:: wikimiki.org ::

Civil Society

Civil society

Civil society or civil institutions refers to the totality of voluntary civic and social organizations or institutions which form the basis of a functioning society as opposed to the force backed structures of a state (regardless of that state's political system). While there are myriad definitions of civil society, the London School of Economics Centre for Civil Society working definition is illustrative: :Civil society refers to the arena of uncoerced collective action around shared interests, purposes and values. In theory, its institutional forms are distinct from those of the state, family and market, though in practice, the boundaries between state, civil society, family and market are often complex, blurred and negotiated. Civil society commonly embraces a diversity of spaces, actors and institutional forms, varying in their degree of formality, autonomy and power. Civil societies are often populated by organisations such as registered charities, development non-governmental organisations, community groups, women's organisations, faith-based organisations, professional associations, trades unions, self-help groups, social movements, business associations, coalitions and advocacy groups. Examples of civil society institutions:
- non-governmental organizations (NGOs)
- private voluntary organizations (PVOs)
- peoples' organizations
- community-based organizations
- civic clubs
- trade unions
- gender, cultural, and religious groups
- charities
- social and sports clubs
- cooperatives
- environmental groups
- professional associations
- academia
- businesses
- policy institutions
- consumers/consumer organizations
- the media
- citizens' militia
- organized religion Whether all of these institutions are by definition part of civil society is up for debate. Neera Chandoke, a scientist from India, thinks not. She concludes that only institutions that are critical of the state are the real thing, while the rest are merely not governmental. The notion here is that not every institution is a 'countervailing power' to the state. In developing countries, civil society is popular with aid donors because it can make government behave in a better way. But mock civil society organisations can exist that serve only to gain access to development aid. The term civil society is currently often used by critics and activists as a reference to sources of resistance to and the domain of social life which needs to be protected against globalization. However, within the United Nations context, the phrase "civil society" has been a source of some controversy, as its meaning also includes businesses as well as private voluntary organisations – see [http://www.un.org/partners/civil_society/home.htm United Nations: Partners in Civil Society]. On the other hand others see globalization as a social phenomenon bringing classical liberal values which inevitably lead to a larger role for civil society at the expense to politically derived state institutions.

External links

- [http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/CCS/ LSE Centre for Civil Society]
- [http://w3.uniroma1.it/soccap/eng-index.htm Capitale Sociale.it, Resources for the study of social capital]
- http://www.civilsoc.org/aboutcsi.htm
- [http://www.uia.org/organizations/pub.php Yearbook of International Organizations (Guide to Global Civil Society Networks)] published by the Union of International Associations (UIA)
- [http://www.partnerships.org.au/ Social Enterprise Partnerships (Australian)]
- [http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/publications/he/21/c.html The Western Concept of the Civil Society in the Context of Chinese History] - Thomas Metzger at the Hoover Institute, Stanford University (US)
- [http://www.gradewinner.com/p/articles/mi_qa3996/is_200404/ai_n9376554?pi=gdw Civil Society in the Post-Communist Context: Linking Theoretical Concept and Social Transformation] Demokratizatsiya, Spring 2004 by Tanya Narozhna Category:Political science terms ja:シビル・ソサエティ

Society

:For the Brian Yuzna film, see Society (film). For the song by the California punk band Pennywise, see Society (song). A society is a group of beings distinguishable from other groups by mutual interests, characteristic relationships, shared institutions, ranking and a common culture. In political science, the term is often used to mean the amalgamation of all voluntary human relationships, generally in contrast to the State, an institution of legal aggression. :"I mean by it [State] that summation of privileges and dominating positions which are brought into being by extra-economic power... I mean by Society, the totality of concepts of all purely natural relations and institutions between man and man..." - Franz Oppenheimer, The State.[http://www.opp.uni-wuppertal.de/oppenheimer/st/state0.htm] The social sciences use the term society to mean a group of people that form a semi-closed social system, in which most interactions are with other individuals belonging to the group. More abstractly, a society is defined as a network of relationships between social entities. A society is also sometimes defined as an interdependent community, but the sociologist Tonnies sought to draw a contrast between society and community. An important component of society is social structure in which roles and ranks are given (school[cliques and labels], work[boss, admin], and so on)

Etymology

The English word society emerged in the 14th century; derived from the French société. The French word, in turn, had its origin in the Latin societas, a "friendly association with others", from socius meaning "companion, associate, comrade or business partner". Thus the meaning of society is closely related to what is considered to be social. Implicit in the meaning of society is that its members share some mutual concern or interest, a common objective or common characteristics. As such, society is often used as synonymous with the collective citizenry of a country as directed through national institutions concerned with civic welfare.

Organization of society

Human societies are often organized according to their primary means of subsistence: social scientists identify hunter-gatherer societies, nomadic pastoral societies, horticulturalist or simple farming societies, and intensive agricultural societies, also called civilizations. Some consider Industrial and Post-Industrial societies to be qualitatively different from traditional agricultural societies. One Common theme for societies in general is that societies serve to aid individuals in a time of crisis; historically, when an individual in some community requires aid, for example at birth, death, sickness, or disaster, like-minded members of that community will rally others in that society to render aid, in some form, whether the aid is symbolic, linguistic, physical, mental, emotional, financial, medical, religious, etc. Cetain societies can also put down, and scapegoat other members of the society. Many societies will also distribute largess, at the behest of some individual or some larger group of people. This type of generosity can be seen in all known cultures; typically, prestige or other cultural factor accrues to the generous individual or group. Some societies will bestow a status on some individual or larger group of people, when that individual or group performs an admired or desired action; This type of recognition is bestowed by members of that society on the individual or larger group in the form of sosubliminal messageme name, or title, or dress, or monetary reward, etc. Males especially are susceptible to this type of action and subsequent reward, even at the risk of their lives. Action by some individual or larger group in behalf of some ideal of their culture is seen in all societies. Even subsistence-based societies exhibit the characteristics of community action, generosity, and shared risk/reward, in common with other more technology-based civilizations. Societies can also be organized according to their political structure: in order of increasing size and complexity, there are band societies, tribes, chiefdoms, and state societies, with varying degrees of political power, depending on the what cultural geographical, historical environments that these societies have to contend with. Thus, when a society exists at the same time as other societies at the same level of technology and culture, but is also isolated geographically, that society is more likely to survive than an equivalent society which is prey to others which can encroach on their resources. See the history article for examples. A society which is not able to offer an effective response to other societies which may be in competition with them will usually be subsumed into the culture of the competing society. See the technology article for examples.

Shared belief or common goal

Peoples of many nations united by common political and cultural traditions, beliefs, or values are sometimes also said to be a society (for example: Judeo-Christian, Eastern, Western, etc). When used in this context, the term is being used as a means of contrasting two or more "societies" whose representative members represent alternative conflicting and competing worldviews. Also, some academic, learned and scholarly societies and associations, such as the American Society of Mathematics, describe themselves as societies. In the United Kingdom these are normally non-profit making and have charitable status. In science they range in size to include national scientific societies including the Royal Society to regional natural history societies. Academic societies may have interest in a wide range of subjects, including the arts, humanities and science. In the United States and France, the term "society" is used in commerce to denote a partnership between investors or to start a business. In the United Kingdom, partnerships are not called societies but cooperatives or mutuals are often known as societies (such as friendly societies and building societies).

Ontology

As a related note, there is still an ongoing debate in sociological and anthropological circles if there exists an entity we could call society. Some Marxist theorists, like Louis Althusser, Ernesto Laclau and Slavoj Zizek, argued that society is nothing more than an effect of the ruling ideology of a certain class system, and shouldn't be used as a sociological notion. Marx's concept of society as the sum total of social relations among members of a community contrasts with interpretations from the perspective of methodological individualism where society is simply the sum total of individuals in a territory.

