Social exclusion and social capital: A comparison and critique

Social exclusion and social capital are widely used concepts with multiple and ambiguous definitions. Their meanings and indicators partially overlap, and thus they are sometimes used interchangeably to refer to the inter-relations of economy and society. Both ideas could benefit from further specification and differentiation. The causes of social exclusion and the consequences of social capital have received the fullest elaboration, to the relative neglect of the outcomes of social exclusion and the genesis of social capital. This article identifies the similarities and differences between social exclusion and social capital. We compare the intellectual histories and theoretical orientations of each term, their empirical manifestations and their place in public policy. The article then moves on to elucidate further each set of ideas. A central argument is that the conflation of these notions partly emerges from a shared theoretical tradition, but also from insufficient theorizing of the processes in which each phenomenon is implicated. A number of suggestions are made for sharpening their explanatory focus, in particular better differentiating between cause and consequence, contextualizing social relations and social networks, and subjecting the policy 'solutions' that follow from each perspective to critical scrutiny. Placing the two in dialogue is beneficial for the further development of each.

Inter- and intrapersonal processes underlying authoritarianism: The role of social conformity and personal need for structure

Several personality constructs have been theorised to underlie right-wing authoritarianism (RWA). In samples from New Zealand and Germany (Ns = 218, 259), we tested whether these constructs can account for specific variance in RWA. In both samples, social conformity and personal need for structure were independent predictors of RWA. In Sample 2, where also openness to experience was measured, social conformity and personal need for structure fully mediated the impact of the higher-order factor of openness on RWA. Our results contribute to the integration of current approaches to the personality basis of authoritarianism. and suggest that two distinct personality processes contribute to RWA: An interpersonal process related to social conformity and an intrapersonal process related to rigid cognitive style. Copyright (C) 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Social psychology and peace: An introductory overview

This paper begins by giving an overview of why and in which ways social psychological research can be relevant to peace. Galtung's (1969) distinction between negative peace (the absence of direct violence) and positive peace (the absence of structural violence, or the presence of social justice) is crossed with a focus on factors that are detrimental (obstacles) to peace versus factors that are conducive to peace (catalysts), yielding a two-by-two classification of social psychological contributions to peace, Research falling into these four classes is cited in brief, with a particular focus on four exemplary topics: support for military interventions as an obstacle to negative peace; antiwar activism as a catalyst of negative peace; ideologies legitimizing social inequality as an obstacle to positive peace; and commitment to human rights as a catalyst of positive peace. Based on this conceptual framework, the remaining six articles of the special issue

Social categorizations, social comparisons and stigma: Presentations of self in people with learning difficulties

Self-categorization theory stresses the importance of the context in which the metacontrast principle is proposed to operate. This study is concerned with how 'the pool of psychologically relevant stimuli' (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher & Wetherell, 1987, p. 47) comprising the context is determined. Data from interviews with 33 people with learning difficulties were used to show how a positive sense of self might be constructed by members of a stigmatized social category through the social worlds that they describe, and therefore the social comparisons and categorizations that are made possible. Participants made downward comparisons which focused on people with learning difficulties who were less able or who displayed challenging behaviour, and with people who did not have learning difficulties but who, according to the participants, behaved badly, such as beggars, drunks and thieves. By selection of dimensions and comparison others, a positive sense of self and a particular set of social categorizations were presented. It is suggested that when using self-categorization theory to study real-world social categories, more attention needs to be paid to the involvement of the perceiver in determining which stimuli are psychologically relevant since this is a crucial determinant of category salience.