Lectures

Seven Mini-
Lectures
#1 Fashion Cycles from Coco Chanel to Britney Spears: How Sociological Theory Can
Help Explain What’s in Style (11 mins., 38 secs.)
#2 Is Language Innate or Learned? (8 mins., 56 secs.)
#3 The Sociology of Emotions (10 mins., 35 secs.)
#4 The Human Body and Social Status (8 mins, 31 secs.)
#5 Fundamentalism and Extremist Politics in the Arab World (5 mins., 51 secs.)
#6 The Social Limits of Modern Medicine (8 mins., 40 secs.)
#7 War and Terrorism: Politics by Other Means (11 mins., 51 secs.)
#7 a 1.7% (time unknown)
#7b 5600 (time unknown)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
#1
Fashion Cycles from Coco Chanel to Britney Spears: How Sociological Theory Can Help
Explain What’s in Style
Since 1998, one of the main fashion trends among white, middle-class, pre-teen and young
teenage girls was the Britney Spears look: bare midriffs, highlighted hair, wide belts, glitter
purses, big wedge shoes, and Skechers “energy” sneakers. But in 2002 a new pop star, Avril
Lavigne, was rising in the charts. Nominated for a 2003 Grammy Award in the “Best New Artist”

category, the 17-year-old skater-punk from the small town of Napanee in eastern Ontario, affects
a shaggy, unkempt look. She sports worn-out T-shirts, 70s-style plaid Western shirts with snaps,
low-rise blue jeans, baggy pants, undershirts, a tie, a backpack, a chain wallet, and, for shoes,
Converse Chuck Taylors. The style is similar to the Grunge look of the early 90s, when Nirvana
and Pearl Jam were the big stars on MTV and Kurt Cobain was king. Thanks largely to Avril
Lavigne, the Wall Street Journal announced in December 2002 that Grunge might be back.
Why in late 2002 were the glamorous trends of the pop era possibly giving way in one
market segment to “neo-Grunge?” Why, in general, do fashion shifts take place? In the next few
minutes I’m going to illustrate how the major theoretical approaches in sociology –
functionalism, conflict theory, symbolic interactionism, and feminism – can help explain fashion
cycles. Clothing styles come and go. Many of us are influenced by them. Why does this happen?
Until the 1960s, the standard sociological approach to explaining the ebb and flow of fashion
trends was functionalist. In the functionalist view, fashion trends worked like this. Every season,
exclusive fashion houses in Paris and, to a lesser extent, Milan, New York, and London would
show new styles. Some of the new styles would catch on among the exclusive clientele of Chanel,
Dior, Givenchy, and other big-name designers. The main appeal of expensive new fashions was
that, by wearing them, wealthy clients could distinguish themselves from people who were less
well off. Thus, fashion performed an important social function. By allowing people of different
rank to distinguish themselves from one another, fashion helped to preserve the ordered layering
of society into classes. (“It is an interesting question,” wrote 19th
century American writer Henry
David Thoreau in Walden, “how far [people] would retain their relative rank if they were divested
of their clothes.”) Especially by the 20th
century, thanks to technological advances in clothes
manufacturing, it didn’t take long for inexpensive knockoffs to reach the market and trickle down
to lower classes. New styles then had to be introduced frequently so fashion could continue to
perform its function of helping to maintain an orderly class system. Hence the ebb and flow of
fashion.
The functionalist theory was a fairly accurate account of the way fashion trends worked until
the 1960s. Then, fashion became more democratic. Paris, Milan, New York, and London are still
hugely important fashion centers. However, new fashion trends are increasingly initiated by
lower classes, minority racial and ethnic groups, and people who spurn “high” fashion altogether.
Napanee is, after all, pretty far from Paris, and today big-name designers are much more likely to
be influenced by the inner-city styles of hip-hop than vice-versa. New fashions no longer just
trickle down from upper classes and a few high-fashion centers. Upper classes are nearly as likely

to adopt lower class fashion trends that emanate from just about anywhere. As a result, the
functionalist theory is no longer such a satisfying explanation of fashion cycles.
Some sociologists have turned to conflict theory as an alternative view of the fashion world.
Conflict theorists typically think of fashion cycles as a means by which industry owners make big
profits. In their view, owners introduce new styles and render old styles unfashionable because
they make more money when many people are encouraged to buy new clothes often. At the same
time, conflict theorists say, fashion helps to keep people distracted from the many social,
economic, and political problems that might otherwise incite them to express dissatisfaction with
the existing social order and even rebel against it. Conflict theorists, like functionalists, thus
believe that fashion helps maintain social stability. Unlike functionalists, however, they argue that
social stability bestows advantages on industrial owners at the expense of non-owners.
Conflict theorists have a point. Fashion is a big and profitable business. Owners do
introduce new styles to make more money. They have, for example, created The Color Marketing
Group (known to insiders as the “Color Mafia”), a committee that meets regularly to help change
the national palette of color preferences for consumer products. According to one committee
member, the Color Mafia makes sure that “the mass media, . . . fashion magazines and catalogs,
home shopping shows, and big clothing chains all present the same options.”
Yet the Color Mafia and other influential elements of the fashion industry are not all-
powerful. I am reminded of Reese Witherspoon’s great line in the 2001 movie, Legally Blond.
“Oh,” she remembers at one point. “Two weeks ago I saw Cameron Diaz at Fred Siegel and I
talked her out of buying this truly heinous angora sweater. Whoever said orange is the new pink
is seriously disturbed.” Like many consumers, Elle Woods, the character played by Reese
Witherspoon, rejected the advice of the fashion industry. And in fact some of the fashion trends
initiated by industry owners flop, one of the biggest being the introduction of the midi-dress (with
a hemline midway between knee and ankle) in the mid-1970s. Despite a huge ad campaign, most
women simply would not buy it.
This points to one of the main problems with the conflict interpretation: it incorrectly makes
it seem as if fashion decisions are dictated from above. Reality is more complicated. Fashion
decisions are made partly by consumers. This can best be appreciated by thinking of dress as a
form of symbolic interaction, a sort of wordless “language” that allows us to tell others who we
are and learn who they are.
If clothes speak, sociologist Fred Davis has perhaps done most in recent years to help us see
how we can decipher what they say, especially in his book, Fashion, Culture, and Identity.
According to Davis, a person’s identity is always a work in progress. True, we develop a sense of

