Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Introduction
References
All Topics
Sociology
Social Theory

Structural Domination and Contradictory Socialization

Profile image of Antoine LouetteAntoine Louette
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8675.12810
visibility

…

description

13 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

Indeed fifth, and finally, I hint at another, a more satisfactory solution which attempts to do just that: socialization provides part This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Related papers

In the maelstrom of social structures (again)
Theo Verheggen

Theory & Psychology, 2013

View PDFchevron_right
Partnership and Domination Societies
Riane Eisler

Elsevier eBooks, 2022

Partnership and domination societies describe two contrasting social configurations that support either equitable or inequitable relations in all spheres of life. These categories are also known as partnership systems and domination or dominator systems. These new social categories: • Challenge negative assumptions about human nature and the alleged impossibility of improving the human condition. • Identify the conditions that support the expression of our human capacities for caring, creativity, and consciousness or, alternately, for insensitivity, cruelty, and destructiveness. • Take into account findings from neuroscience that show the interaction between how a society structures parent-child and gender relations, on the one hand, and political and economic relations, on the other. • Provide the basis for a successful agenda for building a more peaceful, equitable, and sustainable future (

View PDFchevron_right
Legitimization and Delegitimization of Social Hierarchy
Wiesław Baryla

Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2015

The version in the Kent Academic Repository may differ from the final published version. Users are advised to check for the status of the paper. Users should always cite the published version of record.

View PDFchevron_right
Putting social structure in its place, schematically
Rick Szostak

Issues in Integrative Studies, 2001

I apply the schema I developed in a recent Issues in Integrative Studies (IIS ) paper (consisting of a hierarchically organized list of the phenomena of interest to human scientists, and the causal links or influences among these) to the case of social structure, which is defined in terms of the subgroups into which societies are divided. I discuss causal links in both directions between elements of social structure and phenomena in each of the nine other categories in my schema. This illustrates the validity of my schema, by showing that diverse causal links can be placed within it. I also illustrate the value of the schema as an organizing device for the study of social structure (or other phenomena). I draw several lessons for the future study of social structure.

View PDFchevron_right
Towards a comprehensive socio-psychological perspective: A critique of social dominance theory
Bahar Tuncgenc

Journal of European Psychology Students (JEPS), 2010

Psychology aims to understand human cognition and behavior, which necessitates making use of sociological-political theories. Social Dominance Theory (SDT) is one of the psychological theories that try to explain the individual-society relationship from a broad perspective. Yet, this theory has its shortcomings too. In an attempt to contribute to a well-grounded theory for psychological research, the paper at hand will discuss the shortcomings of SDT. The main discussion concerns following appropriate logic while making assumptions, and proper interpretation of historical and evolutionary data: it is suggested that no single theory, including SDT, is capable of embracing such a wide subject and SDT can be utilized only in some aspects of this subject.

View PDFchevron_right
Collectivism and Individualism in Status Hierarchies: Socialization and Social Identity Explanations
Fabio Lorenzi-Cioldi

International Review of Social Psychology, 2019

Group status is the outcome of the rank ordering of groups on valued dimensions. This concept is distinguished from personal status, which defines the rank ordering of individuals in a given context. It is inherently comparative, involving evaluations that one's membership group occupies a respected position in a social hierarchy. The construct is often used interchangeably with related and somewhat more specific concepts, notably power, privilege, dominance, and social class. 1 Social class, like status, conveys judgments of respect and competence (Darley & Gross, 1983; Fiske, 2010). Despite being most of the time an inherited privilege, it is often regarded as having been acquired by individuals' efforts, competence, and abilities (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1964, 1970; Rosette & Thompson, 2005). The personal and the collective in status hierarchies Recent research has demonstrated that individualistic and collectivistic perceptions of self and society can be arrayed on a status continuum (e.g., Kraus et al., 2012; for a similar claim using the constructs of agency and communion, see Rucker, Galinsky, & Magee, 2018). These constructs refer to 'the degree to which people in a society are integrated into groups' (Hofstede, 2011: 11; Triandis, 1994). Toward the collectivistic pole, people show attentiveness to others and vigilance to features of situations, and perceive

