Author: Andre Coleman

Sociologists argue that gender is the social meaning given to their sex category. Furthermore, that we (human beings) have created a gender social division through our Historical, Cultural and Social Practices. This means that the way we have lived in society has structured and created what it is like to be male or female/Masculine or feminine. This poses a challenge to the Biological Assumption that our sex (i.e. our chromosomes and genes) determines whether we are male or female and also determines what it is like to masculine or feminine.

The debate above will be the subject matter of this essay. Closely looking at how our historical, cultural and social practices have created gender and more importantly created gender inequalities in regards to health, wealth, occupations. Also generally looking at unequal social perceptions of how men are perceived to be stronger (physically and emotionally) and how men are perceived to be better at certain things e.g. football, driving. In contrast looking at how it is incorrect to presume that a male’s Biological Characteristics make him better at certain things mentioned above or how a woman’s Biological characteristics make her weaker than a man.

The theory of biological essentialism (Marsh et al 2009) argues, as mentioned above, that our gender is determined by our sex, i.e. our chromosomes and genes which also determines what it is like to be a male or a female. This theory has been the subject of many sociologic studies because “sex differences have often been proposed as explanations for the differences in social roles performed by women and men. Essentialist, or biological, arguments attribute the different social roles performed by woman and men to underlying biological structures.” (Marsh et al 2009:219). The above is suggesting that men and woman take on different roles in household, workplace etc because they are biologically different (Marsh et al 2009). The theory above has been used to suggest that men are more hostile and competitive which is what makes them better at being the breadwinners of the family(Marsh et al 2009), whereas woman have a more caring nature which makes them better for the nurturing roles in the family. (Marsh et al 2009). However, as the biology of a man and woman has always been the same since their existence this does not offer an explanation on why men and women’s roles have changed over time and it does not explain why men and women roles are different in different cultures. Therefore although it is acceptable to say that biology may play a small part in explaining the role differences between the different sex groups the best explanation for these differences must be that they are socially constructed through history, culture and social practices.

In contrast the theory of Social Contructionalism suggests that our gender is the social meaning given to our sex which shows what it is like to be male or female and also creates implications of being male or female. This theory suggests that from a young age we are taught by those around us what actions are appropriate for your gender. This is called “Gender Socialization” (Marsh et al 2009:222). Furthermore it has been said that “The girl learns to hamper her movements. She is told that she must be careful not to get hurt, not to get dirty, not to tear her clothes, that the things she desires are too dangerous for her…Studies have found that young children of both sexes categorically assert that girls are more likely to get hurt than boys” (Young 2010:208).

The above suggests that gender is something that is bred into us from a young age so we never have a chance to challenge what is meant by gender. It also creates a weak perception of the female. This brings me to discuss one of the biggest social constructions today, the idea that woman are weak and the idea that they need a man to lift heavy things (Young 2010). It is suggested that the reason females come across as weaker is because they are taught to be feminine from a young age which also means that they have to seem timid (Young 2010). A Current example of this would be if we see a woman on a building site doing manual labour our socially constructed minds would automatically not regard her as feminine. Young’s argument also suggests that woman are not as good at sport as men because “woman often approach a physical engagement with things with timidity, uncertainty and hesitancy. Typically we lack an entire trust in our bodies to carry us to our aims.” (Young 2010:207). The only plausible reason for this is that there is a socially constructed idea that our bodies are not as strong as men’s.

This social construction has caused many inequalities to exist between men and women. However inequalities now have changed from Historical inequalities that used to exist. This is because as times have gone on attitudes have changed to what is acceptable for men and woman to do. For example, historically men were the bread winners of the family who went to work, where as the woman’s job was to stay at home cook, clean and look after the children. This is not so much the case now with the majority of woman going out to work. However, attitudes have not totally changed because even though many women go out to work, there are not many men who stay at home to look after the children, this is seen by society as a challenge to a man’s masculinity with many derogatory terms (for example ‘sweetiewife’) being used to describe a house husband. Here an inequality exists because of historical practices, the inequality being that society thinks that it is acceptable for a woman to stay at home and not work where as a man doing the very same thing would be frowned upon. However as one inequality has arisen another has disappeared, for example people no longer think that it is unacceptable for a woman to be in the work place which was the case many years ago. The above provides evidence of historical gender inequalities being socially constructed, this is obvious because the change of attitude and practices over the years has allowed for a change in roles undertaken by the male and the female.

The Social Construction of Gender has created many

In this essay I will attempt to firstly define Social Democracy and what advantages and disadvantages it brings to a state. Then I will move on to showing how Social Democracy is still existent within contemporary Britain through the means of public spending on education and benefits. I will explore Labours contemporary policies to show that Socialism is still present in Labour. However I will then explain how the Labour Party, which has its foundations in Socialism, has changed and moved towards the Third Party or ‘New Labour’ which also values Capitalist aims. I will then argue that Britain is becoming more of a Capitalist state under ‘New Labour’ and how globalisation has affected this.

Giddens described social democracy as:

“Social Democracy – moderate, parliamentary socialism – built upon consolidating the welfare state.” (Giddens. A, 1998, p4)

He recognised how Social Democracy differed to Marxism.

“Social Democracy saw free market capitalism as producing many of the problematic effects Marx diagnosed, but believed these can be muted or overcome by state intervention.” (Giddens. A, 1998, p8)

The advantage of Social Democracy is that Socialism uses the welfare state to abolish exploitation within the market system and destroy the division of society in class groups. They aim to remove all inequalities whether it’s economic or political using state intervention when needed. (Przeworski. A, 1985, p29) This gives everyone an equal start in life.

Giddens told of the state intervention as government intervening in family or individual life when needed. Social democracy saw that there was a vital need for state benefits to help those who are unable to fend for themselves. (Giddens. A, 1998, p9) The advantage of this is that it closes the income gap between the different classes.

However Giddens coined the main disadvantage of a Social Democratic state.

“The economic theory of Socialism was always inadequate, underestimating the capacity of Capitalism to innovate, adapt and generate increasing productivity. Socialism failed to grasp the significance of markets as informational devices, providing essential data for buyers and sellers.” (Giddens. A, 1998, p4-5)

In the Labour revolution of 1945-1951 Britain was a planned economy, nationalised industry and expanded welfare state, a Social Democratic state. (Reitan.E.A, 2003, p27) However toward the 1970’s Britain faced lowest productivity within the major industrial states, high unemployment and inflation. There was unwillingness of workers to move around to find employment. Managers were also slow in introducing technology that would improve productivity. (Reitan. E.A, 2003, p141) this shows that at that time the British state was unable to keep up with the market changes and generate increased productivity backing up Giddens claim that Socialism is unable to increase productivity and adapt to the market. (Giddens. A, 1998, p4-5)

There are characteristics of the welfare state within contemporary Britain. We see the state still providing free education. Just recently there are reports saying that there have been increased spending on education. The figures showed that the spending has been increasing for more than 50 years.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8562405.stm

The graph below shows the figures of increased public spending on education.

Education spending

(Derived from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8562405.stm)

The graph shows how in the U.K. the state is spending money on education has increased from 50% to almost 140% in 2005-2006. Spending money on education in the UK will giving everyone an equal start in life and removing inequalities which are characteristics of a social democracy. (Przeworski. A, 1985, p29)

Another demonstration of a Social Democracy within contemporary Britain is the benefit system. The British government provide benefits for those who are disabled, low income, unemployed, have dependent children, aged over 60, pregnant or recently had a child and those who are caring for another.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/BenefitsTaxCreditsAndOtherSupport/index.htm This is a clear indicator of Socialist practise as they are using the welfare state to eliminate the inequalities within a state. (Przeworski. A, 1985, p29) By providing people who are less off with benefits it closes the gap that Capitalism has created for them. (Giddens. A, 1998, p8)

Britain’s current government Labour still has policies that are indicators of Social Democracy.

“We want to rebuild trust in politicsaˆ¦put more power in the hands of individual citizens so that they can influence the decisions which affect themselves, their families and local communities”

http://www.labour.org.uk/democracy_and_citizenship

This aims to equal chances to voice individual opinions. This ensures that power isn’t just given to a certain class and that it is equally distributed between the classes. http://www.labour.org.uk/democracy_and_citizenship

There are also ways of creating equality between genders.

“Introduced the National Minimum Wage – two thirds of the beneficiaries are women and it has played a substantial part in narrowing the gender pay gap.”

http://www.labour.org.uk/Equalities

Labour believes everyone is entitled to equality. They aim to be fair to those regardless of gender, disability, sexual orientation, age, race, religion or belief.

http://www.labour.org.uk/Equalities This demonstrates Social Democracy’s existence within contemporary Britain.

But there are clear indicators that the British state is moving away from Socialism. Currently Britain is under the Labour Party governance. Social Democracy essentially underpins the British Labour Party with the Labour Parties motto “A future fair for all”.

http://www.labour.org.uk/future-fair-for-all This clearly indicates that their main aim is for equality within the British state. However there has been speculation.

“The evidence shows that labour has become split into two clearly differentiated constituencies: those with secure employment (insiders) and those without (outsiders).”

http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/oso/public/content/politicalscience/9780199216352/toc.html?q=

There has been speculation that there’s a ‘new labour’ party. This was seen arising when Blair was in power. The ‘new labour’ seemed to embrace capitalism and ‘abandoned classical social democracy for the ‘third way’ revised social democracy. (Driver. S, Martell. L, 2006, p26)

“The Third Way was used to mark out Labour’s departure from the politics of the Social Democratic state, signifying a reconfiguration of relationships between the economy and state.” (Newman. J, 2001, p40)

The Third Way is in favour of growth, entrepreneurship, and enterprise and wealth creation. It also values social justice. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/458626.stm However we see how the Labour Party who once was based on Social Democracy edge away and heading towards Capitalism.

However does contemporary Britain still value social justice over Capitalism under the Third Way? In recent times we see lowered public spending.

“We’ve already spent ?4bn less on unemployment benefits and income support for the unemployed than was anticipated.” Comment Alistair Darling to the BBC.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8406670.stm

We see lowered welfare spending which raises questions about Labours “a fair future for all”. However ‘New Labour’ sees this less as a social right and more about personal responsibility and social duty.

http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/oso/public/content/politicalscience/9780199266722/acprof-9780199266722-chapter-2.html?q=#acprof-9780199266722-chapter-2 This clearly shows how the Third Way governance is prioritising economic issues over social issues.

The contemporary British state however has many characteristics of a Capitalist state. Globalisation has also contributed to the breakdown of welfare state in contemporary Britain.

We see now that due to globalisation instead of business fighting over market share but now we see states fighting. “States remain interested in survival at the very least, and pursuing power at the most.” (Aydinli. E, Rosenau. J.N, 2005, p127)

Globalisation is described as “the denationalisation of politics” (Aydinli. E, Rosenau. J.N, 2005, p127) which essentially means that states are no longer deciding policies that benefit them but in fact they make policies that suit globalisation.

“The emergence of a global market economy and the need for global competitiveness have handed neo liberalism a powerful new weapon with which to contain and neutralise the counter pressures of domestic politics.” (Mishra. R, 1999, p3)

There is also the belief of the hyperglobalisation thesis where states believe that if their state does not increase incentives for businesses to invest in their state businesses will go elsewhere. States are constantly competing for foreign investment. Therefore they lower corporation tax to increase the incentive. (Ravenhill. J, 2008, p343)

So now we see states producing policies that are business friendly. State aims are to lower inflation and a steady currency which is argued to attract businesses as lower inflation would mean lower raw materials for businesses and steady currency means there is less of a risk for the business to be exposed to fluctuations in exchange rates. (Mishra. R, 1999, p5) States constantly fighting over investment has caused them to jeopardise domestic policies.

“The incremental tightening of domestic environmental policies has sometimes been delayed or blocked for the fear of incurring economic competitive disadvantages.” (Holden. B, 2000, p186)

This shows that states are more concerned about economic growth and not about equality within the social classes.

“Not surprisingly a higher level of insecurity, poverty and equality has become accepted in many countriesaˆ¦the retreat from the mixed economy and the welfare state is visible everywhere with the Anglo Saxon countries leading the way.” (Mishra. R, 1999, p3)

A good demonstration of the British state favouring Capitalism over Socialism is recently to the bank crisis. We see the state pouring money into the financial sector instead of using it to close the gap of inequality. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7666570.stm

It could also be argued that the states increase spending in education

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8562405.stm is purely for Capitalist reasons.

“Better-educated workers are likely to be more productive at their own jobs; they may, at the same time, raise the productivity of their colleaguesaˆ¦their importance has valuable implications for the role of public financing as well as for the organisation of education.” (Miles. D, Myles. G.D, Preston. I, 2003, p121)

States invest in human capital to make their domestic workforce more productive. They also benefit an increase in technological progress. States with high economic activity are generally those with a state financed education system. (Miles. D, Myles. G.D, Preston. I, 2003, p121) This can be used to argue that Britain’s public spending on education is purely for Capitalist reasons and not Socialist. Therefore indicating Britain’s welfare system is Capitalist based.