References

[http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/society Definition of Society] from the OED.
- [http://core.ecu.edu/soci/juskaa/SOCI2110/Lectures/Lect1 Lecture notes on "Defining Society"] from East Carolina University.
- [http://www.wsu.edu:8001/vcwsu/commons/topics/culture/glossary/society.html Learning Commons - What is Culture ? - Glossary Item - Society]
- Raymond Williams, "Society", in: Williams, Key Words: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society. Fontana, 1976. Category:Society Category:Sociology ja:社会 ko:사회 nb:Samfunn simple:Society zh-min-nan:Siā-hōe

Collective action

The economic theory of collective action is concerned with the provision of public goods (and other collective consumption) through the collaboration of two or more individuals, and the impact of externalities on group behavior. The foundational work in collective action was Mancur Olson's 1965 book The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. The theory explores the market failures where individual consumer rationality and firms' profit-seeking do not lead to efficient provision of the public goods, i.e. where another level of provision would provide a higher utility at a lower cost. Note, however, that the theory is not necessarily a challenge to the invisible hand principle of Adam Smith. It only limits the domain in which that principle applies: for purely private goods in ideal competitive markets, the pursuit of self-interest is still efficient. Besides economics, the theory has found many applications in political science, sociology, anthropology and environmentalism.

Exploitation of the great by the small

Mancur Olson made the highly controversial claim that individual rational choice leads to situations where individuals with more resources will carry a higher burden in the provision of the public good than poorer ones. Poorer individuals will usually have little choice but to opt for the free rider strategy, i.e. they will attempt to benefit from the public good without contributing to its provision. This also encourages the under-production (inefficient production) of the public good. However, further theoretical analysis showed that this is not the case when individuals have widely-differing perceptions of the utility of the public good.

Institutional design

While public goods hujnja are often provided by governments, this is not always the case. Various institutional designs have been studied with the aim of reducing the collaborative failure. The best design for a given situation depends on the production costs, the utility function, and the collaborative effects, amongst other things. Here are only some examples:

Joint products

A joint-product model analyzes the collaborative effect of joining a private good to a public good. For example, a tax deduction (private good) can be tied to a donation to a charity (public good). It can be shown that the provision of the public good increases when tied to the private good, provided that the private good is provided by a monopoly (otherwise the private good would be provided by competitors without the link to the public good).

Club

Some institutional design, e.g. intellectual property rights, can introduce an exclusion mechanism and turn a pure public good into an impure public good artificially. If the costs of the exclusion mechanism are not higher than the gain from the collaboration, clubs can emerge. James M. Buchanan showed in his seminal paper that clubs can be an efficient alternative to government interventions. A nation can be seen as a club whose members are its citizens. Government would then be the manager of this club. This is further studied in the Theory of the State.

Federated structure

In some cases, theory shows that collaboration emerges spontaneously in smaller groups rather than in large ones. This explains why labor unions or charities often have a federated structure. Wikipedia is another example, where collaboration is fostered at the level of individual pages; this involves fewer participants than collaboration on the encyclopedia as a whole. Collaboration on wikibooks is more difficult for the same reason.

References

- Olson, Mancur (1971). The Logic of Collective Action. Harvard University Press. ISBN 0674537513
- Sandler Todd (1992) Collective action: Theory and applications. University of Michigan Press. Category:Goods

Values

Value#Personal_and_cultural_values

State

:This article discusses states as sovereign political entities; for other meanings, see state (disambiguation). A state is an organized political community occupying a definite territory, having an organized government, and possessing internal and external sovereignty. Recognition of the state's claim to independence by other states, enabling it to enter into international agreements, is often important to the establishment of its statehood, although some theories do not make this a requirement - for instance, the Montevideo Convention. The "state" can also be defined in terms of domestic conditions, specifically, as conceptualized by Max Weber, "a state is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory." [http://www.mdx.ac.uk/www/study/xweb.htm] The exact meaning of this definition depends on what is understood by "legitimate". For more information see government.

Introduction

The word "state" in contemporary parlance often means the "Westphalian state", in reference to the Peace of Westphalia of 1648. In this sense, the modern state is an entity that enjoys extensive autonomy in its domestic economic and social policy, largely free from interference from other states and powers. A number of modern commentators have claimed that we are experiencing the decline of the Westphalian state as the principal actor of the international system, pointing to economic, cultural, political, and technological changes in the world, such as globalization and the emergence of regional and supernational groupings such as the European Union. The term "state" is also used to describe subnational territorial divisions within a federal system, as in the case of the United States of America. See state (law) and state (non-sovereign). In common speech, the terms country, nation and state are casually used as synonyms, but in a more strict usage they are distinguished:
- country is the geographical area.
- nation designates a people (however, national and international both confusingly refer as well to matters pertaining to what are strictly states, as in "national capital", "international law").
- state refers to the government, and an entity in international law. Currently, the entire land surface of the Earth is divided among the territories of the roughly two hundred states now existing, with the special case of Antarctica, a variety of disputed territories, and a number of areas where state power exists in theory, but not in practice (the most significant of these being Somalia and Iraq).

Etymology

The word "state" originates from the medieval state or throne upon which the head of state (usually a monarch) would sit. By process of metonymy, the word state became used to refer to both the head of state and the power entity he represented (though the former meaning has fallen out of use). A similar association of terms can today be seen in the practice of referring to government buildings as having authority, for example "The White House today released a press statement..."

