Social behavior is behavior among two or more organisms within the same species, encompasses any behavior in which one member affects the other. This is due to an interaction among those members. Social behavior can be seen as similar to an exchange of goods, with the expectation that when you give, you will receive the same; this behavior can be effected by both the qualities of the environmental factors. Therefore, social behavior arises as a result of an interaction between the two—the organism and its environment; this means that, in regards to humans, social behavior can be determined by both the individual characteristics of the person, the situation they are in. A major aspect of social behavior is communication, the basis for survival and reproduction. Social behavior is said to be determined by two different processes, that can either work together or oppose one another; the dual-systems model of reflective and impulsive determinants of social behavior came out of the realization that behavior cannot just be determined by one single factor.
Instead, behavior can arise by pure impulse. These factors that determine behavior can work in different situations and moments, can oppose one another. While at times one can behave with a specific goal in mind, other times they can behave without rational control, driven by impulse instead. There are distinctions between different types of social behavior, such as mundane versus defensive social behavior. Mundane social behavior is a result of interactions in day-to-day life, are behaviors learned as one is exposed to those different situations. On the other hand, defensive behavior arises out of impulse, when one is faced with conflicting desires. Social behavior changes as one continues to grow and develop, reaching different stages of life; the development of behavior is tied with the biological and cognitive changes one is experiencing at any given time. This creates general patterns of social behavior development in humans. Just as social behavior is influenced by both the situation and an individual's characteristics, the development of behavior is due to the combination of the two as well—the temperament of the child along with the settings they are exposed to.
Culture play a large role in the development of a child's social behavior, as the parents or caregivers are those who decide the settings and situations that the child is exposed to. These various settings the child is placed in form habits of interaction and behavior insomuch as the child being exposed to certain settings more than others. What takes particular precedence in the influence of the setting are the people that the child must interact with—their age, at times culture. Emotions play a large role in the development of social behavior, as they are intertwined with the way an individual behaves. Through social interactions, emotion is understood through various verbal and nonverbal displays, thus plays a large role in communication. Many of the processes that occur in the brain and underly emotion greatly correlate with the processes that are needed for social behavior as well. A major aspect of interaction is understanding how the other person thinks and feels, being able to detect emotional states becomes necessary for individuals to interact with one another and behave socially.
As the child continues to gain social information, their behavior develops accordingly. One must learn how to behave according to the interactions and people relevant to a certain setting, therefore begin to intuitively know the appropriate form of social interaction depending on the situation. Therefore, behavior is changing as required, maturity brings this on. A child must learn to balance their own desires with those of the people they interact with, this ability to respond to contextual cues and understand the intentions and desires of another person improves with age; that being said, the individual characteristics of the child is important to understanding how the individual learns social behaviors and cues given to them, this learnability is not consistent across all children. When studying patterns of biological development across the human lifespan, there are certain patterns that are well-maintained across humans; these patterns can correspond with social development, biological changes lead to respective changes in interactions.
In pre and post-natal infancy, the behavior of the infant is correlated with that of the caregiver. In infancy, there is a development of the awareness of a stranger, in which case the individual is able to identify and distinguish between people. Come childhood, the individual begins to attend more to their peers, communication begins to take a verbal form. One begins to classify themselves on the basis of their gender and other qualities salient about themselves, like race and age; when the child reaches school age, one becomes more aware of the structure of society in regards to gender, how their own gender plays a role in this. They become more and more reliant on verbal forms of communication, more to form groups and become aware of their own role within the group. By puberty, general relations among same and opposite sex individuals are much more salient, individuals begin to behave according to the norms of these situations. With increasing awareness of their sex and stereotypes that go along with it, the individual begins to choose how much they align with these stereotypes, behaves either according to thos
Civil society can be understood as the "third sector" of society, distinct from government and business, including the family and the private sphere. By other authors, "civil society" is used in the sense of 1) the aggregate of non-governmental organizations and institutions that manifest interests and will of citizens or 2) individuals and organizations in a society which are independent of the government. Sometimes the term civil society is used in the more general sense of "the elements such as freedom of speech, an independent judiciary, that make up a democratic society". In the discussions among thinkers of Eastern and Central Europe, civil society is seen as a normative concept of civic values; the term civil society goes back to Aristotle's phrase koinōnía politikḗ, occurring in his Politics, where it refers to a ‘political community’, commensurate with the Greek city-state characterized by a shared set of norms and ethos, in which free citizens on an equal footing lived under the rule of law.
