ejs
©
2003 Edwardsville Journal of Sociology,
Volume 3:2 back to ejs volume 3:2
Society, like the
amorphous constellation of theoretical, empirical, and methodological scholarly
work in sociology, is fluid - changing in both predictable, but also in
unexpected ways. A year ago, who would have predicted that the United States
government would now be engaged in its most intensive military campaign since
Vietnam? Who would have guessed that as I write 300,000 U.S., British, and
Australian troops would be marching, rolling, and flying from all directions
toward Baghdad to depose Saddam Hussein’s totalitarian regime? On the other
hand, does it really surprise anyone that in a putatively global milieu some
states will continue to exercise power in ways inconsistent with the express
wishes of the majority of the earth’s inhabitants? Are we really all that
shocked that the war has brought to the surface the underlying cacophony of
misdirected stereotypes, unfounded claims, words without substance, arguments
without merit, and petty hubris? Surely good sociologists would have predicted
the continuation of global inequality and enduring ideological and military
discord, but perhaps they would be surprised at how profoundly it has been
manifested in recent weeks. On a certain level, the current United States-Iraq
war is shocking because of the lack of shock to it by the American public and
media: war is too often discussed at a level of banality that belies the
immeasurable misery caused by even the most "humane," modern, and
discriminating weapons and tactics. Reifying war has become the media's
obsession, and its seems that everyday people are avoiding the pain of war by
taking high doses of the false antidote of myopia. Astute observers might have
noticed years ago how the current conflict could develop given the extreme
level of global political and economic inequality within the world system,
including its most legitimate institution, the United Nations. At the same
time, changes in world events are often so swift that, like changes in the
academic literature, it is difficult for even the most attentive student to
keep abreast of the latest breakthroughs, contributions, and controversies. The
dialectical nature of this global/local contradiction – mediated by
corporate-controlled media infatuated with hegemonic sound-bytes - has prompted
many scholars to venture out from the comfortable confines of academe to
interrogate the legitimacy of civil and state structures and processes,
including the U.S.-Iraq war.
More generally, it is my position that
intellectuals have a duty to use their academic freedom in ways that challenge
social injustices whenever and wherever they may be found. I came to sociology
through Marx (The philosophers have thus only interpreted the world – the
point is, however, to change it!); I embraced sociology because of its
emancipatory potential (we must end racial, gender, and class hierarchies!);
and I continue to practice sociology in the hopes that I can use my
privileged white-male-middle-class-highly-educated status to illustrate that I,
quite simply, just got lucky. Other than being from the working class,
I’ve had the odds in my favor my whole life. However, millions of Americans -
by no fault of their own - have little or no chance of owning a decent house,
car, clothes, or even have the opportunity to do something as minor as taking a
real vacation. Some are shut out of the U.S. Dream because of both blatant and
institutional discrimination. Whatever you choose to study in your academic
life, I challenge you to also confront and study the forces that foment
violence and inequality as well as the institutional structures that stand in
the way of social justice. Marxists call this praxis. I call it a necessary
part of justifying our existence as sociologists.
Among the areas in need of rigorous,
humanistic oriented scholarly examination are matters of war and peace, racism,
sexism, classism, the entire structure and function of the state's control
apparatus (i.e. the criminal justice system), and the crimes by people in
positions of political and corporate power. To these problems one could add an
endless list of other ills, such as crimes against children, elder abuse, and
the current presidential administration's assault on the 1st
Amendment, affirmative action, and women's rights. Criminologists,
specifically, should, as Hi and Julia Schwendinger pointed out years ago, be
more committed to being guardians of human rights than as, Richard Quinney has
said, culpable ancillary agents of the state, especially in areas where the
state has proven to be involved in undemocratic or unconstitutional actions and
policies. Shouldn't sociologists also
be committed to pursuing the goal of social justice rather than genuflecting to
the status quo as we collect our paychecks?
I am proud that several of the
contributions to this edition of ejs are social justice oriented.
Less critical but still important contributions to this issue give us new
and/or nicely framed information upon which to better analyze and interpret
given social realities. We live in a time of great anxiety, so I am especially
grateful that the contributors to this issue of ejs think
highly enough of the journal to spend
their valuable time crafting essays for the text now awaiting your attention.
The lead article in this issue is
authored by Paula T. Kelso, a graduate student in the Department of Sociology
at SIUE. Ms. Kelso’s contribution, “Behind the Curtain: The Body, Control,
and Ballet,” is a masterful analysis of the social and psychological harm found
within the world of ballet. Ms. Kelso
discusses the real-life pain, suffering, and impossible standards placed upon
ballerinas in a business mostly controlled by white males. Kelso sheds light on the understudied hidden
injuries of ballet in ways that are both theoretical and substantive.
The
Q and A part of this issue features the thoughts of Dr. Linda Markowitz,
Associate Professor of Sociology at SIUE. Dr. Markowitz answers my queries on
her research, pedagogy, and career in a way that provides readers with an
honest and compelling critique of morally dichotomous reasoning and the
academic bureaucracy. Do yourself and
favor and read Professor Markowitz’s views on these matters.
The
fourth contribution is by Matthew Petrocelli, Assistant Professor of Criminal
Justice at SIUE. Dr. Petrocelli’s
essay, “Special Ops: Genesis, Evolution
and Purpose,” provides readers with a detailed look at the variety of special
operations groups in the U.S. military.
He reviews the function and role of Rangers, special forces, SEALS, and
the highly secretive DELTA FORCE, noting the changing nature of military
operations in the wake of 9/11.
The
final article in this issue of ejs is authored by Stephen R.
Fulk, a graduate student in the SIUE Department of Sociology. Mr. Fulk’s contribution, “Aberfan: Death for Profit,” is a case study of the
October 21, 1966 tragedy in Aberfan, U.K., where mine trailings (“tip”) slid
down a mountain and crashed into the town, partially burying the Pantglas
Junior School. Twenty-eight adults and
one-hundred and sixteen children were killed as a result of the slide. Mr. Fulk treats this disaster as an analogous
case of state crime, and goes about rendering the event more understandable
with the help of a number of criminological theories.
Once
again, I wish to thank the contributors to this issue of ejs. I would also like to tip my hat to the
wonderful group of faculty and students in the SIUE Department of Sociology and
Criminal Justice. I appreciate your support
in this endeavor.
David
Kauzlarich, Ph.D.
Editor
April 7, 2003
ejs