Beyond Racialized Divides: Understanding Africa Today

This guest post is published during the African Studies Association conference in Chicago, occurring November 16 – 18, and prior to the American Anthropological Association conference in Washington, D.C., occurring November 28 – December 3.  

By Dorothy Hodgson, co-editor of Global Africa: Into the Twenty-First Century with Judith Byfield

For decades, the continent of Africa has been imagined as divided into two distinct zones: “sub-Saharan Africa” and “North Africa.” Although these phrases are seemingly about geography, they index more troubling legacies of racialized ideas about the relative superiority and modernity of lighter-skinned “Arabs” in the north over their predominantly “black” neighbors living south of the Sahara. By conceiving of the Sahara desert as a blank space, such noxious notions persist, masking the connections and inequalities between north and south produced by long histories of trade, travel, migration, enslavement, conquest, colonial rule, religious evangelization, and more.

An Interconnected Whole

Global Africa challenges this racialized divide, demonstrating the intellectual and political value of understanding the continent as an interconnected whole. François-Xavier Fauvelle documents the extensive international trade between West African kingdoms and polities in northern Africa and beyond during Africa’s “Global Golden Age” (AD 700-1500). E. Ann McDougall describes the settlements, sites, and support that enabled three very different women to traverse the Sahara centuries later. Zakia Salime explores how contemporary musicians of Raï and Rap in Morocco and Algeria intentionally combine sonic elements from elsewhere to convey their political message of Pan-African solidarity. Other authors examine the circulations of textiles (Victoria Rovine), religious ideas (Cheikh Anta Babou), Pan-Africanism (Hakim Adi), illicit financial flows (Masimba Tafirenyika) and more throughout the continent and beyond.

Africa is an extraordinarily vast and diverse place. Yes, there are regional differences in language, heritage, history, and politics. But to ignore the interconnections among regions, or to reify and reproduce a false belief that the continent is divided by a vast “empty space” into two starkly different halves, obscures the vibrant flows and entanglements of people, ideas, and practices across these areas. As scholars, we have an obligation to confront such false assumptions and racist imaginaries with stories, histories, and other evidence that reflect and represent the continent as a whole.

*     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *

Read Chapter 1, the Introduction, of Global Africa. And see more titles on African Anthropology and African History. Global Africa is part of the Global Square Series.


Dorothy L. Hodgson is Professor of Anthropology and Senior Associate Dean for Academic Affairs in the Graduate School – New Brunswick at Rutgers University.

Judith A. Byfield is Associate Professor of History and Director of Undergraduate Studies at Cornell University.


Gender, Sexual Politics, and the Religious Presidency of Mr. Trump

This guest post is published as part of a series related to the American Sociological Association conference from August 12 – 15 in Montreal, Quebec. #ASA17

By Kelsy Burke, author of Christians under Covers: Evangelicals and Sexual Pleasure on the Internet, winner of the 2017 Distinguished Book Award for the ASA Sociology of Religion section

It is glaringly obvious that President Donald Trump is not an ideal representative of conservative Christianity, boasting about sexual escapades, disparaging the poor and marginalized, and idolizing money and wealth. Yet, white evangelicals are among his strongest supporters. Why? One explanation is that when Mr. Trump defends and promotes conservative gender and sexual politics, he caters to and reflects an evangelical worldview.

In my research on the evangelical sex advice industry in my book, Christians under Covers: Evangelicals and Sexual Pleasure on the Internet, I find that conservative evangelicals have learned to have their cake and eat it too: they can be extremely permissive and progressive when it comes to sexual practices within monogamous heterosexual marriages, but still exclude and disparage sex in any other arrangement. In other words, the book authors, bloggers, and other website users I studied drew from secular cultural attitudes that good sex is good for you—your health, happiness, and your relationships—but still depended on their religious beliefs to create boundaries about who is allowed to have sex.

I see a similar logic unfold as family-values conservatives face a cultural quagmire. They can’t rely on many of the typical cornerstones they once used in secular debates to define “good” and “healthy” relationships. Marriage, monogamy, parenthood, and domesticity, are now visibly occupied by GLBT families. Even a President like Trump is forced into the realm of religious beliefs in order to find evidence for conservative gender and sexual politics.

Take the most recent example: A White House Memo (based on the now infamous 6:00am tweet) where President Trump declared a ban on transgender people serving in the military.

