Opphavsrett Amazon, Kindle, and all related logos are trademarks of Amazon. Utviklet av BluSky Software. Utgivelsesdato Informasjon om tillatelser. Rapporter dette produktet Rapporter denne appen til Microsoft Takk for at du rapporterer bekymringen din.
Rapporter denne appen til Microsoft. Hvordan du oppdaget bruddet, samt annen nyttig informasjon. Send Avbryt. Registrer meg Hold deg oppdatert om spesialtilbud, nye produkter, arrangementer og mer i Microsoft Store.
Search query. All Videos Images News. Local Shopping. Anytime Past day Past week Past month. About ,, search results. Ads related to: newsgroups free music.
Free Music Downloads Listen to all your favorite royalty free audio tracks. The 1 Music Stock Files, Get Order Now! View all. People also ask. Intro news theme music with an epic big brass sound. Energetic music underlay for a news speaking monologue segment. This is version 1 of a series in news intro music. This is version 2 of a series in news intro music. When this happens, people who think alike tend to reinforce each others' opinions, leading eventually to more radical opinions that individual community members originally held, and less ability to tolerate conflicting opinions.
The last paragraph pretty well says it all: Beginning thirty years ago, the people of this country unwittingly began a social experiment. Finding cultural comfort in "people like us," we have migrated into ever-narrower communities and churches and political groups. We have created, and are creating, new institutions distinguished by their isolation and single-mindedness. We have replaced a belief in a nation with a trust in ourselves and our carefully chosen surroundings.
And we have worked quietly and hard to remove any trace of the "constant clashing of opinions" from daily life. It was a social revolution, one that was both profound and, because it consisted of people simply going about their lives, entirely unnoticed. In this time, we have reshaped our economies, transformed our businesses, both created and decimated our cities, and altered institutions of faith and fellowship that have withstood centuries. Now more isolated than ever in our private lives, cocooned with our fellows, we approach public life with the sensibility of customers who are always right.
But democracy doesn't seem to work that way. I found this book fascinating, and very useful in thinking about the challenges facing this country. The reader will find many interesting tidbits, whether finding out that for every twelve doorbells that political volunteers rang, one additional voter cast a ballot in this country, to discovering that the Republican Party based George W.
Bush's second campaign for President partially upon the merchandising success of the Applebees Restaurant chain. Since I write a lot of juror questionnaires for criminal trials, realizing that asking four questions on childrearing can accurately predict party affiliation and that asking someone their attitude on public land use was an accurate indicator of their core beliefs probably topped my personal list.
Dec 26, Matthew Hall rated it really liked it Shelves: nonfiction , This has the dubious distinction of having been published in , and like any work of history or science fiction maybe just everything , it says as much about the time in which it was written as it does whatever else it might be saying. While Bishop makes a compelling argument as to the splintering of our politics, national discourse and the atomization of our lifestyles, echoes of the election will haunt you at just about every page, in turns prescient and painful and altogether too mis This has the dubious distinction of having been published in , and like any work of history or science fiction maybe just everything , it says as much about the time in which it was written as it does whatever else it might be saying.
While Bishop makes a compelling argument as to the splintering of our politics, national discourse and the atomization of our lifestyles, echoes of the election will haunt you at just about every page, in turns prescient and painful and altogether too mistakenly hopeful. The book deserves a addendum, taking into account the Obama presidency, as well as a deeper discussion as to how race intersects with socioeconomic status in the big sort. Sep 24, Lisa rated it it was amazing. I found this book fascinating.
College educated people move to certain cities, Democrats are more likely to live in certain places, Republicans in others. Bishop's theory is that this polarizes is even further, as we become more extreme when surrounded by only like-minded individuals. It was an interesting read, particularly in our current political climate.
Mar 11, D rated it really liked it. Helpful analysis of how Americans are segregating themselves by religion and lifestyle. They can smell it. They are more spiritually, emotionally, and physically invested Helpful analysis of how Americans are segregating themselves by religion and lifestyle.
They are more spiritually, emotionally, and physically invested in their homes than in any other sphere of life, having concluded that parenthood is the most enriching and elevating thing they can do.
