Browse

How do women claim rights against violence in India and with what consequences? By observing how women navigate the Indian criminal justice system, Roychowdhury provides a unique lens on rights negotiations in the world’s largest democracy. She finds that women interact with the law not by following legal procedure or abiding by the rules but by deploying collective threats and doing the work of the state themselves. They do so because law enforcement personnel are incapacitated and unwilling to enforce the law. As a result, rights negotiations do not necessarily lead to more woman-friendly outcomes or better legal enforcement. Instead, they allow some women to make gains outside the law: repossess property and children, negotiate cash settlements, join women’s groups, access paid employment, develop a sense of self-assurance, and become members of the public sphere. Capable Women, Incapable States shows how the Indian criminal justice system governs violence against women not by protecting them from harm but by forcing them to become “capable”: to take the law into their own hands and complete the hard work that incapable and unwilling state officials refuse to complete. Roychowdhury’s book houses implications for how we understand gender inequality and governance not just in India but in large parts of the world where political mobilization for rights confronts negligent and incapacitated criminal justice systems.

Defying the conventional split between “theory” and “methodology,” this book introduces a yet unarticulated and thus far never systematized method of theorizing designed to reveal abstract social patterns. Insisting that such methodology can actually be taught, it tries to make the mental processes underlying the practice of a “concept-driven sociology” more explicit. Many sociologists tend to study the specific, often at the expense of also studying the generic. To correct this imbalance, the book examines the theoretico-methodological process by which we can “distill” generic social patterns from the culturally, historically, and situationally specific contexts in which we encounter them. It thus champions a “generic sociology” that is pronouncedly transcontextual (transcultural, transhistorical, transsituational, and translevel) in its scope. In order to uncover generic, transcontextual social patterns, data need to be collected in a wide range of social contexts. Such contextual diversity is manifested multi-culturally, multihistorically, multisituationally, as well as at multiple levels of social aggregation. True to its message, the book illustrates generic social patterns by drawing on numerous examples from diverse cultural contexts and historical periods and a wide range of diverse social domains, as well as by disregarding scale. Emphasizing cross-contextual commonality, generic sociology tries to reveal formal “parallels” across seemingly disparate contexts. This book features the four main types of cross-contextual analogies generic sociologists tend to use (cross-cultural, cross-historical, cross-domain, and cross-level), disregarding conventionally noted substantive differences in order to note conventionally disregarded formal equivalences.

Crime stories attract audiences and social buzz, but they also serve as prisms for perceived threats. As immigration, technological change, and globalization reshape our world, anxiety spreads. Because journalism plays a role in how the public adjusts to moral and material upheaval, this unease raises the ethical stakes. Reporters can spread panic or encourage reconciliation by how they tell these stories. Murder in Our Midst uses crime coverage in select North American and Western European countries as a key to examine culturally constructed concepts like privacy, public, public right to know, and justice. Working from close readings of news coverage, codes of ethics and style guides, and personal interviews with almost 200 news professionals, this book offers fertile material for a provocative conversation. The findings divide the ten countries studied into three media models. The book explores what the differing coverage decisions suggest about underlying attitudes to criminals and crime and how justice in a democracy is best served. Today, journalists’ work can be disseminated around the world without any consideration of whether what’s being told (or how) might dissolve cultural differences or undermine each community’s right to set its own standards to best reflect its citizens’ values. At present, unique reporting practices persist among the three models, but the Internet and social media threaten to dissolve distinctions and the cultural values they reflect. There is a need for a journalism that both opens local conversations and bridges differences among nations. This book is a first step in that direction.

Colleges and universities in the United States play a profoundly important role in American society. Currently, that role is being hampered by a climate that constrains teaching, research, hiring, and overall discourse. There are three core beliefs that define this climate. First, any initiative framed as an antidote to historical societal ills is automatically deemed meritorious, and thus exempted from objective scrutiny of its potential effectiveness. However, to use a medical analogy, not all proposed cures for a disease are good cures. Second, all differences in group-level outcomes are assumed to be due entirely to discrimination, with little tolerance given to exploring the potential role of factors such as culture or preferences. Third, everything must be interpreted through the lens of identity. Non-identity-centered perspectives, regardless of how worthy they might be, are viewed as less legitimate or even illegitimate. All of these beliefs are well intentioned and have arisen in response to important historical and continuing injustices. However, they are enforced in uncompromising terms through the use of social media, which has gained an ascendant role in shaping the culture of American campuses. The result is a climate that forecloses entire lines of research, entire discussions, and entire ways of conducting classroom teaching. The book explains these three beliefs in detail and provides an extensive list of case studies illustrating how they are impacting education and knowledge creation—and increasingly the world beyond campus. The book also provides a detailed set of recommendations on ways to help foster an environment on American campuses that would be more tolerant of diverse perspectives and open inquiry. A note about Covid-19: While the production of this book was done in spring and summer of 2020, we completed the manuscript in 2019, well before the Covid-19 pandemic shuttered American college campuses in March 2020. To put it mildly, the dynamics of campus discourse are very different when dorms have been largely emptied and instruction has been moved to Zoom. Of course, at present we cannot know when students will be able to return to campus in significant numbers. That said, we are confident that our call for a culture of more open discourse in higher education will remain relevant both during the pandemic and after it has passed.