View PDFchevron_right
Social dominance: an intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression
Felicia Pratto

Choice Reviews Online, 2000

View PDFchevron_right
Status and Dominance Hierarchies
Denise Cummins

Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science, 2016

According to an influential model of hierarchical sociality, there are two systems of status-"two ways to the top" (Henrich and Gil-White 2001). In the dominance route, physical intimidation and

View PDFchevron_right
Social Dominance in Context and in Individuals
María Aranda

Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2013

We tested the internal reliability and predictive validity of a new 4-item Short Social Dominance Orientation (SSDO) scale among adults in 20 countries, using 15 languages ( N = 2,130). Low scores indicate preferring group inclusion and equality to dominance. As expected, cross-nationally, the lower people were on SSDO, the more they endorsed more women in leadership positions, protecting minorities, and aid to the poor. Multilevel moderation models showed that each effect was stronger in nations where a relevant kind of group power differentiation was more salient. Distributions of SSDO were positively skewed, despite use of an extended response scale; results show rejecting group hierarchy is normative. The short scale is effective. Challenges regarding translations, use of short scales, and intersections between individual and collective levels in social dominance theory are discussed.

View PDFchevron_right
The social psychology of minority influence
Juan Perez

1991

Like most scientific works, this book is not the sole product of the one, or in this case, two authors to whom it is credited. It was made possible through several exchange networks all contributing to its creation. The first is the social psychology research team of the University of Geneva, and in particular, Willem Doise, who introduced us to the study of intergroup relations and with whom we developed our constructivist approach to social psychology; Stamos Papastamou, collaborator in our first book on the issue, The Power of Minorities; and Clause Kaiser and Patricia Roux, with whom so many of our studies were conducted. A second network, this time international and connected to the first, was instrumental in enabling the experiments reported in this book. Serge Moscovici played a central role here, providing initial inspiration and constant suggestions. These networks were supported from outside the University of Geneva, where we found the means to develop our research and confront our ideas with others, particularly through two conferences on minority influence, one held in Barcelona in 1980, the other in Geneva in 1985, with the assistance of the Laboratoire Europ‚en de Psychologie Sociale and the European Association of Experimental Social Psychology. Our experimental research, so fundamental to this approach, was greatly facilitated by several research grants from the Fonds National suisse de la Recherche Scientifique.

View PDFchevron_right

References (95)