Formation of the state

The birth of the state, in the broadest sense of the word, coincides with the rise of civilization. For most of the existence of the human species, people lived as nomadic hunter-gatherers. That lifestyle began to change with the invention of agriculture around the 9th millennium BC. The practice of agriculture made it necessary for human beings to build permanent settlements and spend most of their lives in close proximity to the land they cultivated. Thus, control over land became an issue for the first time. To express that control, various forms of property rights developed, with people claiming different kinds of rights over various areas of land. Disagreements over the nature and extent of such claims of ownership degenerated into violence and the first "wars". In some parts of the world, notably Mesopotamia and the Nile valley, natural conditions favoured the concentration of land ownership in few hands. Eventually, a small group of people found themselves owning the land on which many other people worked for a living. This control over the land meant control over the people whose livelihoods depended on the land; thus, the first primitive states arose. These states were usually despotic and unstable, with the ruler(s) holding absolute power over their subjects until some other ruler(s) displaced them. Since there were no laws and no infrastructure, and since power was exercised arbitrarily, some political theorists and historians do not consider such early forms of despotic rule to have been states in the proper sense of the word; they are sometimes called proto-states. One of the earliest known sets of laws, the Code of Hammurabi, has been dated to ca. 1700 BC. It was around this time that the concept of law - one of the foundations of the modern state - began to appear. But the rulers of the Ancient Near East had a long tradition of holding absolute power and claiming the status of god-kings (see hydraulic despotism). Thus, laws limiting the power of monarchs did not develop very far in that region. The city-states of Ancient Greece were the first to establish states whose powers were clearly defined in laws (even if the laws themselves could usually be changed quite easily). Also, notably, the idea of democracy was born in ancient Athens (see Athenian democracy). Many institutions of the modern state (especially in Western Europe and areas once dominated by Western-European empires) can trace their origins back to Ancient Rome, which inherited the political traditions of the Greeks and developed them further (particularly the rule of law, albeit in incomplete form). However, the Roman Republic gave way to the Roman Empire - which, in turn, created the concept of universal empire: the idea that the entire world was (or should be) under the authority of one single legitimate state. The fall of the Roman Empire and the Great Migrations changed the character of European politics. The "barbarian" (i.e., non-Roman) kingdoms and chieftains that followed the Roman Empire were ephemeral and transitory and bore little resemblance to the modern state. Even the kingdom of Charlemagne was fleeting; without the tradition of primogeniture, it dissolved into three smaller kingdoms with the Treaty of Verdun in 843. These kingdoms were treated more as land holdings by the royalty that ruled them. Once again, the state became little more than an expression of the ruler's private ownership of a certain area of land. The lack of a real successor to the Roman Empire in Western Europe created a power vacuum. The kingdoms of Western Europe were besieged by invaders on the frontiers - first, the Muslim invasions from the south, then a series of new migrations from the east and finally the Viking invasions from the north. At the same time, the various kingdoms (and smaller political units) were often involved in wars with each other over territory and succession. The solution that evolved out of these affairs was decidedly opposed to the system of independent states and temporary alliances that dominate the modern international system. Religion, which had rarely been a factor in the power calculations of Ancient Greece and the Roman Empire, became the cornerstone of an extremely loose pan-European defensive bloc under the aegis of the Catholic Church. This system produced an extensive framework of institutions - sometimes called "feudalism" - that regulated internal conflict and enabled Western Europe to confront exterior threats, even while no individual secular entity was truly independent in the sense of the modern state. This system asserted itself abroad in the form of the Crusades as the Middle Ages progressed. In 1302, Pope Boniface VIII stated that the political powers of Christendom exercised their prerogatives "at the command and sufferance of the priest." This limited the power of kings, who were obliged to pledge their ultimate allegiance to the Pope. The Holy Roman Empire, one of the strongest medieval authorities, emerged as a competitor to Papal power under Holy Roman Emperor Frederick Barbarossa, who invaded Italy to press his claims to secular authority in the mid-12th century. The weakening of the papacy was a major theme of the Middle Ages; the Western Schism in the later 14th century, a dispute over papal succession, was exploited by secular authorities and contributed to their growing power. The emergence of large, stable land holdings by single dynasties - for instance, France and Castile - enabled them to take a more active and independent role than their traditionally subsidiary role in the earlier middle ages. This shift to more independent, more secular actors would become a major point of controversy in Early Modern Europe. The great dynasties of Europe dramatically consolidated power by the beginning of the 16th century; additionally, the external threats to Europe had considerably lessened. The Reformation was to have a powerful impact on the structure of European politics; the dispute was not only theological, but also threatened the very fabric of the ancient political institutions of feudalism. The bloody conflicts that followed, blending the religious and political, pitted those who asserted the authority of the Pope (and in Germany, the Holy Roman Emperor) against those who asserted the authority of secular authorities and their sovereign ability to make internal policy, particularly when that policy reflected religious affiliation, Roman Catholic or Protestant. These conflicts culminated in the Thirty Years' War of the 17th century. In 1648, the powers of Europe signed the Treaty of Westphalia which ended the religious violence for purely political motives and the Church was stripped of temporal power - even though religion continued to play a political role as the foundation of the divine right of kings. The principle of "cuius regio, eius religio" established at Westphalia and previously in the Peace of Augsburg set a precedent of noninterference in other states' internal affairs that was key in the evolution of the modern state. In Germany, the office of the Holy Roman Emperor, the most prominent symbol of lingering institutions of feudalism, was emasculated as a secular authority in favor of the constituent elements of the Holy Roman Empire. The modern state was born. The state continued to develop as monarchs brought nobles and free towns into line and amassed spectacular resources and prestige. The growing numbers of civil servants eventually became known as the bureaucracy after the elevation of the Republican ideal. Nearly a century and a half after the Peace of Westphalia, the state became fully modern through the French Revolution. Claiming 'national will' as its justification, Napoleon and the Grande Armee of France swept over Europe. In response, conquered and neighboring principalities discarded their old systems and adopted the new model of the nation state. The nation state has remained the dominant political entity all over the world ever since, even though the many ideologies of the 19th and 20th century have created numerous different ways of running the affairs of nation states, as well as numerous different forms of internal and external organization (see political system and economic system).

International point of view

The legal criteria for statehood are not obvious. A document that is often quoted on the matter is the Montevideo Convention from 1933, the first article of which states: :The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states. Also, in article 3 it very clearly states that statehood is independent of recognition by other states. This is the declarative theory of statehood. While the Montevideo is a regional American convention and has no legal effect outside the Americas, some have nonetheless seen it as an accurate statement of customary international law. On the other hand, article 3 of the convention is attacked by the advocates of the constitutive theory of statehood, where a state exists only insofar as it is recognized by other states. Which theory is correct is a controversial issue in international law. An example in practice was the collapse of central government in Somalia in the early 1990s: the Montevideo convention would imply that the state of Somalia no longer existed, and the subsequently declared republic of Somaliland (comprising part of the so-called "former" Somalia) may meet the criteria for statehood. However the self-declared republic has not achieved recognition by other states. Article 1 of the convention is also attacked by those who claim that it fails to take into account the complicated situations of military occupation, territorial cession, and governments in exile. Richard W. Hartzell is a leading proponent of this view, and stresses that the four criteria of article 1 need to be expanded to nine. See [http://www.taiwanadvice.com/conventions/montconv.htm The Montevideo Convention and Military Occupation].

The domestic point of view

Looked at from the point of view of an individual nation, the state is a centralized organization of the whole country. Those studying this dimension emphasize the relationship between the state and its people. The English political philosopher Thomas Hobbes argued that in order to avoid a multi-sided civil war, in which life was "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short", individuals must necessarily surrender many of their "natural rights" -- including that of attacking each other -- to the "Leviathan", a unified and centralized state. In this tradition, Max Weber and Norbert Elias defined the state as an organization of people that has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force in a particular geographic area. Also in this tradition, the state differs from the "government": the latter refers to the group of people who make decisions for the state. For Weber, this was an "ideal type", or model, or pure case of the state. Many institutions that have been called "states" do not live up to this definition. For example, in countries such as Afghanistan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the central state has so far not succeeded in monopolizing the legitimate use of force, and must compete with various local warlords. These cases are sometimes called "failed states". One of the most basic characteristics of a modern state is regulation of property rights, investment, trade and the commodity markets (in food, fuel, etc.) typically using its own currency. Although many states (by their own decision) increasingly cede these powers to trade bloc entities, e.g. North American Free Trade Agreement, European Union, it is always controversial to do so, and opens the question of whether these blocs are in fact simply larger states. The study of political economy, which evolved into the modern study of economics, deals with these specific questions in more detail. However, although states are often influenced in their decisions and no longer hold an absolute jurisdiction over their internal affairs, they are nonetheless much stronger in relation to international organizations or to other states than lower (substate) political subdivisions normally are. But the trend at the moment is for the power of superstate levels of governance to increase, and there is no sign of this increase abating. Many (especially those who favour constitutional theories of international law) therefore reject as outdated the idea of sovereignty, and view the state as just the chief political subdivision of the planet.

