Suchergebnisse

This article treats social capital as a multidimensional phenomenon along which neighborhoods are differentially organized. The authors assess this notion by linking two original surveys carried out in Chicago based on community residents ( N = 8,782) and positional leaders ( N = 2,822) representing six organizational dimensions. These data are used to examine both the dimensionality and structural predictors of neighborhood social organization. Results show that the social capital of Chicago communities encapsulates four distinct dimensions at the residential level and two at the leadership level. Moreover, dimensions of leadership-based social capital are for the most part inversely related to resident-based social capital and differentially predicted by concentrated disadvantage, residential stability, and racial/ethnic diversity. Based on multidimensional scaling and clustering of the communities, the authors derive a conceptual typology highlighted by four distinct groups—Cosmopolitan Efficacy, Urban Villages, Institutional Alienation, and Conduct Norms. The authors discuss implications and suggest new directions for exploration of community differentiation.

Social Technologies (ST) can emphasize social sustainability and provide improvements in human beings' basic condition. This study aims to analyze whether ST carried out between restaurants and their partners also promoted social sustainability. It is a qualitative, descriptive and multicase study, with cases selected by judging. It was possible to realized that the cooperative experiences were characterized as ST, since they were activities organized and systematized, with social relevance and effectiveness and that dialogued amongst knowledge, so that it would promote social sustainability. The cooperative experiments here studied fit in the social sustainability criteria, where they promoted opportunities for stable jobs, income generation, promotion of workers' rights, professional development, training and increase of the skills of those involved. Information sharing and trust were fundamental to the success of actions. As not all partnerships and processes were formalized, social relationships and reciprocity helped the development of activities.

This Element is a philosophical history of Social Darwinism. It begins by discussing the meaning of the term, moving then to its origins, paying particular attention to whether it is Charles Darwin or Herbert Spencer who is the true father of the idea. It gives an exposition of early thinking on the subject, covering Darwin and Spencer themselves and then on to Social Darwinism as found in American thought, with special emphasis on Andrew Carnegie, and Germany with special emphasis on Friedrich von Bernhardi. Attention is also paid to outliers, notably the Englishman Alfred Russel Wallace, the Russian Peter Kropotkin, and the German Friedrich Nietzsche. From here we move into the twentieth century looking at Adolf Hitler - hardly a regular Social Darwinian given he did not believe in evolution - and in the Anglophone world, Julian Huxley and Edward O. Wilson, who reflected the concerns of their society.

