Download Learning for Social Cohesion

Cole Genge
Educ. 870 (3)
May 14, 2001
Learning for Social Cohesion
This section explores the topic of learning for social cohesion by exploring two important
areas of study: the first reviews a selection of theoretical arguments, while the second
looks at the issue of social cohesion. The first section reviews some of the literature concerning the dismantling (conflict theory from psychology and sociology) and building
(social capital from sociology, economics and political science) perspectives of social
cohesion. The second section explores the subject of social cohesion from the personal
and small group level, the societal level, and variables in the socialization process of
learning for social cohesion.
1. Major Theoretical Argument
Learning for social cohesion is not a specific area of study, though it encompasses a set
of issues that have been increasingly important in a conflict-ridden world. Social cohesion represents the absence of latent conflict whether caused by racial, economic or political reasons, among others; and the presence of strong social bonds, as noted by the existence of trust, reciprocity, associations crosscutting social divisions and the presence of
institutions of conflict management (Berkman & Kawachi, 2000). It is the elements that
conform to this notion that contribute to the building of communities and strengthening
of social bonds, especially under condition of civil unrest and hardship. Learning for social cohesion at times of social trauma, threat or change posses a different view on an
age-old problem: what contributes to the breakdown, and in like manner, what contributes to the rebuilding of trust and reciprocity between previous rivals.
During the 1950s several sociologists began to seriously explore some of the assumptions
about the nature of society and initiated what has come to be known as the ‘order-conflict
debate’ (see Dahrendorf, 1959; Lockwood, 1956). This debate centered around the notion
of “the nature of social order and equilibrium on the one hand, and those which were
more concerned with problems of change, conflict and coercion in social structures on the
other” (Burrell & Morgan, 1979, p. 10). Much emphasis has gone into explaining order
and equilibrium in society, while relatively little (comparatively speaking) has been written on conflict, though a growing body of literature in the area of psychology explores
socio-environmental impacts on individuals and groups alike. This section explores a
couple of the theoretical arguments concerning the dismantling or building of social cohesion. Two areas are explored: the first, looks at arguments from conflict theory – both
from psychology and sociology – and the second, delves into social capital theory.
a. Perspectives on Conflict
Social conflict is a notion that stems from the inequities in societies around the world that
give rise to tension, aggression and violence – when extreme. Their sources can be economic, ethnic, and ideologic among others. Despite the fact humans are social beings,
interaction between humans leads to conflict at some point. The discussion that follows
seeks to better understand the phenomenon of human conflict. The effects of the environment on human behavior (i.e. the nurture argument) influences much of the argument
that follows. A couple of aspects of conflict are discussed: the first looks at primarily
psychological aspects while the second explores one of the seminal sociological views on
social conflict.
Psychological Aspects
Humans are social animals who seek to fulfill their basic human needs. These needs are
psychological – not biological – and include the need for security from physical and psychological harm, the need for effectiveness and control which provides our sense of fulfillment, and the need for positive identity and self-awareness among others (Staub, in
progress). The frustration of basic human needs leads to stress, aggression, and even violence in extreme cases. However, stress and aggression are natural human responses that
come forth as a consequence of danger (real or perceived) and this, in turn, constitutes a
form of conflict. Conflict implies engendering interactions at more intense levels than
competition, although conflict, competition, and cooperation are inherently independent.
2
Conflict occurs when competing groups’ goals, objectives, needs or values clash and aggression is a result, though not necessarily violent (Schelling, 1960).
The conditions that instigate aggression come from two major sources. The first, frustration, is a result of interference, failure, or lack of goal fulfillment, while the second,
comes from an attack on or threat to life and can be extended to material well-being and
self-esteem (Staub, 1989). In addition, there are other conditions that contribute to a rise
in aggressiveness such as: heat, noise, crowding, and general arousal level (i.e. sexual
arousal). These environmental conditions or bodily states1 contribute to aggressiveness
but generally only after frustration or threat have triggered them. Sociobiologists argue
that human beings are genetically predisposed to respond to aggression in order to ensure
the survival and transmission of genes (Wilson, 1975). The probability of aggressive responses increases despite the fact no particular mode of aggression is genetically based.
Though genetics undoubtedly play a role in a person’s predisposition to aggressiveness, a
more likely source comes from the environment, as evidenced by the great range of variation both from individuals and groups alike. “The environment – external influences from
conception onward – has a major role in shaping our individuality by shaping the expression of genes” (Kotulak, 1993, p. 36). The following paragraphs explore several authors’
perspectives on stress, aggression and violence as they contribute to the notion of conflict.
Kotulak’s (1996) work highlights the importance of the environment, not only in the
shaping and molding of psychological processes that lead toward aggression, but also on
the detrimental effects it has on shaping the expression of genes. In other words, “stresses
caused by bad experiences can affect genes” (p. 36), and “environmental events [cause]
molecular changes in the brain that make people more impulsive” (p. 78). Social conflict,
in such a case, stems from socio-environmental conditions that are stress filled, aggressive and often violent. Moreover, aggression is triggered in the brain by two powerful
chemicals, serotonin and noradrenaline. These chemical stimuli become hypersensitive
under conditions of stress when an individual’s physiological responses “keep the body in
1
Bodily states can refer to intoxication from drugs and/or alcohol.
3
a constant state of readiness – heart racing, blood pressure high, easy to startle, [and]
quick to blow up” (p. 81). These are conditions which lead to increased tendencies to act
before thinking. This is the case especially among children and youth, who are predisposed to “use aggressive and violent strategies to deal with life’s daily challenges” (p.
81). Thus, the biochemical blueprints for violent behavior are set when imbalances in genetically susceptible individuals take place and similar conditions may also occur under
conditions of extreme environmental duress.
Diamond and Hopson’s (1998) work focuses on the effects of conflictual situations on
childhood development in North America. Their argument combines environmental impacts on genetic predispositions to aggression and violence. They point out that “people
born to poverty, neglect, and drug exposures, or restricted experience usually have a life
outcome influenced by deprivation” (p. 290). Their deprivation often leads to frustrated
interactions with others and may turn into cycles of conflict-aggression-conflict. Such
circumstances are not only detrimental to the individual and society from a psychological
standpoint, but also affect the economic prosperity of a nation by “dramatically underrealizing the true potential of human beings” (p. 293). Diamond and Hopson suggest that
environmental conditions such as poverty, emotional climate, and exposure to chemicals
negatively affect infants from the moment of conception and beyond in the areas of anxiety regulation, emotional connectivity, and cognition.
Staub (1989), a social psychologist at the University of Massachusetts Amherst campus,
argues human beings have the potential to be either altruistic or aggressive, but ultimately, environmental influences affect individual and group behavior during times of extreme conflict. Staub’s contributions in the area of social conflict are enriched by his
work on the origins of genocide and mass killings. He suggests that certain conditions
and cultural characteristics can generate the psychological conditions for one group to
turn against another. Extreme conflict can have severe psychological effects, and these
“progress along a continuum [which may end in] destruction. People learn and change by
doing, by participation, as a consequence of their own actions” (Staub, 1989, p. 17). A
