Author: Andre Coleman

“If people lived in total isolation from other people, there would be no reason to study the effect that other people have on the behavior of individuals and groups. But human beings are social creatures. We live with others, work and play with others.” We as Filipinos are full of extraordinary but amusing traits and attitudes. Filipinos love interaction and relationship within the society that is why we and the society are one.

It is important because it is about us, the Filipinos. The way we influence, think and influence others. Secondly, it can help in educating and providing awareness in understanding the nature of people and experience. Thirdly, problems that we are facing nowadays such as societal problems, can be solved purely but this requires shift in human behavior. Lastly, it is important because it aims to deconstruct the Filipino mind’s way of thinking. It will serve as an eye opener for each and every Filipino. We personally expect that through this study we can understand the nature and causes of Filipino social behavior.

The objectives of this paper are to know what gave rise to this field particularly its history? What are the concepts of social psychology associated with our daily life and what are its applications in the Filipinos. The scope and limitation of this study is within the context of the Philippines but some concepts were adapted from the West.

It started during the 1980’s. In the context of Philippine colonial education, Filipinos believe that scientific psychology came from the West. Murray Bartlett, an American established undergraduate psychology courses in the College of Education, University of the Philippines. American textbooks and English language were used as the medium of instruction. The good thing here is that literary writing was in Filipino language that was in dominance. Francis Burton Harrison’s policy of attraction was also introduced during this time. [1]

Early American Psychology in the Philippines and the colonial culture on Philippine Psychology was because of Agustin Alonzo. The Filipino term “psicologia” was already a part of layman’s vocabulary.The works of del Pilar, Jacinto and Pardo de Tavera were rich sources of psychological theories even though they were propagandists and not psychologists. Even Gen. Emilio Aguinaldo mentioned the term “Psicologos del verbo Tagalog” in his speech. They were not title holders in Psychology but they still have this innate nature. The English language and the American system of Education were the instruments used. During the twenties American psychology teachers were replaced by Filipinos. [2]

The Philippine objection to uncritical importation of Americans’ Psychological models challenged some of the Filipinos. The first attempt was done by Sinsiforo Padilla who took over from Alonzo’s position as a chairman at the University of the Philippines. Nevertheless, it was his colleague Manuel Carreon who took the cudgels for appropriate relevant psychological testing. On 1926 the Philippine Studies in Mental Measurement was published.Some understood part of Carreon’s message were modified to fit the Philippine context. “change-apples-to-bananas” [3]

3 Isidoro Panlasigui identified the new culture of Psychology. The third generation of American brainwashed Filipino psychologists like Panlasigui. Due to this, Panlasigui admires America and it was clearly showed when he wrote about the psychology of the Filipino as he fought for the colonial language to be used.

Alfredo V. Lagmay and his colleagues were sent to the United States not to neutralize the department. During that time, the Department of Psychology in the University of the Philippines was part of the College of Education. It was him to transferred it to the College of Liberal Arts. The U.P Department of Psychology was perceived as behavioral orientation form the 50’s up to early 70’s. His students continued some remarkable and significant studies in the field. [4]

The History and Lines of Filiations in Philippine Psychological Thought
Psychology-Academic

This aspect of psychology became part of university curriculum under Francisco Benitez during 1922. It was first taught in the University of the Philippines as a part of the education curriculum. During the year of 1954, Joseph Goertz established the Department of Psychology and used English as the medium of teaching. On the other hand, in the midst of its growth in Manila this discipline was also introduced as a course in the University of St. Louis in Cordillera. It was facilitated by Fr. Evarist Louis a missionary priest. [5]

Psychology-Academic Philosophy

However, Psychology-Academic Philosophy was established first at University of Sto. Tomas by Spaniards and improved by the Jesuits. This aspect was older than the aspect mentioned before. It started and founded in many universities like UST (University of Sto. Tomas) and other Spanish institutions like San Ignacio and San Jose. In such institutions the medical and philosophy courses started. The ideas and written records on that time were seen to be related to Psychology. In a deeper analysis those can contain the way of life before. It includes the language , how the “indio” perceive the concept of self ,its criticisms and the activities of the ancient civilization.

4Ethnic Psychology

The third aspect of Psychology known as Ethnic Psychology. It originates from the Filipinos and through the influence of other countries. It is not only older but also much complicated compared to the previous aspects. It has many strands to be entangled and one of those is the psychology that came from the Filipinos themselves. An indigenous psychology that is owned or influenced by other countries. The language is a cone attributing factor especially those activities that can show the collective experiences of Filipinos. [6]

Social Psychology

The study of Social Psychology is defined as a systematic study of the nature and causes of human social behavior. Primarily, its concern is about human social behavior. It includes a lot of matters regarding the individual’s impact on other people, the processes of social interaction and the relationship that exist between individuals in the society. It is not just concerned with the nature of social behavior but also with its causes. It relies on methodologies, findings, experiments and surveys. In asking what the study is all about its 4 main concerns were also considered as a means of knowing it clearly. Basically it is about the impact that one individual has on another, the impact that a group has on its members then vice versa and the impact of a group to another group.

In the context of the discipline in a working definition. Psychologists focus their attention in understanding the behavior of individuals within the context of society. It is primarily concerned with the understanding of the how and why individuals behave, think and feel as the way they do. In dealing with behavior we mean feelings and thoughts as well as overt actions.”

Consequently, it is defined as a scientific study of how a person’s behavior, thoughts and feelings are influenced by several factors that can be real or imagined in the form or the presence of others. The field looks at behavior and mental processes including the social world in which we exist, as we are surrounded by other whom we are connected and by whom we are influenced in so many ways. It focuses on influence. [7]

5An interview from Ms. Leslee Natividad from the Department of Social Sciences, University of the Philippines, Los Ba?”os

“First we have to define first what Social Psychology is soaˆ¦Social Psychology is the study of how individuals affect the society and how the society is affecting the individual .If we’re going to relate Filipino into that on how the Filipino is affected by the society that we have here in the Philippines and maybe in the world in general. Now the world and the Philippine society affect the Filipino individual. As a person, everything that we are experiencing around us. Things that we are seeing, things that we are hearing, things that are affecting each and every moment of our lives that is part of Filipino Social Psychology. All of our behavior is shaped by the kinds of experiences that we have.” [8]

3 Main Areas of Social Psychology
Social Influence

It is the way in which other people affect our behavior. It is a process through which the presence of others can directly or indirectly influence an individual. These are ways in which other people affect our behaviors through thoughts and actions. How we are raised by certain people to whom we interact can affect our behavior. It varies with Conformity, Compliance and Obedience.

Social Cognition

It is defined as the ways how people thinks about other people and how they act toward other individuals. It varies because of attitudes which consist of the way a person feels and thinks as well a person behaves. Impression formation is also a part of cognition which is forming the first knowledge or judgment about a person seen for the first time. Attribution is the process of explaining self behavior or others. They use this to make sense of the social world through mental processes. [9]

6 “What was once called the objective world is a sort of Rorschach ink blot, into which each culture, lack system of science and religion, each type of personality, reads a meaning only remotely derived from the shape and color of the blot itself.” [10]

Social Interaction

It is a way of knowing the positive and negative aspects of behavior. It is the area of Social Psychology which involves interaction and relationship between people. It includes prejudice which happens when an individual holds an unsupported and negative attitude towards other members of the society. It also varies with discrimination as treating people differently because of prejudice. Liking and loving, aggression were also developed here. [11]

The liking and loving in our society known as interpersonal attraction is widely observed. Each one of us is attracted to some personalities in our society. It can be influenced and proved by the similarities, position, physical appearance and familiarity of both sexes [12] .

According to psychologists they have identified three types of aggression. Firstly, is the Person-oriented aggression wherein the main goal is intentionally hurt someone. Secondly, is Pro active aggression when an aggressive behavior is done to achieve some desired outcome like gaining possession of an object. Lastly, is Reactive aggression is the reaction of an individual to an aggressive act. [13]

In a positive way one of the best examples of pro social behavior is Altruism. It is a helping behavior that is costly to an altruistic person. It is a desire to help even there no

7 possible reward. It is always expected to depend on empathy. Empathy is the ability to share emotions and understand another person. [14]

The Bases of Filipino Psychology

Primarily, Prior knowledge of Psychology was the first basis of Filipinos for it involves important parts of Filipino Social Psychology. The knowledge of psychology “Babaylan” or “Catalonan” for the native Filipino people was an important part of Filipino Psychology. The “Babaylan” was the first Filipino psychologists. Aside from this were the prayers and whispers of various ethnic groups in the Philippines. Those were rich sources and stream of Filipinos’ prior knowledge of Psychology. We were also used in the psychology of the Filipino literature, even if it was expressed in oral or written way. It includes proverbs, stories and legends. The values and attitudes that Filipinos inherited were significant bases of Psychology. It includes most of Ethnic Psychology. [15]

Man and his Thoughts

The second is the basis of man and his thoughts and it denotes giving importance to man and his or her ideas. This is where Filipino Psychology and Psychology in the Philippines met. Filipino psychology was a part and always been a part of the world’s psychology. This basis has a clear influence of rational psychology that has been developed and improved in the University of Sto. Tomas. This was considered as traditional philosophy rooted in the ideas of Descartes and written works of Aristotle. Psychology is an aspect of Filipino Psychology as an academic discipline in some universities in the Philippines. [16]

Period of changing mind

It was the third basis because it is associated with Filipino personality. There were a lot of bases seen in this period. Particularly, this basis was evident in the written works of some Filipino writers like Pedro Serrano Laktaw and Isabelo delos Reyes. Even before the psychology of language was seen in written outputs produced by Filipinos. It somehow showed the shallow orientation of Filipino in terms of experiences in researching and conducting studies. Filipinos should not dampen their spirits instead they should hope for some improvements.

8Period of giving value to societal problems

The time of giving importance to societal problems was the fourth basis because this serves as a witness of the society. Hartendorp is one of the American psychologists who become interested in our Psychology. The theory of Osias in 1940 is about the relation of language to the society and in connection of the knowledge of paralanguage in the actions of the individuals. However, his period is also the time of some Filipino psychologists. In such a way Filipino Psychology have this sure basis and it includes the works of Isidoro Panlasigui, Sinsiforo Padilla and Alfredo Lagmay who all gave importance to the acts and capabilities of an individual. [17]

Societal problems

Problems in the society were the fifth bases because it gave value for improvement and development. Aldaba- Lim is known for giving high value in societal problems. He often encourages Filipino psychologists to listen to the problems of the society. All doubts in his dedication will vanished if a person will examine all his efforts and contribution in some of his researches in Psychology. The period of Activism served as a witness of this basis.

Language, culture and Point of view

Language, culture and Point of view were the sixth bases because it is the most fundamental of all bases.Filipino language and dialect is very significant because it is a witness in the many studies conducted and translated into foreign language. The field must still use medium, system and ways to guarantee the wide scope of study. Regarding culture there are none or very few Filipinos who still doubt about the language and culture of the Philippines. According to some professors and psychologists there was this “acquiescence effect” in the can be seen in a scale used and answered by Filipinos. The American perspective was used in analyzing this. It must be done primarily in a Filipino oriented point of view. [18]

9

The Concept of Language

The concept of local language as a source of concept for Filipinos is a helpful tool because it gives a clear connection to their culture. Language is not just one effective way of communication but also a rich source of information. It is an affluent basis for the better understanding and orientation of culture. It is suggested to formulate a certain Filipino concept from the broader and wider scope it has. Language is the primary source in the study of Social Psychology of Filipinos.

The native language is a rich source of concepts meaningful for and significant to the local culture.” As a source of insight, some concepts were proven to be important in understanding the Filipino personality, worldview and behavior. Some of those were the concepts of “hiya”(shame), “utang na loob”(debt of gratitude) , “pakikisama”(yielding to the will of the leader or the majority, “bahala na” (fatalism) and “amor propio” (sensitivity to personal affront) which even some American psychologists attempted to study those. It still preferable to use the language as a main resource. [19]

The Concept of Kapwa

The concept of “kapwa” in Filipinos is an important aspect of Filipino social life. “Kapwa” is reflected because interaction among other individuals especially in the Philippines is an essential aspect of social life. Language reveals a lot about Filipino nature. For this reason, social interaction should be an evocative core of analysis in the process of classifying the concept of “kapwa”. The Filipino language in this notch, gives a conceptual division in several levels and modes of social interaction. Santiago and Enriquez identified eight in Filipino.

100The Levels of Interaction

Interaction of Filipinos were categorized into levels namely pakikitungo (transaction/civility with), pakikisalamuha (inter-action with), pakikilahok (joining/participating), pakikibagay (in- conformity with/ in- accord with), pakikisama (being along with), pakikipagpalagayan/pakikipagmalagayang-loob (being in rapport), pakikisangkot (getting involved) and pakikiisa (being one with). [20]

The concept of Kapwa as a shared inner self turns out to be very essential psychologically and philosophically speaking. While “pagtutunguhan” (dealing with/acting toward) is another term which can be used to refer to all levels of interaction. Besides, pagtutunguhan also connotes the most superficial level of interaction: the level of amenities while “pakikipagkapwa” refers to “humanness at its highest level” [21]

On the other hand aside from the concept of “kapwa” According to Russell, In 1922 there were several explanations in essay forms about the high Filipino Self Concept. One of the most ordinary is it being the character of race as Filipinos got from the Malays. In 1965 Fox said that this is a trait of Filipino culture that is paid to be in the social context because of its fortitude to produce close family ties. . [22]

The Concept of Human Interaction

The concept of Human Interaction includes the distinction between (Pakikisama or Pakikipagkapwa?) It is an essential part because it is very consistent in Filipinos. Aside from the good sides of interaction, previous work on Philippine values pointed our three evil characters in Philippine interpersonal relations. These are the “walang pakisama” (one inept at the level of adjustment); the “walang hiya”, (one who lacks a sense of propriety and “the walang utang na loob”, (one who lacks adeptness in reciprocating by way of gratitude.

110

11 In a deeper analysis some studies were conducted, It was argued that pakikipagkapwa is more important for Filipinos. In the Philippines we usually gave more importance to “pakikipagkapwa” than “pakikisama”. We probably want a person without pakikisama than a person without “kapwa tao”. Pakikipagkapwa is really important.It includes all the other mentioned modes and levels of interaction. In fact “pakikisalamuha” is even closer than “pakikisama” in meaning to “pakikipagkapwa.” [23]

Application of Filipino Social Psychology
Filipino Culture

The Social, Cultural and Ideational dimensions are diverse into aspects which were exhibited by Filipinos. The study of the customs and beliefs of Filipinos serves as a function of social and economic dimension of Filipino culture. The Philippine culture is such very rich. It was very evident in the following ways. In courtship and marriage most of the Filipinos regard this as a process of love as a parental affair. The marriage is the family affair which is measured as a success based on the number of children. Filipinos also believe in ” Babaylans and Catalonan” which were said to posses supernatural powers to supplicate God. They were also fond of charms and they believe that when they perform their rites particularly on the Good Friday they will gain magical powers like anting-anting, lucky cards, stones and other stuffs. As a part of their social life they celebrate feasts to commemorate important events like Fiestas, Holy Week, New Year, Christmas and etc. It really played an essential role in the economic security and social solidarity of Filipinos. They are also known for their superstitious beliefs which are greatly connected to their rituals and ceremonies.

