r/sociology

Quiet quitting became a massive cultural conversation a few years ago and the framing was almost entirely psychological: burned-out workers withdrawing effort, disengaged employees doing the bare minimum

But there's a more sociologically interesting reading. What if quiet quitting is better understood as workers renegotiating the implicit employment contract - specifically, rejecting the norm that emotional commitment and discretionary effort are owed to employers regardless of compensation?

This connects to several classical concepts:

The effort bargain (Behrend, later developed in industrial sociology): workers and employers are always negotiating what constitutes a fair exchange of effort for reward. "Quiet quitting" may just be workers making this negotiation explicit after decades of the norm drifting heavily toward employer expectations
Normalization of extra-role behavior: research in organizational sociology shows that "going above and beyond" was progressively redefined from exceptional to expected over the past 40 years, particularly in white-collar work. Quiet quitting is arguably a correction back toward role requirements
Generational socialization: younger workers who entered during the gig economy, pandemic precarity, and public awareness of wealth inequality may simply have a different prior about what employment reciprocity looks like

The moral panic framing (workers are lazy) misses the structural context entirely.

Has anyone seen good empirical work on this? Or frameworks I'm missing?

Balch taught a class called the sociology of alternative religions. I loved it so much I went back to be his TA my senior year. He is a leading expert on Heaven’s Gate and he was even interviewed and featured on an episode of 2020 about Heaven’s Gate.

I'm curious as to how and why society has shifted in the way that it has. Over my 30+ years, I've seen a fairly dramatic shift when it comes to openess with language. Swears, while disapproved, were common enough among teens, with talk of sex being much the same. There weren't so many barriers to conversation about these things.

These days, I'll be scrolling any social aimed at older audiences, and there are more asterisks than letters, words changed to hide their true meanings and a general feeling of discomfort about the whole discussion. This applies to anything from bodily autonomy to social unrest.

When did we become so prudish? Is it all to avoid admins banning posts and accounts, or has the world changed? If so, why?

Hi all!

I’m not a trained researcher, but I’m helping conduct a neighborhood-wide sociological survey on a sensitive/controversial topic. We’ll be hand-delivering paper surveys through the neighborhood newsletter and setting up physical drop-off locations for responses.

Ideally, we’d also like to offer an online submission option. However, past surveys on this topic have been skewed by responses from people outside the neighborhood who feel strongly about the issue. Our goal is simply to understand the perspectives of residents in our community (about 5,000 people).

Does anyone have suggestions for how to limit responses to neighborhood residents when collecting them online? One idea I had was assigning each paper survey a unique code that could be used for online submission, but I’m not sure what platforms support that kind of setup.

If anyone knows of a tool that could work for this, or has alternative approaches to prevent outside responses from skewing results, I’d really appreciate your input.

Thanks so much!

(also let me know if there is a better sub for this Q!)

Acharya Prashant observes a modern paradox: while the physical world is safer and more comfortable than ever, human beings have become emotionally hyper-fragile.

He argues that we have replaced physical threats with a "running story" of the self—a fragile mental construction made of borrowed opinions and roles—and that our "hurts" are not physical wounds but perceived attacks on this internal narrative.

Is our modern "sensitivity" actually a sign of psychological evolution, or just an over-investment in a fictional identity?

I have heard the term ‘life worlds’ many times at conferences. It seems like a perfect word to use in my PhD, as it focuses on participant perspectives and the particularity of their experiences and, well, life worlds.

I haven’t defined the term, and I hand in in a month, so I don’t have time to go into a whole debate. Can I use the term with a short definition, or is it one of those really contentious terms that I should just avoid? Which book/paper is the most popular use of the term in sociology?

I am a youth researcher doing ethnographic fieldwork.

Not my usual content, but I’m a Survivor fan, and “60 strangers last to leave a grocery store” seemed interesting enough. Two months in, there were boarded windows, no phones, no outside contact, chronic sleep deprivation, and deliberate resource destruction. One guy toward the end seemed to be having what genuinely looked like a psychological breakdown. It wasn’t just frustration; he appeared to be dissociating from the social reality around him. He formed paranoid alliances, destroyed communal resources, and seemed unable to understand why that was irrational.

What struck me was how clearly it relates to research on isolation and sleep deprivation. I saw the gradual decline in risk assessment, the breakdown of social reasoning, and how the sunk cost became the only logic for those still there after a month. These weren’t weak people; the conditions simply did what those conditions do.