second source comes as a result of difficult life conditions, including extreme economic
4
hardship, hostility and violence, political violence and rapid change can lead to increased
aggression and mistreatment. Yet another source comes from personal and cultural preconditions; this aspect involves self-concept, goals and aims, value orientations and ingroup-outgroup differentiation, as well as cultural aggressiveness among others. A final
source comes from the societal-political organization an individual is immersed in where
factors such as authoritarian or totalitarian systems, social institutions discriminating (vs.
promoting harmony, cooperation, and altruism), or institutions capable of carrying out
mistreatment have substantial influence on people (Staub, 1989).
The work of Robben and Suárez-Orozco (2000), a Dutch anthropologist and a Harvard
psychologist, centers around the issues of violence and trauma – both consequences of
extreme social conflict. Their contributions are in the area of examining root causes to
large-scale violence. They explore the socio-cultural context and highlight the use of
multiple approaches to understanding the impacts of trauma in both individuals and
groups alike. Human beings’ higher-order neocortical capacities separate us from other
primates and allows for “efficient, systematized, and over-determined acts of collective
violence” (p. 2). Such capacities, Robben and Suárez-Orozco contend, are latent in all of
us and, when exercised, “social violence continues to pursue its victims long after the
slaughter ends and the peace treaties are signed” (p. 5). However, such latent aggressiveness has its origins in society and its institutions. Ideological structures, meaning the doctrines, opinions, or ways of thinking of an individual or class, can instigate divisiveness,
foster hatred, and encourage violence, as was the case with Nazism; and the interpretation
of religious scripts instigating ideologies of hatred. “If rage in loss, endangerment, and
mourning offers the psychological framework to systematized violence, ideology offers it
an intellectual and moral framework” (Robben & Suárez-Orozco, 2000, p. 6). Economic
forces play an important role in feeding systems of violence and aggression2, in fact some
2
Chomsky (1993) has outlined the economic motives behind the well-orchestrated systems of violence
carried out for extraordinary gains at the cost of social violence and domination. He points out, for example, that one the chief missions of US diplomacy has been to guarantee a continual flow of natural resources as well as a favorable business and investment climate in the so called ‘third world’. Ideally these
objectives are reached under democratic systems, however, “if state terror and dictatorial rule are needed to
secure US interests, then so be it” (Chomsky, 1993, p. 30). He argued that: “in the post-World War II era,
the US has been the global enforcer, guaranteeing the interests of privilege. It has, therefore, compiled an
5
would argue it is one of the most powerful forces leading towards human destructiveness.
Ideologies and economics mold the social institutions that provide the tools, the knowhow, and the psychological support for carrying out systematic atrocities. For example, a
“bureaucracy of terror [is] required to build and operate concentration camps, rape
camps, and torture camps”3 (Robben & Suárez-Orozco, 2000, p. 9). Extreme conflict and
large-scale violence takes on characteristics of their own and “targets social bonds and
cultural practices as much as it targets the body and the psyche” (Robben & SuárezOrozco, 2000, p. 10).
In summary, Kotulak’s work highlights the biological effects to the human brain and psyche as a result of socio-environmental conditions. Diamond and Hopson’s contributions
are in the area of childhood development and their predisposition to aggression and violence as a result of their environment. Staub writes about patterns in environmental conditions that sufficiently alter individuals and groups alike into committing increasingly
aggressive and violent acts, either directed to themselves or others. Robben and SuárezOrozco’s work explores the impacts of social trauma and their origins within social, economic and ideologic institutions in society. These views, though limited in their scope,
provide a sense of the bitter flavor that socio-environmental impacts have on the human
condition. Though humans are one of the most resilient of species, capable of adapting to
unthinkable physical extremes – living beyond the arctic circle or in the heart of the Kalahari for example – psychological extremes, on the other hand, seem to harbor impacts
impressive record of aggression, international terrorism, slaughter, torture, chemical and bacteriological
warfare, [and] human rights abuses of every imaginable variety” (Chomsky, 1993, p. 31).
3
The language of discourse in this phrase appears to apply to men, as there is an obvious implication of
men committing such violent crimes as sexual assault and rape. While the gendered focus of violence perpetrated by men is explicit, there is also the case where women in society contribute to its institutionalization. I realize, I am going out on a limb here, however I would like to put forth an example illustrating
where my thinking was at the time of reading this section. Machismo or a sense of male superiority is
widespread throughout Latin America. It is well recognized that outright male dominance tends to affect
women negatively in terms of the levels of abuse they received, both verbal and physical. And yet machismo is so well ingrained in Latin cultures that mothers, grandmothers, aunts, sisters – female figures in general tend to perpetuate the cycle by passing it on to the next generation. Thus continuing potential cycles of
violence – but these same places/cultures were first to develop progressive community action based initiatives around exposing, decrying and influencing attitudes around gender-based violence. For example, poor
urban barrios that ended violence in silence by encouraging women to shout for help and the whole neighborhood (women) would come out in support with pots and pans naming the person.
6
the likes of which are never really overcome. The next section seeks to better understand
some of the principles affecting social conflict from a sociological perspective.
Sociological Aspects
Conflict or social conflict is pervasive in sociological literature and spans back into the
mid 19th century. One of the seminal contributors to the basic functionalist roots of conflict theory in sociology continues to be Karl Marx. His overall schema in the analysis of
revolutionary social change, which he envisioned as the outcome of social conflict, has
some of the following characteristics.
In any relatively stable society, there exists an equilibrium between the mode of
production, the social relations which are integral to that mode of production,
and the ‘superstructure’ which, through the medium of class domination is tied in
with it. When progressive changes occur in the sphere of productive activity –
such as happened in Rome with the emergence of manufacture and commerce
within a predominantly agrarian economy – a tension is set up between these new
productive forces and the existing relations of production. The existing relations
of production then increasingly form barriers to the emergent forces of production. These ‘contradictions’ become expressed as overt class conflicts, terminating in revolutionary struggles fought out in the political sphere, and manifest ideologically as a clash between competing ‘principles’ (Giddens, 1971, p. 44).
Thus, inequities between social groups of differing interests – the haves vs. the have nots,
the industrialized vs. the non-industrialized – lead to conflict between them. Outcomes of
such struggles often result in ‘the common ruin of the contending classes’ as occurred in
Rome, or ‘a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large’ as happened when feudalism
was replaced by capitalism (Giddens, 1971). Though Marx’s views are embedded in human labor, Marx’s theory emphasizes system-contradictions as opposed to system
maintenance, and it argues that class conflict is pervasive in society (i.e. capitalist society) and serves as a means of transitioning. Marx alludes to the fact when he says “In the
social productions of their lives, men enter into definite relations that are indispensable
and independent of their will” (Marx, 1859/1951, preface). He asserts that humans lose
their freedom when confronted with an alien (or hitherto unrealized) social force and
thus, conflict is an inherent part of human activity. In this sense, “social relations never
can be purely ‘material’. They consist of expectations and responses to those expecta-
7
tions” (Rex, 1981, p. 67). The study of conflicts in institutions and practices are an essential part of neo-Marxist thought.
Social conflict theory has gained unique contributions from its interactions with Marxist
