Suchergebnisse

PurposeMuch of the contemporary literature surrounding the barriers to community self‐help in the advanced economies has placed great emphasis on capital‐orientated barriers, such as a household's access to financial capital, time capital, human capital and social capital. Focusing explicitly on one‐to‐one mutual aid, and drawing on rich qualitative data from two urban communities in the UK, this paper aims to re‐visit the barriers to participation that prevent households from doing more for others in their community. In particular, the paper explores a range of entrenched social taboos that underpin the contested spaces of mutual aid. These include: "being aburden to others", "false expectations/ inappropriate gestures", "being taken advantage of" and "being unable to say no". Furthermore, the paper also addresses the potentially problematic implications that the nature of work undertaken through mutual aid has for the social relationships that are involved. Despite finding previous UK‐based research findings focused on capital barriers to be highly appropriate when considering mutual aid, the paper argues that the current emphasis placed on these barriers in policy and practice is disproportionate. To address this imbalance, the paper concludes that a greater awareness of socially‐orientated barriers must be forthcoming if a more nuanced and accurate reading of mutual aid is to be achieved.Design/methodology/approachThe research that is used to inform the findings of the paper is drawn from 100 in‐depth semi‐structured questionnaires conducted within households in the urban wards of West Knighton and Saffron in the city of Leicester, UK. The methods are designed to generate both quantitative and qualitative findings that engage explicitly with the informal work practices of households.FindingsThe paper explores a range of entrenched social taboos that underpin the contested spaces of mutual. These include: "being a burden to others", "false expectations/inappropriate gestures", "being taken advantage of" and "being unable to say no". The main conclusions argue that both social barriers and capital‐based barriers to participation in mutual aid must be given more equal consideration in future academic and policy‐making discourse.Research limitations/implicationsThe qualitative nature of the research makes it difficult to meaningfully extrapolate the findings beyond the case studies used.Practical implicationsThe research focused on the informal coping strategy of mutual aid offers a deeper insight into this coping strategy. In exploring the various capital and social barriers to participation, the findings offer ways for popular, academic and political communities to reflect on their own approaches to informal volunteerism, and if appropriate these can inform future approaches tasked with tackling these barriers and harnessing mutual aid in society.Social implicationsIn discussing the barriers to participation, the paper gives new insight into the contested geographies of mutual aid at the household and community level. To successfully overcome these barriers and further promote mutualism and community self‐help is seen to be both desirable and necessary particularly following the formal economic crisis that has raised serious questions for the economy and society in recent years.Originality/valueThe research not only adds robustness to previous emerging findings related to the resource‐based barriers to participation in mutual aid, but it also constructively asserts the relevance and centrality of social taboos. The paper argues that these social taboos must form a core point of analyses whenever barriers to greater levels of participation in mutual aid are discussed.

PurposeUsing new empirical data from the UK focused on mutual aid and reciprocity, the purpose of this paper is to offer robust challenges to the logic and dominance of the commodification thesis. In finding mutual aid to be a significant coping strategy to get household tasks completed, in both affluent and deprived communities, the paper addresses the important question as to "why" mutual aid is so pervasive. Using qualitative insights as to "why" respondents engaged in mutual aid and reciprocity a considered response to this question, revolving around the instinctive and social nature of reciprocity, is made.Design/methodology/approachThe research draws on previous Household Work Practice Studies, which have been influential in exploring the geographies of community self‐help. An in‐depth semi‐structured questionnaire, which adapts and develops previous successful approaches focused on mutual aid and volunteering, was employed across 100 households in two neighbouring wards in Leicester, UK.FindingsThe research found that the non‐commodified sphere of mutual aid was employed as a central coping strategy within the two communities investigated. The suggestion is that the extent of mutual aid in both deprived neighbourhoods and affluent neighbourhoods has been underestimated in previous research. However, the strength of the methodology resides with its understanding of the rationales being participation in mutual aid. This suggests that the natural and instinctive nature of reciprocity, and the social role that mutual aid plays within kin and non‐kin relations, helps explain its pervasiveness in the advanced economies.Research limitations/implicationsThe methodology and methods were designed to explicitly harness a deep qualitative understanding of the relationship and attitudes that households adopt toward their informal coping strategies, and mutual aid in particular. Thus though this approach has uncovered rich qualitative data to inform the key arguments, the quantitative findings must be treated as speculative rather than conclusive.Practical implicationsIn undermining the commodification thesis, the paper concludes that alternate and better approaches toward harnessing "the economic" in society must be pursued by policy makers. Crucially economic policy which promotes co‐operation over competition within society should be seen as earning the qualification of "advanced" economic practice.Originality/valueThis is the first paper which explicitly looks at the pervasive nature of mutual aid within the advanced economies, using primary data from Leicester. The value is seen on three levels: first, the original arguments made which highlight the pervasiveness of this informal coping strategy; second, the manner with which these contemporary insights are then contextualised with reference to the wider literature; third, the way in which this research adds to the calls to fundamentally re‐think our dominant attitudes (and policies) toward the commodified and non‐commodified spheres of work in the advanced economies.