In conclusion I think the British state still had characteristics of a social democracy but with the changes in the economy due to globalisation states has started to prioritise the market over social equality. The contemporary British state produces too many policies that are Capitalist friendly and they have became even clearer with the recent recession. We see Britain moving away from a Social Democratic state towards a more market driven Capitalist state.

INTRODUCTION

New product development (NPD) is the locus of the innovative potential of organizations. Every organization, regardless of size, profit motive, or industry experiences regular pressures to renew, expand, or modify its product or service offerings (Leenders et al, 2003). The rate of market and technological changes has accelerated in the past decade. Central to competitive success in the present highly turbulent environment is the firm’s capability to develop new products (Gonzalez and Palacios, 2002). New products are increasingly cited as the key to corporate success in the market. During the 1970s, new products accounted for 20 % of corporate profits; in the 1980s, they accounted for 33 % of profits (Takeuchi and Nonaka, 1986). In the 1990s, this figure has risen to 50 % (Slater, 1993). A recent study estimates that new products provided over 42 % of company sales in the period 1985-1990, up from 33 % in 1980 (Page, 1993). The number of products introduced by these firms was expected to double (Booz et al, 1982). However, new products continue failing at an alarming rate. The most recent studies show new product success rates at launch of less than 60 %-54.3 % for the UK, 59 % for the US, 59.8 % for Japan and 49 % for Spain (Edgett et al, 1992). Recent years have witnessed extensive research into the determinants of new product success; however, these new studies do not appear to have had much of an impact on managerial performance. Therefore, a clear understanding of the factors that drive product success is needed in order to help firms optimize the resources dedicated to the product development process and increase the market demand for a firm’s new products.

Malaysia now has an export driven economy boosted by high technology and knowledge based industries, although the emphasis is changing from pure manufacturing to higher value added products and activities. Manufacturing sector in Malaysia contributes almost 80% of overall country’s export and besides, Malaysia also known as the 17th largest exporting nation in the world. For that reason, Malaysia’s firms have to work hard in order to maintain, preserve and enhance in manufacturing sector. According to Raja Musa, it is stated that products manufactured in Malaysia are accepted in developed countries such as US, EU and Japan. This shows that Malaysia manufacturing sector already achieved a level that can be proud of and it can be related with the help of new product development for the success of its products.

The study aims to test the critical success factors that are correlated with the NPD in a statistically significant manner by using the model from Gonzalez and Palacouis, (2002). According to Gonzalez and Palacouis, the critical success factors have common factors such as top management support, market orientation, NPD process, NPD speed, technology, knowledge management, NPD teams and NPD strategies. However, this study will only cover top management, NPD strategies, NPD teams. This paper will also describe a survey of NPD in Malaysian manufacturing industry and discusses the implications of these findings for this sector.

1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT
1.6 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

There are several research objectives that this study attempts to achieve, which are to:

Identify the factors of top management support, NPD strategies, and NPD teams that affect the success of new product development.

Analyze the factors of top management support, NPD strategies, and NPD teams that influence new product development success.

1.7 RESEARCH QUESTIONS

In achieving the above objectives, this research addresses the following questions:

Is the success of new product development affected by the factors of top management support, NPD strategies, and NPD teams?

Is top management support, NPD strategies, and NPD teams influence in new product development success?

1.8 CONTRIBUTION AND SCOPE

The research paper will be contributed to all the parties in an organization including senior managers, managers and staffs especially in manufacturing industry.

CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction

This chapter introduces the concept of new product development (NPD). The chapters review the relevant literature extensively. Among the topic discussed are critical success factors for NPD, top management supports, NPD strategies and NPD teams.

2.2 Concept of New Product Development (NPD)

The concept of new product is susceptible to various definitions. A definition considered basic describes a new product to cover original products, improved products, modified products and new brands developed through an organization’s research and development efforts (Ulrike, 2000 and Kotler, 1991). In a similar classification (Petrick and Echols, 2004 and Stanton et al., 1994), three distinct categories of new products are identified. These are: those that are really innovative, satisfying unsatisfied needs; replacement products that are significantly different from the existing one in form, function and benefits provided; imitative products new to the organization but not new to consumers.

In the other hand, new products had been described along two dimensions: ‘newness to the organization’ and ‘newness to the markets’. Ranging from low to high on each dimension, six categories have been identified. These categories are: cost reductions; improvements in existing products; repositioned products; additions to existing product lines; new product lines allowing a firm to enter established; markets, new to the world products that create new markets (Ilorri et al, 2000 and Pujari et al, 2003).

2.3 Critical Success Factors for New Product Development

NPD is indeed very important for companies. However, developing new products is a risky and uncertain process. In order to reduce the risks and uncertainties, companies need to evaluate their new product initiatives carefully and make accurate decisions. Although the outcome of a new product evaluation decision can be influenced by the environmental uncertainties that are beyond a company’s control, companies can successfully improve the accuracy of their new product evaluation decisions (Ozer, 2003 and Debruyne et al, 2002). Historical cases suggest that firms can make two types of erroneous decisions when evaluating their new product ideas. First, they might decide to pursue a potentially unsuccessful new product idea. Second, they might decide not to develop a potentially successful new product. In either case, firm’s accure big losses, while the former leads to investment lose the latter leads to missed investment opportunities. Given this background, it is clear that it is in the interests of firms to make accurate new product evaluations and critical success factors for NPD can sign a way to evaluate this process accurately (Sanders and Monrodt, 1994).

From previous study, proficiency in new product development can contribute to the success of many companies. According to Poolton and Bar [17], “if companies can improve their effectiveness at launching new products, they can double their bottom line. It’s one of the area left with the greatest potential for improvement.” In the past decades, many studies have focused on the critical success factors (CSF) associated with the success/failure of new product development (NPD).

Lynn et a1 [ 141 developed a model of the determinants of new product development success. He sent informants a series of cases and asked them to identify eleven key factors as shown in table 2. Lester [13] carried out a study and found a range of potential problems that can derail well-intentioned new product development efforts. By working through these problems, he discovered the fifteen critical success factors in five areas of new product development. Poolton and Barclay [I71 identified a set of six variables that have consistently been identified in the literature as being associated with successful NPD. Cooper [3] studied on hundreds of cases revealed what makes the difference between winners and losers on the new product development process. He extracted twelve common denominators of successful new product project and seven possible reasons (blockers) offered by managers for why the success factors are invisible and why projects seem to go wrong, or aren’t well carried out.

It can be found that the factors proposed by the four studies are not totally the same and it is hard to generate a common set of CSF for NPD. It is even hard to generate these factors to any specific industry. In fact, there are many other studies on CSF or drivers for NPD [e.g., 2, 3, and 201, which will not be reviewed each by each. Montoya-Weiss and Calantone [15] reviewed 47 research studies about the determinants of new product performance and found each of these studies attempted to identify the factors that improve NPD success rates. However, each uses a somewhat different method and different factors and provides results that are useful but sometimes inconsistent with or even contradictory to other studies’ results. What they share is a general focus on what is necessary for success of NPD.

In the recent literature that can find several models based on the lessons and recipes for success in the product development process. For example, Rosenau and Moran (1993) furnish a guide for success with project management tools to the product development process, emphasizing speed to market, quality management and multifunctional teamwork. On the other hand, Bowen et al. (1994) highlights seven critical elements that any outstanding product development project should have in common: (1) recognize and nurture the firm’s core capabilities, (2) a guiding vision shared by all members in the cross-functional team, (3) project leadership and organization, (4) ability to instill the team with a sense of ownership and commitment, (5) ability to rapidly learn and to reduce mistakes and misunderstandings, (6) ability to push forward the company’s performances, and (7) ability to integrate within projects following a systems approach. Bobrow (1997) provides a list of success factors for new products, including a clear strategic direction, a corporate culture aligned behind new products, a sensible allocation policy of resources and people, and a cross-functional team dedicated to the new product development process. Beside this, Chorda et al (2002) state that top management support, NPD process and analysis of market requirements are key success factor for NPD. In the view of Gonzalez and Palacious (2002) critical success factor are top management supports, nature of market, and product quality, supplier and costumer involvement in design process. According to Varela and Benito (2004), management emphasis, experience in NPD, centralization, novelty, NPD process style and technical activities are important factors to achieve successful NPD.

2.4 New Product Development and Top Management Support

The Malcolm Baldrige criteria highlight the importance of leadership. Leaders must pay attention to developing the “right” corporate culture. In the words, order, rules, and regulations, along with uniformity take second place to goal achievement. The strategic focus moves away from stability, predictability, and smooth operations toward a search for value added. It is emphasized that without management commitment, improvement efforts fail. This commitment must be not only active, but also visible. The intent is to develop leadership that is open-minded, supportive, and professional (Spivey et al, 1997)

NPD is an ambiguous process with different people and departments having different perspectives about how things are to be done. It is therefore a political process involving struggles for resources, influence and power which can generate conflicts. This conflict only be able to cope with top management decisiveness (Atuahene, 1997). Several works documented that top management initiative and support is a key aspect in order to achieve new product success (Zirger and Maidique, 1990; Chorda et al., 2002; Varela and Benito, 2004). Management commitment provides organizational support for change, generates enthusiasm, provides a clear vision of the product concept and assures sufficient allocation of resources (Poolton and Barclay, 1998: 200; Clarck and Fufimoto, 1990).

2.5 New Product Development Strategies

NPD strategy is determined within the framework of the organizational objectives, environmental factors, past and present performances, resource availability and corporate capability. Generally, three types of organization can be identified depending on the NPD strategy adopted. These are classified as reactors, planners and entrepreneurs (Ilori et al, 2000). ‘Reactors’ wait for problems to occur (e.g., dwindling market share) before attempting a solution while ‘planners’ anticipate such problems. ‘Entrepreneurs’, however, anticipate both problems and opportunities for timely exploitation.

A simple classification gives two types of NPD strategies as either offensive or defensive (Debruyne et al, 200; Wilson et al., 1992). The offensive strategy opens up new markets or enlarges the existing one through careful planning, while competitive forces or other changes in the operating environment stimulate the defensive strategist into action. An organization’s continued commitment to an offensive strategy could be very expensive in terms of the high degree of risk and investment in money, skill and time, but also with a lot of potential for higher returns. This contrasts sharply with the relatively low risk/low return defensive strategy (Liu et al, 2004; Kim et al, 2004).

In other consideration, Johne and Snelson (1990) gave two approaches in formulating NPD strategies as the traditional asset-based and market-based. The components of the traditional asset-based approach are given as product cost-cutting, product modification, product-line extension and new product line. These, all seeking to build on existing product lines and technical know-how, are applicable in the existing market and with greater intensity in new markets. Beyond the conventional asset-based approaches, the market-based options seek for a wider and a more profitable exploitation of opportunities with a sharper focus on potential market opportunities outside a firm’s business. Considered a novel and exciting approach, it is made up of project offering, system offering, commodity offering and service offering strategies within a product support matrix. These offering strategies consider a wider myriad of benefits a product offers to specific target market, hence the differentiations in products and support as considered appropriate.

Firth and Narayanan (1996) defined a NPD strategy as having three aspects: (1) new embodied technology; (2) new market applications; (3) innovation in the market. Based on these three aspects, his research lead to a NPD strategy definition, i.e. (1) innovators; (2) investors in technology; (3) searching for new markets; (4) business as usual; (5) middle-of-the-road. Beside this, Barczak (1995) divided NPD strategy into three categories based on Ansoff and Stewart’s classification: first to market, fast follower and delayed entrant. Song and Montoya-Weiss (1998) utilized Ansoff’s product market matrix model considering the growing in our current market and technology strategy. The results lead to incremental NPD. A development strategy that pursues a new market with a new product and technology will create a “real new product”. A strategy involving a current market and new product or new market and current product is classified as a moderate innovation. Veryzer (1998) used new models with two important aspects: technological capability and product capability. Technological capability means that a product must be made using a technology beyond the current company technology level. Product capability represents the benefit of a product recognized or experienced by customers. Therefore strategies that firms follow decide to their NPD performance.

2.6 New Product Development Teams

NPD teams are frequently used to integrate employees from several company departments and give opportunities for simplification and parallel processing. Many empirical studies have found that this practice increases a project innovation and NPD success rate (Sanchez and Perez, 2003: 140; Atahuene and Evangelista, 2000; Bonner et al, 2002; Jassawalla and Sashittal, 1998). NPD teams can take various forms including teams comprised of personnel temporarily assigned to an NPD team from a firm’s functional departments to develop new product. In addition, members of NPD teams often are organizationally linked through matrix structure to their functional departments. Two other NPD team forms involve, first, functional specialists permanently assigned to distinct new product or new venture development groups and, second, senior managers whose primary focus makes them directly responsible for the development of new products (Millson and Wilemon, 2002; Oliver et al, 2004). NPD team members face the same types of challenges that all decision makers face: they are subject to judgmental biases, believe in their ability to influence results post-decision, suffer from limited capacity to deal with data, are often overly ambitious, and must face the consequences of their decisions. The work is considered to be inherently challenging and often depends on making intuitive “leaps” (Cooper, 2003). So NPD teams composition and other group factors affect NPD process.

