Without patriarchal laws and legally permitted gender discrimination, it becomes clearer that a powerful draw back to gender equality springs from norms about gender identity, concepts of masculinity and femininity, and tacit rules of interaction between women and men. This article offers a theoretical perspective to analyze hidden power in gender relationships. The conceptualization is based on research into marital power carried out in the Netherlands. The focus of this research was not on the way the “power cake” is divided up between spouses but rather on the operation of power processes and mechanisms that can explain why change toward gender equality in marriage is so slow.

This book brings together two traditions of thinking about social ties: sociological theory on solidarity and anthropological theory on gift exchange. The purpose of the book is to explore both how theoretical traditions may complete and enrich each other, and how they may illuminate transformations in solidarity. The main argument, supported by empirical illustrations, is that a theory of solidarity should incorporate some of the core insights from anthropological gift theory. The book presents a theoretical model covering both positive and negative - selective and excluding - aspects and consequences of solidarity. It is concluded that over the past century solidarity has undergone a fundamental transformation, from Durkheim's 'organic' solidarity to a type of solidarity which can be called 'segmented': separate, autonomous social segments connecting with other segments, no longer out of necessity and mutual dependency but on the basis of individual choice. Solidarity has, thereby, become more noncomittal.

In this paper the sociological significance of informal giving in the Netherlands is addressed. Does informal giving in any way compensate for the failing efficacy of official politics to counteract social inequality? Empirical results are presented from a study about informal giving in the Netherlands. Material as well as immaterial gifts were distinguished: presents, money gifts, food, shelter, care or help, and blood and organs. The data showed informal giving to be ruled by reciprocity: gifts are followed by return gifts in most cases. However, reciprocity appeared to have a positive as well as a negative side: those who give many gifts, receive many gifts in return, but those who do not give much - often because their social and material conditions do not allow them to do so - are also the poorest receivers: the unemployed and the elderly in our sample. It is concluded that informal giving does not compensate for existing social inequality. Informal giving mainly benefits those who already receive much; those who need it most, receive the least. Reciprocity, then, may be considered `a principle of exclusion'.

No abstract

We challenge the common idea that solidarity has positive, whereas conflict has negative implications, by investigating intergenerational ambivalencedefined as the co-occurrence of solidarity and conflictand relationship quality. We use representative data on non-coresident adult children and parents with high levels of contact (weekly or more; N = 2,694 dyads). Results show that over half of high contact parent-child ties can be characterized as ambivalent and of high-quality. The likelihood of negative instead of positive ambivalent ties is greater if adult children have few exit options because they are socially isolated or have a small number of siblings. Ties between fathers and sons, and those between caring daughters and aging parents also have a high probability of belonging to the negative ambivalent type.

The relevance of the concept of intergenerational ambivalence for studying changes in family relations can be questioned. The viability of the intergenerational solidarity model is, however, confirmed. The concept of intergenerational ambivalence might be further explored in qualitative studies on family change.

Children (n = 133, aged 8–13) were interviewed about helping situations that systematically varied in recipient’s need for help and the costs for the helper. In situations where helping a peer involved low costs, children perceived a moral obligation to help that was independent of peer norms, parental authority, and reciprocity considerations. When helping a peer involved high costs this over powered the perceived obligation to help, but only in situations involving low need and when in line with reciprocity. When both need and costs were high, younger children expressed stronger moral indignation while older children were less negative and reasoned in terms of other solutions. Furthermore, stronger moral indignation was related to more advanced social perspective taking skills when need and costs were high.

No abstract