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

Philosophy, Social Hope and Democratic Criticism:Critical Theory for a Global Age

The attempt to connect philosophy and social hope has been one of the key distinguishing features of critical theory as a tradition of enquiry. This connection has been questioned forcefully from the perspective of a post-philosophical pragmatism, as articulated by Rorty. In this article I consider two strategies that have been adopted by critical theorists in seeking to reject Rorty's suggestion that we should abandon the attempt to ground social hope in philosophical reason. We consider argumentative strategies of the philosophical anthropologist and of the rational proceduralist. Once the exchanges between Rorty and these two strands of critical theory have been reconstructed and assessed, an alternative perspective emerges. It is argued that philosophical reasoning best helps to sustain social hope in a rapidly changing world when we consider it in terms of the practice of democratic criticism.

‘Stakeholders’ views of legal and advice services for people admitted to psychiatric hospital’

This paper describes a study that used a mixed method approach to elicit the views of a range of stakeholders about experiences of compulsory admission to psychiatric hospital, and the use of the Mental Health Review Tribunal (MHRT). The paper begins with an introduction to the background of the study, one that took place in Northern Ireland, a region in the UK with its own mental health legislation and policy. A review of literature is then presented. This highlights some of the disadvantages that service users and carers face when dealing with professionals during and following compulsory admission to hospital. This section concludes with an overview of literature on the MHRT in the UK. A range of methods was used to gather data from the following stakeholders: five service user and carer focus group interviews (n = 44); interviews with four lawyers experienced in Tribunal work; an interview with a legal member of the Tribunal; a survey of solicitors who identified themselves as equipped to carry out Tribunal work; interviews with three managers of organisations that provided patient advocacy services; letters to hospital managers requesting information provided to patients and carers. The findings reveal a number of themes associated with these experiences of compulsory admission to hospital and subsequent use of the Tribunal. Service users and carers generally found it difficult to access relevant information about rights, information provided by hospital managers was uneven and lawyers were often not familiar with processes associated with compulsory admission. There was a range of views about the Tribunal. Most respondents felt that the Tribunal was necessary and mostly satisfactory in the way it carried out its functions, but stakeholders raised a number of issues. Carers in particular felt that they should be more involved in decision-making processes, whereas lawyers tended to be focused on more technical, legal issues. Problems of regrading prior to the Tribunal and in examining medical evidence were highlighted by lawyers. There was an appeal for better information and advice by service users and carers, and recognition of the need for better training and education for lawyers. The paper concludes with a brief discussion about current mental health law in the UK, arguing that, in this context, professionals should more proactively use information and advice that can enable service users and carers to defend their rights. Keywords: compulsory mental health; law; legal and advice services