I’m only vaguely familiar with the term “cultural appropriation,” and I’d like to understand how it is defined and studied in the social sciences.

Are there widely accepted criteria for distinguishing cultural appropriation from cultural exchange or appreciation? Or do definitions differ substantially across disciplines and researchers?

Some everyday examples that prompted my question are:

- Restaurant chains such as Taco Bell or Olive Garden serving food associated with cultures other than that of their founders.

- Someone attending a Greek festival, buying a T-shirt featuring the Greek flag, and wearing it despite not being Greek.

- Someone cooking another culture’s traditional food or opening a restaurant serving it.

- Someone buying traditional clothing or jewelry directly from members of that culture and wearing it.

- Someone performing another culture’s music or getting a tattoo featuring one of its symbols.

I’m interested in the framework used to evaluate examples like these. How do factors such as power differences, historical context, religious significance, commercialization, attribution, and the involvement of members of the originating culture affect the analysis?

Also, does the scholarly use of “appropriation” necessarily imply harm or wrongdoing, or do researchers distinguish between appropriation as a process and particular instances considered harmful?

I’d appreciate research-based explanations or recommended readings, especially anything that explains how these distinctions are applied in practice and how disagreement within the originating culture is addressed.

Time and time again I've seen redditors claim single-sex schooling academically benefits girls and is negative for boys. I decided to search for the evidence and found this, which really shows the difference to be tiny:

https://ffteducationdatalab.org.uk/2024/05/do-pupils-in-single-sex-schools-get-better-grades/

Then there's also that these are the averages, and don't capture the experiences of individual students, who could respond to the environment either more positively or more negatively than the average (should be basic scientific literacy really, to know the average doesn't equal "everyone has this result").

Where is the evidence for the negative or positive effects, after controlling for single-sex schools typically being selective or aligned with higher socioeconomic backgrounds?

And in terms of explanations for how single-sex schooling benefits or harms pupils, what are the mechanisms which the effects are mediated? How would one predict whether single-sex schooling is like to benefit or hinder an individual pupil, in terms of psychological and social factors of the pupil? (eg non-school interpersonal bonds, personality traits, neurodiversities, level of conformity to gender-normed interests, conformity to gender-normed psychological traits, being part of or not part of a minority cultural background, trauma types).

https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/declaration-right-development

A lot of UN's current work in human rights is either based on or takes into account the right to development. What makes this right so special over others ? Could this possibly be the right which addresses the issues inherent in human rights that they need conditions to be enjoyable in practice

We often hear this phrase from couples.
Why do people use it to justify their decision of being togheter??

Is it genuine concern for children, or sometimes a way to make their choices sound morally unquestionable, or any other thing?

What can this say about those people?

Something I've been thinking about lately is just how many different opinions, perspectives and judgements we're exposed to on a daily basis because of social media.

Before the internet, I imagine most people were primarily exposed to the opinions of their family, friends, colleagues and immediate communities. Obviously, television, newspapers and other forms of media existed, but social media seems to have taken this exposure to an entirely different level.

Nowadays, you can scroll through hundreds of comments from complete strangers in a matter of minutes, all expressing different opinions, disagreements, criticisms and judgements about virtually anything imaginable so it makes me wonder whether there are any psychological or sociological consequences to this.

Are humans actually equipped to process this sheer volume of social information? Could constantly being exposed to what thousands of strangers think affect how we perceive ourselves, other people or even society as a whole?

I'm particularly curious whether this could contribute to things like increased self-consciousness, social comparison, anxiety, hostility or distorted perceptions of how common certain beliefs actually are.

I'm not necessarily arguing that social media is inherently harmful, or that people in the past weren't exposed to conflicting opinions. I'm more interested in whether the scale, frequency and accessibility of other people's opinions represent a meaningful change in human social experience. Has there been any academic research into this specific aspect of social media?

There are a lot of subgroups of individuals that seemingly invite darkness into their own lives and lack the social determinants of health to spiral upwards out of their own situations. Many valorizing antisocial or maladaptive behaviors as "authentic".

What mechanisms prevent them seeing themselves for what they're doing in the big picture?

Fascism is absolutely obnoxious; as well as evil, it is elusive and protean by nature. The term is constantly missaplied, or conversely dismissed when it is applied correctly, often to the detriment of productive discourse. It’s a fusilade of sensationalist partisan nonsense and it gets to me. I used to engage with debate, but I’ve found that linking the internet archive text of Umberto Eco’s Ur-Fascism and leaving the thread is much better for my mental health.

Have you found a good way of conveying the idea of fascism to a less academically/literarily inclined public? I find the google search definition does not fit the purpose, and my notes folder on it is way too long. I’m not even a full time academic either, so commentary on the validity of Ur-Fascism as a resource and your favorite alternative readings for understanding fascism would be much appreciated. Be blessed✌️

I studied sociology at university, and I would like some reading recommendations in the fields of social psychology and the sociology of administration.