It is easy to debunk Trump’s claim that medical costs associated with transgender healthcare are burdensome: these would comprise between 0.04 and 0.13 percent of healthcare expenditures according to a RAND study. The argument that transgender soldiers may diminish unit cohesion is also weak, given that it has been used and successfully challenged as military positions became open to non-whites, women, and gays and lesbians.

The only argument left to withstand scrutiny is a religious one—where conservatives can claim that their beliefs come from God. The idea that transgender people should be managed, excluded, and outed is justified by claims of conservative Christian leaders that a binary gender order was divinely created. By emphasizing their own religious convictions, conservatives need not address other challenges to their logic.

So when a secular President like Mr. Trump tweets about conservative gender and sexuality politics, make no mistake: he is preaching to the choir of the religious right.


Kelsy Burke is Assistant Professor of Sociology at University of Nebraska – Lincoln.


False Balance, Binary Discourse, and Critical Thinking

This guest post is published as part of a series related to the American Sociological Association conference from August 12 – 15 in Montreal, Quebec. #ASA17

By Peter M. Nardi, author of Critical Thinking: Tools for Evaluating Research

Just because two sides of a story are presented does not necessarily mean the truth is somewhere in the middle. Nor does it mean there are only two sides and each side is equally balanced. Most social behaviors and attitudes exist for complex reasons. When people argue from a “two-sides-of-the-coin” perspective, we fail to realize that there are in fact multiple sides, perhaps even a continuum with viewpoints all along the way.

Humans have a tendency to dichotomize reality: male and female, life and death, religious and nonreligious, tall and short, body and soul, pro and con, Republican and Democrat. How simplistic to think of reality in such limited ways with such minimal binary conceptualizations.

As anyone who has ever watched television news knows, endless debates about controversial topics characterize cable shows. Partly due to journalistic ethics of demonstrating fairness by providing balance, viewers get to experience shouting matches and unintelligent debates among competing perspectives.

Despite engaging with alternative ideas and hearing varied views, we tend to listen selectively and employ confirmation bias in reinforcing our already-held opinions. What should be presentations of facts and scientifically-derived evidence typically turn out to be shouting contests of personal opinions. A critical thinker needs to discern these opinions, attend to the wide-range of claims and data, and decide what a fair and balanced approach to the issues should be. Not all topics require a range of positions, of course; you wouldn’t have a member of the Ku Klux Klan as a balance to someone highlighting hate crimes against ethnic and racial minorities. Or would you, as presidential comments about recent news events from Charlottesville suggest?

When engaging with news stories, research, and media reports, it’s important to critically think about the ways fairness and balance may actually be misused. Objectivity in gathering information is almost always affected by some subjective elements of those people collecting, interpreting, and disseminating the facts. Often just the choice of what to report or research is reflective of someone’s preferences and biases.

Notice also that when established views or facts are questioned by an activist group or individual protesting the status quo, media often then seek out commentary from “the other side” composed of established leaders and officials, thereby reinforcing the conventional wisdom and power positions.

Reporting of controversial events with balance may seem fair unless the language, visuals, and commentary used in introducing various positions are loaded with consciously chosen or inadvertent bias. Look for such labels as “the so-called leader” or defining the murderer as a “thug” or a “terrorist” or a “loner.” What impact do these loaded words have on the public when a claim is made in this manner?

One of the problems with balance in the media is that it can distort the proportion of opposing views. When two sides are given equal treatment, viewers might assume a 50-50 split on important topics, thereby creating a false impression. False balance occurs when “both sides” are presented despite one perspective being overwhelmingly agreed upon by scientific consensus. Research confirms that this kind of two-sided balancing creates uncertainty about the topic in the public eye. Consider that while there is 97% agreement among scientists (in published peer-reviewed articles taking a position) that human activity causes global warming and climate changes, less than half of respondents in a Pew Research study thought scientists agreed on this subject.

When the media highlight an “other side of the coin” skeptical view to balance a scientifically agreed upon position, it creates an impression that these 3% represent half of the experts. Critical thinking skills demand we look more closely at these public presentations of complex issues. Such false balance and belief in a limited binary approach perpetuates the divisions in public discourse, social policy, and presidential pronouncements. False balance and simplistic “sides of the coin” arguments are no way to address the needs of a society and its citizens seeking leadership and intelligent responses to the complexities facing us today.


Peter M. Nardi is Professor Emeritus of Sociology at Pitzer College. He is the author of Doing Survey Research: A Guide to Quantitative Methods.