who we are as we mature. We come to think of ourselves as members of one or more families,
occupations, communities, classes, ethnic and racial groups, countries, etc. We develop patterns
of behavior and belief associated with each of these social categories. Nonetheless, social
categories change over time, and so do we as we move through them and as we age. As a result,
our identities are always in flux. Not infrequently we become anxious or insecure about who we
are. Clothes help us express our shifting identities. For example, clothes can convey whether you
are “straight,” sexually available, athletic, conservative, and much else, thus telling others how
you want them to see you and the kinds of people with whom you want to associate. At some
point you may become less conservative, sexually available, etc. Your clothing style is likely to
change accordingly. (Of course, the messages you try to send are subject to interpretation and
may be misunderstood.) For its part, the fashion industry feeds on the ambiguities within us,
investing much effort trying to figure out which new styles might capture current needs for self-
expression.
For example, capitalizing on the need for self-expression among many young girls in the late
1990s, Britney Spears hit a chord. Feminist interpretations of the meaning and significance of
Britney Spears are especially interesting in this respect because they focus on the gender aspects
of fashion.
Traditionally, feminists have thought of fashion as a form of patriarchy, a means by which
male dominance is maintained. They have argued that fashion is mainly a female preoccupation.
It takes a lot of time and money to choose, buy, and clean clothes. Fashionable clothing is often
impractical and uncomfortable, and some of it is even unhealthy. Modern fashion’s focus on
youth, slenderness, and eroticism diminishes women by turning them into sexual objects, say
some feminists. Britney Spears is of interest to traditional feminists to the degree she helps lower
the age at which girls fall under male domination.
In recent years, this traditional feminist view has given way to a feminist interpretation that
is more compatible with symbolic interactionism. Some feminists now applaud the “girl power”
movement that crystallized in 1996 with the release of the hit single, “Wannabe,” by the Spice
Girls. They regard Britney Spears as part of that movement. In their judgment, Spears’s music,
dance routines, and dress style express a self-assuredness and assertiveness that resonate with the
less submissive and more independent role that girls are now carving out for themselves. With
her kicks, her shadow boxing, and songs like the 2000 single, “Stronger,” Spears speaks for the
empowerment of young women. Quite apart from her musical and dancing talent, then, some
feminists think many young girls are wild about Britney Spears because she helps them express
their own social and sexual power. Of course, not all young girls agree. Some, like Avril Lavigne,

find Spears “phony,” too much of a “showgirl.” (Here I am quoting Lavigne.) They seek “more
authentic” ways of asserting their identity through fashion. Still, the symbolic interactionist and
feminist interpretations of fashion help us see more clearly the ambiguities of identity that
underlie the rise of new fashion trends.
My analysis of fashion shows that each of the four theoretical perspectives --
functionalism, conflict theory, symbolic interactionism, and feminism -- can clarify different
aspects of a sociological problem. Please take a moment to download the Figure that accompanies
this mini-lecture for a summary of how they do so. I do not mean to suggest that each perspective
always has equal validity. Often, the interpretations that derive from different theoretical
perspectives are incompatible. They offer competing interpretations of the same social reality. It
is then necessary to do research to determine which perspective works best for the case at hand.
Nonetheless, all four theoretical perspectives usefully illuminate some aspects of the social world.
#2
Is Language Innate or Learned?
A language is a system of symbols strung together to communicate thought. Equipped with
language, we can share understandings, pass experience and knowledge from one generation to
the next, and make plans for the future. In short, language allows culture to develop.
Consequently, sociologists commonly think of language as a cultural invention that distinguishes
humans from other animals.
Yet MIT cognitive scientist Steven Pinker, a leading figure in the biological onslaught on the
social sciences, says culture has little to do with our acquisition of language. In his view, “people
know how to talk in more or less the sense that spiders know how to spin webs.” Language, says
Pinker, is an “instinct.”
Pinker bases his radical claim on the observation that most people can easily create and
understand sentences that have never been uttered before. We even invent countless new words
(including the word “countless,” which was invented by William Shakespeare). We normally
develop this facility quickly and without formal instruction at an early age. This suggests that
people have a sort of innate recipe or grammar for combining words in patterned ways. Pinker
supports his case by discussing cases of young children with different language backgrounds who
were brought together in settings as diverse as Hawaiian sugar plantations in the 1890s and
Nicaraguan schools for the deaf in the 1970s and who spontaneously created their own language
system and grammatical rules.

If children are inclined to create grammars spontaneously at a young age, we can also point
to seats of language in the brain; damage to certain parts of the brain impairs one’s ability to
speak although intelligence is unaffected. Moreover, scientists have identified a gene that may
help wire these seats of language into place. A few otherwise healthy children fail to develop
language skills. They find it hard to articulate words and they make a variety of grammatical
errors when they speak. If these language disorders cannot be attributed to other causes, they are
diagnosed as Specific Language Impairment (SLI). Recently it was discovered that a mutation of
a gene known as FOXP2 is associated with SLI. Only when the gene is normal do children
acquire complex language skills at an early age. From these and similar observations, Pinker
concludes that language is not so much learned as it is grown. Should we believe him?
From a sociological point of view, there is nothing problematic about the argument that we
are biologically prewired to acquire language and create grammatical speech patterns. What is
sociologically interesting, however, is how the social environment gives form to these
predispositions. We know, for example, that young children go through periods of rapid
development, and if they do not interact symbolically with others during these critical periods,
their language skills remain permanently impaired. This suggests that our biological potential
must be unlocked by the social environment to be fully realized. Language must be learned. The
environment is in fact such a powerful influence on language acquisition that even a mutated
FOXP2 gene doesn’t seal one’s linguistic fate. Up to half of children with SLI recover fully with
intensive language therapy.
In an obvious sense, all language is learned even though our potential for learning and the
structure of what we can learn is rooted in biology. Our use of language depends on which
language communities we are part of. You say tomāto and I say tomăto, but Luigi says pomodoro
and Shoshanna says agvaniya. But what exactly is the relationship between our use of language,
the way we think, and our social environment? Let me now turn to just that question.
In the 1930s, linguists Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf first proposed that
experience, thought, and language interact in what came to be known as the Sapir-Whorf thesis.
If you haven’t done so already, please pause for a moment and download the Figure that
accompanies this mini-lecture. It illustrates the Sapir-Worf thesis. The Sapir-Whorf thesis holds
that we experience certain things in our environment and form concepts about those things (path
12 in the Figure). We then develop language to express our concepts (path 23). Finally,
language itself influences how we see the world (path 31).
Whorf saw speech patterns as “interpretations of experience” (path 123). This seems
uncontroversial. The Garo of Burma, a rice-growing people, distinguish many types of rice.