Philosophies of the state

Different political philosophies have distinct opinions concerning the state as a domestic organization. In the modern era, these philosophies emerged with the rise of capitalism, which coincided with the (re)emergence of the state as a separate and centralized sector of society. Philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau pondered issues concerning the ideal and actual roles of the state. Recent philosophers like John Rawls and Robert Nozick were more concerned with distributive justice and the morality of exercising political power. There are four theories about the origin (and indirectly the justification) of the state. They are:
- Supernatural or natural authority - In this view, the state is either ordained by a higher power (such as God for the "Divine right of kings") or arises naturally out of a presumed human need for order and authority.
- Natural rights - According to this theory, human beings have certain rights that are "natural" (the implications of this word may vary), and establish states for the protection of those rights.
- Social contract - This idea holds that the state is established by the people (i.e. through the consent of the governed) in order to provide for various collective needs that cannot be satisfied through individual efforts, such as national defense, public roads, education, "the general welfare", etc.
- Conflict - Perhaps the simplest of the theories, it holds that the state did not arise out of any conscious decision, but merely as the result of violent conflict. Various groups of people fought each other for control over land or other resources, and the winning side imposed its domination on the losing side. These four theories can accommodate the full spectrum of political views. In practice, most people (and most political philosophies) subscribe to a combination of two or more of the above theories - arguing, for example, that different states have different origins. The conflict theory, in particular, is often combined with one of the other three in order to separate the illegitimate states (those created through conflict and subjugation) from the legitimate ones. There are at least five major philosophies of the state today, the last four of which correspond to specific political ideologies: contractarianism, liberalism, Marxism, conservatism, and anarchism. Contractarianism, as the name implies, is based on the social contract theory. It is also the only major philosophy of the state that does not fall within any single political ideology - perhaps because several different ideologies have adopted it as their own. Contractarianism is the foundation of modern democracy, as well as most forms of socialism and some types of liberalism. In contractarian thinking, the state should express the public interest, the interests of the whole society, and reconcile it with the separate interests of individuals. The state provides public goods and other kinds of collective consumption, while preventing individuals from free-riding (taking advantage of collective consumption without paying) by forcing them to pay taxes. Liberalism, in the classical sense, is based mainly on the natural rights theory. In this view, some or even all "rights" exist naturally and are not created by the state. For example, John Locke believed that individual property rights existed prior to the creation of the state, while the state's main job should be to preserve those rights. Historically, liberals have been less concerned with determining what the state should do and far more interested in stipulating what the state shouldn't do. The liberal philosophy of the state holds that the powers of any state are restricted by natural rights that exist independently of the human mind and overrule any social contract. However, there has been considerable debate among liberals as to what these natural rights actually are. Critics argue that they do not exist at all, since they are not evident from any observations of nature. On the other hand, there are also liberals who subscribe to the contractarian theory. In most cases, they fall on the left wing of liberalism, being social liberals ("New Deal" liberals; see American liberalism) and arguing for a welfare state. They stand in opposition to adherents of the natural rights theory, who tend to be libertarians, falling on the right wing of liberalism and arguing for a "minimal" state. The Marxist philosophy of the state is based on the conflict theory - specifically, on the idea of class conflict. In this view, the primary role of the state in practice is to enforce the existing system of unequal property and personal rights, class domination, and exploitation. The state also mediates in all types of social conflicts, and supplies necessary social-infrastructural conditions for society as a whole. Under such systems as feudalism, the lords used their own military force to exploit their vassals. Under capitalism, on the other hand, the use of force is centralized in a specialized organization which protects the capitalists' class monopoly of ownership of the means of production, allowing the exploitation of those without such ownership. In modern Marxian theory, such class domination can coincide with other forms of domination (such as patriarchy and ethnic hierarchies). Further, in Marxist theory, classes and other forms of exploitation should be abolished by establishing a socialist system, to be followed later by a communist one. Communism, the final goal, is a classless, propertyless and stateless society; however, socialism still preserves personal property and a (democratic) state. Thus, Marxism is opposed to the state (which it views as illegitimate, in accordance with the conflict theory), but does not wish to abolish the state immediately. As such, there is some overlap between Marxism and contractarianism: the socialist state that Marxists wish to establish as their short-term goal is to be based on a form of social contract. This state ought subsequently to slowly "wither away" as the representative democracy of socialism gradually transforms into the direct democracy of communism. Once the process is complete, the communist social order has been achieved and the state no longer exists as an entity separate from the people. In conservative thinking, which is based on the theory of (super)natural authority, the existing structure of traditions and hierarchies (of class, patriarchy, ethnic dominance, etc.) is seen as benefiting society overall. Thus, in a way, conservatives accept some ideas from both the Marxist and the liberal schools of thought, but view them in a different light: the state forces people to accept class and other kinds of domination, but this is seen as being for their own good. This perspective posits that, in general, current traditions only exist because they have been demonstrably successful in the past. Further, as with the liberals, the state is seen as always existing and/or "natural". Many conservatives, especially in recent decades, have come out in favor of the liberal theory of natural rights. Finally, in anarchist thinking, the state is nothing but an unnecessary and exploitative segment of society. Totally rejecting the Hobbesian notion that only a state can prevent chaos, anarchists argue that the state's monopoly of violence creates chaos. They believe that if the state and its restrictions on individual freedom were abolished, people could figure out how to work together peacefully and individual creativity would be unleashed. Contrary to the Marxist perspective, the anarchists see the state as an unnecessary evil, rather than a tool to be used in the class struggle.

References

-
-
-

External links

- Franz Oppenheimer; [http://www.opp.uni-wuppertal.de/oppenheimer/st/state0.htm The State. (1914/1922)]
- Franz Oppenheimer; [http://www.opp.uni-wuppertal.de/oppenheimer/fo27a.htm The Idolatry of the State. (1927)] Category:International law Category:International relations Category:Social sciences Category:Political geography ja:国家 simple:State th:รัฐ

Family

:This article is about the human domestic group. For other uses, see Family (disambiguation). Family (disambiguation) in 1997]] A family is a domestic group of people, or a number of domestic groups, typically affiliated by birth or marriage, or by comparable legal relationships including domestic partnership, adoption, surname and in some cases ownership (as was the case in the Roman Empire). Although many people (including social scientists) have understood familial relationships in terms of "blood," many anthropologists have argued that the notion of "blood" must be understood metaphorically, and in that in many societies family is understood through other concepts rather than "blood." Article 16(3) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says, "The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State".

Family cross-culturally

According to sociology and anthropology, the primary function of the family is to reproduce society, either biologically, socially, or both. Thus, one's experience of one's family shifts over time. From the perspective of children, the family is a family of orientation: the family serves to locate children socially, and plays a major role in their enculturation and socialization. From the point of view of the parent(s), the family is a family of procreation the goal of which is to produce and enculturate and socialize children. However, producing children is not the only function of the family. In societies with a sexual division of labor, marriage, and the resulting relationship between a husband and wife, is necessary for the formation of an economically productive household. In modern societies marriage entails particular rights and privilege that encourage the formation of new families even when there is no intention of having children. The structure of families traditionally hinges on relations between parents and children, between spouses, or both. Consequently, there are four major types of family: patrifocal, matrifocal, consanguineal and conjugal. (Note: these are ideal families. In all societies there are acceptable deviations from the ideal or statistical norm, owing either to incidental circumstances, such as the death of a member of the family, infertility or personal preferences). A patrifocal family consists of a father and his children and is found in societies where men take multiple wives (polygamy or polygyny)and/or remain involved with each for a relatively short time. This type of family is rare from a worldwide perspective but occurs in Islamic states with considerable frequency. In some emirates the laws encourage this structure by allowing a maximum of four wives per man at any given time, and automatic deflection of custody rights to the father in the case of a divorce. In these societies a man will often take a wife and may conceive a child with her, but after a relatively short time put her out of his harem so he can take another woman without exceeding the quota of 4. The man then keeps his child and thus a patrifocal structure emerges. Even without the expulsion of the mother, the structure may be patrifocal because the children (often as infants) are removed from the harem structure and placed into the father's family. A matrifocal family consists of a mother and her children. Generally, these children are her biological offspring, although adoption of children is a practice in nearly every society. This kind of family is common where women have the resources to rear their children by themselves, or where men are more mobile than women. A consanguineal family consists of a mother and her children, and other people — usually the family of the mother. This kind of family is common where mothers do not have the resources to rear their children on their own, and especially where property is inherited. When important property is owned by men, consanguineal families commonly consist of a husband and wife, their children and other members of the husband's family. A conjugal family consists of one or more mothers and their children, and/or one or more spouses (usually husbands). This kind of family is common where there is a division of labor requiring the participation of both men and women, and where families are relatively mobile. A notable subset of this family type is the nuclear family, in which one woman has one husband and they raise their children together.

