Communauté et société selon Tönnies (French Edition)
Contents:
Social Inequalities and Democratization. One question is raised through the political debates about the loss of social cohesion in the contemporary societies: In other words, how people will acquire sufficient awareness of their commonality to participate in these transformations, and to feel both responsible for, and engaged by them?
Two answers are given to these questions: We will present some of the consequences of these answers. Given the social inequalities and the conflicts of interests between social categories, according to their position in the economic and political relations of power, it would seem to imply the consideration of structural and sociological and not of attitudinal and psychological foundations of inequalities. If not, all attempts at fomenting common values and a sense of commonality seem pointless.
Nevertheless, two messages are transmitted to recreate social cohesion. Individual factors socialization, at home or at school, integration into closed social circles , or else an egoistic individualism, explain either poor behaviour dropping-out, registration in welfare, crime, urban violence , or excessive judicial pleas for particular rights.
On the other hand, the image of a society stratified by structural inequalities is nonexistent, and new measures of social justice and equity are considered unrealistic given the limited financial means of the State. A responsibility for social integration, esp. This being the case, current governments of OECD countries, mainly comprised of social democrats, envisage social inequalities by defining populations at risk, those considered unfit of an economic and social performance without social assistance.
They do not aim at reducing the structural causes of the risks incurred by these populations, but rather at convincing them to change their behavior and become more qualified.
What does it mean to develop a sense of social belonging if the political-political link is not enough to define one as Canadian? If this is a sociological reality. State measures and State programs aimed at a real equality, a symbolic recognition of all persons, as well as an effective participation in political decisions, are all at issue. Clear answers are given by the literature Charbonneau and Turcotte, In fact, the invocation of a necessary Canadian belonging seems a palliative to the absence of political decisions in domains where equality is at risk, as well as a return to the valorization of majority cultural and linguistic customs, practices, values and standards.
This new spirit is embodied by the programs of employability adopted during 's in number of countries White, a , including, for example, programs for young unemployed persons Quebec, France, Great Britain, as well as certain Italian municipalities and the workfare programs adopted in the United States Wisconsin, Minnesota, Connecticut.
A second unavoidable message conveyed in these discourses concerns the reform of public policies for enhancing democratization.
- Looking for Mrs Livingstone!
- François de Singly — Wikipédia?
- A Little Girl in Old Quebec.
- SocioSite: Famous Sociologists - Émile Durkheim!
- Brave Men and Women Their Struggles, Failures, And Triumphs.
- La maîtresse de Cesare Andriotti (Harlequin Azur) (French Edition).
This democratization is conceived as a partnership between public and private actors social groups, individuals, NGOs, etc. It is also defended in the name of an active and responsible citizenship, one that does not consist simply of benefiting from fundamental liberties, labour laws, and of obeying laws and paying taxes, but also of respecting each one's collective social obligations Helly, , c.
This message is addressed especially to people who suffer from social inequalities, but also to big companies cf. The idea of an active, responsible citizenship was also to explain a diminution on the part of public authorities of some of their social responsibilities in favor of private actors, generally NGOs, both in Canada and abroad. The NGO sector said to represent "communities" was then set up as an adjuvant for public action under the aegis of the State.
For example, in Canada, the ethnic NGO, whatever the ethno-cultural origin of their members, saw their public subsidies subject to new criteria and controls.
The specific clientele which they have to serve, the objectives of their action, and the results which they have to attain, are nowadays defined by public authorities, and the NGO are transformed into agencies subcontracting state and municipal services for specific populations. The NGO sector, as a societal actor, is nevertheless supposed to represent interests and demands of groups, such as ethnic minorities, recipients of social allowances, single-parent families, residents of a district, etc. In their new role, the NGOs can still re-appropriate issues related to the populations they represent, but can they henceforth pass on the demands and needs of these populations to public authorities?
Doesn't their new status infer a search for cooperation rather than confrontation, and forced NGO leaders to pay attention to the continuity of their public financing? At best, we find ourselves to face an ambivalent dynamic, a form of "conflicting collaboration. Besides, given the importance of the administrative management tasks required by this new role for the NGO sector, its bureaucratization is bound to follow.
