CALL FOR ABSTRACTS
2017 Junior Theorists Symposium
Montreal, Quebec, Canada
August 11, 2017
SUBMISSION DEADLINE: February 20, 2017
We invite submissions of extended abstracts for the 11th Junior Theorists Symposium (JTS), to be held in Montreal, Quebec, Canada on August 11th, 2017, the day before the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association (ASA). The JTS is a one-day conference featuring the work of up-and-coming sociologists, sponsored in part by the Theory Section of the ASA. Since 2005, the conference has brought together early career-stage sociologists who engage in theoretical work, broadly defined.
It is our honour to announce that Richard Biernacki (University of California – San Diego), Julian Go (Boston University), and Joey Sprague (University of Kansas) will serve as discussants for this year’s symposium. We are also pleased to hold an after-panel entitled, “Theory, the Good Society, and Positionality.” The panel will feature Gabriel Abend (New York University), Seth Abrutyn (University of Memphis), Hae Yeon Choo (University of Toronto), and Claire Decoteau (University of Illinois at Chicago).
We invite all ABD graduate students, postdocs, and assistant professors who received their PhDs from 2013 onwards to submit up to a three-page précis (800-1000 words). The précis should include the key theoretical contribution of the paper and a general outline of the argument. Successful précis from last year’s symposium can be viewed here. Please note that the précis must be for a paper that is not under review or forthcoming at a journal.
As in previous years, in order to encourage a wide range of submissions, we do not have a pre-specified theme for the conference. Instead, papers will be grouped into sessions based on emergent themes and discussants’ areas of interest and expertise.
Please remove all identifying information from your précis and submit it via this Google form. Shai Dromi (Harvard University) and katrina quisumbing king (University of Wisconsin – Madison) will review the anonymized submissions. You can also contact them at email@example.com with any questions. The deadline is February 20. By mid-March we will extend up to 12 invitations to present at JTS 2016. Please plan to share a full paper by July 21, 2017. Presenters will be asked to attend the entire symposium and should plan accordingly.
Finally, for friends and supporters of JTS, we ask if you might consider donating either on-site, or through PayPal at this link or to the firstname.lastname@example.org account. If you are submitting a proposal to JTS 2017, we kindly ask that should you wish to donate, you only do so after the final schedule has been announced.
What do you say your children about politics?
We now have a lot more detail about Tuesday’s vote. Let’s start basic facts:
- Clinton 2 is ahead of Trump in the popular vote. Once the absentee ballots are counted, she’ll likely have a slim victory of about 200,000 votes or so.
- The electoral college was determined by very narrow margins in Midwest states: WI (27k votes, <1%), MI (12k, <<1%), and PA (68k, <1%). Ohio was a Trump blowout by 8%.
- The total popular vote will probably be at 2012 levels or less. Clinton 2, the winner of the popular vote, will barely match the total that the loser of 2012 got. Data: Clinton 2 will get about 59 million votes, Romney got almost 61 million votes.
- It’s not the economy: With 8% unemployment, Obama pulled out a comfortable victory in all the Midwest states Clinton 2 lost. With 5% unemployment, Clinton did much worse. See the stats here.
- Outside the Midwest, things were very predictable: Trump won the South and the Mountain States/Great Plains. Clinton 2 won the West Coast and the Northeast.
- Polls got Clinton 2’s tally correct, over-reported Johnson and under-reported Trump. Exit polls show that Clinton 2 lost Whites by even bigger margins and barely won union voters (!!) but the pattern is actually typical otherwise. But with low turnout and a split electorate, this relatively modest shift matters.
- In the last weeks of the campaign, Trump focused on Wisconsin and Michigan while Clinton 2 tried to steal Arizona before returning to the Midwest.
Taken together, this suggests a very straightforward story of the 2016 general election.
- Each party got roughly what you would expect. There is no massive rejection or endorsement of either party. The polarized electorate is the same as it was before.
