present social

8/12/2019 Present Social

1/10

Prepared By : Yusnaim Abdul Rani

Matrix Id : 2011404798


2/10

1. INTRODUCTION

2. DEFINITION

3. PRACTICE IN OVERSEA

4. PRACTICE IN MALAYSIA

5. SUGGESTION

6. BIBLIOGRAPHY


3/10

Times of far-reaching social and economic upheaval are always

associated with a coinciding change in values and entail the risk

of increasing disorientation. Many people are afraid that the

process of modernisation may lead to a loss of social cohesion.

Some of them are longing for a past when community life was

said to be more humane, more stable, more warm-hearted and

more ethical.

Sometimes the failure of the education system, the anonymity

of metropolitan life, the media or the erosion of the nuclear

family are identified as causes for this decline in cohesion,

sometimes the crisis of the social welfare system, growinginequality, increasing immigration or the individualisation of

peoples lifestyles. Most recently, globalisation or the new

communication technologies have been singled out as

segregating forces.


4/10

Neighbourhoodsprovide a useful

scale for studying the social relations of

everydaylife-worlds(Meegan & Mitchell,2001).

Forrest and Kearns (2001) identify four

different perspectives on neighbourhood:

neighbourhood can be seen as a

i. Community,

ii. As a context,

iii. As commodity, or

iv. As a consumption niche (Forrest &

Kearns, 2001).

According to the Council of Europe, social cohesion is multi-

dimensional in nature, not only to inclusion of and

participation by all in economic, social, cultural and political

life but to a sense of solidarity and belonging to society,

based on an effective enjoyment of citizenship and

democracy (CoE, 2008, p.8).


5/10

Aspects & Dimensions Of Social Cohesion

Core aspects and dimensions of social cohesion


6/10

With the extremities in mind, a scale of desirable social cohesion was

developed (figure 1). At the two poles there are defensive bonds and at the

other side fragmenting terror and on top of the scale a sustainable level of

cohesion and social well-being.

In between various levels of social cohesion can be identified, from people

living individualistically but content and peaceful, leaving each other at

peace, to communities who organize many common activities, here social

control is high and everybody knows each other (Forrest & Kearns, 2001).

*


7/10

The Status of Social Cohesion in Germany How do people respond when asked about the strength

of social cohesion in Germany? In a volunteer survey conducted in 2004 and 2009, a

representative number of people were asked: Inyour opinion, how good is social cohesion in

your neighbourhood?(Gensicke & Geiss 2010). In 2004, 58% of those polled described cohesion

in their neighbourhood as verygoodor good,while 29% described it as adequateand 10%

thought it was pooror verypoor(the remainder did not reply to the question). Five years

later, the perceived quality of local cohesion had improved slightly (62% good/verygood,28%

adequate,8% poor/verypoor). The sense of cohesion was somewhat higher in rural than in

urban areas.

In the 2011 Bielefeld survey programme on group-focused enmity, people were asked how

strongly they agreed with the statement Society is disintegrating more and more (Zick &

Kupper 2012). 74% of those polled agreed somewhator fullywith this statement. 56% agreed

with the statement that Cohesion in Germany is in danger. According to the authors of the

survey, these values have improved compared to responses to the same questions in 2005.

*


8/10

*

The purpose of the findings outlined in the following chapter is to give anidea of how various indicators can be used to make an empirical

assessment of cohesion in Germany and what these indicators tell us about

cohesion in Germany. Our survey shows that there is almost no literature

that empirically examines the totality of social cohesion in Germany.Instead, most studies focus on a single dimension or a very small number of

dimensions. The following chapter, therefore, will briefly summarise the

most important empirical findings for each dimension and integrate them

into an overall picture. We will rely for the most part on published studies,

adding our own analyses of existing data in only a few places.


9/10

*

In the reviewed literature other clues for practical stimulation of

social cohesion could be identified. In order to develop strategies

or social cohesion policy, Forrest and Kearns (2001) identified

various domains of social capital which is important is promoting

and nurturing social cohesion.


10/10

Giddens, A. (2009). Sociology (6th ed.). Cambridge: Polity Press.

Scholte, J. A. (2002). Globalization: a critical introduction. New York: Palgrave.

CoE. (2008). Towards an Active, Fair and Socially Cohesive Europe. Report of high level task

force on social cohesion. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

Forrest, R., & Kearns, A. (2001). Social Cohesion, Social Capital and the Neighbourhood.

Urban Studies, 38(12), 2125-2143.

SUN project Interreg IV-A ICIS, JUNE 2010

Kearns, A., & Parkinson, M. (2001). The significance of Neighbourhood. Urban Studies,

38(12), 2103-2110.

Castells, M. (1997). The Power of Identity. Oxford: Blackwell.

Grosskurth, J. (2009). Regional sustainability. tools for Integrated Governance., Maastricht

University, Maastricht.

*

present social

Documents