Nomadic Arabs have more than 20 different words for camel. Verbal distinctions among types of
rice and camels are necessary for different groups of people because these objects are important
in their environment. As a matter of necessity, they distinguish among many different types of
what we may regard as “the same” object. Similarly, terms that apparently refer to the same
things or people may change to reflect a changing reality. For example, a committee used to be
headed by a “chairman.” Then when women started entering the paid labor force in large numbers
in the 1960s and some of them became committee heads, the term changed to “chairperson” or
simply “chair.” In such cases, we see clearly how the environment or experience influences
language.
It is equally uncontroversial to say that people must think before they can speak (path 23).
Anyone who has struggled for just the right word or rewritten a sentence to phrase a thought more
precisely knows this.
The controversial part of the Sapir-Whorf thesis is path 31. In what sense does
language in and of itself influence the way we experience the world? In the first wave of studies
based on the Sapir-Whorf thesis, researchers focused on whether speakers of different languages
perceive color in different ways. By the 1970s, they concluded that they did not. People who
speak different languages may have a different number of basic color terms, but everyone with
normal vision is able to see the full visible spectrum. There are two words for blue in Russian and
only one in English, but this does not mean that English speakers are somehow handicapped in
their ability to distinguish shades of blue.
In the 1980s and 1990s, researchers found some effects of language on perception. For
example, the German word for key is masculine while the Spanish word for key is feminine.
When German and Spanish speakers are asked to describe keys, German speakers tend to use
words like “hard,” “heavy,” and “jagged” while Spanish speakers use words such as “lovely,”
“shiny,” and “shaped.” Apparently, the gender of the noun in and of itself influences how people
see the thing to which the noun refers. Still, the degree to which language itself influences
thought is a matter of controversy. Some men use terms like “fox,” “babe,” “bitch,” “ho,” and
“doll” to refer to women. These terms are deeply offensive to many people. They certainly reflect
and reinforce underlying inequalities between women and men. Some people assert that these
terms in and of themselves influence people to think of women simply as sexual objects, but
social scientists have yet to demonstrate the degree to which they do so.
I conclude that biological thinking about culture has both benefits and dangers. On the one
hand, biology helps us see more clearly the broad limits and potentials of human creativity. On
the other hand, some scholars have managed to get themselves trapped in a biological

straightjacket. They fail to appreciate how the social environment unlocks biological potentials
and how it creates enormous variation in the cultural expression of those potentials. Analyzing
culture in all its variety and showing how cultural variations are related to variations in social
structure are jobs for the sociologist.
#3
The Sociology of Emotions
Some scholars think that emotions are like the common cold. In both cases, an external
disturbance causes a reaction that we experience involuntarily. The external disturbance may
involve exposure to a particular virus that causes us to catch cold or exposure to a grizzly bear
attack that causes us to experience fear. In either case, we can't control our body's patterned
response. Emotions, like colds, just happen to us.
The trouble with this argument is that we can and often do control our emotions. Emotions
don’t just happen to us; we manage them. If a grizzly bear attacks you in the woods you can run
as fast as your legs will carry you or you can calm yourself, lie down, play dead, and silently pray
for the best. You are more likely to survive the grizzly bear attack if you control your emotions
and follow the second strategy. You will also temper your fear with a new emotion: hope. This
process is illustrated by the downloadable Figure that accompanies this min-lecture.
When we manage our emotions, we tend to follow certain cultural "scripts," like the
culturally transmitted knowledge that lying down and playing dead gives you a better chance of
surviving a grizzly bear attack. That is, we usually know the culturally designated emotional
response to a particular external stimulus and we try to respond appropriately. If we don’t
succeed in achieving the culturally appropriate emotional response, we are likely to feel guilty,
disappointed or (as in the case of the grizzly bear attack) something much worse.
Emotions pervade all social interaction but they are not, as we commonly believe,
spontaneous and uncontrollable reactions to external stimuli. Rather, the norms of our culture and
the expectations of the people around us pattern our emotions. Sociologist Arlie Russell
Hochschild is one of the leading figures in the study of emotion management. In fact, she coined
the term. She argues that emotion management involves people obeying "feeling rules" and
responding appropriately to the situations in which they find themselves. So, for example, people
talk about the "right" to feel angry and they acknowledge that they "should" have mourned a
relative’s death more deeply. We have conventional expectations not only about what we should
feel but also about how much we should feel, how long we should feel it, and with whom we

should share our feelings. Moreover, feeling rules vary from one category of the population to the
next. For example, Hochschild claims that "women, Protestants, and middle-class people cultivate
the habit of suppressing their own feelings more than men, Catholics, and lower-class people do."
That is because our culture invites women to focus more on feeling than action and men to focus
more on action than feeling. Similarly, Protestantism invites people to participate in an inner
dialogue with God while the Catholic Church offers sacrament and confession, which allow and
even encourage the expression of feeling. Finally, more middle-class than lower-class people are
employed in service occupations in which the management of emotions is an important part of the
job. Hence they are more adept at suppressing their own feelings.
Hochschild distinguishes emotion management (which everyone does in their personal
life) from emotion labor (which many people do as part of their job and for which they are paid).
For example, teachers, sales clerks, nurses, and flight attendants must be experts in emotion labor.
They spend a considerable part of their work time dealing with other people’s misbehavior,
anger, rudeness, and unreasonable demands. They spend another part of their work time in what
is essentially promotional and public relations work on behalf of the organizations that employ
them. In all these tasks, they carefully manage their own emotions while trying to render their
clientele happy and orderly. Hochschild estimates that, in the United States, nearly half the jobs
women do and a fifth of the jobs men do involve substantial amounts of emotion labor.
Across occupations, different types of emotion labor are required. For instance, according to
Hochschild, the flight attendant and the bill collector represent two extremes. If an appropriate
motto for the flight attendant is “please, placate, and promote,” the bill collector’s motto might be
“control, coerce, and collect.” Flight attendants seek to smooth ruffled feathers, ensure comfort
and safety, and encourage passengers to fly the same airline on their next trip. But as Hochschild
found when she studied a debt collection office, bill collectors seek to get debtors riled up, ensure
their discomfort, and intimidate them to the point where they pay what they owe. As the head of
the office once shouted to his employees: "I don’t care if it's Christmas or what goddamn holiday!
You tell those people to get that money in!" Or on another occasion: "Can't you get madder than
that? Create alarm!"
Notwithstanding this variation, all jobs requiring emotion labor have in common the fact that
"they allow the employer, through training and supervision, to exercise a degree of control over
the emotional activities of employees." Moreover, as the focus of the economy shifts from the
production of goods to the production of services, the market for emotion labor grows. More and
more people are selected, trained, and paid for their skill in emotion labor. Emotion labor
becomes a commodity that employers buy in much the same way a furniture manufacturer buys

