Search results

Summary This essay aims to contribute to the contemporary debate around the historical legitimacy of the concepts of political and civil religion through an unusual path: analysing not the debate itself but the political reaffirmation of the concepts by historians Paul E. Gottfried and Enzo Traverso, who apply them to the post-marxist left and to the cult of the holocaust, respectively. The conclusion is that the concepts of political and civil religion, when used above all controversial, give rise to many of the historical flaws attributed to them by critics. However, updating its political potential can indicate significant historical mutations in the secularised world. ; Resumen Este ensayo pretende contribuir al debate contemporáneo en torno a la legitimidad historiográfica de los conceptos de religión política y religión civil por medio de una vía inusual: analizando no el debate en sí sino la reapropiación política de los conceptos por parte de los historiadores Paul E. Gottfried y Enzo Traverso, quienes los aplican a la izquierda posmarxista y al culto a la memoria del holocausto, respectivamente. La conclusión es que los conceptos de religión política y religión civil, cuando son usados de manera ante todo polémica, dan pie a muchos de los defectos historiográficos que sus críticos les atribuyen. Sin embargo, actualizar su potencial político nos puede indicar mutaciones históricas significativas del mundo secularizado.

Este ensayo pretende contribuir al debate contemporáneo en torno a la legitimidad historiográfica de los conceptos de religión política y religión civil por medio de una vía inusual: analizando no el debate en sí sino la reapropiación política de los conceptos por parte de los historiadores Paul E. Gottfried y Enzo Traverso, quienes los aplican a la izquierda post-marxista y al culto a la memoria del holocausto respectivamente. La conclusión es que los conceptos de religión política y religión civil, cuando son usados de manera eminentemente polémica, dan pie a muchos de los defectos historiográficos que sus críticos les atribuyen. Sin embargo, actualizar su potencial político nos puede indicar mutaciones históricas significativas del mundo secularizado.

Purpose
Antecedents and influences of workplace incivility have recently been studied in many areas of research but there is still a lack of consideration for the impact of culture. Theoretical considerations for the present research are based on the cultural dimensions of power distance and tightness/looseness because the collective levels of power distance are similar between Korea and Spain, but the collective levels of tightness/looseness are different between the two countries. The purpose of this paper is to examine whether individuals' occupational position affects their normative reactions to incivility differently.


Design/methodology/approach
Participant (victim)'s (those who react to uncivil behaviors) social power (low vs high) and perpetrator's (those who exhibit uncivil behaviors) social power (low vs high) were experimentally manipulated; all participants were randomly assigned to one of four perpetrator × victim conditions in relation to hierarchical positions (Ntot = 467).


Findings
The results suggest that the level of social and personal acceptability was greater either among Koreans than Spanish at a collective level or among people who endorsed higher power distance and tightness values. All in all, the findings highlight cultural influences on the importance of social hierarchy as a factor that can impact the people's normative reactions to incivility.


Originality/value
The findings broaden our understanding of the psychology of employees in relation to incivility, by simultaneously considering the influences of culture (power distance and tightness/looseness) and social power.

Economic inequality has been found to have pernicious effects, reducing mental and physical health, decreasing societal cohesion, and fueling support for nativist parties and illiberal autocratic leaders. We start this review with an outline of what social identity theorizing offers to the study of inequality. We then articulate four hypotheses that can be derived from the social identity approach: the fit hypothesis, the wealth‐categorization hypothesis, the wealth‐stereotype hypothesis, and the sociostructural hypothesis. We review the empirical literature that tests these hypotheses by exploring the effect of economic inequality, measured objectively by metrics such as the Gini coefficient as well as subjectively in terms of perceptions of economic inequality, on wealth categorization (of others and the self), the desire for more wealth and status, intergroup hostility, attitudes towards immigrants, prosocial behavior, stereotyping, the wish for a strong leader, the endorsement of conspiracy theories, and collective action intentions. As we will show, this research suggests that economic inequality may have even more far‐reaching consequences than commonly believed. Indeed, investigating the effects of economic inequality on citizens' sociopolitical behaviors may be increasingly important in today's turbulent political and social landscape.