In connection to supernatural beings they follow these beliefs to avoid bad luck. It was seen in birth, illness and death which control the psyche of Filipinos. In religion when Christianity was introduced by Spaniards, it became a driving force to the life of the Filipinos. They were also thoughtful especially when someone is sick and in need. They are afraid of what other people might say. Some of their practices include giving dowry, carrying of guns, choice of padrino and carrying bow and arrows, sibat and kris. During the time of our ethnic groups’ laws were also made with regards to property ownership an settling arguments. [24]

12

Filipino Family

The study of Filipino Family is valuable because they value family relationship. They have this behavior of close family ties. In an article written by Carlos P. Romulo entitled “What Filipinos have Done and are Doing to the Family”, The family will remain and prevail in spite of world cynicism and anxiety. The tradition must be preserved even in these modern times. He pointed out that this is one of the many serious challenges our society must face today. The people must also focus on improving and giving concern with our family life. It deserves the same amount of concern just like other sciences.

“The study of Phenomenology of the Filipino Family states that “In Philippine society, the family is the dominating influence with its value of socio-economic security. This value leads to an individualistic attitude towards one’s family which is manifested in doubt of hope, lack of commitment or lack of social awareness.”

The Future of Philippine Culture

The future of Philippine culture is still questionable. The Philippine culture is still standing despite some changes imposed and caused by colonizers. Is there a Filipino Psychology? Due to reason of great confusion of racial heritages, Filipino nation is full of differences and intertwined particular observances, creeds and traditions dominant in native groups. The making of a credible treatise on Filipino Psychology will require lots of analytic research. Any scholar who will try must sort out individual as well as social traits. Particularly, the native, dominantly native but colored by foreign influences and dominantly foreign adapted traits. It is not yet finished because the source and influence must be differentiated. [25]

13Marginalization of Filipino Identity

The hiding and denigrating of Filipino identity and values was sarcastically introduced by thanking Gov. Claveria who was the one who imposed in giving Filipinos surnames. In such a way the personality of Filipino was concealed in his very name. Felipe de Leon examined the way Filipino names describe the people and how names can hide Filipino identity. The disparagement of Filipino personality is continued and taught in schools reinforced by media. Remember the legend of Juan Tamad, the concept of Filipino time, Manna habit, to “talangka /crab mentality” and even innate criminality and distortion of Filipino squatters, barkadas, stupid yayas, maids and drivers. The Americans assumed that Filipinos were ethically mediocre and they should be educated in an American way because of their indolence. [26]

Marginalization of Filipino Literature

Marginalization of Filipino Literature was realized because of the concept that Filipinos did not have a body of literature which is not true. Filipinos might really be fortunate if they can escape the disparaging remark that Filipinos do not have an indigenous body of literature. The mere fact is that Filipinos have it. Similarly, they have written literature and unwritten oral tradition. Filipinos also enjoy not published outputs, but no less real and valid. A sense of psychological tradition apart from a published psychological literature.

14Marginalization of Filipino Theatre and Film

Marginalization of Filipino Theatre and Film is done by being refused as the world second big producer of film. The success of Filipino cinema and its influence on Philippine life and culture are grossly underestimated. The colonial responsiveness of the elite refuses to recognize the Philippines as the world’s second big producer of films. They cannot detain how a Tagalog movie can hold its own even against the most known popular grossed movies from Hollywood. They tremble in disbelief when confronted with the box office record of the original and authentic “Rambo” in person of Fernando Poe Jr. [27]

The generalization goes like this. We as Filipinos are thus faced with the questions about the mystery of our identity but through the study of Filipino Social Psychology we can unravel those. The study as a summary proves one thing and only one thing and that is the fact that even before, Filipinos have a rich culture and tradition. We have own knowledge and system but during the time of the colonizers they blot out all the memories of our cherished identity.

Nowadays, the Filipino concepts of “Language”, “Kapwa” and “Human Interaction” can be used as a means to improve better human relationship. The Application of Filipino Social Psychology is truly a reflection of what we are right now as Filipinos. It can be seen in the Social, Ideal and Cultural dimensions that we Filipinos are actually creating and improving from our history up to the contemporary period. The Filipino identity is marginalized but as long as we have this study to guide us it will

15

always make a point about Filipinos way of life that will lineate our past to our present and even to our future. This study can be a means in forging development. Development is not just concerned about progress. The logic must be it is about the Filipino people and for the Filipino people. Through, the help of this study we will become aware of the nature and causes of our attitude and behavior.

The problems that our country is currently facing can be solved purely by different ways but it requires shift in human behavior. Therefore, we must inculcate positive Filipino traits and values perhaps change the negative ones. In the end, it is not only us who will outlive the legacy of Filipino Social Psychology but even our children of tomorrow. Changes may occur but it will always remind us of who, what, when and where we are today as Filipinos.

Leisure, “used as an all-inclusive term to describe the meaning, conditions, functions, and opportunity complex in which recreation / play occurs” (Murphy, p. 22), and can thus be seen as a concept or study which only offers information about the way in which people spend their spare time, but is also actually far more intriguing and multifaceted. An interesting fact is that the term leisure “is derived from the Latin word licere or ‘to be permitted to abstain from occupation or service’” (Murphy, p. 24), thus showing the roots of leisure; being free from the physical and forced activities like labour. In this paper I will attempt to examine what precisely leisure entails and how it can be linked to identity formation, as well as depicting the developments in leisure as a concept throughout history. In order to do so, I will touch upon three remarkable periods of the past; first of all Ancient Greece as the era of the great philosophers, then the period around 1900 in Western Europe, and finally I will research the significance of leisure in today’s globalising world. Finally, to discuss the relationship between leisure and identity formation, I will incorporate the subsequent topics within each historical time frame;

The concept and ‘division/availability’ of leisure

The relation between work and leisure

The link between leisure and human development

The social differences between individuals and groups of individuals

After having discussed each time period in detail and having thus constructed a general timeline of leisure, I will round up with a conclusion hoping to have then found answers to the questions surrounding the notion of leisure.

Ancient Greece

Ancient Greece, which is generally considered as the period from “the Archaic period of the 8th to 6th centuries BCE to 146 BCE and the Roman conquest of Greece after the Battle of Corinth” (Amazines), can be seen as the era of the great philosophers who we still recognize today. Not only this is what makes Ancient Greece so fascinating, but this is also the period in which leisure as a concept emerged, with the “cultivation of the self interpretation developed by Aristotle (384 B.C. – 322 B.C.)” (Murphy, p. 23). During these days, leisure was seen as an activity used to seek the truth, and the understanding of the self. Contemplation was key, and it was considered a notion of being free, and of not being occupied with work or other commitments. But which exact activities did leisure entail then? I believe that Anderson puts it properly, though from the Greco-Roman perspective; “They learned music and played it and enjoyed the physical arts of war and sport. They were skilled in intellectual conversation, and that consumed much time. But they rarely had an interest in talking about handwork and ordinary labour or even cared to understand its meaning. In their way of life there was no hurry” (Anderson, p. 91). Thus, leisure was at the root of society and its culture, and paved the way for many great philosophers through intellectual discussions.

But for leisure to exist in the way it did in Ancient Greece as the time free from commitments or work, a distinction had to be made between individuals. This distinction was mainly to allow certain people to engage in leisure, while others were forced to engage in the opposite of leisure; labour and hard work. Or as Murphy puts it; “the aristocratic quality of the Ancient democracy gave the leisure class a tradition of taste and elegance which was maintained by the nobility” (Murphy, p. 24), consequently leisure was made possible for the privileged because slavery existed. The privileged used slavery as a way to express power and control, maybe even only for the sake of being in control over others. But “dominating and bossing others around, are among the first activities that humans, newly empowered, discovered and enjoyed for their own sakes” (Hunnicutt, p. 60), showing that leisure not only existed off contemplation and conversation, but also of horrid activities creating a division between groups of people. Still, “undoubtedly servants and women held in whatever degree of bondage, were able to understand the difference between the times in their lives when service was required of them, and other times when they were free to do more of what they wished” (Hunnicutt, p. 60). So, although leisure is mainly seen as a privilege for the higher classes of men, also the women and slaves experienced leisure to some extent. This shows that the availability of leisure differed depending on your class of gender, but that most likely everybody experienced it to some extend in Ancient Greece.

Therefore, leisure should be seen as key to human development. Not only did it pave the way for great philosophers and religious men, others also used it in connection to their identity as it is part of human nature. For the Greeks, leisure was used as a “cultural arena in which vital questions of human means and ends, of purpose and hence of meaning, have been addressed” (Hunnicutt, p. 58), and thus gave room to answer significant questions concerning life and human-beings since “man is a symbolizing, conceptualizing, meaning-seeking animal” (Geertz, p. 140). Leisure could be seen as a means to understand the meaning of life, and come to know and develop the self. Leisure thus led to identity and self-development through personal growth and freedom, since “the sign of an educated person was active leisure” (Hunnicutt, p. 64).

Industrial Revolution

After the Ancient Greece timeframe as previously discussed, “the leisure tradition established by the Greeks continued through the Middle Ages. The Liberal Arts taught in the universities, the understanding of work and leisure as means to ends, endured” (Hunnicutt, p. 67). And when the Industrial Revolution was ongoing in Europe, leisure was still present but significant changes were gradually taking place in its character and the influence it held in daily life. It could be said that a revolution in human history and leisure occurred when capitalism transformed the role of work, as “one does not work to live, one lives to work” (Pieper, p. 40). Then, work became a spiritual end in itself and was thought to answer the questions vis-a-vis leisure. It also started to take on a submissive role as it was used as a way to achieve and support the highest purpose; work. Subsequently, “work emerged out of the nineteenth century both as the basis of modern culture and as the glue that held societies together” (Hunnicutt, p. 69), and basically took over the role leisure held in Ancient times.

But even though work was key, the concept of spare time, and thus leisure, changed over time after the Industrial Revolution had left its mark. For example, farmers and factory-workers worked six ten-hours days from sunrise to sunset, and it was not until “the sixty-hour work week of 1900 shrank to thirty-nine hours by 1975” (Rosenthal, p. 11), that people possessed more free time to spend on leisure activities of one’s own choice. Even though they still had to work hard the work ethic gradually changed, people now possessed a day, and later even two, during which they were free to choose what to do. It was no longer the master who possessed free time and told his slaves what to do, the whole day, every day. More money was now being made, and thus being spend during those few hours or days the workers had off and activities related to sport, education, self-development, and entertainment started to rise. Also, the availability of more and cheaper goods due to the revolution led to an increase in the standard of living, and thus formation of identity. People were slightly and slowly more able to establish themselves as different from others, and to use goods to identify with.

Finally, “it was only in the nineteenth century that the real impact of steam would be fully felt” (Robinson, B). Steam changed the availability of opportunities, as well as leisure. Work was performed faster and more efficient, and changes also happened geographically as factories could now be located anywhere, as well as the workers. Transportation increased due to the invention of railways, and thus leisure opportunities surfaced since people could travel further and were no longer limited to the area they worked and lived in; horizons slowly widened.

The Ancient Greeks were able to see leisure as their ‘work’, but the workers from the Industrial Revolution could only participate in leisure and ‘non-work behaviour’ after their long days of labour. Not only the content and value of leisure changed, but also the impact it had on the individual. Since the Industrial Revolution, “Americans have inherited … a sociopsychological attitude which equates individual self-worth and productivity with working” (Murphy, p. 27), thus showing the influence work had on life and ones goals. The Revolution “created further interest in the individual in society and the responsibilities of society to them, together with the realization that the ultimate power within society is in the hands of those that are governed rather than the governing classes” (Ouedraogo, D). The working class, and thereby the individual and his interests became more important, and people had more choices related to identity formation as mentioned before.

Today’s globalizing world

The changes that took place in leisure in Ancient Greece and around the 1900s show its roots, but also the rudiments that have made leisure to be what it is today. Today, the twenty-first century, leisure still takes up an important place in many aspects of people’s lives and is still seen as “time free from work-related responsibilities” (Murphy, p. 27), as well as obligatory household tasks. More and more activities are now acceptable forms of leisure, and more money and time is dedicated to them. Also, due to globalization much more is possible, since the world is brought closer to our home. We now have internet, television, mass media and facilitation of travelling; anything is possible. Too see what function leisure holds in today’s society in relation to identity and development, I will look at it from the following perspectives; behavioural, psychological and social.

Behaviour in leisure should be “recognized as an expression of the individual’s total self; cognitive, affective, and motor domains are potentially engaged” (Murphy, p. 29). Thus, engaging in leisure is key to personal development since it touches upon many important aspects of the individual. Also, since behaviour is goal-directed, leisure can also be seen as “as direct result of goal-seeking” (Murphy, p. 29), and success or failure in such activities will strongly influence one’s mental and physical state, as well as future participation. Also, according to the French sociologist Joffre Dumazedier, “leisure fulfils three functions: relaxation, entertainment, and personal development” (Murphy, p. 30), again showing that leisure is key to self-development through exercising one’s capacities.

From the second and psychological perspective, leisure is also important for self-improvement, as “to leisure means to be oneself, to express one’s talents, one’s capacities, one’s potentials” (Murphy, p. 30), as stated by Neulinger. Leisure is a state of mind and being, since it is then that one is free to choose what to do and engage in what brings satisfaction, fulfilment and pleasure. Thus, from the psychological perspective, it would “tend to analyze leisure activities according to the needs they satisfy” (Murphy, p. 31), which can only be fulfilled during free time and not through achievement in work like during the Industrial Revolution was the case. Examples are “needs for sex, independence, understanding, getting along with others” (Murphy, p. 32).

The third perspective is that the social function of leisure, as the “most significant determinant of what one does in leisure is membership in a social group. Leisure is a means for establishing and sustaining intragroup solidarity” (Murphy, p. 32). Friendship and kinship are crucial determents here, and belonging to a social circle with common interests is what individuals aim at through leisure. This can be seen when people participate in sports, theatre, crafts, or other clubs organized to bring those together who are alike. This can also be through identifying with others with similar education, occupation, race, or income; some of the socioeconomic-demographic indicators.

