EU unification between sociable cohesion and active determination

Get your price

123 writers online

blank-ico

Solidarity while social combination

Emile Durkheim’s theory of unificationin The Division of Labor in Society, published approximately 125 yrs ago, interestingly details a phenomenon that is completely different from most recent accounts from the term. According to his view, unification is equivalent to the aggregate of principles, practices and norms that ensure combination in world. Solidarity is usually not a conscious choice to behave in a specific way. Instead, it is conditioned by social circumstances, and it is mostly involuntary.

Durkheim argues thus in differentiating two key types of communities: historical societies in which no trademark labour was present– in other words, through which there was not any professional expertise of individuals – and the type prevailing in the times Durkheim lived in. The individuals within the former sort of societies were so similar that their particular consciousnesses overlapped in significant parts. Persons upheld mostly the same values and were hosted together with this sameness. Durkheim called this kind of solidarity mechanical because every one’s perimeter for individual actions was close to zero and society can only change and act as an entire, mechanically. However, in extremely differentiated societies, he asserted, solidarity can be not based upon sameness but on big difference: the label of labour has progressed so much that each individual’s sphere of action has increased, but likewise the common dependence on the other users of world. Like in a runner body where all organs have different functions and depend on each other, solidarity in such a culture is called organic. An example of this sort of cohesion in your body was already offered by the Ancient greek language poet Aesop, in his myth on the belly, the hands and the toes: one body organ fails, the full organism dies.

Durkheim’s conception of solidarity leaves little margin for choice: whoever lives in a society with a high division of labour cannot escape the dependency on the other members and therefore is in solidarity with them. Whoever lives in a society with little division of labour will directly share all values and ideas with the other members and therefore not even consider any other way than being in solidarity.

If we attempt a look through Durkheim’s lens at the EU, the argument of overall prosperity brought forward in favour of solidarity nowadays seems plausible. Since the EU member states are so highly specialized economically (and so is the entire world), we as Europeans directly depend on each other and therefore have no choice but to be in solidarity, unless we want to become completely meaningless voices on the global political and economic stage.

But what would Durkheim say about recent political events like Brexit and increasing nationalism in most EU member states?According to his theory, solidarity based on our mutual dependency would simply continue to exist and become more and more organic over time. But isn’t exactly the opposite happening at this moment? Can we merely separate the political situation shaped by citizens’ agency from the structural type of society we live in when talking of solidarity?

Education and Social Cohesion in the U.S. Context

Thomas Jefferson first argued for a literate citizenry in America’s fledgling democracy: democracies require that citizens understand political institutions and evaluate the claims of politicians–capacities that would protect the democracy from various forms of demagoguery. By the mid-nineteenth century, however, the role of education had expanded. As immigrants began arriving from non-Protestant countries, educator Horace Mann’s advocacy for the common school was one among several efforts to build a system of public schools that could create one nation from many peoples–peoples who differed not only in class origins, but also in their ethnic and racial origins, and religious commitments.

In the early twenty-first century, however, the foundations for social cohesion have shifted. Well into the twentieth century, Americans understood social cohesion as the outcome of assimilating peoples of diverse religions, ethnicities, and social groups into a nation with common values and language. That perception has changed. The use of Spanish by both presidential candidates in the year 2000 campaign confirms a new understanding of social cohesion–taking shape since the 1970s–that fosters accommodation, not simply assimilation, of diverse groups. The number of Hispanic and Asian persons in this nation has, according to the most recent U.S. Census, increased by more than 50 percent. Diversity in ethnicity and religion is pervasive in small towns as well as large urban areas. Social cohesion must be built among these increasingly diverse populations: a cohesion that constitutes a pervasive commitment to voluntary compliance to broadly constituted social norms and to active tolerance for differences among social groups.

Paradoxically, American concern with the apparent breakdown of social cohesion is not a simple extension of the growing diversity. Rather, the focus of concern and debate is within schools that on the surface have considerable racial and social homogeneity, but reveal many social fractures that presumably lead to antisocial behavior. Although national statistics show school violence has decreased, its distribution and causes appear different; namely, more suburban and rural incidents occur that are unrelated to gang activity. School violence in Colorado, California, and Arkansas, to name a few states, led to considerable debate in the media regarding the relative effects of school organization, American culture, and parenting practices on the behavior of adolescents. In the early twenty-first century, lawmakers in Colorado, Washington, and Oregon have legislation pending that would require each school district to have a policy directed at student bullying. Similar legislation has already passed in Georgia, New Hampshire, Arkansas, and Delaware. Some states require mediation, others give new powers to schools to discipline students.

