Basis Of Social Solidarity Research Articles

PRINCIPLE OF (NON) CUMULATION, THAT IS, ABOUT THE CONFLUENCE OF THE RIGHT TO A RETIREMENT PENSION FROM THE GENERAL AND MILITARY SYSTEMS

Professional soldiers have their own social security system, separate from the general social insurance system, which provides social protection in the event of long service, total incapacity to serve and the death of the breadwinner (pension benefits). At the same time, a professional soldier can accumulate and receive two pensions from different systems, ie universal and reserve. However, the principle of accumulation of benefits based on the applicable provision is dedicated to a narrow group of entitled persons. The principle of non-cumulation is considered to be the basic and dominant one. It is an expression of the principle of risk solidarity in force in social insurance law and is not inconsistent with the constitutional principle of equality expressed in Art. 32 of the Polish Constitution. In the event of the overlapping of the right to several benefits specified in the Act, the pension authority is obliged to pay only one (higher) benefit, even if this right results from various acts, and the possibility of combining benefits must be clearly indicated in the provisions of law. Separation of the insurance and supply system allows each of these systems to fulfill separate obligations towards professional soldiers, not related to the general system. Maintaining the principle that for the same period of retirement pension insurance, two retirement benefits cannot be awarded simultaneously (Article 5 (2a) (2a) of the Pension Act). The exception to the principle of non-accumulation (ie the principle of collecting one benefit) in the case of a professional soldier remaining in service before January 2, 1999 is not determined by the date of admission to service, but the lack of the possibility to calculate the military pension taking into account the “civil” retirement age. The convergence of the right to benefits (from the general and military pension) with the parallel occurrence of these events is contrary to the constitutional principle of social justice. It is not socially just to deprive an insured person who has met the statutory requirements of the right to benefits solely on the basis of social solidarity. In such situations, a significant part of the retiree’s professional life is not reflected in the amount of received retirement benefits.

Ahmed Yesevî’nin Düşünce Sisteminde Hoşgörü ve Kültürel Çoğulculuk

Abstract Although Anatolian culture has a rich accumulation of values such as pluralism, equality, freedom and tolerance, it is difficult to argue that Turkey’s society and the current political institutions that benefit sufficiently from said accumulation and find solutions to their problems. We can say that the ideal of creating new social constructions caused by historical and social developments such as industrialization, urbanization and specialization by moving away from their own essence and values in this difficulty. In today, discussions on the concept of tolerance used as the Turkish equivalent of the concept of indulgence in the West and the concepts expressed as cohabitation, reconciliation, dialogue, pluralism in a time when factors such as different languages, religions, races, sects, beliefs and gender increase rapidly has gained momentum in Turkey. However, it is seen that the explanations and solution suggestions are handled by moving away from our cultural values, history and social fabric on the basis of reference to western sources. Ahmed Yesevi showed us how to constitute the fundamental premises of the ideal of “unity in diversity”, which has contributed to the integration of Anatolia with the thought system that he based on ages ago. We can see that the Turkish sheikh Ahmed Yesevi, in today’s geography where the ideal of “unity in diversity” can not be achieved, thanks to human love, cultural pluralism and understanding of tolerance, Anatolia has been able to integrate and spread Islam over three continents centuries ago. Mean while, rather than constructing the foundations of the idea of cultural pluralism and tolerance depending on the freedom of the individual in the context of today’s liberal thought tradition, it is an important guide that it maintains a tradition of teaching on the basis of social solidarity in accordance with traditional living conditions and cultures. Unfortunately, he does not sufficiently know the Turkish-Islamic world Sufi scholars and their basic philosophies of life. Whereupon it is significant to evaluate how the understanding of cultural pluralism and tolerance in Anatolia is based on the reference of our own cultural history and social structure by taking the Turkish sheikh Hoca Ahmed Yesevi as a reference. The important thing is to unearth and analyze the peculiar structure of each society’s own problems with a sociological imagination. Therefore, in this article, it is aimed to introduce the thought and philosophy of life of Turkish Sufis Ahmed Yesevi, which has profound effects on the spiritual life of today’s Turkish world. First of all, the life of the Turkish sheikh, Hodja Ahmed Yesevi, the education he received and the social structure of his time will be summarized. Then, the foundation of Hodja Ahmed Yesevi’s thought system and understanding of communication will be discussed in the context of cultural pluralism and tolerance. All of these will be evaluated by taking into consideration his thought system and the socio-cultural structure of the geography he lived.