2.7 Theoretical Framework:

Top Management SupportsIndependent Variables Dependent Variables

New Product Development Success

NPD Strategies

NPD Teams

Figure: Theoretical framework of this study

The theoretical framework gives an overview in achieving the critical success factor in new product development. It shows that there are four variables that are interrelated in a process to make the new product development successful. There are three independent variables which consist of top management support, new product development strategies and new product development teams. Meanwhile the dependent variables consist of new product development success. This is a single model which to identify the critical success factors in new product development.

2.8 Hypothesis

H0: There will be positive relationship between top management supports in NPD success.

H1: There will be positive relationship between NPD strategies in NPD success.

H2: There will be positive relationship between NPD teams in NPD success.

CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter will explains the procedure used to conduct the study including the data collection, data source and measurements being used to process the data collected. The respondent of this research topic will be the employees of the firm in Malaysian manufacturing industry.

3.2 DATA COLLECTION

Ways of collecting data by having questionnaire methods. The questionnaire will be distributed to the employees. There will be 30 questions being prepared in the sheet whereby the questions will be categories into three variables which consist of top management supports, NPD strategies and NPD teams.

3.3 DATA SOURCE

Most of the data collection above taken from the articles and journals.

3.4 UNIT OF ANALYSIS AND RESPONDENT

The unit of analyses was distributed to 200 firms which represent all manufacturing industry. These particular types of industry were chosen as the research samples compare to other industries for instance, manufacturing related firm which these industry were more involve in new product development. The respondent will be focus on the managers of the company whereby they are the one who handling about new product development in the organization and they were the one which facing it every day.

3.5 SAMPLES

The population of this study covered manufacturing industries registered with Malaysian Industrial Development Authority (MIDA) and Federation of Malaysian Manufacturers (FMM). The respondents taken from Malaysian manufacturing directory because the sample of respondent will be 200 persons in this research process and the place where sample were focus on the Malaysia northern region that include Perlis, Kedah and Penang.

In order to begin this essay it is worth outlining some of the meanings behind the terms ‘mental illness’ and ‘stigma’. Mental illness is a conceptually problematic term as there as different ways of speaking about normal and abnormal behaviour (Pilgrim and Rogers, 1999). It can broadly be described as a type of health problem which affects an individual’s thoughts, feelings and the way they interact around other people. It also has a cognitive dimension as it can affect anybody at any time and may be temporary or permanent (Pilgrim, 2005). Scheff (1984) discusses the medicalisation of mental illness, he argues that ‘residual deviance’ (pg. 36) can refer to the variety of conditions which are held under the umbrella term of mental illness simply because they do not come under any other category, such as criminal. Essentially, any form of unacceptable or deviant behaviour which is not classed in other ways, becomes a form of mental illness. Scheff’s approach uses labelling theory to discuss mental health; this is something I will turn to later. Surveys have revealed that the majority of us are acquainted with mental illness and are familiar with it damaging effects either through a friend or relative etc. 15% of us have had a mental health problem ourselves (Layard, 2005). Stigma can be defined as ‘the social consequences of negative attributions about a person based upon stereotype. In the case of people with mental health problems, it is presumed that they lack intelligibility and social competence and that they are dangerous’ (Pilgrim, 2005, pg 157). Goffman (1963) argued that stigma ‘spoils’ a person’s social identity, it creates a gap between a typical, ordinary social identity which we expect others to have and our real social identity. It disrupts everyday social interaction because ‘normal’ individuals do not know how to behave with stigmatized individuals and vice versa (pg. 15). Goffman identified three types of stigma, stigma deriving from physical defects or abnormalities, stigma of race and religion and finally ‘perceived blemishes of individual character’ this includes such things as sexuality, political beliefs and mental health (Goffman, 1963, pg. 14). Goffman’s work is very important in discussing the complexities of stigma and discrimination and I plan to use his work throughout this essay. Skinner et al (1995) argue that a hierarchy of stigma exists in which inferior social statuses such as ‘prostitute’ and ‘alcoholic’ are ranked. They identified mental illness as being at the bottom of the hierarchy. The stigma of mental illness is different from others because it involves changes in behaviour which attracts negative judgment by others. It makes people wander about an individual’s stability and whether they pose a risk to themselves or others (Bury, 2005).

In order to better understand the stigma of mental illness it is necessary to conduct research into the lay views held amongst the public, this includes accounts from people with mental health problems (MHP) who discuss their experiences, and also the views of those without MHP (Pilgrim, 2005). A qualitative study by Dinos et al (2004) which researched the experiences of 46 people with a mental illness revealed that stigma was a major concern to most of the participants. Stigma defines individuals in terms of their mental illness and has the potential to impact on all aspects of life. Goffman (1963) formulated stigma into a ‘double perspective’, the first is obvious to others and cannot be hidden. He referred to this as ‘discrediting’. The second type is ‘discreditable’ and is not necessarily noticeable to others (pg. 14). With this form the problem is managing personal information, whether this means hiding the fact that they have a mental illness, or hiding the nature and extent of the condition. Dinos et al (2004) found that the management of information was a major problem and ‘a potent source of stress, anxiety and further feelings of stigma even in the absence of any direct discrimination’ (pg. 176). Some of the patients chose to downplay their illness by telling others it was another type, such as depression. Experiences of stigma were also dependent on the nature of the illness, those with depression and anxiety were more likely to feel stigmatized. While those with schizophrenia and bi-polar disorder were more likely to experience physical and verbal attacks. The effects of stigma can be extremely damaging, individuals may feel ‘depersonalized, rejected and disempowered’ (Pilgrim, 2005, pg 158). This can lead to isolation and an acceptance of the treatment received as justified. This in turn can cause a further decline in their health (Dinos, et al, 2004).

In terms of lay views of mental health held amongst the public, these are usually ones of distrust and sometimes hostility. Many people hold stereotypical views of mentally ill people in which psychotic behaviour is expected (Pilgrim, 2005). The influence of the media is important here and is something I will turn to later. Attribution theory (Corrigan et al, 2000 and Bury, 2005) can be used to explain stigma and discriminatory practices. It consists of two aspects, ‘controllability’ and ‘stability’ the former refers to the extent to which individuals are responsible for their own mental illness and stability refers to whether the illness can improve over time and to what extent. Studies which use attribution theory reveal that many believe that individuals with MHP are to blame for their illness and do not deserve any sympathy. They believe them to be potentially dangerous and should be avoided. Also, they show no optimism about people reaching recovery (Corrigan, et al, 2000). An example of such a study comes from Weiner and colleagues (cited in Corrigan, 2000), they asked 59 students to rate various disability groups according to aspects of controllability and stability, the results revealed that they viewed mental illness much more severely than other illnesses. The widespread stigmatization of mental illness is rooted historically in ‘fear of the unknown, our tendency to attack ridicule or laugh at what we don’t understand’ (Lalani and London, 2006). Since the deinstitutionalization of mental illness and the introduction of care in the community initiatives, this fear of the ‘other’ has become much more significant as the boundaries between the ‘sane’ and ‘insane’ have become blurred. We have a strong need to distance ourselves from things that we fear, therefore the stigma of mental illness is one of panic and hostility.

Having discussed the stigma of mental illness and the perceptions held amongst the population in a little more depth, this leaves the question of how it is culturally constructed. Thoits (1985) discusses how we learn to act and feel through repeated social interaction. Our emotions are governed by the norms of society which we internalize from an early age. ‘We know how we should feel in a variety of circumstances e.g. sad at a funeral lively at a party, happy at a wedding, proud on success, angry at an insult and so on.’ (pg. 224). Equally, we recognize when our behaviour may be viewed as inappropriate to others and learn to control it. For example, ‘big boys don’t cry’ and ‘keep a stiff upper lip’ (pg. 224). We have a shared awareness of how we ought to behave in the social world, therefore anybody who breaks these norms is subject to ridicule. Thoits develops a theory which contrasts with Scheff (1984). She argues that self-labelling processes are significant in mental health, as people assess their own behaviour and seek professional help voluntarily. Scheff on the other hand focuses on the involuntary nature of mental health treatment and how people come to be defined as mentally ill; his concern lies with the institutionalization of mental illness.

The perceptions of people with mental illness held by wider society are ones of devaluation and discrimination (Link cited in Gaebel et al, 2006). When a person is labelled as mentally ill, these conceptions become part of his or her sense of self. Labelling theory is useful in understanding the stigma of mental illness. We react to mental illness is a similar way to crime and the criminal. This approach to deviance focuses on the reaction of others in maintaining and amplifying rule breaking or secondary deviance (Marsh et al, 2000). The labelling process can have a detrimental effect on a person’s status and identity. Their old identity is discarded and a new ‘master status’ label takes its place. In the case of the mentally ill individual, his or her condition comes to define who they are, regardless of the other roles they may have (such as parenthood or their job). Their stigmatized role of mentally ill dominates their existence (Marsh et al, 2000 and Pilgrim, 2005). The negative effects of labelling are very clear, research has suggested that employers are less likely to offer jobs to those who have been labelled mentally ill. They are also less likely to be given housing and more likely to have charges made against them for violent crimes. Some studies however, have indicated that labelling has had positive benefits for the individual (Pilgrim, 2005).

The main source of information for the general public about mental illness comes from the mass media. The media have come to represent the beliefs and perceptions of wider society and frequently exaggerate events and portray inaccurate stereotypes of people with MHP. ‘There is an unquestioning acceptance in the media of the ‘rising toll of killings’ as a result of community care’ (Dunn, 2002). For example, in the Daily Mail (21 February, 2003) the headline ‘400 care in the community patients living by murder park’ was printed after a woman was found dead in East London. After discovering that a large number of care in the community patients lived near the park, the police and the media assumed she was ‘murdered by a deranged psychiatric patient living in the community.’ Headlines like this are not uncommon and newspapers consistently present the image of the dangerous, unstable, incurable mental patient (Lalani and London, 2006). Other examples of hard-hitting headlines include ‘violent, mad. So doc’s set him free. New ‘community care scandal’ (The Sun, 26 February 2005) and ‘Bonkers Bruno locked up’ (The Sun, 22 September 2003). Philo (1996) found that two thirds of news coverage made associations between mental illness and violence, but media depictions are not consistent with the facts about mental health and violence. Home office statistics indicate that there is little or no correlation between violence and mental illness. In reality, people with MHP are more likely to be the victims of crime than the perpetrators (Dunn, 2002). There is a lot of empirical evidence to suggest that the media informs us about mental illness and that their depictions are ‘characteristically inaccurate and unfavourable (Wahl, 1992, pg. 351). Wahl and Roth (cited in Wahl, 1992) found that mentally ill characters in prime time TV shows lacked a social identity. They were usually single, unemployed and described negatively with adjectives like “aggressive” “confused” and “unpredictable” (pg. 345). Many other studies have produced similar results, with dangerousness and violence being the most common traits of people with MHP. Wahl argues that these portrayals must have an effect on our behaviour and attitudes towards mental illness. Many studies have ‘demonstrated that repeated exposure to media stereotypes in general influences conceptions of social reality’ (pg. 346). He cites research that demonstrates that heavy viewers of television tend to relate the real world to televisions distorted representations. One study asked students to complete a questionnaire about mental health before and after a viewing of “One flew over the cuckoo’s nest” those who saw the film had a less positive view of mental illness than those who hadn’t seen it (Wahl, 1992). It is clear then that the overall relationship between the media and the mentally ill ‘is not in dispute: it is one of sensationalism, exaggeration and fear mongering’ (Lalani and London, 2006). It is important however to mention that not all aspects of the media perpetuate negative stereotypes and it can be a useful tool in tackling discrimination and stigma.

For many people living with a mental illness, the cultural attitudes of fear, hostility and ignorance has contributed to experiences of isolation and social exclusion. A report by the Citizens advice Bureau (CAB, 2003) revealed that most people with a MHP are unemployed and that those who did have jobs end up leaving because their employers convince them that they are unable to cope. Jo, a mental health service user discussed her experiences at work in a report to the mind inquiry (Dunn, 2002 pg. 11) when she informed her boss that she had to see a psychiatrist ‘his reaction said it all, as soon as mental illness is mentioned people literally back away from you’. Pilgrim (2005) highlights that people with MHP are three time as likely to be unemployed than those with physical disabilities. This is mainly because of the attitudes of employers and not because of a lack of willingness on the part of the individual (CAB, 2003). There also exists a disincentive to work for those who are in receipt of welfare benefits. For many, their income upon finding work would only increase at a small rate, if it all, and they would lose out on any supplementary benefits such as housing benefits. Further to this is the difficulty in having their benefits reinstated should the job not work out (CAB, 2003). Social exclusion is a complicated and often cyclical process. It can affect a person’s access to education, social services and health care. Such limited access to one service can have a knock on effect on others. For example, restricted use of education and training opportunities can sustain unemployment further which in turn contributes to the benefit trap and can of course deepen a person’s exclusion and cause a further decline in their health (Dunn, 2002). It is clear then that the social exclusion of people with MHP denies them the basic levels of citizenship, happiness and wealth available to everybody else (Pilgrim, 2005).

