroom

ch
ch--

©2015 Quasiology Music (ASCAP)
All rights reserved.
Lyrics used by permission.
Unauthorized reproduction prohibited.

What Happens When We Really Do Come for Their Guns?

The notion that "They're coming for our guns!" seems sadly destined to end up being a self-fulfilling prophecy. Let me explain. It is inevitable that at some point in the foreseeable future the disproportionate reality of gun violence in the United States will move voters to force our lawmakers to restrict gun ownership. The tides have long been in that direction (see here and here). There have been decades worth of chances for the NRA, other lobbying groups, and individual gun owners themselves to engage in meaningful debate and compromise; instead, there has been entrenchment, absolutist grandstanding, and polarization. In addition, the US has lots of guns out there. In fact, we have nearly twice as many guns per capita as the closest ranking Western industrialized country (i.e. Switzerland, though there are peculiar restrictions there). (Oh, and the US has nearly 17 times the gun homicide rate as Germany, the closest ranking Western industrialized country.) (Oh, so even though there are almost nine guns in the US for every ten people, those guns are owned by only one in every three people in the US; in other words, a shit ton of guns are owned by a minority of Americans.) Given the state of discourse and the fact that there are so many guns already out there in the US, any meaningful reform will almost certainly mean recalling guns; otherwise, "many" guns will circulate, both legally and illegally, for decades. Of course, even the thought of the government recalling firearms will inevitably be met with hyperbolic diatribes. Just compare to the status quo, under which no reasonably powerful person has ever actually called for anything more than hypothetical restrictions on future gun sales. Even that has sparked battle-cries along the lines of "from my cold, dead hands!" Imagine the reaction when people do actually come for their guns. There will most certainly be a temporary and reactionary increase in violence, which will be used by the pro-gun lobby to argue that the recall had been counterproductive and that we need to return to when there were many "good guys with guns" and even to increase beyond the historic high of guns in circulation. Both the short and long term are fraught, and it didn't have to be that way.

--
See here additionally for a good breakdown of the stats.

UPDATE (12/4/2015): To clarify, by "recall," I did not mean a wholesale recall of all firearms, only a recall of excess firearms.

RIP René Girard

Social theorist René Girard has died. My introduction to Girard was a bit circuitous. I read a selection from Barbara Ehrenreich's Blood Rites when I took a Sociology of Religion course as an undergraduate and found it tranformative. Ehrenreich drew heavily from Girard's Violence and the Sacred so I eventually tracked that down and read it in graduate school. I've always been surprised at how many sociologists, and particularly sociologists of religion, are unaware of Girard and his work. I think our discipline would benefit from more of us reading his stuff.

--
UPDATE (11/6/2015): I also just learned that Girard is a fellow Indiana alumnus. Go Hoosiers!

My Head Talking about 'Gun Control' for Student News

I was interviewed by our student new program about guns on campus. Here's the spot:



I gave them numerous soundbites on hegemonic masculinity and violence and on how the debate was less about rational beliefs and more about group belonging and identity, but of course, they went with the least sociological thing I said.

Firearms Policy in Syllabi

For the last few years, I have been including the following language in my syllabi:

Firearms Policy: I do not allow firearms in my classroom. (I will consider exceptions for on-duty law enforcement officers.) This policy is irrespective of federal, state, county, and city laws and system, university, college, department, and program policies. Failure to abide by this policy may result in immediate expulsion from the classroom and a failing grade in the course.

It is an embarrassment to our nation that I feel compelled to do this.

The Problem with Celebrating Baltimore's "Mother of the Year"

Video has been making the rounds, both on the internet and through more traditional news outlets, of a woman, Toya Graham, beating her teenage son after spotting him among the rioters in Baltimore. She is widely being praised as a "hero" and "Mother of the Year" and is today making the rounds of the morning talk shows. I was disturbed last night when several news broadcasts spent what seemed like an inordinate amount of time on this story compared to their coverage of either the killing of Freddie Gray, the incident that immediately precipitated[1] the protests and riots, or the protests and riots themselves. The near-unanimous decision of the news media to set the agenda in this way is both reflective and problematic.

