Solidarity & Electronic Dance Music Culture

I talked about social solidarity on Monday in class, and so I was excited to see the new issue of The Sociological Quarterly in my mailbox today with an article titled “Solidarity and Drug Use in the Electronic Dance Music Scene” by sociologists Philip Kavanaugh and Tammy Anderson. In fact, some of it perfectly supplements Monday’s lecture: “Solidarity generally refers to the degree or type of integration in a society or within a social group. Initially discussed by Durkheim, solidarity is defined by personal attachments within one’s primary group (such as the family), as well as emotionally strong bonds to larger, more complex social groups” (Kavanaugh & Anderson, pg. 184). They cite two of Durkheim’s books in the bibliography.

Kavanaugh and Anderson explored the electronic dance music subculture in Philadelphia, interviewed about 50 participants in the city’s rave scene, and conducted ethnographic observation at 33 late-night dance events. Characteristically, these parties entail DJs playing some form of electronic dance music like house, trance, or drum-and-bass. Party-goers dance all night in a high-energy environment fueled by psychedelics and amphetamines. The researchers wanted to discern the role of drugs in creating solidarity among ravers and clubbers. Their research confronts two common viewpoints about the role of drugs in dance music culture. The first (articulated by both party-goers and some researchers) avoids the e-lephant in the room and insists that other subcultural factors create solidarity (“it’s all about the music and the lifestyle”). In fact, one of the first sociological books on underground electronic dance music culture (Sarah Thorton’s Club Cultures) oddly ignored the centrality of ecstasy (or MDMA) in the rave and club scene, instead focusing on the PLUR ethos and subcultural hierarchy as the central social glue of the subculture. The second perspective views the camaraderie found at these parties as just a “synthetic byproduct resulting from the pharmacological properties of ecstasy” (pg. 184). In other words, the second perspective considers the appearance of solidarity as a drug-produced illusion.

Kavanaugh and Anderson suggest that both of these viewpoints are too simplistic. From their research, they created about 600 pages of field notes and 750 pages of interview transcripts. Analyzing these data, they argue that there are two broad dimensions of solidarity: social-affective and behavioral-organizational. Social-affective solidarity was built “in the moment” by creating shared experiences (pg. 189). They write “Here, drug use played an important role, as it allowed participants to develop a personal and social identity defined against their mainstream parent culture, and participate in an affectively meaningful social group that was uniquely ‘their own’” (pg. 190). Behavioral-organizational solidarity was generated through the common experiences of party-goers. This tracks somewhat with Durkheim’s notion of mechanical solidarity. Through shared experiences, like dancing until 4 in the morning, the subculture develops behavioral-organizational solidarity. They show up to the same events, they visit the same websites, they’re similarly affected by the enforcement of drug laws, and so on. Drug use plays a role in sustaining this form of solidarity as well.

But can’t drug use wreck solidarity just as easily as it can build it? Yes. The authors include an extensive discussion about the role of drugs in eroding solidarity, and they refer to this process as “detachment.” More and more participants start abusing cocaine and methamphetamines, the crime associated with illegal drug markets starts to seep into club culture, and older members of the scene become disillusioned and leave. Taken together, the relationship between drugs and social solidarity within the electronic dance music scene is much more nuanced and multifaceted than other studies have suggested. Their study is informed by sociological theory and rooted in empirical findings, and so the authors avoid both clichés that tend to dominate representations of electronic dance music culture: ravers and clubbers as a collection of alienated drugged-out kids, and raves as utopian and spiritual countercultural spaces where youth culture achieves true freedom from mainstream society. They challenge both of these stereotypes, yet find a bit of truth in them as well. Along the way, we learn that Durkheim’s notion of social solidarity isn’t just an artifact of 19^th century sociology, but it’s relevant for understanding the diversity and complexity of our modern age.

If you’re interested in reading this article, go to the KU Library Catalog, type “sociological quarterly” in the search field and select “journal articles” next to “search by.” Select the third choice (“Blackwell Synergy”) and you’ll find the article in the first 2008 edition.

-- Brian

Theme #3 (this time with more zombies)

Occasionally, I’ll use the blog to clarify a point in lecture. During our first class session, I noted that a central theme of sociological inquiry is the disruption of “doxa.” We know something is “doxic” or taken-for-granted when in response to “why are you doing that?” we say “because that’s just how you do it,” “that’s just what’s done” or “that’s just the way it is.” Our doxa allows us to drive on the right side of the road without really thinking about it every time we start our car. It also guides practices of greater social consequence like voting, dating, and job hunting. If we can shine a light on social processes most people don’t think about, or think about in a particularly narrow way, we will be in a better position to solve society’s core problems (or at least understand what they are).

