<< . .

. 22
( : 23)



. . >>

Rijswijk: Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau/VUGA.
1998. 25 jaar sociale verandering [25 years of social change]. Rijswijk: Sociaal en
Cultureel Planbureau/VUGA.
2000. Nederland in Europa [The Netherlands in Europe]. The Hague: Sociaal en
Cultureel Planbureau.
2002. Zekere banden. Sociale cohesie, leefbaarheid en veiligheid [Secure ties: Social
cohesion, livability, and security]. The Hague: Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau.
Sen, A. 1979. “Rational fools: A critique of the behavioral foundations of economic
theory.” In Harris 1979: 1“25.
Sennett, R. 1998. The Corrosion of Character: The Personal Consequences of Work in
the New Capitalism. New York: W. W. Norton.
Shils, E. 1991. “The virtue of civil society.” Government and Opposition 26 (10): 3“20.
Shurmer, P. 1971. “The gift game.” New Society 18: 1242“1244.
Simmel, G. 1908. Soziologie: Untersuchungen ueber die Formen der Vergesellschaf-
tung [Sociology: Researches into the forms of sociation]. Leipzig: Dunker und
Humblot.
1950 [1908]. “Faithfulness and gratitude.” In Wolff 1950: 379“396.
1978 [1907]. The Philosophy of Money. London: Routledge.




222
References


Smith, A. 2002 [1759]. The Theory of Moral Sentiments. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Smith, J., Chat¬eld, C., and Pagnucco, R. (eds.). 1997. Transnational Social Movements
and Global Politics. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press.
Sociale en culturele verkenningen. 1999. [Social and cultural explorations]. The Hague:
Elsevier.
Strathern, M. 1988. The Gender of the Gift. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Straus, V. 2000. “Making peace.” In Rouner 2000: 229“247.
Suitor, J. J., Pillemer, K., Keeton, S., and Robison, J. 1995. “Aged parents and aging
children: Determinants of relationship quality.” In Blieszner and Bedford 1995:
223“243.
Swaan, B. de. 1988. In Care of the State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Titmuss, R. M. 1970. The Gift Relationship: From Human Blood to Social Policy.
Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin.
T¨ nnies, F. 1987. Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft. Leipzig: Reisland.
o
Trivers, R. L. 1971. “The evolution of reciprocal altruism.” Quarterly Review of Biology
46: 35“57.
Tsvetajeva, M. 2000. Ik loop over de sterren. Schetsen, dagboekfragmenten en brieven
over de Russische Revolutie [I walk over the stars: Sketches, diary fragments, and
letters about the Russian Revolution]. Amsterdam: De Bezige Bij.
Turner, B., and Rojek, C. 2001. Society and Culture: Principles of Scarcity and Solidarity.
London: Sage.
Turner, V. W. 1969. The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure. Chicago: Aldine.
Uzzi, B. 1997. “Social structure and competition in inter¬rm networks: The paradox
of embeddedness.” Administrative Science Quarterly 42 (1): 35“67.
Veblen, T. 1934 [1899]. The Theory of the Leisure Class. New York: Vanguard Press.
Waal, F. de. 1996. Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other
Animals. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
2001. The Ape and the Sushi Master: Cultural Re¬‚ections by a Primatologist. London:
Allen Lane.
Waquant, L., and Wilson, J. 1989. “The cost of racial and class exclusion in the inner
city.” Annuals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 501: 8“
26.
Waldinger, R. 1995. “The ˜other side™ of embeddedness: A case-study of the interplay
of economy and ethnicity.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 18 (3): 555“580.
Walker, A. (ed.). 1996. The New Generational Contract: Intergenerational Relations,
Old Age and Welfare. Londen: UCL Press.
Weber, M. 1947 [1922]. The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. Trans. by
A. M. Henderson and Talcott Parsons. New York: Free Press.