Very often they have sacrificed pleasures like sophisticated movies, restaurant dining, and foreign travel, let alone competitive careers and disposable income, for the sake of their parental calling. Over a year study, The Washington Community , historian James Sterling Young mapped three Washingtons, one created for each of the three branches of government. The nine members of the US Supreme Court lived in the same house until Executive branch workers gathered in one section of the city near the White House, while congresspeople were bunched together nearer the Capitol.
Congresspeople lived in boarding houses. They formed eating clubs around common tables, and they slept together, two to a room. Without plan or foresight, the city had been transformed into an archipelago of culturally homogenous and politically insular fraternity houses.
The homogeneity of the boarding houses crisply reflected the country, where communities were isolated by rivers, mountain ranges, and vast distances. The cultural segregation in early America was enforced by the lack of mobility, whereas today it's the ease with which Americans are able to move that has created political segregation. Even though we know much more now about the psychological effects of living in like-minded groups, the founders understood the dangers of self-segregation in ways we do not, and they sought to temper those influences.
As Holly Golightly put it in the movie Breakfast at Tiffany's , "It's useful being top banana in the shock department.
It's not enough to disagree. These days, you must call for extreme action. Isolated groups are seedbeds of extremist. The federalists believed that the best antidote to factions was to see that communities weren't cut off from new and sometimes conflicting ideas. The best hedge against extremism is the constant mixture of opposing opinion. The men who wrote the US Constitution and Bill of Rights rejected the "right to instruct" and adopted instead a government of deliberation and compromise within a heterogeneous legislature.
Cass Sunstein sees the rejection of the "right to instruct" as an explicit example of the framers' realization that like-minded communities could produce extreme politics, a tendency that would be weakened by debate and understanding. Quick action by a legislature is "oftener an evil than a benefit," Hamilton claimed. It is the "jarring of parties" that "often promote deliberation and circumspection, and serve to check excesses in the majority.
It was to be sought after. Sunstein told me that the most profound insight of the men who framed the Constitution "was to see heterogeneity as a creative force which would enable people not to hate each other but to think more productively what might be done to solve problems.
It turned this vice into a virtue. There were dozens of marches across the country made in concert with King's trek; for instance, 10, people joined Governor George Romney in a demonstration in Detroit. At the end of the month, Johnson "declared war on the Ku Klux Klan. South Los Angeles was ablaze for days. That was The religious news of was largely about ecumenicism and reform.
In March, US Catholic churches began changing their services to conform to the calls from the Second Vatican Council for more active participation by congregants. Just as Catholics and traditional Protestant denominations were promoting racial reform and world religious cooperation, members of most of these churches had begun to leave.
They headed to independent Evangelical and fundamentalist churches that distrusted ecumenical religious organizations. In the s, the Big Sort was segregation by education, particularly apparent in rural areas. By , the percentage of young adults with a college degree in rural areas was only half that of the average city. Whites fled to two kinds of cities. They abandoned older factory towns in the North and Midwest.
Pittsburgh, Detroit, Cleveland, Jersey City all lost tens of thousands of white residents. Whites also left the nation's largest cities, some of which were growing increasingly expensive: Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, Philadelphia.
In , young people were evenly distributed among the national cities. By , year-olds were concentrated in just a score of cities. Older people clustered in the country's least dynamic economically and technologically cities. The cities producing the fewest patents had the highest proportion of people age 65 or older.
The cast of Harlan County, Kentucky's community play Higher Ground consisted of retired coal miners, teachers, bluegrass musicians and members of church choirs. In , Harlan County was producing a community play about civic failure -- about the county's battle with drug addiction, primarily the painkiller OxyContin. Close to 80, people lived there in the s. Traveling the eastern coalfields is a reminder that the most abundant product of the Big SOrt has been inequality. Republicans favored respect, obedience, good manners and being well behaved; they were strict fathers.