Family in the West

polygyny middle American "nuclear" family.]] The preceding types of families are found in a wide variety of settings, and their specific functions and meanings depend largely on their relationship to other social institutions. Sociologists are especially interested in the function and status of these forms in stratified, especially capitalist, societies. Non-scholars, especially in the United States and Europe, use the term "nuclear family" to refer to conjugal families. Sociologists distinguish between conjugal families that are relatively independent of the kindreds of the parents and of other families in general, and nuclear families which maintain relatively close ties with their kindreds. Non-scholars, especially in the United States and Europe, also use the term "extended family". This term has two distinct meanings. First, it is used synonymously with consanguinal family. Second, in societies dominated by the conjugal family, it is used to refer to kindred (an egocentric network of relatives that extends beyond the domestic group) who do not belong to the conjugal family. These types refer to ideal or normative structures found in particular societies. In any society there is some variation in the actual composition and conception of families. Much sociological, historical and anthropological research is dedicated to understanding this variation, and changes over time in the family form. Thus, some speak of the bourgeois family, a family structure arising out of 16th and 17th century European households, in which the center of the family is a marriage between a man and woman, with strictly defined gender roles. The man typically is responsible for income and support, the woman for home and family matters. In contemporary Europe and the United States, people academic, political and civil sectors have called attention to single-father-headed households, and families headed by same-sex couples, although academics point out that these forms exist in other societies.

Economic function of the family

In traditional society the family is often supposed to have been the primary economic unit. This role has gradually diminished in modern times and in societies like the United States is much smaller except for certain sectors such as agriculture and a few upper class families. In China the family as an economic unit still plays a strong role in the countryside. However, the relations between the economic role of the family, its socio-economic mode of production and cultural values are highly complex. Chinaern U.S. family of Danish/German extraction]]

Kinship terminology

A kinship terminology is a specific system of familial relationships. The now rather dated anthropologist Louis Henry Morgan argued that kinship terminologies reflect different sets of distinctions. For example, most kinship terminologies distinguish between sexes (this is the difference between a brother and a sister) and between generation (this is the difference between a child and a parent). Moreover, he argued, kinship terminologies distinguish between relatives by blood and marriage (although recently some anthropologists have argued that many societies define kinship in terms other than "blood"). But Morgan also observed that different languages (and thus, societies) organize these distinctions differently. He thus proposed to describe kin terms and terminologies as either descriptive or classificatory. "Descriptive" terms refer to only one type of relationship, while "classificatory" terms refer to many types of relationships. Most kinship terminologies include both descriptive and classificatory terms. For example, in Western societies there is only one way to be related to one's brother (brother = parents' son); thus, in Western society, brother is a descriptive term. But there are many ways to be related to one's cousin (cousin = mother's brother's son, mother's sister's son, father's brother's son, father's sister's son, and so on); thus, in Western society, "cousin" is a classificatory term. Morgan discovered that what may be a descriptive term in one society can be a classificatory term in another society. For example, in some societies there are many different people that one would call "mother" (the woman of whom one was born, as well as her sister and husband's sister, and also one's father's sister). Moreover, some societies do not lump together relatives that the West classifies together (in other words, in some languages there is no word for cousin because mother's sister's children and father's sister's children are referred to in different terms). Armed with these different terms, Morgan identified six basic patterns of kinship terminologies:
- Hawaiian: the most classificatory; only distinguishes between sex and generation.
- Sudanese: the most descriptive; no two relatives are referred to by the same term.
- Eskimo: has both classificatory and descriptive terms; in addition to sex and generation, also distinguishes between lineal relatives (who are related directly by a line of descent) and collateral relatives (who are related by blood, but not directly in the line of descent). Lineal relatives have highly descriptive terms, collateral relatives have highly classificatory terms.
- Iroquois: has both classificatory and descriptive terms; in addition to sex and generation, also distinguishes between siblings of opposite sexes in the parental generation. Siblings of the same sex are considered blood relatives, but siblings of the opposite sex are considered relatives by marriage. Thus, one's mother's sister is also called mother, and one's father's brother is also called father; however, one's mother's brother is called father-in-law, and one's father's sister is called mother-in-law.
- Crow: like Iroquois, but further distinguishes between mother's side and father's side. Relatives on the mother's side of the family have more descriptive terms, and relatives on the father's side have more classificatory terms.
- Omaha: like Iroquois, but further distinguishes between mother's side and father's side. Relatives on the mother's side of the family have more classificatory terms, and relatives on the father's side have more descriptive terms. Societies in different parts of the world and using different languages may share the same basic terminology; in such cases it is very easy to translate the kinship terms of one language into another, although connatations may vary. But it is usually impossible to translate directly the kinship terms of a society that uses one system into the language of a society that uses a different system. Some languages, such as Chinese, Japanese, and Hungarian, add another dimension to some relations: relative age. There are, e.g., different words for "older brother" and "younger brother." Thus, although Westerners may naturally agree with Morgan that "brother" is descriptive rather than classificatory, speakers of these languages might disagree.

English kinship terminology

Most Western societies employ English kinship terminology. This kinship terminology is common in societies based on conjugal (or nuclear) families, where nuclear families must be relatively mobile. Members of the nuclear family use descriptive kinship terms:
- Mother: the female parent
- Father: the male parent
- Son: the males born of the mother; sired by the father
- Daughter: the females born of the mother; sired by the father
- Brother: a male born of the same mother; sired by the same father
- Sister: a female born of the same mother; sired by the same father It is generally assumed that the mother's husband is also the genitor. In some families, a woman may have children with more than one man or a man may have children with more than one woman. Children who share one parent but not another are called "half-brothers" or "half-sisters." Children who do not share parents, but whose parents are married, are called "step-brothers" or "step-sisters." If a person is married to the parent of a child, but is not the parent of the child themselves, then they are the "step-parent" of the child, either the "stepmother" or "stepfather". Children who are adopted into a family are generally called by the same terms as children born into the family. Typically, societies with conjugal families also favor neolocal residence; thus upon marriage a person separates from the nuclear family of their childhood (family of orientation) and forms a new nuclear family (family of procreation). This practice means that members of one's own nuclear family were once members of another nuclear family, or may one day become members of another nuclear family. Members of the nuclear families of members of one's own nuclear family may be lineal or collateral. When they are lineal, they are referred to in terms that build on the terms used within the nuclear family:
- Grandfather: a parent's father
- Grandmother: a parent's mother
- Grandson: a child's son
- Granddaughter: a child's daughter When they are collateral, they are referred to in more classificatory terms that do not build on the terms used within the nuclear family:
- Uncle: father's brother, father's sister's husband, mother's brother, mother's sister's husband
- Aunt: father's sister, father's brother's wife, mother's sister, mother's brother's wife
- Nephew: sister's sons, brother's sons
- Niece: sister's daughters, brother's daughters When separated by additional generations (in other words, when one's collateral relatives belong to the same generation as one's grandparents or grandchildren), these terms are modified by the prefix "great". Most collateral relatives were never members of the nuclear family of the members of one's own nuclear family.
- Cousin: the most classificatory term; the children of aunts or uncles. Cousins may be further distinguished by degree of collaterality and generation. Two persons of the same generation who share a grandparent are "first cousins" (one degree of collaterality); if they share a great-grandparent they are "second cousins" (two degrees of collaterality) and so on. If the shared ancestor is the grandparent of one individual and the great-grandparent of the other, the individuals are said to be "first cousins once removed" (removed by one generation); if the shared ancestor is the grandparent of one individual and the great-great-grandparent of the other, the individuals are said to be "first cousins twice removed" (removed by two generations), and so on. Similarly, if the shared ancestor is the great-grandparent of one person and the great-great-grandparent of the other, the individuals are said to be "second cousins once removed." Distant cousins of an older generation (in other words, one's parents' first cousins) are technically first cousins once removed, but are often classified with "aunts" and "uncles". Similarly, a person may refer to close friends of one's parents as "aunt" or "uncle," or may refer to close friends as "brother" or "sister". This practice is called fictive kinship. Relationships by marriage, except for wife/husband, are qualified by the term "-in-law". The mother and father of one's spouse are one's mother-in-law and father-in-law; the spouse of one's son or daughter is one's son-in-law or daughter-in-law. The term "sister-in-law" refers to three essentially different relationships, either the wife of one's brother, or the sister of one's spouse, or the wife of one's spouse's sibling. "Brother-in-law" is similarly ambiguous. There are no special terms for the rest of one's spouse's family. Specific distinctions vary among Western societies. For instance, in French, the prefix beau- or belle- is used for both "-in-law" and "step-"; in other words, one's belle-soeur could be the sister of one's spouse, the wife of one's sibling, the wife of one's spouse's sibling, or the daughter of one's parent's spouse. In Spanish, each of the roles that English creates with the suffix "-in-law" has a different word (suegros- parents-in-law, yerno-son-in-law, nuera-daughter-in-law, cuñados-siblings-in-law), but there is a suffix -astro or -astra that is equivalent to "step-". In Swedish, terms for grandparents differ on the side of the parents, i.e., "farfar" and "farmor" (father-father, father-mother) vs. "mormor" and "morfar" (mother-mother, mother-father). There is also a term, "half-sibling" (and -brother, -sister) for siblings with whom one shares only one parent.