thought. John Rex (1981), a sociologist at the University of Aston, England, speaks of
four unique contributions of Marxism. First, it locates the institution of production as the
center of its analysis, and looks at that institution as dependent from political as well as
technological factors. Second, it brings to the forefront new latent social relations in a
technological society and the unfolding of conflict and contradictions between those latent social relations and the one already operating in society. Third, it suggests building a
complex relationship between small (basic) and large (superstructural) institutions. A final contribution stems from the relationship between system-conflict and the conflict between people and classes.
Other sociological based views on conflict have certainly come forth since Marx, however, this paper only attempts to mention a few to highlight contributions from Marxist theory. A neo-Marxist view on conflict escalation is based on the premise of perceived legitimacy within a social environment. This view is especially relevant when tensions are
social or ethnic based4, thereby affecting individuals and groups alike. However, in- and
out-group differentiations seem to go through a process of social conflict, as aggression
increases.
Rex (1981) has suggested several stages of aggression between in-groups and out-groups.
Initially, conflict begins as verbal and ideological disagreement. This stage tends to end
when one party imposes over the other their moral or cognitive views or ideally, both par4
Social and ethnic based discrimination often hides other issues. Gender issues are often masked over by
perceived larger issues such as social and ethnic problems, yet we (I’m addressing the men of the world)
tend to forget that just over half of the world is female. And yet systematically, their voices are covered
over, drowned out, or simply disregarded as meaningless. In the peace building arena, women have taken
an active lead in reaching across conflict divides and seeking peace; by raising awareness, building trust
and changing attitudes in favor of peace (International Alert, 2001). Even when women have proven their
capacity and talent gender always comes back to haunt them. Hanan Ashrawi, a Palestinian spokesperson,
said that “when threats recede, the men say they’re ‘the bread earners’. They go back to traditional norms
…there is a very patronizing, patriarchal attitude of ‘good for you, you’ve done your national duty, now go
back to the kitchen [or else!]’” (International Alert, 2001, paragraph 3-aims).
8
ties come to terms over their mistakes. When agreement is not reached, passive resistance
comes into play. This involves the denial of any normative demands on the part of the
perceived aggressor and the aggravated surrenders only under force. In this sense, the aggressor attempts to ‘rule over’ the other; generally this takes on the form of denying facilities or services, and withdrawing from or changing the nature of the relationship. The
next stage of aggression is born out of pride and results in withdrawal from a relationship
altogether and the reconstruction of a new basis. However, such a stance is extreme and
is dependent on the possibility of going elsewhere to get comparable facilities and rewards. As aggression continues to escalate, violence comes into play as a means of gaining power. The use of physical violence, then, is a vehicle for achieving submission on
the ‘other’. Ultimately, physical violence escalates into killing on an individual level, and
when aggression is widespread in society, mass killing and genocide are possible.
In closing, Marxist thought provides important contributions to the evolving theory and
field of conflict, and neo-Marxism provides a means by which to identify conflict escalation. Conflict can, and does, take place between actors in any institutional system, be it
religious, political, industrial, or educational – among others. Institutions are more or less
dependent on one another; in this sense conflict in one institution will reflect conflict in
another, especially conflicts in larger institutions will be reflected in smaller ones. Interinstitutional conflict is another level where societal conflict dominates over industrial
conflict, for example. Finally, returning to the individual, notions of in- and out- groups
can have a detrimental effect both on persons and groups of persons alike.
b. Social Capital
The concept of social capital – “a glue that holds society together” (Serageldin, 1996, p.
196) – has been around for some time. It grew, in part, as a natural extension of the concept of physical capital primarily in the realm of tools, machines and other productive
equipment when human capital was included as well (see Schultz, 1961; Becker, 1964).
However, the term is first introduced by the French scholar Pierre Bourdieu (1986), when
he defined it in theoretical terms as “the aggregate of the actual or potential resources
which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalized rela-
9
tionships of mutual acquaintance or recognition” (p. 248). His inspiration for social capital came from studies on the inequity of scholastic achievement among different social
classes; however, his findings reached a limited audience as his publication was in
French. The term was first introduced in the English speaking world when James Coleman (1988), a University of Chicago leading sociologist, defined it as a “social structure
[that] facilitates certain actions of actors within the structure” (p. 98). Another early contributor to the shaping of this term from an economics standpoint was the Harvard (political scientist) Robert Putnam (1993), who defined social capital as a “set of horizontal associations [among those who have an effect on the productivity of a community, and
these can take the form of] network[s] of civic engagement” (p. 35).
Social capital has many interpretations primarily coming from the fields of sociology,
economics and political science. This section will focus on several of the definitions initiated by the authors above as well as others and explore vertical and horizontal social capital linkages that can facilitate the analysis and study of conflictual situations in society.
Norms, values and social relations are the bonds that hold communities together. In addition, these are the means by which to reach across differences and begin to build trust.
Social capital is better known for its contributions in the area of sustainable development
as alluded to in “[meeting] the needs of the present without compromising the ability of
future generation to generate their own needs” (Bundtland Commision, 1987, p. 43).
Thus, social capital has been referred to as “systems that lead to or result from social and
economic organization, such as worldviews, …reciprocity, informational and economic
exchange and informal and formal groups and associations” (Colleta & Cullen, 2000, p.
6). With these principles in mind, there is substantial agreement about the important role
social capital can have in facilitating collective action, economic growth, and development through complementary forms of capital (Groostaert, 1998). However, though the
general premise for social capital shares a common base, no one definition has come to
embody the multiple contributions made by scholars and practitioners alike. The discussion that follows is a series of ‘figurative windows’ into the ‘theoretical homes’ of vari-
10
ous authors who have contributed to broadening an understanding of the meaning and
scope of social capital, while highlighting some of their central arguments and criticisms.
Theoretical Arguments:
Bourdieu (1986) differentiates three forms of capital (economic, cultural, and social) as
they relate to the field of education and their contributions to scholastic achievement. His
work on the convertibility of capital, and how this process forms part of the basis by
which groups and individuals ensure the reproduction of capital, is grounded on the notion that understanding the structure and functioning of the social world involves looking
at capital in its multiple forms. Bourdieu acknowledges that “the volume of social capital
possessed by a given agent thus depends on the size of the network of connections he can
effectively mobilize and on the volume of the capital (economic, cultural, or symbolic)
possessed in his own right by each of those to whom he is connected” (Bourdieu, 1986, p.
249). Thus, he comes to terms with the fact that social capital does not always keep the
best interests in mind. In fact, mechanisms of delegation or representation that enable
some individuals to act in unison, thereby overcoming any limitations of time or space,
may also “contain the seeds of an embezzlement or misappropriation of the capital which
they assemble” (Bourdieu, 1986, p. 251).
Coleman’s (1988) definition of social capital looks at its function and although he identifies many different entities he found two common elements: (1) they consist of some aspect of social structure, and (2) they facilitate certain actions of actors within the structure. These elements constitute the basis for inferences made towards vertical association,