The telos or end of civil society, thus defined, was eudaimonia, in as man was defined as a ‘political animal’. The concept was used by Roman writers, such as Cicero, where it referred to the ancient notion of a republic, it re-entered into Western political discourse following one of the late medieval translations of Aristotle’s Politics into Latin by Leonardo Bruni who as a first translated koinōnía politikḗ into societas civilis. With the rise of a distinction between monarchical autonomy and public law, the term gained currency to denote the corporate estates of a feudal elite of land-holders as opposed to the powers exercised by the prince, it had a long history in state theory, was revived with particular force in recent times, in Eastern Europe, where dissidents such as Václav Havel as late as in 1990's employed it to denote the sphere of civic associations threatened by the intrusive holistic state-dominated regimes of Communist Eastern Europe. The first post-modern usage of civil society as denoting political opposition stems from writings of Aleksander Smolar in 1978-79.
However the term was not in use by Solidarity labor union in 1980-1981 and was popularized on a global scale by communist propaganda only in 1989 as a tool of legitimation of neoliberal transformation. The literature on relations between civil society and democratic political society have their roots in classical liberal writings of G. W. F. Hegel from whom they were adapted by Alexis de Tocqueville, Karl Marx, Ferdinand Tönnies, they were developed in significant ways by 20th century researchers Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba, who identified the role of political culture in a democratic order as vital. They argued that the political element of political organizations facilitates better awareness and a more informed citizenry, who make better voting choices, participate in politics, hold government more accountable as a result; the statutes of these political organizations have been considered micro-constitutions because they accustom participants to the formalities of democratic decision making.
More Robert D. Putnam has argued that non-political organizations in civil society are vital for democracy; this is because they build social capital and shared values, which are transferred into the political sphere and help to hold society together, facilitating an understanding of the interconnectedness of society and interests within it. Others, have questioned how democratic civil society is; some have noted that the civil society actors have now obtained a remarkable amount of political power without anyone directly electing or appointing them. It has been argued that civil society is biased towards the global north. Partha Chatterjee has argued that, in most of the world, "civil society is demographically limited." For Jai Sen civil society is a neo-colonial project driven by global elites in their own interests. Other scholars have argued that, since the concept of civil society is related to democracy and representation, it should in turn be linked with ideas of nationality and nationalism.
Latest analyses suggest that civil society is a neoliberal ideology legitimizing antidemocratic attack of economic elites on institutions of the welfare state through the development of the third sector as its substitute. Constitutional economics is a field of economics and constitutionalism which describes and analyzes the specific interrelationships between constitutional issues and functioning of the economy including budget process; the term "constitutional economics" was used by American economist James M. Buchanan as a name for a new budget planning and the latter's transparency to the civil society, are of the primary guiding importance to the implementation of the rule of law; the availability of an effective court system, to be used by the civil society in situations of unfair government spending and executive impoundment of any authorized appropriations, becomes a key element for the success of any influential civil society. Critics and activists often apply the term civil society to the domain of social life which needs to be protected against globalization, to the sources of resistance thereto, because it is seen as acting beyond boundaries and across different territories.
