What public experience may be - on publicity, communication and the expression of lived experiences

The idea of public experience is often invoked in different social and academic contexts. However, it seldom deserved a reflection that specifically sought to deepen its meaning from the point of view of social life. In this article we contribute to the understanding of the uniqueness of the public form of experience. We believe that one of the best ways through which we can observe the public experience is by the objectification, performance and dramatization of the culture, i.e., the “expression of lived experiences”. There is, in publicity, the possibility of simultaneous allocation of individual and collective experiences, and it is in this sense that we can see how culture influences the shaping of experience itself. Public experience is characterized by the weaving and intertwining of singular experiences that are pluralized and plural lived experiences that are singularized, in a process where individual and society interpenetrate. The relationship between experience and publicity arises from this symbolic communion contained in the systems of thought and action of societies. The decisive role of the principle of publicity to experience consists, according with the hypothesis we wish to put forward, in making available and communicating the social world of symbolic (cultural) activity. Public experience is, then, envisaged as the experience of a common world where both singular and plural definitions of the individual (taken as society) converge through lived experiences and, particularly, through their expression, which can take different symbolic forms.

Skeletal maturity and socio-economic status in portuguese children and youths: the Madeira growth study

Skeletal maturity is used to evaluate biological maturity status. Information about the association between socio-economic status (SES) and skeletal maturity is limited in Portugal. Aims: The aim of this study is to document the skeletal maturity of youths in Madeira and to evaluate variation in maturity associated with SES. Subjects and methods: The study involved 507 subjects (256 boys and 251 girls) from the Madeira Growth Study, a mixed-longitudinal study of five cohorts (8, 10, 12, 14 and 16 years of age) followed at yearly intervals over 3 years (1996–1998). A total of 1493 observations were made. Skeletal age was estimated from radiographs of the hand and wrist using the Tanner–Whitehouse 2 method (TW2). Social class rankings were based on Graffar’s (1956) method. Five social rankings were subsequently grouped into three SES categories: high, average and low. Results: Median for the radius, ulna and short finger bones (RUS scores) in the total sample of boys and girls increased curvilinearly across age whereas median for the 7 (without pisiform) carpal bones (Carpal scores) increased almost linearly. The 20-bone maturity scores demonstrated distinctive trends by gender: the medians for boys increased almost linearly while the medians for girls increased curvilinearly. SES differences were minimal. Only among children aged 10–11 years were high SES boys and girls advanced in skeletal maturity. Madeira adolescents were advanced in skeletal maturity compared with Belgian reference values. Conclusion: The data suggests population variation in TW2 estimates of skeletal maturation. Skeletal maturity was not related to SES in youths from Madeira.