To conclude, the stigma of mental illness is based on generalizations about insanity. These stereotypes are constructed through feelings of fear and anxiety over things we do not understand and struggle to relate to. There is no doubt that our views of mental illness are completely ungrounded and are transmitted repeatedly through the mass media, thus reinforcing a distorted image in our collective psyche. Stigma is used to identify and expose something abnormal about an individual (Goffman, 1963). However some are critical of the stigma framework and argue that it is too individualistic. If we study the collective discriminatory practices which cause exclusion for many people with mental illness, such as poverty and labour market disadvantage, then strategies for change may be easier to develop (Pilgrim, 2005). Layard (2005) identified mental health as our biggest social problem. It is not just a major health concern, it is a political issue. With such high numbers of people affected my mental illness, the costs to the economy are significant. Tackling stigmatization is an essential step in improving the lives of those affected. This involves inclusion of groups themselves, as only those with the knowledge and experience cans suggest what is right for them.

Even in the twenty-first century tuberculosis is a major public health concern, with an estimated 8.9 million new cases and 1.7 million deaths in 2004 Dye, 2006. TB is an infectious disease caused by a bacterium called Mycobacterium tuberculosis and it primary affects the lungs however it can also affect organs in the circulatory system, nervous system and lymphatic system as well as others. Commonly in the majority of cases an individual contracts the TB bacterium which then multiplies in the lungs often causing pneumonia along with chest pain, coughing up blood and a prolonged cough. As the bacterium spreads to other parts of the body, it is often interrupted by the body’s immune system. “The immune system forms scar tissue or fibrosis around the TB bacteria and this helps fight the infection and prevents the disease from spreading throughout the body and to other people. If the body’s immune system is unable to fight TB or if the bacteria breaks through the scar tissue, the disease returns to an active state with pneumonia and damage to kidneys, bones, and the meninges that line the spinal cord and brain” (Crosta, 2012). Thus, TB is generally classified as either latent or active; latent TB is the state when bacteria are present in the body however presents no systems therefore is inactive and not contagious. Whereas, active TB is contagious and can consists of numerous aforementioned symptoms. This essay will attempt to illustrate the ways in which social constructions of TB reflect wider socio-cultural values within contemporary global society. In the first part I will examine the historical context of TB and its link with poverty which continues on in present time. Secondly, I will explore the stigmatism and isolation with TB and finally I will relate the social construction of TB with the work of Emile Durkheim.

It is important to recognise the geographical disparities in the prevalence of TB. For example, countries such as Australia have a “relatively low incidence of the disease with new cases primarily being identified in migrant populations a decade after their settlement. In some European nations with substantial public healthcare facilities, TB continues to be a problem particularly within large thriving cities such as London. This disproportionate increase in disease incidence compared with other community groups and national rates can be found in those who are socially disadvantaged including homeless, drug and alcohol addicted, people with HIV, prisoner populations as well as refugees and migrantsaˆ¦” (Smith, 2009: 1). This demonstrates the negative connotations society denotes to TB infected individuals as well as suggesting that in order to better understand the social construction of TB, the history of the bacterium needs to be explored. In 1882 Koch isolated the Mycobacterium tuberculosis and it was acknowledged that the disease was spread through overcrowded conditions, insufficient nutrition and a penurious lifestyle. It can be argued that TB has been constructed in two main ways: socially and biologically. “Biologically through science as an organism and socially by the community as a slow wasting death that was often associated with pale individuals being removed from the community” (Smith, 2009: 1).

Throughout history TB has been ambiguously represented. Much of the Western nineteenth century fictional literature highly romanticized the disease and reinforced the prevailing practices and beliefs. Often referred to as ‘consumption’; people were described as being consumed and exhausted by the disease as symptoms were assumed to be individuals looking ‘delicate’, ‘pale’ and ‘drained’ of energy. Treatment during this period in history mirrored these romanticised notions. Medical care was commonly described as a combination of fresh air, companionship and rest. In contrast, many non-European countries “negatively popularised TB as part of vampire myths as people tried to make sense of the disease symptoms (Smith, 2010). As a result, diseased bodies were exhumed and ritually burnt to remove vampire’s existence” (Smith, 2009: 1). This demonstrates the contrasting representations of TB within differing societies, suggesting that the hegemonic socio-cultural values of a disease in this case TB plays a crucial role in the social representations of a disease. As well as illustrating the importance of considering the impact of spatial and temporal differences.

Following the identification of the disease the discovery of streptomycin and other anti-tuberculosis medications quickly emerged. This gave the impression that TB was no longer a major health problem but instead incurable and controllable. Despite being important for treating TN, streptomycin, isoniazid and other anti-tuberculosis drugs contained limits for treatment. Resistance quickly developed and resistant strains of the bacterium quickly emerged limiting the use of many drugs. Consequently, to stop resistance several of the anti- TB drugs are required in combination and need to be taken for a period between 6 months and two years during therapy (Gandy and Zumla, 2002). However, recent outbreaks of multi-drug (MDR) TB have once again brought the disease to the forefront of global health problems. MDR TB is said to have emerged due to inadequate treatment of TB, commonly due to over- prescribing or improper prescribing of anti-TB drugs. Problems with treatment generally occur in immunocompromised patients, such as malnourished patients and Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) patients (Craig et al., 2007). In addition, it can be observed that the increase in TB closely reflects the rise cases of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and AIDS globally. Frequently, individuals with “immune disorders are not only more likely to contract and develop TB, they are also more likely to be in contact with other TB patients due to often being placed in special wards and clinics, where the disease is easily spread to others” (Gray, 1996: 25). In 2009, 12% of over 9 million new TB cases worldwide were HIV-positive, equalling approximately 1.1 million people (WHO, 2010). One of the most significantly affected countries is South Africa, where 73% of all TB cases are HIV-positive (Padarath and Fonn, 2010).

Furthermore, in the early twentieth century improved medical knowledge and technology allowed for better diagnosis. During this period words such as ‘contagion’ and ‘plagues’ were popularly used in negative terms in association to judge societies. TB was reported as “a form of societal assessment, infecting the ‘bad’ and the ‘good’ being disease free. A number of reports suggest a sense of apprehension became apparent as differing tuberculosis beliefs began to emerge (Smith, 2009: 1). This highlights the importance of social representations in terms of common terms associated with a disease play in the social constructions of TB. Moreover, it could be argued that people’s perceptions of a disease are not only shaped by their direct experiences and the impressions received from others but also significantly through media representations of the disease (Castells, 1998). It is important to recognise the symbiotic relationship between media representations of a disease and the dominant public discourses. It should be acknowledged that the term ‘discourse’ has multiple meanings, nevertheless this essay will employ Lupton’s (1992) assessment that ‘discourse’ as “a set of ideas or a patterned way of thinking which can be discerned within texts and identified within wider social structures”. The discourses that are founded and circulated by the media (mainly newspapers) can be regarded as working to produce what Foucault (1980) calls ‘particular understandings about the world that are accepted as “truth” (Waitt, 2005). Thus in the process of disseminating such “truths”, it could be argued that the media as a collective and commercial institution is implicated in ‘governing populations’. Meaning that “the power of the media can (directly or indirectly) influence the conduct of its audiences” (Lawrence et al., 2008: 728). This illustrates that media representations of a disease (TB) impact and are themselves influenced by dominant societal discourses thus helping to shape the social constructions of TB.

Moreover, it could be argued that there is strong link between those associated with TB and stigmatism and isolation as well as poverty and dirt (Scambler, 1998). Historically, TB was romanticised and referred to as ‘consumption’, however once it’s infectious nature was recognised this notion quickly changed. By the early twentieth century, the prevailing social and cultural values at the time generally believed that the disease festered in environments of dirt and squalor and was known as the diseases of the poor which could then be spread to the middle and upper classes. However, by the twenty-first century this discourse shifted from “the ‘poor’ (although marginalised groups such as the homeless and those with AIDS were still implicated) to the role played by Third World populations in harbouring the disease which threatens to ‘explode’ into the developed world” (Lawrence et al., 2008: 729). This demonstrates that as society’s socio-cultural values change the way in which disease is constructed and perceived also changes. It is important to consider the ways which these socio-cultural values change as well as acknowledge the interlinked relationship between dominant discourses, media representations and prevailing socio-cultural values. The relationship between TB and poverty has been recognised (Elender, Bentham and Langford, 1998) and arguably may not only “reflect medical and social characteristics of poor individuals, but also characteristics of housing and neighbourhood which foster airborne spread of TB infection, such as crowding and poor ventilation. Population groups with an increased prevalence of latent infection (such as new immigrants) are disproportionately found in poor areas- often with lower quality housing” (Wanyeki et al,. 2006: 501). This illustrates that not only socio-cultural values influence the social constructions of TB but socio-economic factors such as income and housing play a key role too.

Additionally, it is important to recognise the global disparities with TB. For example, Dodor et al (2008) argue that in countries where treatment for TB is not readily available, the disease has become highly stigmatised and infected individuals are exceedingly discriminated. According to Link and Phelan (2001) “stigma arises when a person is identified by a label that sets the person apart and prevailing cultural beliefs link the person to undesirable stereotypes that result in loss of status and discrimination” (Gerrish, Naisby and Ismail, 2012: 2655). This can be illustrates in common cases where people with TB often isolate themselves in order to avoid infecting others may try to hide their diagnosis to reduce the risk of being shunned (Baral et al,. 2007). From research in Thailand, Johansson et al. (2000) distinguish two main forms of stigma; one based on social discrimination and second on fear from self-perceived stigma. Furthermore, patients commonly experience social isolation in family sphere where they are obligated to eat and sleep separately (Baral et al,. 2007). This is a common case in countries such as India where little factual knowledge exists about the causes and treatments of TB and access to the necessary healthcare is diminutive (Weiss and Ramakrishna, 2006). As well as many rural communities where knowledge is passed through previous generations; stigmatism and isolation related to TB is substantial- representing the social cultural beliefs of the community.

It is important to recognise that the stigma and its associated discrimination have a significant impact on disease control (Macq, Solis and Martinez, 2006). Concern about being identified as someone with TB can potentially put off people who suspect they have TB to get proper diagnosis and treatment. These delays in diagnosis and treatment mean that people remain infectious longer thus are more likely to transmit the disease to others (Mohamed at al,. 2011). In a study conducted by Balasubramanian, Oommen and Samuel (2000) in Kerala, India stated that stigma and fears about being identified with TB were responsible for 28% of patients and this was a significantly greater problem for women (50%) than men (21%). This illustrates those socio- cultural values, for example the gender inequality highly present in Indian societies has a crucial impact on the social construction of TB. Also, in another study of social stigma related to TB conducted in Maharashtra, India, showed that stigma and discrimination of the disease resulted in late diagnosis and treatment. Moranker et al,. (2000) found that 38 out of 80 patients they studies (40 women and 40 men) reported to actively attempting to hide their disease from the community. “Social vulnerability contributed to women’s reticence to disclose TB, and such women were typically widows or married and living with joint families (Weiss, Ramakrishna and Somma, 2006: 281). This demonstrates the extent to which negative socio-cultural beliefs and values about TB can help to construct the disease- in terms of diagnosis, treatment and contagion.

Emile Durkheim’s (1915) work can help to better understand the argument that social constructions of TB reflect wider socio-cultural values. One of Durkheim’s core arguments was his claim that ‘the ideas of time, space, class, cause and personality are constructed out of social elements’. This allows us to examine the human body not only as a reflection of social elements but it draws attention to changes over time. Durkheim’s idea that space and classification are socially constructed stems from the collective experience of the social group. According to Durkheim the fundamental social division is dualistic in that one is between the social group and the other not the social group; which he applied to religion resulted in the ‘sacred’ and the ‘profane’. This central framework can then be used to various ways of viewing the world. Simply put as one geographic space could be labelled as ‘A’ and another as ‘not A’. Social anthropologist Mary Douglas (1966) extended this Durkheimian vision and discerned that:

“far from a chasm separating the sacred and profane, as Durkheim had argued, there was a potential space which existed outside the classification system: this ‘unclassified’ space polluted the purity of classification and was therefore seen as potentially dangerousaˆ¦Douglas’s analysis of purity and danger can equally be applied to the rules underpinning public health which are concerned with maintaining hygiene. The basic rule of hygiene is that some things are clean and others are dirty and therefore dangerous. Danger arises primarily from objects existing outside the classification system and therefore by determining what is dangerous and where it comes from it is possible to reconstruct the contemporary classification system” (Armstrong, 2012: 16-17).

This illustrates the essay’s central argument that social constructions of TB reflect wider socio- cultural values- meaning that till present day in many parts of the world TB is still perceived as an unknown variable and thus outside of society’s normal classification system therefore is commonly professed synonymously with connotations of ‘danger’ and ‘dirt’. These results in significant stigmatism, isolation and discrimination associated with individuals with TB (Heijnders and Van Der Meij, 2006). Furthermore, this highlights the fluid nature of social constructions of TB- meaning that since societies change over time so do their values and beliefs resulting in changes in the ways in which disease are socially constructed. Therefore, in order to fully understand how social constructions of TB reflect wider socio-cultural values, the historical context in which these factors are based and the dominant discourses must be considered.

