Let me also briefly comment on this remark:
“Why that’s the case? I’m sure a variety of reasons: economics and psychology have worked hard to establish themselves as “hard sciences”.. sociologists are often seen as more social workers or activists or aging hippies (and quite frankly, looking at ASA meetings, that looks true)”.
Very true. There is one thing, however, that I think is still overlooked here.Partially, the idea that(nation-based) sociology is turning into a museum piece altogether. As an example, both of us are sorta like European transnationals who are working and living in the United States.To my knowledge, very little is written about the transnational classes and their feelings about living within the spaces of two different societies. The boundaries here are very clear to me. Social sciences only discuss things within national boundaries and from within the national container. Thus,they have a difficult time in seeing the “other” dimesions that exist within “other” life worlds.Likewise,I really enjoyed it when you were saying that old social workers and aging hippies make up a larger portion of ASA meetings. I think we really have to break some of the old negative stereotypes associating us with some sort of old (anti-establishment) movement. One of the things that Ive been doing lately in my classes is holding discussions on hip hop and other new music forms and how these are forming new public discourses and political messages that differentiate from the 1960’s culture and protest music scene.
Lots of fun class discussions!!!!!!!!

It’s in French, of course.

On social issues in the media (I reported on this based on a session I attended at the ASA last August, one of the problems is that them media recognize only three types of social scientists: political scientists, economists and psychologists… no sociologists.

Why that’s the case? I’m sure a variety of reasons: economics and psychology have worked hard to establish themselves as “hard sciences”.. sociologists are often seen as more social workers or activists or aging hippies (and quite frankly, looking at ASA meetings, that looks true).

Also, very few people in the media understand what sociology does, compared to econ and psych..

Finally, economists rarely challenge the capitalist system and psychologists reinforce individualist / biological determinist explanations for behavior. Both sustain the ideological underpinnings of the system.

Nowadays, i think it would be fruitful and sociologically beneficial to begin to integrate discussion(s) in all of the various communication techniques available. I do have several ideas and have been trying to turn these into my little play projects for some time now. First, I think that (as sociolgists) we have every right to be mentioned in the news media and public outlets , just as much as news anchors, weather presenters , and sports broadcaster. The other day I was watching a local news reports and noticed that one of the anchors only has a bachelors degree and was talking about the financial crisis like she came out of middle school.Sociologists ought to be included in the discussions.Sadly, this is not the case and we have been placed on the margins of the public sphere. My argument is that we should move ourselves back into the middle (like Naomi Klein).I really want to put stuff all over youtube — even if its just going to be two weird people talking randomly on the differences between radical feminists and/or european traditions in neo-marxist schools.If anyone has any ideas or comments please do share them.

Reading suggestion:
On Television/ Pierre Bourdeiu 1999