Search

This article presents a commentary regarding the depiction of Professor J. H. Turner of the symbolic interactionist position of Talcot Parsons. In his paper, Turner advances two simple and straight forward contentions, Parsons is a symbolic interactionist in the way in which he sees human society but for reasons of methodological strategy Parsons proposes to study human society differently than is done by symbolic interactionists. Turner endeavors to support the first contention by arguing that there are basic similarities between Parsons' view and the symbolic interactionist analysis suffers from several forms of theoretical weakness. This article, discusses these two contentions in the light of the symbolic intearactionist position of George Herbert Mead.

The article presents information on culture identity and dress. The sociology of dress is a vibrant field, exploring intriguing theoretical, methodological, and empirical domains. During the mid-twentieth century, clothing scholars began investigating the sociological and psychological implications of dress and appearance. In 1989, a group met to discuss the direction of the analysis of dress. The published papers from that meeting considered a wide range of topics, including identity, social psychology, cultural anthropology and sociology, semiotics, affect and cognition, social construction of gender, literary analysis, as well as qualitative and quantitative methodologies. Recent textbooks in the area continue to thaw from sociology and other fields to refine theories of dress and human behavior. Related to the misperception that dress only applies to the psychology of the self is the notion that dress is trivial both substantively and theoretically. Perhaps sociologists' neglect of dress might also be linked to a misperception that it is nonrational behavior similar to other actions that do not lend themselves to systematic analysis. Again these articles provide a contrasting view. In organizational and institutional settings, such as greedy organizations, total institutions, and mass media, dress and all it symbolizes are debated and discussed in ways that can be studied scientifically. Further, all of the articles have identified patterns in how dress is used in identity embracing and distancing that can be incorporated into broader theoretical frameworks.

This issue of "Sociological Inquiry" presents a new and rather exciting feature which I believe will be of great interest to the readers of this journal. They are, for the first time, publishing the winning paper of the Alpha Kappa Delta (AKD) undergraduate paper competition. The editorial advisory board strongly recommended publishing the winning paper as "Sociological Inquiry" is, after all, the official journal of AKD, the international sociology honorary society. They also know that many of their subscribers are students. The editor hope that they enjoy this rather unique look at an aspect of human society that has been virtually untouched by sociologists. As they read this article, he hope also that they come away with a sense of satisfaction with knowing that the next generation of sociologists is being well trained in their discipline. Recognizing that much of this behavior has little to do with intended suicide, and cannot necessarily be linked to other pathologies, Sarah Hodgson interviews individuals who engage in this type of self mutilation through online chat rooms. Her analysis reveals several layers of learning that take place, as well as numerous mechanisms that are employed to maintain their credibility in a society that otherwise stigmatizes such behavior.

This article presents a letter from the editor, which discusses articles in the November 1, 2006 issue of "Sociological Inquiry." The periodical included four papers selected by Charles Faupel, the former editor, and two book reviews by Professor Gwen Hunnicutt, "Sociological Inquiry's" book review editor. The editor explains the kinds of articles that he would like to see published and encourages submitting authors to examine these articles for methods and writing styles.

This paper provides an overview of the articles presented in this issue of "Sociological Inquiry." The author has put Don Levine's essay on Max Weber first in this issue because it is much more balanced account of Max Weber's views on the modern world than a person ordinarily receives in secondary sources. Geoffrey Cooke's article is only an indication of theoretical and empirical possibilities. Another theoretical giant touched upon in this issue is Emile Durkheim. Emile's early views on women were strongly colored by the unconscious prejudices of his day. Dean Gerstein's lighthearted but quite serious comment is a reminder that although Durkheim wrote with his contemporaries in mind, he was also, more importantly, engaged in communicating tentative contributions to the scientific community extending into the indefinite future. In an inner page, there is an announcement from Marvin E. Wolfgang and Neil A. Weiner, University of Pennsylvania, Center for Studies in Criminology and Criminal Law, to which the author wish to direct readers's attention.