References

- American Kinship, David Schneider
- A Natural History of Families, Scott Forbes, Princeton University Press, 2005, ISBN 0691094829
- More Than Kin and Less Than Kind, Douglas W. Mock, Belknap Press, 2004, ISBN 0674012852

External links

- [http://wikitree.org WikiTree.org] - freely-edited family tree of all human beings.
- Online Dictionary of the Social Sciences: http://bitbucket.icaap.org/
- Cousins: http://www.tedpack.org/cousins.html
- [http://www.islamimatrimonials.com/muslim_matrimonials_family.htm Muslim Matrimonial] and Muslim Family
- Grandparent Connection: http://www.thegrandparentconnection.org
- The Good Enough Family: http://samvak.tripod.com/family.html
- Cousin marriages: http://www.cousincouples.com/
- Family Court: http://www.stephenbaskerville.net/
- [http://www.unh.edu/frl/ Family Research Laboratory]
- Wiktionary entries for Western kinship terminology providing multilingual translations
- mother, father, son, daughter, brother, sister
- grandmother grandfather grandson granddaughter
- uncle aunt nephew niece
- cousin Category:Family Category:Divorce Category:Human development Category:Kinship and descent Category:Marriage ms:Keluarga ja:家族 simple:Family

Market

are still common in France. Resellers and farmers sell fruits and vegetables, but also meat and fish, and other products.]] In general parlance, a market is a location where those willing to pay a price for something meet those willing to sell it. In marketing, a market is the sum total of potential buyers of a product. In economics, a market is a mechanism which allows people to trade, normally governed by the theory of supply and demand, and thereby allocates resources through a price mechanism. It typically involves a bid and ask process. Both general markets (where many commodities are traded) and specialised markets (where only one commodity is traded) exist. Markets work by placing many interested sellers in one "place", thus making them easier to find for prospective buyers. An economy which relies primarily on interactions between buyers and sellers to allocate resources is known as a market economy in contrast either to a command economy or to a non-market economy that is based, e.g., on gifts.

Marketplaces and street markets

200px 200px 200px A marketplace is a location where goods and services are exchanged. The traditional market square is a city square where traders set up stalls and buyers browse the merchandise. This kind of market is very old, and countless such markets are still in operation around the whole world.
- In the USA such markets fell out of favor, but renewed interest in local food has cause the reinvention of this type of market, called farmers' markets, in many towns and cities.
- In continental Europe, especially in France, street markets, as well as "marketplaces" (covered places where merchants have stalls, but not entire stores) are commonplace. Both resellers and producers sell their wares to the public.
- Markets are often temporary, with stalls only present for one or two days a week ("market days"), however some (such as Camden Market in London, UK) are open every day of the week. Such markets are normally specialist—the various stalls of Camden Market, along with the shops associated with it, sell a variety of alternative lifestyle products ranging from clothes and jewellery to CDs, instruments and furniture. An example of a large market is Chatuchak weekend market in Bangkok. The Roman term for market, still in use in a related sense, is forum. The modern shopping mall can be seen as an extension of this concept.

Wholesale markets

A wholesale market is a market which primarily sells to traders such as caterers and small shopkeepers, rather than to members of the public, although members of the public are not necessarily excluded. London, England has several centuries old wholesale markets such as Smithfield Market and Billingsgate Fish Market.

Economic markets and marketspaces

In modern times, mainly after the invention of the electronic computer, markets are not always located in a physical space. Such virtual markets consist of communication paths where information exchange is easy and deals may be struck. These are often called marketspaces. A notable example of this is the international currency market. The e-Bay web site can also be considered a marketspace.

Labor union

A union (labor union in American English; trade union in Commonwealth English) is an organisation formed by workers. Most typically, a single union will represent workers in a particular industry (industrial unionism) or craft (craft unionism), within all or part of a country, and will be organised to improve and defend wages, benefits, and working conditions. Unions are often divided into "locals" and united in national federations. Such examples could, depending on the country, be all the assembly workers for one employer, all the teachers in a local school district, or all the workers in a particular industry. In many countries, a union may acquire the status of a legal entity (called a "collective bargaining agent" in the USA) with a mandate to negotiate with employers to maintain and improve wages and working conditions for the workers it represents. In such cases, unions have certain legal rights, most importantly the right to negotiate collectively with an employer (or employers) over wages, working hours and other terms and conditions of employment — meaning that such things are not set unilaterally by management, but must be agreed upon by both parties. In many circumstances, unions do not have such rights and workers may typically threaten strikes or other collective action to pressure employers to negotiate. Unions may also engage in broader political or social struggle; unions in some countries are closely aligned with political parties. Unions often use their organizational strength to advocate for social policies and legislation favorable to their members or to workers in general. Although their political structure and autonomy of varies widely from country to country, union leaderships are usually formed through elections.

