Reflecting on Habitus, Field and Capital: Towards a Culturally Sensitive Social Work

Summary: This article argues that the notion of the knowledge base as a central aspect of professional activity is flawed, and that it is more useful to see social work as in a continuous process of constructing and reconstructing professional knowledge. Findings: Culture is an area that has attracted widespread attention in academia and the social professions. However, there has been little examination of culturally sensitive social work practice from a realist perspective, or one that starts from the view that oppressive structures, as encoded within social class, are essential determinants of cultural experience. Following a critique of postmodern perspectives on culture, the work of Pierre Bourdieu on culture and power is explored. Applications: Three of Bourdieu's key constructs - habitus, field and capital - are utilized to develop a model for culturally sensitive social work practice that attends to the interplay of agency and structure in reproducing inequalities within the social world.

Civil society as a contested field of meanings

Purpose – During recent years, the concept of civil society, particularly global civil society, has come to the fore in both academia and policy circles. A key component of recent theoretical and policy research is the attempt to do international comparative research on the meaning of civil society. The purpose of this paper is to argue that the language and the terminology used to describe the agents of civil society are reflective of cultural and historical contexts of societies, have distinct meanings and cannot be used interchangeably.

Design/methodology/approach – In different national contexts, the key agents of civil society are referred to differently; nonprofit sector, voluntary and community sector, third sector and social economy. In comparative studies, scholars often list these concepts to indicate that they recognise that the agents of civil society are referred to differently in different societies. The article offers a socio-historical analysis of each concept. It is concluded that teasing out the differences, as well as the similarities, between the nonprofit sector, voluntary and community sector, third sector and social economy, is crucial to robust comparative research on civil society.

Findings – This paper exposes a number of limitations of each of the terminologies used to describe civil society. They all present a much more limiting notion of civil society than that proposed by the founding fathers. None seem to capture the range of civil associations in any society. Yet, assumptions are made that the terminologies used have similar meanings rather than attempting to clarify and define exactly what is being written or described. This is exacerbated by the interchangeable usage of nonprofit/third sector/community and voluntary sector/social economy. In order to progress beyond culturally specific understandings of civil society, it is necessary to examine the terminology used and how it emanates from a specific cultural and political context. Having a clear understanding of the language used and what it signifies is crucial to robust cross-national comparative research.

Originality/value – This paper examines context specific understandings of civil society and the terminology used to define it; a question not previously addressed. It is hoped that this article will generate much needed further debate on cross-national meanings of civil society.

Charabanc, cultural capital and the men of recognised credit

This paper compares the cultural legacy of the all-female Charabanc with that of Field Day, its fellow counterpart in the Irish Theatre touring movement in the 1980s. It suggests that a conscious awareness amongst the all-male Field Day board of successful writers and directors of what Bourdieu has called 'cultural capital' is implicated in the enduring authority of the work of that company within the history of Irish theatre. Conversely the paper considers if the populist Charabanc, in its steadfast refusal to engage with the hierarchies of academia and publishing, was too neglectful of the cultural capital which it accrued in its heyday and has thus been party to its own occlusion from that same history.

A new landscape of arts-based buildings and comparative cultural policies on the island of Ireland: the curse of Jocasta's necklace

Much current cultural policy research focuses on activity traditionally viewed as arts practice: visual arts, music, literature and dance. Architecture’s role in the discussion of cultural policy is, however, less certain and thus less frequently interrogated. The study presented here both addresses this dearth of in-depth research while also contributing to the interdisciplinary discussion of cultural policy in wider terms. In seeking to better understand how architectural culture is regulated and administered in a specific case study, it unpacks how the complicated relationships of nominal and explicit policies on both sides of the Irish/Northern Irish border contributed to the significant expansion of arts-based buildings 1995-2008. It contrasts political and cultural motivations behind these projects during a period of significant economic growth, investment and inward immigration. Data has been gathered from both official published policies as well as interviews with elite actors in the decision-making field and architects who produced the buildings of interest in both countries. With the sizeable number of arts-based buildings now completed in both Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, one must wonder if this necklace of buildings is, like Jocasta’s, a thing of both beauty and redolent with a potential future curse. It is the goal of this project to contribute to the larger applied and critical discussion of these issues and to engage with future policy design, administration and, certainly, evaluation.

