I'm interested in exploring the following phenomenon in relation to the state and religion.
I enjoy the succinctness of wikipedia but that is of course only the beginning of a deeper research.
Authority
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about authority as a concept. For other uses, see Authority (disambiguation).
This article is missing citations or needs footnotes. Please help add inline citations to guard against copyright violations and factual inaccuracies. (November 2008) |
Authority, from the Latin word auctoritas, means invention, advice, opinion, influence, or command. Essentially authority is imposed by superiors upon inferiors either by force of arms (structural authority) or by force of argument (sapiential authority). Usually authority has components of both compulsion and persuasion. For this reason, as used in Roman law, authority is differentiated potestas legal or military power and imperium persuasive political rank or standing.
[edit]
Legitimate Authority
In government, authority is often used interchangeably with "power". However, their meanings differ: while "power" is defined as "the ability to influence somebody to do something that he/she would not have done", "authority" refers to a claim of legitimacy, the justification and right to exercise that power. For example, whilst a mob has the power to punish a criminal, for example by lynching, people who believe in the rule of law consider that only a court of law has the authority to order punishment.
Since the emergence of social sciences, authority has been a subject of research in a variety of empirical settings: the family (parental authority), small groups (informal authority of leadership), intermediate organizations, such as schools, churches, armies, industries and bureaucracies (organizational and bureaucratic authorities) and society-wide or inclusive organizations, ranging from the most primitive tribal society to the modern nation-state and intermediate organization (political authority).
The definition of authority in contemporary social science is a matter of debate. According to Michaels, in the Encyclopedia of Social Sciences, authority is the capacity, innate or acquired for exercising ascendancy over a group. Other scientists, however, argue that authority is not a capacity but a relationship. It is sanctioned power, institutionalized power.
In political philosophy, the jurisdiction of political authority, the location of sovereignty, the balancing of freedom and authority (cf. Cristi 2005), and the requirements of political obligations have been core questions from Plato and Aristotle to the present. In many democratic societies, there is an ongoing discussion regarding the legitimate extent of governmental authority in general. In the United States, for instance, there is a widespread belief that the political system as it was instituted by the Founding Fathers should accord the populace as much freedom as reasonable, and that government should limit its authority accordingly.
In religion, there is a tendency to act in the belief that what will result will be different than what would have happened had the subservient act(e.g. prayer, meditation, service to others, etc.) not been performed. What one does in expectation of meeting with the approval of the divine is derived from some means of obtained faith. The faith comes by being affected by the authoritative direction of the divine. Authoritative sources in religion communicate their direction through commandments and/or expressed approval of behaviour deemed to be acceptable or beneficial, with the expectation that the subject of this didactic process will use wisdom and understanding in their actions of service.
[edit]
Weber on Authority
Max Weber, in his sociological and philosophical work, identified and distinguished three types of legitimate domination (Herrschaft in German, which generally means 'domination' or 'rule'), that have sometimes been rendered in English translation as types of authority, because domination isn't seen as a political concept in the first place. Weber defined domination (authority) as the chance of commands being obeyed by a specifiable group of people. Legitimate authority is that which is recognized as legitimate and justified by both the ruler and the ruled.
Weber divided legitimate authority into three types:
0.The first type discussed by Weber is Rational-legal authority. It is that form of authority which depends for its legitimacy on formal rules and established laws of the state, which are usually written down and are often very complex. The power of the rational legal authority is mentioned in the constitution. Modern societies depend on legal-rational authority. Government officials are the best example of this form of authority, which is prevalent all over the world.
.The second type of authority is Traditional authority, which derives from long-established customs, habits and social structures. When power passes from one generation to another, then it is known as traditional authority. The right of hereditary monarchs to rule furnishes an obvious example. The Tudor dynasty in England and the ruling families of Mewar, in Rajasthan (India) are some examples of traditional authority.
0.The third form of authority is Charismatic authority. Here, the charisma of the individual or the leader plays an important role. Charismatic authority is that authority which is derived from "the gift of grace" or when the leader claims that his authority is derived from a "higher power" (e.g. God or natural law or rights) or "inspiration", that is superior to both the validity of traditional and rational-legal authority and followers accept this and are willing to follow this higher or inspired authority, in the place of the authority that they have hitherto been following. Examples in this regard can be NT Rama Rao, a matinee idol, who went on to become one of the most powerful Chief Ministers of Andhra Pradesh.