  1. Abercrombie, N., S. Hill, and B. S. Turner. 1980. The Dominant Ideology Thesis. George Allen and Unwin.
  2. Althusser, L. (1970) 2014. "Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses." In On the Reproduction of Capitalism ([1995] 2014), translated by B. Brewster and G. M. Goshgarian, 240-277. Verso.
  3. American Psychiatric Association. 2013. Diagnostic et Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, (5th Edition). American Psychiatric Association.
  4. Anderson, E. 2010. The Imperative of Integration. Princeton University Press.
  5. Balibar, E. 2014. La Philosophie de Marx, La Découverte.
  6. Balkin, J. M. 1998. Cultural Software: A Theory of Ideology.Yale University Press.
  7. Boltanski, L. 1990. L'Amour et la justice comme compétences. Métaillé.
  8. Bourdieu, P. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge University Press.
  9. Breslau, N., G. C. Davis, P. Andreski, and E. Peterson. 1991. "Traumatic Events and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder in an Urban Population of Young Adults." Archives of General Psychiatry 48: 216-222.
  10. de Brosses, C. (1760/2017). "On the Worship of Fetish Gods." In The Returns of Fetishism. Charles de Brosses and the Afterlife of an Idea, edited by R C. Morris and D H. Leonard and translated by Daniel H. Leonard. University of Chicago Press, 44-132.
  11. Carmichael, S., and C. V. Hamilton. 1967. Black Power: The Politics of Liberation in America. Vintage.
  12. Celikates, R. 2012. "Systematic Misrecognition and the Practice of Cri- tique: Bourdieu, Boltanski and the Role of Critical Theory." In Recognition Theory and Contemporary French Moral and Political Philosophy: Reopen- ing the Dialogue, edited by M. Bankowsky, and A. Le Goff, 160-172. Manchester University Press.
  13. Celikates, R. 2016. "Beyond the Critical Theorists' Nightmare: Epistemic Injustice, Looping Effects, and Ideology Critique." Paper presented at Workshop for Gender and Philosophy, MIT, December 5, 2016.
  14. Cicerchia, L. 2019. "Structural Domination in the Labor Market." European Journal of Political Theory 21, no. 1: 4-24.
  15. Cohen, G. A. 2000. Karl Marx's Theory of History: a Defence. Princeton University Press.
  16. Cohen, G. A. 2009. Why Not Socialism? Princeton University Press.
  17. Einspahr, J. 2010. "Structural Domination and Structural Freedom: A Feminist Perspective." Feminist Review 94, no. 1: 1-19.
  18. Elster, J. 1986. An Introduction to Karl Marx, Cambridge University Press.
  19. Filling, J. Unpublished. What is Domination? Part 1: Domination as Arbitrary Power.
  20. Foucault, M. 1979. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Penguin Books.
  21. Fraser, N. 1993. "Beyond the Master/Subject Model: Reflections on Carole Pateman's Sexual Contract." Social Text 37: (Winter 1993): 173-181.
  22. Fraser, N., and R. Jaeggi. 2018. Capitalism: A Conversation in Critical Theory. Polity.
  23. Freeden, M. 1996. Ideologies and Political Theory: A Conceptual Approach. Clarendon Press.
  24. Frye, M. 1983. The Politics of Reality: Essays in Feminist Theory, Freedom, The Crossing Press.
  25. Gädeke, D. 2020. "Does a Mugger Dominate? Episodic Power and the Structural Dimension of Domination." Journal of Political Philosophy 28, no. 2: 199-221.
  26. Geuss, R. 1981. The Idea of Critical Theory, Habermas and the Frankfurt School. Cambridge University Press.
  27. Giddens, A. 1979. Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure, and Contradiction in Social Analysis. MacMillan.
  28. Giddens, A. 1984. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. University of California Press.
  29. Gourevitch, A. 2013. "Labor Republicanism and the Transformation of Work." Political Theory 41, no. 4: 591-617.
  30. Graeber, D. 2001. Toward an Anthropological Theory of Value: The False Coin of Our Own Dreams. Palgrave.
  31. Graeber, D. 2005. "Fetishism as Social Creativity: or, Fetishes Are Gods in the Process of Construction." Anthropological Theory 5, no. 4: 407- 438. Graeber, D. 2009. Direct Action: An Ethnography. AK Press.
  32. Graeber, D. 2011. Debt: The First 5,000 Years. Melville House.
  33. Graeber, D. 2015. The Utopia of Rules: On Technology, Stupidity, and the Secret Joys of Bureaucracy. Melville House.
