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]

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]

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."