We examine how recruiting managers cope with communal norms and expectations of favoritism during recruitment and selection processes. Combining insights from institutional theory and network research, we develop a communal perspective on favoritism that presents favoritism as a social expectation to be managed. We subsequently hypothesize that the communal ties between job applicants and managers affect the strategies that managers employ to cope with this expectation. We test these ideas using a factorial survey of the effects of clan ties on (...) recruitment and selection processes in Kazakhstan. The results confirm communal ties as antecedents to the strategies managers use to cope with communal favoritism. Surprisingly, the results also show that these coping strategies are relatively decoupled from managers’ recruitment decisions. The findings contribute to favoritism research by drawing attention to the mitigating work of managers in societies in which favoritism is common. (shrink)

Local food systems have grown in popularity around the world in recent years. Their framing often emphasizes the re-connection of producers and consumers against the “faceless” and “placeless” industrial agriculture. However, previous research suggests that such romanticized narratives may not keep up with reality. This relates to the transformative potential of LFSs and to whether they actually generate alternative modes of social organization that challenge problematic aspects of the food system. We place our focus on the practices and narratives that (...) construct the producer/consumer relationship and show how these systems are governed. Our fieldwork was carried out in two LFSs in two distinct settings: community supported agriculture groups in NYC and responsible consumption communities in Catalonia, Spain. Three main types of practices and narratives are identified: sharing, negotiation and utilization practices, and narratives. Our findings reveal great heterogeneity between the two LFSs and show how intermediates participate in the producer/consumer relationship. (shrink)

Social preservation is a bundle of ethics and practices rooted in the desire of some people to live near old-timers, whom they associate with “authentic” community. To preserve authentic community, social preservationists, who tend to be highly educated and residentially mobile, work to limit old-timers’ displacement by gentrification. However, they do not consider all original residents authentic. They work to preserve those they believe embody three claims to authentic community: independence, tradition, and a close relationship to place. Underlining their attraction (...) to these characteristics are resistance to the evolution of neighborhoods and towns, and the notion that certain groups have a greater claim to authentic community than others. These beliefs, and, secondarily, local institutions and boosters, influence their preservation of certain groups. While the quest for the authentic is typically viewed as affirming the authenticity of its seekers, social preservationists measure the authenticity of others’ communities against their own in authenticity. That is, they are committed to virtuous marginality, which exists when people associate authenticity with, and highly value, characteristics they do not share, and consequently, out of a desire to preserve the authentic, come to regard their distance from it – their marginality – as virtuous. This article reveals the consequences of definitions of authenticity, and more generally of ideology, by demonstrating how they shape preservationists’ lives, particularly their experience of community. (shrink)

The impressive development of electronic communication techniques has given rise to virtual communities. The nature of these computer-mediated communities has been the subject of much recent debate. Are they ordinary social groups in electronic form, or are they fundamentally different from traditional communities? Understanding virtual communities seems a prerequisite for the design of better communication systems. To clarify this debate, we will resort to the classical sociological distinction between small traditional communities (based on personal relations) and modern social groups (bound (...) by looser, more impersonal links). We will argue that the discussion about virtual communities is often vitiated by a simplistic assimilation to traditional communities, whereas they may be in fact quite different and much more impersonal. Virtual communities are often bound by reference to common objects or goals, and not by personal relations. In this respect, virtual communities are just another example of a long-term evolution of modern society toward more abstract social relationships. (shrink)