For Critical Thinking: Tools for Evaluation Research, visit the  companion website, which includes links to articles and books mentioned in the chapters, illustrative items, videos, and current news and research that elaborate on each chapter’s key concepts.


Punishing Disease: Charlie Sheen, Usher, and the Impulse to Criminalize Sickness

This guest post is published as part of a series related to the American Sociological Association conference from August 12 – 15 in Montreal, Quebec. #ASA17

By Trevor Hoppe, author of Punishing Disease: HIV and the Criminalization of Sickness

Charlie Sheen and Usher were in the news again in recent weeks; but this time, it wasn’t for a penchant for “Tiger Blood” or a #1 single. Online gossip rags reported that Sheen – who made public his HIV-positive status in 2015 – was the subject of a lawsuit by a former male lover who claims Sheen failed to disclose his HIV-positive status. Days later, a California lawyer announced that she was filing a lawsuit on behalf of three women against musician Usher for allegedly failing to disclose that he had herpes.

The idea of punishing people who carry infectious diseases is not new; however, there are signs that the impulse to punish and criminalize disease is become more widespread. As I describe in my forthcoming book, Punishing Disease, over 30 U.S. states passed HIV-specific criminal laws in the 1980s and 1990s. Under such criminal laws, individuals are subject to criminal penalties for failing to disclose their HIV-positive status; they can be incarcerated for decades.

Should we punish Sheen and Usher for their alleged misdeeds? I think we ought to pause to consider the implications.

When a co-worker shows up to work with the flu, many of us probably think unkind thoughts to ourselves about their behavior. We may even wish for karmic retribution. But do we really think they ought to be sued or imprisoned?

Some may reject the comparison of the co-worker’s offense and the failure to disclose one’s HIV-positive status – perhaps because HIV is an incurable illness and because many mistakenly continue to think of it as a “death sentence.” But HIV is no longer what it was in the 1980s; once-a-day pill regimens now allow people to live healthy and full lives.

Moreover, you don’t need to infect someone with HIV to be imprisoned in the U.S. –or even risk that outcome. Simply failing to tell a sexual partner that you have the disease is a crime, even if cases where there was no risk of transmission (such as a 2009 case involving a woman who gave a man a lap dance).

Let’s think back to that co-worker. Imagine for a moment that they had exposed a pregnant woman to the flu. While the flu is not normally deadly, it can cause serious complications for pregnant women, including miscarriage. If we were to punish disease using the same logic as HIV disclosure laws in the U.S., simply showing up to work sick could be construed a crime.

People living with infectious disease are not individually responsible for controlling an epidemic. We must also consider the social factors that shape their lives. For example, American law does not require employers to provide workers with paid sick leave, a policy failure that undoubtedly causes epidemics to spread with greater ease.

Blame and shame will do little to curtail HIV or herpes outbreaks. Put simply, they are not the right tools for the job.


Trevor Hoppe is Assistant Professor of Sociology at University at Albany, State University of New York, and coeditor of The War on Sex. 


Healing from Hate: How Young Men Get Into—and Out of—Violent Extremism

The events in Charlottesville this past weekend drew international attention to the increasing number of hate groups in the United States, and left many wondering: what draws people into white extremist groups? What ideologies motivate these recruits? And finally, is there hope that people will leave these groups?

Michael Kimmel, the SUNY Distinguished Professor of Sociology and Gender Studies at Stony Brook University, is one of the world’s leading experts on men and masculinities. In his forthcoming book, Healing from Hate: How Young Men Get Into—and Out of—Violent Extremism, Dr. Kimmel examines young recruits of violent extremist groups, and unveils how white extremist groups wield masculinity to recruit and retain members—and also prevent members from exiting the movement. Watch an interview with Dr. Kimmel  and hear his response to the tragic events in Virginia.

Based on in-depth interviews with ex-white nationalists and neo-Nazis in the United States, as well as ex-skinhead and neo-Nazis in Germany and Sweden, Kimmel sheds light on these young white men’s feelings—yet clearly make no excuses for their actions. Healing From Hate reminds us of their efforts to exit the movement and reintegrate themselves into society, and is a call to action to help others to turn around and to do the same. 

Learn more about Dr. Michael Kimmel on his website or on Twitter @MichaelS_Kimmel. 

And for resources to discuss this issue with students or others in your community, follow #CharlottesvilleCurriculum and read the Charlottesville Curriculum.

