The Double Meaning of Money

How does monetization affect interpersonal relationships? Drawing on social phenomenology, I argue that an answer must account for money’s symbolic dualism: On the one hand, as Zelizer has shown, money is differentially earmarked according to the interpersonal relationships it flows through. On the other hand, in everyday life, people tend to associate money with cold impersonality. Money’s dual association with both the interpersonal and the impersonal imbues the relationships it flows through with a sense of risk, which I call “the risk of lost meanings.” Analyzing the implications of this sense of risk, I argue that it turns trust into a relational preoccupation and constrains intersubjective experience. The risk of lost meanings may motivate risk-avoidance strategies, but these strategies are largely counterproductive. Shedding new light on a long-standing debate in the sociology of money, I discuss the implications of this argument for analyses of monetary developments and local currencies.

Democracy’s Autonomy Dilemma: Whistleblowing and the Politics of Disclosure

Democracy has been characterized from its outset by an autonomy dilemma. On the one hand, we think it vital that organizations work according to their own codes and logics. On the other hand, we insist that autonomy must never be complete, that citizens have a right to transgress boundaries to expose wrongdoing. With their insider position in the organizations where wrongdoing occurs, whistleblowers hold a unique place within this democratic politics of disclosure, which has so far not been sociologically theorized. This article takes four steps to address this lacuna: First, I situate whistleblowing within the democratic landslides that took place during the 1960s and 1970s; second, I disentangle it from practices such as journalism and activism; third, I argue that whistleblowers are particularly well positioned to detect normalized wrongdoing within organizations; and fourth, I discuss how whistleblowers’ most pronounced effect is the disclosure of gray areas that have gone under the democratic radar.

The Sociology of Personal Identification

Systems drawing on databases of personal information increasingly shape life experiences and outcomes across a range of settings, from consumer credit and policing to immigration, health, and employment. How do these systems identify and reidentify individuals as the same unique persons and differentiate them from others? This article advances a general sociological theory of personal identification that extends and improves earlier work by theorists like Goffman, Mauss, Foucault, and Deleuze. Drawing on examples from an original ethnographic study of identity theft and a wide range of social scientific literature, our theory treats personal identification as a historically evolving organizational practice. In doing so, it offers a shared language, a set of concepts for sensitizing researchers’ attention to important aspects of personal identification that often get overlooked while also facilitating comparisons across historical periods, cultural contexts, substantive domains, and technological mediums.

Symbolic Power for Beginners: The Very First Social Efforts to Control Others’ Actions and Perceptions

Becoming a social agent requires the ability to gain some power over others’ actions and perceptions. For that purpose, symbolic practices and language matter, especially when physical means of control are unavailable, ineffective, or illegitimate. Based on an in-depth ethnographic study, I analyze such a process of symbolic empowerment from the viewpoint of very young practitioners: children age 2 to 3 years. I explore the symbolic means through which toddlers seek control over adults, from simple signals, naming, and politeness to basic fictionalization. Children’s social backgrounds, not just age and development, inform their tendency to affect adults through words. The content of symbolic practices is determined by preexisting social hierarchies between persons, groups, and institutions. In fact, the crucial challenge for young children is to take advantage of these hierarchies by publicly putting them in line with their own emerging interests.

Smithing Queer Empiricism: Engaging Ethnomethodology for a Queer Social Science

Is queer social science possible? Early queer theorists disparaged empiricism as a normalizing, modernist discourse. Nonetheless, LGBTQI+ social scientists have applied queer concepts in empirical projects. Rather than seek a queer method, we ask, Is there an empirical perspective that (ontologically) envisions social relations more queerly—attending to discursive and materialist productions of reality? Dorothy Smith’s work foregrounds people’s activities of engaging texts and satisfies Black queer studies’ and new materialisms’ critiques of early queer theory. Underutilized and often misread, especially its ethnomethodological sensibilities and its vision of actors as relational, practical actors, her work shows how my race is not mine, it is ours; your sexual orientation is not yours, it is ours; their gender is not theirs, it is ours. Smith offers an ontology without essence, grand theory, or normativity, facilitating a range of queer, interpretive projects—from the intersectional to the transnational to the embodied.

Familiarity as a Practical Sense of Place

Familiarity is an elusive concept, capturing what we know intimately and what we only recognize from having seen before. This article aims to disambiguate these interpretations by proposing a sociological conceptualization of familiarity as a dynamic relationship to the world that develops over time and through experience and that allows one to progressively disattend from what appears as “usual.” Focusing on how urban environments and their human entities become familiar and stop being familiar, I propose that familiarity be thought of as an ongoing relational and interactional achievement, allowing us to focus on our daily activities while relying on a practical knowledge of our surroundings. The conceptualization process unfolds via five questions: What is familiarity? Where does it come from? What threatens it? What does it produce? How can it be operationalized and studied empirically?

Relational Segregation: A Structural View of Categorical Relations

This article builds a framework for a relational approach to segregation that emphasizes structures of interactions, transactions, and ties between and within social categories. Rather than explaining segregation with dominants imposing formal rules or homophilic people sorting themselves, I highlight segregation’s emergence amid dueling control efforts among actors with malleable categorical identities. And rather than assuming segregation necessarily fuels cycles of inequality or persecution, I identify nuanced advantages and disadvantages for different actors in social conflict. I also explore an underappreciated role of institutions in segregation: They guide relations across different domains of activity that may have different degrees of segregation. An overarching theme is that segregation is not a specific thing with regular causes and effects but an inherently contradictory structural feature of relations that evolves as actors struggle for control.

Are Theories Politically Flexible?

Social theories are politically flexible if people use them to support opposite political claims. But is this even possible? And what kind of theories have such a property? Moving beyond epistemological debates about neutrality and value-leadenness, this article defends an empirical approach to the study of flexible and rigid political uses of social theories. I identify two main sources of flexibility: endogenous properties of theories, notably their generality, ambiguity, and neutrality, and exogenous features of the contexts in which they are used and of the individuals who use them, notably differences in political and epistemic culture.

The Relational Public

This article sets out three ways of conceiving publics: (1) an organic conception, the public as the body politic; (2) an individualized conception, the public as an aggregate of individuals, grouped by social categories; and (3) a relational conception, in which publics are defined as open-ended networks of actors linked through flows of communication, shared stories, and civic or other collective concerns. These conceptions have emerged not only through theoretical reflection but also as the result of historical and institutional developments. Building on work from Tarde and Habermas down to recent theorists, I seek to advance the relational conception, suggest its implications for research, and highlight its connection to contemporary developments in both theory and society.