fabric to upholster chairs. The emotional life of workers – or at least the way they openly express
their feelings – is increasingly governed by the organizations for which they work and is therefore
less and less spontaneous and authentic.
We can glean additional evidence of the impact of society on our emotional life from
historical studies. In turns out that feeling rules take different forms under different social
conditions, which vary historically. Three examples from the social history of emotions help
illustrate the point.
First consider grief. Among other factors, the "crude death rate" (the annual number of
deaths per 1,000 people in a population) helps determine our experience of grief. In Europe as
late as 1600, life expectancy was only 35 years. Many infants died at birth or in their first year of
life. Infectious diseases decimated entire populations. The medical profession was in its infancy.
The risk of losing family members, especially babies, was thus much greater than today. One
result of this situation was that people invested less emotionally in their children than we
typically do. Their grief response to child deaths was shorter and less intense than ours; the
mourning period was briefer and people became less distraught. Over the years, as health
conditions improved and the infant mortality rate fell, emotional investment in children increased.
It intensified especially in the 19th
century when women starting having fewer babies on average
due to industrialization. As emotional investment in children rose, grief response to child deaths
intensified and lasted longer.
Next consider anger. Industrialization and the growth of competitive markets in 19th
century
North America and Europe turned the family into an emotional haven from a world increasingly
perceived as heartless. In keeping with the enhanced emotional function of the family, anger
control, particularly by women, became increasingly important for the establishment of a
harmonious household. The early 20th
century witnessed mounting labor unrest and the growth of
the service sector. Avoiding anger thus became an important labor relations goal. This influenced
family life too. Child-rearing advice manuals increasingly stressed the importance of teaching
children how to control their anger.
Finally consider disgust. Manners in Europe in the Middle Ages were utterly disgusting by
our standards. Even the most refined aristocrats spat in public and belched shamelessly during
banquets (with the King in attendance, no less). Members of high society didn’t flinch at
scratching themselves and passing gas at the dinner table, where they ate with their hands and
speared food with knives. What was acceptable then causes revulsion now because feeling rules
have changed. Specifically, manners began to change with the emergence of the modern political
state, especially after 1700. The modern political state raised armies and collected taxes, imposed

languages and required loyalty. All this coordination of effort necessitated more self-control on
the part of the citizenry. Changes in standards of public conduct -- signaled by the introduction of
the fork, the nightdress, the handkerchief, the spittoon, and the chamber pot -- accompanied the
rise of the modern state. Good manners also served to define who had power and who lacked it.
For example, there is nothing inherently well mannered about a father sitting at the head of the
table carving the turkey, and children waiting to speak until they are spoken to. These rules about
the difference between good manners and improper or disgusting behavior were created to signify
the distribution of power in the family by age and gender.
So we see that although emotions form an important part of all social interactions they are not
universals and they are not constants. They have histories and deep sociological underpinnings in
statuses, roles, and norms.
#4
The Human Body and Social Status
In an experiment, four people of the same height and roughly similar appearance were
introduced to a group of students. The first person was introduced as a fellow undergraduate, the
second as a graduate student, the third as an assistant professor, and the fourth as a professor.
Members of the group were asked to rank the four people in terms of their height. Despite the fact
that all four were of equal stature, the students estimated that the professor was the tallest, the
assistant professor next tallest, then the graduate student, and finally the undergraduate.
Apparently believing that physical stature reflects social stature, the students correlated social
status with height.
Is this perception accurate? Do tall people really tend to enjoy high social status? And why
are some people tall in the first place? We can begin to answer these questions by first
acknowledging that genes are an important determinant of any particular individual's height.
However, different populations are approximately the same genetically. A complex series of
social factors determine the average height of any population, whether the population consists of
members of a country, a class, a racial or ethnic group, etc. Moreover, a complex series of social
consequences flow from differences in height.
The first of the two downloadable Figures that accompany this mini-lecture shows some of
the main social causes and consequences of height. For purposes of illustration, consider the
impact of family income on stature, highlighted in green. Average family income is the single

most important determinant of the quality of one's diet, especially protein consumption. Higher
family income translates into a higher quality diet. In turn, the quality of one's diet during
childhood strongly influences one's stature. Thus, Americans born in 1975 are on average 3"
taller than Americans who were born in 1880. More dramatically, Japanese men were on average
5" taller at the end of the 20th
century than they were at mid-century. Norwegian men were on
average nearly 8" taller in 1984 than in 1761. Children born in North American are taller than
their parents born abroad. In all these cases, the main cause of growing stature is the same: a
higher standard of living led to an improved diet which allowed the human body to come closer
to realizing its full growth potential. The correlation between per capita family income and
average height across many countries is very strong (r = 0.82 or higher).
As one might expect, within countries there is also a correlation between stature and class
position. Class differences in height are smaller than they were centuries ago. Even today,
however, members of upper classes are on average taller than members of middle classes, who
are in turn taller than members of working classes. The Scandinavian countries are the exceptions
that prove the rule. There are no differences in stature between classes in Scandinavia. That is
because class inequality is less pronounced in Sweden, Norway, and the rest of Scandinavia than
anywhere else in the world.
The consequences of stature are important too. Scrutiny of many sources, ranging from
United States Army records since the Civil War to all Norwegian X-ray records from the 1950s,
reveals that, on average, tall people live longer than others. Tall people also earn more than others
and tend to reach the top of their profession more quickly. Significantly, in only three of the
United States Presidential elections held over the past century did the shorter candidate win.
At least part of the reason short people tend to be less successful in some ways than tall
people is that they experience subtle discrimination based on height. This argument may seem
far-fetched. However, your own attitudes may help drive the point home. Is it important that you
choose a spouse who is taller than you? If you are a woman, there is a very good chance you will
answer "yes." Is it important that you choose a spouse who is shorter than you? If you are a man,
there is a very good chance you will answer "yes." Why is this so? Practically speaking, it is
unimportant whether the husband or the wife is taller. Yet the overwhelming majority of people
believe that husbands should be taller than wives. They find it odd when a husband is shorter than
his wife or even when they are the same height. This attitude is widespread because, for most
people, height is an indicator of status and most people believe that men should enjoy higher
status than women. You can extend this example to other kinds of relationships. Think about the
leaders of your sports teams, friendship circles, college tutorials, families, and other groups to