In Shaun of the Dead zombies take over London and slowly turn other people into zombies. Eventually, the whole town is full of zombies except Shaun and a handful of others. They become responsible for doing whatever it is to kill all the zombies or to de-zombify them. The sociologist sees him or herself as a bit like Shaun. We see ourselves as pointing out the zombie threat that no one else sees or pays attention to, and we’re trying to snap people, organizations, and institutions out of their zombie-like tendencies and trajectories. By uncovering the doxic or taken-for-granted, sociologists try to wake people up out of their normal ways of thinking and behaving.

The other side of this analogy is that if you’re a zombie, being a zombie seems like a fine thing to be. You don’t even know you’re a zombie, really, you’re just doing your thing, eating brains, grunting at other zombies, hanging out at graveyards. Sociologists don’t point blame at the individual zombies. We’re more concerned with group-level zombie production, believing that if we can generate another perspective - someone from the outside with different information [research] and different ideas or arguments regarding that information [theory] - we can snap out of it.

Someone can probably point to an alternative linguistic history, but my understanding is that the term “doxa” came into vogue in American sociology after the translation of Pierre Bourdieu’s Outline of a Theory of Practice in the 1970s. Here’s a reproduction of the diagram from that book. I’m a “visual learner,” so I find pictures and diagrams of abstract ideas immensely helpful. Maybe you do, too.

-- Brian

That Crazy Diagram

During our first class session, I discussed the difficulty of covering the 44 recognized subfields of American sociology in 30 or so class sessions. I talked about how I’ve organized the course around the 16 “core categories” designated by the American Sociological Association in 2005. This diagram is just to give you a sense of how I’ve organized the class given the breadth of sociology (“we study groups!”). I certainly don’t expect you to memorize this, and this won’t appear on the first exam.

-- Brian

The Final Will Not Be Cumulative

Are there any other course-related questions I can answer here before our class officially starts on Wednesday? Just create a Blogger account and post a comment or question.

-- Brian

Don’t Fear the Google

I found this article in the Times of London online this morning about Tara Barbazon at the University of Brighton who believes that “easy access to information has dulled students’ sense of curiosity and is stifling debate.” This, of course, is an empirical question. Has Google damped curiosity and debate? Do Google-users debate less vigorously and show less intellectual curiosity than non-Google users? In the 1970s’ and ‘80s, were the late night dorm debates and discussions just rockin’ because no one could appeal to a common authority like Wikipedia or find additional information through Google? I don’t think so, but it’s something that can be empirically studied, and I would want to look at those studies before making bold pronouncements like “Google is white bread for the mind.” Barbazon is a professor of media studies who has written books like University of Google and Digital Hemlock: Internet Education and the Poisoning of Teaching that are critical of the new information age, distance learning, and tech trends in higher education. There are legions of social scientists concerned about information overload, information literacy, and the effect of the Internet on knowledge production and reception. In fact, the Communication and Information Technology section of the American Sociological Association is one of the fastest growing groups within American sociology, expanding tremendously in the last five years.

My first impulse is to brand Barbazon as a luddite. Instead, I’ll merely point out that I found her university homepage, information about her scholarship and teaching, and all of her books online using – you guessed it – Google.

-- Brian

Even More Facebook Sociology

I've been following this story in the Minneapolis Star Tribune since earlier this week. "Eden Prairie High School administrators have reprimanded more than 100 students and suspended some from sports and other extracurricular activities after obtaining Facebook photos of several students partying." Interestingly, not all the photos were of underage students drinking at parties with fellow students--some of them were of students drinking at family weddings and on family vacations.

Minnesota, my home state, has been faced with multiple college student deaths related to the consumption of alcohol, and I have to think this is on the mind of the administrators and parents dealing with the news in Eden Prairie. Four college students died in 2007 either because of alcohol itself (usually alcohol poisoning) or actions that resulted directly from drinking excessively. Already in 2008, a 20-year-old who would have started classes at St. Cloud State University next week was found dead "after a night of partying and drinking games."

Sociologically, these news events bring about many legal issues related to the privacy of students and the seemingly eminent (at least in Minnesota, though I'm sure other states as well) social problem of underage drinking fatalities. A new bill is being presented to the Minnesota legislature that would allow colleges and universities to notify the parents or guardians of students caught drinking underage or possessing illegal substances. 

While I am not surprised by this knee-jerk reaction to the recent deaths of young people and venerable "proof" of underage drinking, will this solve the problem? So often it seems that parents and legislators grasp for something, anything to mollify the questions posed and problems that arise. As a sociologist and person familiar with the geographic area in question, I cannot escape from questions of culture and socialization. Can legislation drastically alter culture?