Democrats were nurturant parents. This splitting of moral perspectives and its connection to political affiliations was new. In the s, there was little real difference in how American raised their children. During the cold war, the political scientists wrote, authoritarian types could be found aplenty in both parties. In the s, there were plenty of strict father Democrats. Over the last generation, however, these two moral syndromes emerged in families and then sorted into Republican and Democrat.
In , there was little difference between the parties on the child-rearing scale. By , the differences were distinct, and by , the gap had grown wide and deep. Heatherington and Weiler concluded: "The values of Republicans and Democrats are very much at odds. We do not agree about the most fundamental of issues.
And not a whole lot had been happening before. Nelson Polsby, a congressional scholar, calculated that the federal government had been largely deadlocked since the late s. It was as if Americans had lost the ability to speak a common civic tongue. Abortion Birth Control Gay Unions Guns Education The Environment In the past, when the nation had failed to reach a consensus, the custom was for local governments to strike out on their own.
Progressive majorities in the Midwest bypassed a polarized Congress in the early part of the 20th century, and enacted laws governing railroad rates, limiting corruption and promoting conservation. The same thing is happening now. With Congress more polarized than at any time since the end of World War II, people see no sense waiting for the national division to resolve itself. The federal stalemate has touched off an eruption of activity state and local governments -- federalism that doesn't sleep.
The idea of community has been 'miniaturized,' observed Francis Fukuyama. Oct 13, Nick Draeger rated it liked it. Bishop's central contention is simple - Americans more and more are segregating themselves into communities of people who share the same lifestyles and values e. In turn, he argues that we are de-facto sorting ourselves politically in a way that undermines the democratic process.
He finds that as we concentrate ourselves subconsciously into communities that share our political preferences we form more extreme opinions driv Bishop's central contention is simple - Americans more and more are segregating themselves into communities of people who share the same lifestyles and values e.
He finds that as we concentrate ourselves subconsciously into communities that share our political preferences we form more extreme opinions driven by group psychology. He laments that our proclivity to live among the like-minded shields us from opposing opinions, hampers political debate, and has left our country more divided than ever, evidenced by a gridlocked congress and increasingly polarized presidential election results.
While I agree that politics have become dangerously divisive and a geographically segregated America could potentially have negative implications for the health of the United States, I also feel that Bishop overlooks or misinterprets several key considerations in his analysis. They remark that party identification is a better indicator of partisan preference, and that this data is unavailable at the neighborhood level.
So while Bishop decries the loss of political independents, county-level registration of independent voters has actually increased since the s. To quote the authors of the article, "Does our analysis prove that political residential segregation is not occurring?
That is not our position. We are simply pointing out that Bishop's sweeping argument about geographic political sorting has little or no empirical foundation.
As the authors show, neighborhood ties are weaker than they were in the s, neighborhoods a more suburban, and as such organized in ways that discourage interaction, and that a majority of people note either not discussing or rarely discussing politics. Furthermore, although political preferences can certainly be inferred a central point of Bishop's argument , a Georgetown study revealed that 3 out of 4 participants believed they could guess their neighbors political views, and a majority of that group believed they lived among people with opposing political views.
Yet as we knew, that image is becoming far less representative of our nation. So as our nation becomes more diverse racially, so to does it alter the political landscape, challenging the author's vision of a body politic divided into two bodies that possess diametrically opposing viewpoints.
How does the expanding Latino community, with generally liberal views on economics or labor but socially conservative views on abortion fit within his America? Notice that all his examples depict places like Austin, Portland, or liberal inner-ring suburbs on one end, and rural West Virginia or outer-ring suburbia on the other. Bishop concentrates solely on a core group that will certainly not reflect the America of the future. However, in this argument Bishop ignores several considerations.
First, historians would never make the argument that Vietnam and the unrest came out of nowhere. Clearly, fractures in society had been developing for years that galvanized around the Vietnam War.
Consider the "New Left" political movement that was able to unite disparate agenda items under the banner of anti-War sentiments. Second, he fails to see the dissidents in the United States as part of a more global movement that is challenging authority, convention, and the status-quo.