which you belong. Height will surely not be the only determinant of leadership but you are likely
to observe a tendency for leaders to be taller than followers. This is so despite the fact that there
is no practical reason why leaders need to be taller than followers. Finally, consider where you sit
in the status hierarchy based on height. Have you ever felt advantaged or disadvantaged because
of your height?
What is true for height is also true for body weight. Body weight influences status because
of the cultural expectations we associate with it. Thus, one study of more than 10,000 young
American adults found that overweight women tend to complete four fewer months of school
than women who are not overweight. They are also 20% less likely to be married. An overweight
woman's household is likely to earn nearly $7,000 less per year than the household of a woman
who is not overweight. Overweight women are 10% more likely to live in poverty. The
consequences of being overweight are less serious for men. Still, overweight men are 11% less
likely to be married than men who are not overweight.
Interestingly, the negative effects of being overweight are evident even for women matched
in terms of their social and economic backgrounds. This suggests the need to revise the simple,
conventional view that poverty encourages obesity. It is certainly true that poor women have
fewer opportunities and resources that would allow them to eat healthier diets, get more exercise,
and bring down their weight. For example, if you live in a poor, high-crime neighborhood, it is
dangerous to go out for a speed walk and you may not be able to afford anything more nutritious
than high-calorie fast food when you go out for a meal. However, the reverse is also true: obesity
in and of itself tends to make women poorer. This conclusion seems reasonable because for
women matched in terms of their social and economic backgrounds, being overweight still has
negative effects on income. There is apparently a "reciprocal relationship" between obesity and
social class, which each variable affecting the other.
In pre-industrial societies, people generally favored well-rounded physiques because they
signified wealth and prestige. Not surprisingly, beautiful women as depicted by the great artists of
the past tend to be on the heavy side from our contemporary perspective. In contrast, in our
society, being well rounded usually signifies undesirability. Being overweight in North America
today has become a source of negative stereotyping and even outright discrimination. Many of us
think of overweight people as less attractive, industrious, and disciplined than thin people.
The percentage of overweight people is big and growing quickly. In the period 1998-2000,
26% of the American population was obese, compared to 15% in Canada and just 3% in Japan.
The American figure reached 31% in 2000, a 35% increase since 1994. Americans are the most
overweight people in the world. Please see the second of this mini-lecture’s downloadable

Figures. This means that a large and expanding percentage of the population lives with a stigma
that affects their life chances, due partly to the availability of inexpensive high-calorie fast food
anywhere, anytime and the food companies' annual advertising budget of $33 billion in 2000.
#5
Fundamentalism and Extremist Politics in the Arab World
In 1972 I was doing my BA at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. One morning at the end
of May, I switched on the radio to discover that a massacre had taken place at Lod (now Ben
Gurion) International Airport outside Tel Aviv, just 26 miles from my apartment. Three Japanese
men dressed in business suits had arrived on Air France flight 132 from Paris. They were
members of the Japanese Red Army, a small, shadowy terrorist group with links to the General
Command of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Both groups wanted to help wrest
Israel from Jewish rule.
After they picked up their bags, the three men pulled out automatic rifles and started
firing indiscriminately. Before pausing to slip fresh clips into their rifles, they lobbed hand
grenades into the crowd at the ticket counters. One man ran onto the tarmac, shot some
disembarking passengers, and then blew himself up. This was the first suicide attack in Middle
East history. Security guards shot a second terrorist and arrested the third, Kozo Okamoto. When
the firing stopped, 26 people lay dead. Half were non-Jews. In addition to the two terrorists,
eleven Catholics were murdered. They were Puerto Rican tourists who had just arrived on a
pilgrimage to the Holy Land.
Both the Japanese Red Army and the General Command of the Popular Front for the
Liberation of Palestine were strictly non-religious organizations. Their members were atheists
who quoted Marx and Lenin, not Jesus or Muhammad. Yet something unexpected happened to
Kozo Okamoto, the sole surviving terrorist of the Lod massacre. Israel sentenced him to life in
prison but freed him in 1985 in a prisoner exchange with Palestinian forces. Okamoto wound up
living in Lebanon's Bekaa Valley, the main base of the Iranian-backed Hizbollah fundamentalist
terrorist organization. At some point in the late 1980s or early 1990s, he was swept up in the
Middle East's Islamic revival. Okamoto the militant atheist converted to Islamic fundamentalism.
Kozo Okamoto's life tells us something important and not at all obvious about religious
fundamentalism and politics in the Middle East and elsewhere. Okamoto was involved in
extremist politics first and became a religious fundamentalist later. Religious fundamentalism
became a useful way for him to articulate and implement his political views. This is quite typical.

Religious fundamentalism often provides a convenient vehicle for framing political extremism,
enhancing its appeal, legitimizing it, and providing a foundation for the solidarity of political
groups.
Many people fail to see the political underpinnings of religious fundamentalism. They
regard religious fundamentalism as an independent variable and extremist politics as a dependent
variable. In this view, some people happen to become religious fanatics and then their fanaticism
commands them to go out and kill their opponents. For example, here is what President George
W. Bush said when he addressed Congress on September 20, 2001, just nine days after al Qaeda's
attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Al Qaeda's goal, said President Bush, is
"imposing its radical beliefs on people everywhere. The terrorists practice a fringe form of
Islamic extremism…. The terrorists' directive commands them to kill Christians and Jews, to kill
all Americans, and make no distinction among military and civilians, including women and
children." Islamic extremism somehow appears, and the murdering inevitably follows.
What President Bush ignored are the political sources of this fringe form of Islamic
extremism. Al Qaeda is strongly antagonistic to American foreign policy in the Middle East. It
despises U.S. support for repressive and non-democratic Arab governments like that of Kuwait
and Saudi Arabia, which fail to distribute the benefits of oil wealth to the impoverished Arab
masses. It is also virulently opposed to the American position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,
which it regards as too pro-Israeli and insufficiently supportive of Palestinian interests (to put it
mildly). These political complaints are the breeding ground of support for al Qaeda in the Arab
world. This is evident from recent public opinion polls, which show that Arabs in the Middle East
hold largely favorable attitudes toward American culture, democracy, and the American people,
but extremely negative attitudes toward precisely those elements of American Middle East policy
that al Qaeda opposes. Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations in the Middle East gain in
strength to the degree that these political issues are not addressed in a meaningful way. As
Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security advisor to President Jimmy Carter, recently wrote in the
New York Times: "To win the war on terrorism, one must…set two goals: first, to destroy the
terrorists and, second, to begin a political effort that focuses on the conditions that brought about
their emergence." These are wise words. They are based on the sociological understanding that
fundamentalism, like other forms of religion, is powerfully influenced by the social context in
which it emerges.
#6
The Social Limits of Modern Medicine

