Diese Dissertation diskutiert am Beispiel der symbolischen Kämpfe zwischen kürzlich Zugezogenen und den Resten alteingesessener subkultureller Gruppen im Berliner Stadtteil Prenzlauer Berg die Frage, welche Rolle Orte bei der Konstruktion räumlicher und sozialer Identitäten spielen und entlang welcher Grenzziehungen diese Identifikationen organisiert werden. Empirisch stützt sich die Arbeit auf Tiefeninterviews mit den oben genannten Gruppen und einer Mediendiskursanalyse zum umstrittenen Symbol „Prenzlauer Berg“. Soziale Identität, das simultane Wechselspiel interner Identifikation und externer Kategorisierung (Jenkins 1996), ist eng verbunden mit der Frage nach Zugehörigkeit. Das Konzept des elective belonging (Savage et al. 2005) zeigt die Verbindung von Lebensstil und Wohnort. Diese Arbeit weist darüber hinaus auf den Zusammenhang zwischen einer starken symbolischen und praktischen Nachbarschaftsnutzung (Blokland 2011) der Zugezogenen und deren hoher Ortsidentifikation hin. Die eingesessene Subkultur Prenzlauer Bergs interpretiert diese symbolische Nutzung als einen Angriff auf die alte Ordnung im Kiez und bezieht ihre Verbindung mit dem Ort, infolge der fundamentalen Wandlungsprozesse, aus dem Erinnern (Halbwachs 1991) an eine Zeit, in der sie selbst sich den Raum aneigneten. Damit stellen sie der neuen Bedeutung Prenzlauer Bergs eine frühere Bedeutung, d.h. eine spezifische Vorstellung räumlicher Normalität, entgegen. Ausdruck dieser konkurrierenden Definitionen von Zugehörigkeit sind symbolische Grenzziehungen (Lamont; Molnár 2002) gegenüber neuen Bewohner_innen, die sich auch im medialen Diskurs über den Prenzlauer Berg wiederfinden. Dabei wird klar, dass die subkulturellen Stimmen zwar die Definition von Zugehörigkeit dominieren, der identifikatorische Zugriff auf die Nachbarschaft aber nur noch selektiv gelingt. Demgegenüber müssen die kürzlich Zugezogenen stetig um die Legitimation ihrer Zugehörigkeit kämpfen. / This thesis explores the role of place within constructions of social and spatial identities, and symbolic boundary work using the case of existing subcultural groups and affluent newcomers in the Berlin district of Prenzlauer Berg. Empirically, this work draws on in-depth-interviews with both groups as well as a media discourse analysis of the contested meanings of the symbol ‘Prenzlauer Berg’. Social identity, understood as the simultaneous interplay of internal identification and external categorization (Jenkins 1996) is strongly related to a sense of belonging. While the concept of elective belonging (Savage et al. 2005) shows a connection between lifestyle and neighbourhood, this thesis also points to the strong relationship between symbolic and practical neighbourhood use (Blokland 2011), and place identification of newcomers. Subcultural groups read the newcomers’ symbolic neighbourhood use as an attack on the old order of the “Kiez”. Due to substantial neighbourhood change, these subcultures draw on remembering times (Halbwachs 1991) when their neighbourhood use was strong, both symbolically and practically. In this process, an old meaning of the neighbourhood (i.e. a specific notion of what the place used to be) is constructed in contrast to new meanings. These constructions are expressed in symbolic boundary work (Lamont; Molnár 2002) towards newcomers, a process which powerfully connects to media discourse. It becomes clear, then, that although a definition of belonging is dominated by the subculture, their access to the neighbourhood in terms of identification is only selective. In contrast, newcomers have to constantly defend their legitimacy to belong.

This Master's thesis deals with female characters of the socially critical novel Frau Jenny Treibel by Theodor Fontane, in order to find out whether the heroines are satisfied in their social roles or whether they try to challenge the social norms, and what role their social background and education play in this matter. Furthermore, we ask what life goals these women pursue and how successful they are in fulfilling them. The thesis is divided into three chapters. The first chapter sketches Fontane's biography with the emphasis on the importance of his numerous friendships with women and his ambivalent relationship to female emancipation. Based on literature research, the second chapter introduces poetic realism focusing on Fontane's specific position in it - as a critical realist with elements of modernity. The third, longest chapter, contains the analysis and interpretation of the individual female characters of the novel. We have found, that regardless their social class and education, the heroines live under social conventions, according to which their main goal is an advantageous marriage, functioning at the same time as the measure of their success. The two protagonists, the representative of the intellectual bourgeoisie Corinna, and the more experienced representative of the newly rich...