For example, in the mid nineteenth century public health, mainly relied on quarantine as a preventative method, slowly began to classify new sources of ‘danger’ in objects and processes such as “faeces, urine, contaminated food, smelly air, masturbation, dental sepsis, etc.” The prevailing public health strategy at the time of ‘Sanitary Science’; which monitored objects entering the body (air, food, water) or leaving it (faeces, urine, etc.). Whereas, in the twentieth century new sources of ‘danger’ emerged including venereal disease and TB .Thus, a new public health regime of Interpersonal Hygiene developed. “Interpersonal Hygiene identified the new dangers not as emerging from nature and threatening body boundaries but as arising from other human bodies. TB, which had been a disease of insanitary conditions in the nineteenth century, became a disease of human contact, of coughing and sneezing” (Armstrong, 2012: 18). This further demonstrates the changing and interlinking relationship between socio-cultural values and social constructions of TB.

In conclusion, this essay has attempted to explore the various ways in which social constructions of TB reflects wider socio-cultural values in contemporary global society, by briefly examining the history of the disease and its prevalence in present time. As well as exploring the relationship between TB and poverty- statistically it can be observed that individuals with TB often belong to marginalised social groups and economically impoverished groups. Also, global disparities of TB prevalence was noted demonstrating that since each society is different and has varying socio-cultural beliefs and in lieu of the social constructionist theory this essay has adopted it could be argued that each society has its own particular social construction of TB influenced by its unique socio-cultural beliefs. This may be problematic given that if social constructions of TB are diverse but TB is perceived as a global health problem thus requiring global action then the nuances between the diverse social constructions of TB will be overlooked thereby arguably hindering the possibility of improving TB diagnosis and treatment. This also points to the need for not only considering the medical sphere of TB but also if we argue that TB is socially constructed then it is important to recognise the need for including the social aspects to health policies.

Furthermore, this essay examined the link between TB and stigmatism, isolation and discrimination through time and present day. Establishing that there are two main types of stigma associated with people with TB; self-stigmatism and societal stigmatism. Both are results of the negative connotations TB has held throughout time. Also, I briefly examined the role media representations play on the social construction of TB- particularly newspapers where the reader is viewed as an active agent. Finally, I utilised Emile Durkheim’s work to better understand and link the arguments presented in the essay. Durkheim states that ideas of time, space, class, personality are all produced with social elements. This highlights the argument that not only does the social construction of TB reflect wider socio-cultural values but that these values change over time thus the social construction of TB also correspondingly changes.

Word Count: 2997

The essay focuses on the social construction of crime, and the possible reasons for these social constructions. In the first section, the essay explains what crime is, and the constructionist perspective theory. In the Second section my essay focuses on the crime as socially constructed and why it is socially constructed. In the third section essay explains, three levels of explanation in the study of deviant and criminal behaviour. In the final section, it focuses on the historical theoretical periods, which plays an important role in revitalising past discoveries.

Crime is a term that refers to many types of misconduct that is forbidden by law. There are a number of different reasons as to why crime can be viewed as a social construction. There cannot be ‘social problems’ that are not the product of social construction – naming, labelling, defining and mapping them into place – through which we can ‘make sense’ of them’ (Clarke, 2001). In this essay I will explain what is social construction, also what crime is, and why we think, that crime is socially constructed. Furthermore, I will explain how media construct crime and the stigma of black crime. In the last paragraph I will explore the importance of Marxist and Durkheim’s theories on the emergence of crime.

There is no doubt that crime is socially constructed. The constructionist perspective draws on a very different sociological inheritance, one that treats society as a matrix of meaning. It accords a central role to the processes of constructing, producing and circulating meanings. Within this perspective, we cannot grasp reality in a direct and unmediated way Reality is always mediated by meaning (John Clarke p.6). Indeed, some of its proponents argue that what we experience is ‘the social construction of reality’ (Berger, 1967). How something or someone is named, identified and placed within a map of the social orders has profound consequences for how we act towards it or them (Becker, 1963).

Public concern over crime relates mainly to theft and violence, which are regarded as being serious enough to warrant sustained attention from the police. This concern, reflected in periodic moral panics, tends to ensure that many of those who are involved in theft and criminal violence do so as a form of secondary deviation. As a result, many of them develop a criminal identity (Becker, H. S, 1963).

The national British crime survey (BCS) reports showed that the risk of being victims of crime is shaped by locality, lifestyle, age, gender and ethnicity. BCS confirm that the risk of being a victim of contact crime are highest for men those aged under 30, those living in intercity areas and those living in privately rented accommodation. Noon the less according to the BCS it is frequently those who are least at risk of crime who are most anxious about it, notably older people and women(May et al,2009).

The very good example of how crime can be socially constructed is ‘Black Crime’ (McLaughlin, 264). During the early 1970s indicated, that the media has continued to project an image of Britain as a white society (Hartman 1974). Crime and criminality came to be the central motif that constructed black people as a problem presence, and also signifying that they were not really British (McLaughlin, 264). Gilroy (1987) has added to this by analysing discourses on race, crime and nations. Perceptions of the ‘weakness’ of black culture and family life, sometimes explained by absence of a father or authority figure, or more crudely, by a lack of respect for the Law and British tradition of civility, served to define black people as ‘lesser breeds without the Law , as ‘the others’ who stands outside what is meant to be British(Gilroy, 1987). However the significance of the prolonged campaign that led to the inquiry into the murder of Stephen Lawrence cannot be overstated. Dominant representations of black people as a ‘problem’ for white British society have been successfully challenged (Murji, 274).

The media is the most powerful organisation which does a big impact on social construction of the crime. The importance of the news media in framing the public understanding of social problems is widely recognized (McLaughlin, 263). Research in many countries confirms that crime reports are among the most headlines catching of news commodities. It is also suggested that there is broad correspondence between the images of criminality articulated in the news media and the interpretation for this (Murji, 264). Such as media presentation of the information reinforces social construction of the crime (McLaughlin et al, 264).

There are three levels of explanation in the study of deviant and criminal behaviour. A first level of explanation is concerned with the existence of the many different forms of human behaviour that occur in any society (Becker, 1963). Biology may contribute towards an explanation of this diversity, but it can never provide the whole explanation. It is always necessary to take account of processes of socialization (Becker, 1963). Biological theory of crime, arguing that any association between physical characteristics and their behaviour can be explained(Young 1999). According to Young, lower working class children who are more likely to be involved, in the crime, are also by virtue of diet, continual manual labour, physical fitness and strength, more likely to be mesomorphic (Young 1999, 387).Young claims that males chromosome could lead to behaviour that to others it would look odd, and this differences may exclude them from normal social life, which in turn may lead them to crime. However according to Kelly, behaviour attributed to biological causes may not necessary lead to crime. The biochemistry of the body may affect behaviour as he points out for example A Diabetic person, without recent insulin injection may become tense, short tempered, but his behaviour does not constitute a criminal act( Haralambos 1999). A second level of explanation is concerned with the variation in norms between social groups, as manifested particularly in cultural and subculture differences (Becker, 1963). Lea and Young stress out that crime is only one aspect, though generally a small one, of the process of cultural adaptation to oppression. Unlike Gilroy, they see West Indian crime as a response to condition in Britain rather than as a continuation of traditions from the West Indies (Lea el at.1999, 428). Socialization takes place within particular social groups, and it is the norms of these groups that provide the standards for the identification of particular kinds of behaviour as criminal (Becker, 1963). The third, and final, level of explanation is concerned with the ways in which particular individuals are identified as criminals by others and so come to develop a criminal identity. This is a matter of social reaction and control (Becker, H,1963).

In addition to understand social construction of crime, it is very important to look back at historical theoretical periods, which plays an important roles in revitalising past discoveries, putting new stress on the interpretation of events and relating these to current happenings(Jock Young, 307).

First of all I would like to look at Marxist theory, where he sees crime being endemic in the social order. According to Marxism, men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please: they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directed encountered, given and transmitted from the past (Marx, 1969,p.360). Marxist frameworks have developed a Marxist theory of crime. From Marx perspectives crime is seen largely as the product of capitalism, with criminal and antisocial behaviour indicative of the contradictions and problems inherent in the capitalist system (Marsh, 1997, 519). The basic motivation of capitalism, such as emphasis on materialism and self- enrichment, encourage self-interested, anti-social and, by implication, criminal behaviour (Marsh, 1997, 519). Marxist s argues that business crime is largely ignored by the legal system. There are some well publicized exceptions, but these tend just to reinforce the impression that criminals are mainly from the working classes and that business criminals are not ‘real’ criminals – they are just doing what everyone else does (Marsh,1997,519). Marxist arguments suggest that capitalism produces the conditions that generate criminal behaviour. According to him, crime occurs because of economic deprivation and because of the contradictions that are apparent in capitalist society. Working-class crime is a rebellion against inequality and against the system that uses the legal process- including the Law, the police, courts and prison as weapons in a class war(Marsh, 1997, 522).

According to Durkheim’s crime theory, he points out two arguments on crime growth. The first argument is, that modern industrial urban societies encourage a state of ‘egoism’ which is contrary to the maintenance of social solidarity and to conformity to Law , and second is, that in periods of rapid social change ‘anomies’ occurs. By this he meant an ‘anomic’ disordered society lacking effective forms of social control, and thereby leading to a state of individually perceived formlessness (Frank Heathcote, 347). Durkheim argument’s that crime is inevitable and functional does not explain the causes of crime or why certain people are more likely to engage in, criminal activities than others (Frank Heathcote, 348). Regarding to Durkheim, crime is present in all types of socially, and that crime is higher in more industrialised countries ( Haralambos 1999,389). Durkheim explains why he sees crime inevitable, he explains that it is inevitable because not every member of society can be equally committed to the collective sentiments, and that it is impossible for all to be alike (Holborn 1999.389). He also explains crime as being functional, and that its function not to remove crime in society, but to maintain the collective sentiments at their necessary level of strength. Durkheim believed that without punishment the collective sentiments would lose their force to control behaviour and crime rate would become dysfunctional. Durkheim view that healthy society requires both crime and punishment ( Haralambos. 1999, 390). More recently functionalist theories, based on the notion of there being a general consensus of values and norms, have focused on causes of criminal behaviour.

Functionalist theories of crime tend to assume that there is general consensus within society over what is right and wrong behaviour. The interactionist approach questions this assumption; it does not see criminals as essentially different from so called ‘normal’ people. Many people commit criminal action and it is therefore not easy to maintain a clear distinction between the criminal in terms of particular personal characteristics (Marsh, 1997, 517).

To summary, in my essay firstly I discussed that, crime has been seen as a response to the frustration felt by those who cannot achieve the norms or goals of society. Secondly, how dominant representations of black people as problems for white people society have been successfully challenged. Thirdly, that the media is the most powerful organisation which does a big impact on social construction of the crime, and finally I argued two most important theories, which are still in use.

References:

Becker. H. S. (1963), Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance (New York: Free Press).

Fitzgerald. M. el at (1990). Social Disorganisation theories. Heathcote F (1990). Crime and Society. London: The Open University Press.

Haralambos, M. el at (1999). Themes and Perspectives. Fourth Edition. London: Harper Collins.

May. M. el at (2009). Crime Disorders and Community Safety. Dee Cook. (2009) Understanding Social Problems, Australia: Blackwell.

Marsh. I. el at (2009). Making Sense of Society. Fourth Edition. London: Longman.

The social construction of Health and Illness

Abstract

In what ways can it be claimed that health and illness are socially constructed? Refer to sociological theory in your response, and give examples from everyday life.

This assignment reviews the theory of social constructivism and its significance to Today’s social construction of Health and Illness , and how health and Illness are perceived and interpreted by society . This paper will explore different aspects to the social constructionist debate, on the two of the most important aspect such as “problematisation” , but mostly focusing on “medicalisation”. It will explore the macro-social factors, cultural aspects,the socio-economic conditions that could possibly be some of the fundamental aspects of the construction of both Health and Illness.It will also focus on analyzing the terminology and the etymology of the words and how it changed its meaning historically.

The social construction of Health and Illness

Introduction

A social vision of medicine seems to move attention to the promotion and information of health, on the social, cultural, political and economic health in terms of factors and variables in relation to each other without forgetting that the center is the individual. It is in this perspective that relational sociology intends to look at health in a post-modern reality in where the values appear to move continuously toward individualism systemic, a need for efficiency, a multiplication of the roles of the social actor.

Social Constructivism

I would like to start this assignment with an example of what social construction of health is. From the Iconic contents of the Iliad and the Odyssey, we can understand the significant knowledge of the Epoch on the ancient pathologies. Omer describes the fractures of the Femur, with very medicalised terms very accurate detail but most importantly he uses a very significant metaphor to describe the state of health as the joy and strive of Ulysses as soon as he spot a land like the recovery from an Illness.