However, as civil society can, under many definitions, include and be funded and directed by those businesses and institutions who support globalization, this is a contested use. Rapid development of civil society on the global scale after the fall of t
Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution
Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution is a 1902 essay collection by Russian naturalist and anarchist philosopher Peter Kropotkin. The essays published in the English periodical The Nineteenth Century between 1890 and 1896, explore the role of mutually-beneficial cooperation and reciprocity in the animal kingdom and human societies both past and present, it is an argument against theories of social Darwinism that emphasize competition and survival of the fittest, against the romantic depictions by writers such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who thought that cooperation was motivated by universal love. Instead Kropotkin argues that mutual aid has pragmatic advantages for the survival of human and animal communities and, along with the conscience, has been promoted through natural selection. Mutual Aid is considered a fundamental text in anarchist communism, it presents a scientific basis for communism as an alternative to the historical materialism of the Marxists. Kropotkin considers the importance of mutual aid for prosperity and survival in the animal kingdom, in indigenous and early European societies, in the Medieval free cities, in the late 19th century village, labor movement, poor folk.
He criticizes the State for destroying important mutual aid institutions through the imposition of private property. Many biologists consider it an important catalyst in the scientific study of cooperation. Daniel P. Todes, in his account of Russian naturalism in the 19th century, concludes that Kropotkin's work "cannot be dismissed as the idiosyncratic product of an anarchist dabbling in biology" and that his views "were but one expression of a broad current in Russian evolutionary thought that pre-dated, indeed encouraged, his work on the subject and was by no means confined to leftist thinkers."Kropotkin emphasizes the distinction between competitive struggle between individual organisms over limited resources and collective struggle between organisms and the environment. He drew from his first hand observations of Siberia and Northeast Asia, where he saw that animal populations were limited not by food sources, which were abundant, but rather by harsh weather. For example, predatory birds may compete by stealing food from one another while migratory birds cooperate in order to survive harsh winters by traveling long distances.
He did not deny the competitive form of struggle, but argued that the cooperative counterpart has been under-emphasized: "There is an immense amount of warfare and extermination going on amidst various species. Sociability is as much a law of nature as mutual struggle."As a description of biology, Kropotkin's perspective is consistent with contemporary understanding. Stephen Jay Gould admired Kropotkin's observations, noting that cooperation, if it increases individual survival, is not ruled out by natural selection, is in fact encouraged. Kropotkin's ideas anticipate the now recognized importance of altruism in biology. Examples of altruism in animals include reciprocal altruism. Douglas H. Boucher places Kropotkin's book as a precursor to the development of the biological theory of altruism. Altruism Altruism in animals Anarchism Co-operation Evolutionary psychology Mutual aid Psychological egoism Sociobiology Works related to Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution at Wikisource Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution at Project Gutenberg Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution – HTML version at the Anarchy Archives Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution – Plain PDF version at the Anarchist Library Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution public domain audiobook at LibriVox Iain McKay Mutual Aid: An Introduction and Evaluation, AK Press, Edinburgh, 2010
In the history of Europe, the Middle Ages lasted from the 5th to the 15th century. It began with the fall of the Western Roman Empire and merged into the Renaissance and the Age of Discovery; the Middle Ages is the middle period of the three traditional divisions of Western history: classical antiquity, the medieval period, the modern period. The medieval period is itself subdivided into the Early and Late Middle Ages. Population decline, counterurbanisation, collapse of centralized authority and mass migrations of tribes, which had begun in Late Antiquity, continued in the Early Middle Ages; the large-scale movements of the Migration Period, including various Germanic peoples, formed new kingdoms in what remained of the Western Roman Empire. In the 7th century, North Africa and the Middle East—once part of the Byzantine Empire—came under the rule of the Umayyad Caliphate, an Islamic empire, after conquest by Muhammad's successors. Although there were substantial changes in society and political structures, the break with classical antiquity was not complete.