What also plays an important role in leisure, is the newfound presence of choice in this globalizing world. So much is present and available when it comes to activities, resources, knowledge and goods that choice greatly penetrates our culture; it has “transformed not only how we live but also how we think and who we are” (Rosenthal, p. 1), through the presence of excessive choice. We no longer have to give something up in order to gain something else, we can now sometimes “have our cake and eat it too” (Rosenthal, p. 9) and now sacrifice les which made our wants become needs. We have embraced change, and the “necessity to travel down all of life’s branches is real to us” (Rosenthal, p. 9). Since we have excessive choice, our leisure has become so broad and open to our own preferences that we can maximize our own potentials through it. Also, since “one hour’s work buys six times as much now as it did in 1900” (Rosenthal, p. 12) we can spend much more on leisure, and thus again have to choose less and have more.

Today, we also develop ourselves through ‘serious leisure’, which is the degree of seriousness tied to an activity as “the activity involvement of these devotes shows a degree of intensity that is consistent with flow experience and a patterns of commitment that joins them with others in a unique ethos of shared meaning and perseverance” (Kleiber, p. 25). Leisure activities of this level can seem to work in some extent, but are free of choice and are therefore sources of “self-esteem, self-actualization, and other psychological and social benefits” (Kleiber, p. 25), showing the great link between serious leisure and development. Also, since leisure in today’s globalizing world is less linked to gender and race and more and more available to everybody, it can be seen as a true sources for self-development and identity formation.

Identity formation then takes place not only through serious leisure, but also through more general and simplified versions of leisure. For example, athletics perform sports as their work. For most, engaging in sport is a form of leisure that brings pleasure and self-improvement, but for a true sportsman this is his identity. He is a footballer, he is a rugby player, he is a dancer. Wherever he will go, this part of him will be at the roots of his other actions since he is so serious about it and cannot afford letting other types of leisure take away from what he has achieved; their “identification and commitment is evident in joining groups and sacrificing other aspects of life” (Kleiber, p. 25). This is the same for musicians, many band members identify with their job and consider the musician label to be indistinguishable from their identity.

Conclusion

Leisure can thus truly be seen as a source of self-development and identity formation. Even though leisure has gradually changed throughout the years and has even shown distinct characteristics during when comparing the timeframes, the core has remained the same; free time dedicated activities of one’s own choice used to better the self.

To conclude, most noteworthy is the part leisure took up in an individual’s life. In Ancient Greece, leisure mainly served as an activity that took up the entire day for the elite, whereas for the slaves it consisted of the little time free from the orders of the master. It was mainly used to engage in intellectual conversations, and plain activities like sports. During the Industrial Revolution this outlook changed, and work became most important and took over the role leisure used to hold in the lives of the elite; self-improvement was achieved through work and not leisure. However, this was also the period when the workers started to protest and managed to receive a better work-week with more free time in the weekend; time free to be dedicated to leisure since money was also more available. Finally, in today’s society leisure takes up an maybe even more important role and is still the time dedicated to activities free of choice used to develop the self. Thus, leisure has always played an important role and its nature has remained constant, while its use and availability has changed.

Introduction

The development of relationship between individuals in the society has continued to experience different challenges, which could either build then them or break them, depending on the way these issues are handled. One of these challenges arises from jealousy factor in these relationships. Notably, there are many relationships between individuals in the United States and across the globe which have dissolved or rather ‘broken’ as is commonly referred to as a result of jealousy. In addition to this, there are similar relationships which are struggling due to the same issue. This has prompted researches on the society with a particular focus on relationship to determine how jealousy affects them. In reference to Leahy & Tirch (2008), jealousy is one of the most serious problems encountered in romantic relationships and it led to depression, hopelessness, anxiety, anger, attempts to control, intimidation, and in some cases death (p.18).

Therefore, this research summary will analyze the impact of jealousy on romantic relationships. Note that, by studying on jealousy as a factor among human beings, its impact on the mutual existence of relationships will be assessed. This will be build up on different perspectives, including how the relationship of a child and a parent impacts the development of jealousy in her and its later effects on his or her relationships, together with gender, physical attractiveness, cognitive development, etc. Some of the effects which will be mentioned briefly include anger, depression, attempts to control, intimidation, and death.

Literature Review

Gender and Jealousy

In order to establish how jealousy affects relationship in the contemporary society, it is important to look first at gender and jealousy. Remarkably, the level of jealousy among the two genders, i.e. male and female play a vital role in elucidating on the place of jealousy in relationship and the problems which were encountered as a result (Sabini & Silver, 2005). To begin with, it is important to understand that there are numerous researches which have been carried out in the past and most of them came to a conclusion that both men and women were jealousy of one another in relationships. In other words, the cases of jealousy were found in both men and women.

However, as it was observed by Edlund & Sagarin (2009), there were different approaches, two to be specific which have been used in the past to test sex differences in jealousy but most of them produced inconsistent results (p.67). Therefore, using these approaches, it was found out that both genders had jealousy in relationships. Furthermore, tests were carried to determine factors which caused distress between both genders. It was realized that both men and women tend to have strong jealous reactions to sexual and emotional infidelity because both forms of infidelity were costly and they were likely to have been highly correlated with one another throughout evolutionary history (p.67). Penke & Asendorpf (2008) agrees with Edlund and Sagarin that the two evolutionary psychological hypotheses that men react more jealous than women to sexual infidelity and women react more jealous than men to emotional infidelity were inconsistent (p.3).

Physical Attractiveness and Self Esteem

Apart from examining gender and jealousy in general, Brewer & Riley (2009) studied the relationship between height and jealousy among men (p.477). This approach to examining jealousy in relationship allowed these researchers to introduce other factors such as physical appearance, apart from height. Notably, height indicated handsomeness and health among men and as a result, tall had a higher affinity to women as compared to short men (p.477). Specifically, tall men are less jealous than short men when faced with the prospect of a physically attractive and dominant rival (p.479). This was coupled by the fact that self esteem played a vital role in elevating the impact of jealousy on a particular relationship. Notably, DeSteno, Valdesolo & Bartlett (2006) argues that threats on self esteem could easily accrue to aggression in any particular relationship since is raised the jealousy levels (p.629). In other words, physical attractiveness and self esteem were vital components which determine up to a certain level jealousy that was experienced in a particular relationship.

On the other hand, women who were fairly attractive also reported low levels of jealousy in their relationships. Essentially, these women were found to possess a high potential of attraction which resulted in low levels of threats. As a result, there was a low level of jealousy. Importantly, just as height played an important role in revealing the jealousy levels among men, height also played a part in revealing the jealousy levels among women. In reference to Buunk et al. (2008), male height was found to be negatively correlated with self-reported global jealousy, whereas female height was curvilinearly related to jealousy, with average-height women reporting the lowest levels of jealousy (p.133). In consistent with this, jealousy in relationship was partly determined by the height of both the man and woman who were involved. This was particularly so since it was believed that height served as an outward sign of good genes and as a result, this raised the level of attractiveness (p.133).

The relationship of a child and a parent

Researchers and Scholar have also been particularly concerned with the relationship between the parent and the child and how this impacts the child’s relationships in future. Research has demonstrated that experiences in the early familial environment contribute to romantic relationship functioning, such that individuals who grow up in families characterized by nurturing parenting have higher quality romantic relationships as adults than do individuals who grow up with parents characterized as distant or cold (Rauer & Volling, 2007, p.495). In consistent with this, the parent’s treatment of one as a child determined the way the child grew up and how he or she developed perception towards other people and relationship. Remarkably, it was observed that one of the consequences of unfair treatment of the child was jealousy, which affected his or her relationship later on in life (p.498). The approach which is used by Rauer and Volling focuses on young adult and they explore concrete issues which affected young adults and their relationships with others. Similarly, these authors relate jealousy and self-esteem and argue that the two are inversely related.

Impact of Jealousy on Relationships

There are a lot of impacts which have been identified as a result of jealousy. To begin with, jealousy among individuals affected the overall relating process in any particular relationship as a result of the fact that the person(s) who was affected had unstable emotional balance. As a result, such person(s) was unable to control his/her emotional dimension leading to anger, depression, hopelessness, anxiety, etc. Fleischmann et al. (2005) argues that Jealousy is a common source of relational dissatisfaction, relational conflict, break-up, aggression and violence (p.50). In connection to this, jealousy served a destructive purpose rather than building in any particular relationship.

Cognitive Therapy

There are different solutions which have been proposed towards solving or rather easing the impact of jealousy on relationships in the contemporary society. However, the use of a cognitive approach has been perceived as one of the most effective in dealing with jealousy in relationships. According to (Leahy & Tirch, 2008, p.), cognitive-behavioral approaches to jealousy have focused on correcting or modifying dysfunctional interpretations or assumptions that give rise to jealousy (p.19). Therefore, these researchers propose an integrative cognitive-behavioral model as a way of treating jealousy. Therefore, they propose that a systematic approach must be followed to examine or rather identify the problem and then work towards getting the victim out of the jealousy trap. Notably, the integrative approach recognizes that thoughts, emotions, behaviors and relationships are all part of a single system and that interventions at all points can maximize therapeutic effectiveness (p.30).

Conclusion

Whereas jealousy is one of the most threatening factors towards a cohesive or rather mutual existence of relationships in the society, it is among the factors which have been studied or researched on the least. In this connection, this research summary examined jealousy in relationship and came up with the fowling conclusions. To begin with, gender, i.e. male and female played a vital part in controlling the level of jealousy among both men and women who were in a relationship (Easton, Schipper & Shackelford, 2007). Remarkably, gender and jealousy cannot be separated. Furthermore, the height and attractiveness of those who were involved also, either heightened or reduced the level of jealousy in such relationships. Speaking generally, there are various issues which contributed to the overall rise or fall in the level of jealousy among people in relationships. These are the physical attributes, emotional attributes such as perception of self or rather self-esteem, and childhood experience.

There are various questions which were not answered adequately by literature which was reviewed in this summary research. To begin with, the jealousy as it pertains to gay relationship was mentioned briefly but not critically analyzed to come up with firm conclusions. Moreover, whereas jealousy had negative effects on relationships, the literature failed to take note of the fact that there were positive attributes of jealousy which could assist in strengthening relationships. Similarly, the question of whether jealousy and human development has not been touched. Therefore, further research on gay relationships, jealousy and human development, and the positive effects of jealousy would contribute a lot towards understanding jealousy in relationships.

An Examination of the Advancement of Lesbian Theory & Criticism – America: 1950’s-1990’s.
Introduction

Lesbianism in American society is a concept imbued with social, political, legal, aesthetic and literary codes and conventions, whether considered in 1950 or currently. In the past half century, lesbianism has not only expressed itself as specific articulations of sexuality and lifestyle, but also of ideology and political aspiration. Sexuality has remained essential to conceptualisations of lesbianism in this time span, with its political formulations, societal censures, and social accommodations anchored to the vicissitudes of feminist theory and practice. American social and political morays which have prescribed female functionality in post World War Two years, have cast mainstream female identity in terms of motherhood, wifeliness and domesticity, a formulation of personhood deeply challenged by advancing lesbian ideology and praxis.

In this light, one of the significant threads of lesbian theory and criticism to be evaluated pertains to feminism’s examination of female identity in the past 50 years, and the status and reaction of lesbianism within this paradigm. This process encompasses events and issues pertaining to the biological, sexual and social validation of female gender, but also the intellectual development of modes of discourse pertaining to feminism and lesbianism, as a means of female empowerment, paralleled by considered or reactionary responses to wider societal trends.

So called second wave feminism, benchmarked by the Stonewall Riots at Greenwich Village in New York in 1969, targeted women’s liberation not only at the level of law, and concrete denotations of inequality and injustice, (akin to feminism’s first wave), but at the more visceral level of societal and political attitudes and values, including the ideological decoupling of female personhood from male sexuality.

Since the early 1990’s, the ideological and theoretical formulations of lesbianism have been advancing in disparate lines, at the bidding of post-structuralist or postmodernist discourses. Some of lesbianism’s intellectual impulses have focused upon notions of sexual and personal identity, and in spite of their intellectual sophistication have lost their momentum and coherence, collapsing into an “ambiguous polymorphy,”^[1] whilst attempting to dispense with unhelpful binary oppositional definitions of gender or sexuality. Conversely, an intellectual strength of third wave feminism and post 1980’s lesbian criticism has been the attention to personhood, the integrity of the self and the integration of public and private moralities.

Chapter 1

Homosexuality after World War I was broadly viewed as “an offence against the family and social expectations about gender.”^[2] A doctor’s post World War 1 contemporary observations noted that it was “improper to utter the word homosexuality, prurient to admit its existence and pornographic to discuss the subject.”^[3] The same doctor reflects the radical difference between American and European cultural and sexual values, implying that while Europe was perceived by Americans as decadent, European novels could discuss homosexuality openly within a European setting, yet American novels could not, since “if it existed at all, (as) our soil is unfavourable, our climate prejudicial, our people too primitive, too pure.”^[4] Furthermore, Fone contends that homosexuality had come to be seen as a “subversion of America itself.” ^[5] Fone also observes that since war is a “time of fear and upheaval-it produces a virulent, xenophobic strain of homophobia” tantamount to conceiving “sexual difference as a betrayal of American values”.^[6]

Retrospectively implicit among these anecdotal pre World War II dismissals of homosexuality, is the notable silence concerning any distinction between male and female homosexuality, or gay and lesbian sexual phenomenon. The grip of patriarchy was so overarching that lesbianism did not even feature as a notable offence against social sensibilities.