223
References


Weesie, J., Buskens, V., and Raub, W. 1998. “The management of trust relations via
institutional and structural embeddedness.” In Doreian and Fararo 1998: 113“
139.
Weiner, A. 1976. Women of Value, Men of Renown: New Perspectives in Trobriand
Exchange. Austin: University of Texas Press.
1992. Inalienable Possessions: The Paradox of Keeping-while-Giving. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regereringsbeleid (WRR). 1999. [Generationally
aware policy]. (Report to the government, no. 58 Generatiebewust beleid ). The
Hague: Sdu Publishers.
Willems, L. 1994. “Burgerzin en vrijwillige zorg” [Civic spirit and voluntary care]. In
SCP-Report 1994b: 185“199.
Wilson, E. O. 1975. Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press.
Wilson, G. 1993. “Intergenerational solidarity from the point of view of people in
advanced old age.” In Becker and Hermkens 1993: 625“643.
Wisp´ , L. G. 1972. “Positive forms of social behavior: An overview.” Journal of Social
e
Issues 28 (3): 1“20.
Wit, T. de, and Manschot, H. (eds.). 1999. Solidareit [Solidarity]. Amsterdam: Boom.
Withuis, J. 1990. Opoffering en hero¨ek. De mentale wereld van een communistische
±
vrouwenorganisatie in naoorlogs Nederland [Sacri¬ce and heroism: The men-
tal world of a communist women™s organization in the postwar Netherlands].
Meppel: Boom.
Wolfe, A. 1989. Whose Keeper? Social Science and Moral Obligation. Berkeley: University
of California Press.
2000. “Are we losing our virtue?” In Rouner 2000: 126“142.
Wolff, K. (ed.). 1950. The Sociology of Georg Simmel. New York: Free Press.
Wrong, D. H. 1994. The Problem of Order: What Unites and Divides Society. New York:
Free Press.
Wuthnow, R. 1991. Acts of Compassion: Caring for Others and Helping Ourselves.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Young, M., and Willmott, P. 1973. The Symmetrical Family: A Study of Work and Leisure
in the London Region. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Zoll, R. 2000. Was ist Solidarit¨ t heute? [What is solidarity today?]. Frankfurt am
a
Main: Suhrkamp.




224
Index




Adorno, T., 51 authority ranking, 21, 23
affection, affectivity, 9, 95, 112, 115, 118, autonomy, 92“94, 95, 96“97, 141, 183,
120, 124, 161, 162, 190, 191, 199, 201, 209, 210
206 annihilation of, 207
feelings of, 161, 165, 194 desire for, 161
aggression, aggressive, 186, 187 growing emphasis on, 175
feelings, 186 personal, 175
tendency to respond with, 186 women™s, 93“94, 192
altruism, altruistic, 80, 84, 85, 109, 111,
112, 132, 182 Baal, J. van, 79
and gift giving, 85 balance of debt, 7, 70“71
prescribed, 160, 161, 165, 194 Balinese cock¬ght, 120
and sel¬shness, 118 barter, 118, 119
and solidarity, 110 Barthes, R., 19
suicide, 204 Baudrillard, J., 19
surrender, 50 Bauman, Z., 171“172, 178
Appadurai, A., 16“17, 31 Bayertz, K., 5
Arber, S., 164 Beck, U., 141, 172
Arendt, H., 196 Becker, H., 147
assertiveness, 209 Bender, T., 208
increased, 175 bene¬cence, norm of, 111
association, 115 benevolence, acts of, 192
instrumental ties of, 118 Bengtson, V., 146, 151“152, 153
asymmetry, 69 Bennett, W., 184
alternating, 86“95, 192 Berking, H., 4, 203
and power inequality, 190 blood, 84“85
Attias-Donfut, C., 164 and belonging, 201
attraction, 115 donation(s), 3, 20, 36, 84
authoritarian personality, 51 loyalty, 201
authority, 27, 50, 51, 119 sacri¬ce, 121, 201
relational model of, 51 Boszormenyi-Nagy, I., 160
structures of, 175 Bourdieu, P., 19