It ended on a positive note. The final four shared a larger prize and seemed genuinely bonded. This was likely partly because they were rational enough early on to realize that MrBeast would have to end it eventually. However, that ending made it easy to avoid asking the tougher question about what the consent framework actually covers when someone’s cognitive function is this compromised.

I’m curious if anyone has thoughts on where that line is.

Sorry for any mistakes or confusion, English is my second language, I'll do my best!

A little bit of background. I (male 25) am bisexual, I'm in a relationship with a male older than my with 9 years. Things are great, from time to time I admire some of the males that I see, but nothing more.

Onto the issue. I work with customers, every time that particular customer comes I get all blushed up, a bit sweaty and nervous. It's not like sexual or interest or anything. I'm interest in how his brain works, what is hiding beneath. For the past year, I haven't imagined anything physical, but still when I see him I feels like little boy having his first crush.

I looked up his socials. In person he looks calm, collected, confident, joking around, and talk with low voice (he doesn't shout or anything, just quietly). On the other hand in his socials for some reason I do not see that same energy that is displayed in person.

Is there some kind of explanation or a way to begin explaining the situation and the whole situation around that men?

Wanted to share the new Sick Lit Girl podcast episode here, as I thought you all might be interested: an exploration of the concept of Ressentiment (popularized by Nietzsche) and applying it to the manosphere, incels, looksmaxxers like Clavicular, along with more cultural commentary.

Next week I'll release an interview on this topic with an SLG listener who got the jaw surgery Clavicular has and that many looksmaxxers desperately desire, and her first-hand encounters with the incels and looksmaxxers who invaded the jaw surgery forums she frequented.

Youtube link if you prefer, though the pod is much more popular via Apple/Spotify: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nci0HKbc490

What's on your plate this week, what are you working on, what cool things have you encountered? Open discussion thread for casual chatter about Sociology & your school, academic, or professional work within it; share your project's progress, talk about a book you read, muse on a topic. If you have something to share or some cool fact to talk about, this is the place.

This thread is replaced every Monday. It is not intended as a "homework help" thread, please; save your homework help questions (ie: seeking sources, topic suggestions, or needing clarifications) for our homework help thread, also posted each Monday.

Like why do we indulge in shame and embarrassment even tho they barricade others

And shame have always been used as a tool

Also that shame is subjective so it's just wired to me how we indulge in it

To get insights into actual lived experience of people that are or may be effected by a policy ?

3rd Place for the Human Race

I write this late at night...I edited and corrected the best I could

Sociologists call it the" third place" . It isn’t your home life or your work life; it is ideally a space where people congregate simply because they enjoy each other's company. But for it to be what I envision, there has to be a common thread.

Nowadays there are many and more people rejecting or forgoing synagogue, the mosque, or the church; even the corner bar or the local Starbucks,for digital distraction. It is an insidiously seductive proponent for isolation and bullshit. We are all more connected than at any time in history, yet somehow we are more alone than ever.

And evidently according to sociologists is becoming a real problem. Obviously we all lived through covid. We all recognize that a zoom meeting is not as fulfilling as looking someone in the eye and shaking their hand and, feeling their energy.

subreddits like enlightenment or awakened, (which I love,) are often filled with post after post saying the same thing from people that I would consider my spiritual comrades. But social media does not foster a tangible community. Instead, it is filled with self-righteousness and sanctimony. It is a perpetual quest for validation that replaces actual empathy with a red arrow or a thumbs up. It is tons of friction with no fruition. And as for the AI gurus: they're "all Balls and no Cock."

The third place I am imagining is one where people share similar ideas of how we should treat one another. It is for people who hold empathy paramount. I believe the conversation would evolve into real action, for example, helping our people that are drowning in the struggle of life. Detected and hoping against hope for a helping hand. We have the ability to be that hand.

I am not saying we can't not still bounce ideas off each other or be amazed by what others think. Those ideas foster curiosity and love. I am also not saying we should ban Reddit; I love Reddit and I have learned a lot from it. But it is not the end all and be all.

On a personal note;I was pretty involved in 12 step meetings years ago. In my experience the fellowship did so much for me as far as spiritual growth and confidence in myself. It had been a very long time since I had trusted anyone.i got to feel that trust in close friends and give it in kind.