And what about the students in Eden Prairie? Today, some of them walked out of school in protest, claiming the penalties given were too severe. Here's an interesting video interview with two students involved in the walk-out. The young women claim the school has disallowed students from talking about the issue, but they felt they needed to "stand up for what they believe in." Yet another sociological approach to this issue would be to discuss social movements. Both women were saddened that not very many of their fellow students joined them and cited the opposition by teachers as scaring the students into staying put.

Just as an aside, I did a search on Facebook and found group called "Eden Prairie High School has not gone too far." which was started by a junior at the school. He agrees with the actions taken by the administration and does not see it as a violation of privacy. The group has 25 members, 16 of which belong to the Eden Prairie High School network, meaning they are currently students or were in the past.

--Brittany, Soc 104 GTA

Research Party

A research team led by John D. Clapp from San Diego State University’s School of Social Work attended over 60 college parties to uncover the relative influence of environment and individual characteristics on risky drinking behavior. Armed with breathalyzers, the researchers roamed the parties and talked to as many partygoers as they could. Altogether, they administered a brief questionnaire and took the BrAC (breath alcohol concentration) readings of about 1,300 people, most of who were between 18 and 21 years old. They applied a statistical method called “hierarchical linear modeling” to analyze the associations between personal factors (age, gender, motivation for attending the party, etc.), environment (size, location, type of party, etc.), and drunkenness.

The study tilts toward psychology with its consideration of “individual characteristics,” but it has some intriguing sociological dimensions and implications. The basic scenario boils down to this: Is Joe Student going to the party with the intent to get drunk or, once at the party, is Joe Student enticed to drink more than he would otherwise by the prevalence of hard alcohol, loud music, and other intoxicated people? This is important because if the party-goers are hell-bent on getting wasted regardless of party size, atmosphere, prevalence of hard alcohol, the playing of drinking games, and other environmental factors, then there’s little colleges and universities can do at the party-level to curb problem drinking. On the other hand, if those environmental factors are important – if, for instance, having food available at parties decreases drunkenness – then studies like this can suggest preventative strategies that lower rates of problem drinking and alcoholism. It's an important thing to study.

A critic might ask: “Why does anyone need to study this? The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism gave this guy 1.5 million dollars to attend college parties? Isn’t it obvious that both environmental factors and personal factors lead to certain drinking behaviors? I mean, come on! The larger, louder, and rowdier parties obviously lead to heavier drinking.”

And bloggers poked fun at some of the study’s more obvious findings: “They successfully infiltrated 66 college parties, surveyed dozens of students and found, shockingly, that 45 percent of partiers were there to have fun. Yes, fun. What’s more, 40 percent were there to get drunk and 21 percent were there to get laid. It just shakes you to the core, doesn’t it?” Sometimes social scientists get a bad rap for “proving the obvious,” but the reason we need to examine and test relationships and associations that seem clear to the naked eye is because our eyes are often wrong. For instance, it might appear obvious to today’s parents that college parties corrupt their sons and daughters, but (scientifically and empirically) this might not be the case.

In this instance, the study dispelled popular wisdom (and previous studies of college partiers that relied on telephone interviews). The presence of hard alcohol, illegal drugs, loud music, rowdy behavior, and the number of parties going on during the night did not correlate with higher BrAC readings among partygoers, and people actually became drunker at smaller parties compared to larger, multi-keg, parties.

The researchers found a strong correlation between theme parties and rates of intoxication among female partygoers. In other words, themed parties entailed more female drunkenness. One explanation, they offer, is that the theme parties often have a sexual premise and, in that sexually-charged environment, women drink more to lower their inhibitions.

Sociology can help address the study’s unanswered questions. Specifically, sociologists can use ethnographic research and in-depth interviewing to assess the roles of gender and sexuality in parties, and theme parties in particular. I think the researchers made some reasonable assumptions, but, again, what might seem obvious is probably much more complex than it looks. Sociological research methods can better answer “why?” of theme-party-drinking; the brief survey used by Clapp et. al. just isn’t going to cut it.

Sociology can also cast light on how the media represent the study. How are the media framing the study? Is there evidence of a burgeoning moral panic about drunken college students? The study, published in the prestigious Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research [link works only for KU folks], is full of scientific restraint, nuance, and cautious claims-making, but the mainstream media isn’t going to lead with “Hot New Use of Hierarchical Linear Modeling!” No way. The ABC News title reads: “College Parties Getting Hotter, Boozier: Researchers Find Women Drinking More, Wearing Less at College Parties,” with an accompanying photo of six women at a “naughty schoolgirl” themed college party at SDSU. Looking at the journal article and the ABC News article side-by-side, one can see a wide gap between social science and the media’s reporting about that science, which is why it’s important to track down the original article before making assumptions about a study’s importance or value.

