Author: Andre Coleman

In my essay I will attempt to demonstrate that while alienation in many respects seems of only limited use as a concept for understanding contemporary working lives, it has been critical in shaping our current understanding and practices of work. I intend to look at the work of Karl Marx among other sociologists to show how the introduction of capitalism into industrial production in particular developed feelings of alienation in people’s working lives. I have chosen to specifically focus on Marx as I find his thoughts and ideas on alienation to be of key importance in our current understanding of labour. I will principally be looking at his Alienation Theory, which was his belief that our labour in society developed different forms of alienation, and how, if at all, this determines our inherent human being. I plan to assess whether theories on alienation at work are still relevant in modern society, and how they have contributed to our current understanding of contemporary working lives.

“Work, in its physical features and its linguistic description is socially constructed; there is no permanent or objective thing called work…what counts as work cannot be severed from the context within which it exists, and that context necessarily changes through space and time” (Grint, 1998, 11).

Karl Marx believed labour was at the heart of humanity, and that the conditions under which we work can vary. He felt that alienation was a systemic effect of capitalism which exploited workers and created a sense of isolation in people’s working lives. He believed that under a capitalist regime workers unavoidably lose any control they have over their lives by having the control over their labour taken away from them. According to Marx’s Alienation Theory, there are four forms of alienation in labour, the first being alienation from the product of work. Marx states that when a worker is producing something for someone other than themselves, especially when they do not even know who they are producing the item for, the product often becomes alien to them. In this situation the worker will not have any emotional connection with the end product they have created. In this way Marx gives the worker a direct connection to the product, which in turn, alters it from being simply an abstract object. Furthermore, Marx suggests that the product, which he believes ought to create a positive connection, instead holds a negative disconnection. According to Marx, when a person works for others and not for themselves they can be seen to be working in an alienating situation simply to receive their basic requirements to get by.

Marx’s second form of alienation is alienation from the activity of work. This alienation occurs as a result of the worker being alienated from the product they create, as this means they must also be alienated from the process they undertook to make it. Marx’s aversion to capitalism is linked to this theory which proposes that as humans are working solely for survival, the work is required of them by others and so not natural. In which case the worker will not be working for themselves but instead for others and so will inevitably become estranged from the process of work.

The third form of alienation is alienation from species being, meaning people become detached from their personal creativity and in a sense the heart of humanity. Marx maintains that the activity of work requires workers’ spiritual energy and therefore when a worker is alienated from the practice of work it is impossible for them to give themselves fully to their work hence becoming alienated from their basic human roots. If the process of labour which is in our innate essence becomes alien to us, then we may become alien to ourselves in some way. Marx attempts to convey that work is something that ought to be a natural instinct to humans, not something carried out purely for survival. He refers to humans as active producers which contradicts the idea of people being alienated from their working lives. When a worker is forced to produce something for others and not for themselves they will see labour purely as a means of survival which will become a burden they are forced to monotonously repeat and hence may end up becoming alienated from themselves.

The fourth and final form of alienation in Marx’s Alienation Theory is alienation from others. When a worker is forced to produce a product for someone else they too will become alien to the worker, and so in this way people become alienated from other humans, which can lead to a breakdown in society. This can give rise to a type of hostility as the worker may feel they are required to do work for others with more cultural capital and so a class division can arise. Marx says of this form of alienation,

“If man is related to the product of his labor, to his objectified labor, as to an alien, hostile, powerful object independent of him, he is so related that another alien, hostile, powerful man independent of him is the lord of this object. If he is unfree in the relation to his own activity, he is related to it as bonded activity, activity under the domination, coercion, and yoke of another man” (Marx, 1844, 57).

So, how useful is this theory of alienation as a concept for understanding contemporary working lives? Marx likens humans to animals only doing what we must to survive. In an ideal world we would participate in work for the love of it as we believe it is meaningful and valuable. Marx claims that under capitalist industrial production systems in society people become alienated at work as a result of their loss of control. Capitalism creates a system where by the worker gives more power to the capitalist by producing better products. So it can be seen that the more the worker produces the more they must rely on that product. Marx says,

“Labour, to be sure, produces marvellous things for the rich, but for the labourer it produces privation. It produces palaces for the wealthy, but hovels for the worker. It produces beauty, but cripples the worker. It replaces work by machines, but it throws part of the workforce back to a barbarous kind of work, while turning others into machines. It produces sophistication, but for the workforce it produces feeble-mindedness and idiocy.” (Marx, 1844, 30)

The relevance of Marx’s theory today seems limited. It is easy to see that at the time of Marx’s writing a large contributing factor to alienation at work in the 19th century was the revolutionary form of labour named Fordism, which refers to the production methods used by Henry Ford in creating the Ford cars. C20th Marxist Antonio Gramsci often used the example of Fordism in his work on mass production and consumer culture. Ford was heavily influenced by Frederick Taylor who developed scientific management, and aimed to improve labour productivity. The system was created to improve productivity and enable mass production; it was successful in cutting the cost of production but also heavily deskilled labour. It saw a high turnover rate of staff and prompted numerous strikes due to workers resistance to speed control and oppressive forms of work. It took any control away from the workers by making them work to the pace of the assembly line; on top of this workers rarely got to see what they were making as each worker would be in charge of such a small part of the total creation of the product. Workers often complained the labour was solely about profit motive and their power was completely subsumed by the managers who deskilled the workers to gain control and eliminate their power and decision making.

“Scientific management so called is an attempt to apply the methods of science to the rapidly increasingly complex problems of the control of labour in rapidly growing capitalist enterprises. It lacks the characteristics of a true science because it assumptions reflect nothing more than the outlook of the capitalist with regard to the conditions of production” (Braverman 1974, 86).

But work today is far broader than mass production in a factory setting. In her article “Alienation and New Work Practises – Reconstructing a Classical Concept” Amanda Damarin argues,

“Existing concepts of alienation are inadequate for capturing the relationships among workers, tools, and labour processes that exist in new work organizations. Marx assumes that production is industrial (standardized and fixed), that employers own the means of production, that ownership is coextensive with control, and that only relationships between workers and employers are significant in shaping the experience of work.” (Damrin, 2005, 2).

One need only think about the growth in the service sector or indeed the health care industry to realize that Marx’s Theory of Alienation is deficient in fostering our understanding of contemporary working lives. For example, he focuses principally on the labour form of manufacturing, whereas if we were to look at retail Marx’s description of the 4 forms of alienation seems less pertinent. In retail there is no product being created in the shop and so less chance of shop assistants to feel alienated from it. Likewise although they may be selling to others it would never be the case that they would sell to themselves so they are less inclined to feel alienated from their fellow man. They can experience contact with the customers but not feel like they work directly for them so in this way I believe there wouldn’t be predominant feelings of isolation. But if Marx’s theory about the forms of alienation can take seem less relevant to today’s working environment; one cannot ignore the fact that work can indeed leave people feeling isolated or powerless.

Marx views work as central to the human experience. But why does man work? Looking to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, we see employment fulfilling level 2 Safety needs but also, beyond that, our need for Love and Belonging can often be met via work. Even people in the most mundane of jobs often look to their co-workers as valuable providers of community. Marx posits that ‘proper’ work (that is not under a capitalistic regime) also provides people with a sense of self-worth and achievement. But clearly this is true in current day working lives, even in capitalistic economies. Indeed Durkhiem, contrary to the views of Marx and Engels, gave a positive analysis of the industrial society, with less emphasis on capitalism. He spoke of a more heterogeneous society and a more segregated division of labour where people are more dependent on one another. This interdependence he felt brought people together as you have to go to others to receive the necessary products for daily life. So society was viewed more as a body that functions together as a whole.

It is important to remember that Marx’s alienation theory was part of his earliest work and possibly an opening thought into his later more developed work on capitalism as an economic structure within society. If it is true, as I believe, that many of Marx’s theories have significantly less relevance since advancements made after the industrial revolution, I believe it is equally true that much of his work on alienation has been crucial in shaping our contemporary understanding and practices of work. For example even in today’s factory setting, workers are now often asked for their opinions and suggestions to improve conditions at the work place. And with 360 degree feedback becoming the norm in the Western workplace, workers can comment on their managers’ performance too which gives them a sense of control over their working conditions and allows their voices to be heard. It is not inconceivable to imagine that the introduction of ‘worker voice’ was aided by Marx’s concerns about alienation. In fact a highly successful British retailer, John Lewis Partnership, which I worked at for several months, was founded on the principles of total employee ownership with the thought that this would create a direct link to the success of the business. However these improved environments in work places are witnessed predominantly in Western countries; factories in the developing world can be seen to maintain conditions much more akin to that of the 19th century factories in Europe.

If one accepts Marx’s premise that work is central to humans as a basic form of self realization then it isn’t difficult to understand how the loss of employment can be equally isolating. Although people may feel alienated at work Braverman points out unemployment is even more degrading and isolating. In their study, “Your Job No Longer Exists! From Experiences of Alienation to Expectations of Resilience” Vickers and Parris suggest “We have entered the age of the contingent or temporary worker where we are expected to be pliable and tractable; to fit in” (Vickers and Parris, 2007, 114). For example, when a worker is fired from their job, there are often associated feelings of rejection and alienation which can be agonizing. They claimed alienated workers tend to experience similar emotions, “including powerlessness and social isolation as well as shock, betrayal, humiliation and shame” (Blauner 1964, 101).

So as working lives are constantly changing and being altered to suit contemporary society the very concepts that Marx used to portray the evils of capitalism may indeed be helpful in understanding reactions to the loss of that central source of self realization, work.

I strongly feel although Marx’s original ideas about alienation at work appear overly focussed on 19th century working conditions, particularly in the mass production manufacturing world, the concept is not without merit in understanding how contemporary workers may come to feel a sense of isolation or powerlessness via work. Marx may have taken an overly critical view of capitalism but in doing so he no doubt opened the door for a wider recognition of the importance of worker voice and engendering a sense of belonging or value to individual labour. Braverman has voiced his debt to Marx’s work on capitalism and alienation at work, and although he has not contributed much in the way of innovative theories on the topic he can be seen to renew Marx’s work in modern society. “The Managed Heart” demonstrates Hochschild’s vigorous application of Marx’s alienation theory while condemning the feeling of alienation experienced as a result of the comodification of human emotions. However I have to wonder whether this comodification of feelings directly results in alienation. Both Bolton and Boyd outwardly reject the idea of emotional labour as contending with wage labour as they believe not all people’s feelings are necessarily comodified during the labour process. They argue that workers have a relatively large amount of emotional choice due to the narrow degree that their emotions can be comodified, and therefore wouldn’t experience much alienation at work in the sense Hochschild refers to. Overall I believe in many ways alienation appears to be only of limited use as a concept for understanding contemporary working lives; however through the work of such sociologists as Marx it has been essential in moulding our existing understanding and practices of work. Modern society has a much broader spectrum of work than just mass production in factories but with the work of sociologists such as Gramsci and Braverman who have built on existing ideas of alienation by Marx and others we can continually deepen our knowledge and increase our understanding of contemporary working lives.

Word Count: 2,847

Charles Darwin is perhaps one of the most important and enlightened figures in the history of modern science. In the town of Shrewsbury, Shrospire in England, Darwin first knew life on February 12th 1809. Grandson of Erasmus Darwin, who was famous in his own rights as a natural philosopher and Josiah Wedgwood, who brought about the industrialization of pottery production, Darwin was groomed early on for a life of education.

Darwin first attended school in Shrewsbury. At the Shrewsbury School, he studied under Dr. Samuel Butler. Feeling constrained by the narrow minded approach to education, which was universally accepted, he left the Shrewsbury School. Later in 1825, Charles Darwin moved to Edinburg with the intent to study towards a career in the medical field. Within a short amount of time he realized that this would not be the course that his life would lead. In 1828, with the help of his father, he relocated to Cambridge, his intent would be to study and eventually join the Clergy. In 1831 Darwin earned his degree from Christ’s College where he matriculated. Graduating a mere 10th in his class, he quickly developed a love of sports and of entomology, the study of insects. While attending school at Cambridge, Charles Darwin made the acquaintance and friendship of men such as Robert Edmond Grand, William Macgillivray, and James Stevens Henslow.

After passing his last examinations, Charles Darwin took two terms of residence at Cambridge, where he moved his focus of interest towards geology. During this time Darwin and another geologist, Adam Sedgwick made an excursion to Northern Wales in 1831. After returning from this trip, Darwin would be prompted by one of his peers to apply for a position aboard the HMS Beagle. He would function as the position of “Naturalist” during a long surveying expedition.

Darwin’s voyage aboard the HMS Beagle would last from 1831 to 1836. These 5 years of exploration and discovery would become his inspiration for many later views and ideas. Among the most widely known is the theory of evolution by natural selection. Functioning in the capacity of the ships naturalist, Darwin’s job was to study the geographical features of unexplored coasts and ecosystems. He would collect an immense cache of specimens in his studies showing evidence of species evolution. His first theory was that the earth was only 6000 years old, and that the inhabitants were unchanged during this time of the planet’s development. This would later change as Darwin would realize that the earth was infinitely more aged than his first belief of a mere 6000 years. In South America, Darwin witnessed one of the marvels of nature. After a large earthquake the landscape was altered; the ground in certain places had risen by several feet. Later in the expedition of the Beagle, Darwin would have the opportunity to study the Galapagos Islands. He would find multiple species of animals and reptiles which were adaptations of similar species found in other parts of the world. These discoveries would bring about the realization that the earth was in constant geographical and ecological change. The inhabitants of Earth were also in a constant flux of adaptation geared towards the survival of the inevitable change of their environment. During his voyage on the Beagle, Darwin would encounter many more examples of the adaptation of various species for survival within the respective environments. Pondering these observations, Darwin would begin to question how and why life would adapt to meet the demands of the climate and ecology of the native land.

Darwin’s Notebooks on the Transmutation of Species, which was inspired by an essay on the Principle of Population by Thomas Robert Malthus, would become his first work towards his forming view of evolution. In 1838, Charles Darwin would arrive at his first idea of the theory of Evolution through Natural Selection. In 1858, Darwin would reveal his theory Evolution to the Linnaean Society of London. His first published work, “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection” would ignite a firestorm of debate among both the scientific and religious communities.

In 1859, Darwin’s shattering work, The Origin of Species, came out (“a sell out in one day”); it is now recognized as a leading work in natural philosophy and in the history of mankind. Simply stated, Darwin’s theory is that things, and, in particular, life, evolves by a process which Darwin called “natural selection.”

