THE SOCIAL ORGANISATION OF NEWS PRODUCTION A CASE STUDY OF BBC RADIO AND TELEVTSION NEWS PHILIP RONALD SCHLESINGER ABSTRACT This is a case study in the microsociology of knowledge oonducted in the Lon[.]
The importance of the organisation of injecting drug use in trusted social networks is another difficult area for prison health agencies to address . Previous writers have examined the fears held by HIV positive inmates of being excluded from injecting opportunities, and social networks, if they disclose their status . These findings suggest that similar social influences are at play in decisions about disclosure of HCV [25,26], despite the much higher prevalence of this infection than HIV. However, knowing (or assuming) others’ HCV status was one key element of decisions about injecting partners and negotiating HCV risk, across a range of prisons with differing accommodation and other orga- nisational arrangements. As prisoners are moved between prisons, these networks will form and re-form. How best to address the socialorganisation of drug use requires further research and the input of prisoners in any resultant responses to examine both the risk and the posi- tive outcomes of social relationships within prison .
00001t tif University o f London London School o f Economics and Political Science Builders The Social Organisation o f a Construction Site A Dissertation submitted to the Department o f Sociology in[.]
Independent of the exact feedbacks influencing family stability, common factors are likely to underpin how environmental conditions mediate these conflicts; namely, the terms identified by Hamilton’s rule. These developments suggest a revision of the verbal model put forward by While et al. (2009b). Specifically, my work suggests that all family members may play a role in determining the composition and stability of family groups, but that conflicts will be contextualized by local ecological conditions. Rates of polyandry will be driven partly by habitat characteristics that promote inter-sex overlap (chapter 2), influencing the relatedness (r) among group members. Conflict between siblings may be as important as ‘father-offspring’ conflict in determining patterns of cooperation at the home refuge in the presence of polyandry; both social males and within-pair offspring will face reductions in relatedness (r) toward extra-pair offspring. While cuckolded males share no genes directly by decent with extra-pair offspring, the fine-grained genetic structure of L. whitii populations means that even extra-pair offspring will often confer an inclusive fitness benefit to cuckolded males (While et al. 2014). Given the lack of costs associated with tolerating offspring (chapter 3) small inclusive fitness benefits could potentially explain why extra-pair offspring are sometimes tolerated by cuckolded males, albeit rarely (While, Uller, and Wapstra 2009b). Considerable physical antagonism between siblings suggests that juvenile L. whitii undergo severe competition, increasing the costs (C) of cooperative behaviour, especially with extra-pair half sibs.
The above discussion suggests that drug dealing takes place around a complex network of individuals, some of whom buy larger amounts which they sell wholesale. Others buy from wholesalers to retail to consumers. Some retail small amounts themselves, others retail sufficient amounts to profit from subcontracting their enterprise. This does not rule out the use of coercion (as described by Hales and Hobbs 2010): some relationships may be based upon extortion or force, however, the evidence suggests that if this does occur it is individually driven dynamic rather than collectively managed. This may also account for why Kwasi saw Red Gang as providing a protection from robbery, while Leo and Kane identified threats emanating from within Red Gang: different people have different perceptions of the structure and organisation of Red Gang because they have different experiences of the group. In this way – according to the gang members / ex-gang members interviewed - while the gang is composed of a number of drug dealers it is not a drug dealing organisation.