First, the incident and its coverage has gained traction because it fits into a worldview that many hold about why civil unrest happens. The narrative is that people of color in rundown urban places like Baltimore have personal and cultural failings that foster socioeconomic failure and chaotic, asocial circumstances. In this context, the "hero mother" offers an individual-level solution, namely that if parents cared better for their children, even intervening violently if necessary, they, their children, and their communities would fair better. In essence, it's a popular story because it does not challenge the status quo. The reality, of course, is that there are complicated social structural causes to segregation and poverty that are exacerbated by the implicit biases of authority figures (e.g. police officers), elites (e.g. elected officials), and others, both people of color living in segregated poverty and whites living in relative affluence.

Second, the ubiquity of this worldview paired with an uncritical news media means that this narrative does not get challenged. Instead, it gets perpetuated, reproduced, and strengthened every time that it is repeated. Media scholars often focus on the differences between media outlets and the way that tribal allegiances can create echo chambers, but in this case, we see what appears to be widespread uniformity in coverage.

Finally, I think that it is important that we recognize that Ms. Graham's behavior amounted to abuse, not "discipline." Regardless of the circumstances, repeatedly striking one's child in the head is unacceptable. Moreover, it arguably legitimizes and valorizes violence in a situation that is paradoxically being condemned for being violent.

I want to be clear that the purpose of this post is not to judge Toya Graham. To the contrary, it is clear that she is a woman in an impossible situation. She is being doubly victimized by the media and a society that is intent on using her as a weapon to thwart effective conversation. The real problem is with "us," not "them."

--
[1] The causes of the unrest are of course much more complicated that this single incident. In the same way that WWI was not about the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the current situation in Baltimore is not about the killing of Freddie Gray.

Friday Music: "Where Do You Think You're Going?" - Dire Straits

I give you Dire Straits' "Where Do You Think You're Going?":



This haunting song, sung from the point of view of an abusive man, is about domestic violence and could be also used to prime discussions of family, masculinity, and patriarchy.

Friday Music: "Karate" - Brad Paisley

I give you Brad Paisley's "Karate":



The song is a revenge fantasy about a woman who is abused by her husband. I learned of in this review from Fresh Air. (I find the review completely misguided, BTW.) The music is oddly playful and upbeat given the grave nature of the lyrics, running the risk of trivializing the topic. This song, off the same album as the controversial "Accidental Racist," tackles yet another social problem. This song could help facilitate a discussion on domestic violence, retribution, and gender as well as a discussion about the larger public debate about the role of musicians in facilitating the amelioration of social problems.

Defining Civic Values after a Tragedy

I always get nervous after acts of terrorism. Ironically, however, I am more worried about the irrational acts of hatred and "retaliation" that will likely follow than about secondary acts of terrorism (as if hate-filled and retaliatory acts are not terroristic). The Department of Homeland Security has the "If You See Something, Say Something" Campaign. Their website notes twice:

Factors such as race, ethnicity, national origin, or religious affiliation alone are not suspicious [emphasis added].

Why is the word "alone" necessary? Is that to say race, ethnicity, national origin, and religious affiliation could become significant when included with other information? It's not OK for me to be suspicious of a man because he is black alone, but what if he is black and is walking through an upscale gated community? It's not OK for me to be suspicious of a woman because she is Latina alone, but what if she is Latina and she is in the queue at a voting precinct? It's not OK for me to be suspicious of a woman because her parents emigrated from Egypt alone, but what if she is Egyptian-American and is applying for a job at the State Department? It's not OK for me to be suspicious of a man who prays to Allah alone, but what if he is Muslim and he is waiting to board my airplane?

Already, this seems to have been an issue. The New York Times reports:

It was unclear Monday evening who might be responsible for the blast. Although investigators said that they were speaking to a Saudi citizen who was injured in the blast, several law enforcement officials took pains to note that no one was in custody.
...
Officials stressed that they had no suspects in the attack. The Saudi man, who was interviewed at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, had been seen running from the scene of the first explosion, a person briefed on preliminary developments in the investigation said on Monday afternoon. A law enforcement official said later Monday that the man, was in the United States on a student visa and came under scrutiny because of his injuries, his proximity to the blasts and his nationality — but added that he was not known to federal authorities and that his role in the attack, if any, was unclear.

I heard early reports on television yesterday that the person in custody, presumably the Saudi man, had been chased down and tackled by a bystander as we was fleeing in the immediate aftermath of the initial explosion, a quite reasonable reaction shared by virtually everyone in the vicinity. The man, you see, was not suspicious because he looked Arab alone; he was suspicious for being Arab and running.