“Currently we accept the general idea that biological development can be explained by mutations in combination with natural selection. In its essential parts, therefore, Darwin’s theory of development has been accepted. In Darwin’s time mutations were not known about; their discovery has led to extensive modifications of his theory, but it has also eliminated the most important objections to it. …

We are beginning to see that the awesome wonder of the evolution from amoeba to man – for it is without a doubt an awesome wonder – was not the result of a mighty word from a creator, but of a combination of small, apparently insignificant processes. The structural change occurring in a molecule within a chromosome, the result of a struggle over food between two animals, the reproduction and feeding of young – such are the simple elements that together, in the course of millions of years, created the great wonder. This is nothing separate from ordinary life. The wonder is in our everyday world, if only we have the ability to see it.” (Alfven’s Atom, Man, and the Universe.)

The scientific community would widely accept his ideas while the church would vehemently deny his findings. His views on the evolutionary theory, in conjunction with the Mendelian genetics would become known as the “modern Synthesis”, a belief that is still widely accepted in the scientific community today.

The repercussions of the church were both severe and widespread. The Clergy would argue that this was a direct challenge to the widely accepted belief of Creation taught by the Church. Darwin would find himself denied a knighthood for his achievements due to the influence of the church on the Crown.

The works and studies of Charles Darwin, while still widely accepted today, are often misunderstood. Many people relate Darwin’s theory to the origins of life, other people belief that he was the first person to propose the idea of evolution, an idea originating to the time of the Ancient Greeks, Both beliefs are fallible, While he may not have been the first to propose Evolution, he was the first to document and present a scientific argument towards this theory.

Charles Darwin’s contribution to the scientific world today, without question, makes him one of the most important scientists of all times. Even the church as began to issue apologies, post humorous, to Darwin. A mere 200 years after his birth, Darwin is finally realizing his success among both the Scientific World and the Church.

CHAPTER 1INTRODUCTION

This chapter provides the background of the study in particular will focus on social capital in relation to agricultural activities in Dungun Terengganu.

1.0 Introduction

Agriculture play important role in economics of a country especially in developing country. This is because this field become large financial resource of national income (Ayob, 1994). Various policies were enacted to ensure intact permanent agriculture field as one of the national income main source. Among them were National Agriculture Policy, Policy Of Agricultural Development (Ayob, 1994) and Program “1 Azam” (. Government Transformation Programme: The Roadmap. 2010). All this policy drafted to ensure country earned food source that is sufficient (food security) in long time and can eradicate national poverty. This is because most poverty area was in agricultural area. Hence, the areas of agriculture are very important to the country in ensuring food continuity and economic development of the country.

Nevertheless, agriculture in Malaysia still was in weak level as this field not so adored by youth. Hence, government needs come out with alternative that is good and need promote the productivity so that it can enhance agricultural activity productivity. According to Liverpool-Tasie, Nail, & Ajibola,(2011), the improvement of agricultural productivity is very important to the government policy goal and development agency.

In line with nation’s modernization, areas of agriculture also experienced the revolution. Nomination method no longer limited to those having land, even people who has no land also can garden. It refers to innovation where change occurs within practices (Westendorp, & Biggs). Hydroponic and Fertigation System is innovation for agriculture system in Malaysia. It used to provide opportunity to farmers to increase their income revenue as this field often associated with poverty (Ayob, 1994).

There are various elements to ensure areas of agriculture success. There are trust, interaction, networking, knowledge sharing and cooperation. However, element that is most important of success in agricultural field is social capital. Social capital is public resources. It needs to be managed and being shared nicely through cooperation by group or people in long period to ensure sustainable social development (Yamaoka, 2007). However, if people fail for recognise the benefit of social capital, it will cause failure on something. Hence, social capital is very important to ensure innovation agricultural project can walk successfully.

This study looks into how the social capital fit in the context of agricultural activities.

1.1 Background of study

Modernity of a country not only base on the technology but it involves with innovation in agricultural field. In recent years, there are various types of new agriculture in the worldwide. These show that area of agriculture also experienced comparable revolution with others field. According to Heemskerk, & Wennink, (2004); D.Parthasarathy, & V.K.Chopde and Westendorp, & Biggs, they focus to agriculture innovation as it needed for stabilizing production and areas of agriculture productivity by can enhance community development.

There is various innovation that have been done in every country to stabilize sector agriculture such as implementation of small water reservoirs in Ghana by Kinderen, (2006), crop without using any poison in Indonesia by Westendorp, & Biggs, agricultural technologies for dryland, arid and semiarid

Areas by D.Parthasarathy, & V.K.Chopde in India and Soil Management Option in Southern Africa by Njuki, Mapila, Zingore, & Delve, (2008). All this agriculture innovation affects that positive impact on social capital. However, Malaysia also has the agriculture innovation and it had known as fertigation project.

Fertigation is soilless culture production system. Fertigation crop system can avoid crop from root disease infection soil-borne. Among type of crop that suitable to be used for crop fertigation is like red chilli, cucumber, melon, zucchini, brinjal, okra, capsicum and strawberry. Usually, the farmers will build greenhouse known as “Struktur Perlindung Tanaman” (STP) to protect crop from infection in leaves and fruit and ensure fertilizer concentration at level that correct. Apart from that, crop medium that commonly used in this system is coconut coir dust known as coconut powder or coco peat. It applies as able to absorb and stores fertilizers solution beside used by root as place to believe. Moreover, it cheap and easy to find in the market. This system also uses arranging device time to ensure every crop get fertilizers solution in time was prescribed. Frequency and period every drop depend on type of crop and crop age. (Sources: Teknologi Penanaman Secara Fertigation (MARDI)).

Organization from areas of agriculture now had opened the eye of farmers by introducing new crop system namely fertigation crop. It has become latest trend in agricultural field of Malaysia where all organization support using the fertigation crop. This crop promising returns back investment capital within short time if those use this method properly. There are various successes of the farmers by using this system fertigation (sources: By Cultivation Technology Fertigation (MARDI)).

In this research, the researcher focuses on how social capital can contribute to the success of fertigation project in Dungun Terengganu. The researcher want see the connection between social capital and the agriculture. According to Liverpool-Tasie, Kuku, & Ajibola, (2011), social network will affect nomination method (farming practices) by adaptation technological information or network. This indirectly will affect agricultural productivity as the farmers have acquired information that is useful to develop their crop system.

Apart from that, social capital can improve the agricultural technology. This is because social capital has ability for developed and it also can use various types of social network to create understanding between farming household and farming community (D.Parthasarathy, & V.K.Chopde).

Social capital in agriculture has given benefit on farmers and also nonfarmers. Social capital will increase awareness and appreciation to the stakeholder interests where it will increase trust and confident on action of community member. When social capital has existed, nonfarmers will support and respect on local agriculture while farmers will respect nonfarmers’s concerns and need. Hence, the establishment of social capital will contribute mutual respect among each other and they will share sense of community which will support individual interest and locality (Wilkinson (1991) cited in Sharp, & Smith).

According to Aleksiev, & Penov, (2006), social capital will make people change to be better because everyone have the opportunity to change position and can modify the network where they work.

Putman (1993) cited in BRUEGEL, (2006) tell difference between societies with social capital and societies with no social capital. He found that the high level of distrust shows the low level of social capital. People with low level of social capital have a tendency not to follow the rule. Hence, any punishment sentenced will take long time as offences committed heavy.

Apart from that, the researcher also focuses on two types of social capital such as bonding and bridging. According to Putnam cited in Yamaoka (2007), bonding social capital are also known as exclusive type where this group have members that is more-or-less and had equation between one same other in term of nature and internally oriented while bridging on the other hand known as inclusive type which include few groups in cross- sectoral and it externally oriented manner.

This aim of this study is to explore on how social capital can contribute to the success of fertigation project of Malaysia especially case of Dungun Terengganu. Malaysia has not yet has research on improvement of fertigation on social capital.

1.2 Problem Statement

Social capital is the main issue of this research. Social capital is one of the most crucial agricultural activities that are proven to offer advantages to not only for organization but also for individual in meeting certain objectives. The role of social capital for instance is indeed critical especially dealing with networking between the people. With regard to social capital, learning, communication and trust are among the significant attributes that can help to measure the successful fertigation project in Dungun Terengganu.

Fertigation project in Malaysia are growing the usage. However, there are some of the issues that are link in this project. The issue which occurred are trust, cooperation, interaction, networking and knowledge sharing. Nevertheless, all this problem can be overcame with social capital.

Trust is another thing which is highly associated with social capital. Trust will be influenced by a lot of factors which need to be explored by the researcher.

Besides trust, according to officer in Dungun Agriculture Office, they cannot measure the level cooperation between farmers and organization. It is because not all farmers involve in all activities carried out by organization.

Other than that, interaction also play very important role to expedite the social capital. Hence, the effective communication needs to use to make sure they understand the information and terms used in fertigation project. Note that effective interaction can influence social capital should they choose the right tools.

Networking play role that is important in ensuring continuity social capital in this study. The researcher will study factor which influenced networking in this project of fertigation.

Apart from that, the researcher also focuses to knowledge sharing to know as far as it influences social capital.

There are a lot of studies pertaining on the social capital. However, the researcher only focus on social capital and agriculture where there will be many research carried out showing that social capital can help agricultural project. For Heemskerk, & Wennink, (2004); D.Parthasarathy, & V.K.Chopde and Westendorp, & their Biggs focus on social capital and agriculture innovation while Yamaoka, (2007); Sharp, & Smith; Kinderen, (2006); Liu, & Besser,(2003) on the other hand focus on social capital and agricultural and rural development. Apart from that, Hong, & Sporleder on the other hand focus on social capital and agricultural cooperative and Liverpool-Tasie, Kuku, & Ajibola, (2011) on the other hand focus on social capital and agriculture productivity. However, projects carried out above not venture in the nature on fertigation project.

1.3 Research Question

With regard to the problems highlighted in problems statement, the following research questions were posed for this study:

How bonding contribute to successful of fertigation project

How bridging contribute to successful of fertigation project

1.4 Research Objective

In general, the main research objective is to examine the social capital for fertigation project in Dungun Terengganu. Besides that, this research also explore on the factors that influence social capital which include trust, cooperation, interaction, networking and knowledge sharing

Thus, the study is carrying out to achieve the following objective:

To examine the relationship of social capital towards successful fertigation project

1.5 Scope of the Study

The scope of this study is the organization that related to agriculture sector in Dungun Terengganu. There are the Department of Agriculture and Farmers’ Organization Authority of Malaysia and the farmers involved in Fertigation Project in Dungun. The selection is based on trust, cooperation, interaction, networking and knowledge sharing that are assumed to contribute towards social capital.

There are several limitations of this study. There are:

1.5.1 Place

This research is made in Dungun district where it focuses on farmers in Dungun district. It only focus to one place only and it may be cannot represent actual situation.

1.5.2 Scope

The scope of this study is the fertigation project. This project was conducted in two organizations that have been selected by the researcher. The researcher only concern about this project on the area of Dungun, Terengganu only. If the same study implemented in another scope, the result may be different.

1.5.3 Variables

In this study, the researcher only focus on trust, cooperation, interaction, networking and knowledge sharing as the variables.

1.6 Significance of the Study

The importance of this study will see whether the trust, cooperation, interaction, networking and knowledge sharing to the stakeholder will gain the social capital in agricultural product development in Dungun Terengganu.

Social capital is critical to realize the development community in the social agriculture. This is because by having a good networking, it will create the positive impact to the society and also will increase capacity building in the area. In addition, it also will foster innovative community where they can understand the new knowledge and be involved with a new mission and decision.

The other significant of the study is to gather new knowledge on this area. It will give academicians and organizations new knowledge on social capital, how it can be done between the farmers and organization in an agriculture context. Besides that, it can serve as a platform for future research. The data obtained can be used for other researchers to study the social capital globally.

Besides that, the researcher also will come out with the theoretical contribution which can use by the others scholar particularly on social capital in agricultural activities.

Last significance of this study is to provide recommendations to improve the present situation. With that, the organizations can prevent, reduce and overcome some cases by taking appropriate prevention and action to solve the problems. It is to ensure that any problems that occur have the solution and make sure that the organization did not make the same mistake in the future.

1.7 Definition of Terms
1.7.1 Fertigation

Fertigation is soilless culture production system (Teknologi Penanaman Secara Fertigation (MARDI)).

1.7.2Social Capital

For Cohen (2007), social capital is network of informal trust relationships that provide an essential social infrastructure for knowledge sharing and knowledge creation sparked by new combination of existing knowledge.

Besides that, according to Woolcook & Narayan, 2000 (cited in Kilpatrick & Falk, 2003) social capital is norms and networks that enable people to act correctly (pp. 501).

According to World Bank Cited in Liverpool-Tasie, Kuku, & Ajibola, (2011), “social capital refers to the institutions, relations and norms that shape the quality and quantity of a society’s interactionsaˆ¦ Social Capital is not just the sum of the institutions which underpin a society-it is the glue that holds them together.”

1.7.3 Bonding social Capital

Bonding social capital describes the links between individuals or groups with similar goals within the network (Hong, G., & Sporleder)

1.7.4 Bridging Social Capital

Bridging social capital describes the capacity of individuals or groups to make links with others outside their organization, particularly across social networks (Hong, G., & Sporleder)

Measurement of social capital

Social capital has a variety of dimensions. While in many developing countries, it is often captured via some measure of membership in community based organizations, as well as engagement in the community (Okunmadewa et al. 2007; Balogun and Yusuf 2011a; Yusuf 2008), there are a number of other aspects of social capital that have been identified as important for a comprehensive understanding of the concept. Some aspects of social capital that have been identified in the literature as very important (Roslan et al. 2010a, 2010b; Balogun and Yusuf 2011) include:

1) Groups and networks, measured by

a) Membership in formal or informal organization or association.

b) Ability to get support from those, other than family members and relatives, in case of hardship.

c) Remittances.

d) Ability to learn from one’s network or group, particularly the impact on technology adoption.

e) Access to various markets (labor, input, or output) via the group.

2) Trust and solidarity, measured by

a) Perceptions about whether most people in the community can be trusted.

b) Perceptions about social support/help provided by group members for each other in times of hardship.

3) Collective action and cooperation, measured by

a) More than half of the community contributing time or money towards common development goals.

b) A high likelihood that people, in the community, cooperate to solve common problems.