Be that as it may. The social discourse regarding lesbianism in the 1950’s was in part a response to the repositioning of women due to World War II. As war demanded heightened US defences and reconstituted the nation’s labour force, women formed the Women’s Army Corps (WAC) and were seconded to non-traditional jobs, accounting for one third of the work force. According to Kennedy and Davis, “World War II… had a tremendous impact on lesbian life, by offering lesbians more opportunities for socialising and meeting other women.”^[7] Since the war “gave more independence to all women… lesbians (were) more like other women and less easy to identify. Since all women were able to wear pants to work and to purchase them in stores off the rack, butches who only wore pants in the privacy of their home in the 1930s could now wear them on the streets.”^[8] Furthermore, in Buffalo women gained access to better jobs since productivity was heightened by war manufacturing. Since the male population of Buffalo was denuded for military service, lesbians had greater liberty to meet in public and pursue active social lives beyond hearth and home. Extensive social life revolved around “the proliferation of gay bars”^[9] and despite the “mere presence of homosexuals…interpreted by the State Liquor Authority as constituting disorderly conduct”,^[10] raids on premises were minimal in the 1940’s due to the shrewdness of business owners.^[11]

Concurrently, enlisted lesbians found a social space within the male world of military service since enrolment screening practices for lesbians entering the (WAC) were less stringent than for gay men.^[12] In this example, the lack of status for women in the military prior to the war resulted in ill-defined screening procedures for women recruits, matched by a choice to not investigate the sexual lives of women, as the goal was to optimise the war effort.^[13] The simplistic and binary designations of sexual orientation in the late 1940’s are noted by the comments from “a group of Marine Corps examiners at Camp LeJeune (who) advised their colleagues, “that women showing a masculine manner may be perfectly normal sexually and excellent military material.”^[14] By the late 1940’s however, “purging of lesbians from the military became increasingly problematic. Many women were forced to deny knowing any of their friends or marry gay men to pass as heterosexual.”^[15] Ominously, “mid 1950’s Navy officials secretly acknowledged that the homosexual discharge rate had become much higher for the female than the male.” ^[16]

When the end of the war brought a resumption of traditional family roles, there were no alternate social prescriptions for women apart from marriage, and enduring singleness subjected females to social disapproval, while the “aggressive harassment of lesbians and gays was connected to this glorification of the nuclear family and domestic sphere.Homophobia became a way of reinstituting male dominance and strict gender roles that had been disrupted by the war.”^[17] The 1950’s remained a social and political milieu of “severe oppression,”^[18] yet Roosevelt suggests the reduced harassment of gay bar culture and the desire of public lesbians to reach out to other lesbians, marked a “significant transformation in lesbian consciousness.” ^[19]

The emergence of tough butch lesbian sub-culture in the 1950’s, was, according to Roosevelt, a consequence of gay bar life and working class female job creation during World War II.^[20] Nonetheless, “alcohol, insecurity, and repression, in combination with the tough butch image, made fights among tough and rough lesbians a prominent part of the 1950s landscape which increased concern and attention from the larger culture.” ^[21]

Furthermore, the prominence of lesbians and male homosexuals holding positions within the American government agencies in the 1950’s was a matter of growing consternation, in light of the neo-conservatism and right wing extremism of this period. The political tirade against ‘un-American activities typified by the McCarthy led Senate committee inquiries and public hearings, not only felt virtue was found in the purging of communist allegiances and sentiments, but also coupled homosexuality and lesbianism with such perceived political aberrations. Politically enshrined deviance was aligned with sexually defined deviance. The 1950 congressional record addressed homosexuals in government, with congressman Miller of Nebraska addressing the House of Representatives. In an excerpt, Miller stated,

“I would like to strip the fetid, stinking flesh off of this skeleton of homosexuality and tell my colleagues of the House some of the facts of nature… Recently the spotlight of publicity has been focused not only upon the State Department but upon the Department of Commerce because of homosexuals being employed in these and other departments of Government. Recently Mr. Peurifoy, of the State Department, said he had allowed 91 individuals in the State Department to resign because they were homosexuals. Now they are like birds of a feather, they flock together. Where did they go? You must know what a homosexual is. It is amazing that in the Capital City of Washington we are plagued with such a large group of those individuals. Washington attracts many lovely folks. The sex crimes in the city are many.”^[22]

Miller went on to refer to the Sex Pervert Bill passed through Congress that he authored, exposing his jaundiced view of sexuality by alluding to the peril of homosexuals, as well as the ‘concession’ that “some of them are more to be pitied than condemned, because in many it is a pathological condition, very much like the kleptomaniac who must go out and steal.”^[23]

In addition to the homophobic cringe mentality epitomising the 1950’s which also applied to lesbianism, viewing any form of non-heterosexual sex as non-normative and therefore aberrant, prior to 2003, homosexuality (and by extension lesbianism), was “considered a disease, a sin (and) a threat to public order.”^[24] Further reasons why lesbianism was shunned by American mainstream society in the 1950’s concerns the belief that (in the absence of research to the contrary), sexual orientation was subject to change and able to be transferred.^[25] As such, a threat or fear existed that there was the possibility of an epidemic conversion from heterosexual to, homosexual, yielding a perceived need to ‘protect’ heterosexuals. Since homosexuals and lesbians were perceived to be engaging in indulgent, wayward and aberrant sexual behaviour by choice, rather than by predisposition, the persecution and stigmatization they received was not viewed as a breach of fundamental human rights. ^[26] Furthermore, another potent reason for the social and political aversion to lesbianism was the belief that heterosexual minors could become homosexual by way of seduction, justifying the protection of children and youth by means of criminal law.^[27]

Amnesty International’s recent statement addressing the decriminalisation of homosexuality globally, demonstrates that third wave feminist ideological battles (discussed later) are far from won. The paper makes the observation that “far fewer countries explicitly criminalise lesbianism than male homosexuality… as there (already) exists a raft of legislation to limit, police and control women’s sexual autonomy. (The writers’ explanation that), lesbianism is not generally subject to legal sanctions may be attributed to the absence of women from the public sphere and the resulting absence of awareness of lesbianism.”^[28] This “social invisibility”^[29] of lesbianism leads to some lawmakers denying that it even exists.

Miller’s attitudes not only exposed the entrenched criminalisation of homosexuality (and by association lesbianism), but the second social contrivance of lesbianism which coalesced in American culture in the 1950’s, namely its ‘medicalisation’, framing lesbianism as a social pathogen, rather than an issue of sexual difference and diversity, when compared with heterosexuality or monogamy. Such a pathological casting of lesbianism is foreseen in pre-1950’s homophobic stereotypes, where psychic differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals were fabricated – constructing the homosexual male as a deficit being without “will power, perseverance, and dogmatic energy.”^[30] These social postulations of male effeminacy merely mirrored manifestations of female ‘masculinisation,’ such as the butch bar working class lesbian sub-culture, already identified. Instead of current societal emphasis upon diversity and difference, the 1950’s construction of lesbianism underscored deficit and deviance.

Roosevelt draws attention to psychiatrists Henry & Gay duplicitous motives. Whilst formulating a committee for the Study of Sex Variants in the 1940’s, compiling case histories of over 300 lesbians, producing ‘Sex Variants: A Study of Homosexual Patters’, with the pretext of decriminalising lesbianism, in actuality, the hidden agenda was to legitimise the psychiatry profession, and as a consequence, medicalise lesbianism, merely replacing one construct of deviance with another. ^[31] Lesbianism remained an immoral practice in the USA until Illinois led the change with its homosexuality decriminalisation law in 1961.^[32] Prior to this time, “criminologists of the 1950’s depicted lesbian inmates as menacing social types which lead to a conflation between women’s prisons and lesbianism.”^[33] The shift to greater surveillance of lesbianism in women’s prisons was reflected in “U.S. popular and political culture in magazines, pulp novels, and movies where the, previously, comic and benign lesbian gave way to the dangerously aggressive lesbian criminal. By the 1950’s the term ‘women’s prison’ was synonymous with lesbian aggression,”^[34]casting sexuality as a potential signifier of membership of a “criminal underworld, losing class, race, and privilege.” ^[35]Such pulp novels as those published by Ann Weldy under the pseudonym Ann Bannon, included ‘Odd Girl Out’, (1957); ‘I Am a Woman (In Love With a Woman Why Must Society Reject Me’?) (1959); ‘Women in The Shadows’, (1959);‘Journey to a Woman’ (1960) and ‘The Marriage’, (1960); and Beebo Brinker (1962), the prequel to the first four books.^[36] The social limitations of same-gender sexuality identification are evident in the narrative outcomes of these early lesbian pulp fiction titles. “It was expected that the characters in a lesbian novel would never receive any satisfaction from a lesbian relationship. One or both usually ended up committing suicide, going insane, or leaving the relationship.” Describing the 1950’s as the hey-day of Lesbian Pulp Fiction, Bianco noted that while its boom was inspired mainly by publishers pitching successfully to straight males seeking titillation, oppressed lesbians found a private outlet and psychic survival through such writings denied them publicly by the censoriousness of 1950’s repressive American culture. Bianco noted the publicist’s irony, since while

“cover art of pulp novels always depicted ultra-feminine women, the ‘real’ lesbians in the stories were often tomboys or ‘bad girls’ who seduced innocent straight women. Reflecting psychological theories of the time, lesbian pulp writers often presented lesbianism as the result of a trauma, such as rape or incest. At the end, the innocent straight woman almost always returned to a ‘normal’ life with a man. If the lesbian protagonist wasn’t herself converted to heterosexuality, she usually became an alcoholic, lost her job, or committed suicide. Publishers insisted on these kinds of “moral” endings, condemning lesbian sexuality even while exploiting it. In this regard, lesbian pulps followed the formula of torment and sacrifice.”^[37]

As such, lurid and socially shunned fictionalisations of alternate sexuality merely reinforced the ethical and moral mainstream fabric of neo-conservative American culture. Anne Bannon, as she was publicly known, reputedly led a double life, a wife and mother who frequented lesbian bars on weekends in Greenwich Village, and strikingly only disclosed her authorship of her lesbian pulp fiction novels in the 1980’s, over two decades after they were published. In the view of Bianco, her works made a significant contribution to lesbian identity in the decade prior to ‘Stonewall’.^[38]

Theoretical perspectives on lesbian and alternate sexuality critical to the exploration of emerging critical paradigms of lesbianism in America in the second half of the twentieth century, do not merely address the enduring and at times overwhelming dialectical tension between mainstream heterosexual ideology and homosexual reaction; but the internal dialectic within the gay community and how it evolved and responded to dimensions of itself throughout this passage of social history. The butch/fem dialectic itself illustrates the politics of sex and psychology. An increase in sexual experimentation and practices, saw a sub-cultural practice emerge, whereby butch/ fem lesbian couples assumed strictly defined roles, the ‘stone butch untouchable’ finding sexual pleasure exclusively through giving pleasure to her fem, while the fem forbidden to reciprocate, was positioned within the codes of the relationship to only receive pleasure. While some critiqued this relational dynamic as a mere imitation of conventional masculine approaches to sex, others identified in butches “a discomfort of being (physically) touched rooted in their biology.There was also much importance placed on role distinction, an unwanted vulnerability involved in mutual lovemaking, the butch ego, and the butch’s ambivalence toward her female body. In the 1950s, Fems approached sexuality from a self-centred perspective…and lesbians who would not select a role, but changed roles,were derisively referred to as KiKis or AC/DC and were viewed with suspicion by other working-class lesbians.”^[39] That Butches apparently disliked switching roles, imposed such rigid relational rules and maintained such static notions of sexual identity, indicated that the delineation of sexual identity within this specific lesbian subculture, was just as restrictive and jaundiced a stance as the homophobic predilections of the 1950’s heterosexual community in general. The paralyzing dialectic of shame and shamelessness which more contemporary feminists have used to identify heterosexual impediments in the slow march towards sexual liberation^[40] is alive in the politics of sex and identity psychology played out in the binary relations of 1950’s butch/fem lesbianism.

While many look to the Stonewall Riots at Greenwich Village New York as the defining moment for the empowerment of the modern Gay and Lesbian Liberation Movement, others trace the serious beginnings to 1951 in Los Angeles. In the 1950’s gay protest remained largely “bland, apologetic, unassertive and defensive…(relying) upon ‘experts’- psychiatrists, and psychoanalysts, lawyers, theologians…who spoke about us, to us, and at us, but never with us.” ^[41] By 1961, the Homophile Movement, represented in the US by a mere half dozen organizations, yet by 1969, numbering fifty or sixty such proactive bodies.

The origins of the Stonewall Riots have their foundation in the “immigrant, working class neighbourhoods of New York…(where) gay sexuality was very much in and of the streets…due in part to the economic and spatial limitations of the tenements. Enclaves of lesbians interacted with their gay male counterparts, congregating in the speakeasies, tearooms and drag balls of Harlem and Greenwich Village during the 1920’s.”^[42] Furthermore, Greenwich Village’s “bohemian life tolerated sexual experimentation which conferred upon the area an embryonic stature of erotica unbound…lesbian and gay clubs in the Village were founded on the ‘Personality Clubs’ of the bohemian intelligentsia.”^[43] Writers commonly view Greenwich as a social space freed from the normal “social constraints” of modern life, a “sexual free- zone” and a homosexual Mecca for predominantly white homosexuals, as Harlem was for black people.^[44] The anonymity of the city had become accessible to post war military linked Americans, and the semi public spaces of night cafe and bar cultures, served to straddle the psychological and spatial divide between the privacy, domesticity and intimacy of the home, and the disclosure and defiance of public morality played out in the Greenwich domain. As Munt suggests, this cultural transition captured in Lesbian Pulp fiction, tracked “the lesbian adventurer inhabiting a twilight world where sexual encounters were acts of romanticised outlawry initiated in some back street bar and consummated in the narrative penetration of the depths of maze-like apartment buildings.” ^[45]Munt views Bannon’s heroines as mythologizing the “eroticised urban explorer.” ^[46] The value of Stonewall’s mythologisation is viewed “as a constitutive moment, while admitting its cultural fiction.”^[47]

Other signposts of lesbians claiming a small cultural space and some public domain in this ensuing decade indicated by Mathison & Fraher, included the formation of the ‘Mattachine Society’ in 1951 (founded to aid homosexuals in the process of chronicling their collective histories and mitigate against social persecution); the initial publication of ‘One’ Magazine in 1953; the foundation of the lesbian organisation ‘Daughters of Bilitis’ in 1955; and the subsequent publication of their first magazine titled ‘The Ladder’ in 1956. Additionally, the Kinsley Report published in 1957 claimed 10% of the population to predominantly homosexual, while in 1961 Illinois became the first US state to criminalise homosexual acts. The Stonewall Riots in Greenwich Village in 1969 were closely followed by a Gay Rally in Chicago in 1970.^[48]

Chapter 2

Betty Friedan’s ground breaking book titled ‘The Feminine Mystique’, encapsulated the inexplicable toleration of millions of American women in the 1950’s and early 1960’s that had exclusively devoted themselves to the mutual socially prescribed roles of wife and mother. Friedan’s thesis was that this wholehearted devotion carried a contingent cost and sacrifice beyond the conscious level of comprehension of countless women, oblivious to the enormity of what they were surrendering in the process, as well as the significant parts of themselves they were denying as a result of idolising domesticity. Friedan herself in 1994 retrospectively explained the term ‘feminine mystique’ as when “women were defined only in sexual relation to men – man’s wife, sex object, mother, housewife- and never a person defining themselves by their own actions in society.”^[49] She conceived of this conceptualisation of women as a stifling barrier to their wider participation within society and therefore as fully functioning human beings. It was the notion that this existential position of women was so unchallenged and so instinctively accepted that Friedan found to be so perplexing, provocatively couched by the feminist as a ‘feminine mystique’ to ridicule the notion that the socially contrived roles had acquired the status of an implacable genetic predisposition. Quidlen acclaims Friedan’s foresight in the book’s introduction, as she succeeded in scrutinising ways “women had been coaxed into selling out their intellect and their ambitions for the paltry price of a new washing machine…(seduced by) the development of labour saving appliances…(yet being) covered up in a kitchen conspiracy of denial.”^[50] Friedan empowered women with confidence to reconceptualise their problems’ origins, lying beyond her marriage or herself.^[51] Furthermore, Friedan was a keen observer of hypocrisy, contradiction and imbalance, with a caustic view concerning “a generation of educated housewives maniacally arranging the silverware and dressing to welcome their husbands’ home from work.”^[52]

Friedan as many other feminists and indeed lesbians was a strident advocate of the wider participation of women in society. Typifying ways women were alienated from mainstream society and disenfranchised by males, were prevailing attitudes towards abortion, public censure or ambivalence about a woman’s right to choose; the invisibility of sexual abuse, the lack of acknowledgement of more subtle forms of sexual harassment, as well as the economic and social disempowerment with relation to exit strategies for women to leave bad marriages. Friedan observes the 1990’s obsession with defining and crystalising female identity,^[53] explaining this as a logical extension of the break down of the feminine mystique and the empowerment of women. This obsession manifested itself through a surfeit of women’s identity literature and college courses in women’s studies. ^[54] By logical extension, feminism did provide leverage for the liberation of lesbians and the sexual politics associated with lesbianism, in spite of Friedan’s disconnect with lesbianism as a valid expression of women’s rights.

