La réciprocité, dimensions théologiques, juridiques et autres
The paper provides a summary of Hannah Arendt's thinking on political reciprocity based on the analysis of her general view of politics and its historical fate in the European tradition. According to Arendt, political reciprocity is profoundly different in nature from the types of reciprocity which are proper for other spheres of human life (family, domestic, religious, communitarian, economic). Its specificity is due to the specificity of the field of politics and to the nature of the link that connects men in a community that can be referred to as political. Political community is not the same thing as a large family, an ethnic or religious community or a market society. Politics (in the strict sense of the term) is based on the pluralities of men who form together a shared public world, and the question of political reciprocity is not raised from the problem of man, his nature and his goodness, but from the problem of the world and its reality.
The article is a reply to M. Dodlova and M. Yudkevich. In their recent paper they undertake an attempt to use the notion of gift in the analysis of principal–agent relationship and to generalize the idea of gift in order to obtain a theory of gift exchange in the workplace. However, the analysis suggested lacks conceptual clarity and rests upon false presuppositions regarding the nature of gift. As a result, authors draw erroneous conclusions and fall victims of the magic of the gift. This short reply points to these deficiencies and suggests some ideas for alternative approaches to the analysis of certain phenomena observed in the workplace.
Modern non-profit marketing theory was developed from narrow borrowing social sciences concepts discussed in sociology, organizational behavior, and economic anthropology. However, there are additional alternative concepts and ideas from social sciences that can better explain the phenomena of non-profit marketing.
The article discusses the controversial concept of marketing for non-profit organizations. The existing theory of marketing for non-profit organizations developed with borrowing some concepts from the social sciences. From sociology, organizational behavior and anthropology were borrowed the concept of the organization as an open system, motivation, self-interest, bilateral voluntary exchange. Alternative concepts of organization, motivation and relationships with the environment created within the social sciences, allow to formulate an alternative approach to the study of non-profit marketing organizations. Recommendations for future research are offered.
The author deconstructs the prevailing conceptualization of non-profit marketing and concludes it rests on three principles: voluntary exchange, an open system organization, and self-interest motivation. A review of the genesis of these principles revealed that alternative principles were ignored in the social science literature. Based on a qualitative analysis and critical hermeneutic approach a revised conceptualization of non-profit marketing was suggested which incorporated the principles of reciprocity, the features of a contingency-choice organization, and altruistic interest motivation. A revised definition of non-profit marketing is offered based on these principles.
Although the concept of non-profit sector marketing has been widely embraced by marketing academics, many scholars and managers in the non-profit field remain skeptical. Skeptics of the appropriateness of the marketing concept in the non-profit field argued that its application distorted a non-profit organization's objectives, antithetical to its social service ethic, and invited inappropriate commercialization of non-profit services P. Kotler and his associates modified existing political communication and public advertising theories to formulate the marketing approach comprised of the «4 Ps» model, voluntary exchange, and the marketing philosophy of meeting customers’ needs. This explanation of the notion of marketing resulted in the term «social marketing». In 1972, Kotler formulated his broadened, generic, and axiomatic concept of marketing that was conceptualized as being universal for any type of product or organization including non-profit organizations. Three major principles underling the school's conceptualization of non-profit marketing: An open-system model of formal organizations, borrowed from organizational theory and the concept of social exchange, adapted from individualistic sociology. An alternative explanation can be based on: A closed-system model of formal organizations. The closed-system perspective is older stemming from Weber's classical analysis of bureaucracy. «Coercion mutually agreed upon « motivation. Self-interest motivation has limited usefulness in context of non-profit organizations. In many contexts it is antithetical to the philosophy of non-profit services and, hence, is inconsistent with a legitimate conceptualization of non-profit marketing. The application of self-interest motivation is integral to the social exchange school of marketing, but in the context of non-profit agencies it is inappropriate. Reciprocity and Redistribution. The relationship of formal organizations with their environments can be explained not only from an exchange perspective but also from reciprocity and redistribution perspectives.
Does it pay off for companies to disclose voluntary commitments to their customers? While voluntary commitments to enhance customers’ benefits became prevalent in many markets, systematic evidence on how customers (if at all) reward companies, which disclose such discretionary kindness, is still lacking. We analyze the consequences of endogenous disclosure of discretionary kindness in a novel experiment (N = 636). We model the decision situation in a bilateral reciprocity game with asymmetric information on the vol-untariness of kindness. Experimental data show that endogenously disclosing discretionary kindness significantly triggers rewards from customers and does not backfire. Findings are robust towards variations in costs of information and the level of customers’ benefits. Survey evidence from a vignette study support our behavioral findings.
This overview of social constructionism begins with a consideration of the influential work of Malcolm Spector and John I. Kitsuse, whose book, “Constructing Social Problems”, inspired a wide variety of studies addressing how social problems are “constructed”. Ensuing epistemological and methodological controversies are discussed, and three key scholarly works are reviewed for the insights they offer into exemplary analytic practice in a constructionist vein. The exemplars pivot around the notion that “understanding understandings” is essential to executing constructionist analysis and does not entail subscribing to reified conceptions of objective conditions. The chapter concludes by discussing three promising directions for extending the constructionist purview, namely, through the study of (1) cyberspace (including social media) as an emerging but essential venue for the construction of social problems; (2) claims-making in national contexts beyond the Anglo Global North, especially in countries that challenge the liberal democratic assumptions upon which constructionist scholarship usually rests; and (3) a broadened, more quotidian conception of the social spaces and forms through which social problems-related expression is advanced.
The official method of measuring poverty in Russia is based on an absolute approach that uses an expertly calculated subsistence level as a poverty line. However, there is an ongoing debate about the possible use of other approaches to measuring poverty. This study focuses on identifying the relative ‘poverty line’ relevant to contemporary Russian society as a threshold of high poverty risk. Drawing on representative all-Russian surveys, the authors conclude that the relative poverty thresholds set at 0.5 and 0.75 times the median per capita family income identify different subgroups of the poor. A median threshold of 0.75 highlights poverty of the elderly, who are not considered to be poor by the absolute approach officially used in Russian statistics, but need attention in terms of social policy.
The Discourse-Analysis Round Table "D-ART" is an international project based on the Round Table discussion format and thus can be viewed as a collective reflection and construction of the ways that contemporary linguistics in Eastern Europe and beyond implies studying such a macro-level unit as discourse. At the same time, collective reflection does not prevent individual voices from being represented to the benefit of discussion and grounding in the field. The genres of the contributions to the volumes vary from theoretical studies, research and opinion articles to individual researchers’ insights and reflections. This variety is aimed at giving an opportunity to a new linguistic field – the Linguistics of Discourse – so that it may be represented from different angles and with different focal points. As a result, these approaches will become grounded and balanced within the frameworks existing in the region and in the world at large. That is, the series is focused on giving a relatively unknown group of scholars who are engaged in a seri- ous research process an opportunity to express themselves and present their research.
Volume 2: Current approaches in Eastern Europe, edited by Yana Kuzmina, Irina Oukhvanova, Alena Savich and Ekaterina Vasilenko, continues to develop the phenomena of discourse and discourse analysis. 40 participants from Belarus, Czech Republic, Latvia, Poland, Russia, and Ukraine discuss the field from theoretical, methodological, phenomenological and activity-biased perspectives actual for the region. The researchers disclose what discourse studies underline conceptually, what discourse analysis entails, and what results can be yielded applying it as a theoretical framework and as a method. A special attention is paid to the field’s heritage coming with the names of Wittgenstein and Florensky. Alongside there come numerous foci on applied aspects of discourse linguistics, such as the worldviews reconstructed out of contemporary and ancient discourses, hybrid discourse included, national election anti-campaigns and an e-government communication studied to find the core of effectiveness, social subject constructed by personal and community-bias discourses, etc. All together, the authors expand upon the question of the field’s place in the humanities and its role for the contemporary society.
The article deals with the ways Russian authorities have constructed the social problem of HIV/AIDS (human immunodeficiency virus/ acquired immune deficiency syndrome) in Russia. The statistical construction of HIV/AIDS includes data indicating the significant rise of HIV prevalence in Russia since 2000. The study focuses on what and how Russian authorities speak about HIV/AIDS, while there are official data on the rapid spread of the virus in the country. The work is based on a discourse analysis of the authorities’ rhetoric about HIV/AIDS. During his first presidential terms, Vladimir Putin constructed HIV/AIDS not as an epidemic in the country, but as a “global problem,” representing Russia as a participant in international efforts to combat AIDS. The president problematized the HIV spread through the rhetoric of endangerment but without its crucial term “epidemic,” while at the same time de-problematized HIV in Russia by the strategy of naturalizing (“this is a problem that all countries face”). The Russian authorities appealed to traditional moral values and spoke about marginal or risk groups, rather than risk practices. After the deterioration of relations with Western countries since 2007, the Russian president excluded HIV/AIDS problem from his public agenda, despite the existence of the data on steep HIV growth in Russia. The Russian president’s traditionalism, de-problematization, and silence concerning HIV/AIDS lead to the absence of the HIV/AIDS issues in media agenda, the agenda of local authorities, and consequently the personal agendas of Russian citizens. The consequences are ignorance, fears, stigmatization of people living with HIV, semi-legal status of needle, and syringe exchange programs for intravenous drug users, low antiretroviral therapy coverage, and the continuing HIV epidemic.