History has witnessed several social movements or revolutions, against a system of traditional or legal-rational authority, which are usually started by Charismatic authorities. Webber states that what distinguishes authority, from coercion, force and power on the one hand and leadership, persuasion and influence on the other hand, is legitimacy. Superiors, he states, feel that they have a right to issue commands; subordinates perceive an obligation to obey. Social scientists[who?] agree that authority is but one of several resources available to incumbents in formal positions.[citation needed] For example, a Head of State is dependent upon a similar nesting of authority. His legitimacy must be acknowledged, not just by citizens, but by those who control other valued resources: his immediate staff, his cabinet, military leaders and in the long run, the administration and political apparatus of the entire society.
[edit]
Authority and the State
This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (November 2009) |
Every state has a number of institutions which exercise authority based on longstanding practices. Apart from this, every state sets up agencies which are competent in dealing with one particular matter. All this is set up within its charter. One example would be a port authority like the Port of London. They are usually created by special legislation and are run by a board of directors. Several agencies and institutions are created along the same lines and they exercise authority in certain matters. They are usually required to be self-supporting through property taxes or other forms of collection or fees for services.
[edit]
See also
Look up authority in Wiktionary, the free dictionary. |
[edit]
References
0.Stuart Lachs, Means of Authorization: Establishing Hierarchy in Ch'an/Zen Buddhism in America (1999)
[edit]
External links
Look up authority in Wiktionary, the free dictionary. |
Social influence
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Social influence occurs when an individual's thoughts, feelings or actions are affected by other people. Social influence takes many forms and can be seen in conformity, socialization, peer pressure, obedience, leadership, persuasion, sales, and marketing. In 1958, Harvard psychologist, Herbert Kelman identified three broad varieties of social influence.[1]
0.Compliance is when people appear to agree with others, but actually keep their dissenting opinions private.
0.Identification is when people are influenced by someone who is liked and respected, such as a famous celebrity or a favorite uncle.
Morton Deutsch and Harold Gerard described two psychological needs that lead humans to conform to the expectations of others. These include our need to be right (informational social influence), and our need to be liked (normative social influence).[2] Informational influence is an influence to accept information from another as evidence about reality. Informational influence comes into play when people are uncertain, either because stimuli are intrinsically ambiguous or because there is social disagreement. Normative influence is an influence to conform to the positive expectations of others. In terms of Kelman's typology, normative influence leads to public compliance, whereas informational influence leads to private acceptance.
[edit]
Factors
[edit]
Charisma
Main article: Charisma
Social influence can also be described as power - the ability to influence a person/group of people to one's own will. Usually people who possess beauty, significant sums of money, good jobs and so on will possess social influence on other, "ordinary" people. So even if the person doesn't possess any "real" or political power but possesses the things listed above (good looks, money, etc.), he could persuade other people into doing something. However, good looks are not solely why attractive people are able to exert more influence than average looking people, e.g. confidence is the by-product of good looks. Therefore, the individual's self-esteem and perceived persona is the critical factor in determining the amount of influence one exerts.
[edit]
Bully pulpit
Main article: Bully pulpit
Those with access to the media may use this access in an attempt to influence the public. For example, a politician may use speeches to persuade the public to support issues that he or she does not have the power to impose on the public. This is often referred to as using the "bully pulpit".
Another example would be movie stars, who do not usually possess any political power but are familiar to many of the world's citizens and therefore possess social status. They get a lot of media coverage and they have many enthusiastic fans. Stars sometimes use their access the broadcast media (a limited access, one-to-many communication) to send an unexpected non-entertainment message, drawing large amounts of extra attention quickly to a subject.
[edit]
Peer pressure
Main article: Peer pressure
In the case of peer pressure, a person is convinced to do something (such as illegal drugs) which they might not want to do, but which they perceive as "necessary" to keep a positive relationship with other people, such as their friends.
[edit]
Psychological manipulation
Main article: Psychological manipulation
Psychological manipulation refers to attempts to change another person using methods which are exploitative, abusive, devious, deceptive, sexual, insidious or otherwise unfair. Manipulation is always one-sided, unbalanced or unsymmetrical. Manipulation advances the interests and furthers the goals of the manipulator only, often at the victim's expense.