And third, he cites declining trust in established institutions other than just government religion, civic institutions, etc. In this analysis Bishop unnecessarily simplifies the era. Any study of the turbulent 60s reveals that dissidents were challenging the core of society - established norms.
Teach-ins were about more than Vietnam - they were about the ability democratic control and place some student control over university affairs.
Vietnam fractured the Cold War Consensus that Bishop rarely if ever mentions, the driving force of political unity. No longer was militant, unquestioning anti-communism a certainty. In Bishop's unfocused fixation on the "post-materialist" world, he overlooks the extant to which the events of the 60s provided an outlet for the frustrations of youth and the oppressed. Would he truly be willing to make the argument that the galvanizing events of the Vietnam War, Civil Rights protests, and the sexual revolution that allowed people to organize around the causes that divided the nation our cultural and political shift would have looked the same?
Yet as he notes in passing, the politics of the days of Madison and Hamilton were equally, if not more, divisive. Seen through a historical perspective, does that actually make the "golden age" of American politics that he references an aberration?
Either way, doesn't the continually shifting landscape challenge our political allegiances, making it difficult to predict partisan divides? In the post-war era the consensus of the Cold Warriors along with the unfettered economic prosperity meant the two major parties, for political survival, resembled each other.
However in the face of questions about gay rights, racial relations, and uncertain economic growth, isn't it logical that competing visions for society would arise? To use the cooperation of the immediate postwar era as a benchmark to judge today's political landscape by is to ignore the extent to which historical considerations and events color our policy debates. This is not to condone the divisive partisanship of today's congress. The fact that our representatives can hardly look each other in the eye or even socialize with one another is definitely a sad reflection of a damaged political culture caused by bickering and distrust.
However, given the volatility in society, volatility that creates or alters cultural, economic, or environmental affairs, who's to say that we will not develop new attitudes that will once again shake up our political affiliations. Jun 30, Sally Sugarman rated it it was amazing.
This is an informative, disturbing and provocative account of what is happening in the United States. Written in , it seems particularly relevant currently. The fact that our population is mobile to some degree is another factor. Technology has also contributed to the change as has the deterioration of civic groups that brought peo This is an informative, disturbing and provocative account of what is happening in the United States.
Technology has also contributed to the change as has the deterioration of civic groups that brought people with different views together. The evangelical church which has had such an influence in the history of the United States, learned from the experience of missionaries to get like minded congregations by finding out what people in particular areas wanted.
Taking a hint from the advertisers who working for manufacturers discovered that niche marketing was more effective than mass marketing, the churches grew in power. There is a lovely description in a chaper entitled Books, Beer, Bikes and Birkenstocks that offered the specific example of Portland, Oregon as a place where people to whom these were attractions congregated.
This was particularly relevant to me because I remember visiting Portland on a conference and was so enchanted with it that I wanted us to move there. Social media, fragmentation of information with so many television channels and the breakdown of diversified communities accented the division. What happens when people are with like minded people is that their opinions grow more extreme. In a thought provoking final chapter Bishop talks about some religious evangelicals who are different, the Bluer and Sojourn groups.
They focus around music and around the idea that there are legitimate different points of view rather than the one truth that most churches offer.
They see grey instead of black and white. Bishop talks about the division in religions between the personal and the public where some churches, the public, feel that they need to become active and change the world rather than maintain traditions.
Evidence indicates that people who can see both sides of an issue tend to be more passive than those who have fixed ideas about the world, either left or right. Bishop talks about tribes in Africa who do not allow people to marry within the tribe.
By marrying outside the tribe, there are ties that families have with other tribes that lead to more ways of resolving issues than warring. Bishop also talks about the way in which partisanship leads to the elimination of moderates. He describes Republican politicians who were hounded out of the party by extremists. He says that two-faced politicians in many ways were able to moderate between the different sides, giving Lyndon Johnson as an example. This is a book more people should be reading now.
Jul 12, Ms. Caprioli rated it really liked it. While the analysis of polarization is deep, well-researched, and thorough, its accounting for race is subpar. The central argument is that as Americans become wealthier, they choose to live among people who share their same political beliefs.
