activities, shows that gossip is not always frivolous or harmful—and that a man may pass on that juicy tidbit about the neighbor as quickly as his wife would.

sweet sixteen dropouts Why do kids drop out of high school? Some scholars say that one of the causes is having a job, while others argue that employment helps students perform better in school. According to Doris Entwisle, Karl Alexander, and Linda Steffel Olson (Youth & Society, September 2005), both sides of this debate can be right, depending on the age of the worker and the nature of the work. In their study of 639 Baltimore students, the authors find that working at age 15 increases the likelihood of dropping out, but this trend reverses itself if a student begins a job at 16, increasing the chances of staying in school. By “job” they do not mean typical jobs that teens do, like lawn-mowing or babysitting. Instead, they mean an “adult” job—one that resembles positions held by adults, typically in manufacturing or business. Of course when such jobs are stressful, requiring long hours, or when a student’s paycheck is necessary for the survival of the family, employment can lead to dropout by 16-year-olds, though still at lower rates than for 15-year-olds. But why? When 15-year-olds are working in adult jobs, they see employment as a viable alternative to schooling. But 16year-olds with adult jobs tend to stay in school because they are a year closer to graduation, with the end in sight. They are also more familiar with the demands of high school. So, while they probably won’t get cars on their 16th birthdays, sweet sixteeners with adult jobs stand a better chance of getting diplomas than do 15-year-olds.

a scared new world? Since September 11th, critics on the left have accused members of the Bush administration of using fear to scare people into accepting their agenda. During the 2002 elections, it seemed that color-coded threat levels changed according to the latest polls. But the manipulation of fear and anxiety for political ends is hardly Bush’s invention. In a variety of contexts, politicians trade in the currency of fear, hoping to scare people into their camp. Ian Burkitt (Sociology, October 2005) questions the simplistic assumption that political appeals to emotion have straightforward effects. In analyzing two incidents—the 2003 antiwar demonstrations in Britain and the aftermath of the train bombings in Spain—Burkitt reveals that politicians’ use of emotions can have unpredictable effects.

12 contexts fall 2006

Politicians in both Britain and Spain appealed to fears of possible terrorist attacks to gain support for their policies, but citizens of both countries interpreted these attempts as cynical ploys by the government. They reacted not with fear but with anger, which became a unifying force producing a strong, collective opposition to the government. The Spanish government suffered a stunning electoral defeat, while Tony Blair faced a growing antiwar movement. The use and manipulation of emotions is a double-edged sword for governments. Sometimes trying to scare people pushes them straight into resistance.

from the vault trading in supremacy In 1905, Seth Low predicted that the United States would become the most powerful nation in the world. At the time, power was commonly understood in terms of demographics, natural resources, industry, and military might. Low saw a more important factor on the horizon— international commercial success—to which the United States was especially attuned (Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, July 1905). Analyzing the status of powerful nations, Low argued that while China was the most populous nation in the world, England the most colonial, France the most warlike, Germany the most industrious, and Russia the most resourceful, none understood the importance of peaceful expansion into new international markets. The United States’ ideals of a higher standard of living made it outwardlooking and peaceful, since markets and commerce prefer peace to war. Thus, amid a bitter war fought in the Far East, the United States only moved in to secure its place in the Asian market. When it found itself in the position of conqueror of the Philippines, it did not oppress the islands but developed them politically and socially. Low held that this approach to foreign policy would be the key to U.S. supremacy globally. A hundred years have passed since Seth Low’s predictions, which have proved largely accurate. The United States has superseded other powerful nations and, by the standards of 1905, has used force sparingly. Yet, while expanding its markets, it has once again found itself in the position of occupier. The occupation of Iraq seems unlikely to be as successful as that of the Philippines.

Contributors: Erynn de Casanova, Hilary Levey, Christine Percheski, Maria Skouras, Owen Whooley, Elizabeth Williamson