Cultural nationalism and everyday resistance in an illiberal nationalising state: ethnic minority nationalism in Russia

AbstractEthnic minority nationalism has always been one of the most important subfields of nationalism studies, yet it lacks the consideration in illiberal settings. Limitations of civil liberties and restrictive legislation have undoubtedly affected the existence and the ways to express minority nationalism when it is considered a threat to authoritarian government, which is the case of the contemporary Russian Federation. The paper provides a methodological framework that helps to investigate ethnic minority nationalism when its direct articulation is restricted. It argues that the combination of a cultural nationalism approach and complexity theory can be a fruitful way to explore minority nationalism in an illiberal nationalising state using the case of Russian ethnic minorities. It also argues that the complex context of authoritarianism and market economy creates tipping points towards the growing importance of ethnic minority identification as a basis for social solidarity.

Religious politics and secular states: Egypt, India and the United States

This comparative analysis probes why conservative renderings of religious tradition in the United States, India, and Egypt remain so influential in the politics of these three ostensibly secular societies. The United States, Egypt, and India were quintessential models of secular modernity in the 1950s and 1960s. By the 1980s and 1990s, conservative Islamists challenged the Egyptian government, India witnessed a surge in Hindu nationalism, and the Christian right in the United States rose to dominate the Republican Party and large swaths of the public discourse. Using a nuanced theoretical framework that emphasizes the interaction of religion and politics, Scott W. Hibbard argues that three interrelated issues led to this state of affairs. First, as an essential part of the construction of collective identities, religion serves as a basis for social solidarity and political mobilization. Second, in providing a moral framework, religion's traditional elements make it relevant to modern political life. Third, and most significant, in manipulating religion for political gain, political elites undermined the secular consensus of the modern state that had been in place since the end of World War II. Together, these factors sparked a new era of right-wing religious populism in the three nations. Although much has been written about the resurgence of religious politics, scholars have paid less attention to the role of state actors in promoting new visions of religion and society. Religious Politics and Secular States fills this gap by situating this trend within long-standing debates over the proper role of religion in public life.

Rights, Identities and Democracy in an Enlarged European Union

The democratization of the former communist countries in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) has been predominantly understood as a process concerning the institutionalization of political communities based on civic and political rights, and the rule of law. The rights-based programmes were not, however, the only political programmes that informed the overall horizon and specific aims of the political transformation of societies in CEE, as programmes invoking ethno-cultural traditions as a basis of social solidarity for the new political community emerged more or less simultaneously. It might then be argued that the political transformations of post-communist societies have to do with two significant markers for political identities and social integration: A rights-based and a culture-based one. The distinction is equally reflected in normative political theory, which is predominantly engaged with two major questions: How to achieve the equality of all and how to provide recognition of difference. Both ‘liberal nationalism’ and ‘constitutional patriotism’ engage with this tension, and convincingly show the limits of either a rights- or a culture-based approach. It can be argued, however, that both are ultimately incapable of fully solving the problématique of cultural plurality, and that further steps are needed. Such steps include a different conception of culture, and the need for a participatory, inter-cultural political culture, including a principle of inter-cultural dialogue.

Moral Education and Cosmopolitanism

The central problem of citizenship and political culture in the `postnational constellation' is the cultivation and institutionalization of cosmopolitanism as a political identity. The cultivation of citizenship in the postnational constellation echoes the problem Durkheim confronted at the turn of the twentieth century, when he faced the task of developing a systematic programme of moral education as a basis for social solidarity in a secular national French republic; a programme that would perform the same functions of social integration previously organized in terms of a religious discourse. While nationalism provided a discourse of political identification throughout the twentieth century, critical theory and psychoanalysis (for example, the Frankfurt School's studies in prejudice and the authoritarian personality) have shown how nationalism has now become a problematic basis for political identification and citizenship. This article explores Habermas's and Beck's present problem through an examination of Kant and Durkheim. It suggests that an appropriate pedagogical model of cosmopolitanism, one that combines elements of transcendental and situated reason, may be found in Joyce's representation of Leopold Bloom; a pedagogical representation wherein transcendental ideals grounded in universal reason are combined with various discursive and communicative encounters with the Other, in cosmopolitanizing experiences of the workplace and organizational life, international travel and migration, and urban neighbourhoods and milieus.

Insurgent Identities: Class, Community, and Protest in Paris from 1848 to the Commune

By focusing on the less turbulent years in between the social upheavals of the Paris Commune of 1871 and the 1848 Revolution, Gould reveals that while class played a pivotal role in 1848, it was neighbourhood solidarity that was a decisive organizing force in 1871. Baron Haussmann's massive urban renovation projects between 1852 and 1868 dispersed workers from Paris' centre to newly annexed districts on the outskirts of the city. Residence rather than occupation quickly became the new basis of social solidarity. Drawing on evidence derived from trial documents, marriage certificates, reports of police spies and the popular press, Gould demonstrates that this fundamental rearrangement in the patterns of social life made possible a neighbourhood insurgent movement; whereas the insurgents of 1848 fought and died in defence of their status as workers, those of 1871 did so as members of a besieged urban community.