 

 


Update: ASA Conference 2017, Author Sessions

Continue to enjoy all that this year’s ASA has to offer with more sessions from our authors!

Ranita Ray, The Making of a Teenage Service Class: Poverty and Mobility in an American City

Monday, August 14, 4:30 to 6:10pm, The Making of A Teenage Service Class: Race, Class, Gender, and “College For All”

Read Ranita’s thoughts on the “rules” of social mobility imposed on black and brown teenagers.

 

Jean Beaman, Citizen Outsider: Children of North African Immigrants in FranceAnd at publication date, a free ebook version of this title will be available through Luminos, the UC Press open access publishing program.

Monday, August 14, 4:30 to 6:10pm, Boundaries of Difference and Transnational Blackness

Read more about Jean’s thoughts on France’s other state of emergency.

Sharon Sassler and Amanda Miller,Cohabitation Nation: Gender, Class, and the Remaking of Relationships

Tuesday, August 15, 10:30 to 11:30am, The Gender Revolution in Action

And read about a deepening family divide in marriage due to social class.


Don’t miss any any of our author sessions. And visit Booth #709 to order your copy of any of these books.

 


The “Rules” of Social Mobility

This guest post is published as part of a series related to the American Sociological Association conference, which occurs from August 12 – 15 in Montreal, Quebec. #ASA17

By Ranita Ray, author of The Making of a Teenage Service Class: Poverty and Mobility in an American City

Trump’s administration considers “inner city” violence, drug use, and teen pregnancy to be major issues in perpetuating the cycle of poverty in black and brown communities. Those who embrace this rhetoric consider black and brown residents of this country as responsible for their own socio-economic marginalization. This rhetoric is embedded within racist ideologies that construct black and brown communities as culturally depraved. However, the assumption that various “risk behaviors” such as drug use, violence, and teen pregnancy are overwhelmingly responsible for economic marginalization of black and brown communities is regrettably not unique to the current administration.

Many progressive liberals including academics consider risk behaviors as one of the central stories of poverty, although they offer structural explanations that are vastly different than the cultural deficiency (of economically marginalized black and brown communities) arguments. Many liberals consider it important to make visible how and why poverty causes black and brown youth to become teen parents, drug users, and gang members.

While drug use and violence are arguably issues we need to tackle, they are hardly unique to economically marginalized black and brown communities. For example, rate of drug use is fairly consistent across all communities, police violence killed 991 civilians in the year 2015, and postponing pregnancy does not benefit economically marginalized women the way in benefits middle-class women. Moreover, overwhelming majority of economically marginalized black and brown U.S. Americans do not use drugs or join gangs, and they do not become teen parents.

Why then do we write about drugs, gangs, violence, and teen parenthood as the central stories of poverty? Why do government and non-profit organizations, schools, and communities focus on preventing risk behaviors among black and brown youth as the key to breaking the cycle of poverty? What are the consequences of this overwhelming focus on risk behaviors? These are some of the questions I tackle in my book The Making of A Teenage Service Class.

I spent three years among sixteen young economically marginalized black and brown youth, who denounce drugs, gangs and early parenthood, and pursue higher education and white-collar work, to find out if they are able to go beyond their families’ class positions. Their families, teachers, communities, and the youth themselves had to navigate the rhetoric that they were at risk of teen pregnancy, drugs, gangs, and violence by virtue of their membership in a particular socio-economic group. They were told that avoiding these risk behaviors should be their priority, and that should they be successful in avoiding them and pursuing higher education, they could lead the middle-class American dream. The young people were adamant on avoiding these risk behaviors, imagined that they are indeed socially mobile on counts of not engaging in risk behaviors, and stigmatized their friends, neighbors and family members who did not play by the “mobility rules.” On one hand, the young people struggled with hunger, subpar transportation, untreated illnesses, and lack of access to computers, Internet and college support programs while balancing school with minimum wage jobs. On the other hand, the community spent its resources and time in “preventing” risk behaviors.

This overwhelming focus on risk behaviors overshadows structural shortcomings and it reinforces race and class hierarchies by feeding the stereotypes that black and brown youth are at risk and that their behaviors are in need for modification. While there is a difference in how those in different ends of the political spectrum understand the causes of risk behaviors, what is dangerously similar is how risk behaviors are ubiquitously constructed as the central story of poverty around which policies ought to be built.