Ulysses is a mature man , a man that suffered a lot but most significantly a man that depended on travelling , we can relate to Ulysses in our Modern and contemporary lives.

Ulysses comes back to not go back , so he doesn’t get recognized and not to recognize. The Return of Ulysses is the Journey , not his landing, like this the individual looks and strives for health as a definitive experience inasmuch as health doesn’t seem to be an ideal state but rather a construction, of a reality .

“The sociology of knowledge must concern itself with whatever passes for “knowledgeaˆY in a society, regardless of the ultimate validity or invalidity (by whatever criteria) of such “knowledge”. (Berger, P. L. and T. Luckmann ,1971.pp. 15), “To understand the state of the socially constructed universe at any given time, or its change over time, one must understand the social organization that permits the definers to do their defining. Put a little crudely, it is essential to keep pushing questions about the historically available conceptualizations of reality from the abstract “What?aˆY to the socially concrete “Says who?aˆY (Berger, P. L. and T. Luckmann ,1966),

The social constructionist debate is one of the most important in social science analyses of health and illness. It is part of a critical approach to biomedicine and biomedical knowledge that emerged in the 1970s. Many of the assumptions and values of the medical profession and biomedicine were challenged and criticised for being consistent with the patriarchal and capitalist structures of the society in which they were located.

From this emerged an anti-psychiatry movement which argued that much of what was labelled a mental illness was simply a social construction created by psychiatrists who acted as powerful agents of social control.

Diagnosing someone as schizophrenic for example, enabled psychiatrists to declare that person unfit to participate fully in social life. Diagnostic categories were called into question and the application of medical knowledge was seen as being political and not just a technically neutral act.

These ideas in the social constructionist debate have been applied to question the assumptions on which biomedicine’s autonomous and extremely powerful position in society is based.

There are several different aspects to the social constructionist debate, two of the most important are “problematisation” and “medicalisation”.

This approach states that diseases are not simply real but are products of social reasoning and social practices. Calling a set of symptoms “bronchitis” does not mean that a discrete disease exits as an entity independent of social context.

That is how medical science at a given place and time with the aid of laboratory tests and theories has come to define it. Someone with bronchitis will experience pain and suffering but the interpretation of it will vary between time and place.

In this sense then the idea of medical discoveries is misleading. There are no fixed realities of the human body waiting to be discovered. There are fabrications or inventions by biomedicine which implies that the disease was established through certain investigations which confirmed its reality.

It is indirectly related to social constructionism – it does not question the basis of medical knowledge as such but challenges its application. It draws attention to the fact that medicine operates as a powerful institution of social control. It does this by claiming expertise about matters of life which had previously not been regarded as medical matters e.g. ageing, childbirth, alcohol consumption and childhood behaviour.

Social construction of Health and Illness

Health does not qualify as a given, but a map and a construct generated by coordinating various points of view. As disease, health is a model, socially constructed, to interpret reality. So health, can be configured as an event, that the individual can use to interpret the world and relationships with the society in which he lives: a repertoire of signs that the social actor can use to interpret the social order.

So the disenchantment of the world, a result of erosion of traditional paradigms, leaves the individual alone, only to represent themselves in different roles in which he is called by many of the company.

The definition of health and the promotion of health itself exceeds the model, so to speak, ideal health, what which is constituted as the absence of disease: health becomes a condition which has an almost unconscious, seems coincide with the flow of life.

The disease, as agent that interferes with this flow, it seems revealing it as a lost condition. This model of the relationship between health and disease seems be that prevailing paradigms in medical and health facilities.

The logic seems to characterize the medical paradigms seems develop according to a complex system of different modes:

The first mode is the linear one in which a given injury causes a disease condition and treatment become a system in place to repair the damage had.
The second way is the individualistic : health and disease are determined by absence / presence of resources in the individual and care form interventions directed exclusively to the individual.
The Last is the a-historical: it ignores the interaction of the individual with his environment, its culture, its history, its social condition.

In this direction, macro-social factors, cultural differences, events external and extreme, the socio-economic conditions, the lack of a adequate social support, the relational environment against, are all, factors totally or relatively independent of the characteristics biological or psychological of an individual. (Canguilhem, 1988; Stern, 1927; White, 1991a; Zinsser, 1935).

The micro-social contexts and macro-social have a crucial role in the onset and evolution health status of individuals.

The networks of relationships can foster the creation of informal mechanisms of protection against disease and old age or, through the stimulation of collective action, can improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the provision of certain services by the public sector.

Kleinman (1980) has proposed a distinction between etymologies: disease, which refers to abnormalities in the structure or operation of organs and systems, and that is the domain of the biomedical model; illness, which is refers to the individual perception of a state that has a negative connotation and that includes, but is not limited to disease; sickness, indicating the events that can become disease or illness.

The term illness should refer to the direct experience of sick, the experience of the disease, while the disease is indicated conceptualization of the disease by the physician. Therefore, there is a difference between being sick and having a disease, a difference that in the German language is perceived as Erkrankung and Krankheit, needed to introduce a further term, sickness, indicating the perception of the disease by part of the social non-medical.

Precisely in this perspective Young (2004 ,p.26), exploring the social construction of the disease, proposed the further specification by the term sickness, which does not seem to be simply an ambiguous term that defines the was among the biological damage and the subjective perception of the damage.

The disease-sickness is to be understood as in fact the process through which, in conduct of concern and biological symptoms, is given a meaning socially recognizable and, therefore, acceptable.

Every culture has, according to Young (2004), the rules for “transforming” signs of the body in the symptoms, to connect the symptoms in a model etiological and intervention.

The disease-sickness, then, seems to be a process for socializing disease and disease-illness. The same set of signs, for example, can match, and different types of diagnosis and therapy. Is the causative dominant model in that society that “decides” what kind of disease the individual has and what will be the appropriate therapy.

The disease-sickness, also determines the size of individual of the disease. But it is society that determines which symptoms pay attention, when it is legitimate to feel bad and when it is not.

The role of Medicalisation

Medicine constructs or redefines aspects of ‘normal’ or accepted everyday life as medical problems. Professionals tend to offer technological or biomedical solutions to what are inherently ‘normal’ aspects of everyday life or social problems. Medicine has become a major institution of social control and this has been related to an increasing complex and bureaucratic system which encourages a greater reliance on experts.

High-tech modern medicine has become increasingly dangerous to the population’s health by:

reducing their autonomy and their ability to cope with their problems;
making them dependent on the medical profession;
damaging their health by the side effects of drugs and surgical interventions;

The medical system operates in close relationship with the manufacturers of pharmaceuticals and medical equipment, and this relationship is not necessarily in the patient’s interest. (Illich, I. 1977)

Inherent in the medicalization thesis are Marxist and Phenomological approaches to health and illness. This thesis considers definitions of illness to be products of social interactions or negotiations which are unequal because people do not have equal influence on the social construction of reality. Medical professionals are more able to define what counts as sickness than ordinary people. Medical professionals, therefore, have great scope for social regulation because if matters have to be defined as medical concerns, then health professionals have the authority to monitor, intervene and pass judgements upon them.

A common construction of the cause of disease portrayed in our culture , especially the idea that lifestyles are freely chosen , individualizes and obscures the way in which disease is socially produced.

The conceptualization of medicine as the application of ‘objective’,‘scientific’ knowledge to a purely biological body, obscures how diseases are produced in structures of inequality that are social that are mainly based on class, gender, or ethnicity.

At the centre of all sociological accounts of medicine is the argument that medical knowledge performs social functions independently of whether it cures and heals. Medical knowledge and practices are social accomplishments, and not the inevitable outcome of science or nature.

Conclusion

The sociological perspective on medicine seems focus its attention to the information and promotion of health, on the cultural, social, economic and political health in terms of factors and variables in relation to each other without excluding that the center is the individual. It is in this perspective that relational sociology intends to look at health in a post-modern reality in where the values appear to move continuously toward individualism systemic. The micro-social contexts and macro-social have a crucial role in the onset and evolution health status of individuals.

References

Albrecht, Gary L., Fitzpatrick, Ray and Scrimshaw,Susan C. (eds) (2000) Handbook of Social Studies in Health and Medicine. London: Sage

Berger, P. L. and T. Luckmann (1966),The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge, Garden City, NY: Anchor

Conrad, P. (ed.) (2001) The Sociology of Health and Illness: Critical Perspectives. New York:

Conrad, P. and Barker, K. (2010) ‘The social Construction of Illness: Key insights and policy implications’ Journal of Health and Social Behaviour 51(S) 67-79

Dausset J., La medicine predictive et son ethique, in Pathologie et Biologie, 1997, pp. 199-204.

Freund, P. and McGuire, M. (1999) Health, Illness and the Social Body. Engelwood Cliffs,NJ: Prentice Hall.

Illich, I. (1977). Limits to medicine: Medical nemesis: the Exploration of health. NY: Penguin

Young,J.T. (2004) ,”Illness Behaviour : A Selective Review and Synthesis”, Sociology of Health and Illness,26,1:1-31

White, Kevin (2002).White, Kevin (2002). An introduction to the sociology of health and illness. SAGE. p. 42. SAGE. p.42.

1

“Inequality is a feature of my country, (the UK), however, it is of little social consequence”. Discuss.
Introduction

Inequality in society means that some people are at a disadvantage compared to others. In the UK inequalities are featured in a number of different contexts. Women for example are socially disadvantaged in comparison to men and ethnic minorities are often disadvantaged in comparison to the dominant white community because they may not have the same opportunities. There are also class inequalities in Britain where those from a working class background are often disadvantaged compared to people from a middle-class background (Giddens, 2001). This assignment will discuss the statement that inequality is a feature of the UK and assess the view that it is of little social consequence, this will be done with reference to class and gender inequalities in health.

Class Inequalities

Those who belong to the higher capitalist classes and to the middle classes tend to be better educated than people from a working class background. This often means that the higher classes have greater material resources than those from a lower class. Having more money means that people also have greater access to other resources. They tend to fare better when it comes to education and to health because they live in better areas which tend to have less crowded and better performing schools (Giddens, 2001). The working classes tend to have more stressful, or more physically demanding jobs that pay less money than, for example, teaching or being the manager of a successful business. This means that they often cannot afford the same kind of diet as those who earn more money and live in a better area. This puts them at a disadvantage in terms of how healthy they are and how long they might expect to live (Walsh et al, 2000). Such inequalities do not simply occur as a result of class inequalities but in areas where people do not have the same equality of opportunity. Since the late nineteen sixties feminists such as Walby (1990) have pointed to the fact that in a capitalist society women do not have the same access to material or other social resources and that this is due to the gender inequalities which exist in a patriarchal society.

Gender Inequalities

Britain is a patriarchal society. In patriarchal societies women are seen as the subordinate sex. Patriarchy is bound up with traditional notions of the family where the father was seen as the head of the family unit. This, feminists say, can be seen in all the structures of patriarchal societies where laws and social structures operate in such a way as to benefit men at the expense of women (Walby, 1990). Since the nineteenth century the traditional family has been one where the man goes to work and the woman stays at home and looks after the house and any children in the family. Walby (1990) argues that this arrangement made women invisible and their labour in the home, which allowed men to have a public life, has not been taken into account. With the rise of feminism and the struggle for equal opportunities for women the situation has changed somewhat and many women now work outside the home. Work does not readjust the gender imbalances that exist in British society because in most jobs women still earn less than men.

Walby (1990) has argued that gender is a primary category when it comes to inequaltity and the oppression of women. State policies may no longer aim to keep women in the home but have done little to alleviate the inequalities between women and men in the public sphere. Certain occupations such as teaching, nursing, shop or clerical work are still regarded as women’s work. Although women may now be involved in the public sphere and can be found in the labour market in increasing numbers, Walby states that they still remain segregated from wealth, power and status.

Doyal (1995) has said that research shows that while paid work brings benefits to a family it can also bring extra stresses and responsibilities. These may then affect women’s health. The increasing number of roles that women are called upon to play in contemporary society affects their emotional, mental and physical well being.

Class, Gender, and Health

For some time there has been concern over the fact that there appear to be inequalities in health provision and the ways in which this impacts on people’s lives. As a result of this sociologists look the body, or aspects of the body and the ways in which factors such as class, race and gender affect a person’s experience of health (Giddens, 2001).The Acheson Report (1998) pointed out that health inequalities are complex, certainly more than people had previously believed. Material deprivation alone is not the cause of inequalities in health, rather there are wider cultural and economic factors which interact with personal choices based on psychological and biological influences. Acheson recommended that a wider range of intervention and policy initiatives would be needed to address health inequalities. Many commentators believe that class inequalities in health have worsened over the last twenty five years with the introduction of market forces into healthcare i.e. operating the health system as though it were a business (Giddens, 2001). This particularly affects those people at the lower end of the class scale because facilities in poorer areas are often over stretched and therefore people may have to wait longer for the care they need.