  34. Gros, F. 2017. Michel Foucault. Presses Universitaires de France.
  35. Hall, S. 1996. "The Problem of Ideology: Marxism Without Guarantees." In Stuart Hall: Critical Dialogues in Cultural Studies, edited by D. Morlay, and K. H. Chen, 24-45. Taylor & Francis Group.
  36. Harding, S. G. (ed.) 2004. The Feminist Standpoint Theory Reader: Intellectual and Political Controversies. Routledge.
  37. Hasan, R. 2021. "Republicanism and Structural Domination." Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 102, 292-319.
  38. Haslanger, S. 2004. "Oppressions: Racial and Other." In Racism in Mind, edited by M. Levine and T. Pataki. Cornell University Press, 97- 126. Haslanger, S. 2008. "Changing the Ideology and Culture of Philosophy: Not by Reason (Alone)." Hypatia 23, no. 2: 210-223.
  39. Haslanger, S. 2017a. "Racism, Ideology, and Social Movements." Res Philosophica 94, no. 1: 1-22.
  40. Haslanger, S. 2017b. "Culture and Critique." Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society XCI: 149-173.
  41. Haslanger, S. 2017c. Critical Theory and Practice: The 2015 Spinoza Lectures. Koninklijke Van Gorcum.
  42. Haslanger, S. 2019. "Disciplined Bodies and Ideology Critique." Glass Beads, Site 2: Dark Rooms: Somatic Reason and Synthetic Eros. Accessed April 9, 2021 https://www.glass-bead.org/article/disciplined-bodies-and- ideology-critique/?lang=enview.
  43. Haslanger, S. 2020a. "Going On, Not in the Same Way." In Conceptual Ethics and Conceptual Engineering, edited by A. Burgess, H. Cappelen, and D. Plunkett, 230-260. Oxford University Press.
  44. Haslanger, S. 2022. "Failure of Methodological Individualism: the Materiality of Social Systems." Journal of Social Philosophy 52: 512- 534.
  45. Haslanger, S. 2020b, 46-60. "Agency within Structures and Warranted Resistance: Response to Commentators." Australasian Philosophical Review 3, no. 1: 109-121.
  46. Hayward, C. R. 2006. "On Power and Responsibility." Political Studies 4, no. 2: 156-163.
  47. Heinrich, M. (2004) 2012. An Introduction to the Three Volumes of Karl Marx's Capital, translated by A. Locascio. NY: Monthly Review Press.
  48. Holloway, J. 2010. Crack Capitalism. Pluto Press. hooks, b. 1992. "Representations of Whiteness in the Black Imagination." In Black Looks: Race and Representation, 165-178. South End Press.
  49. Horkheimer, M. (1937) 1972. Critical Theory, Continuum.
  50. Iacono, A. 1992. Le Fétichisme. Histoire d'un Concept. Presses Universi- taires de France.
  51. Jaeggi, R. 2018. Critique of Forms of Life, translated by C. Cronin. Harvard University Press.
  52. Jugov, T., and L. Ypi. 2019. "Structural Injustice, Epistemic Opacity, and the Responsibilities of the Oppressed." Journal of Social Psychology 50, no. 1: 7-27.
  53. Kelly, L. 1987. "The Continuum of Sexual Violence." In Women, Violence and Social Control, Exploration in Sociology 23, edited by J. Hanmer and M. Maynard, British Sociological Association. 46-60, MacMillan Press.
  54. Leopold, D. 2018. "Alienation." In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philos- ophy, edited by E. N. Zalta, Fall 2018 Edition. Accessed April 9, 2021. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2018/entries/alienation/.
  55. Lépinard, É., and S. Mazouz. 2021. Pour L'intersectionnalité. Anamosa.
  56. Lemieux, C. 2018. La Sociologie Pragmatique. La Découverte.
  57. Louette, A. 2023. "The Market Ideology Conception of Fetishism: An Interpretation and Defence." Journal of Social Philosophy 54, no. 4: 548-564.
  58. Louette, A. 2024. "Creating Racial Structural Solidarity. The Example of the George Floyd Protests." Global Justice: Theory, Practice, Rhetoric 14, no. 1: 1-27.
  59. Louette, A. (unpublished). "Fetishism: Commodity and Heterosexuality, Presentation at the Feminist Perspective on Philosophy." Paper presented at the Politics and Economics (PPE) Conference, University of Groningen, May 11 and 12, 2023.
  60. Lukes, S. 2005. Power: A Radical View 2nd ed. Palgrave Macmillan.
  61. MacKinnon, C. A. 1982. "Feminism, Marxism, Method, and the State: An Agenda for Theory." Signs 7, no. 3: 515-544.