<p>The purpose of this paper is to see how differences are handled in preschools, with a focus on children with homo- or bisexual parents. By doing this we wanted to see how the conditions for a child with homo- or bisexual parents looks like, in order to have their family conditions mirrored, confirmed and visualised in the preschool.</p><p>The foundation for the discussion is a questionaire which has been answered by 229 preschool workers from 24 different preschools in the City of Stockholm. The result of the questionaire has been handled in a statistics program. Our analysis is based on the statistical numbers and the written replies to the open questions in the questionaire.</p><p>As a theoretical starting point we have used Iris Marion Young’s ideas about how our society is coloured by an ideal of similarity that defines liberation as the transcendence of group difference, where the dominant group cannot see how their perspective is just one of several perspectives. Furthermore, we use Tiina Rosenberg’s thoughts on the two main principles of heteronormativity and her focus on the sexed and sexual norms from which we organize our assumptions about our sex, sexuality and family. We also use Ann Runfors’ experiences of how differences are turned in to similarities when immigrant background is dealt with in the Swedish school.</p><p>Our results show that the nuclear family is still the norm when speaking about family in preschools and that the knowledge concerning children with homo- and bisexual parents is slight. Many of the informants believe that differences are best dealt with by treatin all children equally. A great number of the informants assume that giving attention to the rainbow children contributes to inequality and a negative distinction of the child as different. There are also informants that request more knowledge on the subject to be able to treat children and parents in an inclusive way.</p><p>We believe that differences have a social significance, which is why we are convinced that preschools ought to become aware of how the heterosexual norm is being reproduced. By reflecting on society’s norms and values, the preschools would be able to help the rainbow child to be proud of its family and in this way counteract heterosexism.</p> / <p>Syftet med detta utredningsarbete är att se hur olikheter hanteras på förskolan, med fokus på barn med homo- eller bisexuella föräldrar. Genom detta ville vi se hur förutsättningarna för ett barn med homo- eller bisexuella föräldrar ser ut för att få sin familjesituation speglad, bekräftad och synliggjord på förskolan.</p><p>Underlaget för diskussionen är en enkät som besvarats av 229 personer som arbetar på 24 olika förskolor inom Stockholm stad. Resultaten från enkäten har hanterats i statistikprogram. Vi baserar vår analys på de statistiska uppgifterna och de skrivna kommentarerna till de öppna frågorna i enkäten.</p><p>Som en av våra teoretiska utgångspunkter har vi använt oss av Iris Marion Youngs idéer om hur vårt samhälle är färgat av ett likhetsideal, där den priviligerade gruppen inte kan se att deras föreställningar om hur saker och ting är bara är ett av flera perspektiv. En annan utgångspunkt är Tiina Rosenbergs tankar om heteronormativitetens två bärande principer och det fokus hon lägger på de könade och sexuella normerna utifrån vilka vi organiserar våra föreställningar om kön, sexualitet och familjebildning. Vi använder oss också av Ann Runfors erfarenheter av hur olikhet görs till likheter när invandrarskap hanteras i den svenska skolan.</p><p>Våra resultat visar att kärnfamiljen fortfarande är norm då förskolorna talar om familj och att kunskapen om barn med homo- och bisexuella föräldrar inte är stor. Många informanter menar att olikhet bäst hanteras genom likabehandling av alla barn. Informanterna uppfattar i stor utsträckning att uppmärksamhet på regnbågsbarnen bidrar till ojämlikhet och ett negativt särskiljande av barnet som annorlunda. Det finns även informanter i materialet som efterfrågar mer kunskap för att kunna bemöta barn och föräldrar på ett inkluderande sätt.</p><p>Vi menar att olikheter har social betydelse. Det är därför förskolan bör, genom reflektion över hur samhällets normer och värderingar ser ut, bli medvetna om hur heteronormen reproduceras på förskolan för att kunna hjälpa regnbågsbarnet att känna stolthet över sin familj och att för att på så sätt motverka heterosexism.</p>

.