[edit]
Reputation
Main article: Reputation
Those perceived as experts may exert social influence as a result of their perceived expertise. This involves credibility, a form of social influence from which one draws upon the notion of trust. People believe an individual to be credible for a variety of reasons, such as perceived experience, attractiveness, etc. Additionally, pressure to maintain one's reputation and not be viewed as fringe may increase the tendency to agree with the group, known as groupthink.[3]
[edit]
Emotions
In 2009, a study concluded that fear increases the chance of agreeing with the group, while romance or lust increases the chance of going against the group. When love strikes in a group the two who are together feel like they have to make their own stand and that is what mainly causes them to disagree.[4]
[edit]
Social trends
In his book, The Tipping Point, Malcolm Gladwell discusses the way new ideas are transmitted by social influence. New products or fashions are introduced by innovators, who tend to be creative and nonconforming. Then early adopters join in, followed by the early majority. By this time, a substantial number of people are using the idea or product, and normative and informational influence encourages others to conform as well. The early majority is followed by a second group that Gladwell calls the late majority, and then finally by the laggards, who tend to be highly conventional and resistant to change.[5]
[edit]
Social Structure
There are varying social structures within online communities that determine the interaction between influencer and follower.[6] The following are classifications of social structures in which influencers operate:
0.Pyramid - Reciprocity is not the primary objective in a pyramid-shaped social structure. Typically users have a passive relationship with one another. Often cited as a prime example of this social structure is Twitter. Influencers such as CNN and the New York Times garner millions of followers. It is these followers that provide the support structure for the influencers (the capstone to the pyramid). The more followers a user has, the larger their pyramid stands.
0.Circular - The central element in a circular social structure is reciprocity. Consider the analogy to Ring Around the Rosie. Users can identify and communicate with everyone in their immediate circle. Facebook is an often-cited example of a circular social structure. Where Twitter you might follow 300 brands, typically Facebook users befriend only a select number of people or brands.
0.Hybrid - This social structure combines the circular and pyramid-shaped community framework. Users will form micro-communities based on particular websites or topics. Digg is an example of a hybrid social structure. Within a category, there will emerge a tight group of influencers that band together to promote content.
[edit]
See also
[edit]
References
0.^ Kelman, H. (1958). Compliance, identification, and internalization: Three processes of attitude change. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 1, 51-60.
0.^ Deutsch, M. & Gerard, H. B. (1955). A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 629-636.
0.^ EurekAlert. (2009). Fear or romance could make you change your mind, U of Minnesota study finds.
0.^ Gladwell, M. (2000). The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference, first published by Little Brown. ISBN 0-316-31696-2
[edit]
Further reading
Cialdini, Robert B. (2001). ‘‘Influence: Science and practice (4th ed.)’’.
Bystander effect
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about the psychological phenomenon. For the bystander effect in radiobiology, see Bystander effect (radiobiology).
This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (September 2009) |
The bystander effect or Genovese syndrome is a social psychological phenomenon that refers to cases where individuals do not offer help in an emergency situation when other people are present. The probability of help has in the past been thought to be inversely related to the number of bystanders; in other words, the greater the number of bystanders, the less likely it is that any one of them will help.
[edit]
Social psychology research
The bystander effect was first demonstrated in the laboratory by John Darley and Bibb Latane in 1968.[1] These researchers launched a series of experiments that resulted in one of the strongest and most replicable effects in social psychology. In a typical experiment, the participant is either alone or among a group of other participants or confederates. An emergency situation is then staged — examples include smoke pouring from a vent in the room, a person falling and becoming injured, a student having an epileptic seizure, etc. The researchers then measure how long it takes the participants to act, and whether or not they intervene at all. These experiments virtually always find that the presence of others inhibits helping, often by a large margin.[2] I There are, in fact, many reasons why bystanders in groups fail to act in emergency situations, but social psychologists have focused most of their attention on two major factors. According to a basic principle of social influence, bystanders monitor the reactions of other people in an emergency situation to see if others think that it is necessary to intervene. Since everyone is doing exactly the same thing (nothing), they all conclude from the inaction of others that help is not needed. This is an example of pluralistic ignorance or social proof. The other major obstacle to intervention is known as diffusion of responsibility. This occurs when observers all assume that someone else is going to intervene and so each individual feels less responsible and refrains from doing anything.[3]
There are other reasons why people may not help. They may assume that other bystanders are more qualified to help, such as doctors or police officers, and that their intervention would be unneeded. People may also experience evaluation apprehension and fear losing face in front of the other bystanders. They may also be afraid of being superseded by a superior helper, offering unwanted assistance, or facing the legal consequences of offering inferior and possibly dangerous assistance. An example is the limitation of California's Good Samaritan Law, limiting liability for those attempting to provide medical services as opposed to non-medical (extraction from automobile) services.[4]
[edit]
Organizational Ombudsman's research
A 2009 study published by International Ombudsman Association in the Journal of the International Ombudsman Association suggests that - in reality - there are dozens of reasons why people do not act on the spot or come forward in the workplace when they see behavior they consider unacceptable.[5]
The most important reasons cited were the fear of loss of important relationships in and out of the workplace and a fear of "bad consequences." There also were many reasons given by people who did act on the spot or come forward to authorities. This practitioners' study suggests that the so-called bystander effect is actually very complex, reflecting views of the context (and organization) and many personal reasons.[5]
[edit]
Implications
Many institutions have worked to provide options for bystanders who see behavior they find unacceptable. These options are usually provided through complaint systems - so bystanders have choices about where to go. One option that is particularly helpful is that of an organizational ombudsman, who keeps no records for the employer and is near-absolutely confidential.