4) Information and communication, measured by

a) Frequency of reading or listening to news sources such as radio, newspapers, and television.

5) Social cohesion and inclusion, measured by

a) Strong feeling of togetherness within the community.

b) Feeling safe from crime and violence when alone at home.

6) Empowerment and political action, measured by

a) Having control in making decisions that affect everyday activities

b) Political participation such as voting and being voted for in local elections

(Liverpool-Tasie, Kuku & Ajibola (2011))

To measure socialcapital, two indicators are utilized. The first item is a social network measure reflecting the extent to which residents interact with farmerss. The second socialcapital item represents trust, and is an attitudinal measure of resident trust or confidence in local farmerss. The network question asked respondents to indicate how often he or she saw or met a farmers during the course of a year, with response categories including never, a few times a year, once or a few times a month, and once a week or more (Sharp & Smith)

This paper uses an innovations systems framework to analyse the ways social capital in the overall agricultural and natural resources innovation system in Nepal has increased far beyond what was originally expected in the project proposal (Westendorp & Biggs)

CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.0 Introduction

In the previous chapter, the researcher provides the basic information of social capital. Under this chapter, it will explore more on the elements of social capital which relevance to the research.

This chapter describes the theoretical foundation for social capital in agricultural sector in Dungun Terengganu. In the section, the researcher gives an overview of the how social capital can contribute to the success of fertigation project in Dungun Terengganu. This section will culminate issue related to theoretical considerations to empirical study. The researcher will also present a conceptual framework. An outline of this chapter is given in the figure as below:

Figure 2.0: Outline of Chapter 2
2.1 Problems in Agriculture

Every project carried out doubtless has problem and the challenge. In this study, the researcher focus on problems which occurred in sector agriculture so that the researcher knows what problem that is real occurs within field of agriculture.

Heemskerk, & Wennink, (2004) discuss on group size. There is conflict on group size that should use in this areas of agriculture whether small size or big size. According To Pretty (2003), every agriculture project need membership within 20 and 50 persons but if membership less than 20, farmer can still functioning well. In this study, they discuss on advantages of small size group and big size group. Small size group will influence social capital with much better as fewer members beside it have been administered easily and particularly dynamic. However, large size will gain the huge experience as it involving many memberships. Hence, the group size become issue to many project agriculture in ensuring social capital happen.

Apart from that, difference parties doubled up problem in areas of agriculture (Enserink (2004) cited in Kinderen (2006)). According to this study, farmer with parties that have different tendency to resolve their own problem without discuss with responsible party. This is because they have their own perspective and they rather solve problems according to their own way. It also supported by Wilber (1981) cited in Kinderen (2006) where when this situation happened, farmer no longer want to solve problems but they prefer to live in imbalance and inequalities.

In addition, low skilled and low educational background doubled up problems for areas of agriculture (Ogunanya 2009; Ekunwe, Orewa and Emokaro 2008 cited in Liverpool-Tasie, Kuku & Ajibola 2011; Ayob (1994). These problems happen due to poverty which hit most farmers. This is because most impoverished area located in agricultural area. When farmer has no educational, it will give impact on agricultural productivity as they cannot accept new skill and has no knowledge to develop areas of agriculture.

Apart of that, low income in the agriculture as the farmers have low educational and low skilled. Hence, they had to make other jobs to accommodate their income (Fasoranti 2006; Okafor 2004; Adewuyi and Okunmadewa 2001; Yusuf et al. 2009; Peke 2008; Adewuyi 2006; Adejoh 2009 cited in Liverpool-Tasie, Kuku & Ajibola 2011).

Problems in this agriculture have encouraged innovation in agriculture to help farmers and in Malaysia, fertigation project is agricultural innovation and it also establishes to help farmers in country.

2.2 Social Capital

Social capital is defining an asset. It will give the benefit such as productive on process more efficient, effective, innovative, and developed. Social capital did not exist in one person, however it inhering relationship between one and other individual and with socioeconomic institutions where the individual operate (Coleman 1988 cited in Liverpool-Tasie, Kuku & Ajibola, 2011).

The study of social capital have been intrigued various scholar. Social capital is a set process by which individuals will be built and developed the relationship with other people to provide goods or services (Keyes, 2006). At this time, people will identify their strengths in their working relationship and had been feeling the benefits resulting from effective team. Social capital cannot be seen by the naked eye, but it certainly exists in the real world and its existence can be felt by the interaction. According to Woolcock (1999) cited in Bostrom (2002), social capital can be found at club, association and societies and communities where people can meet and work together.

According to Huotari & livonen, social capital associated with the actor in a relationship. If the actor in a relationship trusts each other, it does not only increase the social capital but also can create the knowledge for innovation. This also supported Ji et al (2010) that social capital has relationship with trust and had the connection in empirical study.

Before going with more much further, we need to know how social capital can happen. According to Morrice (2207), everyone has owned different amount of social capital. Only they uncertain whether it many or a little. However, when something has occurred and it involves people interest, they will be united and will develop bond among them. When they already united, this bond will become double- edge. All problems faced would be resolved jointly. It will be giving advantages to group because network has become stronger.

Interaction and learning is between one of the element in social capital (Maskell (2000) cited in Chou (2006)). It can exist in society with the existence of process of interaction and learning. This is because people interact with colleague compared to own family and also friends. Hence, social capital will emerge at workplaces and it will help cooperation in job.

Social capital will note happen if individuals only used a little ability or note use it direct for society interest (Diaz Andrade & Urquhart, 2009). According to them, social capital provides structure to understand configuration and intensity of interaction between individuals in network. Apart from that, social capital can make innovation. According to Westendorp & Biggs, it not only changing productivity agriculture and reduce cost but it also enhance institutional linkage and social capital development.

Besides that, storytelling will reinforces further social capital between people because it would be firmed further norm and trust people on organization (Hope Cheong, 2006).

Networks have four characteristic such as pluriformity, interdependency, closedness and dynamic (de Bruijn and heuvelhof, 2000 cited in Kinderen, 2006). According to them, pluriformity is variety in the network. This is because everyone have characteristic, knowledge, power, financial resources and own objective. When people do something policy that new, pluriformity need to establish because there will have conflict in the network. This is because people have various characteristic and they will act based on their characteristic. In this study, there is part of society in Africa agreeing with implementation of small reservations and some of them do not want to take part. Closedness of the network is a characteristics that is easily been recognised in the societies. In African villages, often rivalry between different ethnic groups exists and kinship is a crucial factor of being part of the group or not. ‘The closedness of an organisation (read: village/community) is the result of its frame of reference which is formed by core values deeply rooted in the organisation and which determine its action to a large degree. Organisations are usually sensitive to interventions that fit their own frame of reference’ (de Bruijn and Heuvelhof, 2000: 27). So being able to determine that frame of reference will, partly, determine the successfulness of the intervention. Apart from that, interdependency exists within group or society between actors. It depends on the amount of connection in group. When it have strong bonding, network will become interdependency. However, it difficult for predict. Hence, actors need to be careful so that no one takes advantage towards them. Last network is dynamic. Dynamic of network have the large power. It can affect the people in the network. This is because network that is dynamic will inconvenience inteference from outside. Apart from that, Maertens (2010) cited in Liverpool-Tasie, Kuku & Ajibola (2011) said that dynamic network will affect people to engage in new activity as their network strong.

Figure 2.2: Modelling a Theory of Social Capital (Lin, 1999) (pp.41)

Based on from this model, it has three blocks variable namely a blocks represent pre- conditional and precursors of social capital – factor in social structure and every position individual in social structure which can constrains or facilitate social capital. Second block representing social capital element and last block representing return probability for social capital. In first block to second, it explained on formation of inequality of social capital namely what structural element which will affect the opportunities for construct and maintain social capital. In second block on the other hand, it explained on two element of social capital namely access to social capital and use of social capital. Both elements explain process of social capital mobilization. Third Block also explained on three ingredients has inter- connected namely better accessible embedded resources, better embedded resources that could be utilised by individual. In process second block (social capital) until third block (outcome), it represents the process which social capital produce returns. It explains on what we get outcome from social capital.

2.3 Important of Social Capital

According to Grooteart, 2004 cited in Kinderen, 2006, social capital can expect certain aspect in society such as crime, health, poverty and unemployment. It can leverage on the efficiency of production, happiness, life satisfaction and wellbeing of the community (Helliwell and Putnam, 2004 cited in Kinderen, 2006). Apart from that, social capital now also is looked as important asset that is equivalent with natural, physical capital, finance, human, and political capital (Dll Meinzen-Dick, 2004 cited in Kinderen, 2006).

Social capital afford consolidate democracy in society and it can enhance efficiency towards work (Safr and Sediackova, 2006 cited in POSPAsCH & SPAsA NA (2011). When networking in strong society, all activity carried out will happen nicely because the existence of bonding in community.

Apart from that, social capital also influenced the sustainable livelihood (Pretty, 2003). This is because it got involved with social bond where actor which have high social bond will success in activity carried out and it will also influence living stability.

At the same time, social capital also gave impact on knowledge sharing. Knowledge sharing is one element in social capital. According To Putnam (1993) cited in D.Parthasarathy, & V.K.Chopde, uniqueness social capital rests with willingness of people to share. All activity carried out will succeed because people know what they need to do by can increase knowledge.

Social capital has a few key features. First feature was social capital can accumulate stock where it will give various benefits. According to Westendorp & Biggs, social capital comprises more than a social organisation or social capital values. Social can improve output with improve productivity activity.

Apart from that, social capital could reduce cost if work together. People will be having confidence to invest in collective activities (Pretty, 2003). Pretty and Ward 2001; Pretty, 2002 cited in Pretty, 2003 stress four aspects that can be ensured in social capital. Among them was the relationship of trust, reciprocity and exchanges, common rules, norms and sanction and connectedness, network and group.

2.4 Impact of Social Capital to Agriculture

According to Bourdieu (1983) cited in Wolz, Fritzsch, & Reinsberg (2004), people can change social capital to other types of capital like physical capital when obtain social capital through purposeful action. However, it takes a long time to see the result of investment on social capital.

Social capital also able generates profit in economic (POSPAsCH & SPAsA NA, 2011). This is because actors have various networks of personal ties. When actor has many networks, it can help them market their productivity agriculture.

Apart from that, social capital also produced innovation on agriculture. According to Westendorp & Biggs, the natural resources innovation system in Nepal increased and it exceeded over their expectation.

In the development of agriculture sector and urban and rural area, social capital perceived as readiness and capacity to work together. In this study, it covers case such as watersheds, irrigation management, and integrated pest management strategies. This concept has become solution of problems faced by modern society, socioeconomic and political development. (D.Parthasarathy, & V.K.Chopde).

Apar

Ageing is a biological process, which is universal phenomenon and inevitable for all. As Heidegger states, “We are born, we live, we die.” (Featherstone & Wernick, 1995: 1) Pilcher (1995) argues, ‘like class, ethnicity and gender, age is a social category through which people define and identify individuals and groups within society. Age is both an important part of how we see ourselves and how others see us.’ Age has various connotations, varying according to historical periods and culture. “Older adults [in industrialized countries] tend to be marginalized, institutionalized, and stripped of responsibility, power and, ultimately, their dignity. It wasn’t always thus. In most prehistoric and agrarian societies, older people were often held in high regard. They were the teachers.” (Nelson, 2005) Unfortunately in contemporary society, especially the Western world, ageing has become perceived as an illness. Biggs (1989) states that we are living in an ageist society where it is believed that a ‘predominant attitude towards older people is coloured by negative mixture of pity, fear, disgust, condescension and neglect.’ The elderly have become victims of their own survival. The number 65 has been regarded as the beginning of old age. Old age is referred to a time of life which is ‘bleak and hopeless’ (page 16) Many deny the notion of being ‘old’ in spite of this but a majority of the elderly are still affected by the very fact of being over 65. Society is also against people with mental illnesses. Just as the elderly are discriminated due to their, people with dementia are discriminated due to their illness. Dementia is said to be a second childhood, but it is not. It is said to rob the mind, but it does not. It is said to affect the elderly over 65, but it can affect a person from early as their forties. Ageism is part of the stigma that people with dementia suffer from.

Ageism is deeply embedded within our society, and is very widespread. It is difficult to tackle as it is an unconscious process and often unnoticed. In 1969 Butler coined the term ageism to describe the process of systematic stereotyping and discrimination against older people. Cuddy & Fiske (2002) argue that ageism is pervasive, affecting social interactions, housing, health care, employment, and social policy. Quadango (2008) refers to ageism as ‘the stereotyping of and discrimination against individuals or groups because of their age. It s a set of beliefs, attitudes, norms and values used to justify age based prejudice and discrimination.’ Kite and Johnson (1988) define ageism as ‘beliefs about elderly as unable to contribute to society, and hence as dispensable members of a community.’ These stereotypes arise from negative cultural attitudes. From these definitions, ageism can be defined to consist of three elements: prejudicial attitudes, discriminatory practices and institutional practices. Traxler (1980) outlines four factors which contribute to ageism. Firstly, there is a fear of death. Secondly, there is an emphasis on youth culture. Thirdly, there is an emphasis on productivity. Fourthly, the research carried out on ageing. These elements can be reflected when analysing dementia. Many fear the symptoms of dementia, as there has been an association that dementia is ‘as if your dead.’ However, the fear has been exaggerated as ‘dementia is not normal dying’ (Murphy, __ : 13) There is an assumption that people with dementia can’t participate in research or are unable to share their views and experiences. This becomes evident with the fact that dementia has been underfunded. Few resources have been allocated, as dementia in the elderly is not seen as a priority and they are not seen as worthy.

Clearly, ageism is part of the social system. Perceptions of aging are formed as early as childhood. We are surrounded with images of the elderly as a homogenous group that is dependent, lonely, frail and incompetent. These perceptions do not apply at a young age, and do not impact identity formation and therefore negative schema are more likely to be accepted without testing or questioning (Levy et al., 2002) Children hold their own expectations and perceptions about their aging process due to internalized ageing stereotypes. In a study, children were asked how they would feel about becoming an elderly person, of which 60% of these children gave responses rated as negative, including ‘‘I would feel awful” (Seedfeldt et al., 1977: 509). Another study found that among children aged four to seven, 66% mentioned that they prefer not to become an elderly person (Burke, 1981). It is evident that children hold discriminatory attitudes towards the elderly, but these attitudes are internalised through socialisation, of where socialisation institutions such as families, media, and education play an important role. Adults hold negative attitudes towards the elderly, which impact the elderly in a destructive way.