Yet antisocial behavior, such as bullying, is not new. It is an ancient phenomenon, and it provided a classic character in much of children’s literature. What has changed, though, is the institutional charter accorded to schools in the United States. The discretion in 1932, for instance, that Willard Waller’s teachers had to inculcate roles and responsibilities of citizenship has been greatly attenuated by court decisions and the often-adversarial role assumed by parents as documented by Gerald Grant in 1988. The links between community and school have been weakened through different catchment areas for schools and dual-income families. Even the framework for providing welfare benefits has affected how families can be involved in their children’s schooling. Other scholars emphasize (usually with different rank orderings) weak parenting skills, fractured school cultures, anomic communities, technological access to hate-group propaganda (such as the Internet), and easy access to weapons. Yet, the level of social cohesion in schools is not manifest simply by presence or absence of antisocial behavior, it is also manifest in positive actions of civility, reflecting trust and tolerance across social groupings of students.

Social cohesion is a desired outcome of schooling, but its significance extends beyond that. Social cohesion can also affect the academic achievement vulnerable students–those whose commitment to schooling is weak and is further compromised by schools with weak social cohesion.

Educators and commentators have argued that schools contribute more to the well-being of children and the larger society than academic achievement, yet the introduction of massive systems of accountability have diminished the value of other contributions. This work will create a measure of social cohesion outcomes, and therefore may broaden the discussion over the contributions of schooling, allowing the national debate, for the first time, to include the other important outcomes, which the public expects from its education system.

International analyses of citizenship in emerging democracies provide a greater appreciation of the role of schooling in building social cohesion. A growing consensus has emerged globally on the nature of the civics education curriculum. With many new nations aspiring to become stable democracies, the varying conditions that challenge social cohesion are more apparent. Thus, the educational contribution to social cohesion and the measure of social cohesion performance must be culturally specific to the challenge at hand. In the United States, heterogeneity, geographic mobility, and impersonal social relations present relatively unique challenges to social cohesion.

New Challenges

In the early twenty-first century school systems face social cohesion challenges that have little historical precedent. Expectations for what students should know and be able to do are not determined simply by economic needs, but also by what it takes to perform the responsibilities of citizenship adequately. Participating in political discourse in the eighteenth century d >– the evaluation of competing promises over into the the environmental risk, the use of genetically altered foods, choice of lovemaking behavior. Basically the nationality standards to get literacy and numeracy have got risen.

As well, the fundamentals for interpersonal cohesion possess shifted. Very well into the 20th century, cultural cohesion was understood to be the end result of assimilating peoples of diverse made use of, ethnicities, and social groupings into a land with a common language and values. Which has changed. A new understanding of sociable cohesion fosters accommodation, not simply assimilation. It often requires endanger and redefinition of the typical citizen by many factors, including by majority as well as minority populace.

In some elements of the world, problems to interpersonal cohesion aren’t a simple expansion of developing social range. Street physical violence in Rio, corruption in public service in Asia, the provision of social providers by medication lords in South America through mafia figures in Italy and The ussr, the single minded consumerism among suburban youth – these trends present problems of a different kind. In these situations, the task from the public colleges is much larger than forging ethnic harmony.

The twenty-first-century challenge of education in eastern and central The european union and the former Soviet Union might be similar to that encountered by education in Europe and The united states in the early nineteenth and twentieth hundreds of years. New countries must be falsified, at tranquility within themselves and understanding of their typically divergent neighbors. But until now the record of achievement is merged.

In fact school systems will be neutral regarding the direction of their influence. They can be like a sharp tool – a knife or a saw. School systems can trend views, which usually lead to interpersonal cohesion, or they can do the opposite. When it comes to Sri Lanka, pedagogical materials around the 1955s led to the opposite situation. The dominant historical image described in textbooks was that of a glorious but embattled Sinhalese nation consistently having to guard itself as well as Buddhist customs against the ravages of Tamil invaders. Tamils were portrayed as historical enemies. National heroes were chosen in whose reputations included having vanquished Tamils in ethnic-based wars. Segregated within their own schools, Tamil textbooks emphasized traditional figures whose reputations included accommodation and compromise together with the Sinhalese. In neither the Tamil neither the Sinhalese texts were there positive drawings drawn from the other ethnic group. There are few efforts to teach about the contribution of Tamil kings to Buddhist tradition, or the links between Sinhalese kingdoms and Buddhist centers in India. Language texts were largely monocultural with few positive references to other cultural groups.