What we should ask ourselves—irrespective of our location on the political spectrum—is, how can we support all youth and their dreams and desires instead of focusing on risk behaviors? We know that avoiding early parenthood does not increase chances of mobility among poor black and brown youth, drug use is not unique to black and brown youth, and violence is related to mass incarceration in the U.S.—why are we preoccupied with these issues among economically marginalized black and brown youth at the cost of supporting their educational and occupational goals, and fostering larger structural changes?


Ranita Ray is Assistant Professor of Sociology at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.


France’s Other State of Emergency

This guest post is published as part of a series related to the American Sociological Association conference from August 12 – 15 in Montreal, Quebec. #ASA17

By Jean Beaman, author of Citizen Outsider: Children of North African Immigrants in France

France has been under a state of emergency since the November 2015 terrorist attacks in several sites in the Parisian metropolitan region, including the Stade de France stadium and the Bataclan theater. Originally put into place by then-President Francois Hollande, it has since been extended about six times. Current president Emmanuel Macron has proposed extending the state of emergency until November of this year—two years after the November terrorist attacks.

Why does this matter? Under the state of emergency, police officers are allowed to conduct searches without warrants, among other measures. And such measures have disproportionately affected black and North African-origin individuals. According to a recent Amnesty International Report, French authorities are increasing using emergency powers to restrict protests and demonstrations. This is the longest state of emergency in France since the Algerian War of Independence.

But France has another state of emergency – how it treats its racial and ethnic minorities. In my forthcoming book, Citizen Outsider: Children of North African Immigrants in France, I show how the North African second-generation is constantly treated as if they were not French even though they are, as revealed by the marginalization and racism they experience. The individuals I discuss were born and raised in France, are educated, and have achieved a middle-class status and upward mobility relative to their immigrant parents. Yet, they are still treated like second-class citizens, or denied cultural citizenship, because of they are non-white. France therefore has a growing of citizens who despite adhering to Republican ideology and doing everything “right” cannot be seen as fully French or be fully included in mainstream society. Much like second-generation Latinos in the U.S., they are continually asked, “Where are from?” and the answer, France, is never satisfactory.

Despite the defeat of Marine le Pen in the recent presidential election, racism and xenophobia have not gone away. President Macron was under controversy this past June for a joke he made about the boats that transport Comorian migrants to Mayotte, a French department off the coast of Eastern Africa. And police violence against black and North African-origin individuals is a growing problem, including the summer 2016 death of Adama Traoré in the banlieue of Beaumont-sur-Oise and the February 2017 beating and rape of Theo L in the banlieue of Aulnay-sous-Bois. Despite France’s emphasis on a cohesive national community, it remains uncomfortable and unsettled with the multicultural nature of its population.


Jean Beaman Assistant Professor of Sociology at Purdue University.

At publication date, a free ebook version of this title will be available through Luminos, the UC Press open access publishing program. Visit www.luminosoa.org to learn more.


A Deepening Family Divide?

This guest post is published as part of a series related to the American Sociological Association conference, which occurs from August 12 – 15 in Montreal, Quebec. #ASA17

By Sharon Sassler and Amanda Miller, authors of Cohabitation Nation: Gender, Class, and the Remaking of Relationships

This season of The Bachelorette introduced social class into the story line, when Eric revealed to Rachel that he had grown up in the city of Baltimore, home of The Wire. Would Eric be able to persuade Rachel that he was the one? And if so, would marriage be on the horizon? Over the past few decades there has been a growing bifurcation in marriage. People with college degrees are now considerably more likely to “jump the broom” than are couples where one or both partners lack a bachelors degree.

What is it about social class and marriage that is so inextricably linked? Shows like The Bachelorette portray marriage as an opportunity for social mobility (for women) or class closure (for men). Glossed over are the challenges differentiating the family formation opportunities of adults from more and less educated backgrounds. Americans with less than college degrees are as likely to aspire to romantic, long-term relationships as the college educated. But barriers to the success of long-term relationships are high. Housing often eats up well more than a third of their income, good paying stable jobs with benefits are hard to find, pregnancies often ensue even when not intended, and debt decreases one’s attractiveness on the partner market.

So, is a college degree now a prerequisite for marriage, along with a professional job? Data show that people with college degrees are now more likely than non-college educated people to get (and stay) married. But how does that come about? In our book, Cohabitation Nation: Gender, Class, and the Remaking of Relationships, we spent two years talking to young adult cohabitors, exploring what contributed to this growing class divide.

