Suchergebnisse

The uses of natural selection argument in politics have been constant since Charles Darwin's times. They have also been varied. The readings of Darwin's theory range from the most radically individualist views, as in orthodox socio-Darwinism, to the most communitarian, as in Peter Kropotkin's and other socialist perspectives. This essay argues that such diverse, contradictory, and sometimes even outrageous political derivations from Darwin's theory may be partially explained by some incompleteness and ambivalences underlying Darwin's concepts. "Natural selection," "struggle for existence," and "survival of the fittest" are open concepts and may suggest some hierarchical and segregationist interpretations. Circumstantially, Darwin accepted social "checks," such as discouraging marriage of "lower" individuals to prevent them from reproducing, in a vein of Malthusian politics. This makes Darwin's theory of selection by struggle collide with his theory of social instincts, by which he explains the origins of morality. It also favors reading Darwin'sOn the Origin of SpeciesorThe Descent of Manfrom opposite, mostly ideological perspectives. Darwin's position is ambivalent, although hardly unreasonable. The recognition he makes of social instincts, as well as the use of the concept of artificial selection, entails accepting the role of human consciousness, by which social evolution cannot be reduced to natural evolution, as socio-Darwinians did next and as some neo-Darwinists seem to repeat. On these grounds, this essay argues the inadequacy of the conventional model of natural selection for understanding politics. If we want to describe politics in Darwin's language,artificialrather thannatural selectionwould be the concept that performs better for explaining the courses of politics in real society.

The aim of this paper is to propose a composite indicator to measure 'familism', conformed by two main dimensions: values on one hand (duty to take care of the family, importance of the family, sacrifices for the family.) and behaviours, on the other (predominance of married couples instead of cohabitant couples, high frequency of contact among members, family support…). In contrast to this idea of 'familism' we find that of individualism, that defends the independence of family members, tolerance to new family models, cohabitation instead of marriage,… , that implies less frequency of interaction among relatives and more governmental intervention towards children and elderly care. We observe that a higher degree of 'familism' does not always match with a lower degree of individualism when both dimensions, attitudes and behaviours, are considered. For instance, we find countries which are individualist in values but not in behaviours (such as Spain), whilst others, such as Japan, are 'familist' both in values and behaviours and finally, others, such as Sweden, are individualist with regards to both perspectives. We propose two different methodological approaches to the question. First, we use microdata from the Family, Work and Gender Roles module of the International Social Survey Programme-ISSP (years 1994, 2002 and 2012), in which 45 countries have participated. Information for the three rounds is collected for 17 countries with very different family values and welfare systems (for instance, Sweden, Japan, Russia, Spain, United Kingdom or the United States). From this data source, we create a first index on familism that can be related to individual sociodemographic characteristics. Second, we complete it through the inclusion of macro data (such as the divorce rate per country), in order to refine comparison at a country level by adding new variables to the previous index. ; Universidad de Málaga. Campus de Excelencia Internacional Andalucía Tech

The aim of this paper is to propose a composite indicator to measure 'familism', conformed by two main dimensions: values on one hand (duty to take care of the family, importance of the family, sacrifices for the family.) and behaviours, on the other (predominance of married couples instead of cohabitant couples, high frequency of contact among members, family support…). In contrast to this idea of 'familism' we find that of individualism, that defends the independence of family members, tolerance to new family models, cohabitation instead of marriage,… , that implies less frequency of interaction among relatives and more governmental intervention towards children and elderly care. We observe that a higher degree of 'familism' does not always match with a lower degree of individualism when both dimensions, attitudes and behaviours, are considered. For instance, we find countries which are individualist in values but not in behaviours (such as Spain), whilst others, such as Japan, are 'familist' both in values and behaviours and finally, others, such as Sweden, are individualist with regards to both perspectives. We propose two different methodological approaches to the question. First, we use microdata from the Family, Work and Gender Roles module of the International Social Survey Programme-ISSP (years 1994, 2002 and 2012), in which 45 countries have participated. Information for the three rounds is collected for 17 countries with very different family values and welfare systems (for instance, Sweden, Japan, Russia, Spain, United Kingdom or the United States). From this data source, we create a first index on familism that can be related to individual sociodemographic characteristics. Second, we complete it through the inclusion of macro data (such as the divorce rate per country), in order to refine comparison at a country level by adding new variables to the previous index. ; Universidad de Málaga. Campus de Excelencia Internacional Andalucía Tech