History

The concept of trade unions began early in the Industrial Revolution. More and more people left farming as an occupation and began to work for employers, often in appalling conditions and for very low wages. The labour movement arose as an outgrowth of the disparity between the power of employers and the powerlessness of individual employees. The 18th century capitalist economist Adam Smith noted the imbalance in the rights of workers in regards to owners (or "masters") in The Wealth of Nations. In chapter 8, Smith wrote: :We rarely hear, it has been said, of the combinations of masters, though frequently of those of workmen. But whoever imagines, upon this account, that masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the world as of the subject. Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labour above their actual rate… :[When workers combine,] masters… never cease to call aloud for the assistance of the civil magistrate, and the rigorous execution of those laws which have been enacted with so much severity against the combinations of servants, labourers, and journeymen. As indicated in the preceding quotation, unions were illegal for many years in most countries. There were severe penalties for attempting to organize unions, up to and including execution. Despite this, unions were formed and began to acquire political power, eventually resulting in a body of labour law which not only legalized organizing efforts, but codified the relationship between employers and those employees organized into unions. Even after the legitimisation of trade unions there was opposition, as the case of the Tolpuddle Martyrs shows. Many consider it an issue of fairness that workers be allowed to pool their resources in a special legal entity in a similar way to the pooling of capital resources in the form of corporations. The right to join a trade union is mentioned in article 23, subsection 4 of the UDHR, which also states in article 20, subsection 2. that "No one may be compelled to belong to an association". Prohibiting a person from joining or forming a union, as well as forcing a person to do the same (e.g. "closed shops" or "union shops", see below), whether by a government or by a business, is generally considered a human rights abuse. Similar allegations can be levelled if an employer discriminates based on trade union membership.

Origin of unions

Unions are sometimes thought to be successors to medieval guilds, though this is still being debated by historians. Medieval guilds existed to protect and enhance their members' livelihoods through controlling the instructional capital of artisanship and the progression of members from apprentice to craftsman, journeyman, and eventually to master and grandmaster of their craft. Guilds exhibited some aspects of the modern trade union, but also some aspects of professional associations and modern corporations, so the comparison between medieval guilds and modern organised trade unions, while somewhat helpful, must be seen in widely different social contexts. Additionally, guilds, like some craft unions today, were highly restrictive in their membership and only included artisans who practiced a specific trade. Many modern labour unions tend to be expansionistic, and frequently seek to incorporate widely disparate kinds of workers to increase the leverage of the union as a whole. A labour union in 2005 might include workers from only one trade or craft, or might combine several or all the workers in one company or industry. Since the publication of the History of Trade Unionism (1894) by Sidney and Beatrice Webb, the predominant historical view is that a trade union "...is a continuous association of wage earners for the purpose of maintaining or improving the conditions of their employment" (Webb). A modern definition by the Australian Bureau of Statistics states that a trade union is "...an organisation consisting predominantly of employees, the principal activities of which include the negotiation of rates of pay and conditions of employment for its members". Yet historian R.A. Leeson, in United we Stand (1971), said: "Two conflicting views of the trade-union movement strove for ascendancy in the nineteenth century: one the defensive-restrictive gild-craft tradition passed down through journeymen's clubs and friendly societies,...the other the aggressive-expansionist drive to unite all 'labouring men and women' for a 'different order of things'..." Recent historical research by Dr Bob James in Craft, Trade or Mystery (2001), puts forward that trade unions are part of a broader movement of benefit societies, which includes medieval guilds, Freemasons, Oddfellows, friendly societies and other Fraternal organizations.

Shop types

Companies that employ workers with a union generally operate on one of several models:
- A closed shop (US) employs only people who are already union members. The compulsory hiring hall is the most extreme example of a closed shop—in this case the employer must recruit directly from the union.
- A union shop (US) or a closed shop (UK) employs non-union workers as well, but sets a time limit within which new employees must join a union.
- An agency shop requires non-union workers to pay a fee to the union for its services in negotiating their contract. This is sometimes called the Rand formula. In certain situations involving U.S. state government employees, for example California, fair share laws make it easy to require these sorts of payments.
- An open shop does not discriminate based on union membership in employing or keeping workers. In the UK a series of laws were introduced during the 1980s by Margaret Thatcher's government to restrict closed and union shops. All agreements requiring a worker to join a union are now illegal (except for the case of British Actors' Equity Association which still operates a closed shop for actors). The Taft-Hartley Act outlawed the closed shop in the United States in 1947, but permits the union shop in most states.

Criticism

Trade unions are often accused of benefiting the insider workers, those having a secure job and high productivity, at the cost of the outsider workers, consumers of the goods or services produced, and the shareholders of the unionized business. The ones that are likely to lose the most from a trade union are those who are unemployed or at the risk of unemployment or who are not able to get the job that they want in a particular field. The so-called insider-outsider theory analyses this problem. Usually, the marginal benefit of an additional worker decreases as the number of workers increase. This implies that the lower the minimum wage, the more workers a company can profitably employ. Thus, while an increase in the minimum wage benefits the insiders, as a result fewer new workers are recruited and fewer retiring workers replaced. This effect is more pronounced in a work-intensive service company. The economic analysis of a cartel applies completely to most unions, to those that try to fix the (minimum) price of work, to limit supply (e.g., by some criteria on membership or education) or to limit competition. On the other hand, unions often have also other functions than those of a cartel: they may advise the workers, warn about disadvantageous contracts or terms of employment etc. These latter functions are usually considered as beneficial for both the workers and for the society as a whole (though not necessarily for corporations or shareholders), whereas the opposite applies to cartel-type minimum terms. Often the union of a particular industry puts pressure on politicians to subsidize the industry concerned. This benefits both the workers, companies, shareholders and consumers of the product of that industry at a cost to other people. Thus, it depends on the question whether the interests of a trade union are for or against the interests of the companies, workers, unemployed, tax-payers or the society as a whole.

The problem of international comparison

As labour law is very diverse in different countries, so is the function of unions. For instance in Germany, only open shops are legal, that is, all discrimination based on union membership is forbidden. This affects the function and services of the union. On the other hand, German unions have played a greater role in management decisions through participation in corporate boards and co-determination than have unions in the United States. In addition, unions' relations with political parties vary. In many countries unions are tightly bonded, or even share leadership, with a political party intended to represent the interests of working people. Typically this is a left-wing or socialist party, but many exceptions exist. In the United States, by contrast, although it is historically aligned with the Democratic Party, the labour movement is by no means monolithic on that point; the International Brotherhood of Teamsters has supported Republican Party candidates on a number of occasions and the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO) endorsed Ronald Reagan in 1980 (the following year, Reagan effectively destroyed PATCO, breaking a strike by bringing in permanent replacement workers). The AFL-CIO has been against liberalising abortion, consistent with a Republican position, so as not to alienate its large Catholic constituency. In the United Kingdom the labour movement's relationship with the Labour Party is fraying as party leadership embarks on privatization plans at odds with what some perceive as workers' interests. In Western Europe, professional associations often carry out the functions of a trade union. Notable cases of these are the German Verein deutscher Ingenieure. In these cases, they may be negotiaing for white collar workers, such as physicians, engineers or teachers. Typically such trade unions refrain from politics or pursue markedly more right-wing politics than their blue-collar counterparts. Finally, the structure of employment laws affects unions' roles and how they carry out their business. In many western European countries wages and benefits are largely set by governmental action. The United States takes a more laissez-faire approach, setting some minimum standards but leaving most workers' wages and benefits to collective bargaining and market forces. Historically, the Republic of Korea has regulated collective bargaining by requiring employers to participate but collective bargaining has been legal only if held in sessions before the lunar new year. In totalitarian regimes such as Nazi-Germany and the Soviet Union, unions have typically been de facto government agencies devoted to smooth and efficient operation of enterprises.

Trade unions in the United Kingdom

Labor unions in the United States

Unions in other countries

lunar new year]Some countries such as Sweden, Finland, and the other Nordic countries have strong, centralized unions, where every type of work has a specific union, which are then gathered in large national union confederations. Usually there are at least two national union confederations, one for academically educated and one for branches with lower education level. The largest Swedish union confederation is Landsorganisationen, or LO. LO has almost two million members, which is more than a fifth of Sweden's population. Finland's equivalent is SAK, the Central Organisation of Finnish Trade Unions, with about one million members out of the country's 5.2 million inhabitants. In addition, there are two other Finnish union confederations for more educated workers with combined membership of circa one million. In comparison, France is thought to have one of the lowest union densities in Europe, with only about 10% of the workers inside unions. Union membership, however, tends to be concentrated in some specific areas, especially the public sector. Unions in some sectors, such as public transportation (SNCF and RATP...) are likely to enter well-publicized strikes. The Australian labour movement has a long history of craft, trade and industrial unionism. While unions have sometimes been very strong, as of 2005 they are relatively weak and in decline, due in part to the actions of Prime Minister John Howard and his Liberal government.