This evolution is justified in the name of an effective and rational use of public money. From then on, a significant fraction of the civil society's autonomy seems either reduced, or susceptible to State control, while civil society should remain a source of oppositions and critics, and the State does not appear to be the agent for a more active citizens' participation in decisions concerning them, but rather as the agent for an economic definition of the common good.
The conception of the "political" Mouffe, proposed by this definition of democratization is that of a more efficient division of power through increased participation of individuals in the management of social deficits, but not in decisions relating to structural reforms which might reduce these deficits.
Personnalité individuelle et personnalité collect… – Sociologie et sociétés – Érudit
Nevertheless, to speak of a more egalitarian community seems disingenuous and ineffective, as long as the structural foundations of the social and political inequalities are not addressed. And the denial of equality to the exercise of power would not seem to be resolved by an 'empowerment' of citizens under the aegis of the State.
As Rancikre or Walzer wrote, such democratization is simply born of the desire to manage social tensions. It is not a political one, that is to say, rooted in the right of every citizen to participate in all political decisions and to transform power relations. In the history of modern democracies, the reproduction of inequality has been permanent and this process more than described. We know that the principle of equality has been respected only after political struggles, often violent, as those who don't possess wealth, power and influence but only freedom and equality, find themselves not only deprived but also erased from the democratic scene.
Politics is always based on disputes about the question of the equality, and a political act can be only an act "of rupture of the logic of domination, according to which some have the right to govern" Rancikre, In other words, politics exists only when a group demonstrates the injustice that it suffers, and places itself in a position of equality with those who are not affected by this injustice.
Such were the case, when women questioned whether domestic work or maternity were private or social affairs, when Black Americans declared themselves full citizens, or when workers, from the 19th century onwards, showed how they were absent from the definition of what was otherwise called the "common good" or "national interest. And this could be the case if unemployed persons and welfare recipients rise up to contest their diminished social benefits. Individualization of factors deemed at the roots of a poor socioeconomic insertion, and demands for responsible collaboration to the State measures become the means to fulfill these objectives.
The notion of social cohesion is also based on the ideas of a necessary and strong social participation and involvement in networks, communities of life or organizations, and of a sense of trust and of solidarity, which would facilitate cooperation between citizens, help to reduce problems such as poverty, crime, increase political participation and allow for a better government. The expression of social capital is used to explain this proposition, as much by international World Bank , and national and local authorities.
We will look at the interpretation of the concept of social capital by public discourses on social cohesion, and at the way they instrument it to enhance individual social deficiencies or failures.
François de Singly
Trust, Reciprocity and Cooperation. It is not synonymous of social participation but used as such to promote the notion of social cohesion. The literature on social capital raised, among others, two questions: Is trust a central factor of cooperation among anonymous individuals? How does an individual acquire an attitude of trust? When one speaks about cooperation within groups producing a collective good, as associations of parents, residents, unemployed, environmentalists, etc. The free rider is the person who knows she will enjoy advantages obtained by a group, even if she is not a member.
It follows that in such cases of cooperation, an attitude of trust could facilitate the assembly of persons defending a same interest, but it does not found it. The free rider don't show any of these attitudes and sees his interest defended. It also follows that the defense of interest is not the primary factor of cooperation. In the case of cooperation which produces a private good leisure clubs, churches, etc. Trust as a foundation of cooperation remains a question. As for the reverse affirmation that cooperation or social participation produce mechanically trust, it seems naive.
Concerning the origin of social capital defined as an attitude of faith in the possible reciprocity of others, and as the capacity for appreciating such a reciprocity, it is considered as a relational ability acquired by primary socialization. And Hardin argues that this ability could be acquired by secondary socialization. Indeed, the nature of known or perceived, past and present, social relations could play a role, because social relations are not developed by abstract individuals, without either memories or interests. Therefore, if one does not see how a government could effectively act to change processes of primary socialization which lead to an attitude of distrust towards strangers, one can see how social experiences can be affected by State interventions.
Nevertheless, political debates on social cohesion and 'social capital' are not taking into account these questions and conclusions.
