An Oxford sociologist gives six findings regarding national well-being based on time diary data.
Time diaries allow researchers to get at daily activities and move past some of the memory and social desirability issues that come up in interviews or surveys.
What the web has inspired, then, is a postmodern understanding of what “home” is: a de-physicalised, conceptual and psychological phenomenon that externalises its invisible meanings. And interaction designers recognise this: the web is another castle that the Englishman can live in, and he seeks to create virtual places that have as much effect on pride, self-esteem and identity as the bricks and mortar version where he sleeps…
I am constantly connected when I’m at home. It is my companion when watching a movie, it is my entertainment system when listening to the radio, it is my connection to the family and friends I speak with on VoIP. Sociologist Kat Jungnickel and anthropologist Genevieve Bell suggest that my over-networked experience isn’t unusual in Home is Where the Hub is? Wireless Infrastructures and the Nature of Domestic Culture in Australia: “Some read their emails and Google for news in front of the TV while others breastfeed while surfing the net. In the kitchen, they look for recipes or talk with friends via IM. In bed they write emails or shop on eBay.” The rooms once allocated for specific purposes have been co-opted by other (digital) tasks.
This isn’t always welcome. In one of Jungnickel and Bell’s case studies, a participant describes the conflicts that arise from home-multiplicity: “Sal tells of the congestion zone caused by the chameleonic characteristics of the kitchen table,” they write. “During the day it is her new computing space, and at night it is the social, cooking washing-up space for both of them.” Each online activity has imposed itself on our home-practice. We are experiencing a domestic transition as the web collaborates and competes with old “new” technologies such as the TV, the researchers argue. It “complicates” characteristics of the physical space.
We are adaptable creatures and will work within the confines of our existing homes to integrate this new creature into our lives. We have already made the web part of our domestic ecologies and we continually imbue it with a sense of place. Perhaps its malleability is why it has been so successful and why we are willing to bring this interruptive technology into our most intimate worlds.
In recent decades, commentators have suggested that Americans have retreated into their large homes and lost their connection to their communities. But this may be suggesting that while Americans may have withdrawn, they are still interested in being connected. However, this connection looks different than it has in the past. The connection now happens at the times of the individual’s own choosing, it is done at a distance, and it is unclear how much this translates into offline world action.
I don’t think we should be too surprised that the concept of home is changing. Our current understanding dates back roughly to the mid 1800s when homes were built with separate rooms to separate uses: sleep in one room, eat in another, cook in another, etc. Before that, homes were more multi-use as more people used their home for work as well as family life. It would be interesting to think about how the quick expansion of Internet connectedness might lead to new designs for homes or introduce interior spaces that enhance this connectedness. Already, we have more static gadgets that have been adapted, such as televisions including Internet apps, so why not dining rooms, bathrooms, and front porches plus back patios?
In movies and TV shows, kids now talk wistfully of getting out of the ‘burbs and heading to funky town, the exact opposite of our grandparents, who drove the other way in search of an extra bedroom, a lawn and somewhere to barbecue the chops.
The aforementioned Great Australian Dream is apparently a nightmare for many hipsters; as laughably daggy as John Williamson singing about plum trees, ”a clothesline out the back, verandah out the front and an old rocking chair”…
Writing recently in Canada’s Toronto Standard, Navneet Alang observes, ”it’s a profoundly privileged, Western idea to want to forsake sterility for the ‘real and gritty’…
Their visions are probably pretty similar to those of our grandparents – a lawn and a nice, big, neat, bland house – because, as Alang writes, ”Once you’ve lived in a developing nation, sterile can feel good. Uncluttered is good. Cars are good.”
The author goes on to suggest that perhaps these young Australians simply think the grass is greener on the other side: after growing up in suburbs, these young people are now looking to urban life. Several thoughts about this:
1. It would be interesting to see survey data about what immigrants imagine America to be before they arrive or even during their early months in the United States. Does it look like suburbia? Is their goal from the beginning to make it to the suburbs?
2. The sterility of the suburbs, often held in contrast to the authenticity, richness, and contrasts of the big city, is an old argument. Just listen to Malvina Reynolds’ song “Little Boxes” for an overview. (Interestingly, more people probably know this song now because it is the theme song for a trendy/novel current TV show: Weeds.) I would guess that many suburban residents, particularly those older than hipster age, actually prefer the suburbs over the city because of this sterility: the city may be more interesting but this interesting could also include negative outcomes.