Around February 5th
, 2003, a 64-year-old professor of medicine from Guangzhou, the capital
of Guangdong Province in South China, came down with an unidentified respiratory ailment. It
did not bother him enough to cancel a planned trip to Hong Kong, so on February 12th
he checked
into that city’s Metropole Hotel. Ironically, as it turned out, the desk clerk assigned him room
911. Other 9th
floor guests included an elderly couple from Toronto and three young women from
Singapore. All of these people, along with a local resident who visited the hotel during this
period, fell ill between February 15th
and 27th
with the same respiratory ailment as the professor.
The professor died on March 4th
. The Canadian woman returned to Toronto on February 23rd
and
died at her home on March 5th
. The eventual diagnosis: Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, or
SARS, a new (and in 9% of cases, deadly) pneumonia-like illness for which there is no vaccine
and no cure.
SARS originated in Guangdong Province. By June 12th
, 8,445 cases of SARS had been
identified in 29 countries and 790 people had died of the disease. Quickly and efficiently, global
travel spread HIV/AIDS, West Nile Virus, and now SARS from remote and isolated locales to the
world’s capitals. The United Nations has labeled Toronto the world’s most multicultural city. It
has a large Chinese population, mainly from Hong Kong. It is therefore not surprising that,
outside of China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan, Toronto became the world’s number one SARS hot
spot.
Once identified as a potential SARS case, a person is quarantined at home for ten days.
However, if people exhibit symptoms of the disease, they go to a poorly ventilated institution
where the air is maintained at a constant warm temperature that is ideal for the multiplication of
germs. In this institution, many young and elderly people with weakened immune systems
congregate. A steady stream of germs pours in round the clock. Staff members too often fail to
follow elementary principles of good hygiene. That institution is a hospital. There, germs spread.
Most of the 238 people in Toronto who caught SARS as of June 12th
, 2003 did so in hospital
before stringent isolation and disinfection procedures were imposed.
The characterization of hospitals as ideal environments for the spread of germs may seem
harsh. It is not. In fact, among the world’s rich countries, the hospital system in the United States
is perhaps the most dangerous in this respect, although Canada is not far behind. The Chicago
Tribune published a major investigative report on the problem in 2002. Adopting the same
methods used by epidemiologists, the Tribune analyzed records from 75 federal and state
agencies. It also examined hospital files, patient databases, and court cases to produce the most
comprehensive analysis of preventable patient deaths linked to infections in 5,810 hospitals

nationwide. It found that of the 35 million Americans admitted to hospital each year, about 6%
contract a hospital-acquired infection such as pneumonia, influenza or staphylococcus. In 2000,
an estimated 103,000 people died due to hospital infections. (The Centers for Disease Control
estimated 90,000 such deaths in 2000, but their research extrapolated from just 315 hospitals.) If
the government classified death due to hospital infection, it would be the fourth leading cause of
death in the nation, behind heart disease, cancer, and stroke. The Tribune identified about a
quarter of hospital infection deaths as non-preventable because they resulted from problems that
had not been detected beforehand by state, federal or health-care investigators. That leaves
75,000 preventable deaths, caused by problems investigators had already identified. These deaths
could have been avoided if we kept hospital rooms and operating theaters cleaner, sterilized all
instruments after use, fixed ventilation problems, routinely flushed water pipes, ensured that all
doctors and nurses disinfect their hands after examining each patient, and so forth.
Cutting costs and catering to paying customers are among the chief means of keeping
shareholders happy in a health care system driven chiefly by profitability. This means investing
disproportionately in expensive, high-tech, cutting-edge diagnostic equipment and treatment for
those who can afford it. It also means scrimping on simple, labor-intensive, time-consuming,
hygiene for those who cannot. About a third of all hospitals in the United States are operating at a
loss and a third are on the edge of bankruptcy according to the American Hospital Association.
Particularly in hospitals in financial distress, cleaning staffs are too small and insufficiently
trained. Nurses are too few. According to research by the Harvard School of Public Health, these
are the kinds of factors correlated with hospital-acquired infections. As San Francisco registered
nurse Trande Phillips says: “When you have less time to save lives, do you take 30 seconds to
wash your hands? When you’re speeding up you have to cut corners. We don’t always wash our
hands. I’m not saying it’s right, but you’ve got to deal with reality.”
This was not always the reality. From the 1860s to the 1940s, American hospital staffs were
obsessed with cleanliness. They had to be. In the era before the widespread use of penicillin and
antibiotics, infection often meant death. In the 1950s, however, the prevention of infections in
hospitals became less of a priority because penicillin and antibiotics became widely available. It
was less expensive to wait until a patient got sick and then respond to symptoms by prescribing
drugs than preventing the sickness in the first place. Doctors and nurses have grown lax about
hygiene over the past half-century. For example, the Chicago Tribune investigators found a dozen
recent health care studies showing that about half of doctors and nurses do not disinfect their
hands between patients.
Using penicillin and antibiotics indiscriminately has its own costs. When living organisms

encounter a deadly threat, only the few mutations that are strong enough to resist the threat
survive and go on to reproduce. Accordingly, if you use a lot of penicillin and antibiotics, “super
germs” that are resistant to these drugs multiply. This is just what has happened. Penicillin could
kill nearly all staphylococcus germs in the 1940s but by 1982 it was effective in fewer than 10%
of cases. In the 1970s, doctors turned to the more powerful methicillin, which in 1974 could kill
98% of staphylococcus germs. By the mid-1990s, it could kill only about 50%. It has thus come
about that various strains of drug-resistant germs now cause pneumonia, blood poisoning,
tuberculosis, and other infectious diseases. Drug-resistant germs that could formerly survive only
in the friendly hospital environment have now adapted to the harsher environment outside the
hospital walls. Pharmaceutical companies are racing to create new antibiotics to fight drug-
resistant bugs but germs mutate so quickly our arsenal is shrinking.
The epidemic of infectious diseases caused by slack hospital hygiene and the overuse of
antibiotics suggests that social circumstances constrain the success of modern medicine. It is
difficult to see how we can solve these problems without setting up a government watchdog to
oversee and enforce strict rules regarding hospital disinfection. That would require considerable
tax money and it would impose a principle other than profitability on the health care system.
Therefore, it would be a political hot potato.
Mini-Lecture #7
War and Terrorism: Politics by Other Means
A war is a violent armed conflict between politically distinct groups who fight to protect or
increase their control of territory. Humanity has spent much of its history preparing for war,
fighting it, and recovering from it. Thus, recorded history shows that war has broken out some
14,000 times between 3600 b.c.e. and the present. It has killed roughly a billion soldiers and two
billion civilians, approximately 3% of the people born in the last 5600 years. (This is an
underestimate since it necessarily ignores armed conflict among people without a recorded
history.) Few people appreciate that Genghis Khan’s conquests in the 13th
century may have
killed as many people as World War II. Overall, however, and taking a long historical view, wars
have become more destructive over time with “improvements” in the technology of human
destruction. Thus, the 20th
century represents 1.7% of the time since the beginning of recorded
war history but accounts for roughly 3.3% of the world’s war deaths, military and civilian. Some
100 million people died in 20th
century wars.

