Search

• Assessing human rights engagement as a series of events rather than long-term trends. • Paying attention to events allows conceptualization of multiple types of state performances when it comes to human rights. • Arab Spring changed voting patterns of most repressive states serving on the Human Rights Council. • A few repressive states (China, Cuba, Russia) did not shift their voting patterns. Sociological research on human rights analyzes the degree to which states engage with international human rights commitments over time. Yet we have a limited understanding of how specific events shape the long-term trajectory of human rights norms. This paper explores the effect of the Arab Spring on voting in the UN Human Rights Council. Using multiple growth curve models, I find that the emergence of the Arab Spring changed the voting patterns of most non-free states, but only temporarily, and that this holds even when controlling for protest events facing a given country. In contrast, a small set of non-free states did not change their votes during the Arab Spring. Drawing on research from cultural sociology, this paper explains these divergent voting patterns as heterogenous performances in the face of an event causing deep uncertainty such as the Arab Spring. The paper concludes that commitments to human rights norms must account for how events puncture broader trends, and that engagement with the human rights regime – and perhaps other performances of state legitimacy — requires an understanding of the multiple audiences, events, and policy possibilities to which states are attuned in international forums. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The expression “spiritual, but not religious” (SBNR) has gained considerable traction among sociologists of religion and culture, media outlets, and the broader public in recent years. Though the expression itself has achieved wide appeal, few studies have explored what SBNRs believe about God, religion, or spirituality. This paper uses survey data from Wave IV of the Baylor Religion Survey (2014) and draws from the theory of “cultural omnivorousness” to show that SBNRs have significant sociotheological differences when compared to those who are both religious and spiritual (RAS). The expression “spiritual, but not religious” is more than a manifestation of religious deinstitutionalization or “believing without belonging.” Rather, being “spiritual, but not religious” involves sociotheological boundary work that distinguishes SBNRs from traditional monotheists. When compared to RAS respondents, SBNRs are more likely to view God as a higher power or cosmic force instead of a personal being and are more likely to adopt an individualistic ethic as opposed to finding moral authority in God or Scripture. By examining the historical context and sociotheological characteristics of SBNRs, this paper locates a boundary between SBNRs and RAS monotheists and offers theoretical reasons why SBNRs engage in sociotheological boundary work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: While structure and culture often are proclaimed dual and yet autonomous, this paper spells out a processual approach in which structure and culture are seen as intertwined and interdependent formations. To that end, we aim at understanding how meanings come to be, then build into process, and become integrated in a set of constructs of differing scopes, scales, and levels collectively known as “culture.” Meanings are “sparks” generated by irregular switchings across socio-cultural compounds called “netdoms,” mixtures of social networks and semiotic domains. Switchings originate from identities mitigating uncertainty from biophysical sources and from attempts at control by other identities. A “story” concatenates meanings in a relational structure within a horizon of possibilities. Netdoms constitute the fabric of socio-cultural life, wherein domains—through stories—provide the interpretive texture, while networks—through relations—supply the social texture. Socio-cultural formations invoking more complex compounds of stories (story-lines and plots) thereby frame social time, enabling, through narratives, mobilization for social action. We further model a level of syncopated complexity, denoted “style,” which illuminates the puzzle of how culture and structure fit together. (Earlier versions of this article were presented at the Seminar Series in Social Network Analysis in Manchester, UK on January 15th, 2008, at the Harvard Business School on March 17, 2008, and at the American Sociological Association Annual Meeting in San Francisco on August 8, 2009.) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: In this paper we attempt to characterize the key differences and points of convergence between two contemporary approaches to the relationship between culture and cognition in sociology which we label the toolkit and strong practice theory perspectives. We follow recent work at the intersection of culture and cognition in attempting to explicitly formulate the cognitive underpinnings of these two approaches in terms of the assumptions that they make about cultural acquisition, transmission and externalization. Our analysis suggests that in spite of very important differences in emphasis and explanatory range, toolkit and strong practice-theoretical approaches are complementary, although the specific types of modal situation for which each of them is best suited need to be more clearly specified. We develop a framework that shows how the two approaches can be deployed in conjunction as well as specifying the modal settings and situations that each will be more likely to handle best as well as those in which they will run into trouble. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]