as exemplified by hierarchy and unequal distributions of power within a group. In this
way, social capital can be beneficial and useless or harmful to others depending on its
characteristics and circumstances of use. As with other forms of capital, “social capital is
productive, making possible the achievement of certain ends that would not be attainable
in its absence” (Coleman, 1990, p. 302).
Putnam’s work, tracing patterns of civic engagement in northern Italy, elaborates on the
nature of horizontal relations. He identifies social capital as “features of social organiza-
11
tion, such as networks, norms, and truths, that facilitate coordination and cooperation for
mutual benefit” (Putnam, 1993, p. 36). Communities that enjoy economic prosperity and
effective government are those with strong “norms and networks of civic engagement”
(p. 37). These networks lay the groundwork for reciprocity, solidarity and participation,
which in turn reinforce communal sentiments of trust and improve the effectiveness of
communication between individuals and institutions. In this sense, social capital is “a resource whose supply increases rather than decreases with use (as contrasted to physical
capital which) becomes depleted if not used” (pp. 37-38).
Fukuyama (1995) builds on the argument put forth by Coleman that trust is a key measure of social capital and emphasizes that it accumulates through norms of reciprocity and
successful cooperation in networks of civic engagement. It “arises when a community
shares a set of oral values in such a way as to create expectations of regular and honest
behavior” (Fukuyama, 1995, p. 153). Furthermore, he highlights the importance of cultural roots in defining ethical and moral habits, as exemplified by virtues and values.
Reciprocity, civic duty, and moral obligations are crucial to the formation and maintenance of a stable society and are the behaviors that should come forth from a thriving civil society. A healthy and dynamic civil society “depends on people’s habits, customs, and
ethics – attributes that can be shaped only indirectly through conscious political action
and must otherwise be nourished through an increased awareness and respect for culture”
(Fukuyama, 1995, p. 5).
According to Norman Uphoff (2000), social capital is “an accumulation of various types
of social, psychological, cognitive, institutional, and related assets that increase the
amount (or probability) of mutually beneficial cooperative behavior” (Uphoff, 2000, p.
216). This kind of behavior is productive for others as well as one self. Uphoff breaks
social capital down into structural and cognitive components. Structural capital is associated with networks, relationships, and associations or institutional structures made possible via vertical and horizontal linkages between members. Horizontal relationships take
place amongst equals or near equals while vertical relationships are attributed to hierarchies and/or unequal relationships due to power or resource differences. Cognitive social
12
capital includes values, norms, civic responsibility, expected reciprocity, charity, altruism, and trust. Ultimately, both domains of social capital are intrinsically connected
though they share networks, roles, precedents and procedures – all come from cognitive
processes and while “structural social capital assets are extrinsic and observable, […]
cognitive social capital assets are not” (Uphoff, 2000, p. 218).
North (1990) and Olson (1982) look at different aspect of social capital. While they speak
of trust, norms, and networks, they also stress the sociopolitical environment that shapes
norms and social structures. This view also includes more formalized institutional relationships and structures such as the government, the political regime, the market, the rule
of law, the court system, as well as civil and political liberties (Grootaert, 1998). Another
author, Deepa Narayan (1999) in her work examining the dynamics of complementarity
and substitution, emphasizes the importance of including the state in social capital analysis. She argues that “the focus must be not only civic engagement, ideally characterized
by inclusive, cross-cutting ties that link unlike individuals and groups, but also on the effectiveness of the state” (Colleta & Cullen, 2000, pp. 11-12).
Bourdieu’s work differentiated three forms of capital – economic, cultural, and social –
and puts forth the notion that capital can be converted from one form into another. Coleman’s and Putman’s work highlights the horizontal and vertical aspects of social capital,
while Fukuyama’s findings stress the need for trust in building social capital. Uphoff’s
work identifying cognitive and structural aspects of social capital facilitates analysis,
while North and Olson speak of the sociopolitical levels and Narayan is inclusive of the
state in working with social capital.
The authors reviewed above have looked at social capital from multiple perspectives but
they have overlooked a crucial point – the role of women in social capital and cohesiveness building. The role of women in contributing to the building, maintenance and repair
of the social fabric is often disregarded in the public eye. And yet they are the primary
stewards of social cohesion, initially in the home (often tolerating inhumane levels of
abuse and neglect in order to buffer and protect their infants, children or loved ones - for
13
an extraordinary account refer to O’Connell-Higgins, (1994)), and later in society at large
(an example is Las Madres de la Plaza de Mayo, the mothers of the disappeared in Argentina). In the peace building arena, women have been instrumental in speaking out for
Human security a concept that is based on the notion of security for one’s life and person.
The women of the Chiapas Zapatista movement enumerated several aspects of human
security in their demands to the Mexican State. They demanded (and continue to do so)
the right to work and a just salary; the right to choose the number of children they will
have; the right to participate in governance; the right to health for themselves and their
children; the right to education; the right to choose their partner; and the right to life free
of violence and abuse (Mujeres Zapatistas, 1993). These rights serve as examples of what
human security is meant by women (in this case a highly organized indigenous women’s
movement that coalesced as a result of the ceaseless efforts of women who had endured
far more than any human being should).
The UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan spoke of women’s role in peace and security by
saying they are “building bridges rather than walls”, and “preserving social order when
communities collapse” (UN, 2000 October). Women’s roles in society have throughout
history been cohesive in nature; today their actions can fit under the label of social capital. Yet women’s efforts and roles in both the private and public spheres go unnoticed,
“time and again when the red carpet is rolled up and the cameras turn off, it is civil society, women organizations, [and] community groups that get down to the real business of
peace building. They are the people who have the commitments and the long term interest” (International Alert, 2001, last paragraph-manifesto). The role of women in contributing to the healing of warring fronts and the rebuilding of the social fabric is immeasurable, yet time an again efforts to celebrate and acknowledge their merits are systematically subdued the world over; this is a trend that must stop for it makes us all weaker, poorer
and less able to transcend our differences and reach true human security for all.
Figure 4 (below) is a synthesis of both horizontal and vertical social capital as these interact within a setting amongst different actors in working towards social cohesion or an
escalation to violent conflict. The greater the extent to which vertical linking and horizon-
14
tal bridging takes place, the greater a sense of integration and cohesiveness is established.
This in turn leads to inclusiveness in mediation processes and curbs the potential for the
presence of violent crimes. Conversely, the weaker the reinforcement potential of socialization mechanisms such as values and compliance mechanisms or social control, the
weaker the social cohesion. And weak social cohesion heightens the risk for the crumbling of social institutions, the exclusion of minorities, and disorganization while tempting the potential for violent conflict to arise. Social capital can be used in support of social cohesion and be a constructive element in the building of trust and hope in a conflict
ridden area. But it can just as easily be perverted to hasten social fragmentation and the
onset of violent conflict. Unlike physical capital, social capital must be used for it to accrue, it is hard to observe and measure, and does not become stronger on the basis of external intervention (Ostrom, 2000).
Figure 4; Mapping Social Cohesion
High social cohesion, low conflict

