Social Cohesion and the Common Good: Drawing on Social Science in Understanding the Middle East

2017 ◽  
pp. 211-230
2014 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anita Cloete

The main objective of the article is to identify the possible implications of social cohesion and social capital for the common good. In order to reach this overarching aim the following structure will be utilised. The first part explores the conceptual understanding of socialcohesion and social capital in order to establish how these concepts are related and how they could possibly inform each other. The contextual nature of social cohesion and social capital is briefly reflected upon, with specific reference to the South African context. The contribution of religious capital in the formation of social capital is explored in the last section of the article. The article could be viewed as mainly conceptual and explorative in nature in order to draw some conclusions about the common good of social capital and social cohesion.Intradisciplinary and/or interdisciplinary implications: This article contributes to the interdisciplinary discourse on social cohesion with specific reference to the role of congregations. It provides a critical reflection on the role of congregations with regard to bonding and bridging social capital. The contextual nature of social cohesion is also addressed with specific reference to South Africa.


Author(s):  
Rob Boddice

Chapter 5 returns to the blueprint for the evolution of sympathy in Darwin’s Descent, picking up at the point where Darwin introduces a paradoxical prediction of degeneration, caused by the same force that inspired social cohesion and moral progress. This chapter analyses the birth of the eugenics movement as a department of statistics, arising directly from a concern for the common good of civilised society – the central tenet of highly evolved sympathy. Unlike most studies of eugenics, this chapter focuses largely on the period before 1900, when the parameters of eugenic thought were being hashed out. It particularly focuses on the problem of degeneration as seen through the eyes of Francis Galton and Karl Pearson, who pointed to the need for social-policy interventions in breeding.


2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 404-416
Author(s):  
Crystal Filep ◽  
Michelle Thompson-Fawcett

Contextual relativities in the diversifying expression of New Urbanism are increasingly important. In this article, we explore the significance of context using a Scandinavian setting as example. We examine two embodiments of the Swedish realisation of New Urban neighbourhoods. Important in our exploration are the relationalities with contemporary contexts and belief systems, since every effort to create space becomes “an elaboration of the beliefs and values of some collection of people, expressed and fostered in their promotion of a preferred reality” (Stokowski, 2002, p. 374). The findings from the study demonstrate that the Swedish New Urban neighbourhood—no matter how meaningful as a communicative form mediating between agents and structures—cannot effect social cohesion or isolation. Rather, form communicates or evokes meaning in a variety of complex ways, suggesting the importance of “look[ing] to multiply…our readings of the city” (Leach, 1997, p. 158), particularly high<em>-</em>level readings that echo notions of the common good. Those concerned with New Urbanism’s embodiments should deliberate on relational fluidities and thereby strike a balance between conceptualising such urban design as either deterministically exceeding its power (Lawhon, 2009) or as side-lined to the whimsical relativity of particular consumers (Latham, 2003; Smith, 2002).


What has social science learned about the common good? Would humanists even want to alter their definitions of the common good based on what social scientists say? In this volume, six social scientists—from economics, political science, sociology, and policy analysis—speak about what their disciplines have to contribute to discussions within Catholic social thought about the common good. None of those disciplines talks directly about “the common good”; but nearly all social scientists believe that their scientific work can help make the world a better place, and each social science does operate with some notion of human flourishing. Two theologians examine the insights of social science, including such challenging assertions that theology is overly irenic, that it does not appreciate unplanned order, and that it does not grasp how in some situations contention among self-interested nations and persons can be an effective path to the common good. In response, one theologian explicitly includes contention along with cooperation in his (altered) definition of the common good.


2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 63-78 ◽  
Author(s):  
Najwan Saada

This study examines the debate over the meaning and place of democracy in Arab and Muslim-majority societies as interpreted by Islamist‐Salafi vs. liberal/progressive perspectives. We explore the epistemological and political tenets of both ideologies and emphasize the possible educational implications of liberal/progressive Islam in the transitional societies of the Middle East. We propose the teaching of Islam through phenomenological and cultural studies pedagogies so that students exercise their capacities of inclusive and equal citizenship, religious reasoning, reflective identities and the pursuit of the common good.


Author(s):  
David Cloutier

Recent Catholic literature on the common good centers on the state’s creation of the social condition for the flourishing of individuals. This view stands in contrast with a premodern conception of the common good as shared participation in the enterprise of the social whole, which appears incompatible with liberal pluralist societies. To get beyond this forced choice between individualism and imposed collectivism, Catholic social teaching can learn much from how social science’s richer description of the social whole depicts shared participatory structures of contention and competition as crucial for the achievement of the common good. Yet, following insights from both social science and the philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre, prudence must be developed to distinguish between structures of competition that do promote the common good and others that do not. The essay concludes with a revised definition of the common good that includes these insights.


Author(s):  
Ralph Henham

The Introduction outlines the work’s rationale and scope. Two main propositions are advanced. First, it is argued that the values underpinning sentencing policy should promote social cohesion rather than neo-liberal retributive values, which tend to reinforce social divisions through the disproportionate use of incarceration. Thus, sentencing policy should reflect shared values that justify punishment for the common good. Crucially, the identification of such values is regarded as a moral obligation that falls to the state. Secondly, and fundamental to social justice and credible governance, is the normative dimension. Hence, values must be realized through practice so that outcomes have moral credibility at the community level. It is suggested how value-related information could be accommodated in individual cases, whilst maintaining the system’s overall consistency. Numerous changes to practice and guidance are advocated, the most important being that sentencers should be given more discretion, not less, to facilitate the changes proposed.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document