225
Index


Brown, R., 117 meanings of, 184
Burgers, J., 159 notion of, 184
civilization, 184
Caplow, T., 36“37, 47, 81, 85, 137 process, 184
care (help, mutual assistance, support), cohesion (social, family), 102, 103,
9, 83“84, 198, 209, 212 104“105, 111, 116, 150, 154, 178
chains, 178 internal, 205
collective, 136 and solidarity, 102
elderly, 162 Coleman, J., 112, 114, 133
formal and informal, 163 collective representations, 109
as a form of control, 160 commodity, alienable, 18
globalized, 178 community, 22“23, 25, 26, 27, 31, 50, 107,
(in)formal, 9, 129“132, 142“143, 146, 118
147, 157“158, 163, 164, 165, 180, 187, bonds of, 74
193, 194 feelings, 183, 188
institutional, 162 forms of, 183
provided to aged people, 157 model, 30
state-provided, 162 modern forms of, 104
caregivers, informal, 132, 163 production, 89
caring arrangements, provisions, 162 small homogeneous, 107
formal, 163 small-scale, 104, 118, 178
intrafamilial, 163 communitarian tradition, 116
microsocial, 163 community, communal sharing, 21,
public, 164 22“23, 25
Carrier, J., 32 ritualistic, 201
Carter, S., 184 traditional forms of, 197
Castells, M., 177 complementarity thesis, 164“165
charity, 9, 46, 123, 125, 142, 193, Comte, A., 103, 201, 202
209 conscience collective, 104“105, 133
donations to, 125, 188 consequences, intended and
giving to, 180 unintended, 114
growing willingness to give to, 198 consumption, 19“20
Cheal, D., 21, 37“38, 81, 85, 95, 137 conspicuous, 18, 23
Christmas, 109, 137 contract (social, silent)
cards, 109 between generations, 162
gift(s), packet, present(s), 3, 26, 30, informal solidarity, 146
36, 38, 53 microsocial, macrosocial, 146, 163, 164
citizenship, 126, 184 welfare state, 146
decline, 188 Cooley, C., 44
dimensions of, 188
increase, 188 dala, 88, 90
civil society, 184 debt balance, 48, 49, 53, 54, 84
civility, 184“185 decline (social), 179, 184
and civil society, 185 accounts of, 179
concern with, 184 dependence. See (in)dependence,
decline of, 184 dependency
as a form of solidarity, 185 destruction of wealth, 28



226
Index


(dis)respect, 187 faithfulness, 110“111, 141
and care for fellow citizens, 185 as a sociological feeling, 111
diversi¬cation, 11, 169, 175“177 family (familial) solidarity, family ties,
toward fellow citizens, 184 10, 139, 144“166, 187, 191, 194, 212
mutual, 183, 207, 208 ambivalent feelings of, 161, 166
public, 208 con¬‚ictive, 166
division of labor, 103, 104“105, 109, and immigration society, 159
133 problematic aspects of, 162
(dis)trust, 101, 118 transnational forms of, 159
intergroup cooperation and, 200 troubled, 166
mutual, 135, 160, 183 Fararo, T., 114
relations of, 173 Finch, J., 160
do ut des, 4, 109, 199 Firth, R., 60
Douglas, M., 2, 32, 123, 141 Fiske, A. P., 16“17, 21“25, 26, 30“31,
Durkheim, E., 1, 2, 4, 9, 12, 102, 103“105, 50“52, 119, 190, 191
106, 109, 112, 113, 116, 120, 121, 133, free riding, free riders, 113“114, 133
146, 150, 170, 180, 181, 189, 194, 204, risk of, 115
208, 209, 210, 211, 212 Fortuyn, P., 181
Dutroux, M., 181 Freud, A., 50
Dykstra, P., 157, 158, 164 Freud, S., 65