We will give some examples. It is advanced that good government and strong individual 'social capital' social participation are bound, because if individuals trust themselves, they will cooperate and watch and sanction public policies, and better governmental management would be assured. Or in Levi's terms Is not it necessary to consider the factors that lead to the lack of coalition and cooperation? One factor frequently invoked in governments discourses is the lack of individual concern for the political and public life. In that case, sociological conditions seem to be active.
Don't political institutions themselves periodical elections, representative democracy , as well as media coverage, the actions of politicians, and other factors produce this lack? Levi reminded us that "today, politicians are more likely to target particular populations, than to encourage wide-scale organization.
The effect is a decline in turnout and political membership. According to Putnam Putnam et al. But Putnam never explained this difference of participation, except in general cultural terms. Could it not be due to the historical political connections between the Northern and Southern regions of Italy Boix and Posner, A number of Italians in Mezzogiorno have a negative perception of their influence on and participation to power, which is anchored in an interpretation of their historical relations with the Northern regions.
How can one believe that social cooperation could not be the work of anti-democratic factions, and individuals who have no investment in general concern? As regards to propositions that postulate a civic function for active, associative or political participation, one can object that associations or local assemblies of people are not necessarily schools of civil virtue. They could be schools of conformity, authoritarianism and intolerance, places of retreat for the community, or places where coalitions of selfish interests prevail.
According to an idea upheld since the 's by American political analysts Helly, a , membership and active participation in associations leisure activities, cultural, religious, charitable, etc. Walzer, , , , or political activities, especially local assemblies Barber, , should favor mutual trust, a sense of responsibility, and a vision of the common good, an idea also illustrated by Putnam Putnam et al.
According to Barber, local assemblies, as well as national forums, would establish a "strong democracy" or "participatory democracy," and a sense of nonconsensual, non-conformist, but friendly community, because it would be built on conflict and dispute. They would transform solitary individuals into responsible citizens who agree to discuss their discords, thus making them aware of the superiority of collective questioning about individual preoccupations.
Participation which is deemed beneficial to the common good would imply a democratic correction by the State. How would cooperation between unequal parties be assured? Can it be through the support of the values of equality, charity, and humanism by the more affluent social categories? Modern history seems once again to say that conflict, or the need for concessions, were the factors that induced the application of more egalitarian measures, of which the State was the agent.
Individuals with power and individuals without power can indeed regroup on the basis of a common objective the pleasure found in leisure, the defense of particular interests, similarity of customs or values. How can one change scale, and think that such a coalition would apply to a common social objective and would tend to defend more general interests? Increased cooperation between citizens could, on the contrary, give rise to a multiplication of lobby groups. Given the central value of equality in the discourse of democracy, the cooperation between unequal parties seems to be based on the fact that expectations of reciprocity are upheld.
The reduction of social inequalities by public policies seems to be a more real source of better social relations between citizens than any increased cooperation among them. State measures and State programs aimed at a real equality, a symbolic recognition of all persons, as well as an effective participation in political decisions, are all at issue.
As regards to ethnic minorities, one thinks of interventions which could transform their social experiences, or their perception of the social experiences of fellow citizens. One can mention credible measures to fight against discrimination, large programs of affirmative action in the private and public sectors, more open policies of immigration, programs of linguistic insertion, fair validation of foreign diplomas and working experiences. Finally, a last question: Would increased social cooperation of these French speakers change this perception?
One could easily think the opposite. According to him, State grants for associations, the promotion of mutual aid, and the creation of a new body of social services agents would enhance cooperation. The stakes in debates about social capital, good government, and social cohesion seem to be about the role of the State. The discourses on social cohesion ignore other problems or limits of cooperation when they speak of 'social capital' as social participation and assume that clusters or networks of social relations are useful for the social insertion of a person such as access to employment, assistance during critical events, economic performance, health, and success.
According to this affirmation, the notion of 'connectedness' is created as an indicator for the appearance of a sense of the common good or, at least, of social responsibility. A value is ascribed to multiple individual inscriptions in clusters and networks, because the stronger one's cooperation, the stronger his protection against risks. Inquiries were undertaken to know why in poor districts, notably American black ghettos, the rates of delinquency were lower.