War is an expensive business, and the United States spends far more than any other country
financing it. With 4.5% of the world’s population, the United States accounts for about a third of
total military expenditures in the world. In addition, the United States is by far the largest
exporter of arms, accounting for nearly 60% of world arms exports. The countries ranking distant
second, third, and fourth are the United Kingdom (12% of world arms exports), France (11%),
and Russia (4%). Nearly all the big arms importers are U.S. allies. Saudi Arabia and Taiwan are
America’s best customers by far. Next in order are Japan, the United Kingdom, Kuwait, Egypt,
the United Arab Emirates, South Korea, and Israel.
Wars may take place between countries (interstate wars) and within countries (civil or
societal wars). A special type of interstate war is the colonial war, which involves a colony
engaging in armed conflict with an imperial power to gain independence. The first downloadable
Figure accompanying this mini-lecture shows the magnitude of armed conflict in the world for
each of these types of war from 1946 to 2002. You will immediately notice two striking features
of the graph. First, after reaching a peak between the mid-1980s and early 1990s, the magnitude
of armed conflict in the world dropped sharply. Second, since the mid-1950s, most armed conflict
in the world has been societal rather than interstate. Today, countries rarely go to war against
each other. They often go to war with themselves as contending political groups fight for state
control or seek to break away and form independent states. Don’t let the mass media distort your
perception of global war. Wars like the 2003 U.S.-Iraq war account for little of the total
magnitude of armed conflict although they loom large in the mass media. Wars like the ongoing
conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo account for most of the total magnitude of
armed conflict yet are rarely mentioned in the mass media. Thus, the 2003 U.S.-Iraq war lasted
six weeks and registered about 7,000 military and civilian deaths while the civil war in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo had dragged on for five years by August 2003 and registered
about 3.5 million deaths.
War risk varies from one country to the next, as is evident from the second downloadable
Figure accompanying this min-lecture. But what factors determine the risk of war on the territory
of a given country? This mini-lecture’s third Figure helps answer that question. It classifies the
countries of the world by type of government and level of prosperity. Government types include
democracy, autocracy (absolute rule by a single person or party), and “intermediate” forms.
Intermediate types of government include some elements of democracy (e.g, regular elections)
and some elements of autocracy (e.g., no institutional checks on presidential power). In this
graph, a country’s Gross Domestic Product per capita (GDPpc) indicates its level of prosperity.
The graph divides the world’s countries into quarters by GDPpc.

Democracy is more common and autocracy less common in prosperous countries. What is
particularly interesting about this Figure, however, is the distribution of countries with
intermediate types of government. Countries with intermediate types of government are at highest
risk of war, especially societal or civil war. A democratic government tends to be stable because
it enjoys legitimacy in the eyes of its citizens. An autocratic government tends to be stable
because an iron hand rules it. In contrast, an intermediate type of government is characterized
neither by high legitimacy nor iron rule. It is therefore most prone to collapsing into societal war,
with armed political groups fighting each other for state control.
I conclude that economic development and democratization are the two main factors leading
to less war in the world today. In a way, this is a deeply disturbing finding. In 2002, the United
States allocated about 17% of its budget to war (or “defense”) spending and only 0.4% to
international development and humanitarian assistance. Public opinion polls show that the
American public and its leaders regard the promotion of democracy and the improvement of
living standards in other countries as the least important American goals, although the cost of
achieving them would be relatively low. It thus seems that we prefer to spend very little money
promoting higher living standards and democracy in other nations. This permits much armed
conflict in the world. We then spend a great deal of money dealing with the armed conflict. Said
differently, we have chosen to spend a lot to increase the sum total of human misery on the planet
rather than spending a little to increase the welfare of humanity.
We can learn much about the sorry predicament of the world today by lingering a moment on
the question of why societal warfare has largely replaced interstate warfare since World War II.
As usual, historical perspective is useful.
From the rise of the modern state in the 17th
century until World War II, states increasingly
monopolized the means of coercion in society. This had three important consequences. First, as
various regional, ethnic, and religious groups came under the control of powerful central states,
regional, ethnic, and religious wars declined and interstate warfare became the norm. Second,
because states were powerful and monopolized the means of coercion, conflict became more
deadly. Third, civilian life was pacified because the job of killing for political reasons was largely
restricted to state-controlled armed forces. Thus, even as the death toll due to war rose, civilians
were largely segregated from large-scale killing. As late as World War I (1914-18), civilians
composed only 5% of war deaths.
All this changed after World War II (1939-45). Since then, there have been fewer interstate
wars and more civil wars, guerilla wars, massacres, terrorist attacks, and instances of attempted
ethnic cleansing and genocide perpetrated by militias, mercenaries, paramilitaries, suicide

bombers, and the like. Moreover, large-scale violence has increasingly been visited on civilian
rather than military populations. By the 1990s, civilians composed fully 90% of war deaths. The
mounting toll of civilian casualties is evident from U.S. Department of State data on casualties
due to international terrorist attacks, among other sources of information. Please see the last of
the downloadable Figures that accompany this mini-lecture.
This change in the form of collective violence came about for three main reasons. First,
decolonization and separatist movements roughly doubled the number of independent states in
the world, and many of these new states, especially in Africa and Asia, were too weak to control
their territories effectively. Second, especially during the Cold War (1946-91), the United States,
the Soviet Union, Cuba, and China often subsidized and sent arms to domestic opponents of
regimes that were aligned against them. Third, the expansion of international trade in contraband
provided rebels with new means of support. They took advantage of inexpensive international
communication and travel to establish immigrant support communities abroad and export heroin,
cocaine, diamonds, dirty money, and so forth. In sum, the structure of opportunities for engaging
in collective violence shifted radically after World War II. As a result, the dominant form of
collective violence changed from interstate to societal warfare.
From this perspective, and whatever its individual peculiarities, al Qaeda is a typical creature
of contemporary warfare. Al Qaeda originated in Afghanistan, a notoriously weak and dependent
state. The United States supported Al Qaeda’s founders militarily in their struggle against the
Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s. Al Qaeda organized international heroin,
diamond, and money laundering operations. It established a network of operatives around the
world. All of this was made possible by changes in the structure of opportunities for collective
violence after World War II.
International terrorists of the type the U.S. Department of State collects data on typically
demand autonomy or independence for some country, population or region. For example, among
al Qaeda’s chief demands are Palestinian statehood and the end of U.S. support for the wealthy
regimes in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the Gulf States. Al Qaeda has turned to terror as a means of
achieving these goals because other ways of achieving them are largely closed off. The United
States considers support for the oil-rich Arab countries to be in the national interest. It has so far
done little to further the cause of Palestinian statehood. Staunch opponents of American policy
cannot engage in interstate warfare with the United States because they lack states of their own.
At most, they are supported by states that lack the resources to engage in sustained warfare with
the United States, including Iran, Syria, Libya, and the former regime of Iraq. Because the

