Explore the vast range of titles available.

System justification theory proposes that people are motivated to perceive the existing social system as fair, legitimate, and desirable. However, status-legitimacy effect, understood as the most disadvantaged living in the most unequal contexts experiencing this need most strongly, has only found mixed support in empirical works. This article presents a comprehensive test of the original reading of status-legitimacy hypothesis which implied that those with lower objective status are the most motivated to system justify and of the respecified version that posits subjective powerlessness to be the driver of undue system legitimization. Multilevel mixed-effects linear regression analysis of International Social Survey Programme modules on social inequality, covering almost 50,000 respondents from 28 countries, shows that the mean effects of both subjective and objective status are in line with predictions of economic rationality. To model contextual inequality, we distinguish between an objective measure, Gini, and perceived amounts of income differences as reported by respondents. The analysis testing contextual moderation lends support for the original reading of status-legitimacy hypothesis—the objectively, rather than subjectively, disadvantaged experience greater motivation to defend the system.

01 02 This book explores the possibilities and limitations re-theorizing disability using historical materialism in the interdisciplinary contexts of social theory, cultural studies, social and education policy, feminist ethics, and theories of citizenship. 19 02 Proposes a relational analysis to understand disability within a global context; theorizes disability in critical relationship to race, gender, and sexuality within the context of transnational capitalism This is an interdisciplinary text that spans the humanities and the social sciences in the areas of social theory, cultural studies, social and educational policy, feminist ethics and theories of citizenship From education to sociology and even poetry theory, disability studies is a growing discipline that offers a unique critique of our standards of normalcy and acceptance in our society; interest in this topic, among all fields of research will continue to increase and it is important that we include books with this focus on our lists 08 02 'The time for Disability and Difference in Global Contexts is now. At the forefront of both the global and materialist turns in disability studies, Nirmala Erevelles provides readers with an indispensable analysis of the ways in which disability in the current world order is constructed in relation to systems of gender, race, class, caste, and sexual orientation. Erevelles calls for a transformative body politic that resists the compulsory subject positions and relations of domination generated by neoliberal, capitalist modes of production. In and through that call, she remaps, in emancipatory ways, the terrain of disability studies, feminist studies, Marxist theory, postcolonial theory, and education.' –Robert McRuer, Professor of English, George Washington University 'In this wide-ranging exploration through the often violent historical imbrications of disability and race, Erevelles brings us to questions we will never soon forget. This book demonstrates the historical production of disability and other social differences as they press upon us today making our bodies, minds, senses matter as the conflicting social scenes that they are. No one in disability studies, or any of its affiliated fields, should go without reading this book; and no one will rest easy with their current disability knowledge once having read Disability and Difference in Global Context.' - Tanya Titchkosky, Associate Professor and Associate Chair, Sociology and Equity Studies in Education, the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE), University of Toronto 'Disability and Difference in Global Contexts offers an important corrective to established scholarship in disability studies by demanding a focus on intersectionality. In language by turns provocative and heartbreaking, Nirmala Erevelles explains and enacts a 'carnal historical materialism': the theoretical yet everyday dance between identity, injury, privilege and hope.' - Margaret Price, Associate Professor of English, Spelman College 'At once deeply personal and sharply theoretical, personal and probing, this book gives us the big picture: 'disability' in its historical, material, and global settings. Erevelles' brilliant work of social theory marks a new and crucial advance in its rigorous explorations of confluences of disability, race, class, gender, and citizenship.' - Susan Schweik, Professor of English, University of California at Berkeley 02 02 This book explores the possibilities and limitations re-theorizing disability using historical materialism in the interdisciplinary contexts of social theory, cultural studies, social and education policy, feminist ethics, and theories of citizenship. 13 02 Nirmala Erevelles is an associate professor of Social Foundations of Education at the University of Alabama. 31 02 This book explores the possibilities and limitations re-theorizing disability using historical materialism in interdisciplinary contexts 04 02 Making Bodies that Matter: The Political Economy of 'Becoming' (Disabled) Of Ghosts and Ghetto Politics: Embodying Education Policy as if Disability Mattered 'Unspeakable' Offenses: Disability Studies at the Intersection of Multiple Differences (with Andrea Minear) Embodied Antimonies: Feminist Disability Studies Meets Third World Feminism (Im)Material Citizens: Cognitive Disability, Race, and the Politics of Citizenship The 'Other' Side of the Dialectic: Towards a Materialist Ethic of Care

We study the relationship between inter-class inequality and intergenerational class mobility across 39 countries. Previous research on the relationship between economic inequality and class mobility remains inconclusive, as studies have confounded intra-with between-class economic inequalities. We propose that between-class inequality across multiple dimensions accounts for the inverse relationship between inequality and mobility: the larger the resource distance between classes, the less likely it is that mobility from one to the other will occur. We consider inequality in terms of between-class differences in three areas—education, wages, and income—and in a composite measure. Building on sociological mobility theory, we argue that cross-country variation in mobility results, in part, from families adapting to different levels of between-class inequality. Consistent with this hypothesis, we find a negative correlation between inter-class inequality and social fluidity, with between-class inequality being a better predictor of mobility chances than conventional distributional measures. We also find that the resource distance between classes is negatively related to the strength of their intergenerational association for some off-diagonal origin and destination (OD) class combinations.