Friedan did identify menopause crises, sexual frigidity, promiscuity, pregnancy fears, child birth depression, passivity, the immaturity of American men, discrepancies between women’s tested childhood intellectual abilities and their adult achievements and the changing incidence of adult sexual orgasm in American women as issues pertaining to the emergence of a fuller identity and societal participation for women.^[55]

It is clear that there was little room in the consciousness of women to process the notion of their sexuality prior to the 1960’s sexual revolution, since women drew neuroses was the energy needed to juggle the conflicting roles between motherhood, domestic duty and work beyond the home and manage the personal and societal guilt which emerged from this 9at times) impossible process.^[56] The social and political discourse of the era lionized women who did not lose their man, and balanced service of males, children and home. The wider world was beyond their consciousness and matters of sexual identity were not part of the public domain. Friedan contends that femininity in the 1950’s was a social construction, which, if attended to faithfully, was the only means by which women could achieve contentment and fulfilment, having historically made the blunder of trying to imitate masculinity , instead of embodying femininity, which was deemed to be characterized by sexual passivity, nurturing maternal love and male domination.^[57]

Furthermore, the classification of the political domain as a male intellectual and practical bastion did nothing to facilitate women re-evaluating sexual politics and notions of political disenfranchisement in the 1950’s. In 1960, Friedan recalled that “a perceptive social psychologist showed me some sad statistics which seemed to prove unmistakably that women under age 35 years were not interested in politics.”^[58] Furthermore, a false dichotomy was embedded in American national consciousness regarding female sexuality, with no middle ground, namely, women were good who came to the pedestal and whores if they expressed physical sexual desire or sought such pleasure. This dichotomous paradigm disempowered women’s sexual liberation.^[59]While the feminine mystique succeeded in precluding women from considering their own sense of personal identity – who they were alone from husband, children and home,^[60] the former emphasis of genetic determinism shaped women’s outlook on the path of their lives- plainly, “the identity of woman is determined by her biology.”^[61] (Ironically, the same conclusion regarding lesbianism was not reached by American society for decades, prior to the 1990’s, lesbianism being widely viewed as deviant sexual conduct determined by choice rather than orientation.)

Friedan counters the Freudian explanation for the desire of women to depart from the domestic centre, namely the motive of ‘penis envy’ propagated by Freud. ^[62]Instead, she presciently identified the objectification of women as a societal flaw, “she was, at that time, so completely defined as object by man, never herself as ‘I’, that she was not even expected to enjoy or participate in the act of sex.”^[63] The gay and lesbian revolution gained momentum in the late 1960’s, infused the female with a sense of subjectivity, to counter this objectification, poignantly exemplified through the centring of the female orgasm, which emphatically declared that women were sexual beings, capable and entitled to experience sexual pleasure, rather than being victims of abuse or neutral ‘sideline observers’ of sexual activity while their husbands were actualising their virility through sex. While Friedan acknowledged that “Freudian thought became the ideological bulwark of American of the sexual counter-revolution in America”^[64]…defining the sexual nature of women, conversely Friedan speculated that an insatiable female sexual desire existed due to the vacuum created by the absence of larger life goals for woman. ^[65] While she countered Freud with this ex

The author conceptualizes development as ‘the gap between an exclusive concentration on economic wealth and a broader focus on the lives we can lead’ (p.14) emphasizing that the theory of development goes well beyond wealth accumulation and gross national product growth. The chapter examines the relationship between development and freedom, the way in which freedom is a component of development and an extensive view of ‘freedom’ encompassing both opportunities that people have and processes that allow for ‘freedom’ of decisions.

The main arguments of the author is that development should be assessed by ‘freedom’ of accessibility to factors such as social opportunities, health care, clean water, economic security, civil rights and political freedom. Lack of accessibility means ‘unfreedom’. Development therefore should mean that people can live the lives they want to live and precisely, how can a nation say in all entirety that it has ‘freedom’ when its citizens cannot afford the very basic necessities of life or fulfill the rights they are entitled to?

Sen goes on further to compare different views of poverty in both developing and developed nation by analyzing ‘freedoms’ through values, poverty and inequality, income and mortality, markets and freedom, tradition and culture. The author sees the process of development beyond economic growth or physical and human capital and concludes by linking the understanding of a broad view of the development process to the substantive ‘freedoms’ of people.

Sen’s write up contains intriguing views but he hasn’t mentioned what justifies his classification into these ‘freedoms’ i.e. experience of developing countries, factual historical evidence or how far ‘freedom’ has progressed within each context he identified. His definition is quite different from Rapley’s in which Rapley describes development as “more concerned with flexibility and adaptability” (Rapley 2007 pp 5) and so raises a question. Can development be measured only by individual happiness without economic growth and stability? Happiness, in my opinion is geared more towards Rapley’s definition and should be adapted into the process of economic growth.

Willis, K. (2005) Theories and Practices of Development. London. Routledge. p. 32-42.

Willis’ chapter 2 of theories and practices of development analyses development theories and practices and how these theories were attached to the economic, social and political theories that developed in Europe from the 18th century. Willis’s interpretation raises some interesting facts about historical development of theories and she divides her study into various theories.

The classical economists such as David Ricardo, an advocate of free trade and Adam Smith, in his famous book, Wealth of Nations ‘responded to the trade focus of economic policy at that time’ (p.32) when trade was a major factor of economic growth. Here, protectionist measures such as high tariffs were highly used by merchants.

Willis goes on to say Adam Smith was not in favour of this form of regulation and that it was harmful to the country’s economic growth. Instead, greater focus on production and division of labour which will be regulated by the ‘invisible hand of the market’ (p.33).

The Great depression of the 1930’s and other economic happenings gave rise to Keynes argument of the free market not necessarily a positive force but government intervention in the promotion of economic growth while postwar reconstruction period was a time to reflect on the economic crises that occurred at that time and provide solutions to their re-occurrence. This led to the creation of the Bretton woods institutions to assist in the promotion of ‘stable economic growth within a capitalist system’ (p. 36)

Willis describes the linear stages theory and makes emphasis on Rostow, the American economist and political theorist’s stages of Economic growth to development. Here, development was seen as a state where a large number of the population could afford to spend largely on consumer products and development was viewed as modern, moving from agricultural societies to an industrial economy. While she tries to decipher early theoretical ideas, Willis has not made clear linkages between some of these theories and how they have come to evolve in economic debates and discussions over time.

Chang, H., and Ilene G. (2004) ‘Reclaiming Development from the Washington Consensus’, Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 27(2), 274-291.

The fundamental of this article is to correct the notion that there is no alternative to the Washington Consensus. The authors argue that ‘neoliberal policies have failed to achieve their goals in developing world’ (p. 274) and so discuss the major development myths for justifying neoliberal policies that have been harmful to developing world and perhaps as a complacency to the reader, possible alternatives to these policies.

These myths, evaluated individually, describe how these policies have lacked credibility. Myth 1; In contrast to the neoliberal policy success, the reality is that the policy has not promoted its main aim of economic growth. Myth 2; Developed countries gained success through free market policies whereas records claim they relied upon interventionist policies for development. Myth 3; Only neoliberal policies can succeed in today’s global environment whereas in fact there is evidence of ‘continuing institutional and policy divergence across national boundaries’ (p. 277) Myth 4; Discipline imposed by international institutions to keep them honest whereby placing policy making authority in the hands of these organizations. Myth 5; The East Asian model cannot be replicated when in fact most developed countries utilized this model. Myth 6; Developing countries should imitate the Anglo American model of capitalism which fared poorly in the economic boom of the 1990’s.

The authors went ahead to put forward alternative policies for faster economic development which includes the financial system providing adequate finance quantities for investment projects at appropriate prices, enforcing strict laws on new foreign loans incurred by domestic borrowers, defocusing on budget balance and maximizing FDI potentials to promote economic and industrial development in developing countries

While arguing for these policies, it will be sensible to note that economies are different and there can be no ‘best practice’ policy that everyone should use (Chang 2003). Policies for development should not be ‘fixed’ but depend on stages of development of a developing nation and other factors such as resource capacity, economic, political and social conditions.

Pender, J. (2001) ‘From Structural Adjustment’ to Comprehensive Development Framework’: Conditionality Transformed?’ Third World Quarterly, 22 (3), 397-411.

Pender reviews how the World Bank’s approach to development has changed over decades and brought about important shifts to its conditionality approach. In the light of new changes between the 90’s and today, the World Bank formulated a Comprehensive Development Framework, based on a relationship of partnership to replace its erstwhile structural adjustment lending (p. 397).

The author examines why the World Bank’s perspectives of development changed through different periods; In the 1980’s to early 90’s, GDP was used as a measure of development as the Bank was mostly concerned with rapid economic growth and sustenance for least developed countries (LDC) and the adoption of policies such as restriction of state spending, controlling inflation, commodity exports and privatization as factors to achieve development.

The 1990’s drew lack of confidence in these policies and there were strong doubts about its competence judging from the success of the Asian Economies that developed rapidly without the World Bank’s policy prescriptions. This informed the Bank to change its 1980 view about minimal state role in development and that ‘growth by itself is not enough’ (p 401). Thus in 1990, a formulation of an approach based on both ‘labour intensive growth’ and ‘widespread provision of basic social services’ (p.401). In spite of these alterations, there were criticisms that the Bank reforms were not aiding Africa’s growth but rather, increasing stagnant economies through the implementation of the Bank’s policies.

According to Pender, the Bank lost confidence in its policy framework in early 1995, with the Asian miracle and LDC’s failure and was forced to critique its own policies and re-orientate. This modification was experimented between 1995-1997 with ‘improvements in the understanding of economic development’ and poverty reduction as the central focus.

The author gives clear informed views of the process of policy change within the World Bank at different times but fails to analyze the impact of this new focus of poverty reduction and its success to the development of today’s third world countries.

Chang, H. (2003) Kicking away the ladder. Development Strategy in Historical Perspectives. London, Anthem Press. Chapter 1.

Chang’s analysis centers around one question, ‘How did the rich countries really become rich?’ He uncovers some myths about developed countries developmental experience and argues that developed countries did not develop through the same policies that they recommend to the developing world.

This pressure from developed countries to the developing world to adopt a set of ‘good policies’ that they adopted when they themselves were developing is faced with criticisms because ‘historical evidence suggests otherwise’ and goes on to say that they are trying to hide the ‘secret of their success’ (p. 2).

Some of these policies include liberalization of trade, privatization, restrictive macroeconomic policies and deregulation but facts show that most of the developing countries used export subsidies and industry protection, industrial policies that the WTO disapproves in the present world. The USA and UK were examples of ardent users of these same ‘policies’ frowned at in contrast to the free trade policies and free market they preach.

Chang quotes List, the German economist that ‘Britain was the first country to perfect the art of infant industry promotion’ which is the principle behind most countries journey to success (p. 3). He argues that developed countries, while alleging to recommend good policies to developing countries are actually trying to ‘kick away the ladder’ of their own economic development.

A conclusion is drawn on some methodological issues of David Ricardo’s neoliberal policies to Friedrich List’s infant industry argument that while developed countries preach Ricardo to developing nations, they actually pursued List’s policies in the past.

Although Chang did not confront and compare works of economic historians e.g. L.E Birdzell’s How the West grew rich in relation to his How did the rich countries really become rich to identify similar or different conclusions, his examination of historical materials to reach important and interesting conclusions is a contribution that is immensely valuable to the current debates on development that will evidently challenge contemporary policies and enrich development theory.

This paper analyzes the determinants of individual attitudes towards immigration within a group of students that study in UK. We consider three different types of components that influence each individual approach towards immigration. In the first scenario, we assumed that people’s attitudes toward immigration will be influenced by which political party they support. In the second scenario, we assumed that individuals who live in a city will have more positive attitudes towards immigrants than an individual who lives in a town, or a village. The third assumption was that individual which have been outside UK several times are more likely to form positive attitudes towards immigration, than people who have never been outside UK. What we found was that there was not a significant difference in attitudes toward immigration in all three components.

Introduction

The definition of attitudes is: “Attitudes is a psychological tendency that is expressed by evaluating a particular entity with some degree of favor or disfavor” (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993, p1). The term is part of our commonsense language, and everyone understands and uses it to express attitude towards religion, racism, work, politics and many other things. Every day, each of us is exposed to countless stimuli which change and reinforce our attitudes. It is not coincidental, that Allport (1935) thought of attitudes as the most indispensable part of social psychology. A few psychologists even considered the whole psychology as scientific study of attitudes (Thomas & Znaniecki, 1918).

Attitudes toward immigration vary within every society and there are many factors that play a significant role to that. In a paper examining the growing restrictiveness of late 19th century immigration policy, Timmer and Williamson (1998) argued that economic factors were sufficient to explain the anti-immigration backlash that occurred in the major host countries of the New World at that time. They constructed an index of immigration barriers in the US, Canada, Argentina, Australia and Brazil from 1850 to 1930, based on a careful reading of each country’s immigration legislation. What they found was that the most consistently significant variable explaining the rise in immigration barriers was economic inequality. Rising equality encouraged more open immigration policies, while rising inequality encouraged more restrictive immigration policies.

According to Mayda (2004), correlation between pro-immigration attitudes and individual skill, should be related to the skill of natives relative to immigrants in the destination country. Skilled individuals should favour immigration in countries where natives are more skilled than immigrants and oppose it otherwise. The results of her research support her hypothesis. Skilled individuals support immigration whether immigrants are skilled or not and oppose it if they are not skilled.