The purpose of this paper is to see how differences are handled in preschools, with a focus on children with homo- or bisexual parents. By doing this we wanted to see how the conditions for a child with homo- or bisexual parents looks like, in order to have their family conditions mirrored, confirmed and visualised in the preschool. The foundation for the discussion is a questionaire which has been answered by 229 preschool workers from 24 different preschools in the City of Stockholm. The result of the questionaire has been handled in a statistics program. Our analysis is based on the statistical numbers and the written replies to the open questions in the questionaire. As a theoretical starting point we have used Iris Marion Young’s ideas about how our society is coloured by an ideal of similarity that defines liberation as the transcendence of group difference, where the dominant group cannot see how their perspective is just one of several perspectives. Furthermore, we use Tiina Rosenberg’s thoughts on the two main principles of heteronormativity and her focus on the sexed and sexual norms from which we organize our assumptions about our sex, sexuality and family. We also use Ann Runfors’ experiences of how differences are turned in to similarities when immigrant background is dealt with in the Swedish school. Our results show that the nuclear family is still the norm when speaking about family in preschools and that the knowledge concerning children with homo- and bisexual parents is slight. Many of the informants believe that differences are best dealt with by treatin all children equally. A great number of the informants assume that giving attention to the rainbow children contributes to inequality and a negative distinction of the child as different. There are also informants that request more knowledge on the subject to be able to treat children and parents in an inclusive way. We believe that differences have a social significance, which is why we are convinced that preschools ought to become aware of how the heterosexual norm is being reproduced. By reflecting on society’s norms and values, the preschools would be able to help the rainbow child to be proud of its family and in this way counteract heterosexism. / Syftet med detta utredningsarbete är att se hur olikheter hanteras på förskolan, med fokus på barn med homo- eller bisexuella föräldrar. Genom detta ville vi se hur förutsättningarna för ett barn med homo- eller bisexuella föräldrar ser ut för att få sin familjesituation speglad, bekräftad och synliggjord på förskolan. Underlaget för diskussionen är en enkät som besvarats av 229 personer som arbetar på 24 olika förskolor inom Stockholm stad. Resultaten från enkäten har hanterats i statistikprogram. Vi baserar vår analys på de statistiska uppgifterna och de skrivna kommentarerna till de öppna frågorna i enkäten. Som en av våra teoretiska utgångspunkter har vi använt oss av Iris Marion Youngs idéer om hur vårt samhälle är färgat av ett likhetsideal, där den priviligerade gruppen inte kan se att deras föreställningar om hur saker och ting är bara är ett av flera perspektiv. En annan utgångspunkt är Tiina Rosenbergs tankar om heteronormativitetens två bärande principer och det fokus hon lägger på de könade och sexuella normerna utifrån vilka vi organiserar våra föreställningar om kön, sexualitet och familjebildning. Vi använder oss också av Ann Runfors erfarenheter av hur olikhet görs till likheter när invandrarskap hanteras i den svenska skolan. Våra resultat visar att kärnfamiljen fortfarande är norm då förskolorna talar om familj och att kunskapen om barn med homo- och bisexuella föräldrar inte är stor. Många informanter menar att olikhet bäst hanteras genom likabehandling av alla barn. Informanterna uppfattar i stor utsträckning att uppmärksamhet på regnbågsbarnen bidrar till ojämlikhet och ett negativt särskiljande av barnet som annorlunda. Det finns även informanter i materialet som efterfrågar mer kunskap för att kunna bemöta barn och föräldrar på ett inkluderande sätt. Vi menar att olikheter har social betydelse. Det är därför förskolan bör, genom reflektion över hur samhällets normer och värderingar ser ut, bli medvetna om hur heteronormen reproduceras på förskolan för att kunna hjälpa regnbågsbarnet att känna stolthet över sin familj och att för att på så sätt motverka heterosexism.

No description available.

Jahresbericht der Universitätsbibliothek Chemnitz - Berichtsjahr 2002 / Annual report of the University Library of Chemnitz in 2002

Der Beitrag untersucht aus Anlaß der französichen Gesetzgebung 1982, welche Möglichkeiten die Sozialisierungsvorschrift des Art. 15 GG sowie die vergleichbaren Regelungen in den Verfassungen einiger Bundesländer im Hinblick auf eine Nationalisierung bestimmter Industrieunternehmen und Kreditinstitute eröffnen und ob das GG noch andere Wege für Vergesellschaftungsmaßnahmen vorsieht bzw. erschließt. Abschließend erfolgt eine Würdigung des Einflusses völker- und europarechtlicher Bestimmungen auf das innerstaatliche deutsche Recht.