While two generally can live as cheaply as one, we found that the less educated frequently moved in together more quickly than they would have liked, often due to economic need rather than the intensification of their relationship. Further, pregnancies experienced early on in their relationships habitually added additional stress to the situation. And, while many women, regardless of social class, aspire to egalitarian relationships, college educated women were better able to achieve their desired end – greater sharing in household chores, and more agreement regarding important things like contraceptive use and where the relationship was heading (engagement). They are also more comfortable with asking for what they want and their college educated male partners are more amenable to sharing and communication than are less educated men. This sets middle class cohabiting couples on the road to marital success. Economic strain and dissonance in expectations and gender roles, in contrast, challenge the relationships of less educated couples, making marriage far less desirable.

While Eric win over Rachel in the end? If her goal is marriage, our results suggest that the final answer will be “No.” It’s not that the less educated eschew marriage. But the expectations of what should be in place for a marriage to occur, expressed by both women and men, increasingly puts the ability to “tie the knot” beyond the means for many of the less advantaged.


Sharon Sassler is Professor of Policy Analysis and Management at Cornell University.

Amanda Miller is Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Indianapolis.

 

 

 


Award Winning Authors at 2017 ASA Conference

Congratulations to our authors for the following illustrious award wins! We are so honored to partner with authors whose works foster a deeper understanding of our world and can change how people think, plan, and govern.

Roberto Gonzales, Lives in Limbo: Undocumented and Coming of Age in America

  • 2016 C. Wright Mills Award, Society for the Study of Social Problems
  • 2016 Pierre Bourdieu Award for the Best Book in Sociology of Education
  • 2017 Outstanding Book Award, American Educational Research Association
  • 2017 Latina and Latino Anthropologists Book Award, Association of Latina and Latino Anthropologists
  • 2017 Herbert Jacob Book Prize, Law and Society Association

Roberto’s book was chosen as the 2016 Common Read at Tufts University. He continues to serve as champion to immigrant children and has recently discussed how DACA has affected their mental health and well-being.

Aldon Morris, The Scholar Denied: W. E. B. Du Bois and the Birth of Modern Sociology

  • 2016 Oliver Cromwell Cox Book Award, Section on Racial and Ethnic Minorities, American Sociological Association
  • 2016 William Julius Wilson Award, Association for Applied and Clinical Sociology
  • 2016 R.R. Hawkins Award, PROSE Award for Excellence
  • 2016 Betty and Alfred McClung Lee Book Award, Association for Humanist Sociology

Aldon has inspired sociologists to reconsider the roots of sociology. He has spoken often about Du Bois’ legacy, from the civil rights movement to Black Lives Matter.

Joanna Dreby, Everyday Illegal: When Policies Undermine Immigrant Families

  • 2017 Distinguished Contribution to Research Award, Section for Latina/o Sociology, American Sociological Association

Joanna adamantly serves as a voice for children who experience an economic and emotional toll when their undocumented parents are deported.

 

Steve Viscelli, The Big Rig: Trucking and the Decline of the American Dream

  • 2017 Outstanding Book Award, Section for Labor and Labor Movements, American Sociological Association

Steve continues to shed light on one of the most grueling jobs in the United States while simultaneously dissecting the employment practices of the trucking industry.

Kelsy Burke, Christians under Covers: Evangelicals and Sexual Pleasure on the Internet

  • 2017 Distinguished Book Award, Section on Sociology of Religion, American Sociological Association

Kelsy considers the contentious relationship between religion and sexuality.

 

Joachim Savelsberg, Representing Mass Violence: Conflicting Responses to Human Rights Violations in Darfur, available as open access on Luminos

  • 2017 Albert J. Reiss Distinguished Scholarship Award, Section for Crime, Law, and Deviance, American Sociological Association
  • 2017 William J. Chambliss Lifetime Achievement Award, Law and Society Division, Society for the Study of Social Problems

Joachim is active in speaking out against genocide, including the Armenian genocide, and the role of international criminal justice in mass atrocities.

Mary Patrice Erdmans and Timothy Black, On Becoming a Teen Mom: Life Before Pregnancy

  • 2017 Distinguished Book Award, Section on Race, Gender and Class, American Sociological Association

Mary Patrice shares her thoughts on the how society views young mothers today.


See these books, as well as some of last year’s award-winning books, at Booth #709 at the Exhibit Hall. While there, request an exam copy for your course. And online, you can purchase a copy for your personal library—use Code 17E9971 to get a 40% discount. The discount code expires August 29, 2017.