Search

The Google Books N-gram corpus contains an enormous volume of digitized data, which, to the best of our knowledge, sociologists have yet to fully utilize. In this paper, we mine this data to shed light on the discipline itself by conducting the first empirical study to map the disciplinary advancement of sociology from the mid-nineteenth century to 2008. We analyse the usage frequency of the most common terms in five major sociology categories: disciplinary advancement, scholars of sociology, theoretical dimensions, fields of sociology, and research methodologies. We also construct an overall index deriving from all sociology-related key words using the principal component method to demonstrate the overall influence of sociology as a discipline. Charting the historical evolution of the examined terms provides rich insights regarding the emergence and development of sociological norms, practices, and boundaries over the past two centuries. This novel application of massive content analysis using data of unprecedented size helps unpack the transformation of sociocultural dynamics over a long-term temporal scale. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Biological and physical anthropologists have tended to see the study of human variation and the material body as the defining elements of their subdiscipline(s). Generally, sociologists and social anthropologists, in contrast, have shown little interest in such issues. For them, the body has often been taken for granted, absent-present, as a relatively stable and commanding platform on which a variety of cultural inscriptions can be established and performed. Recent theoretical developments, however, in anthropology, sociology and related fields – informed by the notions of biosociality and nature cultures – contribute to the understanding of an unstable, relational and variable body. Since the material and the social body are fundamentally conflated through continuous processes of relationality and embodiment, this paper argues, the issue of human variation needs to be revised and expanded. Such rethinking has important biopolitical implications, particularly in the context of divisions marked by race, ethnicity, class and gender. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]