Inclusion

Rule of law, democratic state

Access and equality of opportunity

Open society
Civil Society
Bonding
(kin, religious,
and ethnic-based)
Bridging
(cross-cutting ties)
Low social cohesion, high conflict

Exclusion

Oppressive, authoritarian state

Inequity/inequality

Corrupt, inefficient bureaucracy

Closed society
Social Cohesion: the integration of vertical linking and horizontal bridging social capital
Source: from Colleta & Cullen (2000, p. 14)
15
In conclusion, the term social capital has received widespread attention in the last 10 to
15 years and yet the diversity of views make it complicated to map any kind of ‘theoretical bullet points’. However, a brief review of several prominent theoreticians and practitioners of social capital theory has been presented. Most authors agree on findings showing that local associations and networks have a positive impact on economic welfare and
local development, play a positive role in environmental management and are one of the
key factors in promoting institutional and social structures for managing conflict. The
next sub-section explores some of the underpinning reasons for the emergence and sustenance of social cohesion in society.
2. Social Cohesion
Social cohesion is a broad concept incorporating many facets, including: the absence of
latent conflict in its multiple forms, and the presence of strong social bonds – as evidenced by trust, reciprocity, and cross-cutting social divisions among others (Berkman &
Kawachi, 2000). Though the concept has been often used in the context of war-torn or
post-conflict situations, it can very well be applied to communities undergoing moderate
to severe tensions or stress for multiple reasons. This section explores the subject of
building social cohesion in the context of the personal and small group level, as well as
that of larger society. In addition, another facet of this section includes contributions in
the area of socialization processes that lead towards learning for social cohesion.
Personal and Small Group Level
Staub (1989) has postulated that “human beings have genetic potentials for both altruism
and aggression, which evolve through socialization and experience” (p. 262). On the other hand, he also stresses that for social cohesion, to take place “highly committed people,
guided by ideas [which are] connected to the welfare of individual human beings” (Staub,
1989, p. 261) are required. Thus, both altruism and aggression require some form of
learning and commitment. Generally, our first ‘classroom’ is our home and our first
‘teachers’ are our primary care givers (Maccoby, 1992), however these are defined within
16
our cultural context5. This being the case, the environment a child is raised in, as well as
the role models and guides s/he has, have a profound effect later in life.
There have been numerous studies in the fields of cognitive and social psychology on the
effects of multiple stimuli on human behavior – many of which correlate to the fostering
of caring, non-violent, prosocial children and adults later in life. The outcomes of children’s personality, for example, are shaped by the constant interplay of temperament and
the environment (Thomas et. all., 1970; van den Boom & Hoeksma, 1994). The view that
genetics plays an important role in determining aggressiveness or helpfulness is also
widespread and believed to interplay with the environment (Collins et. all., 2000; DeKay
& Buss, 1992). Another perspective explores the issue of child-mother (or mother figure)
attachment and its effects on child development (Routhbaum et. all, 2000; Troy &
Srouge, 1987; Bretherton, 1992; Staub, in progress). These perspectives and others lend a
flavor of the breath and scope that research in psychology has taken in the last thirty
years regarding issues contributing to personality building. By understanding breakdowns
in child-caregiver relations, researchers are better able to identify patterns leading up to
conflict situations, and conversely, make approximations as to the patterns that contribute
to the formation of caring, helping and prosocial individuals.
While there are many studies on the effects of specific or multiple impacts on infants and
children, few are the cases (I have come across) that address the issue of parenting and its
effects on children’s perception of prosocial behavior. Ethological research (the study of
animal behavior) with primates – human’s closest animal relation – provides a venue for
comparative studies on group stability, dependence, and nurturing on well functioning,
contributing members of a group later in life (Mendoza, 1984). This, in turn, provides a
5
The issue of primary care giver is a complex one, given it is culture dependent. Though many of the European influenced regions of the globe identify family as a nuclear family (mother, father, children) and in
some instances as an extended family (all of the above, as well as relations such as aunts, uncles, cousins,
grandparents, etc.), but these are not the sole descriptions of families. Primary care givers may be much
broader depending on the culture. The traditional Papagano and Hopi children of Arizona, for example, are
cared for by the whole community – children are valued and treated with affection and warmth by all. The
Arapesh of New Guinea have the same trait, resulting in caring and attentive children who are prone to
helping others when they grow up (Eisenberg & Mussen, 1989). Though cultural differences can vary tremendously by country and region, children still have universal needs; how these are addressed is often cultural but addressing them is common across most cultures.
17
solid basis for theorizing on the effects of ‘parenting’ on the “capacity of the individual to
maintain long-term [trusting and helpful] associations with others” (Mendoza, 1984, p.
6). However, this venue serves as a comparison rather than a case in and of itself. But it
does provide an important lesson for human based studies on social cohesion; that the
“most useful approach at the present time seems to be the examination of social relationships”; these in turn, allow the “psychologist to study the individuals which comprise the
relationship” (Mendoza, 1984, p. 23). The first relationship an infant encounters is with
his/her primary care giver(s); in much of the ‘West’ these are often the child’s mother
and father. Though cultural differences can vary tremendously by country and region,
children still have universal needs, yet how these are addressed is often cultural in nature.
Staub affirms, “raising caring, helpful, nonviolent children requires a combination or pattern of child rearing practices, but its essential root is parental nurturance and affection”
(Staub, in progress, Ch. 5-p. 1). It is the sense of love and the assurance of being cared
for that lets the child know s/he is important, that people are good and trustworthy and
these lay the foundations for helping, and nurturing kids to grow into helpful and nurturing adults.
Staub (in progress) attempts to spell out parenting contributions (see Table 3) that point
in the direction of socializing children into prosocial behavior leading towards social cohesion. Parenting, in this table, is portrayed by a list of ‘qualities’ based on principles that
parents attempt to instill in their children, followed by the action parents can take in order
to implement their ‘quality’, and ultimately these actions have an effect on the child and
their temperament towards helping or empathizing with others. Responsive parenting to
the needs of an infant has many positive outcomes. When a caretaker’s responsiveness
helps curbs a child’s needs, infants develop confidence in their potential to control what
happens to them, and as this leads to greater satisfaction of their needs, they become
more trusting of their environment. In addition, young children, who were held and tenderly loved early on, will seek less contact as they get older, but have satisfying and affectionate contact when they do. They are more cooperative and willing to lend others a
18
hand when needed; in short, good parenting fosters loving, care giving and helpful individuals as children and as adults.
Table 3; Effects of ‘Good’ Parenting on Children
PARENTING
QUALITY
ACTION
EFFECT (on children)