Women in Britain tend to use the health services a lot more than their male counterparts. This is explained in terms of women generally living longer than men, having more chronic illnesses and generally being the main care giver and child rearer in the family (Provincial Health Officer’s Report, 1995). Feminists such as Abbott and Wallace (1997) point out that what is often missed is that women will also visit the doctor on behalf of another family member. Feminists also point out that because there is no specific health care policy for women the processes of menstruation, childbirth and the menopause are over medicalised.

Are These Inequalities of Social Consequence?

Clearly there are class and gender inequalities which are endemic to society in the United Kingdom and this results in inequalities in other areas of social life such as health. It might be argued that these inequalities do have social consequences. Class inequalities in health for example can result in working class members of society suffering from greater ill health and dying prematurely. The results of this could mean a shortage of workers in jobs that are not usually held by people from other classes it could also mean that the working class are more of a burden on the health system than their middle class counterparts. These things could have much wider social consequences, a shortage of services, in the construction industry for example, and a shortage of hospital beds in some areas. Similarly gender inequalities could also have wider social consequences. If women do not have sufficient access to health services then they may not be healthy enough to take care of other members of the family.

Conclusion

Clearly there are inequalities in this country and it would certainly appear that these inequalities may not seem to be of great social consequence but if they are left to carry on unaddressed could have wider ramifications. The introduction of the Community Care Act in 1990 for example relies on family members to take care of those people who may not be able to look after themselves as a result of mental health problems, or simply due to age. Members of the upper and middle classes may well have the resources to pay for care but working class people do not. If health inequalities are not addressed then there may be no-one who is fit enough to look after those people who are unable to look after themselves. This could have serious consequences for the health system, the benefits system, and Government policy making in general.

1250 words

Bibliography

Abbott and Wallace, 1997 An Introduction to Sociology: Feminist Perspectives. London, Routledge

Acheson, D. 1998. Independent Inquiry into Inequalities in Health Report London, HMSO

Doyal, L. 1995 What Makes Women Sick London, Macmillan

Giddens, A. 2001 4^th ed. Sociology, Cambridge, Polity Press

www.polity.co.uk/giddens

Pollert, A. 1996. “Gender and class revisited or the poverty of patriarchy” Sociology vol. 30 no. 4

Provincial Health Of. cer’s Annual Report (1995). Report on the Health of British Columbia.

BC Ministry of Health and Ministry Responsible for Seniors.

Townsend, P. Davidson, N. and Whitehead, M. (eds) 1988. Inequalities in Health, the Black Report and the Health Divide Harmondsworth, Penguin

Turner, B. 1987.Medical Power and Social Knowledge. London, Sage.

Walby,S. 1990. Theorising Patriarchy. Blackwell, Oxford.

Walsh, M. Stephens, P. and Moore, S. 2000 Social Policy and Welfare. Cheltenham,

The theory asserts that conflict in the families is a very normal occurrence .Conflict theories view family as a class in society, which one of the group is oppressing others. Debatably, a family is not just a social entity of children and married couples. It is a social group in which its members are linked to each other through marriage, ancestry, living together and adoption .In addition they care for each other and share economically. Family is just but a section of society. Conflict theories have variety of roots from systematic approach of society by Marxist and intra-psychic approach of individuals by frauds. Functionalists analyzed family as a miniature society in which each member of the family performs different essential activities that will lead to survival and continuity of the family.

Social conflict theories are based on a family as a difficult system characterized by conflict and inequality that causes social change. Conflict theory focuses the way in which members of the family struggle for different aspects of life. This include struggle for resources and power. As the family grows individuals within the social unit compete for wealth and prestige hence it leads to creation of conflict. It is not always true that families live harmoniously. Conflict theory is there to challenge on such stereotype beliefs. In the contemporary society then economy has inflated hence there is need to struggle in order to survive. According to Marxist groups and individuals in society have different non-material and material resources. The more powerful individuals use their powers to exploit and oppress those with no power.

The conflict theory views the family as a societal init that is in a continuous clash and a state of disharmony. The dynamics in the world have led to changes in roles played by each member of the family. The theory identifies and elaborates on the dynamism of roles and the genesis of conflicts in the family. Furthermore it uncovers on ways in which the members of the family deals with conflicts, adversity and changes. In families their exist diversity of powers. For example in most communities it is believed that the father is the head of the family. When families have been separated it is important to create a good relationship. It is within the family setup that its members understand and become more emphatic to the causes of conflict.

It is so difficult for individuals to interact without conflict, growth of all the family members of the family occurs through conflict. The conflicts and changes that occur in human life are important indicators of normal development and growth of family members. The important aspect of conflict is how to manage it. Family members should learn how to manage conflicts so that it does not lead to alienated relationship.

The theory pus lots of emphasizes on establishing the causes and solutions of conflict. Families have disagreements of various things, from the minor ones like what to eat for supper to bigger ones on how to bring up children. Members of the family differ in interests, extent of hostility, nature, personality and how we express and react on conflicts. In a nuclear family for example the mother and father may have conflicting goals such as how to spend the salaries. Due to the development of women rights working women argue that if both members are working they should divide all the activities in the house equal, but men will always belief that the household chores belongs to the women. The family as a unit is made up of individuals with different sex, age personalities and ideologies hence the occurrence of conflict is based on nature. Families too differ in power; some of the sources of power include love, money, physical cruelty and legitimacy. Each member of the family has power; the only difference is its degree and sources. Perhaps, communication is the most important solution to family issued. Members of the family should ensure that they establish a good communication.Furthaermore individuals should be understanding and empathic. The families should be ready to change in order to resolve conflict.

Conflict theories of the family have various assumptions .If families interact there is no way of escaping conflict. As a family there are conflicting interests. In addition the family will feel the social change and growth through conflict. Secondly the theories assume that change and conflict in families are ever-present, foreseeable and normal in e very family relationships. The theory states conflict has been a prevalent; hence the main goal is to manage it so that it does not grow to alarming levels that may cause damage to the family members. Given a chance to develop conflict families will inevitably break and cause unhealthy separation. For example divorce occurs when issues are not solved hence becoming chronic. Families too face scarcity of resources, in most cases conflict occurs because the resources that are available are not enough to meet all the needs of the family members. We could only be free of conflict if each member gets his needs .Individuals within the family have different level of intrinsically uneven elements, hence power is not equally distributed. Individuals who have access to power in the families work towards building himself instead of changing the family as a whole.

The conflict theories are not free from critiques. The theory emphasizes on the negative sides only yet in a family there are good things. For example caring parents and couples who love are not fine. The theory views this as a tool to oppress others in the family. In addition the theory emphasizes on differences within family members as the cause of conflict. Differences are appreciated and accepted because of how we were made. Certainly contemporary families do their things in a secretive manner hence it is hard to measure the level of conflict.

In conclusion family setup is not the avenue on oppression and conflict. Parents work together with their children for their betterment and for the good growth. The parents should socialize with their children and the all family so that each one of them grows to fit the dynamic society. We should learn to accommodated and appreciate our diversity within the family. The family is the primary source of all the traits in the society.

In the last few decades, quality of life has replaced the idea of wealth as the dominant goal of societal development. In opposition to the individual-centered perspective of societal development, several other welfare concepts emerged which put the focus on the aspects concerning societal qualities such as the extent of equality, security or freedom, or the quality and structure of the social relations within a society. Among those welfare concepts referring to characteristics of societies are, for example, „sustainability“, „social cohesion“, „social inclusion“ etc. Idea of the social cohesion of a society received great political attention at the national and supranational level. In regard to these developments, this paper attempts: first, to clarify the meaning of the concept of social cohesion and to determine its inherent dimensions by reviewing the existing theoretical approaches to this issue; second, to explore relationship between social cohesion and the quality of life.

Quality of life is a concept related to the individual welfare. Although social cohesion represents a societal quality, it affects the individual quality of life because the elements of social cohesion are perceived and experienced by the members of the society. Thus, the social cohesion of a society can be conceived as an aspect relevant to the individual life situation, and in this sence, it represents a part of the individual quality of life. Under this perspective a broad conceptualization of quality of life seems appropriate. Quality of life can be considered as the complex policy goal which includes social cohesion as one component. The very broad and multidimensional notion of quality of life enlarged the perspective of societal development by considering not only economic aspects but also social and ecological concerns. Several welfare concepts emerged which put the focus on aspects concerning societal qualities such as the extent of equality, security or freedom, or the quality and structure of the social relations within a society. One of these welfare concept is social cohesion.

The goal of this paper is: first, to clarify the meaning of the concept of social cohesion and to determine its inherent dimensions by reviewing the existing theoretical approaches to this issue; second, to explore relationship between social cohesion and the quality of life.

1. The concept of social cohesion

The idea of social cohesion is difficult to express in a single definition. Emile Durkheim first coined the concept of social cohesion at the end of the nineteenth century. He considered social cohesion as an ordering feature of a society and defined it as the interdependence between the members of the society, shared loyalties and solidarity [14]. Aspects often mentioned in describing social cohesion are the strenght of social relations, shared values and communities of interpretation, feelings of a common identity and a sense of belonging to the same community, trust among societal members as well as the extent of inequality and disparities [26; 14). The simpler the division of labor in a society is, the stronger the bond between individuals and the social group will be. This bond is a result of mechanical solidarity, which arises from segmented similarities based on territory, traditions and group customs. The social division of labour that modernity brings with it erodes and weakens such bonds, as does the

increased autonomy of individuals in modern society. In such a context, cohesion is part of the social solidarity that is required in order for the members of a society to remain bound to it with a force comparable to that of pre-modern, mechanical solidarity. This requires stronger, more numerous ties, and must even include bonds based on common ideas and feelings, leading to what Durkheim calls “organic solidarity”.

As of today there is no single definition of social cohesion and it is still debated whether social cohesion is a cause or a consequence of other aspects of social, economic and political life. There is no clear definition of the concept – probably because the very tradition of social citizenship that characterizes European societies assumes that social rights entail an intrinsic relationship between social inclusion and the provision of mechanisms to integrate individuals and give them a sense of full membership in society.

According to this view, social cohesion implies a causal link between the mechanisms that provide integration and well-being, on the one hand, and a full individual sense of belonging to society, on the other. Inclusion and belonging, or equality and belonging, are the cornerstones of the idea of social cohesion in societies organized around the principles of the welfare state.

The concept of social cohesion is often confused with other concepts, like social capital, social integration, or social inclusion. Social capital is closely related to social cohesion, and the two are very important concepts in policy and policy research circles. Social capital – understood as a symbolic societal asset consisting of the ability to manage rules, networks and bonds of social trust which strengthen collective action, pave the way for reciprocity and progressively spread throughout society resembles cohesion, and can largely be described as a stock upon which social agents can draw to make society more cohesive. However, social capital is both a consequence and a producer of social cohesion. Whereas social cohesion emphasizes processes and outcomes, social capital emphasizes the notion of investments and assets that bring benefits, benefits that are not fully appropriated by the individuals making the investments.

Social cohesion is often confused with social inclusion. Inclusion mechanisms include employment, educational systems, rights and policies designed to encourage equity, well-being and social protection. In that context, social cohesion may be understood in terms of both the effectiveness of instituted social inclusion mechanisms and the behaviours and value judgments of the members of society. Behaviours and value judgments include issues as diverse as trust in institutions, social capital, belonging and solidarity, acceptance of social rules and the willingness to participate in deliberative processes and collective endeavours.

Another proximate notion is that of social integration, defined as the dynamic, multifactoral process whereby individuals share in a minimum standard of well-being consistent with the level of development achieved by a country. This restrictive definition views integration as the opposite of exclusion. In a broader sense, integration into society has also been defined as a common system of efforts and rewards, which levels the playing field in terms of opportunities and delivers rewards based on merit.

The idea of social inclusion may be viewed as an expanded form of integration. Rather than emphasize a structure to which individuals must adapt in order to fit into the systemic equation, it also focuses on the need to adapt the system in such a way as to accommodate a diversity of actors and individuals. Inclusion requires not only an improvement in conditions of access to integration mechanisms, but also an effort to increase the self-determination of the actors involved.

The idea of a social ethic also includes an essential aspect of social cohesion, emphasizing common values, agreement on a minimum set of rules and social norms, solidarity as an ethical and practical principle, and the assumption of reciprocity.

These concepts are part of the “semantic universe” of social cohesion. Viewed in this light, the specific difference that sets social cohesion apart is the dialectical relationship between integration and inclusion, on the one hand, and social capital and social ethics, on the other. Consequently, there is a distinction between social inclusion and social cohesion, inasmuch as the latter includes the attitudes and behaviours of actors, without being limited to those factors. Social cohesion may thus be defined as the dialectic between instituted social inclusion and exclusion mechanisms and the responses, perceptions and attitudes of citizens towards the way these mechanisms operate.

A definition of social cohesion by relating it to the concepts of social exclusion/exclusion and social capital has also been present. For example Dahrendorf et al. described a social cohesive society as a society preventing social exclusion: „Social cohesion comes in to describe a society which offers opportunities to all its members of a framework of accepted values and institutions. Such a society is, therefore, one of inclusion. People belong; they are not allowed to be excluded“ [4, str.vii]. Other scientist have emphasised that the social capital of a society is an essential foundation of its social cohesion [18; 17].