The number of steps in a complete initiat ory sequence is obviously a di f f i cul t matter under the kind of circumstances which prevail among the West Mianmin. The men of Kari groups typically underwent five or six ritual steps while many of the groups in the lower altitudes only staged one large r itual . In fact a person is d i l l (an i ni t i at e) in regard to particular r i tual s (and this applies to the curing r i tual s too) and there is no conventional basis to the minimum required before a man may regard himself as ' ful ly' initiated. It is worth adding here that there are important rituals performed by groups beyond the boundaries of West Mianmin t erritory, and on the margins of their social universe, which the Kari have not performed themselves during the last two generations. Nevertheless men of that group have travelled to take part in those r ites when
The starting point of this engagement is an understanding that politics is always already connected to questions of organisation. Here we do not merely mean the organisation of political institutions. If one understands the constitution of the social – of life as such – as in itself political, then this constitutional act is linked inherently to questions of socialorganisation. The political slogan of the Social Forum movement is: ‘Another World Is Possible’. Although there are multiple, sometimes contradictory, voices within this movement, clearly it aims at the transformation of the world – of life as such. It is for this ambition of a political transformation of life that it becomes of utmost importance to engage with – that is, describe, critique and translate – the organisation of the Social Forum movement. The rationale is that, if we understand the organisation of this
Anarchism has often been associated with chaos and disorder, and so to take anarchism as the starting point for a discussion of organisation may to some seem odd. The depiction of the bomb-throwing anarchist assassin and provocateur left in the public imagination by works of literature such as Joseph Conrad’s The Secret Agent lingers to this day, and ‘anarchist’ is often used across the political spectrum to dismiss an opponent’s views and actions as nonsensical, immature and, worse yet, a dangerous threat to any and all forms of socialorganisation. The anarchist tradition, contrary to these dramatic caricatures, is fundamentally concerned with order and with effective organisation. One of the earliest proponents of anarchism as a political position, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon argued that ‘society finds its highest perfection in the union of order with anarchy’ (1840: n.p.). As Ruth Kinna puts it, ‘anarchism is a doctrine that aims at the liberation of peoples from political domination and economic exploitation by the encouragement of direct or non-governmental action’ (2005: 1). Anarchism shares with traditions such as socialism and communism the view that people should be free to enjoy the fruits of their labour without exploitation by capitalists and other land and property owners and that they should have the political freedom to associate in whatever ways they please and to explore individual autonomy to the greatest extent allowed by the need for collective organisation. This drive towards collective and individual liberation has seen anarchists over the last almost two centuries resist in various ways, among others, capitalism, the state, organised religion, monarchy, patriarchy, racism and colonialism, homophobia and, more recently, environmental destruction and exploitation of animals.
separation of ownership and control between owners and managers that decision makers may act in self-interest rather than in the interests of the owners and or the shareholders (Jensen and Meckling 1976, Fama 1980). By implication, it then becomes necessary for boards of directors to monitor the behaviour of policy makers and managers (Eisenhardt 1989). This general concern for ethics and social responsibility is mirrored in wider lens perspectives, which focus on occupational health and safety and corporate regulations (e.g. Braithwaite 1993, Driscoll, Hoffman and Murphy 2002, Carroll 1999, Freeman, 1999). Indeed, some writers critically question whether the regulation of human’s rights issues can and should be entrusted to corporations (e.g. Parker, 1999ab). Implicit in these studies is the concern for the social consequences of modern organisation in the future.
The conflict among what clearly appear as two divergent political cultures (Ruggiero 2004), will then explode publicly and openly during the European assembly for the preparation of the ESF, held in London on 6 and 7 March 2004. The European delegates could bear witness of the accusations made by ‘horizontals’ in the way the meeting was chaired, in blatant tactics to force through a pre-established controversial agenda. The ‘verticals’ were forced to the negotiating table in the midst of the assembly in order to renegotiate the terms within which the ESF process would proceed. The outcome of what several horizontals saw as a major victory, will however in the following months be frustrated by the continuation of the same practices, in an endless war of attrition between the two political cultures. By June, only few months away from the event, most of the people involved in horizontal networks opted to put their organizational energies and skills in the organization of seminars, workshops, accommodations, and logistics of autonomous spaces (www.altspaces.net), which, as we will briefly discuss below, become the most diverse, vibrant and most attended of the brief history of the ESF. Indeed, the latter spaces showed that the two camps held quite different meanings of democracy; they valued different aspects of it. On one hand, a hierarchal concept of democracy, rooted in apparatus, in which the powers of the social body (in this case the people involved in the production of the Forum) are articulated through a vertical scale of representations and mediations that constructs and rigidify roles, bureaucratically define the boundaries of the subjects’ inputs, of what they can or cannot contribute to, of how they can and cannot contribute, and confine the free expression of their powers within a wall well guarded by bureaucratic socialist principles. In this country, this vertical line is the mainstream of politics. On the other hand