3. Could we see the rise of hipster suburbs or at least hipster enclaves within suburbs? For example, inner-ring suburbs would be perfect places for hipster types: denser and cheaper housing in neighborhoods that have been around a century or more. There are a number of neighborhoods in these suburbs ripe for gentrification (though there could be disadvantages to this). Also, newer New Urbanist developments or neighborhoods might offer the authenticity hipsters seek.
Americans are often described as individualists. Where exactly did this term come from? It can be partly attributed to a famous work by French observer Alexis de Toqueville.
It is interesting to note that the word “individualist” wasn’t part of the vocabulary of the first colonists or even the revolutionaries. It is a 19th Century word, likely first used out of necessity by the translators of Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America — an almost sociological work based on the author’s visit to America during the 1830s.
On the matter of American individualism de Tocqueville wrote: “There are more and more people who… have gained enough wealth and understanding to look after their own needs. Such folk owe no man anything and hardly expect anything from anybody. They form the habit of thinking of themselves in isolation and imagine that their destiny is in their hands. … Each man is forever thrown back on himself alone and there is danger that he might be shut up in the solitude of his own heart.”
Importantly, de Tocqueville saw several social forces that worked against the isolation of individualism and the danger of being locked in solitary: the family, the church and a set of civic virtues fostered, he believed, by American mothers. Whether or not we agree with this particular formulation, we might agree on a more general point. In discussions of American individualism, it is important to treat it as part of a balanced pair — often, yoked in a tense arrangement with one side headed for individual isolation and the other toward full immersion in a community. As long as the forces are fairly equal, the arrangement stays centered…
Three hundred years later, Herbert Hoover coined the now famous phrase “rugged individualist.” But he, too, saw a natural constraining partner for his American creation — the right of others to exercise opportunities arising from their own individuality.
The Oxford English Dictionary lists a translation of de Toqueville’s work, Democracy in America, as the second use of the term “individualism.” I wonder if this is an accurate translation of de Toqueville – what exactly did he intend to say?
Just because the word came along in the 1830s doesn’t mean that Americans were not individualists prior to this use. At the same time, could we argue that Americans have increasingly adopted this label and tried to live up to it? As labeling theory might suggest, Americans have acted in accordance with expectations and perhaps this has even become easier because of the country’s burgeoning wealth and power after World War II.
But as this commentator suggests, the individualism is often limited by ever-present ties to the larger community. We complain about taxes but don’t want the services paid for by taxes to disappear. De Toqueville’s work is partly famous because he also talks about the propensity of Americans to volunteer for organizations, a zeal that surprises him. But then we have more recent works like Bowling Alone that suggest Americans have largely lost this zeal, withdrawing into more personal networks and generally retreating from public life. Are we at the individualistic end of the pendulum swing now and will we soon swing back to a middle ground?
President Obama’s campaign is looking to target voters in the “monied burbs” as part of their broader election strategy:
In his 2008 victory, Mr. Obama broke through among several important voter groups. Exit polls showed that he carried suburbanites, college graduates and those earning more than $200,000.
Mr. Obama won handily in areas that the research organization Patchwork Nation calls “Monied ’Burbs.” Residents of these high-income suburbs, which add up to roughly a quarter of the United States population, tend to be less religious and more tolerant of homosexuality and abortion rights, said Dante Chinni, Patchwork Nation’s director.
They narrowly backed Republicans in the 2010 House elections. Their disappointment over the economy cloud Mr. Obama’s 2012 re-election prospects.
But their distance from the Republican right on social issues gives Mr. Obama a tool for fighting back…
Republicans have their own strong economic arguments for upscale suburbanites, including Mr. Obama’s proposals to raise taxes on households earning more than $250,000. Those will echo Democrats’ 2004 warnings to working-class voters — that social issues obscured how Mr. Bush had hurt their pocketbooks.
The idea of the “monied burbs” was covered in more detail in Our Patchwork Nation. The description in this particular NYT article sounds suspiciously like David Brook’s Bobos, educated suburbanites who are attracted by the suburb’s good schools, single-family homes, and emphasis on family but are more liberal on a number of social issues.
