143:", e.g. ties that link groups across a greater social distance. As the authors elaborate, the creation of robust social capital takes time and effort. It develops largely through extensive and time-consuming face-to-face conversation between two individuals or small groups of people. Only then there is the chance to build the trust and mutual understanding that characterizes the foundation of social capital. In no way, Putnam and Feldstein write, it is possible to create social capital instantaneous, anonymous or en masse. Furthermore, building social capital among people who already share a reservoir of similar cultural referents, ethnicity, personal experience or moral identity etc. is qualitatively different. Homogeneity makes connective strategies easier, however, a society with only homogeneous social capital risks looking like Bosnia or Belfast. Hence, bridging social capital is especially important for reconciling democracy and diversity. Yet, bridging social capital among diverse social group is intrinsically less likely to develop automatically.
77:. Studies from the last decade show, that our societies have become more fragmented and less coherent (e.g. Bishop 2008), neighbourhoods turning into little states, organizing themselves to defend the local politics and culture against outsiders (Walzer 1983; Bauman 2017) and increasingly identifying through ways of voting, lifestyle or wellbeing (e.g. Schäfer 2015). Especially people on the more right and left political spectrum are more likely to say it is important to them to live in a place where most people share their political views and have similar interests (Pew 2014). Hence, citizens become alienated from democratic
81:(Foa and Munk 2016; Levitsky and Ziblatt 2018) and tend to assume that their opponents believe more extreme things than they really do (Iyengar et al. 2012). Moreover, fear of being identified as unqualified, denied value and dignity and for that reason marginalized, excluded or outcast, is giving rise to a widespread disenchantment with the idea that the future will improve the human condition and a mistrust in the ability of nation-states to make this happen (Pew 2015; Bauman 2017). At the same time, accelerations in liberal progression,
30:, often in a community setting. Social disruption implies a radical transformation, in which the old certainties of modern society are falling away and something quite new is emerging. Social disruption might be caused through natural disasters, massive human displacements, rapid economic, technological and demographic change but also due to controversial policy-making.
104:
International but also local challenges force our societies to find solutions and make decisions on controversial issues in an accelerated manner. The complexity of such decisions is not only mirrored in the aim to tackle a multi-causality of root causes, it also faces a high degree of uncertainty as
113:
on the other (Mair 2009), it is very likely that political decisions further polarize our societies. The explanation is that citizens evaluate disruptive developments and related policy changes on a two-way level, on the personal interests and comfort, as well on its perceived impact on their social
130:
disputes, parties are hardly giving up their assumptions voluntarily, and citizens begin to masquerade their true individual conflict of interest (e.g. devaluation of property; insecurity) with more normative conflict of interest (e.g. protection of nature; protection of culture). Such distorted
37:
that are creating new landscapes, drawing new world maps whose key lines are not traditional boundaries between nation-states but elevations above sea level. On the local level, an example would be the closing of a community grocery store, which might cause social disruption in a
126:, to bridge that divide, is declining (Mair 2009). In such a situations, social psychology tells us that citizens who feel uncomfortable will hold tighter to the assumptions that make them feel secure (Podziba 2014). Especially in
58:"We are wandering aimlessly and dispassionately, arguing for and against, but the one statement on which we are, beyond all differences and over many continents, to be able to agree on, is: "I can no longer understand the world".
114:
identity and community (Ryan and Deci 2000; Haidt 2012). If a policy change reflects the substantive representation of the median voter, is something that just does not matter to citizens in regard to their
118:
of decisions (Esaiasson et al. 2017). This can produce multi facet conflicts over interests, facts and norms between supporters and opponents (Itten 2017). Simultaneously, the capacity of
85:
and migration flows have led to increasing polarized contestations about national identities - a volatile and critical social state, prone to conflict escalation (e.g. hate crimes after
354:
Krannich, Richard S, and Thomas
Greider. 1984. "Personal Well-Being in Rapid Growth and Stable Communities: Multiple Indicators and Contrasting Results." Rural Sociology 49(4): 541–552.
246:
139:
In the light of the increasing social divisions and democratic disconnection, Putnam and
Feldstein (2004) foresaw the importance of creating "bridging
101:"It is unclear how to achieve policy changes of any kind in a polarized society that has few shared facts and whose civic muscles are atrophying."
403:
Ryan, R. M., and Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being.
222:
264:
131:
behaviour remarkably increases at times citizens or communities feel that a policy change is threatening their way of living.
307:
Esaiasson, P., Gilljam, M., and
Persson, M. (2017): Responsiveness Beyond Policy Satisfaction: Does It Matter to Citizens?
43:
343:
Iyengar, S., Sood, G., and Lelkes, Y. (2012). Affect, Not
Ideology. A Social Identity Perspective on Polarization.
78:
66:
70:
175:
90:
441:
74:
286:
Bauman, Z. (2017). Symptoms in search for an object and a name, in
Geiselberger, H. (Ed.) (2017).
240:
228:
218:
160:
119:
115:
47:
385:
Podziba, S. L. (2014). Civic fusion: Moving from certainty through not knowing to curiosity.
260:
110:
27:
170:
165:
140:
106:
34:
435:
127:
123:
82:
105:
regard to its impact. Hence, due to the growing separation between the world of
62:
232:
332:
Itten, A. (2017). Context and
Content toward Consensus in Public Mediation.