In these times of heightened tension, anger, and fear, we must exercise heightened vigilance not to those around us alone (i.e. the "other") but also to ourselves as well. If you see something, say something. Indeed. That includes acts of hate, prejudice, and racism.

*The Purge*: Crime, Violence, and Ritual?

I just saw the preview for this movie today for the first time.



I'm excited about it because it has that same Lottery/Hunger Games-thing going on. Am I unrealistic in my hope that this film might be a statement on the criminal justice system and violence and perhaps even race?

What Do They Call a Quarter Pounder on Mt. Megiddo?

Apparently, a lot of people are unhappy with Saturday Night Live's parody Djesus Uncrossed. Here is the short:



The truly ironic thing is that this is not satire; the entirety of the final book of the New Testament is a Tarantino-esque revenge fantasy starring Jesus as the violent militarist. (I had argued this recently, and Mark Silk says it again here.) "No more Mr. Nice-Jesus" indeed! It makes one wonder whether some folks are actually reading their Bibles.

Two-dimensional Power and the Gun Debate

After the shooting at Sandy Hook, Ezra Klein wrote:

When we first collected much of this data [about guns and mass shootings in the United States], it was after the Aurora, Colo. shootings, and the air was thick with calls to avoid "politicizing" the tragedy. That is code, essentially, for "don't talk about reforming our gun control laws."

Let's be clear: That is a form of politicization. When political actors construct a political argument that threatens political consequences if other political actors pursue a certain political outcome, that is, almost by definition, a politicization of the issue. It's just a form of politicization favoring those who prefer the status quo to stricter gun control laws.

Lisa Wade at Sociological Images succinctly paraphrased Klein, writing:

…silencing a discussion is just another form of politicization.

The debate-about-whether-to-have-the-debate has been a relatively successful discursive tool for those who are pro-gun. Every high-profile occasion of violence involving guns is met with calls for a moratorium on political conversation. This tactic has much in common with the two-dimensional view of power. Clawson, Neustadtl, and Weller in Dollars and Votes outline three increasingly complicated views of power. They are:

• common conception - the ability to make someone do something against his/her will
• two-dimensional view - the non-articulation of a problem so that its omission is not recognized as a wielding of power
• field theory - the altering of social space by powerful agents so as actors are forced to orient toward the agents

Clawson et al. use pollution as an example for the two-dimensional view. In the 1960s and 1970s, before the modern environmental movement had brought it to the fore, pollution was simply not on anyone's radar as an issue. The ability of industry to keep a conversation from happening was itself a use a power, one all the more powerful because of its invisibility.

When individuals insist "Now is not the time," or "We should help people mourn instead of being divisive," they are--even if unwittingly--doing two-dimensional power, indefinitely delaying the debate and re-articulating the problem to make it about timing instead of the substantive issue, effectively cloaking the very use of power.

Friday Music: "M. Shepard" - Thursday

I give you Thursday's "M. Shepard":



This is a live version of a song written about the murder of Matthew Shepard. (There are clips on YouTube with better audio, but I like the speech with which singer Geoff Rickly prefaces the song.) The song deals with the difficulty of self-acceptance, hate, love, compassion, and understanding as well as homosexuality, homophobia, identity, and violence.

Revenge and Revelation: When Fantasy Spawns Phenomena

Fabio has this interesting post over at orgtheory. It reminded me of one of the greatest revenge stories of all time, The Book of Revelation. (Note that the final word in the title of that book has no "s." It's a nifty little shibboleth.) Revelation is a complicated work with a complicated history. It almost didn't make it into the canon, and even though it did squeak by, many (including Martin Luther) have been uncomfortable with it every since. Even though this has made it sublimely intriguing to sociologists, it's a dangerous book theologically because it stars a faceless monster on whom countless enemy faces have been superimposed over the millennia and seems to sanction violence and hatred. This made it a favorite of Fundamentalist blowhards, even though (because?) the message is starkly inconsistent with that of the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament. In its proper historical context, though, Revelation is a revenge fantasy of the early Christians (or perhaps some post-Temple/pre-Christian Jews) against the Roman Empire.

Like the new Tarantino film, Django Unchained, Revelation can be benignly enjoyed as a self-indulgent romp. Too often, though, Revelation has devolved into self-righteous indignation, which makes it superbly dangerous.