Palmore (1990) identified nine negative stereotypes associated with “the elderly.” These included illness, impotency, ugliness, mental decline, mental illness, uselessness, isolation, poverty and depression. One theory argues that perceptions and evaluations regarding ageing have been socially constructed. Social constructions reject ageing as natural and argue that individuals are moulded by socio-cultural factors. According to Berger and Luckman (2002), the social construction of reality relies upon a three-stage process. The first process is where people create culture. The second process involves these cultural creations becoming a reality, and is granted as natural and inevitable, where the third process involves reality being absorbed as valid by following generations.

All of these negative attitudes create a new set of exclusions for the elderly person. As a result, the elderly are treated differently as a person and are often treated as ‘the others’. They are viewed and associated with labels such as ill health, poverty, passive and dependent. Heise (1984:__) argues that one stereotype of the elderly is that of a ‘weak and frail elderly.’ Butler (1987) argues that due to ageism, the elderly are seen as senile, rigid in thought and manner, and old-fashioned in morality and skill. There is a notion that the elderly go into a second childhood. This notion removes their adult status, and their personhood, undermining their worth and value. The elderly are reduced by their physical attributes, where there is a failure to see beneath the surface. They are seen in a state of remediable decline. ‘Mask of ageing’ is a term of where the body betrays the person, as the body is unable to adequately signify the individual’s inner self, leaving a misrepresentation and imprisonment.

One area that comprises of age-discrimination is seen in the workplace. Some positive stereotypes are associated, including the elderly being more loyal, reliable, experienced and responsible. However, there are also negative stereotypes found within the workplace, including being less adaptive with new innovations and changes. These stereotypes are continually perpetuated despite the fact that there is evidence for a correlation regarding their absenteeism, productivity, or competence. Mandatory retirement may be the most pervasive form of age-discrimination.

Media can be seen to be the most pervasive for promoting ageism. It is clear to see how society values characteristics such as youth, autonomy and independence. Popular culture and the consumer culture such as magazines and politics consist of images of youth and beauty which encourage stereotypes of the elderly, of which these images are dominant. Furthermore, the elderly are significantly under-represented across all media. Levy (2002) found that older people with positive perceptions of aging lived seven and a half years longer than those exposed to negative images of aging. Levy acknowledged that media is not solely to blame for promoting ageism, but it is the most identifiable source.

Another area where ageism is pervasive is within the healthcare system, where they often receive inferior health care or are denied access. Within the healthcare system, the elderly are less likely to be referred for screening and treatment, likely to receive more medication prescriptions than younger people for equivalent symptoms, and misdiagnosed with symptoms accounting for ‘normal ageing.’Alliance for Aging Research (2003) concludes that the elderly are less likely than younger people to receive preventive care, less likely to be tested or screened for diseases and other health problems, often ignored from proven medical interventions which in turn leads to them being given inappropriate or incomplete treatment, and also consistently excluded from clinical trials, despite being the largest users of approved drugs. They conclude that ageism within the health-care system “hurts everyone, because it leads to premature loss of independence, increased mortality and disability, and depression in adults who might otherwise continue to lead productive, satisfying and healthier lives” (Alliance for Aging Research, 2003) “Our health care systems are unhealthy and unsustainable; we focus on the wrong conditions,” with dementia not being a focus. (Whitehouse, 2007: 63) Ageism within the health care system adds further impacts with those who have dementia. the report(irish study) indicates there is structural and organisational discrimination which highlighted a failure to prioritise dementia in terms of policy and resource allocation. As Neil Hunt, the chief executive of the Alzheimer’s Society states, ‘There is no place for ageism in today’s NHS. One in three over 65 will die with dementia yet we know only a third of people will ever receive formal diagnosis. People deserve to be treated with respect and equality regardless of age – especially where assessment of symptoms and ongoing care are concerned.’ Not all people with dementia receive fair treatment. Dementia patients often need support of many kinds, frequently without knowing who to ask or what support to ask for. Despite this awareness, a majority of people’s needs are not met. Early symptoms are dismissed as ‘ageing,’ which delays diagnosis. It has also been found that health professionals lack the knowledge and training for dementia. Illife (1994) argues that GP’s attitudes tend to nihilistic and many believe that nothing can be done. He found that 60% of GPs lacked confidence in making a diagnosis of early dementia and many found it difficult to advise about support services or to coordinate such services. The Audit Commission (2000) found fewer than half of general practitioner’s said they had received sufficient training. It also found that less than two thirds felt they had ready access to specialist advice, of which it required on readily access upon diagnosis. There is further conclusive evidence that there is an under-diagnosis and inadequate management towards dementia. A recent survey found that nearly two-thirds of general practitioners did not give a memory test and around 40% did not offer a diagnosis when consulted by patients with memory problems. Out of a sample of approximately 700 GPs, 71% felt that they did not have adequate training in and more than half were dissatisfied with community services for dementia. Another study found that most GPs felt they had little to offer dementia patients, early referral was unhelpful, and that the problem was mainly a social problem. Although these studies lean towards the negative aspect of treatments towards those with dementia, the same study found that 52.3% of GPs felt that early diagnosis was beneficial and 54.4% felt diagnosis of early signs of dementia was important. Furthermore, the study is questionable as the data is based on questionnaires. (Renshaw, 2001: 37)

It is not only the elderly with dementia that are discriminated again. Ageism works both ways, affecting not only the elderly but also young people. Reverse ageism is where the young people are marginalised. There is little awareness or understanding of people who develop dementia at an early age, and this makes it difficult for younger people with dementia to access ample support. Many dementia care services have a minimum age requirement of 65, and therefore are not available to younger people. When services are available and accessible to younger users, they tend to be inappropriate to their needs. As a consequence, the younger people feel that they are made to ‘fit in’ to a service, rather than the service fitting their needs. Iliffe (2003) found that 60% of GPs lacked confidence in making a diagnosis of early dementia.

Ageism is a major issue that needs to be addressed in order to ensure the elderly are in receipt of fair treatment. Since the 1960s attempts have been made to eliminate age discriminations, with groups such as the Grey Panthers and Help the Aged. In 2006 a ban on discrimination within the workplace was introduced with the UK Age Discrimination Act. This law makes it unlawful for employers and other staff to discriminate against a person on the basis of his/her age. The Act adopts four definitions, including direct discrimination, indirect discrimination, harassment and victimisation. As for the health care system, recent allegations claim the NHS to be institutionally ageist, and in response The Equality Bill has been debated about and proposes to eliminate the discrimination rooted within staff and the funding surrounding their care. The Green Paper talks about elderly care and dementia care, arguing that the current system needs amending as there is not insufficient money to provide enough quality care and meet the needs. It acknowledges that an increase in funding is necessary, and to introduce a minimum care entitlement so that receives some Governmental support. An extract from the Green Paper states ‘’the Government’s vision is for a system that is fair, simple and affordable for everyone, underpinned by national rights and entitlements but personalised to individual needs. In the new National Care Service, everyone should be able to get really good care wherever they live and whatever they or their family need” Due to ageism, the elderly and in particular people with dementia are faced with barriers and inequalities within society, which has been acknowledged and attempts have been introduced to eliminate and reduce them.

On the one hand there are theories that there is a great lack of understanding about the realities of ageing, and on the other hand, there are theories that the fears of ageing are exaggerated. Ageism does exist, and there have been responses to eliminate these negative attitudes toward age. As mentioned, ageism exists within the health care system, and those who have been diagnosed with dementia not only suffer from the illness, but also suffer from ageism.

Murdock claimed that the family is so functional to society that it is unavoidable and universal thus appearing everywhere. He argued that every nuclear family has this four functions Sexual, reproductive, economic and education. All these four functions are essential according to Murdock without sexual and reproductive no member of society would be there, life would stop if there was no economic function that is provision of meals. Without education no socialisation thus no culture.Murdock’s view of the family is too positive to believe that nuclear family is harmonious institution .

Parsons (1955) studied the modern American family in the 50s. He argued that there are two basic and irreducible function of a family these are the primary socialisation of children which Parsons sees as a responsibility of a family to shape the child’s personality to suite to the needs of society. The second function is the stabilisation of adult personalities the family gives adults the emotional support necessary to cope with the stresses of everyday life. (Taylor and Richardson etl 2002). Parsons’s as with Murdock has been criticised of showing the picture of the family as attuned children and compassionate spouses caring for each other’s need.

There is a natural division of labour within the nuclear family roles being segregated positively, for example the instrumental male whose role is to provide for the family thus the bread winner and expressive female whose role is to provide warmth, love and care for children at home. Based on Biology woman is a child bearer therefore has to look after the child, this role maintains social stability. Family patterns have changed with time such as cohabitation, rise of reconstituted families and increase in single or lone parent radical psychiatric looks this as way to the increase of divorce for example changes in western family life the privatisation of the nuclear family thus no support when pressure hits leading to separation and divorce, to obtain divorce is easier due to changes in the law.

Functionalist theory has been criticised to have concentrated on the family being positive and gives little attention to its weaknesses. However in feminism nuclear family is oppressive to women for example gender distinctions. Functionalists argue that the family is of equal profit to everyone, however Marxists argue that society developed by the need of the capitalist economy. It is the bourgeoisie who benefits not the whole society. Functionalists focus too much on the significance that the family has for society and disregard the sense family life has for individual.

Feminists see the family as patriarchal male dominating thus Men gain more in a family than women. Feminists shows how men dominate social relationships thus symmetrical conjugal roles is seen as an allegory. Feminist argues that Men oppress women through domestic violence ,the economic involvement to society made by women’s domestic labour within the family.

Liberal feminist Wollstonecraft (1792). Wanted equality for women in terms of rights, liberties and vote by the change of law and policy. Radical feminists like Millett (1970) argue that the organisation of society enables men to dominate women, they believed that gender distinctions are politically and socially constructed therefore wanted radical reforms and social change she came with the term “The personal is political”. Not just patriarchal men that benefit from family but all men.Sociolist feminist look at gender as the basis, sociolist Marxist combine gender with class they argue that there is a dual oppression for women they have to go to work as well work at home. Marxists feminist believe that the destruction of the capitalist society brings equality to everything. Lesbian feminist they believe society forces them to be in heterosexuality so that men can oppress them, they challenged heterosexuality as a means of male supremacy. Humanist feminist argues that society only allows men to self-develop not women and that society distorts women’s human potential.

Marxist feminist Bentson (1972) argues that family responsibilities make male workers less likely to withdraw from labour with wife and children to support. Ansley (1972) she sees the emotional support in family stabilises male workers thus make them less likely to take their frustration out of the system. Feeley (1972) She see the family as an dictatorial unit dominated by the husband and also the family values teaches obedience children learn to accept hierarchy and their position in it.Greer (2000) a radical feminist who believes that family life continues to disadvantage and oppress women. She points out Britain has very high divorce rate thus less stability in the families.

Marxist feminist like functionalist they tend to ignore the diversity of modern family life assuming everyone lives in heterosexual nuclear family.They paint a very negative picture of family life possibly exaggerated.Unlike functionalists who sees male and female roles being different but equal,Marxist feminists believe that men dominate family relationships.Feminist theory discards functionalist view that society as a whole is benefited by socialisation in the family but rather men benefits more.Women are portrayed as passive victims of exploitation,it does not take into account women who abuse men by fighting back. Functionalist believe that norms and values benefits society while for feminist they benefit men more for example obedience,women being obedient to men.

Marxists views of family sees socialisation process results in the transmission of a ruling class ideology, whereby individuals are deceived into accepting the capitalist system and the dominance of the capitalist class.Bourgoisie benefits by creating a labour force and proletariat continue to be exploited. Engel s 1972) argued that bourgeois nuclear family as an institution which oppressed women.They were seen mainly as the bearers of children,economically dependent to their husbands and remain faithful to them.According to Engelsthe family is designed to control women and protect property thus men needed to know their children in order to pass on their property.

Marxists say the family serves capitalism in four ways.The family acts as a safety valves for the stress and frustration of working class men,the family as a unit of consumption buys the goods and services provided by capitalism.Women domestic work is unpaid which benefits capitalism and lastly the family socialises children thereby reproducing both labour power and acceptance of capitalism false consciousness. Zaretsky (1976) analysed that the family is one place where male workers can feel they have power and control.This helps them accept their oppression in wider society,furthermore Zaretsky sees the family as a main prop to the capitalist economy.

Marxists view of divorce in families is seen by increased economic pressure from unemployment this may place added strain and also family members living longer could increase pressure on relationships.

Marxists decline the functionalist view that society based on value consensus and thus benefits all. Instead they see the welfare of powerful groups influencing the way society is controlled.Marxist view ignores family diversity it sees the nuclear family as being simply determined by the economy.This theory reproduces conflict between classes bourgeoisie and prolateriate while in fuctionalists family operates as united everything benefits society.Capitalist sytem is dominated both economically by rich at the expense of the poor but seen as a fair system by functionalists that works together in the interest of all members causing limited conflict in society.Anthropologists have suggested that the emergence of the nuclear family did not actually coincide with emergence of capitalism. Somerville (2000) argues that Zaretsky exaggerates the importance of the family as a protection from life in capitalist society.As with feminism functions of family benefits men in Marxist produces labour force.

In this essay various aspects of working in a group vs. working individually will be discussed. The idea here will be to study the pros and cons with relation to the particular individual and not to the group of which he is a part. First we will try to understand the dynamics of working in a group vis a vis individual, then understand the various issues involved in working as a part of the group. We would also see as to how those issues will be influencing the person, be it in the positive side or being a hindrance and also support the argument by stating prior personal experiences.

Introduction:-

Remember last time when you had to do a project, how did you go about doing it? You must have contemplated doing it by many ways. But some thing that comes to mind at the beginning is either individually or in a group. Every body by de facto knows what it is to be individual and perform a task individually, as he is the only person who is doing the task. But what is group and how it is formed and what are the dynamics involved in it is something we are about to discuss below.