The still-sizeable Byzantine Empire, Rome's direct continuation, survived in the Eastern Mediterranean and remained a major power. The empire's law code, the Corpus Juris Civilis or "Code of Justinian", was rediscovered in Northern Italy in 1070 and became admired in the Middle Ages. In the West, most kingdoms incorporated the few extant Roman institutions. Monasteries were founded; the Franks, under the Carolingian dynasty established the Carolingian Empire during the 8th and early 9th century. It covered much of Western Europe but succumbed to the pressures of internal civil wars combined with external invasions: Vikings from the north, Magyars from the east, Saracens from the south. During the High Middle Ages, which began after 1000, the population of Europe increased as technological and agricultural innovations allowed trade to flourish and the Medieval Warm Period climate change allowed crop yields to increase. Manorialism, the organisation of peasants into villages that owed rent and labour services to the nobles, feudalism, the political structure whereby knights and lower-status nobles owed military service to their overlords in return for the right to rent from lands and manors, were two of the ways society was organised in the High Middle Ages.
The Crusades, first preached in 1095, were military attempts by Western European Christians to regain control of the Holy Land from Muslims. Kings became the heads of centralised nation-states, reducing crime and violence but making the ideal of a unified Christendom more distant. Intellectual life was marked by scholasticism, a philosophy that emphasised joining faith to reason, by the founding of universities; the theology of Thomas Aquinas, the paintings of Giotto, the poetry of Dante and Chaucer, the travels of Marco Polo, the Gothic architecture of cathedrals such as Chartres are among the outstanding achievements toward the end of this period and into the Late Middle Ages. The Late Middle Ages was marked by difficulties and calamities including famine and war, which diminished the population of Europe. Controversy and the Western Schism within the Catholic Church paralleled the interstate conflict, civil strife, peasant revolts that occurred in the kingdoms. Cultural and technological developments transformed European society, concluding the Late Middle Ages and beginning the early modern period.
The Middle Ages is one of the three major periods in the most enduring scheme for analysing European history: classical civilisation, or Antiquity. The "Middle Ages" first appears in Latin in 1469 as media tempestas or "middle season". In early usage, there were many variants, including medium aevum, or "middle age", first recorded in 1604, media saecula, or "middle ages", first recorded in 1625; the alternative term "medieval" derives from medium aevum. Medieval writers divided history into periods such as the "Six Ages" or the "Four Empires", considered their time to be the last before the end of the world; when referring to their own times, they spoke of them as being "modern". In the 1330s, the humanist and poet Petrarch referred to pre-Christian times as antiqua and to the Christian period as nova. Leonardo Bruni was the first historian to use tripartite periodisation in his History of the Florentine People, with a middle period "between the fall of the Roman Empire and the revival of city life sometime in late eleventh and twelfth centuries".
Tripartite periodisation became standard after the 17th-century German historian Christoph Cellarius divided history into three periods: ancient and modern. The most given starting point for the Middle Ages is around 500, with the date of 476 first used by Bruni. Starting dates are sometimes used in the outer parts of Europe. For Europe as a whole, 1500 is considered to be the end of the Middle Ages, but there is no universally agreed upon end date. Depending on the context, events such as the conquest of Constantinople by the Turks in 1453, Christopher Columbus's first voyage to the Americas in 1492, or the Protestant Reformation in 1517 are sometimes used. English historians use the Battle of Bosworth Field in 1485 to mark the end of the period. For Spain, dates used are the death of King Ferdinand II in 1516, the death of Queen Isabella I of Castile in 1504, or the conquest of Granada in 1492. Historians from Romance-speaking countries tend to divide the Middle Ages into two parts: an earlier "High" and late
Consensus decision-making is a group decision-making process in which group members develop, agree to support a decision in the best interest of the whole group or common goal. Consensus may be defined professionally as an acceptable resolution, one that can be supported if not the "favourite" of each individual, it has its origin in the Latin word cōnsēnsus, from cōnsentiō meaning feel together. It is used to describe both the process of reaching a decision. Consensus decision-making is thus concerned with the process of deliberating and finalizing a decision, the social, legal and political effects of applying this process; as a decision-making process, consensus decision-making aims to be: Agreement Seeking: A consensus decision-making process attempts to generate as much agreement as possible. Collaborative: Participants contribute to a shared proposal and shape it into a decision that meets the concerns of all group members as much as possible. Cooperative: Participants in an effective consensus process should strive to reach the best possible decision for the group and all of its members, rather than competing for personal preferences.