- No Third Choice.
- Patrimonio culturale: Ripartire dall’Abc (Italian Edition)!
- It Wasnt Me (A dark tale of teenage isolation);
- iTunes is the world's easiest way to organize and add to your digital media collection.!
According to one very publicized study Sampson, Earls, and Raudensbusch, , it was found that an informal social control was exercised by the residents surveillance of streets, mutual aid because of reliable relations which they had built among them, without us knowing how these relations were established. Certainly, but what does this mean sociologically, and what if a government wants to intervene to assure better health for the population? A report of the OECD explains in that case: A question must be asked: How does an individual acquire the ability to built a network or a cluster of social relations?
Clear answers are given by the literature Charbonneau and Turcotte, Besides, the perception of having a network has an influence as great, if not greater, than the objective reality of the network Cutrona, In these conditions, any measure aimed at multiplying the social relations of an individual in view of his better insertion into the labour force is of little value. Another conclusion drawn by Forst following a review of the literature on the subject: Following works by Granovetter on "weak links", that is links with persons not closed to a person, Lin showed that weak links provide access to better jobs.
He proposed an explanation: The first, unlike the second, can modify a hierarchical structure and increase the social status of a person. An INSEE inquiry , which included a question about the network used to search for a job, suggested an answer. It flows from the analysis that persons from underprivileged environments and showing low level of schooling resort mainly to kinship, and obtain lesser jobs. Their appeal to weak links is not more effective. In these conditions, if a government seeks more equality and social and economic performance, then it should increase human resources, schooling and continuing education, and not aim for a growth in individual social capital.
Common Values and Societal Belonging. To stir up a sense of commonality and societal belonging is another major subject of discourses regarding social cohesion. On this point, the Canadian government, more than other OECD States, emphasized the need for loyalty to the State, a sense of societal belonging, and a sharing of common values. The difficulty that the federal government has had historically to build an image of Canadian unity and a Canadian nationalism explains this fact Helly, ,b,d.
Given this emphasis on societal belonging by the Canadian governments since the 's, we will describe it more extensively and see its implications for ethnic and national minorities. A societal link in contemporary democratic societies can take one or several of four main forms Helly and Van Schendel, Three forms of societal links are very active in Canada, notably the citizen, State and civil links. And this pride is consolidated with the high rank that Canada consistently obtains in UN ratings. When Canadian government authorities speak out on the foundations of "Canadian belonging", they refer to its political-political regime esp.
However, some questions remain to be settled when governments speak of social cohesion and sharing of values. Firstly, do shared values or consensus in a society eradicate antagonisms and confrontations and enhance social cohesion? The passion for equality in modern societies, as Lipset said , has been at the base of confrontations ever since the creation of democracies.
Equality constitutes the central reference for a matrix of divergent interpretations of social relations and statuses. Entre psychologie sociale et anarchisme.
Communauté et société selon Tönnies
Paraire - Le temps des cerises. Sociologie d'une crise religieuse, Paris, Seuil, Jean Moreau. Stock, Victor Serge. El movimiento estudiantil mexicano: Comment fonder la philosophie? CNRS Compte rendu: Classiques Garnier Compte rendu: Maison des Sciences et de l'Homme - Collection: Interventions Compte rendu: Fragments pour une sociologie existentielle Marcel Bolle de Bal: Le transfert, la foi, la croyance Sciences et technologies: Y a-t-il une science sociale?
Fil d'Ariane
Les risques du mirage de la nouvelle utopie politico-people: Group-based dominance and opposition to equality as independent factors The analectic turn: La psychologie politique en Europe. Skinner Un nouvel acteur politique? Transformation du monde du travail: Rompiendo el cerco Comptes rendus Argumentum. Psychanalyse et faits sociaux. Les conspirationnistes et les contre-cultures: L'inconscient collectif Avant propos: Culture et inconscient collectif: Plataforma actual, Barcelona Essai sur les totalitarismes de la transcendance.
Exercices pratiques de conscience historique.