So what is a group, it may be defined as a collection of several people who come together to do a particular task or goal. And the group dynamics refer to the characteristic of a group behavior and attitude. The basic concern of group dynamics is about the structure formation and functions of the group. In any organization groups are very common entity and hence their dynamics and deep understanding of the group is important in organisational behavior (Kirschner 2009). Group dynamics basically deals with why and how groups are formed and developed. In order to explain the same many theories have been proposed. One classic theory developed by George Homans (1961), states that all groups are basically functioning of their activities, interactions and sentiments. And all the group theories professes that when individual persons share common activities, they get interactions among them and will develop either positive or negative attitudes towards each other. The groups can also be of various types based on how and why they are formed, that is basically we may put them in two categories like Formal and Informal groups. Formal Groups are formed to achieve specific organizational requirements such as a command group, tasks group, or functional groups. Where as the informal groups are formed by association of members based on their own interest or social activities. More or less the informal groups are involuntary associations (Mullins 2002).

Coming to the main issue of whether or not working in the group is going to be beneficial or not to us will be depending largely on the group structure, which is nothing but the relationships among the members that help and hold the group together in achieving the assigned goals. The structure of the group can be defined in a many ways; common among them would be to take reference to their Size, Norms, Roles And Cohesiveness.

Group Size:-

A group can be of any size ranging from two persons to a collection of large people, however small groups of size 2 to 10 are considered more efficient in their job performance as it allows active and positive interactions between the groups and also has least chance of negative synergy. Usually large groups involve a lot of confusion and chaos leading to waste of time in deciding which process to be done and who should be doing it. The group size thus not only affects the group participation but also effects the satisfaction of the members.

Group Roles:-

In case of formal groups the roles and functions of the group members are all assigned as per pre-plan, in which each role will have specific duties and responsibilities to perform. Even though these are predetermined, some times new kind of roles also emerge in between and then it needs to be created and assigned to the already existing roles of the members. And these new roles often will be replacing the existing roles of the members who will be starting to be more assertive and start expressing themselves (Schwarzer 2007).

Group Norms:-

Mullins (2002) defined “A group norm is an assumption or expectation held by group members concerning what kind of behaviour is right or wrong, good or bad, allowed or not allowed, and appropriate or not appropriate”. They are the common behavioral patterns which are exhibited by all the members of the group. The basic reason behind the creation of these norms is to facilitate the group survival, and to make the group behavior more predictable and organized.

Group Cohesiveness:-

The Social interaction is a very common and natural human behaviour. The aspect of group cohesiveness reflects how badly the members of the group want to be together and the bond that exists among them. The amount of group cohesiveness is determined by a lot of factors. By normal conviction, the more difficult to be a group member, the more cohesive that group is considered to be. One more reason when a group tends to get more cohesive is when they are in tense competition from other groups or may be some external threat to their own survival. The basic thumb rule is the groups which are in small size and those which spend more time together tend to be more cohesive. The cohesiveness in work groups has many positives, like increases worker satisfaction, low turnover and absenteeism, thus leading to higher productivity (Argyle 1989). On the other hand high cohesiveness in groups at times may lead to detrimental effects also if the goals of the group are misalign with the organisational goals. Higher cohesiveness results in individual pressure on one another to abide to a common conclusion while making decisions, which will lead to a careless judgments and unrealistic appraisals of alternatives (Revenson 2005).

After having seen the dynamics of group, we will now understand the issues on which we are going to make a critical analysis of the pros and cons of group work. These issues are like Social support, group norms, peer pressure and conflicts.

Social Support:-

Social support is nothing but the physical and emotional comfort given and shown by our friends, family and colleagues. This basically is all about knowing that we are all a part of the larger community of people, who care and think for us and are concerned about our well being. And the critical part of this support is that unless the receiver of the support views it a support, the communicative experience or message extended to him would not be considered as support. The social support can be understood in a variety of ways like, assistance or exchanging resources.

Peer Pressure:-

By peer pressure it refers to the influence or pressure exerted by a peer group in encouraging an individual in changing ones attitudes, values or behavior so that he or she confirms to the group norms. The social groups influenced by the peers include formal groups like political party, trade union or informal groups like a social clique. However a person who is affected by the peer pressure may or may not wish to continue with the group. This would also help persons in finding out if they really belong to the group, which would lead to adverse affects of the group’s behavior (Steinberg 2007).

Conflict:-

A Conflict is a perceived difference of opinion or action of course on any issue. It is usually a dichotomy of actions for a goal to be achieved. It could be a simple intra personal conflict existing in a person or an interpersonal conflict that is appearing between two individuals or a group and an individual. It can also be between one group and another group (Brem 1995).

Basically there are three different types of conflicts existing, like go- go situation, where you want to do both the actions, where as you will have a chance to make only one selection. The other two types are go- no go type of conflicts and the third one being -no go- no go type, where you don’t want to take either of the decisions but still you want to make one choice. All conflicts in group are because of common resources which by their very nature are limited. By convention all conflicts are not counter productive. A conflict when used and controlled in the right way will be helping a great deal in increasing the productivity of the group. On the other hand, when not handled properly a conflict can have spiraling effect and can bring down an individual dignity and collapse the whole group (Managing Conflict within or between Groups, Australia).

Hawthorne Studies:-

The term was coined by Henry A. Landsberger (1955) while he was analyzing older experiments from 1924-1932 at the Hawthorne Works (A Western Electric factory outside Chicago). Hawthorne Works had commissioned a study to observe the efficiency of the workers under various stimuli both external and internal, which included physical working environment and also the group structures. Light was one such factor on which the effects were studied, to see if the workers would become more productive in higher or lower levels of light. The workers productivity has improved when changes were made and slumped when the study was concluded. It was observed that the gain in productivity is more due to the fact that they are being observed rather than the actual experiment itself. This Hawthorne effect is a form of reactivity where in subjects improve an aspect of their behavior by being experimentally measured simply in response to the fact that they are being studied and part of social investigation, not in response to any particular experimental manipulation.

Advantages And Disadvantages:-

Having studied the various theoretical aspects on which we are going to critically analyze the advantages and disadvantages, we will now enlist the various experiences both personal and compiled from others. Either the choices whether group or individual has its advantages and disadvantages. An introvert that I am, working alone sometimes is more beneficial to me than in a group.

It is admitted that, working in groups has many benefits. With our partners, the project can be finished quicker. For example, when I was studying in university my final project was on “Implementation of Stenography using BPCS”. We were a group of 4 individuals working on this project and we have assigned different tasks to each person of the group. This has made the division of work more efficient thus accomplishing the task was much easier and faster. This was a good way to improve our knowledge, presentation skills and learn from each other, since every one has a different skill set and ideas to implement. At the same time we had few challenges working as a team, such as one person had he own ideas and would not coincide/compromise with rest of the team and some of us had issue with the time being spent on the project and so on. But at the end of the day we kept our difference away and worked as a team to finish the project successfully.

On the other hand working individually also has some different kinds of advantages. The first major advantage that comes to mind is that we can work independent of any other person and don’t have to rely on others. While working alone, we have the freedom of using our own methods and work at our own pace and convenience. Working independently gives us the confidence to make our own decisions, based on our experience and expertise on our work. Moreover, we can manage our time and resources better when we work by ourselves. From my experiences of working individually and also in a group, working individual always gave me success and the ability and knowledge to learn new things. As I am an introverted person, I didn’t find much joy doing job in a group. However I felt that I was not having any new innovative or divergent ways of working, which other wise would have made me to do a better job by being a part of the group.

Let’s discuss how working in a group can enrich you individually as a person, while still being a part of the group. Just as said that many hands would make the job easier, we can achieve more as a collection of individuals rather than individually. There are numerous benefits of working as a part of a team, some of them can be stated as below

1. Creativity

Every body is born with a different skill sets, knowledge and personal attributes. When in a group different people with different ideas come together and more creative and innovative ideas are generated, which will help us in enriching our knowledge and may be use them for our future endeavors.

2. Satisfaction

As a team keeps on interacting more and more they tend to be more cohesive and enjoy the success of one another which leads to a greater satisfaction and team success.

3. Skills

No individual is born with all the skills required for doing every thing. So when we are in a team we can make use of the pool of skills from the group for implementing the job more easily.

4. Speed

When there is a need to do a big job, it would take a lot of time in finishing it, if everything has to be done by ourselves. However when the same job is performed by a team, there is an advantage of job sharing, and the same job can be assigned to members of the team, where in the job is completed at a much faster pace. For example, if we look at my final year project I mentioned earlier and if I had to do everything myself it would have taken long time, but since we separated the task and worked as a team we could finish it quickly with a great success.

Working in a team also has few disadvantages, which are usually hard to see them in our everyday work. When working in a team there will not be any individual losers or winners and no one can be blamed or no one can feel good of having achieved some thing like success. When we have situations where the group consists of only leaders then their team might just not work at all. The worst thing is that the people who are not of a leader type they may be pushed aside by the other members of the team. Leaders would be concentrating on achieving the goal and won’t care about helping other team members and socializing with them and won’t become a good team. And on top of all these groups would have the conflicts, peer pressure and unnecessary waste of time.

Conclusion:-

The question of which one has more advantages is only of academic interest as ultimately, the result depends on what is best suited of the type and nature of the job and the individual personality and level of skill required along with all other constraints like time, money and resources available at your hand. Given that you have all the knowledge of above things, we would be able to make a decision which one works better for based on the situation. Though I prefer to work independently, if my job or situation needs me to be part of a group, I am always up for it and willing to be a great team player to contribute to the team success.

Q. Discuss the advantages, strengths, disadvantages and weaknesses of a positivist approach to the social sciences.

The profusion of use and multifariousness of meaning of the word positivism results in a need for any essay on the subject to first give its own precise definition for its use of the term, distinguishing its particular context from its use in other contexts. The term positivism, first coined by the philosopher Auguste Comte in the nineteenth-century, was first originally confined to the boundaries of philosophy and natural science; by the present, the term has spread its meaning to cover fields as diverse as law, political theory, the social sciences, philosophy and even literature. In all of these fields the dictionary definition of positivism as ‘. . . a system recognizing only that which can be scientifically verified or logically proved, and therefore rejecting metaphysics and theism’ (Oxford, 1989: pp. 385-386) remains broadly true of most of its uses, though it does little to reveal the subtle distinctions of use of the word positivism in each of these disciplines. For instance, legal positivism is ‘. . . a view which, in contrast to the natural law view, claims that a legal system can be defined independently of evaluative terms or propositions is the view that in law’ (Hugh-Jones, S. & Laidlaw, J, 2000: p88); in literature positivism refers to a specific period of Polish literature where writers were inspired by the nascent achievements of science and technology; and in philosophy the term logical positivism meant the scientific investigation of the philosophy of language — as in writers such as Wittgenstein. All in all then, the term positivism has an umbrella use designated by the dictionary definition, but then has several further and more individualistic uses depending upon the context in which it appears.

‘Positivism is the view that serious scientific inquiry should not search

for ultimate causes deriving from some outside source but must confine

itself to the study of relations existing between facts which are directly

accessible to observation’

(Hugh-Jones, S. & Laidlaw, J: 2000: p.3)

The definition of positivism chosen for use in this essay, its particular domain being the social sciences, is that stated above by Hugh-Jones and Laidlaw. According to this version of positivism, data gathered from sense perceptions is the only possible data that may be used as a foundation for knowledge and thought. Hence, all data and phenomena taken from beyond sense perceptions or the properties of observable things is banished — thuds a priori metaphysics and theology dismissed in toto. Science alone sets the perimeters for human knowledge, and, accordingly, positivism maintains the expectation that science will ultimately attain to solve all human problems. As such, a social scientific definition of positivism regards the research of social scientists as identical in importance to that of natural scientists; that is, social scientists, like natural scientists, employ theories and explanations for phenomena, inferred from sense data for the purpose of social benefit. With respect to political science as a social science Popper thus says ‘We get the particular definition of one of the social sciences — political science — which tries to separate the subject from the values we apply to it, and argues that it is possible to develop value-free knowledge’ (Popper, 1983: p. 75). This quotation shows the extent to which one particular social science’s use of the term positivism has mutated from its general umbrella use.

For the purposes of this essay, positivism will be regarded as having four essential characteristics (King, 1994: p. 204). (1) It is concrned with the search for the unification of scientific method, that is, with the notion that logic and inquiry are universal principles extending across all scientific domains. (2) That the ultimate end of scientific inquiry is to gives explanations of social phenomenon and to make predictions about their behaviour as according to discernable laws of society. Thus positivism in the social sciences seeks also to develop a ‘general law of social understanding’, by discovering necessary and sufficient conditions for any phenomenon. (3) Positivism maintains that social scientific knowledge must always be subject to proof through empirical experimentation. All subjects of reaseach and investigation in the social sciences should be based upon observations derived from sense-perceptions. (4) Social sciences must seek to free themselves of value-judgements as far as possible, and of moral, political, and religion ideas that might contaminate their research. Thus, in short: social sciences must seek to dicover universal conditions behind social phenomena;all social scientific empirical statements must be asolute truthes which are true at all times and true in all places; finally, research can proved only by empirical experimentation.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

In There Is More Than One Way To Do Political Science Marsh & Smith (2001), while debating whether the social sciences might legitimately have both a positivist and realist approach to science, argue that one of the principal strengths of positivism is that it is ‘foundationalist’: that is ‘. . . in ontological terms it argues that there is a ‘‘real world’’ out there, that it is independent of an agent’s knowledge of it’ and that ‘. . . it is possible, using the proper ‘‘research methods’’ for an observer to discover these real relationships between social phenomenon’ (Marsh & Smith, 2001: p. 529). Thus the great strength and advantage of a positivist approach to the social sciences is that it grounds anthropology, sociology, political science and so on upon a hard and definite ‘foundation’ of empirically testable data, and makes theories out of this data from which absolute laws of social behaviour may be attained. A second distinct advantage then of positivism is that it permits an analysis of the causal relationships between phenomena. Positivism thus allows the social sciences to make certain predictions about the phenomenal world. Thus Dowding states ‘. . . all good political scientists produce models with definite predictions . . . which they can then test one way or another against data gathered from the actual world’ (Dowding, 2001: p. 92). A chief strength then of a positivistic approach, is that it brings to the social sciences the desire to emulate the excellence of the natural sciences in respect of their rigorous experimentation, precisely stated hypotheses, definite laws, and thus prediction of behaviour. By approaching its investigations thus, social scientists attain a high level of accuracy in their results and in their predictions, and thus come closer to a total description of the behaviour of social phenomenon. By approaching the social sciences from a positivist position, social scientists are able to cut away from existing ‘knowledge’ many prejudices, suppositions, superstitions and other non-scientific opinions that have gathered about these social phenomena (Marsh & Smith, 2001). In other words, positivism, by declaring valid only those things which conform to its vigorous standards of investigation, strips social phenomenon of their perceived nature and reveals them as they really are.