Egalitarian: All members of a consensus decision-making body should be afforded, as much as possible, equal input into the process. All members have the opportunity to present, amend proposals. Inclusive: As many stakeholders as possible should be involved in the consensus decision-making process. Participatory: The consensus process should solicit the input and participation of all decision-makers. Consensus decision-making is an alternative to practiced group decision-making processes. Robert's Rules of Order, for instance, is a guide book used by many organizations; this book allows the structuring of debate and passage of proposals that can be approved through majority vote. It does not emphasize the goal of full agreement. Critics of such a process believe that it can involve adversarial debate and the formation of competing factions; these dynamics may harm group member relationships and undermine the ability of a group to cooperatively implement a contentious decision. Consensus decision-making attempts to address the beliefs of such problems.
Proponents claim that outcomes of the consensus process include: Better decisions: Through including the input of all stakeholders the resulting proposals may better address all potential concerns. Better implementation: A process that includes and respects all parties, generates as much agreement as possible sets the stage for greater cooperation in implementing the resulting decisions. Better group relationships: A cooperative, collaborative group atmosphere can foster greater group cohesion and interpersonal connection. Consensus is not synonymous with "unanimity"– though that may be a rule agreed to in a decision making process; the level of agreement necessary to finalize a decision is known as a "decision rule". To ensure the agreement or consent of all participants is valued, many groups choose unanimity or near-unanimity as their decision rule. Groups that require unanimity allow individual participants the option of blocking a group decision; this provision motivates a group to make sure that all group members consent to any new proposal before it is adopted.
Proper guidelines for the use of this option, are important. The ethics of consensus decision-making encourage participants to place the good of the whole group above their own individual preferences; when there is potential for a block to a group decision, both the group and dissenters in the group are encouraged to collaborate until agreement can be reached. Vetoing a decision is not considered a responsible use of consensus blocking; some common guidelines for the use of consensus blocking include: Providing an option for those who do not support a proposal to “stand aside” rather than block. Requiring a block from two or more people to put a proposal aside. Requiring the blocking party to supply an alternative proposal or a process for generating one. Limiting each person’s option to block consensus to a handful of times in one’s life. Limiting the option of blocking to decisions that are substantial to the mission or operation of the group and not allowing blocking on routine decisions. Limiting the allowable rationale for blocking to issues that are fundamental to the group’s mission or disastrous to the group.
A participant who does not support a proposal may have alternatives to blocking it. Some common options may include the ability to: Declare reservations: Group members who are willing to let a motion pass but desire to register their concerns with the group may choose "declare reservations." If there are significant reservations about a motion, the decision-making body may choose to modify or re-word the proposal. Stand aside: A "stand aside" may be registered by a group member who has a "serious personal disagreement" with a proposal, but is willing to let the motion pass. Although stand asides do not halt a motion, it is regarded as a strong "nay vote" and the concerns of group members standing aside are addressed by modifications to the proposal. Stand asides may be registered by users who feel they are incapable of adequately understanding or participating in the proposal. Object: Any group member may "object" to a proposal. In groups with a unanimity decision rule, a single block is sufficient to stop a proposal.
Other decision rules may require more than one objection for a proposal to be blocked or not pass. The basic model for achieving consensus as defined by any decision rule involves: Collaboratively generating a proposal Identifying unsatisfied concerns Modifying the proposal to generate as much agreement as poss
A cooperative is "an autonomous association of persons united voluntarily to meet their common economic and cultural needs and aspirations through a jointly-owned and democratically-controlled enterprise". Cooperatives may include: businesses owned and managed by the people who use their services organizations managed by the people who work there multi-stakeholder or hybrid cooperatives that share ownership between different stakeholder groups. For example, care cooperatives where ownership is shared between both care-givers and receivers. Stakeholders might include non-profits or investors. Second- and third-tier cooperatives whose members are other cooperatives platform cooperatives that use a cooperatively owned and governed website, mobile app or a protocol to facilitate the sale of goods and services. Research published by the Worldwatch Institute found that in 2012 one billion people in 96 countries had become members of at least one cooperative; the turnover of the largest three hundred cooperatives in the world reached $2.2 trillion.
