In this paper we address the pervasive tendency in community psychology to treat values like social justice only as general objectives rather than contested theoretical concepts possessing identifiable empirical content. First we discuss how distinctive concepts of social justice have figured in three major intellectual traditions within community psychology: (1) the prevention and health promotion tradition, (2) the empowerment tradition, and most recently, (3) the critical tradition. We point out the epistemological gains and limitations of these respective concepts and argue for greater sensitivity to the context dependency of normative concepts like social justice. More specifically, we point to a pressing need in community psychology for an epistemology that: (1) subsumes both descriptive and evaluative concepts, and (2) acknowledges its own embeddedness in history and culture without thereby reducing all knowledge claims to the status of ideology. Finally, we describe and demonstrate the promise of what we are calling a social ecological epistemology for fulfilling this need.

No abstract

No abstract

In an effort to promote more theoretically incisive research regarding the specifically sociological aspects of addiction, this article critically discusses three prominent theoretical paradigms for the study of addiction - neurology, learning theory and symbolic interaction. Neurological theories and learning theories are found to inadequately provide for the role of culturally transmitted meanings in the addiction process. While symbolic interactionist theories have been centrally concerned with meaning, they have failed to theorize how issues of meaning might figure in the addict's inevitable subjective estrangement from his or her drug-related activities. This stems from their failure to appreciate the reality of non-symbolic meaning, or meaningful experience that manifests pre-reflectively, at the level of our immediate bodily encounter with reality. The article concludes by suggesting that sociological students of addiction adopt a more thoroughly praxiological orientation to meaningful experience, so as to overcome the analytic limitations inherent in the antinomy between biological reductionism and disembodied cognitivism.

Recent policy initiatives have moved decisively toward empowering learning disabled citizens, recognising ability over disability, and promoting people's political empowerment and voice in the design of public services. While laudable and encouraging, these initiatives raise an important question: to what extent can a group of service users, whose very entitlement to state-sponsored assistance is justified by putative intellectual impairment, be empowered according to an exclusively liberal model of citizenship that presumes and requires, as its very defining features, intellectual ability and independence? In this paper we consider this question by means of an ethnographic analysis of an innovative advocacy group: the Parliament for People with Learning Disabilities (PPLD). We first document both an institutional and an interactional preference for clients to speak actively for themselves. We then describe three types of interactional trouble that emerged in the PPLD as obstacles to realising this preference in practice and the strikingly similar remedies that were generated to overcome these troubles. We conclude by discussing the limits of an approach to empowering learning disabled individuals that is cast too exclusively in terms drawn from liberal models of citizenship that prioritise voice over care, security, and wellbeing.