The entire book is based on the break happening in , the year of the passage of the Voting Rights Act. Bishop discusses the cultural divisions of the year and mentions race as one of them. Later on, he states that in Americans became more focused o While the analysis of polarization is deep, well-researched, and thorough, its accounting for race is subpar. Later on, he states that in Americans became more focused on race as an issue.
Yet he does not ascribe causality to race as the factor that tipped the scales towards polarization. In chapter 2 Bishop contends that the real white flight has occurred not from city to suburb, but from democratic counties to republican ones. Could that be another correlated factor, or an indication that race is one of the main divides?
He then uses an example of a textbook fight, and mentions in passing that the initial concern about them was the use of "African American dialect" and "a view of America from a black perspective. We could even argue that all of this is mounting but anecdotal evidence. Yet Bishop has to use footnotes to exempt black people from his analysis of religious perspectives and minorities in general from disciplinary approaches as predictors of whether a person has a conservative or liberal worldview, and how that is intensified by the communities of choice that the Big Sort has created.
All of this begs the question: was the Big Sort a predominantly white phenomenon? Why don't minorities have the same determining factors? Why are Republican counties becoming whiter and whiter?
Why is the Republican party the refuge of fist-pumping working class whites with low levels of education? I dare say that race continues to be more important than ideology. Working class whites with less than a college education have realized that being white is no longer enough to be a step ahead someone else --and they don't like it one bit. They have been told that the welfare programs and free education they receive is abused by minorities and therefore they vote against the very programs that help with their own financial support.
If we are to look for answers to the last election, geographic polarization has supported an echo chamber of like-minded individuals. But the knot is, as has always been in American history, race. Dec 21, Andrew rated it liked it. Bill Bishop's "The Big Sort" is a book about the evolution of American culture, with regard to politics and religion, over the past 50 years.
Bishop writes about how American prosperity has had some unforeseen impacts on our culture, including that prosperity allows people to pick up and move wherever they might want to.
The main point of the book examines, when people do move, where do they move, and why have they chosen that particular place. Then, once they get there, how does their arrival i Bill Bishop's "The Big Sort" is a book about the evolution of American culture, with regard to politics and religion, over the past 50 years.
Then, once they get there, how does their arrival impact the culture already there. Bishop touches on a number of reasons why people move, focusing on the idea that people tend to move to places that have people like them.
It seems that for all of our cultural mantras about respecting inclusion and diversity, when it comes right down to it, people don't want to be around people who look, act, or think differently than they do. Is this just human nature expressing itself? Probably, although there are other factors inevitably at play, which Bishop explores. The book is interesting, although at times weighted down by too many facts.
Overall, Bishop tries to make what could be a very dry story and make it intriguing for our time. The patterns described in the book, continue to play out, and even get worse. The Big Sort has just gotten bigger to date. Oct 25, Paige McLoughlin rated it it was amazing Shelves: law , economics , history , late-capitalism , soft-sciences , modernism , psychology , to , education , philosophy. I read this shortly before the crash in It talks about the trend of more mobile Americans being free to choose their neighbors and lifestyle tend to flock to places with people like themselves.
We are comfortable around people with similar interests and values. But here is the thing being surrounded by people only from your own SES or political orientation or lifestyle choices will warp your view of the world. It also in politics makes similar people egg each other on to more and more extr I read this shortly before the crash in It also in politics makes similar people egg each other on to more and more extreme positions and radical positions.
This has been happening all over the us people are more in more homogeneous enclaves and this trend has balkanized the US and added to extreme polarization.
I read it in but it is so much more obviously worse now. Jan 16, Rachel Moyes rated it liked it. Pretty interesting in a lot of ways.
Often boring. Also repetitive. It would be great if he wrote a new edition or an update, since a lot has changed in the last 10 years. Most of the time I had no idea why or how different chapters were related. Then at the end, Bishop made some rea Pretty interesting in a lot of ways. Then at the end, Bishop made some really insightful summative comments and I was like, "Wait, where did he state the thesis of this book?
Mar 13, Jacob Vahle rated it it was amazing.
0コメント