How to explain variations in the level of donation in comparable countries? In all industrialized countries, the economic crisis of the 1980s encouraged the search for alternatives to the welfare state by encouraging third sector organizations to play a greater role in a partnership for the definition and implementation of public policies.Among Third sector organizations, philanthropic foundations provide a legal framework that allows people who wish to carry out acts of generosity by allocating a part of their personal wealth in the form of gift, for the purpose of general interest. Giving can be considered as a concrete expression of the cooperation between citizens for the common good.All democratic countries try to promote giving. The conventional explanations of the variation in level of gift among developed countries do not consider the gift as a social fact. We argue that the level of giving can't be explained by the sum of individual gifts that each respond to personal motives but by the state of the society whose cohesion is determined to both by the presence of social capital and the representation of identities.Social capital can be understood as " relationships, networks and norms that facilitate collective action." Social capital refers to relations that individuals establish them in social networks and the norms of reciprocity that arise from these relationships.This thesis is focused, first, on the level of social capital in economically developed countries and secondly on the meaning of the gift as a mode of representation of identity. It helps define social capital theory by highlighting the close relationship that unites the concept of the gift and hence the construction of identities.This analysis of the relationship between gift, identity ans social capital has direct implications for research in the field of civil society. Civil society is presented from two different perspectives. The first perspective, in a North American tradition, determines the Third sector to the sole condition of "non profit" sector. The second perspective, in an European tradition, consider social economy with organizations or enterprises within both profit and non-profit sector. These organizations and entreprises mix in their actions a plurality of economic logics.Based on the analysis of Polanyi on the embedding of the economy and its various forms of integration, associated with the Maussian logic of the gift, we try to shed light on the socio-economic dimension, or political dimension, of social economy. Social economy can be seen as a "gift economy", understood as a plural economy.Finally, the New Economic Sociology offers both an analysis of the reticular economy based on the presence and density of interpersonal ties and a cultural analysis of the economy that connects markets to values. It is possible to understand the social economy as a "social capital economy". Social capital is understood as an organizational factor and a meaning. ; Comment expliquer les variations du niveau de don dans des pays comparables ? Dans tous les pays industrialisés, la crise économique des années 1980 a favorisé la recherche d'alternatives à l'État providence en incitant les organismes du Tiers secteur à jouer un rôle accru dans un partenariat pour la définition et la mise en œuvre des politiques publiques. Parmi les organisations du Tiers secteur, les fondations philanthropiques offrent un cadre juridique qui permet aux personnes qui le souhaitent de réaliser des actes de générosité en affectant une partie de leur fortune personnelle, sous forme de don, à des fins d'intérêt général. Le don peut être ainsi considéré comme une expression concrète de la coopération entre les citoyens en vue du bien commun. Tous les pays démocratiques essaient d'en favoriser le développement. Les explications classiques de la variation de niveau du don entre pays développés ne prennent pas en considération le don comme un fait social. Nous soutenons que le niveau du don dans une société ne peut être expliqué par la somme des dons individuels qui répondent chacun à des motivations personnelles mais bien par ce qui constitue son substrat social : l'état de la société dont la cohésion est déterminée à la fois par la présence de capital social et la représentation des identités. A la différence du capital humain qui regroupe les compétences, les qualifications et les connaissances des individus, le capital social peut être compris comme « l'ensemble des relations, des réseaux et des normes qui facilitent l'action collective ». Le capital social fait ainsi référence aux relations que les individus établissent entre eux au sein des réseaux sociaux ainsi qu'aux normes de réciprocité qui naissent de ces relations. L'hypothèse du don comme variable dépendante de l'état de cohésion sociale ouvre la voie à cette recherche doctorale axée d'une part sur le niveau de capital social dans les pays économiquement développés et d'autre part, sur la signification du don comme mode de représentation de l'identité. Elle contribue à définir les contours théoriques du capital social en mettant en évidence les liens étroits qui unit ce concept au don et par là, à la construction des identités. Cette analyse de la relation entre don, capital social et identité a des implications directes pour la recherche dans le champ de la société civile. La société civile est présentée sous deux perspectives différentes. La première, de tradition nord-américaine, associe le Tiers secteur à la condition exclusive du « non profit». La seconde perspective, de tradition européenne, retient l'idée d'une économie sociale hybride composée d'entreprises et organisations qui relèvent à la fois des secteurs marchand et non marchand. Ces entreprises et organisations de l'économie sociale sont des structures entremêlant dans leurs actions une pluralité de logiques économiques. En se fondant sur l'analyse de Polanyi sur l'encastrement de l'économie et ses différentes formes d'intégration, associée à la logique maussienne du don, nous tentons d'éclairer la dimension socioéconomique, voire politique des initiatives de l'économie sociale. L'économie sociale peut ainsi être appréhendée comme une « économie du don », comprise comme économie plurielle. Par ailleurs, la Nouvelle sociologie économique propose à la fois une analyse réticulaire de l'économie qui se fonde entre autre sur la présence et la densité des liens interpersonnels et une analyse culturelle de l'économie qui relie les marchés aux valeurs. A partir de là, il devient possible d'appréhender l'économie sociale comme une « économie du capital social », entendu comme facteur organisationnel et générateur de sens.

Preface -- About the authors -- Publisher's acknowledgements -- Introducing social psychology -- Social cognition and social thinking -- Attribution and social explanation -- Self and identity -- Attitudes -- Persuasion and attitude change -- Social influence -- People in groups -- Leadership and group decision' making -- Prejudice and discrimination -- Intergroup behaviour -- Aggression -- Prosocial behaviour -- Attraction and close relationships -- Language and communication -- Culture -- Glossary -- References -- Author index -- Subject index