A second key advantage of taking a positivist approach to the social sciences is that such a move solidly roots the social sciences in the accomplishments of the natural sciences over the past four hundred years. Early positivists like Comte, Spencer and Saint-Simon understood their theory and work as something growing directly out of the experimental and theoretical achievements of the great natural scientists like Newton, Spinoza, Darwin and others. Comte knew that the natural sciences and natural scientists, were essentially positivist: that is, they appealed to the perception and measurement of objective sense-data from which to make experiments, analyze results and make theory, predictions and laws. Comte and the other early positivists thus understood their work as an act of ‘making explicit’ the theory which natural scientists had adhered to for centuries. When, in the twentieth-century, social positivists like Ernst Laas, Friedrich Jodl and Eugen Duhring began to establish the theoretical and experimental parameters of the social sciences, they also understood their work as a branch of the natural sciences and as a continuation of its discoveries. Anthropologists, sociologists, social scientists of the early twentieth-century faced a choice: they could orientate their subjects within the sphere of natural science and its immense harvest of the past two decades, or they could orientate it in the sphere of theology and the liberal arts which had dominated all human history before the advent of natural science. Laas, Jodl, Duhring and later Marsh, Smith and others have all agreed that the social sciences must be built upon the platform established by the natural sciences. These sciences have been the predominant intellectual authority for Western Europe for nearly four hundred years, and social scientists think that the positivist approach to the natural sciences offers greater objectivity, certainty of prediction, and deeper insight into their subjects than could achieved by any other method of inquiry.

Further, the allegiance of the social sciences to the natural sciences, through a shared conviction in the positivist philosophy, means that the social sciences can constantly draw upon the fund of new empirical material daily unearthed by these natural sciences. In other words: if the social sciences have an exchange of knowledge between themselves and the natural sciences, then every refinement of experimental method, theory, or analysis achieved by the natural sciences may be immediately seized upon and utilized by the social sciences also. And, vice-versa, this interchange allows the social sciences to more freely disseminate their discoveries within the world of the natural sciences. Moreover, by sharing a positivist philosophy with the natural sciences, the social sciences may draw from its authority in the presentation of their results to the wider scientific and academic community. That is, the employment of positivism by the social sciences, dispels and neutralizes the accusations from some quarters of the scientific and outside world, for instance those of Karl Popper, that such sciences are ‘pseudo-sciences’. This claim can hold no weight if it is seen that the natural and social sciences share alike the same methodology and principles of operation. Nonetheless, it should be made clear that whilst the social sciences derive authority and knowledge from the natural sciences, that they do not depend upon it exclusively for authority. Indeed, the social sciences have made their own refinements to positivism, and thus their methods of experimentation and analysis, quite independently of those achieved in the natural sciences. The social sciences have adapted the positivism they received from the social sciences to conform to their own empirical material and the idiosyncratic and diverse domains encountered in societies and the human world. In short, the social sciences have moulded positivism to the world of empirical human affairs, thus entering a territory that the natural sciences had previously not trodden.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Historically, perhaps the greatest weakness and hence disadvantage of positivism generally, and with respect to the social sciences in particular, has been its insistence upon methodological absoluteness. Since the time of positivism’s foundation in the philosophy of Auguste Comte, positivists have persistently sought to use its scientific methods to explain every conceivable aspect of social phenomenon; that is, they have wanted to observe an object in its totality, tracing its entire phenomenological casuistry, its material composition, and thus produce a absolute theory of knowledge about that phenomenon. According to this scientific philosophy positivism must produce absolute laws to describe the behaviour and nature of phenomenal objects. The naivety of this search for the perfection of methodology and absoluteness of social scientific laws was exposed in the second half of the twentieth century, firstly by the advent of post-modernism (Popper, 1989: p.109-128), which showed the epistemological difficulties — impossibilities? — of extending science to such extreme levels; secondly, positivism’s applicability in all instances was increasingly undermined by the new theories of social scientists themselves. The various discoveries of anthropology, sociology, political science and other social sciences led researchers to an ever clearer conclusion: the phenomena of social science are far too sophisticated and involve the intimate interaction of too many separate objects, people and processes to be scientifically observed in their totality.

Sociologists for instance, in their investigations into the mechanisms of the smallest of social units, the family, soon realized that no absolute and all-encompassing laws could be applied to the behaviour of these units (Gerrad, 1969: pp. 201-212); the great complexity coming from the need for the axioms and paradigms which are true of one family unit must, according to pure positivism, be shown to be true of all family units in all places and at all times. Pure positivism states that the laws of social science are of the same type and significance as the laws of physics, biology and chemistry; but for these laws to attain this equality, the laws of social science must be easily expressible and as rigorously testable as those of the natural sciences. The difficulty of attaining such equality is easily demonstrated by Gerrard’s (Gerrard, 1969) experiments, where he discusses the complexity of social issues involved in a four member family unit in America, and then postulates the near impossibility of scientifically demonstrating that family units in Northern France, in Thailand, in Hawaii and in all other places can be shown to obey the same exact rules as those affecting the family in America. Thus social scientists from the 1950’s onwards, confronted with the sheer vastness of ethnic, racial and community diversity, began to question the possibility of producing social laws that would be universally and ubiquitously binding. And in 2006 when even natural scientists have no certainties even about the exact behaviour and nature of a single atom; how can social scientists hope to prove laws for something as complex as a city?

Another weakness of extreme positivism has been its inability to accurately prove its hypotheses through empirical experiments (Popper, 1983: p. 12 & also: Dowding, 1995: p. 138). Whereas experimentation in the natural sciences usually involves the investigation of inanimate or relatively simple objects such as metals, stars, chemicals and so, these having the same properties constantly, in contrast, social phenomenon — people, communities, organizations etc., — are animate and are compositions of vast complexly intertwining feelings, emotions, thoughts, volitions, passions, motives, associations and so on. Thus, to undertake a social experiment, a social scientist has to be sure that he can separate the single mental or behavioural element, say ‘a criminal tendency’ that he wants to investigate, and then to exclude or control the influence of the other mental and social factors that will otherwise affect the accuracy of the experiment. In many instances such exclusion is nearly impossible to the degree of purity demanded by extreme positivists; a human being cannot be put in a test-tube or a vacuum and so shielded from external influences in the way that magnesium or atoms can. Thus social scientists have become ever more conscious that a major limitation of the positivist approach in respect to their discipline is its insistence upon perfect conditions for experimentation and for the accuracy of hypotheses and predictions (Dowding, 1995).

Further, other discoveries in the social sciences have begun to place an ever greater emphasis upon the life of the individual and upon subjective experiences as vital factors in the constituency of societies (Marsh & Furlong, 2002). The hermeneutic or ‘interpretive’ approach has come to assume ever greater importance within the social sciences, setting up for itself an area of investigation of phenomenon quite different from positivism, and therefore undermining the legitimacy of positivism’s claims to describe the totality of social phenomenon. Positivism is, according to this view, the outcome of a particular culture and particular history (Western European); what legitimacy then does it have to proclaim its results as of universal validity, as it must, to meet its own standards of scientific investigation? Moreover, social scientists themselves bring to their experiments their own subjective experiences, their own thoughts, volitions, prejudices etc., and these all affect experimentation and thus the security of results — just as surely do these things in the subjects of analysis. Thus David Marsh and Martin Smith have stated, in their powerful metaphor derived from Marsh’s earlier article, that ‘In the social sciences . . . subjective ontological and epistemological positions should not be treated like a pullover that can be ‘‘put on’’ when we are addressing such philosophical issues and ‘‘taken off’’ when we are doing research’ (Marsh & Smith, 2005: p.531). That is, they should not be treated as a ‘pullover’, as temporary measure, as they have been by positivists to date.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

In the final analysis, it seems clear that neither the extreme positivism once advocated in the wake of Auguste Comte’s first philosophical writings, nor extreme anti-positivism nor anti-foundationalist positions as have recently been taken by some hermeneutists and realists, can lead to significant future progress in the social sciences. The chief strength and advantage of a positivist approach is the vigorous process of setting hypotheses, of empirical experimentation to test these hypotheses, of deep analysis to measure the results, and then the ability to codify the results in a set of laws and predictions. Claiming for themselves, in this sense, a parallel certainty of laws and predictions as and laws demanded by the natural sciences, positivism reveals to the social sciences phenomenal objects as they really are — as they are when stripped of superstitions, fallacious theories, prejudice and so on. Positivism demands a definite residue of facts and ‘truths’ that are universally applicable to social groups and communities irregardless of time, place or environment. In striving so vigorously for such ideals, positivism gives the social sciences a high degree of authority and respectability within the wider scientific and academic community as a whole. Further, a positivist approach in the social sciences affords a ready means of comparison and exchange of knowledge between other disciplines such law, philosophy, literature and so that employ positivism also. Indeed, in seminal respects, such is the importance of positivism for the social sciences that it is difficult to see how they could justify being ‘sciences’ without it.

The two principal disadvantages of a positivist application to the social sciences are these: firstly, that its search for ideal and perfect standards of scientific methodology and analysis are too unrealistic when set beside the extreme complexity of social phenomenon; the second weakness, is positivism’s lack of empathy and consideration of the subjective, individual and hermeneutic aspects of social phenomenon. Dealing with the first objection, critics of positivism argue that it cannot — working as it does in the outside world, in cities and in companies, in villages and mass organizations — attain the same standards of empirical excellence, either in experimentation or in verification of results, as can natural scientists working in the controlled conditions of a laboratory and deriving principles mostly from inanimate matter of slighter sophistication than human beings. Moreover, social scientists have a nearly insuperable difficulty in codifying laws of social phenomena with the precision that physics or chemistry allow for material phenomena. Thus positivism in the social sciences attains a lower level of prediction and accuracy with respect to the phenomenon it observes, than do the natural sciences. The second major weakness of a positivist application is its failure to take sufficient account of the subjectivity of individual life and to interpret the meaning of that phenomenon for the subject and the community of the subject. On these matters positivism has nearly nothing to say, and thus it is barred from a whole hemisphere of human social experience.

As the first sentence of this conclusion suggested: neither an extreme positivist not an extreme subjective or hermeneutic attitude can dominate the future of the social sciences. Rather, social scientists must learn to join positivism with subjectivism, thus fusing the two halves of social phenomenal experience. If positivism can be brought into union with the subjective in the social sciences, and if positivists can learn to tolerate something less than perfection in their methodological approach, then positivism must still be said to have a large contribution to make to the future of social science. In might be said then, in our final words, that positivism is simultaneously an advantage and disadvantage for the social sciences; whether one or other of these qualities is dominant remains to be seen.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

BIBLIOGRAPHY

— Dowding, K. (2001). ‘There Must Be An End To Confusion: Policy Networks,

Intellectual Fatigue, and the Need for Political Science Methods Courses in British

Universities, in Political Studies, Vol 1., pp. 89-105.

— Dowding, K. (1995). Model or Metaphor? A Critical Review of the Policy of

Network Approach. Political Studies, Vol. 45, Issue. 1, pp. 136-158.

— Green, D. P. & Shapiro, I. (1994). Pathologies of Rational Choice Theory : A

Critique of Applications in Political Science, pp. 89-95. New Haven, London.

— Gerrard, James. (1969). The Sociology of the Family, pp. 303-316. Ford Press,

Pittsburgh.

— King, G. (et al.). (1994). Designing Social Enquiry: Scientific Inference in

Qualitative Research, pp 201-208. Princeton University Press, Princeton.

­— Hugh-Jones, Steven & Laidlaw, James. (2000). The Essential Edmund Leach,

p163. New Haven, London.

— Marsh, David & Smith, Martin. (2001). ‘There Is More Than One Way To Do

Social Science: On Different Ways To Study Political Networks’ in Volume 49,

Number 3, pp. 528-541.

— Marsh, David & Furlong, Paul. (2002). ‘A Skin Not a Sweater: Ontology and

Epistemology in Political Science’ in Marsh, David and Stoker, Jerry (Eds.).

Epistemology in Political Science, pp. 17-41. Palgrave, Basingstoke.

— Popper, Karl R. (1983). Realism and the Aim of Science, pp 1-13. Routledge,

London.

— Popper, Karl R. (1989). Conjectures and Refutations: the Growth of Scientific

Knowledge, 69-76. Routledge, London.

— Quirk, Randolph (et al.) (Eds.). (1989). The Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford

University Press, Oxford.

Individual Family culture VS Traditional Family Culture.
Advantages Of The Nuclear Family

While discussing about the advantages and disadvantages of nuclear family, the first and foremost point pops up in the mind of a person is privacy of life.

Privacy: The couple can get their privacy in their own house in nuclear families whereas you cannot get your privacy in a joint family. People can live their own way and can do whatever they want to. There are no such boundaries set by the elders to follow.

Financial stability: When we talk about the advantages and disadvantages of the nuclear family, then financial stability is one of the strongest points in the nuclear family. One can be financially strong because of limited expenses. There is less number of people in the nuclear family and hence less expenses. You cannot have a strong financial stability if you are the only person who is earning in a joint family.

Freedom: The elders restricts youngsters not to do certain tasks because they think this is not good for them. But today’s generation is very smart. They know what is good and bad for them and have enough analytical power so they don’t like to restrict themselves. Instead, they want their freedom so that they can do and achieve whatever they want in their life.

Ease in moving: When you have a nuclear family, you face fewer problems while shifting from a house. You can manage your things according to you without disturbing the lives of other people. This is one of the major advantages of the nuclear family.

Avoidance of stress and discomfort: Some people are emotional. They can’t tolerate any kind of fun that is on them and in the joint family, one need to have much high patience. But, nuclear families has the advantage that if you live in the company of those with whom you are very comfortable then there is no need to take any stress and your discomfort also get vanished in a moment.

Disadvantages Of The Nuclear Family

While thinking about the advantages and disadvantages of the nuclear family, a person should also think that it is not always good to live in a nuclear family. At certain points, you realize the value of joint family. Here are those points which will teach you the importance of joint family and disadvantages of nuclear families.

No care: If the parents are working and children suffered from any small or big disease, then one needs to deal with it alone as they don’t have elders and other family members to take care of. This is the major disadvantage of the nuclear family. One is alone and feels even sicker when he sees no one around.