On the basis of review of the various approaches we could conclude that the concept of social cohesion incorporates mainly two societal goal dimensions which can be analytically distinguished:

1) The first dimension concerns the reduction of disparities, inequalities, and social exclusion.

2) The second dimension concerns the strengthening of social relations, interactions and ties. This dimension embraces all aspects which are generally also considered as the social capital of a society [6].

These two dimensions must be viewed as independent from each other to a certain degree. In principle, strong ties within a community can be accompanied by the tendency to discriminate and exclude those people who do not belong to that community [19]. This problem highlights the importance of considering both dimensions – disparities/inequalities/social exclusion and social relations/ties/social capital – in order to get a comprehensive picture of the social cohesion of a society.

3. Social exclusion

Social exclusion represents concept with increasing popularity among scholars during last decade. The popularity of the concept was especially promoted through the growing interest in matters of social exclusion at the level of the European Union. The European Commission

launched a series of research programmes in the framework of the European Observatory on National Policies to Combat Social Exclusion and of the European Poverty Programmes.

Research on social exclusion replaced, to some extent, older terms of poor living conditions, such as poverty or deprivation. Originally, the term was used in the context of debates on a new poverty and defined as a rupture of the relationship between individual and the society due to the failure of societal institutions to integrate individuals. Today, it is suggested that social exclusion should be conceptualised as the insufficiency of one or more of the following four systems [1, str. 258-259]:

This approach focuses on relational issues, i.e. on the disruption of social ties between individual and the society. Unlike social cohesion, poverty is concerned with distributional issues, i.e. on the lack of resources at the disposal of individuals or househods [23; 12]. Thus poverty may be regarded as characteristic of indiviudals and households, whereas social exclusion may be conceived as a feature of societies and of the individuals’ relations to society.

In contrast to this position are considerations that social exclusion can be regarded both as a property of societies and as an attribute of individuals. As an individual attribute it is defined as a low level of welfare (economic disadvantage) and the inability to participate in social life (sociopolitical disadvantage). This perspective equals social exclusion to a multidimensional notion of poverty which describes a state or an outcome of a process. As a societal characteristc the term social exclusion refers to the impairment of social cohesion caused by the way in which institutions regulate and thereby constrain access to goods, services, acitivities and resources which are generally associated with citizenship rights. This view focuses attention to the processes of social exclusion and its causes which are attributed to the failure of institutions [5].

The conclusion arising out of these considerations is the requirement to differentiate between the causes of disadvantageous living circumstances and the processes leading to them on the one side and the outcomes of those processes themselves, that is peoples’ living situation. The causes may be attributed to societal institutions and can then be described by the concept of social exclusion as a property of societies. The impact of social exclusion on people is observable in the form of poor living conditions. In this sense, social exclusion represents a characteristic of individual and corresponds to the concept of poverty in a multidimensional notion.

4. Social capital

The counceptualization of social cohesion as it is proposed here considers social capital as representing a second main dimension which may be used to describe the social cohesion of a society.

Social capital represents one of the most powerful and popular metaphors in current social science research. Broadly understood as referring to the community relations that affect personal interactions, social capital has been used to explain an immense range of phenomena, ranging from voting patterns to health to the economic success of countries [7]. Literally hundreds of papers have appeared throughout the social science literature arguing that social capital matters in understanding individual and group differences and further that successful public policy design needs to account for the effects of policy on social capital formation. In this paper we will give the primary focus to the role of social capital in stenghtening the social cohesion and further link with the quality of life.

We often observe countries with similar endowments of natural, hysical, and human capital achieving very different levels of economic success. This paradox has led scholars to search for deeper and more meaningful explanations about what holds people and societies together in order to foster economic development. Over time, scholars have constructed various frameworks for understanding the social aspects of this phenomenon and what we currently refer to as “social capital”. Fueled by continuous empirical investigations, these frameworks have evolved quite rapidly in recent decades. Since Loury [16] introduced it into modern social science research and Coleman’s [3] seminal study placed it at the forefront of research in sociology, the term social capital has spread throughout the social sciences and has spawned a huge literature that runs across disciplines. James Coleman popularized the term as he sought to conceptualize the aspects of social structure that facilitate economic transactions. His work is widely recognized as one of the most significant, as is Robert Putnam’s study of voluntary associations in Italy. Putnam [21] concluded that the high density of voluntary associations in the north was responsible for the region’s economic success. Many others have also made significant strides in advancing our knowledge and understanding of the subject. However, despite the immense amount of research on it, however, the definition of social capital has remained elusive.

There are various theoretical approaches and perspectives of social captial which use more or less narrow concept. But they all have in common that they regard social capital as a property of a social entity and not of an individual [10]. It is a relational concept, it presupposes a social relation and exists only as far as it is shared by other individuals. Therefore, it cannot be the private property of a single person, but heas a character of a public good [11; 19]. The social capital of a society includes the institutions, the relationships, the attitudes and values that govern interactions among people and contribute to economic and social development. Social capital, however, is not simply the sum of the institutions which underpin society, it is also the glue that holds them together. It includes the shared values and rules for social conduct expressed in personal relationships, trust and a common sense of civic responsibility, that makes society more than a collection of individuals. Without a degree of common identification with forms of governance, cultural norms and social rules, it is difficult to imagine a functioning society [25, str.1].

Social capital is not only considered to be an essential basis for the social cohesion of a society, but at the same time as a main component of the wealth of a nation and as an important determinant of economic growth, besides physical, human and environmental capital [13]. The view is empirically supported by results showing a relation between the social capital of a society and its economic well-being [21; 15; 24]. Furthermore, there are also investigations pointing to the improvement of other dimensions of welfare such as education, health, rates of crime, and the environment [3; 20].

5. The interdependence of social cohesion and the quality of life The concepts of social cohesion and quality of life are interrelated [8; 9]. Althought social cohesion represents an attribute of a society, it ultimately rests on the behaviour, attitudes and evaluations of its members, too. Social cohesion is based on social capital which is also created by social relations and ties established, maintained and experienced by individuals. Thus, looking at the social cohesion of a society involves aspects which are part of the individual life situation and in this sense components of the individual quality of life. Secondly, elements of the social cohesion of a society may have direct impact on individual quality of life. Empirical examples are the above cited results on the influence of social capital on economic and other dimensions of welfare. At a conceptual level, the perspective of social exclusion as a process rooting in the malfunction of social institutitons and resulting in a deprived living situation of the individual is another example.

Social cohesion can be conceived as a societal quality which is experienced by individuals in their daily lives, for example in the form of the perceived inequality or the social climate at the working place, at school or in the neighbourhood, and thus also refers to the individual quality of life. This perspective conciders elements of the social cohesion of a society to form an integral part of the quality of life of the individuals belonging to that society. Such a position, which is supported here, advocates a broad conceptualisation of quality of life encompassing not only individual characteristics of the life situation but also societal qualities. In this sense, quality of life represents the common policy goal with social cohesion as an important component to be addressed.

6. The measurement of social cohesion On the basis of the conclusion about two dimensions of social cohesion, measurement of social cohesion should include measures concerning:

Concerning the first dimension – measurement dimensions for the various aspects can be derived for nearly all domains. Regional disparities are taken into account for example with respect to access to transport, leisure and cultural facilitites, educational and health care institutions, employment opportunities or the state of the environment. Issues of equal opportunities/inequalities could be considered therough political participation and employment opportunities, generation of inequalities in social relations or unemployment risks; inequalities between disabled and non-disabled people in access to public transport or educational institutions; etc. The aspect of social exclusion can be operationalised in many domains, too. Manifestatios of social exclusion are ususally measured such as homelessness, social isolation, long-term unemployment, poverty or a lack of social protection.

Concerning second goal dimension of social cohesion and that is strenghtening the social capital of a society, most of the aspects of this dimension refer to the life domain of „social and political participation and integration“. This domain covers all general issues of social relations and engagement outside the own household community such as the availability of relatives and friends, frequency of contacts and support within those personal networks, membership in organisations, engagement in the public realm such as volunteering and political activities. The quality of societal institutions is a component of social capital which applies to several life domains since, for example, institutions of education, health care, social security or the legal system.

7. Possible contemporary threats to social cohesion There are numerous possible demographic, socio-economic and political trends and processes which have been associated with a general deterioration of social cohesion throughout the world.

Over the past three decades, globalization in the form of processes of structural transformation has impacted severely, in many ways, on people throughout the world. The intensified linkage of local social conditions with activities and decisions within world financial, commodity and labor markets is increasingly apparent and in many places it’s consequences are devastating.

Perhaps the most fundamental feature of structural transformation in industrial countries has been reducing the share of industry in the formation of GDP and consequently the massive decline in manufacturing employment. We have been witnesses to the massive relocation of capital, jobs and manufacturing to areas of the globe where labor is cheaper. Instead of a relatively stable work conditions, characterized by institutionalized wage agreements and strong trade unions, internal labor markets within large firms, and secure, tenured and full-time employment; new socio-economic patterns emerge:

More and more, opportunities for work and flows of income became variable and unpredictable and stable conditions characterizing employment are replaced by growing insecurity. These kinds of changes add to a growing polarization not only between employed and unemployed, but between secure, highly skilled, well paid workers and the larger proportion of insecure, unskilled, low paid workers. In addition to that, the gender dimension is critical to this shift, since women are greatly over represented in the new flexible yet precarious sectors of casual, part-time and short-contract employment [2, str. 142].

The rise of neo-liberal political philosophy has driven many of the processes of political restructuring over the past two decades. A key aspect of the neo-liberal vision of society is bringing the market principle, along with notions of self-responsibility and individualism, to almost every sphere of politics, economics and society. Aspects of political change which have subsequently emerged, and impacted dramatically on social cohesion, include:

Such policies and processes which have brought about “the new inequality”’ can be seen as fuelling a process of “inequalisation”. The consequences for social cohesion, however defined, are devastating. “’Such a divergence of the life chances of large social groups”, Dahrendorf observes, “is incompatible with civil society” [4, str. 38]. The most socially stigmatised, spatially segregated and economically disadvantaged also become the most politically excluded.

The combined forces of economic and political restructuring, along with the new social fissions created in their wake, have also threatened a key socio-psychological source of social cohesion, the idea of “the nation”. The changes associated with globalization (here considered as processes involving the intensified linkage and increased scope, scale and speed of world-wide economic activity) are now so pervasive that national governments arguably no longer hold the keys to their own national larders. The flow and control of a variety of forms of investment, currency trading, commodity markets, and labor pools are increasingly determined by agents and forces above and beyond the reins of nation-state policy. For the nation-state, prerogatives and margins for maneuvers in economic policy are greatly reduced.

Conclusions

Social cohesion represents a concept which focuses on societal qualities such as the extent of inequality or the strength of social relations and ties within a society. In the terms described above, it is both a means and an end. As an end, it is an object of public policy, to the extent that policies attempt to ensure that all members of society feel themselves to be an active part of it, as both contributors to and beneficiaries of progress. In an age of profound, rapid changes resulting from globalization and the new paradigm of the information society, recreating and ensuring a sense of belonging and inclusion is an end in itself. Social cohesion is also a means, however, in more ways than one. Societies that boast higher levels of social cohesion provide a better institutional framework for economic growth and attract investment by offering an environment of trust and clearly defined rules. Moreover, long-term policies that seek to level the playing field require a social contract to lend them force and staying power, and such a contract must have the support of a wide range of actors willing to negotiate and reach broad agreements. In order to do so, they must feel themselves to be a part of the whole, and they must be willing to sacrifice personal interests for the good of the community. The formation of the social covenants needed to support pro-equity and pro-inclusion policies is facilitated by a greater willingness to support democracy, become involved in issues of public interest, participate in deliberative processes and trust institutions, as well as a stronger sense of belonging to a community and solidarity with excluded and vulnerable groups.

In this paper we have established two goal dimensios inherent in the concept of social cohesion: 1) the reduction of disprarities, inequalities and social exclusion and 2) the strenthtening of social relations, interacions and ties. Concerning the first dimension of social cohesion, examples of measurement dimensions within various life domains are regional disparities of the state of environment, equal opportunities of women and men in employment, inequalitites between social strate in the state of health, social exclusion from material goods measured by income poverty. As far as second dimension is concerned, it comprises all aspects which together constitute the social capital of a society. This includes the social relations available at the informal level of private networks and the more formal level of organisations, the activities and engagement within private networks as well as within public realms, the quality of social relations and the quality of societal instiutitons. The quality of societal institutions represents a
component of social capital which applies to several life domains. Institutions of education, health care, working life, social security, social services, the political system and legal system. The perceived quality of these institutitons are measured by the level of trust, satisfaction with or approval of institutions.

The combined forces of economic and political restructuring, along with the new social fissions created in their wake, threaten to deteriorate a key sources of social cohesion in contemporary societies. It is therefore not surprising that idea of social cohesion receives great attention by social scientists as well as by politicians and gradually establish itself as one of the central societal goals at the national and the supranational level.