I wonder if we could go so far as to suggest that the suburbs will decide the 2012 elections: will the independent voters in “monied burbs” and inner-ring suburbs vote for President Obama or a Republican challenger? We have some evidence (also here) that these voters helped decide the most recent elections. Does this mean we will have an uptick in rhetoric about the American Dream and homeownership?
While describing the theme of the Magnificat, a writer mixes sociology and anthropology:
The triumph of the meek is a recurring narrative in all cultures both sacred and secular. One of the fathers of sociology, Claude Levi-Strauss, documented the recurrence of identical consoling myths throughout all cultures. The themes of the Magnificat are echoed in Cinderella, The Ugly Duckling and Forrest Gump and my favourite in this genre, the rom-com Sleepless in Seattle. There is retribution for the wicked and reward for humility and generosity of spirit. This too conforms to Levi-Strauss pattern. He noted that these universal narratives often employ binary opposites — death/life, good/evil, suffering/reward. The main difference between religion compensation myths and the profane ones is that the religious ones often need a magical trigger such as the afterlife or the coming of God. And that of course, is where I must differ with the Magnificat – a minor quibble in the scheme of things.
Comparing the Magnificat and Sleepless in Seattle? You don’t see that every day. Sociology and anthropology share some common foundational thinkers, people like Karl Marx, but Levi-Strauss is clearly an anthropologist. Even Wikipedia knows this!
Claude Lévi-Strauss (French pronunciation: [klod levi st?os]; (28 November 1908 – 30 October 2009) was a French anthropologist and ethnologist, and has been called, along with James George Frazer, the “father of modern anthropology”.
Come to think of it, I can’t remember a time I’ve seen Levi-Strauss cited in a sociological piece. At the same time, his ideas about binary oppositions can be found in sociology of culture work. For example, Jeffrey Alexander has some pieces working with binary oppositions.
asdf
New social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter are ripe data sources. A new study in Science done by two sociologists examines the world’s emotions through Twitter:
The research team, led by Scott Golder, a PhD doctoral student in the field of sociology, and Professor of Sociology Michael Macy, tracked 2.4 million people in 84 different countries over the past two years. Clearly the team working on the project didn’t read through 2.4 million people’s tweets. Instead, they used a text analysis program that quantified the emotional content of 509 million tweets. Their results, featured in the paper “Diurnal and Seasonal Mood Tracks Work, Sleep and Day Length Across Diverse Cultures,” were published September 29 in Science.
The researchers found that work, sleep, and the amount of daylight we get really does affect things like our enthusiasm, delight, alertness, distress, fear, and anger. They concluded that people tweet more positive things early in the morning and then again around midnight. This could suggest that people aren’t very happy while they’re working since their happy tweets are at the beginning and end of the day. Saturday and Sunday also saw more positive tweets in general. The weekend showed these peaks at about 2 hours later, which accounts for sleeping in and staying out late.
Of course, all of the trends weren’t the same throughout every country. For example, the United Arab Emirates tend to work Sunday through Thursday, so their weekend tweets happened on Friday and Saturdays. The results also found that people who live in countries that get more daylight (closer to the equator) aren’t necessarily happier than people in countries that get less daylight (closer to the North and South Poles). It seems that only people who have a lot of daylight during the summer and then very little in the winter feel the affect of the change in seasons as much.
Clearly the results of the research aren’t perfect. There may be some people who only share positive things on Twitter, or some people who love to be cynical and use Twitter to complain about problems.
This sounds interesting and the resulting maps and charts are intriguing. However, I would first ask methodological questions that would get at whether this is worthwhile data or not. Does this really reflect global moods? Or does this simply tell us something about Twitter users, who are likely not representative of the population at large?
Another article does suggest this study makes methodological improvements over two common ways studies look at emotions:
None of these results are particularly surprising, but Golder and Macy suggest that using global tweets allows them to confirm previous studies that only looked at small samples of American undergraduates who were not necessarily representative of the wider world. Traditional studies also require participants to recall their past emotions, whereas tweets can be gathered in real time.
These are good things: more immediate data and a wider sample beyond college undergraduates. But this doesn’t necessarily mean that the Twitter data is good data. The sample still probably skews toward younger people and those who have the technological means to be on Twitter consistently. Additionally, immediate emotions can tell us one thing but inquiring about longer-term satisfaction often tells us something else.