Affection
Infancy: touching, embracing,
physical contact. Adolescence:
caring of welfare and sensitive to
feelings.
Critical for the healthy growth of
child and for the development of
caring and helping.

Helping
Attending to the needs of the
child when child is in most need.
Makes people feel good and promotes helping with others.

Warmth (character)
Kindness and amiable character.
When adults act warmly with
children they are more likely to
be helpful with others & remember positive interactions.

Coaching
Gently letting the child know
how something can be done better. Facilitating effective action &
valuing child’s efforts generates
motivation.
Leads to motivation for learning
rather than for performance.

Sensitivity (to needs of child)
Nurturance, warmth and affection
need to be responsive; noticing,
understanding and mode of reacting to child’s needs.
Child feels secure, safe and free
to explore alternatives.

Empathy
Listening, entering another’s experience, affirming simply by
understanding.
Empathy is healing in times of
pain and anguish, and one who
receives this is liable to help others.

Structure & Constancy
Children need structure and order
in their lives as well as predictability and consistency.
Children knowing what adults
expect of them and how they will
react, knowing what will happen
in their lives.

Values & Rules
Values specify what we regard as
preferable, desirable, good. Rules
provide structure & guidance,
these need to have meaning to
children.
Explaining the value of rules has
a value in itself, letting children
know acting in some ways is better than others, tends to lead to
more caring individuals.