Problems to children: If your child is small and needs special care, then at that point, you will definitely find the nuclear family not good enough. You will always think that if you were in a joint family then this condition would never arise as you have other family members who can take care of the child and in the mean time, you can do your work.

Security and safety: Security is one another disadvantage in the nuclear family. People feel insecure in the nuclear family. There are so many cases of robbery and murders and many of them are from nuclear family itself, as it is easier to grab someone who lives alone in a house or with less number of people.

No support: When we talk about the advantages and disadvantages of nuclear family, support is the thing one will always miss. If there is an argument between the couple then there is no one to support any one of them. They have to deal with their problem alone without any support. Sometimes due to open nature and ego, the fight results in divorce or separation because there was no one to make them understand the basics of a relationship.

Extra Expenses: When you live in a community or in a joint family, then you have the liability to keep other happy and familiar to you. In order to do this, you need to do some extra expenses. Suppose, you bring some gift for your child then it is also important to bring some gift for other children in the family.

TRADITION FAMILY CULTURE:- In an extended family, parents and their children’s families may often live under a single roof. This type of joint family often includes multiple generations in the family. From culture to culture, the variance of the term may have different meanings.

Advantages of Joint Families

Cradle of social virtues: Joint family is like a nursery to teach social virtues. It helps to develop social virtues like co-operation, sympathy, sacrifice, affection, spirit of selfless service, obedience and broadminded.

Insurance against olds: Joint Family Acts as insurance for the members of the family at the time of crisis. It provides social security to its members especially to the old, the infirm, the unemployed persons, the orphans, the widowed daughters and sisters as well as the physical and mentally handicapped among them. For all such persons the joint family acts as an insurance company.

Division of labour: In a joint family each member is given work according to his or her capacity. The men, women and children all have to work. For example, in a peasant joint family all the members work actively according to their ability. The old persons and children of the family watch the crops in the field. During the harvest season, the women in some families help in harvesting. This there is no need of procuring labour from outside the family.

Socialism in Wealth: According to Sir Henry Maine joint family is like a co-operative society with the father as the trustee. Every member in the joint family works conforming to the well established socialist formula; each works according to his or her ability and gets according to his or her needs.

Avoids fragmentation of land: Joint family avoids the evils or fragmentation of land by holding the property in common. Joint family is almost like a joint-stock company.

An agency of social control: Another advantage of joint family is that it acts as an agency of social control. In joint family there is a close supervision over the anti-social and unsocial activities of the young member.

Opportunity for leisure: Joint family affords ample leisure to its members. Both the male and female members divide the household works and finish it in a short time spending the rest of the day in leisure. They never feel over burdened.

Money saving device: Joint family is advantageous from the economic viewpoint. This system helps in securing economy in expenditure. Since things are consumed in a large quantity they can be obtained at cheap rate. A large family can be maintained within a small means if it lives jointly.

Disadvantages of Joint Family

Home for Idler: Joint family rests on collective responsibility. This sometimes accounts for laziness among some members. No doubt the active members do hard work. But when they get equal share in the food cooked at the common hearth, some members may become lazy and may not feel the necessity of doing any productive work. They spend their time in eating, sleeping and begetting children.

Hindrance in the development of personality: Joint family hinders the development of personality. Under the joint family system the head of the family or Karta is all in all. He is the sole authority to take any decision in family affairs. Other members, especially the juniors do not get a chance to think independently to take any independent decision. Thus development of personality is arrested.

Favours uncontrolled reproduction: Joint family is said to be associated with higher birth rate. Member does not feel the need of birth control because the children rest on the family as a whole.

Hot bed of quarrel: Joint family is the hotbed of quarrels and bickering. Quarrels are common among the female members of the family. Quarrels between the wives of brother, mother-in-law and daughter-in-law is very common.

Source of litigation: Sometimes joint-family system encourages, litigation. At the time of the partition of movable or immovable property in the family dispute assumes serious proportion and most of the time these are not settled without the interference of the court of law.

Loss of privacy: Over crowdedness in joint family kills one’s privacy. The newly married man and his wife hardly get the time to meet and talk rarely in joint family.

Low position of women: Under the joint family system the woman is relegated to low status. Her condition in the family is worse. Particularly the condition of a daughter-in-law is very miserable. She is often ill-treated by her mother-in-law. Her life is no way better than that of a slave. In many cases, the ill treatment by the elderly women becomes so unbearable that they seek a permanent relief in committing suicide.

Suburbanisation: is it a dream or is it a nightmare? There are many varying opinions and attitudes in relation to this subject matter of suburbanisation across the globe today and this consequently causes difficulty in answering the above question. It is essential however to evaluate and have an understanding of this concept of suburbanisation prior to answering the proposed question. Thus what is suburbanisation? From my research and studies in this subject area of geography I can indeed identify that suburbanisation is fundamentally the term used to describe the physical growth of the city at the urban-rural fringe, or quite simply the outskirts of the city. This indeed represents a very dramatic change in population tendencies with populations moving from the older urban cores to areas outside the core. It is undeniably a global phenomenon and has occurred in the majority of the world’s cities. These areas are primarily residential and are referred to as ‘suburbs’. In essence they represent areas of a lower population density that are situated close to and yet are functionally tied to the urban core. They can also be defined as the distinction between the city and the surrounding built-up areas, within the municipal area (McCafferty 2011). This American led process of creating residential housing at the edge of the city initiated in the nineteenth century and expanded rapidly after World War 2. What were the factors that initiated this process of suburbanisation and caused much of the world’s population to reside on the outskirts of the city? As cited by Latham et al, the extraordinary expansion of suburbia following World War Two in America was fuelled predominantly by racist concerns about inner-city crime and disorder (Latham et al 2009, p.139). The racial minority or the ‘black’ population of this time had no access to employment opportunities or jobs and consequently crime rates were quite high, enticing the ‘white’ community to move to the suburbs or what was more commonly referred to as the ‘White Flight’. In addition, in the United States there was segregated schooling up until 1954. However when legislation against segregated schooling was brought in, it led to prejudiced families who wanted their children educated in all ‘white’ schools moving to the suburbs or once again a ‘White Flight’. According to Latham et al, this process of suburbanisation was structured in all sorts of ways to exclude unwanted minorities (Latham et al 2009, p. 139) and one such example of how this was done was setting a minimum plot size in which the poorer population would be unable to afford and therefore eliminating them from the suburbs. There are also a number of other factors that have contributed to this global phenomenon and that has led to this movement of the urban population outward including:

Demand for low density living with more green space that is located away from the work place.

Transportation services: improvements in bus and rail services and indeed the increase in private car ownership facilitated suburbanisation and the movement outward as people became capable of commuting to near-by towns and cities for work.

Income tax: allowances promoting this idea of suburbanisation and home ownership were given via subsidies. Subsides were given on mortgage interest and mortgage payments were offset against income tax.

Differences in local tax rates of the city and the suburban areas: tax rates in city centres were higher due to the demand for public services and thus acted as a ‘push’ factor encouraging people to move to the suburbs.

The ‘American Dream’: the suburbs were seen as the ideal lifestyle that represented wealth and prosperity. Owning a home in a clean environment, away from the congestion of the city, yet that was close to the functions of the urban core.

Over time as suburbs prosper, attracting retail services and industry, they may become self-sufficient and what is known as an ‘edge city’ begins to emerge, and it particularly did so in the 1990’s. The term ‘edge city’ was identified by J. Garreau in 1991 and is essentially an American term used to describe a concentration of businesses, retail and entertainment facilities outside the initial urban area, typically a suburban neighbourhood, for example Tyson’s Corner in Virginia or perhaps Dooradoyle in Limerick city. Throughout the years the popularity of suburbs has been growing at an increasing rate with a large percentage of the urban population choosing to reside in the suburban neighbourhoods. This large concentration of population within a residential area undoubtedly causes problems, problems which lead me to believe that suburbanisation is indeed a nightmare. In order to portray the adverse impacts of suburbanisation I will be discussing issues such as segregation, social exclusion, polarisation and also delinquent behaviour, whilst making direct references to the suburban neighbourhoods of Moyross and Southill in Limerick city and the suburban neighbourhood of Ballymun in Dublin city.

Cities are extremely complex areas, defined by their heterogeneity and diversity as they possess a large population of various nationalities and ethnicities. As a result they are frequently seen as ‘networks of segregation and exclusion’ (Latham et al 2009, p.132). Segregation refers to a divide or complete separation of socialite groups and cities may be segregated by means of social aspects such as class, ethnicity and race. Cities comprise of a number of suburban neighbourhoods and residential areas which portray differing levels of residential segregation, dividing the wealthy from the poor and the ‘blacks’ from the ‘whites’ for example. Segregation is not just a residency issue however, but can also hinder the interaction of these socialite groups. This is known as social segregation and may influence what parks and pubs they visit. Suburban neighbourhoods can therefore be viewed as and indeed are viewed as the ‘. . . antithesis of community’ (Knox 1987, p.71) as they tend to be homogenous, both in social and demographic terms (Knox 1987, p.72). Suburban residents may represent a selected group having the same preferences for social activities. We can see evidence of segregation in almost every city worldwide with the poor concentrated in certain areas within the city, for example we see the emergence of ‘ghettos’, ‘dump estates’ and ‘unemployment blackspots’. Polarisation is associated with segregation within society that results in a sharp difference in social classes, or ‘polar’ opposites in fact, that can be present in cities today for example high-income earners and low-income earners. Social exclusion is another downside to the process of suburbanisation and the formation of ‘suburbia’ that occurs when certain social individuals, households or groups within society, including the poor, are excluded from full participation and enjoyment of modern society. This can be caused by not only social aspects but also political and economic aspects. According to Knox, geographers have been long interested in the relationships between the urban environment and certain aspects of people’s behaviour (Knox 1987, p.79) and this is indeed an issue that is prevailing within certain suburbs of cities. He argued that personality and urban settings influences individual group behaviour and in particular the way in which we see that anti-social behaviour is linked to urban settings (ibid). High levels of crime, drug use and other forms of delinquent behaviour can be seen in many suburbs throughout the world today.

Limerick city is indeed an exceptional example of a city that portrays suburbanisation as a nightmare. Supporting a suburban population of 50,000 (Fitzgerald 2007, p.4), Limerick is home to a number of suburban neighbourhoods that are illustrative of polarisation, social exclusion and segregation as well as deviant behaviour. Limerick City is marked by a stark degree of polarisation, in that it portrays areas that are significantly wealthy and areas that are significantly disadvantaged. This polarisation has a strong geographical expression which is defined by a ‘corridor of disadvantage’, extending from Moyross, through King’s Island, to Garryowen and finally Southill (McCafferty 2007, p.7). With particular reference to the social housing suburban estates of Moyross, which is located on the north side of the city and Southill, which is located on the south side, I will discuss how suburbanisation has proven to be a nightmare. Owner occupation became more widely feasible in the 1970’s and 1980’s and as the level of demand for social housing declined amongst middle and upper class families, social landlords were forced to move down market in search of clienteles (Fahey 1999, p.22) and thus these areas are commonly seen and referred to as the ‘. . . housing of the poor’ (Fahey 1999, p.33). Both estates provide evidence of this, with the poorer or the more disadvantaged concentrated there. One of the most damaging features of social housing as seen in Moyross and Southill, is its association with anti-social or delinquent behaviour including such activities as joy-riding, drug use and dealing, stealing and intimidation of neighbours. In addition these areas have high levels of unemployment and according to McCafferty much of the concern of social exclusion is concerned with this unemployment level (McCafferty 2007, p.73). He argued that areas with high levels of unemployment are usually characterised by low levels of educational attainment, high proportions of unskilled and semi skilled social classes and are usually of local authority housing (ibid). Education within these estates is not regarded as important and therefore a high level of truancy can be noted (Fitzgerald 2007, p.6). It is quite common for young children to be seen in these areas during school hours and according to Fitzgerald in 2007, due to a large number of kids being sent to school outside of these areas, the numbers in the primary schools in O’Malley Park and Moyross are approximately 25% of the levels of 10 years ago (p.6).

Moyross is a local authority housing estate situated on the north side of the city. Built in the 1970’s, the estate is home to over 1000 houses and 12 parks. Although the standard of the housing is good, the overall condition of the estate is quite poor, with illegal dumping, burnt-out houses due to criminal activity and furthermore, boarded up housing abundant within the estate (Fig 1). From the 1980’s Moyross experienced extreme levels of poverty and disadvantage and held an unemployment figure of 84% at this time (Community Development Network Moyross, 2009). The community has had a very high dependency on social welfare and according to the 2006 census lone parents made up 63.9% of households in the estate (ibid). In addition to this, in the same year, it was recorded that 29% of the population in Moyross had left school at or before the age of 15 (ibid). Due to the low level of education attainment, the high level of unemployment and dependency on the social welfare, poverty is a serious issue and consequently provides the basis for social problems. Burglaries, intimidation and other forms of delinquent behaviour are abundant within Moyross. One such example that highlighted Moyross as a nightmare suburban area was the incident of 2006, when there was a violent arson attack on a young brother and sister. Gavin and Millie Murray were severely burnt when a petrol bomb was thrown at the car in which they were occupying. This highlights and indeed accentuates the degree of anti-social behaviour that can be linked to suburban neighbourhoods and this undeniably reveals suburbanisation as a nightmare.

Fig 1. Picture illustrating the dilapidated housing present in Moyross that shows evidence of abandonment and neglect.

Source: Independent.ie, 2008.

Southill is located on the south side of the city and in order to illustrate suburbanisation as a nightmare I will discuss the estate of O’Malley Park in particular. O’Malley Park is one of four estates that make up the suburban neighbourhood of Southill. Built in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s at a time when there was a housing crisis, it is based on the Radburn layout where the ‘. . relationship between houses and access roads is limited’ (McCafferty 1999, p.215). Houses are facing an open green area and vehicle access is via ‘cul-de-sacs’ at the rear side of the houses (McCafferty 2011, ‘Limerick Fieldtrip’). The estate predominantly consists of a younger population and more specifically lone parent households. The process of maturation which you would expect to see is virtually absent due to the high levels of teen pregnancy and consequently the provision of housing for them here. In the 1970’s and 1980’s problems began with unemployment and given the low level of educational attainment it is hardly surprising that this leads to social problems. As we have seen in Moyross, anti-social or deviant behaviour is a common outcome. The

estate is occupied with a high number of burnt-out houses and dilapidated buildings (Fig 2), which makes housing in the area difficult to re-let. The anti-social behaviour has resulted in a large number of people leaving the estate, some forced to do so, and these are replaced by people even more desperate for housing. One Limerick Leader reader recalled her experience of living in O’ Malley Park:

“I am old now, old beyond my years. Exposure to violence, beatings, abandonment and abuse has scrawled lines on my heart and face that will never be removed. I am facing the end of my life with the most terrible memories suffered in the city during our “Tiger” years.” (Anonymous)

(Southill Children’s Fund, 2009)

Fig 2. Burnt out housing in O’Malley Park, Southill, which is indicative of the social problems that are present in the suburb.