All I have to add is, regardless of the party’s theme or size, drink responsibly! Alcohol poisoning can kill you, and that would be a lousy way to start the semester.

-- Brian

File-Sharing Lawsuits, the RIAA, and the Sociology of Law

As most of you are well aware, the Recording Industry of America (RIAA) targets students who illegally download copyrighted content from peer-to-peer file-sharing networks. Over the last several years, KU copyright infringers have had to pay thousands of dollars for illegal downloads. The RIAA served a fresh batch of subpoenas to KU students during the Fall 2007 semester, leading to the creation of Student Senate task force to investigate and potentially change the way KU handles RIAA subpoenas.

When RIAA subpoenas landed at the University of Oregon, the school fought back by issuing a “blistering” motion to quash the request for student information. Among other arguments, the motion accused the RIAA of violating students’ rights by using a data mining company called MediaSentry.

What does this have to do with sociology?

A lot, I think . . . Here’s one sociological observation:

I see faint signs that file-sharing litigation is moving from “repeat players” suing “one-shotters” to a more complicated situation where other “repeat-players” (colleges, universities, and attorneys general) defend the interests of students. Before the University of Oregon jumped into the picture, students would receive a scary “prelitigation letter” saying that the RIAA was suing them into poverty, or – if they act fast – they could pay a “bargain settlement” of about $3000 by entering their credit card information at www.p2plawsuits.com. The RIAA has sent over 4,000 of these letters to more than 150 colleges and universities in the last four years.

Sociology of law superstar Marc Galanter published a 1974 article titled “Why the ‘Haves’ Come Out" which “has achieved uncontested canonical status within the broad range of college and university courses in law and social science. It has been cited more than any other piece of socio-legal research and is listed among the most well cited law review articles of all time.” (Kritzer & Silbey. 2003. In Litigation. pg. 4). He argues that the institutional position of people involved in lawsuits and legal conflicts directs participants’ legal strategies in ways that bolster the power and dominance of the “Haves” (the people who already have money and power, like the recording industry). By emphasizing institutional position and rational strategies that spring from that position, Galanter went against the then-prevailing Marxist and functionalist theories of how lawsuits affect society and reproduce inequality.

From page 14 of Galanter’s article (excerpted and edited):

FIGURE 1

A TAXONOMY OF LITIGATION BY STRATEGIC CONFIGURATION OF PARTIES

Initiator, Claimant

	One-Shotter	Repeat Player
One-Shotter	Scenario I OS vs OS Parent v. Parent (Custody) Spouse v. Spouse (divorce) Family v. Family (inheritance) Neighbor v. Neighbor	Scenario II RP vs OS Prosecutor v. Accused Finance Company v. Debtor Landlord v. Tenant RIAA v. College Student
Defendant
Repeat Player	Scenario III RP vs RP Welfare Client v. Agency Auto Dealer v. Manufacturer Injured Victim v. Insurance Company Tenant v. Landlord Defamed v. Publisher	Scenario IV RP vs RP Union v. Company Developer v. Municipality Purchaser v. Supplier Regulatory Agency v. Multinational Company Oregon Attorney General v. RIAA

Galanter’s model and argument helps us make sense of how things could change with the University of Oregon recent move to intervene on behalf of its state university students. Right now, the RIAA isn’t interested in soaking each student for the maximum they could get if they went to court. They want money that they can predictably extract from students over the long term. On the other side, the student wants it over and done with. They don’t want to spend thousands of dollars in attorney fees to fight a $40,000 lawsuit with an organization teeming with skilled lawyers, especially when the kind folks at the RIAA make it so darn easy for them to pay a settlement online. The RIAA is acting rationally as a “repeat player.” The student is acting rationally as a “one-shotter.” Their relative institutional position (powerful organization, college student) shapes their strategies, and helps explain why the RIAA can get away with – what appears to many as – habitual extortion. Now, the battle will be between repeat players; both will have a long-term outlook. Fred von Lohmann, a lawyer with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said to the NYT, “The Oregon attorney general is showing what a real fight among equals would look like.”

Will the University of Oregon succeed? It’s hard to say. The article suggested that other parties have tried the university’s legal arguments before, with little success. Regardless, the fact that a states attorney general and a state university are standing up to the RIAA changes the fight considerably.

For more on the RIAA’s legal offensive against colleges and universities, check out these two articles representing the RIAA’s position and an opposing point of view.

-- Brian