Suchergebnisse

Nonviolent action is best known as a kind of protest tactic used where neither the vote nor the gun seems to offer effective methods of achieving the desired social change. Those using this tactic may or may not have a general commitment to nonviolence. The author argues that the objectives of nonviolent action must become broader and more ambitious and that through a variety of coordinated efforts we should seek to 'institutionalize nonviolence' and to generalize nonviolent behaviors throughout society. Such an effort involves the transformation of all institutions implicated in the practice of direct or structural violence. The role of the State in the existing global violence system is especially criticized. The author outlines eight important components in the process she has labelled the 'institutionalization of nonviolence'.

Social problems are to be explained only by examining race or color as part of the dialectical processes of interaction between the economic, political, & cultural forces which comprise the social structure. 3 crucial influences are noticed: the immigrant-indigenous situation, the colonial-metropolitan configuration, & the variable of color as an ascriptive criterion. It is assumed that if racist consequences accrue to institutional laws, customs, or practices, the institution is racist whether or not the individuals maintaining those practices have racist intentions. Measures were taken in 1962, 1965, & 1968 limiting & restricting the entry of people from the Commonwealth nations. The regulations are both racist & class discriminatory. Of particular note is the contradiction between the economic need for nonindigenous labor & the political necessity to appear to keep out black immigrants. Commonwealth immigration restrictions have meant that the black population in Britain is now less an integral part of the society than in the years of greatest immigration. The new provisions are a mark of failure to confront racism & will make that task more difficult. L. DeForge.

The institutionalization of sport forms is normally seen as involving such pro ceses as (increasing) bureaucratization and formalization; leading to the characteriza tion of sport in terms such as "technical efficiency" and generally ''instrumental orientations" on the part of those involved. However there is nothing logically ine vitable in institutionalization processes leading sport progressively in these direc tions. Cases can be found — even in compleN industrial societies — in which value patten,s emphasizing non-competitivveness and rejecting high degrees of formaliza tion and organization are institutionalized. This article discusses the institutionalization of sport in terms of two contrasting types of sport subculture; play-sport subcultures and athletic-sport subcultures. Certain conditions are identified which are conducive to the development of each of these "types" of sport.

This article proposes an authority based conception of the phenomenon of institutionalization. Whereas most social science writing on the subject focuses either upon the organization's internal structural integration (such criteria as well-boundedness, universalism, complexity, and coherence often are employed) or upon its ability to cope with environmental challenges (the concepts of adaptability and autonomy have been suggested), I propose that an organization'soffensive capabilitiesvis à vis environmental actors be viewed as a measurement of its institutionalization.Principally based upon fieldwork in New Zealand bolstered by additional research in Scandinavia, Britain, and Hawaii, this study focuses upon the institutionalization of the ombudsman—an increasingly popular bureaucratic control mechanism. A sociometric analysis of ombudsman-bureaucratic interaction is undertaken, and four questions are investigated: How extensive is the interaction? How consequential is the threat posed by complaints? What demands does the ombudsman make? How cooperative is the agency in responding? The investigation provides answers which are indicative of the ombudsman's successful institutionalization. That is, the office performs its mission and has established itself with the environmental actors as an authority figure.

The concern is with the relationship between soc sci & soc policy, & the ethical questions involved. It is noted that the soc sci's have to some extent displaced the humanities as a general educ'al field: they are sought in part for what they can supply in the way of a broad approach to the understanding of processes which affect all alert & participating citizens in a modern or modernizing community. Whether the soc sci's should continue to follow the model of the natural sci's is one of the questions that need to be dealt with. Perhaps soc sci U dept's could act in some respect as laboratories of org'al & human potential, as Sch's of citizenship, of parenthood, of psychol'al or sexual adjustment, proving grounds for diverse ways of living & of learning or community service centers rather than as orthodox degree-granting & standard-setting instit's. A regular interchange between theory & practice would be useful in this context, whereby students, after an initial training period, would go out to perform various tasks, return to their Sch, go out again, etc. This would not only reassociate the U with society but ensure that the U does not lag behind or deform emergent soc reality by assimilating its uncertain trends in excessively structured, abstract form. In some countries the soc sci's are already allowing for such an interchange for theory & practice, eg, in Poland, where they attempt to mould soc awareness & organize group action. M. Maxfield.