International cooperation

The largest organization of trade union members in the world is the Brussels-based International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, which today has 231 affiliated organisations in 150 countries and territories, with a combined membership of 158 million. Other global trade union organizations are the World Confederation of Labour and the World Federation of Trade Unions. National and regional trade unions organising in specific industry sectors or occupational groups also form global union federations, such as Union Network International and the International Federation of Journalists.

News

There are several sources of current news about the trade union movement in the world. These include LabourStart and the official website of the international trade union movement [http://www.global-unions.org Global Unions].

References

- Clarke, T. and Clements, L. (1978) "Trade Unions under Capitalism", Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press, ISBN 0391007289

External links

- [http://www.unionmillwright.com/history.html Millwright History]
- [http://unionmillwright.com Union Millwrights]
- [http://www.taterenner.com/weingarten.htm Weingarten Rights]
- [http://www.workplacefairness.org/index.php?page=retaliationunion NLRA rights]
- [http://www.eiro.eurofound.eu.int/2004/03/update/tn0403105u.html Trade union membership 1993-2003] - European Industrial Relations Observatory report on membership trends in 26 European countries
- [http://www.che-lives.com/home/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=143 Breaking Away from True Unionism]
- [http://mill-valley.freemasonry.biz/mutual-aid-through-collective-bargaining.htm Mutual Aid Through Collective Bargaining]
- [http://mill-valley.freemasonry.biz/examples-labor-festivities.htm Public Activities and Festivities of Organized Labor in Marin County, California]
- [http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/docs/unions.html New analysis of economic data shows that unionization could maximize productivity]
- [http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/docs/unions2.html American Labor Unions Under Stress] Category:Labour relations Category:Organizational studies and human resource management ko:노동조합 ja:労働組合

Social movement

. Here, Martin Luther King is giving his "I Have a Dream" speech, in front of the Lincoln Memorial during the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom]] Social movements are a type of group action. They are large informal groupings of individuals and/or organizations focused on specific political or social issues, in other words, on carrying out a social change. Modern social movements became possible through education (the wider dissemination of literature), and increased mobility of labour due to the industrialisation and urbanisation of 19th century societies. The freedom of expression, education and relative economic independence prevalent in the modern Western culture is responsible for the unprecedented number and scope of various contemporary social movements. Political science and sociology have developed a variety of theories and empirical research on social movements. For example, some research in political science highlights the relation between popular movements and the formation of new political parties as well as discussing the function of social movements in relation to agenda setting and influence on politics.

History

Political movements that evolved in late 18th century, like those connected to the French Revolution and Polish Constitution of May 3, 1791 are among the first documented social movements. The labor movement and socialist movement of the late 19th century are seen as the prototypical social movements, leading to the formation of communist and social democratic parties and organisations. From 1815, Britain after victory in the Napoleonic Wars entered a period of social upheaval aformed from 1905 as pressure for reform continued, resulting in the collapse of the Russian State at the end of the First World War. In 1945, Britain after victory in the Second World War entered a period of radical reform and change. In the 1970s, women's rights, peace, civil rights and environmental movements emerged, often dubbed New Social Movements.They led inter alia to the formation of green parties. Some find in the end of the 1990s the emergence of a new global social movement, the anti-globalization movement.

Key processes

Several key processes lie behind the history of social movements. The process of urbanisation, which created large cities, facilitated social interaction between scores of people. It was in cities, where people of similar goals could find each other, gather and organise, that those early social movements first appeared. Similarly, the process of industrialisation which gathered large masses of workers in the same region was responsible for the fact that many of those early social movements addressed matters important to that social class. Many other social movements were created at universities, where the process of mass education brought many people together. With the development of communication technologies, creation and activities of social movements became easier - from printed pamphlets circulating in the 18th century coffeehouses to newspapers and Internet, all those tools became important factors in the growth of the social movements. Finally, the spread of democracy and political rights like the freedom of speech made the creation and functioning of social movements much easier.

Types of social movements

Sociologists distinguish between several types of social movements:
- scope
- reform movements - movements dedicated to changing some norms, usually legal ones. Examples of such a movement would include a trade union with a goal of increasing workers rights, a green movement advocating a set of ecological laws, or a movement supporting introduction of a capital punishment or right to abortion. Some reform movements may advocate a change in custom and moral norms, for example, condemnation of pornography or proliferation of some religion.
- religion was an important factor in the fall of the Soviet Union]] radical movement - movements dedicated to changing some value systems. Those are usually much larger in scope than the reform movements, Examples would include the American Civil Rights Movement which demanded full civil rights and equality under the law to all Americans, regardless of race, or the Polish Solidarity (Solidarność) movement which demanded the transformation of communist political and economy system into democracy and capitalism.
- type of change
- innovation movement - movements which want to introduce new norms, values, etc. The singularitarianism movement advocating deliberate action to effect and ensure the safety of the technological singularity is an example of an innovation movement.
- conservative movement - movements which want to preserve existing norms, values, etc. The anti-machines 19th century Luddites movement or the modern movement opposing the spread of the genetically modified food are examples of conservative movements.
- target audience
- group-focus movements - focused on affecting groups or society in general, for example, advocating the change of the political system. Most of such groups eventually transform into or join a political party.
- individual-focused movements - focused on affecting individuals. Most religious movements would fall under this category. Those movements rarely transform into political parties.
- methods of work
- religious movement independence]] peaceful movements - opposed to using violent means. Mentioned American Civil Rights movement, Polish Solidarity movement or Mahatma Gandhi civil disobedience movements would fall into this category
- violent movements - various armed resistance movements up to and including terrorist organisations. Examples would include the Palestinian Hezbollah, Basque Euskadi Ta Askatasuna (ETA) or Ireland Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) movements.
- old and new
- old movements - most of the 19th century movements which recruited their followers from a specific social class (only workers, only peasants, only whites, only aristocrats, only protestants, etc.). They were usually centered around some materialistic goals like improving the standard of living of the given social class.
- new movements - movements which became dominant from the second half of the 20th century - like the feminist movement, civil rights movement, environmental movement, gay rights movement, peace movement, anti-nuclear movement, anti-globalization movement, etc. Sometimes they are known as postmodernism movements. They are usually centered around a non-materialistic goal.

Dynamics of social movements

Social movements are not eternal. They have a life cycle: they are created, they grow, they achi

Civil society

See also

External links

Society

Etymology

Organization of society

Shared belief or common goal

Ontology

See also

References

Collective action

Exploitation of the great by the small

Institutional design

Joint products

Club

Federated structure

See also

References

Values

State

Introduction

Etymology

Formation of the state

International point of view

The domestic point of view

Philosophies of the state

See also

References

External links

Family

Family cross-culturally

Family in the West

Economic function of the family

Kinship terminology

English kinship terminology

See also

References

External links

Market

Marketplaces and street markets

Wholesale markets

See also

Economic markets and marketspaces

See also

Labor union

History

Origin of unions

Shop types

Criticism

The problem of international comparison

Trade unions in the United Kingdom

Labor unions in the United States

Unions in other countries

International cooperation

News

References

See also

External links

Social movement

History

Key processes

Types of social movements

Dynamics of social movements