Collectivities without Intention

Cripps, Elizabeth

doi:10.1111/j.1467-9833.2010.01517.x

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A community's norms and beliefs hold its members together. In the context of preschool, children's communities may be more or less durable and tight and have more or less explicit norms and values [40].…”

Section: Communitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social Sustainability through Children’s Expressions of Belonging in Peer Communities

Johansson

Rosell

2021

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this article is to explore the social dimension of sustainable development through children’s expressions of belonging in peer communities in preschool. Social sustainability and sustainable communities emphasize practices, human activity, and interactions that are equitable, inclusive, and sustainable, and preschool provides children with experiences of participation in collective groups and networks. Belonging to a community is an existential need and belonging, itself, is a relational phenomenon. Belonging is connected to power; the notion of “us” sets boundaries and creates a “them”. Based on Yuval-Davis’ analytical concepts and using video observation of children’s (aged 3–5) free play, this article explores children’s belonging in peer communities. This study contributes new knowledge in the field of social sustainability by illuminating communities of belonging built on closeness, conflict/negotiations, and joyfulness. Together, these elements embody experiences of importance to children’s belonging. A common thread running through these communities is the relationship between the individual and the community.

show abstract

Section: Communitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social Sustainability through Children’s Expressions of Belonging in Peer Communities

Johansson

Rosell

2021

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…6May describes shared responsibility as each individual’s part of the responsibility for harms caused by the actions of a collective. For discussion of what sorts of “collectives” these might be and of their potential responsibility, see Cripps (2011), Doan (2020), French (2020), Fyfe (2020), Isaacs (2014; 2017), Rovane (2014), and Shockley (2020). …”

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Climate Change and the Politics of Responsibility

Goodhart¹

2022

Perspect. polit.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article theorizes the politics of responsibility—activist struggles over who will be held accountable for structural injustices like the “catastrophic” changes underway in our climate. To do so, it develops a politicized conception of responsibility, one that treats responsibility as a social construct and a terrain of contestation. Building on the work of feminist philosophers of responsibility and on the praxis of “kayaktivism,” this politicized account treats responsibility as a social practice of interrogating and contesting shared ethico-political judgments. On this understanding, taking responsibility or stepping up is a way of making responsibility—literally of (re)constructing those social practices and judgments through conscious efforts to persuade others, challenge prevailing norms and interpretations, change people’s beliefs about how the world works, revise popular expectations of social actors and institutions, and disrupt business as usual. The article highlights the centrality of norms and power to social practices of responsibility and suggests alternative perspectives on familiar philosophical worries about blame, complexity and agency, and justification.

show abstract

“…Her idea is that a 'set of individuals constitutes a collectivity if and only if those individuals are mutually dependent for the achievement or satisfaction of some common interest or shared purpose, goal or fundamental interest, whether or not they acknowledge it themselves'. 18 This sort of mutual-dependency-based informal group is meant to lay down mutual obligations between the members of such a group, e.g. with respect to environmental problems or economic cooperation.…”

Section: Sharing Features and Causal Capacitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Toleration and informal groups: How does the formal dimension affect groups’ capacity to tolerate?

Zuolo

2013

European Journal of Political Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The 'agents' of toleration can be divided into three categories: public institutions, groups and individuals. If it is mostly accepted that both public institutions and individuals are capable of toleration, it is not clear that such a capacity can be attributed to groups, although in daily discourse we seem ready to say that a certain social group is (in)tolerant. This article aims to address this issue by investigating the relationship between collective agency and social groups. Formal groups (e.g. corporations) have internal rules and collectively recognized decision-making procedures that constitute a collective behaviour. However, it is not clear if and in what sense such a capacity is also upheld by informal groups. This article discusses some competing criteria to define informal groups and proposes the shared convictions criterion. In conclusion, this criterion is applied to toleration-related issues, so as to reconcile our ordinary understanding of groups' toleration with a more technical analysis.

show abstract

Collectivities without Intention

Cited by 4 publications

References 4 publications

Social Sustainability through Children’s Expressions of Belonging in Peer Communities

Social Sustainability through Children’s Expressions of Belonging in Peer Communities

Climate Change and the Politics of Responsibility

Toleration and informal groups: How does the formal dimension affect groups’ capacity to tolerate?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About