Search

This paper proposes the need to move beyond current integration and diversity discourses (and their practices). It argues that whilst purportedly aiming to attack social divisions, on the one hand, these are underpinned by binary and essentialized constructions of these very divisions, on the other. They thereby reinforce notions of 'us' and 'them'. In order to retain their more progressive concerns with heterogeneity and inclusion, the paper brings into focus an intersectional approach that considers the complex and irreducible nature of belonging and social hierarchy. The paper also considers the potential of notions of solidarity and interculturalism in dealing with some of the social issues involved. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This chapter* makes the argument that the concept of universal citizenship rights based on human need is compatible with a recognition that particularistic identity (eg specific nationalities) exist. Following Habermas, Jary makes the case that diversity is essential to the discourse of human culture. In the first part of the paper, Jary discusses the work of Feyerabend, Habermas, Turner, Doyal and Gough in order to establish the position that universal rights preserve the conditions for cultural diversification and autonomous action while also enabling a search for social solidarity and integration between different groups. In the second part of the chapter, on the historically substantive prospects for European Union citizenship, Jary draws on Habermas, Held, Linklater and others to show that an inclusionary, cosmopolitan emancipatory citizenship may develop within a post-national civil state. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Social capital has become a key concept in Government policy-making and academic circles. Particular forms of social capital theorising have become dominant and influential, invoking certain conceptions of the nature of family life. Inherently, ideas about ‘the family’ not only draw on gender divisions in fundamental ways, but also on particular forms of intergenerational relationships and power relations. This paper explores the place, and understandings, of family in social capital theorising from a feminist perspective, including the way that debates in the social capital field interlock with those in the family field. These encompass: posing both ‘the family’ and social capital as fundamental and strong bases for social cohesion, but also as easily eroded and in need of protection and encouragement; the relationship between ‘the private’ and ‘the social’; notions of bonding and bridging, and horizontal and vertical, forms of social capital as these relate to ideas about contemporary diversity in family forms and the nature of intimate relationships; and analytic approaches to understanding both the natures of social capital and family life in terms of an economic or moral rationality. It argues for greater reflexivity in the use of social capital as a concept, revealing rather than replicating troubling presences and absences around gender and generation as fundamental axes of family life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]