In similar fashion Scheve and Slaughter (2001) conducted a survey to analyze the determinants of individual preferences over immigration in USA. What they found was that less-skilled workers were significantly more likely to prefer limiting immigrant inflows into the United States. Also, they found no evidence that the relationship between skills and immigration opinions is stronger in high-immigration communities.

Hainmueller and Hiscox (2007) studied individual attitudes towards immigrants across Europe. What they found was that more educated people are significantly less racist and place greater value on cultural diversity than do their counterparts. They are also more likely to believe that immigration generates benefits for the host economy as a whole. On the contrary, the connection between the education or skill levels of individuals and views about immigration appears to have very little to do with fears about labour-market competition. They also found that a large component of the link between education and attitudes toward immigrants is driven by differences among individuals in cultural values and beliefs.

Recent surveys conducted in UK show that two thirds of the people think that UK has immigration problem. The Guardian reports that the British are the only people in Western Europe who want immigration controls at the national rather than the European level, whilst they have little confidence in the UK authorities’ handling the issue. The poll suggests the British are more anti-immigrant and xenophobic than the rest of Western Europe, blaming immigrants for unemployment, and split over whether to grant them equal social benefits.

Given the impact of the recession on employment in the west over the last year, in one of the polls was found that 54% of the people in UK agreed with the statement that “the crisis meant that immigrants were taking jobs from the native-born”. Also the British thought that immigrants depressed wage rates.

Another interesting founding is that Britons wanted to deny legal immigrants equal social benefits, they favoured reinforcing border controls to combat illegal immigration, and they did not support legalising the status of illegal immigrants.

This study focuses on students studying in UK. The study that was constructed focused in three primary areas. Firstly, it took into consideration the place that its individual lives or live. The hypothesis was that people that lived in cities would more likely have positive attitudes toward immigration, than people who live in villages and towns. Secondly, it was thought that the political views of the individual will have an impact in his/her attitude toward immigration. In this question, it was hypothesized that people that support the liberal democrat party will have more positive attitudes than people that support the labour or conservative party. Lastly, travelling outside UK was thought that it will have an impact on the individuals’ attitude toward immigration. In this question it was assumed that individuals’ that had travelled outside UK several times would have more positive attitudes toward immigration than those that did not.

Method
Materials

The questionnaire consisted of four questions. The first question was “what is the general attitude towards immigration”? The answer was either positive or negative, and the participants had to tick one the boxes. The next question was “which political party best encompasses your views”? In this question there were three available answers and the participants had to tick one of the boxes. In this question we assumed that Liberal Democrats will have more positive attitudes toward immigration than the Labour and Conservative parties. Third question was “how would you describe the place where you live”? Again we have three available answers and participants have to tick on. In this question people that lived in a city would be more likely to have positive thoughts of immigration than people that live in towns and villages. Third question was “how many countries have you visited outside UK”? In this question we assumed that people who have travelled more abroad would have more positive attitudes towards immigration.

Participants and Procedure

Twenty undergraduate students at Swansea University took part in the questionnaire (14 female and 6 male) aged between 18 and 28.

The participants were given a questionnaire to complete. It was emphasized to them that their results will be treated in the strictest confidence, and that they will not be divulged to anyone in a manner that would allow their identification. Also the participants were told that there is no “right” or “wrong” answer to any of the questions and they should give their immediate response to the individual items, rather than having a careful thought out and deliberate response.

Results

Using Rx C Chi Square Test of association we found that for the political views the critical value was .29. For the countries visited we also found that critical value was .29. Lastly, for the place that its individual lives, critical value was 3.07. Comparing it to the critical value of chi square=5.99 we can conclude that there is not significant difference in all the questions. Therefore, participant’s attitudes towards immigration were not significant, whether where they grew up, what political party they support and how many times they have travelled abroad.

Discussion

The results in this study were not significant to support our hypothesis. In all the questions the critical value was lower than the chi-squares’ critical value, but we have to take into consideration that there were three or more cells that had an expected frequency of less then three which could explain why none of the results were significant.

Even though our hypothesis could not be supported while doing the chi-square test of association some of the results could be very useful. In the first question which was about the political party which each individual supports, from the 20 students that participated in the survey ten of them supported liberal democrats, and eight of them had positive attitudes towards immigration. Considering liberal democrats’ political views this result supports our hypothesis. In the second question where the participants had to describe the place they lived, we found that most of them lived in towns and village and only one in a city. Our hypothesis here was that people that lived in cities would probably have more positive attitudes about immigration since they would have to associate with more immigrants, and they would be more open minded, than they would if they lived in a village or a town. Since only one person lives in a city our hypothesis could not be argued. Nineteen of the participants live in villages and towns and most of them have positive attitudes toward immigration which does not support our assumption. Lastly, in the question of how many countries have they visited outside UK, we hypothesised that the individuals that had been outside UK several times would have more positive attitudes towards immigration than those that had never left the county. Seventeen of the participants had travelled more four times outside UK and twelve of them had positive attitudes toward immigration which supports our hypothesis.

In future studies, to provide better results we should have each individual complete the questionnaire alone and not among other people. Some individuals might have given wrong replies because they would not want other people to think that they are racists. Another thing we should consider is where each individual lives. We could argue our hypothesis better if we had equal amount of people living in cities, towns and villages. The same could be said for people that have travelled abroad many times, a few times, or have not travelled at all. Lastly we should have equal amount of women and men to compare if gender plays a role in attitudes toward immigration.

In this essay I address the claim that the dependency school sees development from a Third World perspective.^[1] I focus on two dependency theorists, Andre Gunder Frank and Fernando Henrique Cardoso, as a way to examine such a statement. First, I describe dependency theory in a historical context as well as in general terms, in order to clearly situate the school within Third World discourse. Second, I examine the specific theoretical characteristics of Frank’s theories, and some of the criticism of it and how they relate to Third World issues. Third, I discuss Cardoso’s scholarship in relation both to the dependency school and to Frank’s research by emphasizing his theoretical divergence from orthodox dependency theory. Next, I comparatively discuss Frank and Cardoso’s theories in relation to an overall discussion on dependency and development. In conclusion, I review the reasons why the dependency school incorporates a Third World perspective, particularly a Latin American perspective.

Throughout this essay I refer to ‘dependency theory’, yet I would like to point out, as Roxborough (1979) has stressed, that rather than viewing the notion of dependency as a “specific theory” or a “theory of dependency” it be seen as a paradigm (p.43).^[2] This is because there are many competing theories and definitions of dependency as well as several historical intellectual shifts and revisions among dependency scholars (Hout, 1993). The dependency school of development is also variably referred to as the ‘structuralist’, ‘world economy’ and ‘underdevelopment’ schools (Bosch, 1997). It has its roots in theoretical debates discussing capitalism and Marxism (Gardner and Lewis 1996; Chilcote 1981; Roxborough, 1979; Frank, 1967). The earliest discussions emerging from the dependency school can be traced to the ECLA (Economic Commission of Latin America), established by the United Nations in 1948 whereby a radical group of scholars examined the inequities of North-South relations and trade. This enclave of scholars specifically focused on Latin American issues and the paradox of why these countries so rich in natural resources are so economically poor.

The need for the ECLA forum arose from an academic and political reaction toward the inability of Latin American countries to halt the “imperialist siphoning-off of the surplus value produced by their working classes”, hence, the association of dependency theory with a Third World perspective (Johnson 1981, p. 58). The ECLA theorists argued that Latin American countries are subjected to an international system that manipulates and controls them from beyond their own borders (Staniland, 1985). These ideas, moreover, offered a critique of modernisation theories that view less developed countries in terms of an evolutionary process whereby industrialization and economic development are seen as stages that they must undergo in order to achieve higher incomes and living standards. In contrast, dependency theory views less developed countries as resulting from conditions generated by a broader global system of exploitation set within wider social and historical processes (Bilton et al., 1996).

The theoretical debates surrounding dependency theory hinge upon the central idea that it is pointless to study the development of Third World societies in isolation from more developed countries. Debates further the notion that western capitalism in the industrialized world is built upon its ability to dominate and control the resources of non-industrial less developed countries and must thus sustain its dominant position to advance its own interests. The historical basis for such domination is the significant accumulation of capital that occurred during colonization and the industrial revolution. The continuation of such domination transpires through neo-colonialism. As such, dependency theorists primarily focus on the political structures that shape the relationships between the First and Third World (Staniland, 1985).

This main tenet of dependency theory is closely tied to what is widely refereed to as ‘world systems theory’, established by Immanual Wallerstein. In fact, ‘world systems theory’, is commonly viewed as an adaptation or extension of the dependency school (Chirot and Hall, 1982). Wallerstein (1974) views the world as an interrelated system, a world-economy, whereby each country is perceived in terms of its relationship to the whole. It is precisely through a world systems analysis that notions of ‘First” and ‘Third’ worlds have materialized as a way to portray the simultaneous differentiation and interdependency of distinct parts. Dependency theory suggests that the Third World “is not natural, but created through economic and political processes”(Gardner and Lewis 1996, p.17). Like dependency theory, ‘world systems theory’ is often criticized for being overly deterministic (Staniland, 1985).

Two of the most prominent dependency theorists are Andre Gunder Frank and Fernando Henrique Cardoso. Frank and Cardoso are both ECLA scholars and associated with Latin American issues and the dependency school to the extent that they are often referred to as ‘dependistas’. Frank (1967) introduced the popular term ‘the development of underdevelopment’ and wrote specifically about how “the domestic, political and social structure of Chile was and still remains determined first and foremost by the fact and specific nature of its participation in the world capitalist system” (p.29). His work also attempted to address a major gap in the ECLA discussions: the role of class interests within Third World countries in creating cycles of dependency. To do this, Frank developed the notion of metropolis-satellite links whereby capitalism produces a developed center and its underdeveloped peripheries. He purported that the ties between metropolis and satellite can also represent links between advanced capital cities and their hinterlands. This metaphorical binary aims to examine the relationships between industrialised and non-industrialised countries. Although revisionist dependency theorists now refer to these as core-periphery relationships, this metaphor still forms the basis for many contemporary critiques of global capitalism. According to this view, the peripheries supply cheap raw materials and labour to the core. In return, the core supplies them with obsolescent technologies, manufactured goods and debt. This results in peripheral economies being oriented toward the outside whereby resources flow toward the core and, in turn, continue to flow toward the more dominant economic interests of other cores. Capitalism is seen to necessitate the core-periphery division for the efficient allocation of resources in favour of dominant countries. .

Despite, Frank’s intentional focus on class interests, he ignores questions of class formation and behaviour. In his analysis, the flow of resources between the divergent metropolis and satellite regions takes social classes as a given without specifically analysing their structures and roles in contributing to a system of domination. Hence, in Frank’s analysis, spatial relations are conflated with social class relations, a contentious point in criticisms of his work (Chilcote, 1981; Cardoso, 1972; Laclau, 1971). In other words, the shift of value from satellite to metropolis cannot always be viewed as an identical phenomenon to that of the exploitation of labour (Roxborough, 1979).

Another point that provoked much commentary in Frank’s analysis of Latin American underdevelopment was his claim that Latin America has been a capitalist society ever since the sixteenth century. For Ernesto Laclau (1971), an Argentinian scholar, Frank had misread Marx’s definition of capitalism and was thus mistakenly reducing capitalism to a mere equation of exchange and enterprise omitting the equally important emphasis on modes of production. This was particularly important in regards to labour since, at that time, much labour in Latin America consisted of slavery and debt peonage as well as other pre-capitalist forms. Laclau does not question the premise that at the time of colonization, market economies became tied in with those of First World countries; his main point is that the participation of a country in a world economic system does not necessarily render it as being capitalistic. As such, he indicates that Frank confounds the production of commodities with the commoditization of labour, a criticism which led Frank to revise his work.^[3]

Fernando Henrique Cardoso, a Latin American sociologist who later served as the President of Brazil, draws ties between dependency theory and imperialism.^[4] Using the work of Leninist theories, Cardoso (1972) makes parallels with the dependency school over their mutual use of the term ‘dependency’ and their shared observations about how imperialism furthers the capitalist agenda and necessitates economic domination over less developed countries.

Cardoso’s analysis attempted to address those issues of social class that the dependency school had allegedly ignored. He looked at the social and economic as being inextricably tied together, stating, for instance, that “an economic class or group tries to establish through the social process a system of social relations that permits it to impose on the entire society a social form of production akin to its own interests” (ibid, p. 15). Cardoso went beyond the metropolis/satellite metaphor and the perceived asymmetry between First and Third Worlds by examining the political, economic and social links between the dominant local social classes within and between Third and First World countries (Cardoso and Faletto, 1979). For Cardoso, “political institutions at a given moment can only be fully understood in terms of the structures of domination because these express the class interests behind political organization” (ibid, p. 14). He thus envisioned the capitalist economy as growing toward an internationalization in which societies become divided into antagonistic classes.

Cardoso’s delineation of class interests between and within countries departed from the more deterministic model offered by Frank, seeing dependency as varying by degree and thus allowing for a more unconstrained view of international relations. Furthermore, by placing dependency into situation-specific contexts, his position is a more relativist departure from that of Frank’s. Most importantly, Cardoso’s perspective is optimistic about the possibility that dependent relations can transform over time. In fact, Cardoso (1973) argues that in some contexts development and dependency can actually be compatible. This is a clear departure from Frank and other dependency theorists who are often labeled as having a stagnationist view toward development.

Both Frank and Cardoso agree that exploitation from dominant states is a key operating factor in how regional economies develop but whereas Cardoso might focus on class interests, Frank will more broadly hold the forces of capitalism accountable (Bosch, 1997). In fact, Cardoso’s critics accuse him of not detailing the more general conditions and mechanisms by which global capitalism operates (Staniland, 1985). Whereas Frank is pessimistic about liberal and neo-liberal trade theory’s claims to create equality and more fairly distribute resources and the access to them, Cardoso is optimistic.

Although Cardoso accepts the basic premise of dependency theory as describing third world countries as being conditioned by global agendas and constraints, he does not call for a socialist revolution, as does Frank, as a means to remedy these problems.^[5] Yet Frank is also critical of his own former position that assumed that in order for Third World countries to achieve economic independence from the First World they could voluntary de-link themselves from broader economic systems thus controlling their own internal resources, such as raw materials and labour, to develop their own economies. Frank claims that “experience has shown it to be extremely difficult, if not impossible for voluntarist political action to de-link particular countries from the world economy” (Frank, 2002).