Elias, N., 114, 184 Geertz, C., 120
Elster, J., 112, 113 Gemeinschaft, 103, 105“107, 133, 150
emotion management, 37 gender, gender differences, roles, 154
Engbersen, G., 159 in altruism, 80
equality, 28, 31, 48, 50, 51, 120, 190, 191, in caring motives, 161
201, 206 changing, 169
relational model of, 51 in family life, 154
equality matching, 21, 23“24, 25, 31 in gift giving, 192
equivalence, 119 in help exchange, 155
Etzioni, A., 9, 112, 116 and power inequality, 192
exchange, exchange relations, 78 generation(s), 144“145, 147“150, 194
asymmetrical, 111 as age cohort, 147
based on self-interest, 193 cohort conception of, 148
direct and equivalent, 110 concept, 148
economic, 202 contract (social) of, between, within
equal or equivalent, 197 the family, 145, 146
and exploitation, 87 as determined by a shared
generalized, 110 conscience, 148
as the means of gaining power over problem, 147
people, 78 relationship between, 147
of money, commodities, 89 structure of, 149
principle of, 108 synthesis between, 172
reciprocal, 102, 117 theory, 148
exchange of sacri¬ces, 16“18, 32, 33, generosity, 4“9, 22, 47, 73, 109, 112,
43 125
exchange theory, 37 Gesellschaft, 103, 105“107, 133



227
Index


gift(s), 1 competitive, 28
as an act of unfriendliness, 49 core meaning of, 117
agonistic origin of the word, 1 disclosing identities, 53
altruistic, 108 economic dimension of, 108
bad, 35, 52 empirical study of, 36
as barter, 108 gendered meaning(s) of, gender
and (as opposed to) commodities, 6, effect of, 8, 36, 192
16“18, 19, 20“21 interpersonal, 207
de¬nition of, 39 as a means to express, gain prestige,
etymological roots of the word, 51 109
as expression of solidarity, 123 money, 124“126
free, 111 motives underlying, 124
and generosity, 65, 66 to political parties, 207
inalienable, 16“18 psychological functions of, 35, 43“45
inalienability of, 18 psychological motives underlying,
money, 49, 81, 82“83, 138 motivations, 39, 46
as moral cement of society, 112 ritual, symbolic aspects of, 121,
offensive, embarrassing, 35, 52“53 137
and poison, 51 silent bookkeeping of, 160
pure, 108, 118, 119, 193 sociological dimension of, 108
redundancy of, 38 time to volunteer work, 124“129,
rejection of, 54 180
and sacri¬ce, 203 women™s greater, larger share in, 38,
spirit of, 45, 58“64 42
threshold, 63 Gift Giving in the Netherlands, 26, 68
as tie signs, 7 globalization, 11, 169, 177“179, 183
wedding, 38 process, 170, 195
gift economy, 19, 21, 22“23, 87, 89, 141 Godbout, J., 3, 4
gift exchange, 21, 77“78, 117 Godelier, M., 3, 61
ceremonial, 108 Goffmann, E., 38, 43
competitive, 90 Gouldner, A., 2, 69, 110, 111, 112, 118, 119,
as a contest of honor, 119 200
dependence and independence in, 70 gratitude, 4“8, 9, 22, 30, 35, 46, 47, 54,
as an instance of social exchange, 117 56“75, 95, 110“111, 141, 191
as a mixture of altruism and action tendency of, 56, 62
sel¬shness, 109 creating social cohesion and
as the moral cement of human community, 57, 69
society and culture, 67, 109 de¬nitions of, 56“58
as a moral economy, 21 envy and, 64
as opposite to economic exchange, 117 externalized, 64
as a principle of exclusion, 77“78 faithfulness and, 67
as a self-sustaining system, 118 fostering the continuity of social life,
symmetrical pattern of, 91 67
as total social phenomenon, 117 imperative (force of), 56, 72
gift giving (and receiving), 8 modern conception of, 64
abstract and anonymous, 123“124 moral and psychological aspects of,
care, 124“132, 180 73