This summary connects parts of nearly every chapter of the book with a thick brush regarding normative constellations. Comparing the constellations shows both, how practices within lessons are normatively connected with practices in other social fields, and that there are fractures that show a need for further research. In conclusion I sketch a model for comparative praxial music education.

.:1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 Fairness norms can explain the emergence of specific cooperation norms in the Battle of the Prisoners Dilemma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.1 Solving the cooperation problem in repeated interactions . . . . . . . . . 8 2.2 Solving the “coordinate to cooperate” problem in repeated interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2.2 .1 The coordination problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2.2 .2 Feasible norms in the Battle of the Prisoners Dilemma . . . . . . 12 2.3 Hypothesis on the emergence of cooperation norms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 2.4 Fairness norms as a predictor for the emergence of different cooperation norms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 2.5 Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 2.5 .1 Experimental design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 2.5 .2 Phase 1: Social dilemma game . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 2.5 .3 Phase 2: Social value orientation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 2.6 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 2.6 .1 Patterns of cooperation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 2.6 .2 Which cooperation norms emerge in the PD and in the BOPD? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 2.6 .3 Which cooperation norms emerge under the shadow of the future? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 2.6 .4 Which cooperation norms emerge under asymmetric pay-offs? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 2.6 .5 Fairness norms can explain the emerging cooperation norms 27 2.7 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 3 A sociological perspective on measuring social norms by means of strategy method experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 3.1 Towards methodological integration of economics and sociology . . 34 3.2 Measuring conditionality, intensity and consensus of social norms 35 3.3 An introduction to the strategy method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 3.4 Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 3.4 .1 Operationalization of conditionality, intensity, and consensus with the ultimatum game . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 3.4 .2 Design of the strategy game . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 3.4 .3 Design of the response game . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 3.4 .4 Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 3.4 .5 Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 3.5 Empirical demonstration of measuring conditionality, intensity and consensus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 3.6 The differences between measuring normative principles and their intensity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 3.6 .1 Derivation of hypotheses about differences between strategy and response game . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 3.6 .2 Analysis of offers in strategy and response game . . . . . . . . . . . 48 3.6 .3 Analysis of acceptance decisions in strategy and response game . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 3.7 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 4 How norms can generate conflict: An experiment on the failure of cooperative micro-motives on the macro-level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 4.1 A perspective of normative conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 4.2 Bargaining norms as an exemplification of normative conflict . . . . . 58 4.2 .1 Conditional and unconditional bargaining norms . . . . . . . . . . 58 4.2 .2 Normative conflict over commitments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 4.2 .3 Normative conflict over contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 4.3 Derivation of hypotheses on normative conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 4.3 .1 A general model of normative behavior and its application to the ultimatum game . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 4.3 .2 Application of the model to study normative conflict . . . . . . . 65 4.3 .3 Hypotheses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 4.4 Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 4.4 .1 The ultimatum game . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 4.4 .2 The real effort task . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 4.4 .3 The strategy vector method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 4.4 .4 Discussion of the strategy vector method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 4.4 .5 Procedure and participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 4.5 Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 4.6 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 4.6 .1 Macro-level conditions for normative conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 4.6 .2 The micro-level roots of normative conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 4.6 .3 Aggregation of norm adherence on the micro-level to normative conflict on the macro-level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 4.7 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 5 The emergence of norms from conflicts over just distributions . . . . . . 86 5.1 A conflict theory of norm emergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 5.2 Application on distributive justice and definition of fairness norms 91 5.3 Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 5.3 .1 Procedure and participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 5.3 .2 Experimental design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 5.3 .3 The real effort task . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 5.3 .4 The bargaining game . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 5.3 .5 Treatments and measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 5.4 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 5.4 .1 The bargaining process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 5.4 .2 Consequences of normative conflict: Costly delays . . . . . . . . . . 98 5.4 .3 Macro emergence of norms (mixture model) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 5.5 Discussion and open questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 A Proofs and instructions for chapter 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 1.1 Proof of lemma 2.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 1.2 Proof of lemma 2.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 1.3 Instructions chapter 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 B Complete strategy profiles and instructions for chapter 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 2.1 Instructions chapter 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 2.1 .1 Instructions for the strategy method game . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 2.1 .2 Instructions for the response method game, proposer . . . . . . . 125 2.1 .3 Instructions for the response method game, responder . . . . . . 126 C Classification algorithm for fairness types in chapter 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 3.1 Proof of proposition 4.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 3.2 Proof of proposition 4.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 3.3 Classification algorithm for fairness types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 D Instructions chapter 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139