Since texts were culturally inflammatory and because there is no powerful effort to balance the prejudice coming from outside the classroom with more positive experience, the Sri Lankan educational institutions can be said to acquire achieved the alternative of the goal of good public systems. Instead of laying a foundation to get national assistance and harmony, they helped lay the intellectual foundations for cultural conflict and civil conflict.

The former Yugoslavia provides a more recent illustration. Listed here is a 1994 civics textbook intended for twelve-year-olds in Bosnia:

Horrible crimes committed against the non-Serb population of Bosnia and Herzegovina by Serb-Montenegrin aggressors and domestic chetniks were aimed at creating an ethnically cleansed area where exclusively Serb people would live. In order to carry out this monstrous >…. Thecriminals began to carry out their programs in the most ferocious approach. Horror swept through villages and cities …. Looting, raping, and slaughters … screams and outcries in the people being exposed to such horrendous plights … Europe plus the rest of the universe did not prevent the crooks from ravaging and slaughtering innocent persons. (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, 1994)

Whether the events occurred or not is an issue separate from whether the text is appropriate. The public school experience is intended to mold desired behavior of future citizens; therefore citizens of all different groups must feel comfortable about the content. If one group is uncomfortable then the school system has abrogated its public function. This is an example of where that abrogation of public responsibility occurred.

The lessons could hardly be clearer. Many organizations have taken an interest in the problems of social studies and civics education out of professional concern about the possible implications of interethnic and national tension. These organizations include the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the European Union, the Council of Europe, United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), the Soros Foundations, and many others.

So sensitive have been the threats to peace and stability that military organizations have developed a new concern over education on the premise that interethnic tensions expressed through education could well constitute a risk to peace in the region. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) for instance, established a High Commissioner on National Minorities, based in The Hague. The High Commissioner has already issued recommendations pertaining to the education of the Greek minority population in Albania, the Albanian population in Macedonia; the Slovak population in Hungary, the Hungarian population in Slovakia, and the Hungarian population in Romania. In 1996, the High Commissioner requested assistance from the Foundation on Inter-Ethnic Relations to work on a possible set of guidelines governing the education rights of national minorities. After considerable discussion and consultation, these guidelines, known as The Hague Recommendations, were published in 1997 and can be added to the many other international conventions and regulations that attempt to identify and to protect the educational rights of children and various subpopulations. These include the Polish Minorities Treaty of 1919; the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948; the UNESCO Convention against Discrimination in Education in 1960; the UN Declaration on the Rights of the Child in 1959; the subsequent UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1989; the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in 1950; the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities in 1995; the UN Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities in 1992; the Council of Europe Charter on Regional or Minority Languages in 1992; the UNESCO Declaration on Race and Racial Prejudice in 1978; the Copenhagen Declaration of the Conference of the Human Dimension in 1990; and the UN Universal Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in 1993.

In general these covenants and conventions pertain to the problems of populations that may be subjected to discrimination and prejudice. They concern the right to be educated in one’s native tongue, the right of fair access to more selective training in higher and vocational education, freedom from discrimination, cultural bias, and the like. Although these issues are indeed important, effectively they address only one-half of the problem.

The other half of the problem pertains to the rights of the majority or the rights of the national community. Their educational interests are no less compelling: the Kazakhs in Kazakhstan; the Latvians in Latvia; the Romanians in Romania, and so forth. What protects the national community from extremist versions of history as portrayed by curricula designed by minority populations? What are the rights of the national community for having a sense of compromise and historical dignity ascribed to their national culture by minority populations in their own country? What protection does the national community have against the possibility that a minority community within the same country may encourage loyalty to another nation where their ethnic group is more numerous? The problem of civics education has multiple sources, and therefore must involve multiple solutions. Not all solutions can be incorporated under the auspices of the rights of minorities. non-e of these conventions address this other side of the equation.

Uses in philosophy and bioethics

Sol >Early ancient philosophers such as Socrates and Aristotle discuss solidarity as a virtue ethics framework because in order to live a good life one must perform actions and behave in a way that is in solidarity with the community.

One notable approach in bioethics is to >This approach is driven by the quest to differentiate between the diverse applications of the concept and to clarify its meaning, both historically and in terms of its potential as a fruitful concept for contemporary moral, social and political issues. The modern practice of bioethics is significantly influenced by Immanuel Kant’s concept of the Categorical Imperative. Pastor and philosopher Fritz Jahr’s article Bio-Ethics: A Review of the Ethical Relationships of Humans to Animals and Plants refines Kant’s original Categorical Imperative discourse by including the notion of the Bioethical Imperative.