Nationalism and aggression

The term "nationalism," in its neutral, general sense, refers to the set of ideas and sentiments that forms the conceptual framework of national identity. National identity is one among many, often coexisting and overlapping identities occupational, religious, tribal, linguistic, territorial, class, gender, and more. But in the modern world, national identity constitutes what may be called the "fundamental identity," the identity that is believed to define the very essence of the individual, which the other identities one may have modify but slightly, and as a result these other identities are considered secondary. The world community today is a community of "nations"; modem societies are "nations" by definition, those societies that do not view themselves as nations are believed to be not (yet) modern, and, in many cases, loyalty to the "nation" lies at the basis of social solidarity and represents the strongest motive behind political mobilization. All contemporary "nations" are derived from entities that previously possessed quite different identities. The first nation was England, which became one in the sixteenth century. The United States of America, France, and Russia defined themselves as such in the eighteenth century. Most others followed in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.1

Durkheim's Concept of Justice and Its Relationship to Social Solidarity

Durkheim's concept of justice is defined and explored in the context of his quest for establishing a science of moral facts. Justice is supposed to be the basis of moral order in modern societies. Durkheim's criticisms of charity as the basis of social solidarity are explored. His Jewish background is related to his emphasis on justice as well as his scorn for charity as the basis for social solidarity. Implications for social theory are discussed briefly.

Durkheim's "Cult of the Individual" and the Moral Reconstitution of Society

The significance of Durkheim's lifelong concern with the development of individualism in society is undeniable. Beginning with his critique of the pathological egoistic individualism of Herbert Spencer and the English utilitarians, Durkheim's analysis of individualism culminates in his notion of the cult of the individual. Originally conceptualized as neither a true social bond nor a possible basis of social solidarity, individualism is eventually seen by Durkheim as the sole surviving form of mechanical solidarity in modern society. In attempting to explain the moral basis of modern society, Durkheim struggles with the question, what is the relationship between the moral specialization or diversity associated with organic solidarity and the morality of the collective conscience, which becomes focused on the cult of the individual? Tracing the evolution of Durkheim's thought reveals his shift from a structural to an idealist orientation as well as his proposals for social reform in modern society.

Durkheim and Individualism: A Comment on Messner

In his attempt at testing a Durkheimian model of relationship between societal development and homicide, Steven Messner committed an error which resulted in theoretical confusion and a false empirical conclusion. Relying on Anthony Giddens' (a, b) interpretation of The Division of Labor in Society, Messner reasoned that level of solidarity found in societies as they developed would not vary significantly, but would only change in type, from mechanical to organic. Thus, homicide rates, as reflections of degree of social solidarity, should remain relatively constant as societies develop economically. Messner added that trend toward organic solidarity was typically accompanied by a movement toward social equality and rise of moral individualism. It was clear from Messner's exposition that equality should be related positively to solidarity and negatively to homicide. Confusion arose, however, over part played by moral individualism in theoretical model and in Messner's empirical test. At first, Messner quite clearly presents moral individualism as supporting organic solidarity and, by implication, as having a negative effect on homicide rates. Moral individualism, he emphasizes (following Giddens), is not same as egoism. In fact, distinction between two is the key to understanding Durkheim's theory of development. Egoism, as pursuit of self-interest without regard for welfare or rights of others, could never be basis for social solidarity. Moral individualism, emphasizing concern for rights of others, could promote cohesion, and, in fact, was necessary to effective operation of organic solidarity. Giddens (a, 79-80) also notes that moral individualism is one area in which conscience collective (associated with mechanical solidarity) becomes strengthened as organic solidarity expands. So, should not moral individualism be related positively to organic solidarity and negatively to homicide? It would seem so. But on next

The Basis of Social Solidarity

Previous articleNext article FreeThe Basis of Social SolidarityJ. Mark BaldwinJ. Mark Baldwin Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by American Journal of Sociology Volume 15, Number 6May, 1910 Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/211844 Views: 472Total views on this site Citations: 2Citations are reported from Crossref PDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Michael Olusegun Afolabi Silent Public Health Disasters: An Anthropo-ecological Approach, (Aug 2018): 97–141.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92765-7_4Louis D. Hartson The Psychology of the Club; A Study in Social Psychology, The Pedagogical Seminary 18, no.33 (Sep 1911): 353–414.https://doi.org/10.1080/08919402.1911.10532794