Undoubtedly, as I discussed previously, the intellectual roots, vitality and application of dependency theorists have fostered around Third World issues and debates that, in turn, have greatly influenced development studies at large. I would make the case that even more specifically, dependency theory is also distinctively Latin American.^[6] First, its origins emerge from a think tank focused on Latin America as a region. Second, its main proponents are Latin Americanists of which many are also Latin American nationals. Third, the application and analysis of the dependency school of thought has been on Latin American development. Fourth, its popularity among Latin American scholars and policymakers has made it an important intellectual school of social thought within Latin American academia and politics. Through Latin American intelligentsia, such as Cardoso, dependency theory has even entered mainstream Latin American politics. Overall, Latin Americanists have used the main arguments of dependency theory to stress how the structural climate of the world economy shapes Latin American economies. As such, through dependency theory, they have strongly influenced the international scholarship on development. In conclusion, the dependency school, unlike other development perspectives, distinctively represents a Third World view.

The debates inspired by the dependency school have given voice to a Third World perspective, in terms of focus, point of view and representation. As I have shown, there are equally as many excellent expositions as there are criticisms of Frank and Cardoso’s studies and the dependency school at large (Smith 1981). What is significant is how these provocative and critical debates ultimately touch upon broader themes that, like the dependency school itself, address expansive global, economic, political and social issues.

References:

Bilton, Tony et al. (1996) Introductory Sociology, 3rd edition. London, Macmillan.

Ahiakpor, James C.W. (1985) The success and failure of dependency theory: the experience of Ghana. International Organization, 39(3), 535-552.

Bosch, Gerald R. (1997) Eric Williams and the moral rhetoric of dependency theory. Callaloo, 20(4), Special Issue: Eric Williams and Postcolonial Caribbean, p 817-827.

Cardoso, Fernando Henrique (1972) Dependency and development in Latin America. New Left Review, 74,83-95.

Cardoso, Fernando Henrique (1973) Associated dependent development: theoretical and practical implications.In: Alfred Stephen (ed) Authoritarian Brazil: Origins, Policies and Future. New Haven, Yale University Press, p.142-76.

Cardoso, F. H. and Faletto, Enzo (1979) Dependency and Development in Latin America. Berkeley: Pergamon Press.

Chilcote, Ronald H. (1981) Issues of Theory in Dependency and Marxism. Latin American Perspectives, 8 (3/4), dependency and Marxism. 3-16.

Chirot, Daniel and Hall, Thomas D. (1982) “World-System Theory.” Annual Review of Sociology, 8, 81-106.

Frank, Andre Gunder (1967) Capitalism and underdevelopment in Latin America: historical studies of Chile and Brazil. London, Monthly Review.

Frank, Andre Gunder (1984) Critique and anti-critique: essays on dependence and reformism. New York, Praeger Publishers.

Frank, Andre Gunder (2002) Interview. In: Practical Strategies For Social And Economic Development. Aurora online (Simmons, Tony). February 2002. Available from: http://aurora.icaap.org/gifs/frank.gif [Accessed July 7, 2005].

Gardner, Katy and Lewis, David (1996) Anthropology, development and the post-modern challenge. London, Pluto Press.

Hout, Wil (1993) Capitalism and the Third World: development, dependence and world system. Aldershot, Edward Elgar.

Johnson, Carlos. (1981) Dependency theory and the processes of capitalism and socialism. Latin American Perspectives, 8 (3/4), Dependency and Marxism, 55-81.

Kleemeier, Lizz Lyle. (1978) Review: Empirical tests of dependency theory: a second critique of methodology by Vengroff, Richard. The Journal of Modern African Studies, 16 (4), 701-704.

Laclau, Ernesto (1971) Feudalism and capitalism in Latin America. New Left Review, 67, 19-38.

Roxborough, Ian (1979) Theories of Underdevelopment. London: Macmillan.

Smith, Tony (1981) The logic of dependency theory revisited. International Organization, 35 (4) 755-761.

Staniland, Martin (1985) What is political economy? A study of social theory and underdevelopment. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Wallerstein, Immanuel (1974) The modern world system: capitalist agriculture and the origins of the European world economy in the sixteenth century. New York, Academic Press.

1

Nationalism is a concept that is not easily defined. There are numerous definitions and forms of what is nationalism, and many of these definitions even overlap. However, there is no one definition that is more adequate than another. Keeping in mind that these definitions are constantly evolving, with thorough analysis and the juxtaposition of arguments set out by eight prominent scholars, a clearer definition of nationalism can be attained.

To begin with, the most well know definition today is from Professor Anthony Smith. He states that nationalism is simply “an ideological movement for attaining and maintaining autonomy, unity and identity for a population which some of its members deem to constitute an actual or potential “nation” (Smith, 2001).” In this definition, Smith reveals what he believes the three main goals of nationalism are: autonomy, national unity, and national identity. Even Smith’s profound definition has not been available for very long considering he was born in 1933. Although there is much argument on the definition of nationalism, Smith agrees that there is one main point of agreement and that is that the term nationalism is a modern phenomenon (Smith, 2001). Civic nationalism is basically defined as a group of people which have a certain loyalty to civic rights or laws and pledge to abide by these laws. Ethnic nationalism is basically a group that possesses a common culture, language, land, etc. It is more specific in terms of who can be in it (McGregor, 2010). Smith writes that “every nationalism contains civic and ethnic elements in varying degrees and different forms. Sometimes civic and territorial elements predominate; at other times it is the ethnic and vernacular components that are emphasized (Smith, 2001).” Smith’s most popular argument features civic and ethnic types of nationalism as opposed to eastern and western types. Even more specifically, Smith makes the distinction between both civic and ethnic nationalisms. He also believes that “Many modern nations are formed around pre-existing, and often pre-modern, ethnic cores (Smith, 2001).” Smith is claiming that nations had pre-existing-origins prior to their ‘new origins’ of their new nation. One of the most important arguments by critics is that the civic and ethnic viewpoint of nationalism collapses too much on the ethnic category (Shulman, 2002). Smith’s definition seems to be the foundation for nationalism, although he certainly was not the first to attempt to define it. Other scholars go in to more detail on certain elements of the definition, but most relate back to Smith’s original definition.

On the contrary to Anthony Smith’s definition of nationalism pertaining to the civic and ethnic type, Hans Kohn has argued that the two main types of nationalism are eastern and western. His definition states, “Nationalism is a state of mind, in which the supreme loyalty of the individual is felt to be due to the nation-state (Kohn, 1965).” Kohn’s argument includes both eastern and western types of nationalism which refer to Eastern and Western Europe. “Eastern nationalism conceived the nation as an organic community, united by culture, language and descent (McGregor 2010).” This particular idea could possibly be related to Smith’s ethnic type of nationalism. “Western nationalism conceived the nation as a political and civic community, held together by voluntary adherence to democratic norms (McGregor 2010).” Again, western nationalism could be perceived as a civic type of nationalism. This can be recognized as two similar classifications on two unfamiliar grounds. Kohn believes that nationalism relates directly with eastern and western Europe and that it is also where the ‘state of mind’ of nationalism originated. The main criticism of Kohn’s classification of nationalism is him being over simplistic. He certainly does not go into as much detail as Smith on the definition. He also relates only towards Europe which is why he is being identified as over simplistic.

Next, Carlton J. H. Hayes’ definition of nationalism states, “Loyalty and attachment to the interior of the group (namely the nation and homeland) are the basis of nationalism (Hayes, 1926).” In this definition, a common cultural background and a common cultural group are considered the main factors in forming a nation (Naqvi, Ali). That remains true with most of the definitions of nationalism. Hayes definition of nationalism seems to be more specific to the ‘ethnic’ ties toward nationalism. In other words, Hayes is saying that land, language, and blood are the basis of nationalism. He is saying that nation is something to be proud of (Naqvi, Ali). Hayes also believes that these ‘ethnic’ qualities are the most important; even religion does not compare. “It is attachment to nationality that gives direction to one’s individual and social postures, not attachment to religion and ideology. A human being takes pride in his national achievements and feels dependent on its cultural heritage, not on the history of religion and his faith (Hayes, 1926).” This quote further proves Hayes’s view on nationalism and how it relates to one’s culture and past, and specifically not related to religion at all. The reason Hayes’s definition is unique from others, is his emphasis on the fact that religion is not a factor in forming a nation. To further specify Hayes’s definition on nationalism he says, “What distinguishes one human being from another are not their beliefs, but their birth-place, homeland, language and race. Those who are within the four walls of the homeland and nation, belong to it, and those who are outside it, are aliens. It is on the basis of these factors that the people have a feeling of sharing a single destiny and a common past. (Hayes, 1926).” This quote goes hand in hand with Hayes’s definition of nationalism and just further explains it. According to Hayes, nationalism does not exist without that ‘ethnic’ background.

Furthermore, according to scholar Benedict Anderson, nationalism is, “a new emerging nation imagines itself to be antique (Anderson, 2003).” This is similar to how Anthony Smith and Carlton Hayes defined nationalism. It is mostly like Smith’s ethnic nationalism, which focuses more on the origin of the nation. Anderson focuses more on modern Nationalism and suggests that it forms its attachment through language, especially through literature (Anderson, 2003). Of particular importance to Anderson’s theory is his stress on the role of printed literature (Anderson, 2003). In Anderson’s mind, the development of nationalism is linked with printed literature and the growth of these printed works. People were able to read about nationalism in a common dialect and that caused nationalism to mature (Anderson, 2003). Anderson’s definition of nationalism and nation differ greatly from other scholars. He defines nation as “an imagined political community (Anderson 2003).” He believes this because “the nation is always conceived as a deep, horizontal comradeship. Ultimately it is this fraternity that makes it possible, over the past two centuries, for so many millions of people, not so much to kill, as willingly to die for such limited imaginings (Anderon, 2003).” Not only is Anderson’s theory distinctive because of the “printed literature theory”, but also because it is the “imagined political community.”

Another prominent Nationalist researcher, Ernest Gellner states that, “nationalism is primarily a political principle that holds that the political and the national unit should be congruent (Gellner, 1983)”. Gellner was once a teacher of Anthony Smith. Although most scholars would agree that nationalism appeared after the French Revolution, Gellner further argues that nationalism became a “sociological necessity in the modern world (Gellner, 1983).” His argument is similar to the uniqueness of Benedict Anderson’s “printed literature” theory, but Gellner focuses more on the industrialization of work and cultural modernization to explain how nationalism expanded (Zeulow, 1999). Gellner believes that “states only exist where there is division of labour, therefore the state comes before nationalism (Gellner, 1983).” Like other scholars, Gellner believes that nationalism is a political force. Gellner also stresses the congruency of nation and politics. He does not believe one can occur without the other one. There are many criticisms to Ernest Gellner’s theory, including Anthony Smith saying, “It misreads the relationship between nationalism and industrialization (Smith 1998).” Not all of the critics view Gellner’s theory as a misread. Most agree that he is the father of nationalism studies and most say that his nationalism work was brilliant (University of Wales Press). One can usually relate their definition of nationalism with Ernest Gellner or Anthony Smith. Gellner stresses the importance of the political side, while Smith puts the importance on cultural. Neither are right or wrong, just a difference of opinion.

Historian John Breuilly defends a more modern theory of nationalism, similar to Benedict Anderson’s. In reference to nationalism, he concludes, “The rise of the modern state system provides the institutional context within which an ideology of nationalism is necessary (Breuilly 1985).” Breuilly argues that the process of “state modernization provides an important factor in understanding historical signs of nationalism (Cormier, 2001).” Breuilly argues that nationalism does not have much to do with ethnicity or ethnic background, but rather more to do with political motivation. Breuilly is not the first scholar who believed that ethnic background had nothing to do with nationalism. In fact, Breuilly’s definition relates well to Gellner’s in the sense that they both argue in favor of political motivation. “Nationalists are seen to create their own ideology out of their own subjective sense of national culture. (Breuilly, 1982).” This particular quote is quite similar to Anderson’s imagined political community theory in that Breuilly does not support the ethnic side of nationalism nearly as much as others nationalists. Breuilly criticizes most scholars due to the fact that they believe in national culture because he believes that there is no such thing. He believes that the political component of nationalism is by far the most important. Breuilly indicates in his definition the importance of the state system; hence the political force necessary for nationalism to occur.

Next, Michael Hechter defines nationalism as a, “collective action designed to render the boundaries of the nation congruent with those of its governance unit (Hechter, 2000).” He further explains, “Nation and governance can be made congruent by enacting exclusive policies that limit full membership in the polity to individuals from on one more favoured nations (Hechter, 2000).” Hechter stresses the importance of the correspondence of the government and the boundaries of the nation; much like Breuilly in the sense that both of them indicate that nationalism requires congruency for it to take place. In Hechter’s book, Containing Nationalism, he expresses his belief that the reason nationalism occurs is because of “self-determination.” Hechter further explains his definition and clarifies that there are two different types of nationalism. The first one is of the ideology of freedom and he gives the example of the French Revolution. The second form is “xenophobic or even goes as far as genocide” (Hechter). This explains where the different views of nationalism come in; civic versus ethnic or eastern versus western. Furthermore, Hechter defines the two different types of nationalism to even more specific forms of nationalism that go beyond his original definition. These definitions include: state-building nationalism, peripheral nationalism, irredentist nationalism, and unification nationalism (Hechter, 2000). Hechter doesn’t argue that there are two definitions of nationalism like other scholars do, but he concludes that nationalism is specific to the means of each and every situation.

In Peter Alter’s definition of Nationalism, he states, “Nationalism is a political force which has been more important in shaping the history of Europe and the world over the last two centuries than the ideas of freedom and parliamentary democracy or, let alone, of communism (Alter, 1994).” His argument is similar to John Breuilly in the sense that he agrees that there is a strong emphasis on nationalism being a “political force.” Alter is saying that it has everything to do with being a political movement instead of the idea of freedom. In reference to nationalism, Alter states, “It can be associated with forces striving for political, social, economic and cultural emancipation, as well as with those whose goal oppression (Alter, 1994).” His outlook on nationalism seems much broader than other scholars. This particular reference virtually sums up many scholars definitions together. Alter does not seem to have a specific argument on nationalism, as in civic vs. ethnic or western vs. eastern but just an acceptance that nationalism could be based on all of these arguments. Again, Alter says, “It can mean emancipation, and it can mean oppressionaˆ¦ dangers as well as opportunities (Alter, 1994).” There is no precise argument when he tries to define nationalism even though he does have the idea that nationalism is directly related to a political force. Alter also states that nationalism was important to shaping Europe, however most scholars agree with that statement to begin with. Most modern scholars would relate to Alter’s style of defining nationalism.

In conclusion, the definition of nationalism is not easily defined and scholars that have tried to define it differ, in some amount of detail, from each other. Each scholar seems to have his own uniqueness and input to the definition, however, these definitions tend to pertain to one certain area of nationalism. According to the eight previous scholars, there are a myriad of styles of nationalism including: political, cultural, ethnic, civic, eastern, and western. Many aspirations are desired because of nationalism, including establishment of homeland, separation, expansion, etc. Although the definition of nationalism is essentially particularistic, scholars have been able to identify a few common ideologies. Some common ground includes; most scholars agree that nationalism started after the French Revolution. They also agree that nationalism occurs because of a desire for national independence. Scholars are always doing research and finding new things which will result in new definitions. Most of the most protrusive definitions of nationalism have come about in the last fifty or so years, so no telling what scholars might come up with in future years.