39:
23:
302:
The big sort: Why the clustering of like-minded
America is tearing us apart
327:
The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion.
155:
86:
185:
42:
by removing a "meeting ground" for community members to develop
364:
Mair, P. (2009). Representative versus
Responsible Government.
314:
Foa, R. S. and Mounk, Y. (2016). The democratic disconnect.
190:
265:"The three crises of liberal democracy | Ganesh Sitaraman"
26:
to describe the alteration, dysfunction or breakdown of
419:
Spheres of justice: A defense of pluralism and equality
61:
Social disruptions often lead to five social symptoms:
410:
Schäfer, A. (2015). Demokratie? Mehr oder weniger, in
380:
Beyond
Distrust: How Americans View Their Government.
398:Better together: Restoring the American community
373:Political Polarization in the American Public.
8:
245:: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
396:Putnam, R. D. and Feldstein, L. (2004).
202:
238:
357:Levitsky, S. and Ziblatt, D. (2018).
7:
424:W. David Pierce and Carl D. Cheney,
208:
206:
33:Social disruptions are for example
109:on the one hand, and the world of
14:
290:. Cambridge: Polity Press, 13-26.
412:Frankfurter Allgemeinen Zeitung
400:. New York: Simon and Schuster.
295:The Metamorphosis of the World.
426:Behavior Analysis and Learning
215:The metamorphosis of the world
1:
309:Comparative Political Studies
191:Disrupted Societies Institute
378:Pew Research Center (2015).
371:Pew Research Center (2014).
304:. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
65:, democratic disconnection,
54:Results of social disruption
213:Beck, Ulrich (2016-04-18).
44:interpersonal relationships
458:
93:in Charlottesville, USA).
421:. New York: Basic books.
345:Public opinion quarterly
135:Bridging social capital
405:American psychologist
293:Beck, Ulrich (2017).
176:Social transformation
359:How Democracies Die.
316:Journal of Democracy
288:The Great Regression
417:Walzer, M. (1983).
387:Negotiation Journal
366:MPIfG Working Paper
334:Negotiation Journal
300:Bishop, B. (2008).
329:New York: Vintage.
325:Haidt, J. (2012).
89:vote, incident at
22:is a term used in
261:Sitaraman, Ganesh
161:Gillette syndrome
120:political parties
35:rising sea levels
20:Social disruption
449:
279:
278:
276:
275:
257:
251:
250:
244:
236:
210:
457:
456:
452:
451:
450:
448:
447:
446:
432:
431:
407:, 55(1): 68-92.
311:50(6): 739-765.
283:
282:
273:
271:
259:
258:
254:
237:
225:
212:
211:
204:
199:
181:Organisations:
149:
137:
111:problem solving
99:
91:far-right rally
56:
17:
12:
11:
5:
455:
453:
445:
444:
434:
433:
430:
429:
422:
415:
408:
401:
394:
383:
376:
369:
362:
355:
352:
341:
330:
323:
312:
305:
298:
291:
281:
280:
263:(2018-03-17).
252:
223:
201:
200:
198:
195:
194:
193:
188:
186:Civil Politics
179:
178:
173:
171:Social capital
168:
166:Social problem
163:
158:
148:
145:
141:social capital
136:
133:
122:and actors of
107:public opinion
98:
95:
55:
52:
46:and community
16:Sociology term
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
454:
443:
440:
439:
437:
427:
423:
420:
416:
413:
409:
406:
402:
399:
395:
393:(3): 243-254.
392:
388:
384:
381:
377:
374:
370:
367:
363:
360:
356:
353:
351:(3): 405-431.
350:
346:
342:
340:(3): 185-211.
339:
335:
331:
328:
324:
321:
317:
313:
310:
306:
303:
299:
297:Polity Press.
296:
292:
289:
285:
284:
270:
266:
262:
256:
253:
248:
242:
234:
230:
226:
224:9780745690216
220:
217:. Cambridge.
216:
209:
207:
203:
196:
192:
189:
187:
184:
183:
182:
177:
174:
172:
169:
167:
164:
162:
159:
157:
154:
153:
152:
146:
144:
142:
134:
132:
129:
128:public policy
125:
124:civil society
121:
117:
112:
108:
102:
97:Policy making
96:
94:
92:
88:
84:
83:globalization
80:
76:
72:
68:
67:fragmentation
64:
59:
53:
51:
49:
45:
41:
36:
31:
29:
25:
21:
425:
418:
414:, 9.11.2015.
411:
404:
397:
390:
386:
382:November, 23
379:
372:
365:
358:
348:
344:
337:
333:
326:
319:
315:
308:
301:
294:
287:
272:. Retrieved
269:the Guardian
268:
255:
214:
180:
150:
138:
103:
100:
71:polarization
60:
57:
32:
19:
18:
442:Behaviorism
151:Sociology:
63:frustration
28:social life
322:(3): 5-17.
274:2018-04-23
197:References
116:acceptance
75:escalation
48:solidarity
375:June, 12.
241:cite book
233:921994898
79:consensus
40:community
24:sociology
436:Category
156:Boomtown
147:See also
428:3rd ED
361:Crown.
231:
221:
87:Brexit
368:09/8.
247:link
229:OCLC
219:ISBN
73:and
438::
391:30
389:,
349:76
347:,
338:33
336:,
320:27
318:,
267:.
243:}}
239:{{
227:.
205:^
69:,
50:.
277:.
249:)
235:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.