Flexibility
Parents are less absolute about
using and enforcing rules, they
are sensitive to complexities and
nuances of human experience &
behavior, they look at reasons
behind a child’s behavior.
Children are ‘humanistic’ or caring with others.
Source: Compiled from Staub (in progress), Chapters 7 and 8
19
Societal Level
The environment plays an important role in shaping societal tendencies towards helping
behavior. In addition, humans also have a biological potential for altruistic actions, which
are often adaptable. It is believed that the capacity for empathy that has evolved in humans is the basis for biologically based altruism (Hoffman, 1981). Such a hypothesis
arises from the possibility of empathy coming from the evolved capacity of mammals to
provide nurturing and care for their young. Animals capable of empathizing “are more
likely to be sensitive to their offsprings’ needs and thus assure their survival; consequently the capacity for empathy will be enhanced through natural selection” (Eisenberg &
Mussen, 1989, p. 38). Even though this argument is compelling, the evidence proving it
is scarce, especially since humans have so many more variables at play than other primates (i.e. non-humans) and hence brings into question the sole contribution of genetics
on the development of prosocial behavior. It is more likely that the environment, culture,
and genes all contribute to the potential for altruistic behavior.
Groups are understood to be different than the sum of their parts, especially when it is
unlikely a group will want to terminate its own existence without any resistance. Groups
need to form trusting relationships between each other in order to pursue shared goals.
Moreover, “the strengths of existing group identities and previous successes in achieving
joint goals affect the extent to which inter group cooperation reduces conflict and result
in positive ties” (Staub, 1989, p. 275). While social cohesion can be positive, it can just
as likely be directed into damaging and unhelpful behavior. In either case social cohesion
benefits members meeting the requirements of the specific group culture regardless of
environmental differences. By identifying with an affiliated group, members often gain a
revitalized interest in life and a sense of belonging to something of value (Kellerman,
1981). It can be a powerful force in the pursuit of goals and in the influence of the group
on its members. The question arises, how do social units or groups become caring, connecting and non-aggressive?
Staub (1989) suggests a few stages along a continuum of social change that point in the
direction of social cohesion. His focus is on changing cultures and the relations between
20
societies. First, he speaks of crosscutting relations and superordinate goals. Crosscutting
relations among sub-groups in society as well as between nations involves striving towards feelings of connectedness and an evolving appreciation of likeness (as opposed to
difference that can lead to segregation and exclusion). Cooperative efforts to learn and
work together on an equal footing leads to heightened prosocial behavior all around. Superordinate goals reflect common goals shared by individuals in both camps. By focusing
on common goals there is a higher likelihood for successful outcomes, which, in turn,
contribute to the nurturing of positive outlooks on the ‘other’, thereby resulting in greater
trust and caring towards each other. These are attitudes that tend to strengthen intergroup
cooperation, reduce conflict and lead to social cohesiveness. A second point has to do
with learning by doing. Common every day acts can make profound contributions to the
healing process, “helping others can lead to genuine concern and a feeling of responsibility for people” (Staub, 1989, p. 76). Often small acts of kindness can influence both individuals and groups alike, by nurturing one’s own where satisfaction born out of helping
others results in a more caring self-image, which in turn perpetuates the cycle of caring.
The Dutch, for example, as a whole are more prone to helping than most if not all other
European nations; per capita they donate more funds to charitable ends than other cultures. Widespread practices such as these can have a deep and positive effect on children
and youth who are socialized – by observing and doing – into practicing prosocial behavior.
Another point has to do with creating positive connections between groups. This is especially important when connections persist and spread to a minimum mass of people sharing their common attitudes and views. For connections to begin, real and meaningful contact is needed. There are multiple venues where this can take place, from education, cultural, and scientific exchanges between countries, for example. Joint projects, such as in
manufacturing and technology, can reduce aggression and build on crosscutting cohesiveness. A final contributing factor is positive socialization. This can come from parenting, education, language and the media to name a few. Fostering empathy among children, providing at least minimum support for enabling social conditions and education,
all play an important role. Language can have a lasting impact on our perceptions. Lan-
21
guage shapes experience and those who destroy others often use euphemisms such as
with the nuclear policies of the United States referring to ‘shields’, ‘deterrence’ and ‘defense’ – all words implying some kind of security that is non-existent (Staub, 1989). True
portrayals of nuclear arms policy would most likely lead people to try to eliminate the
threat and potential for nuclear war and arms proliferation. In the same vein, the media
can have important consequences on the outcomes of mass feelings towards others, however the tendency has generally been more divisive than cohesive in nature.
Learning for Social Cohesion
While humans have the potential to be altruistic, we also have an equal potential to be
aggressive, and striving towards social cohesion requires high motivation and commitment. Often these fair best when learned from an early age, however learning about prosocial behavior requires having adults who are aware of the matter and willing to invest
time and energy into guiding and nurturing children and youth in a positive direction. In
families and schools it is often the case that “children’s prosocial behaviors go unnoticed,
while [parents or] teachers attend to less desirable behaviors” (Doescher & Sugawara,
1989, p. 213). Acts that aid and benefit other persons are central to a child’s social competence. It is a natural stage in development, children as young as two years old show
signs of prosocial behavior with helping and comforting others. These are behaviors
common to both girls and boys, but their prevalence increases when their helping actions
are acknowledged and reinforced (Doescher & Sugawara, 1989). In this sense, “most
human behavior is learned, molded and shaped by environmental events, especially rewards, punishments, and modeling” (Eisenberg & Mussen, 1989, p. 25).
The process that underlies the acquisition of a multiplicity of responses such as fear, social skills, aggression, and conformity can also be used to explain the development of
moral standards and behavior. Ultimately, what humans inherit is the potential to learn a
wide range of social behaviors and certain temperamental personality characteristics.
This in turn depends on the social situation, which affects cognitive processing and learning. Learning has its roots in the way our socialization process takes shape. Initially, it is
the family, other care givers, school and community that have significant leverage over
22
the direction and focus of stimulating prosocial development. Fundamental mechanisms
of socialization include: (1) “the modeling of helping, sharing, and comforting behaviors
clearly and frequently”; (2) “reasoning in disciplinary contexts and verbalizing the benefits of prosocial action for others”; (3) “encouraging children to try to understand others’
feelings and to respond emotionally to others”; (4) “maintain high standards for children
(including prosocial standards)”; and (5) “providing opportunities for their children to
engage in prosocial activities (e.g., by assigning them responsibilities for others)” (Eisenberg & Mussen, 1989, p. 151).
In conclusion, the socialization mechanisms mentioned above are a step in the direction
of learning for social cohesion – as these set the patterns early on for altruistic aimed
learning throughout life. At its root, learning for social cohesion is applying the highest
standards along a continuum of moral values in the everyday encounters guiding our lives
while imbuing our actions with purity of motives. In other words, learning needs to be
grounded in principles that can guide daily decision making and continually fine tune the
direction and scope of one’s actions and their effects on others. So long as principles
guide the learning process, even if these are counter to crosscutting social cohesiveness,
the foundations are laid for empathy and helpfulness to grow even if these are confined to
exclusive ‘in-groups’ – the patterns are in place for the evolving growth of prosocial