Social capital is the the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition (Bourdieu 1983: 249). Social capital is defined by its function. It is not a single entity, but a variety of different entities, having two characteristics in common: they all consist of some aspect of a social structure, and they facilitate certain actions of individuals who are within the structure (Coleman 1994: 302).

‘Whereas physical capital refers to physical objects and human capital refers to the properties of individuals, social capital refers to connections among individuals – social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them. In that sense social capital is closely related to what some have called “civic virtue.” The difference is that “social capital” calls attention to the fact that civic virtue is most powerful when embedded in a sense network of reciprocal social relations. A society of many virtuous but isolated individuals is not necessarily rich in social capital’ (Putnam 2000: 19).

‘Social capital refers to the institutions, relationships, and norms that shape the quality and quantity of a society’s social interactions… Social capital is not just the sum of the institutions which underpin a society – it is the glue that holds them together’ (The World Bank 1999).

According to John Field, the fundamental of social capital is that ‘relationship matters’. It helps people to commit themselves to people in the community. It eventually becomes a shared set of values, virtues and expectation within society as a whole. However, Robert Putman (1993; 2000) is the person who launched social capital which focused on research and policy discussions. The World Bank also chose social capital as a useful organising idea. They argue that ‘increasing evidence shows that social cohesion is critical for societies to prosper economically and for development to be sustainable’ (The World Bank 1999). In this piece we explore the idea of social capital and the contribution by voluntary clubs to social capital.

Types of Social Capital

There are three types of social capital: bonding social capital, bridging social capital and linking social capital.

“Bonding social capital refers to the links between like-minded people, or the reinforcement of homogeneity.” (Schuller, Baron, & Field, 2000) Bonding Social Capital indicates ties between people in similar situation. It can be your neighbours, friends or even family. (Woolcock 2001: 13-4).

“Bridging social capital can be referred as building of connections between heterogeneous groups, which are likely to be more fragile, but more likely also to foster social inclusion.” (Schuller, Baron, & Field, 2000) Bridging social capital covers distant ties of like persons, such as workmates and fast friends. (Woolcock 2001: 13-4)

Linking social capital, which reaches out to unlike people in dissimilar situations, such as those who are entirely outside of the community, thus enabling members to leverage a far wider range of resources than are available in the community. (Woolcock 2001: 13-4)

The discussion of social capital is credited to three main theorists – namely Pierre Bourdieu, James Coleman and Robert Putnam. Bourdieu stated that there are three kind of capitals, but for this paper we only look at ‘Social Capital’. Bourdieu provides a concise definition of social capital by stating: “social capital is the aggregate of the actual or potential resource which is linked to the possession of a durable network of more of less institutionalised relationships of mutual acquaintance or recognition” (p. 249). Field and Wynne said that people access other forms of capital through social capital. In sporting circumstances, Bourdieu gives an example of golf clubs where individuals network to facilitate business, a social practice that is not available to all members of a community given the exclusive nature of many golf clubs (Field, 2003; Wynne, 1999).

According to Coleman, social capital is not a single body. It is a structure which facilitates certain action, which has positive outcome; otherwise it would not have been possible. Coleman, through his research, found out that the level of school drop-out rate had reduced due to parental investment and family social capital. Coleman, in this context defines social capital as a set of resources that are available in family relation which is important for social development of the child. These resources differ from person to person and an advantage to children to develop their human capital. (Coleman, 1994, cited in Coalter, 2007, p. 541)

According to Putman, social capital is not just a public good but is for the public good. Putnam states that, bonding social capital are when people of the same community, with similar values associate together to achieve shared goals. They tend to reinforce restricted identities and are homogenous group. Putman also says that this kind of association have some negative points as they tend to exclude outsiders. Exclusion of outsiders here means that a football club will have a tendency to include supporters and players from a same background. They would try to exclude those who are not from the same background. On the other hand bridging social capital is heterogeneous in nature. Heterogeneity of social connections promotes linkage with different type of people.

Bridging social capital however, has the potential to forge connections. People with same as well as from different background can connect within the community or outside the community (Narayan & Cassidy, 2001). We can thus see that people who are connected through bridging social capital have a wider range of associates. They also got more opportunities. Therefore Bridging social capital is very important to enhance social inclusion and to develop community’s ability.

Sports Volunteers: The Real Active Citizens?

Sports Clubs are career for the expression of active citizenship through volunteering. Volunteers are more important than any other thing in a club or a sporting organization (Nichols, et al., 2004). Clubs provide an opportunity which helps the community by contributing to social capital through social interaction (Coalter, 2007; Long, 2008; Weed et al., 2005). The volunteers share their values, a reflection of the society where their expressions of collective values are encouraged, which is a positive contribution towards society.

As Coalter (2007) points out “the diffuse and contested nature of social capital is central to the social regeneration/social inclusion agenda” (p. 159). The volunteers have a potential contribution to rebuild the social capital. Sport England (1999, p8) stresses volunteering as activity which is fundamental to the development of democratic society. It helps in contributing towards their public life and develops their communities. Consequently such policies are as much concerned with the instrumental use of sport for purposes of community development as they are in simply developing sport in the community (Coalter and Allison, 1996).

The key policy message here is that the potentially positive benefits of sport are not only to be obtained via participation – involvement in the organisation and provision of opportunities for sport and physical recreation can assist in the development of self-esteem and a series of transferable skills – a view of volunteering as “active citizenship”.

Race and race relations have been aspects of American society since the colonial era. With the exception of a handful of countries, no other nation has dealt with the struggles of a multiracial society and has had to overcome the problems created in its nation’s past. As a result, race in America is a complex issue with many facets and race relations have become increasingly difficult to define.

Richard Thompson Ford, in examining the current race situation in America in his book The Race Card, defines the period as “post-racism.” Focusing on Ford’s ideas, as presented in his book, as well as an investigation into the Jena Six story, which is a contemporary example of racism, a more defined picture of current race relations in America can be uncovered.

Ford’s The Race Card provides a critique on the current race situation in America. In his book, while Ford presents the idea that America is “post-racism,” he asserts that post-racism is not defined in the traditional way one might assume. To Ford, post-racism is a “…late stage of racism in which its contradictions and excesses both cancel out and amplify its original function” (2008:25). To Ford, the era of post-racism allows people to have internal feelings of racism, as long as their overt actions and behaviors are not racist. Racial stereotypes may still exist, but no longer are those stereotypes defined by “White Only” establishments.

With the elimination of the stereotypical racism, racism may now be harder to eliminate because overt racists will remain unidentified. Prior to the Civil Rights Movement, segregation laws and blatant bigotry provided easy markers to define racism and identify racists. Today there are laws preventing outward expressions of racism, making the process of defining the current state of race relations far more difficult.

According to Charles Hirschman, racism is the belief that people can be divided into categories based on certain features that define a particular look (2004). While characteristics that define a person as part of a particular race are biological, race is a socially constructed concept in which people place meaning on the biological features. The seeds of racism in America were planted out of the need for a cheap and renewable labor force.

When indentured servitude was no longer profitable to this country’s landowners, it prompted a needed change. Dark-skinned Africans, brought to this country as slaves, looked different from the white land owners. Based on that difference of appearance, along with the historical lack of a formal schooling, American society regarded them as inferior. This view by society eventually lead to the social construct of race, with whites seen as superior and blacks as inferior.

While slavery was abolished following the Civil War, the overt concept of racial inferiority continued until the Civil Rights movement in the 1960’s (Pinkney 1999). Up until the Civil Rights Act was passed, Jim Crow laws and other discrimination laws continued to segregate the races and reinforced the societal view of the inferiority of African Americans.

Following the passage of the Civil Rights legislation, overt racism no longer was socially acceptable. Racism is no longer is defined by superiority and inferiority, but rather is defined as an acknowledged difference between cultures, with one no better than the other (Miles and Brown 2003). Because of the years of segregation, there are inherent differences between the black and white cultures. While segregation and discrimination no longer are a common practice, there still are differences between the groups and implicit discrimination remains.

The faces of racism have changed, but racism has yet to disappear from society. Today, those who are identified as racists, under the old definition, are labeled as bigots and outsiders by society. Although there still are those who are viewed as racists under the traditional definition, there is a new form of racism present and it is much harder to define.

As defined by Ford, the current state of racial affairs revolves around “playing the race card.” In playing the race card, people must presume that discrimination remains and it is based on one’s race. More often than not, today’s discrimination is a based on the many years of inferior treatment. In other words, people today claim racism because, at one point in history, it could be considered a result of racism (2008:31). There are four instances of playing the race card that are outlined in Ford’s book, including racism without racists, racism-by-analogy, unclear definitions of what is racism, and unclear goals for the current movement.

People use the racism without racists definition because it is the easiest conclusion to use when explaining the motivations of others. There may be extenuating circumstances as to why people act a certain way, but people cry “racism” because it is an easy answer; they fail to see the situation from the other person’s point of view.

In racism-by-analogy, other groups claim that their struggles and discrimination are equal to those fought for in the Civil Rights Movement, even though they are not the same. As an example, people that are overweight or “not pretty enough” may make the claim that their legal rights are being violated, even though “overweight” is not a protected class under the legislation.

Having unclear definitions of racism causes people to overuse the claim. There are many factors that motivate people’s actions, and it is not always based on race. With no clear-cut definition of present-day racism, the resulting lines are blurred as to what actually constitutes racism in today’s society.

Without an accepted definition of racism and no clear goals for the improvement of race relations, it is difficult to determine when playing the race card may be beneficial or detrimental to a movement. This unknown result causes internal conflict within the movement itself, preventing it from moving forward.

Overall, Ford’s argument is correct in its assertions. The face of racism today has changed and a new era of race relations has begun. No longer are there overt forms of racism and discrimination, but rather there are more subtle situations affecting race relations in today’s society.

However, Ford’s argument is not as simple as post-racism and the race card; there still are societal and structural boundaries and obstacles that African Americans cannot seem to overcome. While legally discrimination and segregation are no longer present, there are still examples of it today.

As author Shawn Utsey, et al., argues, there are three forms of racism that still exist today: individual, institutional and cultural racism (2000). Examples of individual racism include racial profiling and the lingering sentiments of the overt racism seen during the Civil Rights Movement. Residential segregation and other societal restrictions constitute institutional racism. Cultural racism refers to the lack of African American influence in mainstream American culture and history. These new forms of discrimination and segregation define the current race relations in contemporary American culture.

A contemporary example to which Ford’s ideas of post-racism and the race card can be applied is the Jena Six incident. There are many incidents which occurred in Jenna, Louisiana, between September to December 2006, which contributed to the belief that racism and discrimination were involved in the Jena events (Newman 2007).

The first incident occurred in September, involving nooses hung from a tree at the local high school. As is common at most high schools, certain social groups congregate in specific areas, though not necessarily based on race. At Jena High School, a racially diverse school, a specific tree commonly was known as the “white tree.” A black freshman asked the principal if he could sit under the tree and the principal assured him that he could sit wherever he wanted. The next day, two nooses were hung from the tree, though the motivations behind the hanging of the nooses were unclear. The students responsible for hanging the nooses were identified and suspended. When the suspensions were announced, the black community of Jena was enraged, insisting that the nooses were a symbol of a threat against the black students of the high school.

There were two altercations between white and black students, which some claimed were a result of the events that occurred in September. At a party, five black students attempted to enter a party, but were denied entrance because they did not receive an invitation. An altercation ensued, resulting in a white student being charged with battery. The next day, another altercation occurred outside a convenience store between a white male and three black males, one of which had been involved in the previous altercation at the party the night before. One of the black students was charged with disturbing the peace, second degree robbery and the theft of a firearm.

The final event, which ultimately is what led to the national publicity, was an altercation between six black students and one white student, Justin Barker. Barker was badly beaten, but was released from the hospital after three hours in the emergency room. Five of the six black students were charged with attempted second-degree murder, though the charges later were reduced to battery. Mychal Bell originally was charged with aggravated second-degree battery and tried as an adult, but his conviction later was overturned. The five who originally were charged later were convicted of simple battery (Associated Press 2007).

Due to the events leading up to the attack on Justin Barker, many consider this to be a result of racial tensions in the town. This was reinforced by the filing of the charge of attempted murder to the Jena Six at the beginning of the trail proceedings, a charge many considered to be racially driven and not fitting to the crime. Many also believe that the all-white jury, which delivered the original guilty verdict against Bell, levied an unfair sentence.

While on the surface these events seem to be motivated by racism, the events involving the Jena Six are more of a case of Ford’s racism without racists. Because the events which occurred in Jena involved both whites and blacks, people assume racism was a determining factor. However, most of the events leading up to the Barker incident were unrelated. Even when considered separately, racism is not the only motivation for the actions which occurred.

The tree that was claimed as the “white tree” by the student body has since been refuted by the faculty and staff at Jena High School. According to later testimonies, students of all races sat under the tree at one point or another. There also was a conflict over the number of nooses which were hung from the tree on the following day, and further investigations revealed that only two were hung, not three, which is believed to be a symbol of the Ku Klux Klan. The nooses, it later was found, were a prank aimed at the rodeo team, not hung as racist symbols. As it later was learned, school administrators cut down the nooses before classes started because students were playing with them in inappropriate manners, not because of some underlying racial context.

Following the Jena incident, the United States Justice Department conducted an investigation to determine if the act was in fact a racially-motivated hate crime. It was determined that the hanging of the nooses was an isolated event without lasting racial tensions at the school. As such, there is no direct connection between the events occurring in September and the Barker attack. Each event was separate and unique, yet collectively were made to seem as a cause and effect relationship by the media.

Finally, the allegations accusing the all-white jury of delivering a racially-motivated verdict fails to take into account underlying causes. Due to the makeup of the town, there are only a small number of African Americans to select for jury duty. Of those summoned for jury duty, some were African American but failed to report on the day of the trial (Mangu-Ward 2007).

The events that occurred in Jena led to one of the largest race riots in recent history. Sensationalized by the media’s influence, the case seemed to be a series of events indicating the continued racial tensions of the South. When looking deeper into the facts, a different picture is seen. Instead, each event is isolated and unconnected. The coincidences surrounding the events seem to point to a plot against African Americans, yet the motivations had no racial underpinnings.

Throughout American history, racism has played a major role in race relations. Although overt racism has become a lesser focus, examples of racial discrimination and segregation still exist in today’s society. The era of post-racism has a new set of issues effecting society and the race relations within it. Until these issues are resolved, true racial equality cannot be attained.