A new landscape of arts-based buildings and comparative cultural policies on the island of Ireland: the curse of Jocasta's necklace

Much current cultural policy research focuses on activity traditionally viewed as arts practice: visual arts, music, literature and dance. Architecture’s role in the discussion of cultural policy is, however, less certain and thus less frequently interrogated. The study presented here both addresses this dearth of in-depth research while also contributing to the interdisciplinary discussion of cultural policy in wider terms. In seeking to better understand how architectural culture is regulated and administered in a specific case study, it unpacks how the complicated relationships of nominal and explicit policies on both sides of the Irish/Northern Irish border contributed to the significant expansion of arts-based buildings 1995-2008. It contrasts political and cultural motivations behind these projects during a period of significant economic growth, investment and inward immigration. Data has been gathered from both official published policies as well as interviews with elite actors in the decision-making field and architects who produced the buildings of interest in both countries. With the sizeable number of arts-based buildings now completed in both Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, one must wonder if this necklace of buildings is, like Jocasta’s, a thing of both beauty and redolent with a potential future curse. It is the goal of this project to contribute to the larger applied and critical discussion of these issues and to engage with future policy design, administration and, certainly, evaluation.

The Nature of Religious Diversity: A Cultural Ecosystem Approach

Studies of religious and other cultural groups tend to be particularistic or focus on one or more axes of variation. In this article we develop a more comprehensive approach to studying cultural diversity that emulates the study of biological diversity. We compare our cultural ecosystem approach with the axis approach, using the distinction between “tight” and “loose” cultures as an example. We show that while the axis approach is useful, the cultural ecosystem approach adds considerable value to the axis approach. We end by advocating the establishment of field sites for the study of religious and cultural diversity, comparable to biological field sites.

Development of a biocidal treatment regime to inhibit biological growths on cultural heritage: BIODAM

Existing chemical treatments to prevent biological damage to monuments often involve considerable amounts of potentially dangerous and even poisonous biocides. The scientific approach described in this paper aims at a drastic reduction in the concentration of biocide applications by a polyphasic approach of biocides combined with cell permeabilisers, polysaccharide and pigment inhibitors and a photodynamic treatment. A variety of potential agents were screened to determine the most effective combination. Promising compounds were tested under laboratory conditions with cultures of rock deteriorating bacteria, algae, cyanobacteria and fungi. A subsequent field trial involved two sandstone types with natural biofilms. These were treated with multiple combinations of chemicals and exposed to three different climatic conditions. Although treatments proved successful in the laboratory, field trials were inconclusive and further testing will be required to determine the most effective treatment regime. While the most effective combination of chemicals and their application methodology is still being optimised, results to date indicate that this is a promising and effective treatment for the control of a wide variety of potentially damaging organisms colonising stone substrates

A box in the field: modernity and the barn in twentieth-century Ireland

This paper argues that the modern barn in Ireland is a complex social and architectural phenomena that is without, or has yet to find, a satisfactory discourse. Emerging in the middle third of the twentieth century, the modern barn – replete with corrugated iron and I-sections – continues to represent a presence in the Irish landscape whose ubiquity is as emphatic as its flexibility. It is, however, its universal properties that begin to suggest connections with wider narratives. The modernising aspects of the barn that appear in the 1920s and 30s begin to conflate with a rhetoric of architectural modernism which was simultaneously appearing across Europe. But while the relationship between high modernism’s critique of what it divined as the inspirational qualities of utilitarian buildings – Walter Gropius on grain silos, Le Corbusier on aircraft hangers etc. – has been well-documented, in Ireland this relationship perhaps contains another layer of complexity.
The barn’s consolidation as a modern type coincided with the search for a nation’s cultural identity after centuries of colonial rule. This tended to be an introspective vision that prioritised rural space over urban space, agriculture over industry, and imagined the small farm as a central tenet in the construction of a new State. This paper suggests that the twentieth-century barn – as a product of the mechanisation of agriculture promoted by the new administrations – is an iconic structure, emblematic of attempts to reconcile the contradictory forces and imagery of modernity with the mores of a traditional society. Moreover, given a cultural purview that was often ambivalent or even hostile to the ideologies and forms of modernity, the barn in Ireland is, perhaps, not so much the inspiration but the realisation of an architectural modernism in that country at its most pervasive, enduring and unself-conscious.