  62. Marcuse, H. (1964) 2002. One-Dimensional Man. Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society. Routledge.
  63. Martinez-Alier, J. 1971. "Labourers and Landowners in Southern Spain." St. Anthony's College, Oxford, Publications no. 4.
  64. Mills, C. W. 2000. "Race and the Social Contract Tradition." Social Identities 6, no. 4: 441-462.
  65. Mills, C. W. 2005. "'Ideal Theory' as Ideology." Hypatia 20, no. 3: 165-184.
  66. Miriam, K. 2007. "Toward a Phenomenology of Sex-Right: Reviving Radical Feminist Theory of Compulsory Heterosexuality." Hypatia 22, no. 1: 210-228.
  67. O'Shea, T. 2019. "Are Workers Dominated?" Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 16, no. 1: 1-24.
  68. Pateman, C. 1988. The Sexual Contract, Stanford University Press.
  69. Pavard, B., F. Rochefort, and M. Zancarini-Fournel. 2020. Ne nous libérez pas, on s'en charge. Une histoire des féminismes de 1789 à nos jours. La Découverte.
  70. Pettit, P. 1999. Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government. Oxford University Press.
  71. Pettit, P. 2012. On the People's Terms: A Republican Theory and Model of Democracy (The Seeley Lectures). Cambridge University Press.
  72. Phillips, L. M. 2000. Flirting With Danger: Young Women's Reflections on Sexuality and Domination. New York University Press.
  73. Pruvost, G. 2017. "A Critique in Practice: Everyday Life in the "ZAD," Notre-Dame-des-Landes (2013-2014)." Politix 117: 35-62.
  74. Rich, A. 1986. "Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence." In Blood, Bread, and Poetry: Selected Prose, 23-75. Norton.
  75. Rich, A. 2004. "Reflections on "Compulsory Heterosexuality"." Journal of Women's History 16, no. 1: 9-11.
  76. Ripstein, A. 1987. "Commodity Fetishism." Canadian Journal of Philoso- phy 17, no. 4: 733-748.
  77. Roberts, W. C. 2017. Marx's Inferno: The Political Theory of Capital. Princeton University Press.
  78. Rose, K. 2020. "Sexual Violence, Traumatic Memory, and Speculative Fiction as Action." Dignity: A Journal of Analysis of Exploitation and Violence 5, no. 1: 5.
  79. Rubin, G. 1975. "The Traffic in Women: Notes on the 'Political Economy' of Sex." In Toward an Anthropology of Women, edited by R. R. Reiter, 157-210. Monthly Review Press.
  80. Salmona, M. 2018. "Traumatic Amnesia: a dissociative survival mech- anism." Accessed April 3, 2024. https://www.memoiretraumatique.org/ assets/files/v1/Articles-Dr-MSalmona/2018-Traumatic-Amnesia .
  81. Scott, J. C. 1985. Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance. New Heaven. Yale University Press.
  82. Scott, J. C. 1990. Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts. Yale University Press.
  83. Sewell, W. H. 1992. "A Theory of Structure: Duality, Agency, and Transformation." American Journal of Sociology 98, no. 1: 1-29.
  84. Sewell, W. H. 2005. "The Concept(s) of Culture." In Practicing History: New Directions in Historical Writing After the Linguistic Turn, edited by G. M. Spiegel, 76-95. Routledge.
  85. Shelby, T. 2003. "Ideology, Racism, and Critical Social Theory." In The Philosophical Forum 4, no. 2: 153-188.
  86. Skinner, Q. 1998. Liberty Before Liberalism, Cambridge University Press.
  87. Valian, V. 1998. Why so Slow? The Advancement of Women. MIT Press.
  88. Vrousalis, N. 2017. "Extended Book Review: Freedom and Republicanism in Roberts' Marx." Capital & Class 41, no. 2: 378-383.
  89. Wollstonecraft, M. (1792) 2004 . A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, 3rd rev. ed. Penguin Classics.
  90. Wright, E. O. 2010. Envisioning Real Utopias. Verso.
  91. Wylie, A. 2003. "Why Standpoint Matters." In Science and Other Cultures: Issues in Philosophy of Science and Technology, edited by R. Figueroa and S. Harding, 26-48. Routledge.
  92. Young, I. M. 1990. Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton University Press.
  93. Young, I. M. 2005. "Lived Body vs. Gender." In On Female Body Experi- ence: 'Throwing Like a Girl' and Other Essays, 13-26. Oxford University Press.
  94. Young, I. M. 2011. Responsibility for Justice. Oxford University Press.
  95. Young, I. M. 1994. "Gender as Seriality: Thinking about Women as a Social Collective." in Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 19, no. 3: 713-738.