Cooperative businesses are more economically resilient than many other forms of enterprise, with twice the number of co-operatives surviving their first five years compared with other business ownership models. Cooperatives have social goals which they aim to accomplish by investing a proportion of trading profits back into their communities; as an example of this, in 2013, retail co-operatives in the UK invested 6.9% of their pre-tax profits in the communities in which they trade as compared with 2.4% for other rival supermarkets. Since 2002 cooperatives and credit unions could be distinguished on the Internet by use of a.coop domain. Since 2014, following International Cooperative Alliance's introduction of the Cooperative Marque, ICA cooperatives and WOCCU credit unions can be identified by a coop ethical consumerism label. Cooperation dates back as far. Tribes were organized as cooperative structures, allocating jobs and resources among each other, only trading with the external communities.
In alpine environments, trade could only be maintained in organized cooperatives to achieve a useful condition of artificial roads such as Viamala in 1472. Pre-industrial Europe is home to the first cooperatives from an industrial context; the roots of the cooperative movement can extend worldwide. In the English-speaking world, post-feudal forms of cooperation between workers and owners that are expressed today as "profit-sharing" and "surplus sharing" arrangements, existed as far back as 1795; the key ideological influence on the Anglosphere branch of the cooperative movement, was a rejection of the charity principles that underpinned welfare reforms when the British government radically revised its Poor Laws in 1834. As both state and church institutions began to distinguish between the'deserving' and'undeserving' poor, a movement of friendly societies grew throughout the British Empire based on the principle of mutuality, committed to self-help in the welfare of working people. In 1761, the Fenwick Weavers' Society was formed in Fenwick, East Ayrshire, Scotland to sell discounted oatmeal to local workers.
Its services expanded to include assistance with savings and loans and education. In 1810, Welsh social reformer Robert Owen, from Newtown in mid-Wales, his partners purchased New Lanark mill from Owen's father-in-law David Dale and proceeded to introduce better labour standards including discounted retail shops where profits were passed on to his employees. Owen left New Lanark to pursue other forms of cooperative organization and develop coop ideas through writing and lecture. Cooperative communities were set up in Glasgow and Hampshire, although unsuccessful. In 1828, William King set up a newspaper, The Cooperator, to promote Owen's thinking, having set up a cooperative store in Brighton; the Rochdale Society of Equitable Pioneers, founded in 1844, is considered the first successful cooperative enterprise, used as a model for modern coops, following the'Rochdale Principles'. A group of 28 weavers and other artisans in Rochdale, England set up the society to open their own store selling food items they could not otherwise afford.
Within ten years there were over a thousand cooperative societies in the United Kingdom. Other events such as the founding of a friendly society by the Tolpuddle Martyrs in 1832 were key occasions in the creation of organized labor and consumer movements. Friendly Societies established forums through which one member, one vote was practiced in organisation decision-making; the principles challenged the idea that a person should be an owner of property before being granted a political voice. Throughout the second half of the nineteenth century there was a surge in the number of cooperative organisations, both in commercial practice and civil society, operating to advance democracy and universal suffrage as a political principle. Friendly Societies and consumer cooperatives became the dominant form of organization amongst working people in Anglosphere industrial societies prior to the rise of trade unions and industrial factories. Weinbren reports that by the end of the 19th century, over 80% of British working age men and 90% of Australian working age men were members of one or more Friendly Society.
From the mid-nineteenth century, mutual organisations embraced these ideas in economic enterprises, firstly amongst tradespeople, in cooperative stores, educational institutes, financial institutions and industrial enterprises. The common thread (enacte