Source: Southill Children’s Fund, 2009.

The scale of the criminal, social, and economic problems in these suburban areas and their vicinity, is not only a catastrophe for the communities that have to live there but could pose a real threat to commercial and social life in Limerick city as a whole (Fitzgerald 2007, p. 7).

Limerick is not the only city that highlights the problems of suburbanisation however. Dublin too is another example of a city which reveals suburbanisation as a nightmare, with particular reference to the suburban region of Ballymun. Ballymun is a public housing or local authority housing suburb located on the north side of Dublin city. Originally comprising of approximately 4,800 dwellings, it was made up of four, eight and fifteen storey blocks. In the 1980’s the Ballymun towers (Fig 3) experienced a drop in resident numbers and as flats became vacant it was the most deprived people of the inner city that were housed there, including lone parent families and welfare dependant people. With very little amenities within the suburb, the area began to submerge into social exclusion and indeed surfaced as a ‘ghetto’ or ‘blackspot’ with the population here experiencing a feeling of alienation and neglect. Due to the high dependency on social welfare in the Ballymun Flats, and the high unemployment rates in which it experienced, the suburb was poverty stricken and in the 1980’s and 1990’s Ballymun hit a downward spiral with major social problems continuously coming to the fore. This is still the case today and according to interviewees on Primetime, those that are still living in the remaining block, the vacant apartments are ‘homes to gangs’ (Primetime 2011) and are common places for youths to abuse illegal substances and engage in deviant activities including ‘. . .smashing windows . . .breaking lights . . .and starting fires’ (ibid). According to one interviewee the vacant flats are even used as ‘lavatories’ (ibid).

Fig 3. A picture showing the tower blocks in Ballymun which became a national symbol of poverty and drugs.

Source: DublinObserver.com, 2009.

The process of creating residential areas on the out-skirts of the city can indeed represent a nightmare. Social problems deriving from high levels of unemployment and welfare dependency are abundant within the estates I have discussed. Crime within these suburbs is a vicious circle and can indeed be seen as hereditary with generations of the same family often engaging in such criminal activity. Major action has been taken in order to combat this. There are plans for the regeneration of Moyross and O’Malley Park, with complete demolition and provision of facilities in mind, in order to combat and address this issue of social exclusion. Ballymun’s regeneration has already begun with the majority of the tower blocks already demolished. The regeneration programmes are indicative of the cost of the negative impacts suburbanisation can have and highlights this process as a nightmare.

Before I conclude this essay, it is essential to note that not all suburban areas represent a nightmare and suburbanisation in fact, can also be a dream. There are many estates throughout the world that are representative of a suburban community. Dooradoyle, a suburban neighbourhood in Limerick City, is an excellent example. It is predominantly an owner occupied suburb and in contrast to the case studies I have already mentioned, unemployment is not as serious an issue. As the community became more involved we see lower levels of crime and deviant behaviour, better availability of goods and services and in addition the presence of better educational facilities. Dooradoyle has expanded significantly in recent years and is home to such facilities as a cinema, one of Munster’s largest shopping centres, four primary schools, a secondary school and two rugby clubs. From my own knowledge and experience there is no clear signs of segregation with various social and ethnic groups living and socialising within the suburban area. In relation to this suburb I must disagree with Knox and state that suburbia in Dooradoyle is not the ‘. . . antithesis of community’ (Knox 1987, p.71).

To conclude with, and to answer the proposed question, suburbanisation can indeed be viewed as a nightmare. The examples which I have discussed, O’ Malley Park in Southill, Moyross and Ballymun all indicate the negative impacts that this process can have, socially in terms of segregation, social exclusion and deviant behaviour yet environmentally and also economically. Each of the estates discussed within this essay illustrate, to some extent, the degree of exclusion and neglect in which they are experiencing and consequently these estates hold dilapidated or ‘run-down’ housing, which as mentioned earlier maybe as a result of anti-social behaviour. In addition to this, it is essential to note now that there are plans for these estates to undergo a regeneration programme, with Ballymun’s regeneration already in place. These regeneration programmes are undoubtedly a drive to reverse the negative impacts mentioned that are associated with suburbanisation but also highlight the cost this process can have. It is also important to note however that people are still choosing to live in suburban regions all over the world and I pose the question why? Not all suburban neighbourhoods are a nightmare and there are some suburban neighbourhoods that represent a dream. Dooradoyle, which I have discussed briefly within the essay, indeed represents what I can understand by the term ‘suburban dream’. It is therefore evident from the evidence illustrated within this essay, that suburbanisation can indeed be a nightmare yet can also represent a dream.

In this essay I explore advantages and disadvantages social capital, which relates to social networks, the people we trust and mutual exchange of favours, the main feature here being social networks as they can be valuable to both the individual and the community, allowing information to be shared as well as promoting individuals and communities to be more trusting and equal.

Social capital has been defined in different ways over the years; James Coleman developed the concept as:

“The types of relations that exist between individuals as located within both families and communities, and that are said to exert a strong influence on levels of educational achievement.” Scott, J. and G. Marshall, (2005:606).

This view linking relationships within families and communities as a determinant of individuals’ social capital, identifying certain achievements as strong if these relationships are strong too:

“Deficiencies in social capital – such as would follow from single-parenthood, decreased parental involvement with the child or with family activities, and low levels of interaction between adults and especially parents in local communities – were detrimental to development in adolescence.” Scott, J. and G. Marshall, (2005:606).

Other influences on social capital include the social structures and the environment, which surround individuals, as well as their culture, norms and sanctions. This demonstrated in the three different types of networks within social capital, which include bonding, bridging and linking.

‘Bonding’ can be described as the social support we may receive from the people we are close to as part of our backgrounds, it “Relates to common identity, for example ties among people who are similar to each otheraˆ¦within communities.” ‘I&DeA’, (21/10/08), which include family members, individuals sharing the same ethnic groups or clubs.

While ‘Bridging’ can be described as the social cohesion between individuals and groups, bringing people together who would not normally relate to each other, it “Relates to diversity, for example ties among people who are different from one an otheraˆ¦across communities.” ‘I&DeA’, (21/10/08), which includes the conversations of varied views and interests between associations.

Lastly, ‘Linking’, where the associations between those gaining independence and democratic lifestyles due to status are links with those in authority, it “Relates to power, for example ties with those in authority or between different social classes between communities and organisations and with structures outside communities.” ‘I&DeA’, (21/10/08), which includes powerful institutions and the decision-making process for example, local authorities.

It is important to suggest that for social capital to be strong, ‘Bridging’ is the most important concept as it allows for more information to be passed between individuals and greater confidence for individuals and groups to become more involved with each other creating associations to benefit both the individual and the community:

“The Community Development Foundation describes social capital as increasing the confidence and capacity of individuals and small groups to get involved in activities and build mutually supportive networks that hold communities together.” ‘I&DeA’, (21/10/08).

Also, Robert Putnam who agrees with the concept that “trust, norms and networks, that can improve the efficiency of society by facilitating coordinated actions” Putnam, R. (1993:167) cited by Harris, J. (2002:2), widens the concept, emphasising the importance of people’s involvement within informal activities and voluntarily participating or being part of voluntary associations, this also showing the importance of ‘Bridging’ capital.

However, as important social capital is claimed to be, Putnam has claimed a decrease in public participation in these informal activities and voluntary associations in particular societies therefore having a negative impact on social cohesion:

“Over the past thirty years we have become ever more alienated from one another and from our social and political institutions, and that this disengagement poses a critical threat to our personal health, local communities and national well-being.” This taken from ‘The Saguaro Seminar’, ‘Bowling Alone’, (2007).

Ii is important to evaluate some of the positive and negative affects of social capital, and here it is clear that some of the positive affects could include impact on individuals’ happiness as they form relationships and associations to benefit income as well as on personal health, while on the community, a positive impact could be shown on crime rates and educational attainment and more effective government, however, as Putnam claims above that there is a decline in social capital and therefore this having a negative influence to individuals and communities, (for example, increasing crime rates, decreasing educational achievement, teenage pregnancy, child suicide, etc).

The negative affects of social capital could include social exclusion as “many groups achieve internal cohesion at the expense of outsiders, who can be treated with suspicion, hostility or outright hatred” Walker, A. (2004).

Also, social capital can be used for ‘bad’ purposes, perhaps for profit rather than support of individuals and communities as they network.

The idea that there are less people participating in voting and showing political interest than those who take part in volunteering organisations perhaps shows one of the ways in which the voluntary and community sector are increasingly becoming an important feature within societies.

It is first important to understand the meaning of volunteer and community and then how they are important as a whole, a third sector.

‘Volunteering’ is “any activity which involves spending time, unpaid, doing something which aims to benefit someone (individuals or groups) other than or in addition to, close relatives, or to benefit the environment” ‘National Survey of Volunteering, (1997).

Voluntary associations have been defined as:

“Any public, formally constituted, and non commercial organisation of which membership is optional, within a particular society.” Scott, J. and G. Marshall, (2005:691).

This could include churches, political parties, pressure groups, leisure activity groups as well as professional associations, to encourage public participation to maintain social order.

The key features of voluntary organisations includes that they are independent and self-governing, driven by values and are to support others not to profit themselves, while a ‘Community’ is “a group of people living together in one place” who share either a common religion, race or other characteristic or interest that allows the group to be considered collectively.

Communitarianism emphasises the importance of responsibility and finding solutions to social problems within the community. Mark Granovetter (1973) developed a ‘weak ties’ theory that suggests individuals have strong ties, such as close friends and family, similarly to bonding, shows the support between individuals, while weak ties are those individuals have with acquaintances which can help to develop socio-economic status similarly to bridging in social capital. This concept demonstrates one of the ways in which social capital and the community are interconnected.

Together, the two above notions of volunteering and the community have much contribution toward improving individuals and groups lives.

The Voluntary and Community Sector, (VCS), has been outlined by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations (NCVO), as comprising the following characteristics:

· “Self-governing organisations, some registered charities, some incorporate non-profit organisations and some outside both classifications.

· Great range of size and structure of organisations.

· Work delivered for the public benefit, beyond the membership of individual VCO’s.

· Independence of both formal structures of government and the profit sector.

· Important reliance on volunteers to carry out its work.” ‘I&DeA’ (18/09/08).

This showing the importance that social capital and the government has on the VCS as networks and policy, and are needed to allow for the sector to grow and benefit the community, allowing for social cohesion and a growth of public participation, this avoiding the affects of what Putnam describes as ‘Bowling Alone’.

The way in which the VCS can be interconnected to social capital and government policy is shown by the cross-cutting review as the VCS’s are for “building social capitalaˆ¦contributing expertise and experience to policy formulation.” ‘I&DeA’ (18/09/08).

There are many advantages of the Voluntary and Community Sector, some of these include that there is variation in scope and it is very diverse, allowing any members of the public to participate in benefiting the community as well as themselves.

Also, the NCVO outlines that the VCS builds social capital, which helps to “bind society together”. ‘I&DeA’, (18/09/08). In addition the needs of others are met through “expertise and experience” ‘I&DeA’ (18/09/08), this allowing participants such as volunteers to gain training and skills to benefit themselves and the community. Flexibility is also an advantage, which allows for changing needs to be accounted for.

However, a disadvantage could still include the issue of social exclusion as a particular group may become less involved within the community as others form associations.

It is important to consider the way in which government policy is connected to social capital and to the voluntary and community sector, to help analyse the extent to which they are interconnected.

“In recent years Government interest in, and support for the Third sector organisations has been unprecedented. This can be seen for example in proposals for:

· Modernising the legal and regulatory framework for ‘charities’ and the wider ‘not-for-profit’ sector

· Facilitating third sector involvement in public service delivery, and

· Local regeneration and civil renewal schemes” NCVO, (2005-2007)

This shows how the government have helped to support the third sector by allowing implementing policies, which allow the sector to benefit.

More recently, the sectors have become ever more associated with each other as they begin to work together due to the government being less able to deal with certain social problems alone:

“There is now greater understanding that effective policy responses to many social problems such as inequality, unemployment and social exclusion require a cross-sectoral approach, with the government working with the third sector and the community.” Walker, A. (2004).

This ‘cross-sectoral’ approach takes into account that partnerships are the key to adjust areas of concern within society, allowing expertise and more funding toward services for greater gain and stronger social capital:

“There are now an increasing number of departmental strategy documents making reference to the advantages of addressing issues of social capital in policy as a means of improving social outcomes and promoting community cohesiveness and development.” Walker, A. (2004).

The implications partnerships will have includes that the community will benefit as more people will want to participate in the structures, as more plans are made. This also having a positive affect on community safety; such as ‘neighbourhood watch’ schemes, involving local people in criminal justice.

Overall, analysing the way in which social capital works as well as the development of the voluntary and community sector over recent years and the changing strategies of working together with other sectors such as the government, in order to maintain social order and benefit communities as a whole, it is evident that the three sectors are interconnected on many levels, whether it is to build bridges and create networks to benefit the community or to provide some sort of service to help in providing benefits as a whole.

Reference

Walker, A. (2004), Understanding Social Capital within Community/Government Policy Networks’

Scott, J. and G. Marshall, (2005), ‘Oxford Dictionary of Sociology’, Oxford University Press Inc, New York

NCVO, (2005-2007), http://www.ncvo-vol.org.uk/policy/index.asp?&id=2761 page updated (2007)

The Saguaro Seminar-Civic Engagement in America, (2007), ‘Bowling Alone’ http://www.bowlingalone.com/media.htm

Voluntary and Community Sector, (2008), http://www.idea.gov.uk

Putnam, R. D. (1993) ‘The prosperous community: social capital and public life’

‘Social Capital and Innovation’ Policy Klaus Nielsen (research paper, 2003).

www.lgib.gov.uk (2006) Social Inclusion.