{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02841429880843263, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.204545454545454, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Nature of Race: How Scientists Think and Teach About Human Difference

grappling with such matters, I was somewhat alienated and disheartened to find not a single citation of those who have laid the groundwork for studying these issues, from the masterworks of Lemert and Garfinkel noted above, to the groundbreaking and seminal studies of Goffman, Emerson, and Messinger (especially ‘‘The Micropolitics of Trouble’’), and Scheff, Retzinger, and Katz on shame; or just as vitally, scholars such as Spector and Kitsuse and Loseke on the construction of social problems, and Holstein, Miller, and Gubrium on social problems work. Sociologists familiar with these might regard Molé’s effort as an invitation to consider what is missed by the omission of such references, and how the book might be enhanced by their inclusion. By building on thinkers such as Foucault, Kulick, and the Comaroffs, Molé, an anthropologist, has come to basically the same arguments as have generations of sociologists. There is no good reason why such disciplinary and epistemological gaps might not be bridged.