دانلود ترجمه مقاله تعریف و تئوری حس تعلق اجتماعی – مجله ویلی

فهرست مطالب:

بازبینی تحقیقات مربوطه
یک تعریف و تئوری از احساس جامعه
عضویت
نفوذ
یکپارچگی و برآورده شدن نیازها
ارتباط احساسی مشترک
دینامیک در میان عناصر
دینامیک در بین عناصر
نتیجه گیری

بخشی از ترجمه:

 عضویت

عضویت احساسی است که یک فرد بخشی از وجود خود را به عضو شدن در گروه اعطا می کند و بنابراین حق دارد که به آن تعلق داشته باشد (آرونسون و میلز، ۱۹۵۹؛ باس و پورتنوی، ۱۹۶۷). احساسی از تعلق، و قسمتی از گروه بودن است (بکمن و سکورد، ۱۹۵۹). عضویت محدودیت هایی هم دارد؛ این بدین معناست که افرادی وجود دارد که به گروه تعلق دارند و افرادی هم هستند که به آن تعلق ندارند. محدودیت ها، امنیت احساسی اعضا را برای آشکارسازی نیازها و احساسات و برای ایجاد صمیمیت ضروری می سازد (بین، ۱۹۷۱؛ الریچ و گراون، ۱۹۷۱؛ وود، ۱۹۷۱).
مشکل سازترین ویژگی این بخش از تعریف، محدودیت های آن است. کای اریکسون (۱۹۶۶) در کتاب پیورتین های خودسر اثبات میکند که این گروه ها از افراد منحرف برای ایجاد محدودیت ها استفاده میکنند. او تبعید آنه هوچینسون بعنوان یک مرتد در سال ۱۶۳۷، تعقیب فرقه کویکر از سال ۱۶۵۶ تا ۱۶۶۵، و محاکمه ناعادلانه سالیم در سال ۱۶۹۲ را نام می برد. اریکسون برای هر کدام از این اتفاقات، نشان میدهد که چطور احساس دستوردهی و اقتدار در حال بدتر شدن بود و چطور نیاز به مسئله ای وجود داشت که پیورتین ها توسط آن میتوانستند با هم متحد شوند. جامعه در هر حالت به یک منحرف برای متهم کردن و تنبیه کردن بعنوان یک کل، نیاز داشت.

بخشی از مقاله انگلیسی:

Review of Related ResearchDoolittle and MacDonald (1978) developed the 40-item Sense of Community Scale(SCS) to probe communicative behaviors and attitudes at the community orneighborhood level of social organization. The basis of the SCS was what had beencalled the “critical dimension of community structure” (Tropman, 1969, p. 215), andit was to be used to differentiate low, medium, and high SCS neighborhoods on its fivefactors: informal interaction (with neighbors), safety (having a good place to live), prourbanism(privacy, anonymity), neighboring preferences (preference for frequentneighbor interaction), and localism (opinions and a desire to participate in neighborhoodaffairs). The results of Doolittle and MacDonald’s study led to three generalizations.First, there is an inverse relationship between pro-urbanism and preference for neighboring.Second, there is a direct relationship between safety and preference for neighboring.Finally, pro-urbanism decreases as perception of safety increases.Glynn’s (1981) measure of the psychological sense of community is based on thework of Hillery (1955), augmented by responses to a questionnaire distributed to randomlyselected members of the Division of Community Psychology of the AmericanPsychological Association. Glynn administered his measure to members of three communitiesand hypothesized that residents of Kfar Blum, and Israeli kibbutz, woulddemonstrate a greater sense of community than residents of two Maryland communities.He identified 202 behaviors or subconcepts related to sense of community, from which120 items were developed, representing real and ideal characteristics. As predicted, higher real levels of sense of community were found in the kibbutz than in the two Americantowns. However, no differences were found among the three on the ideal scale. Multipleregression analysis showed that 18 selected demographic items could predict adequatelythe real scale score (R2 = .613, p < .001) but not the ideal score (R2 = .272).The strongest predictors of actual sense of community were (a) expected length of communityresidency, (b) satisfaction with the community, and (c) the number of neighborsone could identify by first name. Glynn also found a positive relationship between senseof community and the ability to function competently in the community. Riger and Lavrakas (198 1) studied sense of community as reflected in neighborhoodattachment and found two empirically distinct but correlated factors they called socialbonding and behavioral rootedness. The social bonding factor contained items concerningthe ability to identify neighbors, feeling part of the neighborhood, and number ofneighborhood children known to the respondent. Behavioral rootedness refers to yearsof community residency, whether one’s home is owned or rented, and expected lengthof residency. Using these factors, the authors identified four “meaningful and distinctgroups of citizens”: young mobiles (low bonded, low rooted), young participants (highbonded, low rooted), isolates (low bonded, high rooted), and established participants(high bonded, high rooted). In this study, age played a major role in determiningattachment.Examining the relationship between community involvement and level of residents’fear of crime, Riger, LeBailly, and Gordon (1981) identified four types of communityinvolvement: feelings of bondedness, extent of residential roots, use of local facilities,and degree of social interaction with neighbors. They found that the first two types ofbondedness were related significantly and inversely to residents’ fear of crime, while thelast two, reflecting behavior rather than feelings, were not related significantly to fearof crime. A plausible explanation for the differential relationships is that variables withina domain (e.g., feelings of bondedness and other feelings) are more likely to be stronglycorrelated than are variables measured across domains (e.g., feelings and behaviors)(Campbell & Fiske, 1959). Despite the weakness of the study as suggested by such anexplanation, we believe that the findings of Riger et al. attest to the force of sense ofcommunity in the lives of neighborhood residents.