awareness and action to expand into broader definitions of ‘in-groups’. Learning to learn
is a simple concept; the challenge is to implement it.
Conclusion
Social cohesion is the key to intervening variables between social capital and social conflict. The stronger the links of social cohesion in society, the stronger will the reinforcing
channels of socialization such as values and rules go into effect. Strong social cohesion 6
reduces the risk of social disorganization, fragmentation, and exclusion that may lead to
aggression and violence.
6
However, a strong social cohesiveness also requires mindfulness, concerted efforts and perseverance in
order to achieve human cohesiveness as opposed to human cohesiveness.
23
Social conflict and social capital were logical themes to explore, as I sought to better understand the concept of social cohesion. These two frames marked a theoretical starting
point. They elucidated on different angles and perceptions leading up to my ultimate objective of gathering insights regarding the contributing factors, processes and mechanisms for fostering and encouraging cohesiveness in society, in the family, and in the individual. Social conflict provided a means by which to understand processes in society
that contribute to the break down of prosocial behavior, helping, and trust. Understanding
the processes and factors contributing to social break-up provides a lens by which to
comprehend often-irrational human behavior. Social capital, on the other hand, attempts
to explain the interconnections between norms, values, and social relations, which constitute the adhesive force holding communities together. Social cohesion represents a
broader umbrella term that incorporates the latter as elements in the building of communities and strengthening trust and reciprocity in conflict ridden areas, as well as providing
a venue for addressing processes contributing to prosocial behavior and how these can be
fostered in society.
24
Bibliography
Becker, G. (1964). Human capital. New York: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Berkman, L. F., and Kawachi, I. (2000) (Eds.). Social epidemiology. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research for
the Sociology of Education (pp. 241-56). New York: Greenwood Press.
Bretherton, I. (1992). The origins of attachment theory: In J. Bowlby and M. Ainsworth. Developmental
Psychology, 28(5): 759-775.
Bruntland Commission (1987). Our common future. World Commission on Environment and Development. New York: Oxford University Press.
Burrell, G., and Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis: Elements of the
sociology of corporate life. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Chomsky, N. (1993). Year 501: The conquest continues. Boston: South End Press.
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology 94,
95-120.
Colleta, N. J., and Cullen, M. L. (2000). Violent conflict and the transformation of social capital: Lessons
from Cambodia, Rwanda, Guatemala, and Somalia. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.
Collins, W. A., Maccoby, E. E., Steinberg, L., Hetherington, E. M., and Bornstein, M. H. (2000). Contemporary research on parenting: The case for nature and nurture. American Psychologist, 55(2): 218-232.
Dahrendorf, R. (1959). Class and class conflict in industrial society (translated from German by author).
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
DeKay, W. T., and Buss, D. M. (1992). Human nature, individual difference, and the importance of context: Perspectives from evolutionary psychology. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1(6):184188.
Diamond, M., and Hopson, J. (1998). Magic trees of the mind: How to nurture your child’s intelligence,
creativity, and healthy emotions from birth through adolescence. New York: Plume Book.
Doescher, S. M., and Sugawara, A. I. (1989). Encouraging prosocial behavior in young children. Childhood
Education, 65(4): 213-216.
Eisenberg, N., and Mussen, P. H. (1989). The roots of prosocial behavior in children. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust: The social values and the creation of prosperity. New York: Free Press.
Giddens, A. (1971). Capitalism and modern social theory: An analysis of Marx, Durkheim and Max Weber.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Grootaert, C. (1998). Social capital: The missing link? Social capital initiative working Paper 3. Environmentally and socially sustainable development network. Washington D. C.: World Bank. Refer to
www.worldbank.org/poverty/scapital/wrkrppr [March 9, 2001].
Hoffman, M. L. (1981). Is altruism a part of human nature? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
40, 121-137.
25
International Alert (2001). Women building peace: the international campaign to promote the role of women in peacebuilding. A Non-governmental organization based in London. Refer to: www.internationalalert.org/women/home.html [May 11, 2001].
Kellerman, H. (1981). The deep structure of group cohesion. In H. Kellerman (Ed). Group cohesion: Theoretical and clinical perspectives. New York: Grune & Stratton.
Kotulak, R. (1996). Inside the brain: revolutionary discoveries of how the brain works. Kansas City, MO:
Andrews and McMeel.
Lockwood, D. (1956). The blackcoated worker: A study in class consciousness. London: Allen & Unwin.
Maccoby, E. E. (1992). The role of parents in the socialization of children: An historical overview. Developmental Psychology, 28(6): 1006-1017.
Marx, K. (1859/1951). A contribution to the critique of political economy. In Marx-Engals, Selected works,
Vol. 1. Moscow, Soviet Union: Foreign Languages Publishing House.
Mendoza, S. P. (1984). The psychology of social relationships. In P. R. Barchas and S. P. Mendoza (Eds.),
Social cohesion: Essays toward a sociophysiological perspective. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Mujeres Zapatistas (1993). Ley revolucionaria del mujeres del EZLN. Movimiento Zapatista. Refer to:
www.ezln.org [March 12, 2000].
Narayan, D. (1999). Bonds and bridges: Social capital and poverty. Policy research paper 2167. Poverty
division, poverty reduction and economic management network. Washington, D. C.: The World Bank. Refer to www.worldbank.org/poverty/scapital/library/narayan [March 16, 2001]
North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change, and economic performance. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
O’Connell-Higgins, G. (1994). Resilient adults overcoming a cruel past. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Olson, M. (1982). The rise and decline of nations: Economic growth, stagflation, and social rigidities. New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Ostrom, E. (2000). Social capital: a fad or a fundamental concept? In P. Dasgupta and I. Serageldin (Eds.),
Social capital: A multifaceted perspective. Washington, D. C.: The World Bank.
Putman, R. D. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Rex, J. (1981). Social conflict: a conceptual and theoretical analysis. London: Longman.
Robben, A. C., and Suárez-Orozco, M. M. (2000). Cultures under siege: Collective violence and trauma
(Eds.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Troy, M., and Sroufe, L. A. (1987). Victimization among preschoolers: Role of attachment relationship
history. Journal of the American Academy of Child Adolescent Psychology, 26(2): 166-172.
Schelling, T. (1960). The strategy of conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Schultz, T. (1961). Investment in human capital. American Economic Review 51(March): 1-17.
Serageldin, I. (1996). Sustainability as opportunity and the problem of social capital. The Brown Journal of
World Affairs 3(2): 187-203.
26
Staub, E. (1989). The roots of evil: The origins of genocide and other group violence. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Staub, E. (in progress). A brighter future: Raising caring, nonviolent, optimally functioning children. (from
UMass Course Psychology 753 – Personality and Social Development). School of Psychology, University
of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Thomas, A., Chess, S., and Birch, H. G. (1970). The origin of personality. Scientific American, 223(2):
102-109.
Troy, M., and Sroufe, L. A. (1987). Victimization among preschoolers: Role of attachment relationship
history. Journal of the American Academy of Child Adolescent Psychology, 26(2): 166-172.
UN (2000 October). UN security council debate on women, peace and security. Stronger decision-making
role for women in peace processes is called for in day-long security council debate. Press Release SC/6937
– October 24. Refer to: www.un.org/News/Press/docs/ 2000/20001024.sc6937.doc.html [May 11, 2001].
Uphoff, N. (2000). Understanding social capital: Learning from the analysis and experience of participation. In P. Dasgupta and I. Serageldin (Eds.) Social capital: A multifaceted perspective (pp. 215-252). Sociological Perspective on Development Series. Washington, D. C.: World Bank.
Van den Boom, D. C., and Hoeksma, J. B. (1994). The effect of irritability on mother-infant interaction.
Developmental Psychology, 30(4): 581-590.
Wilson, E. O. (1975). Sociobiology: The new synthesis. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
27