Biomedical technology has also further introduced sol >bring to attention the negative implications of biomedical enhancements. Another scholar, Dr. Meulen ter Ruud discusses the application of sol

Education and Social Cohesion in the U.S. Context

Thomas Jefferson first argued for a literate citizenry in America’s fledgling democracy: democracies require that citizens understand political institutions and evaluate the claims of politicians – capacities that would protect the democracy from various forms of demagoguery. By the m >– peoples who differed not only in class origins, but also in their ethnic and racial origins, and religious commitments.

In the early twenty-first century, however, the foundations for social cohesion have shifted. Well into the twentieth century, Americans understood social cohesion as the outcome of assimilating peoples of diverse religions, ethnicities, and social groups into a nation with common values and language. That perception has changed. The use of Spanish by both pres >– taking shape since the 1972s – that fosters accommodation, not simply compression, of diverse groups. The number of Hispanic and Asian individuals in this country has, based on the most recent U. S. Census, increased by more than 50 percent. Diversity in ethnicity and religion is definitely pervasive in small towns as well as huge urban areas. Social cohesion should be built amongst these progressively diverse populations: a combination that constitutes a pervasive commitment to non-reflex compliance to broadly constituted social norms and to energetic tolerance for differences between social organizations.

Paradoxically, American concern with the apparent breakdown of sociable cohesion can be not a basic extension in the growing selection. Rather, primary of concern and debate is schools that on the surface have substantial racial and social homogeneity, but uncover many interpersonal fractures that presumably bring about antisocial behavior. Although national statistics show school violence provides decreased, the distribution to result in appear several; namely, even more suburban and rural situations occur that are unrelated to gang activity. School assault in Co, California, and Arkansas, mention just a few states, led to considerable argument in the mass media regarding the family member effects of university organization, American culture, and parenting practices on the habit of teenagers. In the early on twenty-first century, lawmakers in Colorado, Washington, and Or have legislation pending that would require every single school section to have a policy directed at student bullying. Comparable legislation has passed in Georgia, New Hampshire, Illinois, and Delaware. Some declares require mediation, others provide new forces to schools to self-control students.

However antisocial patterns, such as intimidation, is not really new. It is an ancient happening, and it provided a classic character in much of children’s literature. What has changed, nevertheless, is the institutional charter accorded to universities in the United States. The discretion in 1932, for instance, that Willard Waller’s educators had to instill roles and responsibilities of citizenship has been significantly attenuated by court decisions and the often-adversarial role presumed by father and mother as noted by Gerald Grant 23 years ago. The links between community and school have been completely weakened through different catchment areas pertaining to schools and dual-income households. Even the structure for providing welfare rewards has damaged how families can be associated with their kid’s schooling. Different scholars highlight (usually based on a rank orderings) weak child-rearing skills, fractured school civilizations, anomic neighborhoods, technological use of hate-group propaganda (such while the Internet), and easy access to weapons. Yet, the level of interpersonal cohesion in schools is definitely not show simply by occurrence or lack of antisocial patterns, it is also reveal in great actions of civility, highlighting trust and tolerance around social groupings of students.

Social combination is a preferred outcome of schooling, nevertheless significance extends beyond that. Social cohesion can also affect the academic success vulnerable learners – those whose commitment to education is fragile and is further more compromised by schools with weak interpersonal cohesion.

Teachers and commentators have contended that universities contribute more to the wellbeing of children as well as the larger society than academic achievement, the introduction of massive systems of accountability have reduced the value of other contributions. This kind of work will make a measure of social combination outcomes, and thus may expand the discussion over the contributions of schooling, permitting the countrywide debate, initially, to include the other significant outcomes, that the public expects from its education system.

Foreign analyses of citizenship in emerging democracies provide a greater appreciation of the role of schooling in building social cohesion. A growing consensus features emerged worldwide on the characteristics of the civics education program. With many new nations aiming to become stable democracies, the varying circumstances that challenge social combination are more apparent. Thus, the academic contribution to social cohesion and the measure of social cohesion performance has to be culturally particular to the obstacle at hand. In the usa, heterogeneity, geographic mobility, and impersonal social relations present relatively unique challenges to social cohesion.

