Search

'Intergenerational difference' has become a lens through which to view issues of identity, social connectedness, belonging and agency in migrant youth research, highlighting that differences in the aspirations of migrant youth and their parents shape young people's experiences. The article will present findings from a mixed methods study of social network participation among three migrant youth cohorts in two Australian cities to address a perceived 'gap' among migrant youth and parents' aspirations for social network formation and participation. The paper will first examine current theoretical approaches to intergenerational challenges in migrant youth research. It will then introduce 'intersectionality' as a concept offering a more nuanced understanding of the challenges and hopes of migrant youth for whom social networks can be a gateway towards belonging and connectedness. This, however, requires a negotiation of complex structural, social and cultural factors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

So far there have usually been only two answers to the question of what to do with dichotomies in sociology, either embrace them or attempt to synthesize them. However, this has produced merely an endless vacillation between the two positions, and a paradoxical constant reproduction of dichotomous thinking, rather than its transformation. This paper works towards a 'third answer' to the question, first, by outlining how the concept of the 'Hobbesian problem of order', as proposed by Talcott Parsons, underpins all sociological dichotomies, and why it is important to re-read Hobbes and revisit the so-called 'problem of order'. Second, it explains how Bruno Latour's model of the 'Constitution' of modern thought helps us to understand the dynamics of oppositions like nature/society or agency/structure, and how the problems with dichotomies derive from only perceiving part of the Constitution, rather than all of it. The paper concludes with a discussion of one example of a type of sociology that does operate across all of Latour's Constitution because it is based on a different conception of what is problematic about social order, Norbert Elias' 'figurational sociology', as well as some observations about what we might do with sociology's Constitution from this point onwards. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Australian sociologists have barely engaged with the resurgence of economic sociology in the USA and Europe. It might be argued that this lack of engagement arises from a robust local agenda, immune from metropolitan fashions This article argues that this is not the case. Rather, it arises from the enduring residualism of Australian sociology vis-a-vis economics In turn, this residualism is grounded in sociology's late beginnings in Australia, the dominant framework at the time of its institutionalization in the 1950s and 1960s, and the limited challenge presented by critical approaches from the 1970s. The article identifies four major lines of inquiry in the resurgence of economic sociology: network analysis, comparative political economy, field theory and performativity theory Notwithstanding their differences, these approaches direct attention to the social construction of markets. In turn, they challenge both mainstream economics and sociology. The papers in this Special Edition of the Journal of Sociology build upon these lines of inquiry in the Australian context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper explores the migration experience of two cohorts of Croatian migrants in Australia focusing on the fact that they are non-English speaking background (NESB) migrants. Central attention is given to the intersection of class and 'living in another language' (being NESB in Australia). The first cohort migrated in the 1960s and is predominantly working class; the second migrated in the late 1980s and is predominantly professional. It is argued that living in an English speaking environment affects Croatian migrants in practical, cultural, identity and status terms. It determines their life chances, employment prospects and the feeling of belonging to the Australian community. However, the two groups of migrants, being from different socioeconomic backgrounds, are affected in different ways. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper reports the arguments used by members of two convict-descendant societies in embracing their convict ancestry. The data are taken from interviews that I conducted in 1999. In the main, respondents were involved in genealogy prior to discovering their or their spouses' convict ancestry. Respondents effectively countered ancestral stigma by making two kinds of argument. In the first, they recast ancestral convicts as: objects of quasi-professional interest; nation-builders; a minority within a multicultural society; collectibles; and embodying 'interesting stories'. The second type of argument forwarded more particularized treatments of convict ancestors by: minimizing the gravity of their offences; temporally distancing descendants from them; empathizing with them; and claiming their redemption. I offer some concluding thoughts on the sociology of memory and the place of genealogical memory workers within the family. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An important characteristic of public policy formulation over the 1980s and 1990s, particularly in the English-speaking countries, has been the increasing use of contractual principles as regulatory tools. The 'new contractualism' represents the recent re-emergence and adaptation of the social contract of the 17th and 18th centuries and the classical legal contract that emerged in the 19th century. The work of Anna Yeatman provides the most cogent and influential, non-neo-liberal scholarly appraisal of the new contractualism. Yeatman argues that the current contractualist agenda is consistent with equality of opportunity, occasioning a redefinition of citizenship so as to improve on the discourse of social protection. This paper argues that any attempt to remove social protection – flawed though it is – from discussions of the new contractualism is artificial. The social justice implications of such a position are perilous, for policy formulation has not yet entered a phase in which social protection can be superseded in a way which does not violate the rights of the socio-economically disadvantaged. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Analysis of US hate crime legislation reveals a significant overall trend involving: (1) the inclusion of a notion of hate motivation on the part of the offender; (2) the provision for enhanced penalties; and (3) the identification of particular victimized groups who are listed in state and federal hate crime statutes. Whether or not a person is recognized as a hate crime victim in US statutes has been shown to be heavily influenced by the strength of social movements based on politicized identities. It is argued that this alignment problematizes the position of victims who are the targets of hate crimes yet who fail to organize on the basis of identity politics, lack political clout, have insufficient moral status, or who see hate crime legislation as an ineffective way of dealing with their particular concerns. This paper examines the barriers to achieving hate crime victim status for persons who are targeted because of their occupations or sexual orientation. The specific examples I will use are doctors and other workers in abortion clinics, sex workers and paedophiles. These widely disparate groups have been selected as examples to highlight some of the moral status, politicized identity and social movement and lobbying strength issues that are currently involved in being recognized as a victim of hate in the US. It is argued that Australia should not proceed down the track of introducing hate crime legislation. Hate crime legislation is the source of serious social disquiet and acrimony in the US. There are inequities built into the alignment between proving hate intent and the enhanced penalty approach that involve giving higher symbolic status to some bodies and not others. As the experience in the US shows, this has a dangerous potential to undermine social cohesion and community faith in equality before the law as well as creating a breeding ground of resentment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article provides a brief overview of Stephen Crook's scholarly and professional work as a prelude to the articles by Malcolm Waters and Jan Pakulski. His scholarly work particularly focused on the theorization of social differentiation and social order in studies of everyday life. The TASA 2003 Presidential Address is dedicated to the life-work of Stephen Crook. Steve was a prominent figure in Australian sociology and made a significant contribution to the profession over many years. In order to gain a fuller appreciation of Steve's scholarly work, there are no two people better placed to comment than his close friends and colleagues Malcolm Waters and Jan Pakulski. At one stage, all three were in the Department of Sociology at the University of Tasmania, where they co-edited TASA's "Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology" and co-authored the internationally acclaimed book "Postmodernization." Another paper, by Waters, traces the pathway of Steve's intellectual development through three life phases, from Steve's early days in York, to Hobart and then finally to Townsville, explaining the development of his post-foundational approach and highlighting the great promise of Steve's later work on social differentiation and "orderings."

The article acknowledges the reviewers of papers for the "Journal of Sociology" including Katerina Agostino, Margaret Allen, Wendy Bacon, Loretta Baldassar, Jo Barnes, Scott Baum, Janeen Baxter, Peter Beilharz, Mervyn Bendle, Michael Berry, Gary Bouma, Ken Bridge, Dorothy Broom, Lois Bryson, Chilla Bulbeck, Margaret Cameron, Kerry Carrington, John Carroll, Chris Chamberlain, Marion Collis, Mark Considine, Lesley Cooper, Eva Cox, Stephen Crook, Barbara Denton, David de Vaus, Ann Daniel and Eduardo de la Fuente.