Just showing up, giving hugs, knowing that people actually cared, enriched my life and gave me hope.. It is difficult to motivate people to get dressed and go somewhere. That's why there needs to be a common denominator. We'd say"we're all here cause we're not all there"

I have felt the energy in rooms of like-minded people and it is a beautiful thing. Open minds are the most precious commodities on planet Earth. Inside you, there is a consciousness that has been there from ever since.. It is the same spark that exists in every single person you meet, whether they are important to you or just someone on the street. W we're learning from the God inside us at the same time we are learning from the God in everyone else. And vice versa.

From what I have read, you people are not slow, rather most are extremely intelligent,and have already come to this conclusion. But this is not the finish line; it is the starting line. No one is above or wiser than the next person. We need a place where people can share thoughts without the fear of being wrong or the need to look smart.

Obviously it is going to take time. But I know it can be done and I think the time is now. the isolation is only going to expand the social schism of these troubled times. We are not just user names and comments. We are all participating in this ongoing study together whether we know it or not. Let us get back to a place where we can actually recognize each other. Eyeball to eyeball, heart to heart, soul to soul.

🕉️💟♾️

I've read that various sub fields like critical poverty studies can be emancipatory. How is that ?

I have many thoughts but one thing i have noticed is people excusing Emma's (Zendaya's character) actions. Even though this movie delves into the idea of action vs inaction and there is a lot of foreshadowing between the different characters and their childhoods, I believe people are too easy on Emma because she's played by Zendaya, because they have a para-social relationship with her and cannot detach her from her character.

That being said, it's an interesting conversation about how radicalised kids can become online and how easily they can become detached from reality but at the same time, signifies the importance of offline relationships since Emma becomes an advocate against gun violence. But some argue that it's due to her feeling empathetic that she decides to not go through with the shooting. Others say that it was because she was finally socially accepted that she decided not to go through with it anymore.

When people want to do something win win, they usually trade.

Say I want to hire people to do plumbing, I usually don't seduce the plumber. I just offer money. And offering money is actually kardol hicks efficient, pareto optimal, minimize transactional complexity resulting in coasean bargaining. Adverse selection predicts that if I don't do simple trade or transactional complexity is strong then I would get scammed.

Pick any industry. Say software, plumbing, manufacturing, phones, cars.

Imagine if employee cannot negotiate salary with employer. In fact, the salary must be 0 because hiring people commoditize workers and also to protect sanctity of plumbing.

Then the employer must also pay severance pay and the amount must be calculated by the state after the software is shipped. So it's not something that can be negotiated in front.

We would expect less software, less phone, less plumbing, less anything.

In having children women cannot negotiate amount of child support and payment. The state decides amount of child support.

And no economists like wow.... we gonna have low fertility among richer men because of this? Like we gonna under produce rich children? This gonna cost deadweight lost?

For simplicity sake, presume that having children is like producing or buying phones. People produce children to the point that marginal utility of one additional children exceeds the expected cost.

Due to adverse selection, presume that each party, potential mom and dad, presume each will do worse. So Dad presume that mom would take children away, fly to California, and turn sons into "daughters" if she can, and she can, because she can't sign enforceable contract saying she won't.

It's how I live my life actually. The reason I buy bitcoin. I don't believe other humans and presume the worst when dealing with them making sure they can't screw me. Normal behavior.

Yet I asked Grok and it says no. Linking income to child support don't reduce rich men's fertility.

Notice I am not asking if rich men will have fewer children than poor men. I am asking if rich men will have fewer children than if child support is capped, like in Texas, for example. Say a guy like Elon wants to live with 5 supermodels producing 30 children. It's easier for him to just pay. But child support rules seem to add "transactional complexity". Like the first supermodels that leave get bigger child support for her children and herself.

So what do economists think?

There is actually a paper saying that such support lower fertility among unmarried people

https://www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/dps/pdfs/dp125802.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com

So this shows that child support reduce fertility among unmarried people.

It doesn't say rich men. Which is weird given that it's the high income that have to pay more.

It also talk about unmarried men. Which is weird. That suggest that rich men can reduce risk of child support by getting married. Nope. Marriage is so damaging to rich men. In addition to child support, rich men face alimony.

So kind of weird. Imagine if government say child support for black men is bigger. We would expect lower fertility among blacks. If government say child support for high income men is bigger, we don't expect lower fertility among high income men?

And instead of saying it is deranged, why not explain economically why?

What do sociologists think? Maybe there are factors beyond normal economy why.