Another step that has been taken by some organizations is bystander training. The United States Department of the Army is doing bystander training with respect to sexual assault. Some organizations routinely do bystander training with respect to safety issues. Many organizations have been doing bystander training with respect to diversity issues.[6] [7]
The Charter of human rights and freedoms from Quebec, Canada, makes it mandatory to "come to the aid of anyone whose life is in peril, either personally or calling for aid, unless it involves danger to himself or a third person, or he has another valid reason".[8] It is therefore a legal obligation to assist people in the province of Quebec.
[edit]
Notable examples
[edit]
Kitty Genovese
The case of Kitty Genovese is often cited as an example of the "bystander effect". It is also the case that originally stimulated social psychological research in this area. Genovese was stabbed to death in 1964 by a serial rapist and murderer. According to newspaper accounts, the attack lasted for at least a half an hour. The murderer attacked Genovese and stabbed her, then fled the scene after attracting the attention of a neighbor. The killer then returned ten minutes later and finished the assault. Newspaper reports after Genovese's death claimed that 38 witnesses watched the stabbings and failed to intervene or even contact the police. This led to widespread public attention, and many editorials.
According to an article published in American Psychologist in 2007, the original story of Kitty Genovese's murder was exaggerated by the media. Specifically, there were not 38 eyewitnesses, the police were contacted at least once during the attack, and many of the bystanders who overheard the attack could not actually see the event. The authors of the article suggest that the story continues to be misrepresented in social psychology textbooks because it functions as a parable and serves as a dramatic example for students.[9]
Stanley Milgram hypothesized that the bystanders′ callous behavior was caused by the strategies they had adopted in daily life to cope with information overload. This idea has been supported to varying degrees by empirical research.[10]
[edit]
Hugo Alfredo Tale-Yax
In April 2010 Hugo Alfredo Tale-Yax was stabbed to death after coming to the aid of a woman who was being attacked. At least twenty people walked by while he lay dying on a sidewalk in Queens.[11]
[edit]
See also
[edit]
References
0.^ Darley, J. M. & Latané, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 377-383.
0.^ Hudson, James M., and Amy S. Bruckman. "The Bystander Effect: A Lens for Understanding Patterns of Participation." Journal of the Learning Sciences 13.2 (2004): 165-195.
0.^ Levine, Mark, and Kirstien Thompson. "Identity, place, and bystander intervention: social categories and helping after natural disasters." The Journal of Social Psychology 144.3 (2004).
0.^ Article and references to California Supreme Court Case, see: http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/healthlawprof_blog/2009/01/californias-goo.html
0.^ a b Dealing with—or Reporting—“Unacceptable” Behavior - with additional thoughts about the “Bystander Effect” © 2009 Mary Rowe MIT, Linda Wilcox HMS, Howard Gadlin NIH, JIOA, vol 2, no 1, p52
0.^ http://www.ombudsassociation.org/publications/journal/ Bystander Training within Organizations (PDF) The Journal of the International Ombudsman Association 2009, 2,(1)
0.^ See also http://www.clemson.edu/olweus/ for an overview of a use of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program.
0.^ Manning, R., Levine, M., & Collins, A. (2007). The Kitty Genovese murder and the social psychology of helping: The parable of the 38 witnesses. American Psychologist, 62, 555-562. (PDF, 149 kb)
0.^ Christensen, K. & Levinson, D. (2003). Encyclopedia of community: From the village to the virtual world, Band 1, p. 662.
0.^ "More Than 20 People Passed As Homeless New York Man Bled To Death". Gawker. Retrieved 30 November 2010.
[edit]
External links
0."I kept saying, 'Help me, help me.' But no one did." by Tara McCartney, The Guardian, August 4, 2005.
0."Act now to defy 'bystander effect'" by Craig Kielburger and Marc Kielburger, Toronto Star, March 29, 2007.
."Police: Shoppers Stepped Over Victim" by Roxana Hegeman, Associated Press, July 4, 2007. (at SFGate.com)
0."ABC News: What Would You Do in a Hit and Run?" by Lauren Cox and Radha Chitale, ABC News, June 6, 2008.