On the whole, this sounds like better data than we have before but until we have more universal Twitter usage, this data source will have significant limitations.
Amidst a story about the declining future fortunes of the McMansion, this story has a fascinating graphic based on a recent Trulia survey:
At a quick glance, it looks like people in the biggest three metro areas desire McMansions more than other places. What are the reasons for this? These are relatively wealthier areas yet they are also places where we might expect that city people would look down on McMansions. Bostonians are the most modest in their dreaming and are closer to the national averages. Does this mean people in Boston are more average in their home searches and purchases?
However, there are some caveats to these findings:
1. According to Trulia, the data is based on web searches for homes. So perhaps people in these cities simply dream bigger than people in smaller metro areas. Or there are more bigger homes in these larger metro areas?
2. Why exactly these eight cities? In particular, why don’t we have any findings from a classic Sunbelt city, like Atlanta, Dallas, Phoenix, or Houston, where people are known for having larger (and relatively cheaper compared to the big three metro areas) homes?
2a. Is there not enough search data from these places?
2b. Does Trulia not offer the same level of services/features in these Sunbelt cities?
3. Are the users of Trulia representative of metro populations? I would guess they skew toward the younger, more educated, and wealthier.
Sociologists have known (and measured) for decades that different jobs or fields can have very different levels of status (the more academic term: occupational prestige). A new study puts this social fact together with identifying people of different races and came to an interesting conclusion:
When it comes to determining the race of a stranger, our minds see more than skin color. That’s the conclusion of a study co-authored by UCI sociologist Andrew Penner, which was really quite simple when it came to the research. Viewers were shown images of the same man in business attire and a janitor’s uniform. Photos of a different man were added to the mix, as were those of women. Above the photos were boxes marked “white” and “black” so the viewers could assign the race of each person shown. You can imagine what the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation-funded research found.
Tracking the movements of each viewer’s mouse as it selected the race of the model, the researchers discovered that, initially, those in the business clothing were most often perceived to be white, while those in the janitor uniforms were usually ranked as black, despite the person in the respective photos being the same person of the same race.
Keep in mind that the person being tested may have ultimately chosen the correct race of the model. What the researchers were after was that initial assumption. The pattern grew more pronounced as faces became more racially ambiguous, the study concluded.
This is a reminder that there is a lot of interplay between race and social class. There are perceptions about people in certain jobs, represented in this study by particular clothing, that override our knowledge of the skin color of the person within the clothing. In Malcolm Gladwell Blink style, we make quick assumptions and then make more “rational” conclusions.
I wonder if the researchers looked at jobs where the perceptions about those workers might be similar. Would research subjects make such quick conclusions and if so, what would guide those snap judgments?
I’ve asked before whether one could have an acceptable green McMansion or if no McMansion could ever be considered truly green. I recently ran across this story of a man who has a 3,000 square foot “Eco Freak McMansion”:
Bill Newman’s kayak buddies love to tease him about his new house in Brooklyn Center. It’s too big for just one person, they say. It’s a McMansion. And it’s way too nice for him.
Newman just laughs. He erased his guilt about the home’s size (more than 3,000 square feet spread over three levels) by packing it with sustainable features, including solar panels, geothermal heating, super-insulated walls and rainwater collection systems…
His house, which he nicknamed the Eco Freak McMansion, is bigger, better and, yes, way nicer than what he’s used to. Even though he’s lived in his new house for several months, “I feel like I’m house-sitting for some rich guy,” he said…
The new house has three times the finished square footage as the cabin, but it’s three to four times more energy-efficient, Newman said.
It’s also a lot more stylish, thanks in part to designer and kayak buddy Jackie Kanthak, who helped him pick out finishes, fixtures and colors, aiming for locally sourced and green materials whenever possible.
Interesting. No mention of how much this all cost but it sounds like Newman no longer feels guilty about his larger than average house. It would be interesting to hear whether his friends are convinced that it really isn’t a McMansion. The house may be efficient and green but doesn’t it still have a large land footprint? Does Newman really need multiple great rooms?
If this house meets with the approval of his friends and others, could this be the wave of the future where Americans get their cake and eat it too, getting a big yet efficient house?