228
Index


moral basis of reciprocity, 71 as recognition of otherness, 176
moral cement of human society and ritual of, 201
culture, 58 toward strangers, 170, 176“177
moral coercion, 57 Hyde, L., 62“63, 75
moral memory of mankind, 8, 67
moral obligation to give in return, identi¬cation(s), 22, 115, 132, 165
71 ethnic or nationalist, 200
moral virtue, 57, 73 with the family, 145
as negative force, 72 feelings of, 194
objecti¬ed, 64 new, 183
part of the chain of reciprocity, 57, and social ties, 183
72 identity, identities, 53, 54, 115, 196
personal virtue, 66 diversi¬cation, diversity of, 170,
personality asset, characteristic, trait, 194
57, 58, 64, 73 ¬‚uidity, fragmentation of, 175
power, dependence, 69“71 gifts as mirror of, 35
social, societal, and cultural meaning of giver, recipient, 35, 43“45, 95
of, 74, 191 individual (and group), 104, 115, 212
spiritual, religious, or magical layer individual(s ) sense of, 104, 172
of, 72, 191 personal, cultural, social, 108, 194
group (solidarity) risk of losing, 96
ideals and identity, 201 shared, 116, 133
internal, 208 uncertainty about, 194
large-scale, 207 Ignatieff, M., 200
inalienable possessions, 78“79
Habermas, J., 5, 196 (in)dependence, dependency, 27, 77, 209
hau, 59“61, 73 upon family members, own children,
Hechter, M., 9, 112“114 162, 163
Heider, F., 150 feelings of, 160, 161, 166
Hochschild, A., 37, 178“179 on group for need satisfaction, 113,
homo economicus, 22, 107 121
homo sociologicus, 107 mutual, 109, 114, 121, 173, 185, 197
Homans, G., 150 new forms of, 190
Homer, 176 and reciprocity, 173
Honneth, A., 196 undesired, 28
honor, 45, 47, 119, 193 individualism, 176
hospitality, 4, 39, 42, 83, 84 individualization, 11, 141, 145, 169,
as basis of morality, 176 171“173, 194, 197“198
classical, 177 process, 131, 170, 172, 174, 194, 210
contemporary, 176 ingroup
depersonalized and commercialized, favoritism, 134
177 moral standards, 134
epitome of human community, 203 solidarity, 124, 133, 134, 135, 136
as expression of solidarity, 170 instrumentality, instrumental
general obligation to, 176 considerations, 29, 120, 190, 191,
obligatory character of, 176 199, 201, 206, 207
original meaning of, 176“177 and power, 207



229
Index


interdependency, 173 loyalty, 106, 111, 115, 160
of actors, group members, 114, 150 internal group, 200, 206
of citizens for the provision of their mutual, 205
needs, 210 with the family, 145
networks, 114
with other people, 121 Malinowski, B., 2, 8, 9, 25, 34, 41, 58“59,
interest(s), 105“106 63, 76, 77, 78, 87, 88, 102, 109, 110,
collective, 107, 173, 205 112, 118, 119, 199, 203
expressive, 106 Mannheim, K., 147, 148
individual, social, 103, 114, 203 Manschot, H., 5
instrumental, 106 market (exchange), 50, 51, 92, 105, 117
shared, 183 economy, 19, 21, 87, 89, 90
intergenerational solidarity, relations, model, 30, 49
145, 146, 150, 151, 157, 159, 187 market pricing, 21, 24“25, 29
inner obligations to, 160 Marx, K., 113
macro- and microsocial dimensions Matthew effect, 141, 142, 193
of, 162 of gift giving, 138“139
negative consequences of, 160 Mauss, M., 2, 3, 4, 9, 15, 28, 34, 41, 59, 60,
state-based, 165 76, 109, 112, 116“117, 118, 119, 199,
Isherwood, B., 32, 141 200, 203
threefold obligation, 116
Jong-Gierveld, J. de, 157, 158, 164 Mayhew, L., 9, 112, 115“116
McCracken, G., 20, 28
keeping-while-giving, 61, 79, 96 Mead, G. H., 173
kin, 144 Merton, R., 138
interdependence among, 144 morals and markets, 117
kinship motives, motivations (of, for solidarity),
distance, 25 192, 195, 199“201, 206
dues, 144 affective and normative, 116
support, 144 equality, 199
systems, 115 to give, 95, 119
Klein, M., 64“66, 68 instrumental, 112, 124
Kula, 56“59, 61, 199 personal gain, 197

<< . .

. 22
( : 23)



. . >>