Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Despite more than 30 years of research on the legitimization of paltry favors technique (LPF), there is still not agreement on the mediating mechanism. Cialdini and Schroeder (1976), in the first LPF study, proposed that the effect made subjects feel smaller donation amounts were more acceptable than did subjects in a control condition, but this explanation was never tested directly. An experiment was designed to investigate the validity of this hypothesis. The data provided support for the hypotheses, with subjects reporting a smaller amount in the LPF condition than control condition when asked what they would consider the smallest acceptable donation. Limitations and directions for future research are discussed.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: To date there have been no serious sociological studies of the furry subculture. Though a common definition is elusive, a furry is a person who has strong personal associations with animals/animal characters and/or asserts a particular animal identity. These identities encompass an expansive range of activities from playful dress-up and chatter to bestiality or claims of “species dysmorphia.” This paper is a content analysis of the strategic language of on-line communities dedicated to pro-fur culture; websites with such names as tigerden.com, fursuitsex.com, furcentral.com, and others that intend to not only create a community for furries but also to normalize their activities by neutralizing potential stigma. Though it is not a study of the “crime” of furverts per se, we do also analyze the content of the strategies of those who attempt to de-legitimize those who desire the pleasures of the fur by embracing legal statutes. Similar to other deviantized and criminalized sexualities, zoophilia (perhaps even plushophilia) faces the articles of law that are rather vague and intentionally worded to allow prosecution and persecution of those who engage in untoward behaviors. Comparing not only furry vocabularies of identity and strategies of community with legal vocabularies used to thwart such efforts, we find that this discursive struggle is extensively similar to ones undertaken by other deviantized sexual groups in the past.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Sociologists have debated the components of legitimation at lest since the time of Weber's Economy and Society, and both Marx and Habermas have noted that one of the key challenges for capitalistic societies is to develop unequal distributions of resources that are nevertheless accepted as legitimate. Still, even in the process of reaching differing conclusions about the factors that are argued to support legitimation – tradition, expertise, prosperity, and more – most work to date has paid little attention to a complementary set of factors, namely the skillful use of discursive techniques that can help even questionable distributions of resources to escape from question. Two techniques appear to be particularly important. First, like the professional magicians who have learned to make even physical objects disappear from view, professional politicians often have considerable skill in diverting public attention, using a set of techniques that magicians call “misdirection.” Second, much as might be predicted by the literature on risk and technological controversies, many of the topics and techniques that are most effective in drawing attention away from questions of one's own legitimacy are those that involve risk or fear, and in particular those that raise concerns about the legitimacy of others. In this paper, we summarize the available evidence and invite our colleagues to join us in focusing on “what is not there” – in learning to see what is so often not seen, and in making more visible the ways in which the issue of legitimation is made to disappear from view.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Based on data on private tutoring businesses and learning center franchises, this paper builds on past Institutional analyses by examining ‘legitimation projects’ – the on-going process of interpreting, incorporating and influencing environmentally-defined elements into an organization’s institutional structure. Legitimation projects engage four under-analyzed processes central to Institutional Theory: Myth-making, ‘coupling’, the logic of confidence and the construction of organizational fields. Unpacking these processes reveals key sector and sub-sector differences not traditionally recognized by Institutional analyses. I find that while located in the sphere of ‘education’, as a private provider, these businesses are free to marshal around an ethos of consumer responsiveness that appeals to new demands for highly individualized education, tailored to meet the needs of each ‘unique’ child, rather than measured effectiveness. Consequently, Institutional analyses must consider how the location in the institutional field present organizations with alternative guiding logics that mediates legitimation projects, and shapes both adoption and legitimacy imperatives.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Some argue that Shari’a can function as a constitution in Islamic states, promoting good and forbidding evil, ensuring, when embodied institutionally, that legislation is in accord with Muslim precepts. Such a view runs counter to post-Enlightenment legal positivism, where constitutional provisions are reduced to procedures, and where parliaments, perhaps representing the people, may pass any law that is justified procedurally. I argue that the positivist position is misguided, that valid laws must be both procedurally justified and legitimated in light of constitutional values, where the procedures themselves are legitimate.

While this contention suggests that the standard argument against an “Islamic constitution” is faulty, it raises a different, structural question, whether Shari’a articulates values that are recognizably constitutional. The answer, I argue, is no. Shari’a is rooted in the logic of religious commitment in Islam; as such, it is constituted as precepts, not principles; it is therefore too concrete to function constitutionally. Its precepts must be generalized before it can function successfully as a component of a constitutional civil religion more abstract than any denominational doctrine. Further, the newly generalized principles must be reformulated. Constitutional values must be bottom up in orientation, vesting power in the people, not top down, derivative from sacred scripture that is inviolable. Constitutions must constitute mechanisms allowing for reasoned legislation and adjudication, where the constitutional principles might be revised. Simply, constitutions must legitimate the capacity to create new laws in a manner akin to the positivist portrait of legislation.