0.http://www.ombudsassociation.org/publications/journal/ Dealing with—or Reporting—“Unacceptable” Behavior - with additional thoughts about the “Bystander Effect” © 2009 Mary Rowe MIT, Linda Wilcox HMS, Howard Gadlin NIH)
0.http://www.ombudsassociation.org/publications/journal/ Bystander Training within Organizations, Maureen Scully and Mary Rowe, (PDF) The Journal of the International Ombudsman Association 2009, 2,(1)
0.Hogan, Kevin (2004) The Science of Influence: How to Get Anyone to Say "Yes" in 8 Minutes or Less! (ISBN 978-0471670513 ).
by J.B Butler
Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms (French: Charte des droits et libertés de la personne) is a statutory bill of rights and human rights code passed by the National Assembly of Quebec on June 27, 1975. It received Royal Assent from Lieutenant Governor Hugues Lapointe, coming into effect on June 28, 1976.
Introduced by the Liberal government of Robert Bourassa, the charter followed extensive preparatory work that began under the Union Nationale government of Daniel Johnson. The charter ranks among other quasi-constitutional Quebec laws, such as the Charter of the French Language and the Act respecting Access to documents held by public bodies and the Protection of personal information. Having precedence over all provincial legislation (including the latter), the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms stands at the pinnacle of Quebec's legal system. Only the Constitution of Canada, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, enjoys priority over the Quebec charter.
[edit]
Provisions
The Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms consists of six parts:
.Part I defines fundamental human rights. Its six chapters enunciate fundamental freedoms and rights, equality rights, political rights, judicial rights, economic and social rights, and interpretative provisions.
0.Part II establishes the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse (Human Rights and Youth Rights Commission). The commission is responsible for promoting and upholding the principles of the charter by any appropriate measures, including investigating possible cases of discrimination and the instigation of litigation. Members of the commission are appointed by the National Assembly. The commission's staff members do not belong to the Civil Service, in order to safeguard their independence.
0.Part III provides for affirmative action programs.
0.Part IV guarantees rights to privacy.
0.Part V gives the government regulatory powers.
[edit]
Comparison with other human rights instruments
The Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms is unique among Canadian (and North American) human rights documents in that it covers not only the fundamental (civil and political) human rights, but also a number of important social and economic rights. The protections contained in the charter are inspired by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Furthermore, the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination included in the Quebec charter is extensive; a total of fourteen prohibited grounds are enumerated, including race, colour, ethnic or national origin, sex, pregnancy and age. "Social condition" has been a prohibited ground of discrimination since the charter came into force. Discrimination based on sexual orientation has been prohibited since 1977; with that change, Quebec became the first jurisdiction larger than a city or county to prohibit anti-gay discrimination.
[edit]
Enforceability
An illicit violation of the charter, whether by a private party or by the provincial Crown, may give rise to a cease-and-desist order and to compensation for damages. Punitive damages may be awarded in case of an intentional and unlawful violation.
The Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms is called quasi-constitutional because, according to section 52, no provision of any other act passed by the Quebec National Assembly may derogate from sections 1 to 38, unless such act expressly states that it applies despite the charter [1]. A total impossibility to adopt derogating laws could be considered incompatible with parliamentary sovereignty, a fundamental principle in political systems following the British tradition; however, Canada, of which Quebec is a province, has a tradition of constitutional supremacy. Its Constitution, which includes the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is supreme, binding the federal parliament and the legislative assemblies of Canada's provinces and territories.
The Quebec charter's supremacy under its section 52 applies to the following categories of rights: fundamental rights and freedoms (the right to life, free speech, freedom of religion, the right to privacy, etc.); the right to equality; political rights; and judicial rights. Economic and social rights do not enjoy supremacy but, according to the Supreme Court of Canada in the 2002 case of Gosselin v. Quebec (Attorney General), failure to respect such a right may give rise to a judicial declaration of violation.
The charter provides for a specific machinery in cases of discrimination (or exploitation of an elderly or handicapped person). Instead of introducing litigation in court, victims of such a violation may file a complaint with the Human Rights and Youth Rights Commission. The commission will investigate the matter and attempt to foster a settlement between the parties. It may recommend corrective measures. If those are not followed, the commission may introduce litigation before a court (usually, but not necessarily, the Human Rights Tribunal). Victims will be represented free of charge by the commission.
The Quebec charter does not apply to federally regulated activities in Quebec. Those are subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and/or the Canadian Human Rights Act.
[edit]
Notable case law
Notable cases decided under the Charter include:
[edit]
See also
[edit]
References
0.^ http://www2.publicationsduquebec.gouv.qc.ca/dynamicSearch/telecharge.php?type=2&file=/C_12/C12_A.HTM
[edit]
External links
No comments:
Post a Comment