- The electoral college split from the popular vote mainly because of (a) modest increase in White votes for Trump and (b) bad urban turnout for the Dems in the Rust belt, stretching from rural Pennsylvania to Wisconsin.
- This does not suggest that HRC was damaged at all by email scandals or any other of the very many Clinton scandals. Her national polling in 2008 and 2016 was pretty much the same Rather, it suggests that the campaign systematically failed to gather votes in one specific area of the country – the rust belt.In a close race, that’s enough.
For next week, I’ll focus on Clinton 2’s long history of poor campaign management and piece together a possible theory of how the Rust Belt Bungle might have happened.
things i’m more worried about, things i’m less worried about, and things i’m not that worried about, really, but that i’m worried about them at all is friggin’ terrifying
Trump won. Expertise is useless. Knowledge is perspectival. I am the best race scholar.* Do with this what you will: my list of things to worry about more, less, and maybe but holy smokes that’s scary it’s even possible.
Things I’m Less Worried About
1. The Wall and Deportations.
It’s possible, of course, but it seems pretty clear that Trump actually just wants to maintain what Obama’s doing, which is actually a lot of deportations, but nothing that much bigger. The question is what red meat he’ll throw to his base, because as you’ll see, I’m not sure how much of this stuff he can really do. To be clear, this is not the same thing as the culture of the country: see below.
2. Lock Her Up.
It’s just not going to happen. There might be a special prosecutor appointed, mind you, but I’m not super concerned about finding anything. Still, it will be an insult added to injury.
The key point is the word “replace” in all the language. Don’t get me wrong: it’s going to be worse. But there’s a moral mandate not to go back to a lot of the problems before Obamacare, and I think those are more or less baked into the social fabric. But then, heck, I didn’t think Trump would be elected.
We actually might have a bit more local control now and less obsession with a technocratic elite’s measurements.
5. Freedom of the Press
Trump talks a big game, but enough Republicans care about this stuff that I think we’ll be okay.
6. The Republican Party Being a Complete Doormat to a Semi-Fascist
I think people like Rubio will want to show how they can be the loyal opposition within the party. But I could be totally wrong about this.
Things I’m More Worried About
1. Muslims and Islam.
It seems quite possible Trump will work to stop Muslims from coming into this country in some way, and more importantly, that his language will help ISIS maintain a Muslims/West dichotomy which is a trap that, to W’s credit, he didn’t fall into. I don’t know what the spillover will be into Israel/Palestine, but it can’t make that situation any better.
2. Climate Change and the EPA
We are all kinds of screwed.
3. Trade Wars.
Trump will keep his word on this stuff I think, both because he actually seems to care more about it, and because it’s the red meat he’ll choose to throw. I know very few economists of any sort who think the kind of thing Trump is describing is a good idea FOR THE AMERICAN WORKERS WHO VOTED FOR TRUMP, let alone for the rest of the country or world. I’d like very much to be wrong about this, even just that Trump would do good by the workers of Pennsylvania. But I doubt even this.
4. Women’s Rights.
This is really a Supreme Court thing, and it’s going to be terrible.
5. LGBT rights (most likely)
I just don’t think Trump cares, really. The question is how much the Republican house and senate care and the kinds of judges he gets. So if it’s just up to Trump, I actually might put 5 (and even 4) above in “not that worried” (even if he owes debts to his base on abortion more than gay marriage). But w/ a Republican house and senate and court, well, bad news, I think. The only possibility is we might well get a supreme court justice who is pro LGBT rights even if they remain opposed to abortion. It’s an increasingly common position on the right.
6. Taxes and Federal Revenue.
Trump’s going to supply side the holy hell out of us.
7. Labor Rights.
See number four: Supreme Court.
8. The Middle East and ISIS
Newt and Rudy et al will encourage a sledgehammer rather than scalpel, which will just send the roaches into other houses, where they will breed and infest all over the damn place.