Related papers

Social Dominance Theory
Gazi Islam
View PDFchevron_right
Segregated, standardised, repressed: socialisation and the entrenchment of structural domination
Antoine Louette

2021

For radicals, structural domination – e.g., sexism, racism, or classism – refers to the disempowerment of social groups by social practices. In recent years, a growing number of critical theorists have drawn on sociological and anthropological work to argue that the entrenchment of structural domination is largely due to agents' socialisation into these practices. This thesis is sympathetic to this approach, but argues nonetheless that it stumbles over its own account of the contradictory character of socialisation. For if socialisation is contradictory – if agents should be expected to frequent not only social milieux that confirm the schemas of dominating practices, but also milieux that challenge these schemas – then it is unclear how exactly their socialisation in these practices can explain the entrenchment of structural domination. To solve this problem, the thesis suggests that we should pay closer attention to the various influences which structural domination itself has...

View PDFchevron_right
Social dominance theory: Its agenda and method
Colette van Laar, Jim Sidanius

2004

The theory has been misconstrued in four primary ways, which are often expressed as the claims of psychological reductionism, conceptual redundancy, biological reductionism, and hierarchy justification. This paper addresses these claims and suggests how social dominance theory builds on and moves beyond social identity theory and system justification theory.

View PDFchevron_right
Reproducing Social Hierarchy (or Not!)
Sally Haslanger

Philosophy of Education

I am honored to be asked to give this year's Kneller Lecture to the Philosophy of Education Society. I am also humbled, because I am not a specialist in philosophy of education, and those of you here are much more knowledgeable about the subject matter than I am. However, I believe deeply in the value of both intra-and interdisciplinary work and knowledge gained through practice. I hope that my discussion today offers you some tools to enrich your thinking, and I look forward to learning from you. BACKROUND: IDEOLOGY AND SOCIAL REPRODUCTION In the world as we know it, injustice and oppression take many forms and are upheld in a variety of ways, many of them coercive. Ideological oppression, unlike more direct affronts to our freedom and dignity, "gets under the skin" and appropriates our agency; we become complicit in oppressive structures, whether as subordinated or privileged. As a result, ideological oppression is harder to identify and critique. It structures our everyday lives and shapes our experience, because ideology functions as "doxa" that is taken for granted as common sense. Political and legal theorists and judges are as subject to ideology as anyone else. And because power relations grant them status as authorities, their insights may simply reinforce the background unjust social structure. But what is ideology exactly? How does it function, and how is it maintained? 1 On my account, social practices depend on a set of social meanings-what I call a "cultural technē"-that provide the basis for coor-Reproducing Social Hierarchy (or Not!)

View PDFchevron_right
Dominance, status, and social hierarchies.
Denise Cummins

Social living confers both costs and benefits to individuals. The costs are increased competition for food, shelter, mates, and the like. The benefits are increased access to these resources. The social structure that characterizes most animal societies (including humans) is status hierarchies. A status hierarchy is, essentially, a set social norms, that is, rules that constrain the behavior of individuals depending on their rank. In human societies, these may be implicit or explicitly codified as regulations or laws. In animal societies, these "social norms" are implicit yet reflected in virtually every activity, including who is allowed to sit next to, play with, share food with, groom, or mate with whom. In it's most benign form, social dominance means nothing more than the fact that some individuals are more adept at influencing and therefore leading others. In it's most malignant form, social dominance can mean despotism--the monopolization of resources by a privileged few who use their social advantages to oppress others. Investigations of social interactions in a variety of species suggests that dominance hierarchies are supported by a collection of specific cognitive functions, and that those who achieve dominance are those who are particularly adept at them. To put it more baldly, selection favors those who have social and political intelligence. This turns out to mean (a) being adept at learning the implicit rules that constrain behavior in one’s social group and monitoring compliance with them, (b) forecasting and influencing the behavior of others, and (c) forming powerful alliances based on reciprocal obligations.

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Critical Theory
  • Political Philosophy
  • Feminist Theory
  • Political Theory
  • Political Science
  • Critical Social Theory
  • Critical Race Theory
  • Social reproduction
  • Structural Domination
    • 580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved