Summary Course
Social Policy and Social Risks
Robin van Woensel
1
,Week 1
Van Oorschot & Komter – What is that ties…? Theoretical perspectives on social bond
This article identifies and discusses three separate discourses (solidarity, reciprocity=wederkerigheid
and rational choice) or theoretical perspectives on what it is that binds individuals together.
1. Solidarity and social ties
Mechanic and organic solidarity
Durkheim perceived solidarity, positively stated, as that which binds individuals into a relatively
autonomous society, or negatively stated, that which prevents the disintegration of a society.
Durkheim saw the cultural bond as at the heart of ‘’mechanic’’ solidarity, dominant in homogeneous
pre-modern societies, and the structural interdependence as central to ‘’organic’’ solidarity, which
tends to bind modern societies with a highly differentiated division of labour. He emphasizes the
functional necessity of solidarity for the existence and survival of social systems. Macro
point of view
Communal and associative relationships
According to Weber solidarity characterizes social relations between individuals. Social relations are
solidary if they are directed at interests that transcend those of the individuals involved and as such
establish a bond between them.
Vergemeinschaftung= individuals treat each other according to fellow feeling, a subjective feeling of
belonging together.
Vergesellschaftung= individuals treat each other according to a rationally motivated adjustment of
interests or a similarly motivated agreement.
Durkheim Weber
Mechanic solidarity Vergemeinschaftung (communual relationship)
Organic solidarity Vergesellschaftung (associative relationship)
Sources of solidarity: shared identity and shared utility
At this stage we can conclude from Durkheim and Weber that both perceive solidarity as a
characteristic of social relations, at the macro level as well as at the micro level. They view solidarity
not as a cultural value or feeling (although these might be involved in certain types of solidary
relations) but as an objective attribute of a social system.
Institutionalized role obligations
Parsons = collective interests take precedence over individual interests.
- Collectivity- oriented action
- Self- oriented action
2
,According to Parsons, social ties are constructed within the meso-level. Durkheim states that it is
constructed on the macro-level and Weber on the micro-level.
Emotional ties and shared identity
Once people have established a sense of fellowship and membership, they will become willing to co-
operate toward realizing the common good. Now it becomes a system of solidarity: such a degree of
identity-sharing has been achieved that serving the collective interest as a coordinated action by group
members becomes possible.
Interdependency and shared utility
Instead of deducing solidarity from a shared identity, Hechter views solidarity as derived from shared
utility individuals rely on each other to satisfy their needs.
2. Reciprocity and social ties
Marcel Mauss argues that conscious or unconscious expectations of return underlie every gift, and that
these expectations are the basis for a common social world. According to Mauss ‘’free gifts’’ do not
exist. According to Bell and Newby gift giving is an important means to sustaining the moral order.
- The gift; moral cements and principle of exclusion
- The gift as a starter and stabilizer of interpersonal relationships
- The gift as a ‘’balance of debt’’ and a mirror of identity
3. Rational choice and social ties
These theories are based on the assumption that freely choosing individuals prefer serving their
individual interest over serving collective interests. Olsen argues that the production of collective
goods can be promoted through selective incentives and coercion. The first strategy entails giving
those who contribute an extra reward to increase the utility and thus the level of their personal
contribution. The strategy of coercion involves forcing people to contribute, i.e. increasing the dis-
utility of non-contribution. The rational choice perspective on social bond revolves around ‘’shared
utility’’. Social relations exist and gain a certain stability because individuals need each other and the
group.
4. Discussion
We can conclude that solidarity might be attributable to two different sources, namely shared identity
and shared utility; here, we may link these sources to two corresponding types of motivation to engage
in solidary relations: the socio-cultural motivations of the homo sociologicus and the self-interested
motivations of the homo economicus.
Motives for solidarity
- Mutual affection and identification – Mayhew.
- Moral convictions – Durkheim and Parsons.
- Long term self-interest – Durkheim (organic solidarity) and Weber (associative relationship).
- Accepted authority.
These motives may vary, depending, for instance, on type of personality. Solidary relations which are
legitimate on the grounds of all four, however, are likely to be the strongest.
Solidarity, inclusion and exclusion
Solidarity always has an aspect of exclusion. If solidarity enables collective interests to be served, it
3
, concerns the relations among members within the collectivity and not the outside. As a general rule,
the more inclusive solidarity is, the more pronounced the group’s confines will be and the stronger the
exclusion of the ‘’others’’.
Solidarity and individualization
The process of individualization has three main aspects.
1. The relational aspect. It refers to increasing instability and changeability of social relations.
2. The situational aspects. It suggests that the range of behavioral options for individuals has
increase in nearly all social situations.
3. The normative aspect. It refers to an increasing stress on the moral significance of individual
autonomy.
Because traditional ties lose their significance and become blurred, individuals no longer tend to see
other people as representatives of a specific group or culture but as separate individuals like
themselves. This change enables the establishment of new solidary ties between groups and
individuals who are less close in emotional, social and cultural respects. The new solidary thus has a
wider range and covers a broader collectivity. Modern solidarity will be more abstract and less intense.
Simmel regards this condition as a functional necessity rather than as a problem, because intense and
strong ties prevent the flexibility and mobility expected from individuals in a modern, complex and
changing society.
There was a growing appreciation of the idea of interdependence of interests, and it means an
increasing degree of shared utility. If society becomes more differentiated and complex, the solidarity
from shared utility, like that from shared identity, will become more abstract and cover a broader
scope.
Van Leeuwen – Logic of Charity: Poor Relief in Preindustrial Europe
This article is a discussion of the function of charity in preindustrial Europe and provides answers to
three questions: which groups provided poor relief and why, which groups received poor relief and
why, and what were the effects of poor relief on society?
Preindustrial poor relief functioned as a ‘’ bargaining process’’. The elites provided money, food, and
services, but only under certain conditions and as a ‘’package’’ deal. The labor-reserve theory argues
that members of the labor force were given relief if their presence was of interest to local elites. There
were several reasons for the elite to provide poor relief;
- Stabilize the social order. By accepting money and goods, the poor were made to accept the
legitimacy of the existing social order.
- Poor relief to safeguard public order.
- Poor relief could reduce the danger of infection
- Poor relief to stimulate paupers to work
A good is a collective good, in Olson’s definition, if all members of a group have access to it and no
one can be excluded from its use.
Selective incentives; private goods made available to people on the basis of whether they contribute
to a collective good. Selective incentives may operate in the form of praise for cooperative members
and shame for free-riders (thus establishing or harming their reputations).
Means of surviving for the poor were the following;
4
Social Policy and Social Risks
Robin van Woensel
1
,Week 1
Van Oorschot & Komter – What is that ties…? Theoretical perspectives on social bond
This article identifies and discusses three separate discourses (solidarity, reciprocity=wederkerigheid
and rational choice) or theoretical perspectives on what it is that binds individuals together.
1. Solidarity and social ties
Mechanic and organic solidarity
Durkheim perceived solidarity, positively stated, as that which binds individuals into a relatively
autonomous society, or negatively stated, that which prevents the disintegration of a society.
Durkheim saw the cultural bond as at the heart of ‘’mechanic’’ solidarity, dominant in homogeneous
pre-modern societies, and the structural interdependence as central to ‘’organic’’ solidarity, which
tends to bind modern societies with a highly differentiated division of labour. He emphasizes the
functional necessity of solidarity for the existence and survival of social systems. Macro
point of view
Communal and associative relationships
According to Weber solidarity characterizes social relations between individuals. Social relations are
solidary if they are directed at interests that transcend those of the individuals involved and as such
establish a bond between them.
Vergemeinschaftung= individuals treat each other according to fellow feeling, a subjective feeling of
belonging together.
Vergesellschaftung= individuals treat each other according to a rationally motivated adjustment of
interests or a similarly motivated agreement.
Durkheim Weber
Mechanic solidarity Vergemeinschaftung (communual relationship)
Organic solidarity Vergesellschaftung (associative relationship)
Sources of solidarity: shared identity and shared utility
At this stage we can conclude from Durkheim and Weber that both perceive solidarity as a
characteristic of social relations, at the macro level as well as at the micro level. They view solidarity
not as a cultural value or feeling (although these might be involved in certain types of solidary
relations) but as an objective attribute of a social system.
Institutionalized role obligations
Parsons = collective interests take precedence over individual interests.
- Collectivity- oriented action
- Self- oriented action
2
,According to Parsons, social ties are constructed within the meso-level. Durkheim states that it is
constructed on the macro-level and Weber on the micro-level.
Emotional ties and shared identity
Once people have established a sense of fellowship and membership, they will become willing to co-
operate toward realizing the common good. Now it becomes a system of solidarity: such a degree of
identity-sharing has been achieved that serving the collective interest as a coordinated action by group
members becomes possible.