9. A Cultural Mainstreaming of White Supremacy.
Even if I’m not quite as worried about mass deportations, I am very worried about an increasing comfort with a certain kind of (white, native born) American being the normatively accepted one, which has always, obviously been the case, but at which progress had been being made. Folks like Coulter and Breitbart even more acceptable.
10. Russian aggression.
More or less even odds now they go into a NATO country in some capacity (maybe not quite as boldly as into Ukraine). What do we do? Maybe nothing. Then what does Europe say to us? Which brings us to:
11. International treaties in general.
We very well may become more isolationist than we’ve been since before WW2.
12. A war of choice.
Note that becoming isolationist (leaving treaties; not helping allies) does not prevent us from a war of choice, especially one that fights bad guys (Muslims!) and that could gin up popularity once Trump doesn’t build the wall and the jobs don’t come back. Entirely possible that gets him a second term.
13. A Second term.
See number 12, plus the Democratic party is a mess.
14. No change in Congress in two years.
Have you seen the Senate map for 2018? And the house is still gerrymandered as fork.
Things I’m Not That Worried About, Really, But That I’m Worried About Them at All is Friggin’ Terrifying
1. Nuclear war.
Because it won’t be (or probably won’t be) with Russia, I’m not that worried about nuclear apocalypse, but I’ve never been more nervous about us nuking someone again.
2. Global Depression.
There’s a lot of precarious pieces form the recovery, and Trump could just knock over that whole jenga game with a big orange headbutt. In fact, he will. The only question is how many pieces he’ll actually manage to knock over.
3.World War III.
Julian Go is talking a lot about this. Russia could start it somehow, and I’m not sure how we’d get pulled in, especially if we no longer care about alliances, but there are all sorts of ways, especially via the various already existing proxy fights in the Middle East.
4. An end to our democracy.
Look, I don’t think it’s at all likely, but I can imagine it now in ways I could not before. I keep thinking about Spain and Germany.
5. Ethnic cleansing.
Again, I don’t think it’s at all likely, but there’s talk. There’s lots and lots of talk. And I think we can no longer afford to ignore it. If you’re anything but white and male in America, you have a legitimate reason to be afraid.
*I am not actually the best race scholar. At least one thing is true, despite the angry mass’s protest votes otherwise.
In no particular order:
- The polls got HRC correct. She’ll probably get about 47% of the vote. Trump over performed and pulled independents and Johnson supporters. He’ll get about 49%.
- Strategically, there were massive blunders. HRC lost states that not Democrat has lost since 1988: New Hampshire and Pennsylvania (unless, Philly reports a last minute surge for HRC after I write this).
- Massive rural turn out, which is rare.
- Social science: Surveys did well for predicting HRC’s vote, but very poorly for Trump.
- Don’t blame the economy: Obama pulled 51% with 8% unemployment while HRC is getting 47% with 5% unemployment.
- Social science II: Do candidates matter? Answer: yes.
- The margins in Pennsylvania are so close that the winner could change by the time you read this.
Add your analysis in the comments.
The Democratic Party is pretty much the Democratic Party we’ve had since 1992. A member of the Clinton network is at the top of the ticket and HRC very likely to win. The coalition behind the ticket is stable, educated urban voters and minorities. In contrast, the GOP has serious issues no matter who wins:
- If Trump wins, it shows that the GOP establishment has been completely over ruled by the xenophobic populists.
- If Trump loses, probably by only about 2% or so, it might be interpreted by xenophobes that they can win the presidency if only they had a better candidate or the economy was a little worse. And they would be right.
- If Trump loses, it will almost certainly mean that the Senate will approve Merrick Garland and thus secure abortion rights for a generation. Thus, electing a weak candidate who appeals to xenophobes probably cost the GOP their core issue.
- No matter if Trump wins or loses, he pulled a “Pete Wilson” and ruined the GOP for Latino voters. Wilson ran for governor on a strong anti immigrant platform in California. He won the governorship but made California into a “No Republican” zone. This will now happen on the national level and it will probably push Texas into the Democratic column.
Bottom line: You can appeal to prejudice, but you have to pay the bill.