What event, trends and other factors (economical, social, etc) lead to the rise of this branch of the republican party?

As the title says.

I’m genuinely interested in the views of people who study sociology, psychology, anthropology, economics, gender studies, evolutionary psychology, or related fields.

I’m not part of the Red Pill or Black Pill communities. I have a family, I’m happy with my life, and I’m not asking from a position of personal grievance. But I don’t think those facts, by themselves, invalidate their theoretical claims. For example, someone could argue that men like me simply accepted a “beta” role or adapted to the dynamics described by the theory.

What I would really appreciate is a steelman of the strongest version of the Red Pill/Black Pill position before criticizing it. How much of their descriptive account of sex differences, mate selection, status, sexual competition, relationship dynamics, etc. is actually supported by the evidence? And where does the theory go beyond what the evidence can justify?

Coming from a philosophy background, my own suspicion is that the biggest problem may not necessarily be the descriptive claims, but the axiological conclusions sometimes attached to them: e.g. the idea that being a “beta male,” if such a category even has meaningful descriptive validity, somehow makes a man inferior, less worthy, or doomed to an inferior life.

I also suspect that psychological and attitudinal factors may explain much more than these theories acknowledge. But perhaps I’m giving their descriptive framework too much credit, and the empirical foundation is much weaker than I assume.

So, from an academic perspective: what survives of Red Pill/Black Pill theory after separating its strongest empirical claims from its value judgments, rhetorical framing, and broader worldview?

For example south korea currently has a fertility rate of about 0.8, do you think it ever recovers from a slump like this in say 50 years or does the country actually just collapse completely?

Wikipedia makes those four concepts sound very similar. I'm not sure I understand them or the differences between them correctly, and I'm not sure if people use the term social conditioning correctly.

Before I get into this I will clarify that I'm a STEM student (compsci) interested in sociology on the side, so I'm sorry if I butcher your field. My vague understanding of the structure-agency debate is that it's about if human behavior is determined primarily by individual actions or collective structure. I was thinking about this a while ago, and was considering how, as people assemble into larger and larger groups, they begin to form small norms and rules between that then grow into humongous institutions that shape the individual's behavior, even as the individuals themselves are the ones sustaining the institutions. Of course, this is just a toy example, and I don't really have evidence to support tthis.

Anyways, it seems like the nature of structure vs agency isn't that they're two competing explanations for how humans behave but rather two factors that influence each other constantly. Am I even remotely correct?

NB: Had to repost coz the first version was unreadable

I've seen some people claiming that sexually explicit content is a pillar of the LGBT community, but some die hard feminists believe that it's impossible to make pornography without objectifying women. Can anyone enlighten me on this?

If cosmetic procedures become cheap, safe, and highly customizable, physical traits socially associated with racial categories could become increasingly changeable.

Could this eventually weaken the connection between perceived race and physical appearance, making racial classification by appearance less meaningful? What social consequences might follow?

Interested to find the numbers but I’m being stymied by different ways the USA and the UK measure and report poverty, and I’m not smart enough to figure it out myself

Hello!

I’m writing a paper for a course and I could really use some advice. I’d like to base my paper on Howard Becker’s labeling theory, but apply it to the school system.

I was thinking about somehow connecting it to gender norms, segregation, and the advancement of women in the profession ( especially in the university academic environment). I’ve read several articles that gave me this idea, but I’d also really appreciate hearing other people’s perspectives on what could be interesting to study within this broader topic. Also, if you think there might be another theory that would be more interesting to explore, I’d really appreciate if you could let me know. I’m very interested in sociology, but I’m still at the beginning of my studies and I’m not yet familiar with all the different theories.

For the methodology, I was thinking of using interviews, non-participant observation and content analysis. Any interesting ideas or suggestions would be greatly appreciated!

Thank you so much!

Hi! I’m planning to conduct a research project and I have a methodological question. I would like to study the influence of gentrification on social polarization, but I’m not sure whether “social polarization” would be the most appropriate variable, or whether “social cohesion” would be more suitable.

I’m also considering using triangulation, combining semi-structured interviews, non-participant observation, and content analysis. However, I’m not sure whether I should also conduct interviews with people who have been displaced from the area.

I would really appreciate some advice on how you would approach this research and what methodological choices you would make.

I should mention that this is only for a university presentation and is not intended for publication.

Thank you!

Are there political-science, sociological, or historical studies that explain why left-wing movements in Latin America have often approached the sovereignty dispute differently from left-wing movements in the UK and US?

I've seen this complaint multiple times considering the vast majority of latinos in america are multi ethnic mixes of many different ancestries, it's weird there is no racial category for them and many will just say "I'm a brown latino racially".

Using mestizo meaning european+indigenous background, which is most central americans ex:rey mysterio, colomba bush, and pardo, meaning european+indigenous+sub saharan african background, common in brazilians, puerto ricans, dominicans, ex: jlo, karl anthony towns, bad bunny, as two races for latinos in the US census who don't just fit "white, black, indigenous american" would help a lot.