Political trust—in terms of trust in political institutions—is an important precondition for the functioning and stability of democracy. One widely studied determinant of political trust is income inequality. While the empirical finding that societies with lower levels of income inequality have higher levels of trust is well established, the exact ways in which income inequality affects political trust remain unclear. Past research has shown that individuals oftentimes have biased perceptions of inequality. Considering potentially biased inequality perceptions, I argue that individuals compare their perceptions of inequality to their preference for inequality. If they identify a gap between what they perceive and what they prefer (= fairness gap), they consider their attitudes towards inequality unrepresented. This, in turn, reduces trust in political institutions. Using three waves of the ESS and the ISSP in a cross-country perspective, I find that (1) perceiving a larger fairness gap is associated with lower levels of political trust; (2) the fairness gap mediates the link between actual inequality and political trust; and (3) disaggregating the fairness gap measure, political trust is more strongly linked to variation in inequality perceptions than to variation in inequality preferences. This indicates that inequality perceptions are an important factor shaping trust into political institutions.

Lay perceptions of social structure and economic distribution have a particular salience in the current era of widening inequalities which has characterised Britain since the 1980s. Research into subjective beliefs has generated puzzles: people underestimate the extent of inequalities, see themselves as being situated ‘near the middle’ irrespective of their objective position, and allegedly hold an a-social view of the underpinnings of socio-economic inequalities. This article presents a new qualitative analysis of lay perceptions of inequality. It does so with a particular focus on context, biographical experience and social change. The qualitative and temporal perspectives reveal that people are more sophisticated analysts of social process, and of their own situatedness within the wider social structure, than often thought. This has implications for sociological understanding but also holds relevance for renewing political options for intervention. Additionally, the evidence offers insights into lived experiences of inequality through a period of significant restructuring.

This book was commissioned by the Department of Ethics, Equity, Trade and Human Rights as part of the work undertaken by the Priority Public Health Conditions Knowledge Network of the Commission on Social Determinants of Health, in collaboration with 16 of the major public health programs of WHO: alcohol-related disorders, cardiovascular diseases, child health, diabetes, food safety, HIV/AIDS, maternal health, malaria, mental health, neglected tropical diseases, nutrition, oral health, sexual and reproductive health, tobacco and health, tuberculosis, and violence and injuries. In addition to this, through collaboration with the Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction, the Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases, and the Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research, 13 case studies were commissioned to examine the implementation challenges in addressing social determinants of health in low-and middle-income settings. The Priority Public Health Conditions Knowledge Network has analyzed the impact of social determinants on specific health conditions, identified possible entry-points, and explored possible interventions to improve health equity by addressing social determinants of health.

The book provides a foundation of knowledge on the social and environmental underpinnings of mental health and mental illnesses for clinical and policy decision making, with a goal to improve the mental health of individuals across diverse communities and the mental health of the nation.

Individuals with a higher social position are more tolerant of current income inequality than individuals with a lower social position. Besides this, attitudes towards income inequality are influenced by inequality-legitimising myths in a given society. Little is known about how these two factors interact. This study combines these two lines of research and argues that different social strata are more polarised in their attitudes towards inequality in societies with strong prevalent meritocratic perceptions. We expect lower-status individuals (i.e. with a lower income or education) to experience a threat to their group esteem and therefore be less likely to support their society’s inequalities in societies with such strong meritocratic perceptions. This hypothesis was tested using data from the International Social Survey Programme 2009 (Social Inequality) on 39 countries. The results show that different social strata are indeed more polarised in their attitudes towards inequality in societies where meritocratic perceptions are more prevalent. Our results are robust for income, but not for education. This suggests that in perceived meritocracies, people regard income as the primary indicator of effort and ability.

From kindergarten through college, students perceive boys as more intelligent than girls, yet few sociological studies have identified how school processes shape students’ gender status beliefs. Drawing on 2.5 years of longitudinal ethnography and 196 interviews conducted at a racially diverse, public middle school in Los Angeles, this article demonstrates how educators’ differential regulation of boys’ rule-breaking by course level contributed to gender-based differences in students’ perceptions of intelligence. In higher-level courses—where affluent, White, and Asian American students were overrepresented—educators tolerated 6th-grade boys’ rule-breaking, such that boys challenged girls’ opinions and monopolized classroom conversations. By 8th grade, students perceived higher-level boys as more exceptionally intelligent than girls. However, in lower-level courses—where non-affluent Latinx students were overrepresented—educators penalized 6th-grade boys’ rule-breaking, such that boys disengaged from classroom conversations. By 8th grade, lower-level students perceived girls as smarter than boys, but not exceptional. This article also demonstrates how race intersected with gender when shaping students’ perceptions of intelligence, with students associating the most superlatives with affluent White boys’ capabilities. Through this analysis, I develop a new theoretical understanding of how school processes contribute to the gendered social construction of exceptionalism and reproduce social inequalities in early adolescence.

The attitudes of the general public with regard to social welfare are of crucial importance in determining the efficacy and stability of a nation’s welfare system. The manner in which taxation is employed as a means of funding mechanism for welfare policies is of great consequence. Nevertheless, existing research on the subject of welfare attitudes has largely neglected the tax perspective, underscoring the need for investigations that bridge this gap and provide a more comprehensive understanding of the intertwined dynamics between taxation and public perception of social benefits. This study investigates the influence of tax burdens on attitudes towards welfare using an ordered probit model applied to data from the 2019 International Social Survey Program (ISSP 2019 Social Inequality V), encompassing 11 welfare states. Our key findings are as follows: (1) Empirical analysis reveals that a moderate tax burden correlates with a reduction in public expectations regarding governmental responsibility for welfare provision. (2) Heterogeneity analysis elucidates a negative association between tax burdens and welfare attitudes across diverse welfare regimes. (3) The mediating effect test suggests that perceptions of social fairness partially mediate the relationship between tax burdens and welfare attitudes. (4) The moderating effect test indicates that government efficacy negatively moderates the impact of tax burden on welfare attitudes. This study offers insightful perspectives for policymakers aiming to design and implement tax systems that align effectively with societal structures.