scholarly journals Eisenstadt, S.N., Roniger, L. Seligman, A. Centre Formation, Protests, Movements and Class Structure in Europe & the United States. London (Engl.), Frances Pinter Publishers, 1987, 191 p.

1989 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 721
Author(s):  
Pierre-André Tremblay
2007 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 535-537
Author(s):  
Laura Stephenson

Democracy and Excellence: Concord or Conflict?, Joseph Romance and Neil Reimer, eds., Westport CN: Praeger, 2005, 166, pp. xiv.This volume is the product of a question, asked by Neal Reimer, about the relationship between democracy and excellence. Reimer provides background for this relationship in the first chapter, noting that it can be framed as government by the people versus standards of the good, true and beautiful. Conflict can arise between the two ideas because democracy prioritizes equality of citizens—but excellence depends upon the recognition of differentiating merit. While democracy provides citizens freedom from a limiting class structure, the lack of structure can make citizens indifferent to pursuing a noble vision of the state. Reimer argues, however, that there is a fundamental harmony between democracy and excellence and that examples of excellence in democratic societies (such as the United States) are many. It is possible and likely that democratic societies will attain excellence in practice.


1999 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 417-461 ◽  
Author(s):  
PETER A. HALL

Recent findings show an apparent erosion in the United States over the post-war years of ‘social capital’ understood as the propensity of individuals to associate together on a regular basis, to trust one another, and to engage in community affairs. This article examines the British case for similar trends, finding no equivalent erosion. It proposes explanations for the resilience of social capital in Britain, rooted in educational reform, the transformation of the class structure, and government policy. It concludes by drawing some general lessons from the British case that stress the importance of the distributive dimensions of social capital and the impact that governments can have on it.


1975 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 65-94 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vicente Navarro

This presentation provides an alternative explanation of the present composition, nature, and functions of the health sector in the United States to those frequently given in sociological, economic, and medical care literature. These explanations usually maintain that the American health sector is a result of the value system of the assumedly middle class American society. In this presentation it is postulated that the present economic structure of the United States determines and maintains a social class structure, both outside and within the health sector, and that the different degrees of ownership, control, and influence that these classes have on the means of production, reproduction, and legitimization in the United States explain the composition, nature, and functions of the health sector. It is further postulated that the value system is not the cause, but a symptom, of these class controls and influences. The paper is divided into three sections. The first part provides a description of the class structure, which includes the corporate class, upper middle class, lower middle class, and working class, and it describes the mechanisms whereby this structure is maintained and replicated, both outside and within the health sector. The second section analyzes: (1) the production characteristics and social make-up of the three main sectors of the U. S. economy-the monopolistic, state, and competitive sectors-and it focuses especially on the monopolistic sector, which is assumed to be the dominant sector in the U. S. economy, with its needs determining to a large degree the functions of the social sectors, including those of the health sector; (2) the increasing dominance of the monopolistic sector in the health sector, by means of the financial institutions, which conflicts primarily with the providers' relative control of the financing of health services; and (3) the main conflict in the control of the reproductive (academic) and distributive (delivery) institutions which, it is postulated, is not, as is generally believed, between the providers and the so-called consumers, but rather between the corporate and upper middle classes (including the providers), who control those institutions, and the majority of the U.S. population, the lower middle and working classes, who do not control them. The third section analyzes the increasing importance of state intervention in determining the nature and outcome of the conflicts analyzed in the previous section. It is postulated in this section that, to understand both the nature and effects of state intervention, it is necessary to analyze the different degrees of control and/or influence that the social groups and classes defined in the first section have on the organs of the state, and primarily on the executive and legislative branches of the federal government. These different degrees of control and influence determine the main functions of state intervention, both outside and within the health sector, and these are postulated to be (1) the legitimization of the political system, and (2) the strengthening of mainly the system of private enterprise, in which the monopolistic sector is dominant.


1982 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 149-172 ◽  
Author(s):  
Duncan Gallie

Of the studies by British sociologists in the last decade focusing on the determinants of working-class attitudes to the class structure, those of Michael Mann and Anthony Giddens must, I think, be seen in retrospect as the most imaginative. While much effort at the time focused on what in the event turned out to be the rather minimal implications of the impact of certain variations in work and community milieux within Britain on workers' conceptions of class, Mann and Giddens took as their point of departure the well documented differences in the radicalism of the labour movements of different Western capitalist societies and sought to develop a theory that could account for them. Why should it be, they asked, that in countries such as France and Italy workers were sufficiently disenchanted with capitalist institutions to give relatively enduring support to parties that were at least formally committed to revolutionary objectives, while in countries such as Britain and the United States they gave their allegiances to parties that seemed largely to accept the existing structure of society?


1990 ◽  
Vol 95 (4) ◽  
pp. 964-1008 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melvin L. Kohn ◽  
Atsushi Naoi ◽  
Carrie Schoenbach ◽  
Carmi Schooler ◽  
Kazimierz M. Slomczynski

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document