Interdependency and shared utility
Instead of deducing solidarity from a shared identity, Hechter views solidarity as derived from shared
utility individuals rely on each other to satisfy their needs.
2. Reciprocity and social ties
Marcel Mauss argues that conscious or unconscious expectations of return underlie every gift, and that
these expectations are the basis for a common social world. According to Mauss ‘’free gifts’’ do not
exist. According to Bell and Newby gift giving is an important means to sustaining the moral order.
- The gift; moral cements and principle of exclusion
- The gift as a starter and stabilizer of interpersonal relationships
- The gift as a ‘’balance of debt’’ and a mirror of identity
3. Rational choice and social ties
These theories are based on the assumption that freely choosing individuals prefer serving their
individual interest over serving collective interests. Olsen argues that the production of collective
goods can be promoted through selective incentives and coercion. The first strategy entails giving
those who contribute an extra reward to increase the utility and thus the level of their personal
contribution. The strategy of coercion involves forcing people to contribute, i.e. increasing the dis-
utility of non-contribution. The rational choice perspective on social bond revolves around ‘’shared
utility’’. Social relations exist and gain a certain stability because individuals need each other and the
group.
4. Discussion
We can conclude that solidarity might be attributable to two different sources, namely shared identity
and shared utility; here, we may link these sources to two corresponding types of motivation to engage
in solidary relations: the socio-cultural motivations of the homo sociologicus and the self-interested
motivations of the homo economicus.
Motives for solidarity
- Mutual affection and identification – Mayhew.
- Moral convictions – Durkheim and Parsons.
- Long term self-interest – Durkheim (organic solidarity) and Weber (associative relationship).
- Accepted authority.
These motives may vary, depending, for instance, on type of personality. Solidary relations which are
legitimate on the grounds of all four, however, are likely to be the strongest.
Solidarity, inclusion and exclusion
Solidarity always has an aspect of exclusion. If solidarity enables collective interests to be served, it
3
, concerns the relations among members within the collectivity and not the outside. As a general rule,
the more inclusive solidarity is, the more pronounced the group’s confines will be and the stronger the
exclusion of the ‘’others’’.
Solidarity and individualization
The process of individualization has three main aspects.
1. The relational aspect. It refers to increasing instability and changeability of social relations.
2. The situational aspects. It suggests that the range of behavioral options for individuals has
increase in nearly all social situations.
3. The normative aspect. It refers to an increasing stress on the moral significance of individual
autonomy.
Because traditional ties lose their significance and become blurred, individuals no longer tend to see
other people as representatives of a specific group or culture but as separate individuals like
themselves. This change enables the establishment of new solidary ties between groups and
individuals who are less close in emotional, social and cultural respects. The new solidary thus has a
wider range and covers a broader collectivity. Modern solidarity will be more abstract and less intense.
Simmel regards this condition as a functional necessity rather than as a problem, because intense and
strong ties prevent the flexibility and mobility expected from individuals in a modern, complex and
changing society.
There was a growing appreciation of the idea of interdependence of interests, and it means an
increasing degree of shared utility. If society becomes more differentiated and complex, the solidarity
from shared utility, like that from shared identity, will become more abstract and cover a broader
scope.
Van Leeuwen – Logic of Charity: Poor Relief in Preindustrial Europe
This article is a discussion of the function of charity in preindustrial Europe and provides answers to
three questions: which groups provided poor relief and why, which groups received poor relief and
why, and what were the effects of poor relief on society?
Preindustrial poor relief functioned as a ‘’ bargaining process’’. The elites provided money, food, and
services, but only under certain conditions and as a ‘’package’’ deal. The labor-reserve theory argues
that members of the labor force were given relief if their presence was of interest to local elites. There
were several reasons for the elite to provide poor relief;
- Stabilize the social order. By accepting money and goods, the poor were made to accept the
legitimacy of the existing social order.
- Poor relief to safeguard public order.
- Poor relief could reduce the danger of infection
- Poor relief to stimulate paupers to work
A good is a collective good, in Olson’s definition, if all members of a group have access to it and no
one can be excluded from its use.
Selective incentives; private goods made available to people on the basis of whether they contribute
to a collective good. Selective incentives may operate in the form of praise for cooperative members
and shame for free-riders (thus establishing or harming their reputations).
Means of surviving for the poor were the following;
4