Traditional Control Theory, Fresh Economic Geography Theory As well as the Interplay Between Globalization And Competition

It is from this several factors in which the negative effects in the over-concentration of services are made. These unwanted side effects will be discussed and analysed in a bid to understand what can completed reduce these people. Polycentricity and territorial combination policy, as well as the measures connected with their implications, are referred to as the tools to get reducing the negative effects of over-concentration. The analysis also concerns the magnitude of success of these tools. Europe can be considered the best program

Ethnic Origins

This keen sense of fragility may have its origins in the historical and cultural roots of the populations now residing in the area. In the history of Arakan, Islamic economic, cultural, and political influence can be traced back to the middle of the eighth century, when the Muslim population along the southern coastal regions of China grew because of immigration from the eastern Mediterranean. This demographic change was due not only to commerce, but also to displacement resulting from Shi’a-Sunni conflicts. A period of expansion of Muslim shipping in Asia, spreading along the coastal regions of India and the countries to the east, continued until the end of the fifteenth century. In this migratory process, Muslims eventually settled in several places, successfully developing a number of trade colonies. This long history of trade and trading settlements contributed to the Muslim population in Burma. However, large-scale Muslim-Indian immigration reached Arakan following British expansion immediately after the three Anglo-Burmese wars (1824–1885), which culminated in the total conquest of Burma. Once Burma became a province within the Indian empire, Muslim Indians could enter not as immigrants, but as residents moving from one district to another within the land. This gave a tremendous stimulus to immigration and caused a social-economic problem that remains to this day. Burma’s need for these immigrants derived from the changes in the economic structure the British had begun to develop. Foreign markets were opened to Burmese rice and, as a result, large areas were put under rice cultivation. (In 1845, there were 354,000 acres of land under rice cultivation in Burma, as compared to 12,370,000 in 1930.)

The Psychology Of Public Support For Punishing Rule Essay

Breakers By Tom Tyler and Robert Boeckmann  Background Understanding the social meaning of rule breaking behavior Why do people want to punish rule breakers? 1. The sources of support for the punishment of rule-breaking behavior 2. The nature of public support for punishing those who break social rules 3 basic sources of support 1. Crime-related concerns 2. Concerns about social conditions 3. Concerns about social values 2 views of the nature of public support 1. The instrumental judgement

Dr Gideon Bolt, Assistant Professor at the Faculty of Geosciences – Utrecht University highlights research into the importance of diversity in cities

Since Louis Wirth’s classical essay Urbanism as a way of life, a central tenet in urban studies is that there is a negative link between heterogeneity and social cohesion. As our present-day, cities are even more diverse than in the era of Wirth, there seems to be not much room left for optimism about the social fabric of the city. Hyper-diversification might lead to more social exclusion as individuals increasingly segregate themselves from others belonging to a different class, ethnicity or lifestyle (Fincher et al., 2014). This complicates the creation of feelings of belonging and community, as people are generally inclined to connect to similar others which might make urban groups prefer to live side-by-side without socially integrating with each other. Putnam (2007), who primarily focused on ethnic diversity, reported negative effects on social outcomes, like trust, social networks and political efficacy. However, his findings have been refuted on methodological grounds (Abascal & Baldassarri, 2015).

Moreover, qualitative studies show that living am >diversity will not necessarily lead to social drawback and that residents in various neighbourhoods are usually open, at least civil, towards other civilizations (Wessendorf, 2014). Noble (2009), for example , explains the ways by which difference is definitely perceived in unproblematic ways on a daily basis as ‘unpanicked multiculturalism’, contrasting it with the ‘panicked multiculturalism’ that may be common in today’s arguments on multiculturalism and mainly focuses on conflicts and tensions between different ethnic teams.

Similar Materials

  • Component 2!
  • University of Rhode Isle
  • LET 151 – Summer 2013
  • A Daughter of Frances Shed Territories Combats for Them Whilst ethnic minorities
  • University of Rhode Island
  • LET 151 – Summer season 2013

LET151- composition 2 . docx

  • at the actual French do to promote cultural cohesion within a diverse region with
  • University of Rhode Isle
  • PERMIT 151 – Summer 2015
  • At the same time the country never wants that other culture to take the location of
  • University of Rhode Isle
  • ALLOW 151 – Summer 2013

Conventional paper 2 Cultural Cohesion

  • Essay+2+graded. docx
  • University of Rhode Isle
  • MATHEMATIC 103X – Summer 2017
  • Module 4
  • University of Rhode Area
  • PERMIT 151 – Summer 2013

< Prev post Next post >
NEED AN ESSAY WRITING HELP?