existing structure of world power closes off other possibilities for achieving political goals, terror
emerges as a viable alternative for some desperate people.
MORE BOOKS
Autism - The Complete Guide for Parents
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1547004673
#haythamalfiqi How to Make Money with Outsourced Articles and
Article Marketing ? http://amzn.to/1Uv1kJE
#haythamalfiqi How to Start a Day Care Center?
http://amzn.to/1RtPc5n
#haythamalfiqi India Travel http://amzn.to/1RwKd6c
#haythamalfiqi Law of attraction: (A Simple Guide to attract Wealth,
Health,power,and Happiness) http://amzn.to/1UmirNh
#haythamalfiqi Nursing Careers: Do You Have What It Takes
http://amzn.to/1pDLChD
#haythamalfiqi Public Contract Law: The Law Student's Guide to
Pursuing a Career in Public Contract Law
http://amzn.to/1So19Ms
#haythamalfiqi Public Speaking: Secrets for Success
http://amzn.to/1ZFuF3g
#haythamalfiqi The Quality of Life: health related quality of life
questionnaire http://amzn.to/1MKj4IL
#haythamalfiqi Self Insight and Professional Growth
http://amzn.to/1Pyee13
#haythamalfiqi Sex Life after 60: ( Common Issues to Consider if
you want to have a Great Sex Life after 60 )
http://amzn.to/1RwLcTO
#haythamalfiqi Swimming Pool Guide http://amzn.to/1UUA5GS

#haythamalfiqi The Weight Loss Solution :: 53 Lessons for loss
Your Weight Forever http://amzn.to/1RmkIWt
#haythamalfiqi WHAT DO YOU WANT? how to design a plan for
your life: how to design a plan for your
life http://amzn.to/1ZFuG7i
#haythamalfiqi Wood Working Guilds http://amzn.to/1UQoXMj
#haythamalfiqi Yoga :: An Easy Yoga for Beginners Guide (Lose
Weight, And Heal Your Body) http://amzn.to/1pR1P3Q *
#haythamalfiqi Criminal Law: International Criminal Police
Organization http://amzn.to/25qILcO *
#haythamalfiqi American Idol Contestants http://amzn.to/1So25jJ
#haythamalfiqi Bitcoin : The Ultimate Guide for Beginners
http://amzn.to/1pDMaUU
#haythamalfiqi Building Self Esteem http://amzn.to/1SeuCFV *
#haythamalfiqi Catch A Cheating Lover http://amzn.to/1VOHNTI
#haythamalfiqi Contracts http://amzn.to/1XW5urA *
#haythamalfiqi Cosmetic Surgery: Signs You May Need a Cosmetic
Surgery Facelift http://amzn.to/1pDMovi
#haythamalfiqi Credit Card Debt: Everything You Need to Know to
Avoid the Mistakes http://amzn.to/25qJafs
#haythamalfiqi Dog Training: : Complete Guide to Training Your
Dog or Puppy http://amzn.to/1Rml9A2 *
#haythamalfiqi Dream Interpretation: This book explains in detail
the interpretation of dreams http://amzn.to/1RHyZPq *
#haythamalfiqi E-Bay http://amzn.to/21NdtIr
#haythamalfiqi Eat Healthier: Tips for healthy eating
http://amzn.to/1Tce5Y6

#haythamalfiqi Facebook Marketing http://amzn.to/1MKktit
#haythamalfiqi Green Tea: Why You Must Drink
It? http://amzn.to/1MtiioD
#haythamalfiqi Hawaii Vacation: A Travel Guide
http://amzn.to/1oetslD
#haythamalfiqi Christian Organizations http://amzn.to/1YhysTt
#haythamalfiqi Anime and Sci-Fi Collecting
http://amzn.to/1QWiNmv
#haythamalfiqi Anger Management: A Grandiosity Mind Trapped in
Anger
http://amzn.to/1UMgOrK
#haythamalfiqi Cat Behavior Training http://amzn.to/1XgS0sE
#haythamalfiqi A Firefighters Character http://amzn.to/1ZwoWfm
#haythamalfiqi A Good Mailing List for a Bad One
http://amzn.to/1SYpp9P
#haythamalfiqi Wellness And Fitness http://amzn.to/1XgRNWw
#haythamalfiqi A Look at the Steps of Making Wine
http://www.amazon.com/dp/1533165661
Haytham Al Fiqi Books: http://amzn.to/27nSCB9
#haythamalfiqi Haytham Al Fiqi blog : http://www.authorhaf.org/
Haytham Al Fiqi Fan Page
https://www.facebook.com/authorhaythamalfiqi/
#haythamalfiqi Italy Vacations: A Travel Guide
http://amzn.to/1UrvMmD

#haythamalfiqi #kindleunlimited Benefits of Affiliate Marketing
http://amzn.to/1fDkw4y
#haythamalfiqi #kindleunlimited The Encyclopedia of Dentistry(Part2)
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00FHOZE6E
#haythamalfiqi #kindleunlimited The Encyclopedia of Dentistry
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00FHN5S0C
#haythamalfiqi #kindleunlimited most effective way to make money on
Craigslist http://amzn.to/1fz14WF
#haythamalfiqi #kindleunlimited 78 Ways to Make Money Working from
Home http://amzn.to/1iFpyhq
#haythamalfiqi #kindleunlimited making money online as an affiliate
with Click bank http://amzn.to/1fz1uwt
#haythamalfiqi #kindleunlimited How to Earn Money online using
Twitter $100-$500 per day http://amzn.to/1lFBNdu
#haythamalfiqi #kindleunlimited Make Money Online - Using Pinterest
http://amzn.to/1rV8ZPW
#haythamalfiqi #kindleunlimited Niche blogging is easier then you
think - 6 figure blogging , http://amzn.to/1o8Efst
#haythamalfiqi #kindleunlimited Fiverr Secrets http://amzn.to/1fUFzdF
#haythamalfiqi #kindleunlimited Secret Ways To Make Money On
YouTube http://amzn.to/1pV2Aqt
#haythamalfiqi https://www.amazon.co.uk/Jamaica-Vacations-
Haytham-Al-Fiqi/dp/1533516634/ref=as_sl_pc_qf_sp_asin_til?
tag=authorhaf-
21&linkCode=w00&linkId=&creativeASIN=1533516634

Lectures

More Related Content

What's hot (11)

Similar to Lectures (7)

More from suzi smith (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Lectures