ResumenLa sociología y la antropología han teorizado la cuestión de la otredad recurriendo a cuatro conceptos o tipos ideales (el forastero, el extranjero, el extraño y el monstruo), cada uno de los cuales constituye una aproximación particular al fenómeno de la diferencia. Cada uno de ellos transmite una imagen muy distinta del sujeto o del colectivo al que se define como «otro»: una imagen de relativa proximidad en unos casos, una imagen de alejamiento y hasta de diferencia radical en otros. A partir de estos cuatro constructos teóricos, proponemos la elaboración de un mapa conceptual que define espacios de cercanía o de distancia social en función de la mayor o menor diferencia atribuida al sujeto o a los sujetos definidos como «otro». Palabras clave: diversidad; inmigración; distancia social; teoría sociológica; otredad. Abstract. Otherness: Outsiders, foreigners, strangers and monstersSociologists and anthropologists have theorized the idea of otherness through four archetypal figures -the outsider, the foreigner, the stranger, and the monster -each of which constitutes a particular approach to the phenomenon of difference. Each of these figures conveys a very different image of the person or group branded as 'other', with some figures suggesting a degree of closeness and similarity, whilst others imply great or even radical difference. Using these four theoretical constructs, the authors propose a conceptual map that defines spaces of social distance depending on the degree of difference a particular society attributes to a subject or subjects defined as 'other'.

Through the implementation of low carbon-based energy systems and participatory modes of governance, there are countless collective initiatives progressing towards a sustainable and resilient energy model. Local alternatives necessarily have to be able to scale in order to address global challenges. From the renewed paradigm of the commons, this empirical research provides a precise picture of the present scalability of these (self) transformative initiatives in Spain. Based on the identification and qualitative analysis of 18 of them via semi-structured in-depth interviews, the article explores their upper and lower limits; the importance of power distribution and citizen participation; the relational dimension of the scale; the upscaling forms and the role of public institutions. On the basis of the results obtained, the article finally presents recommendations aimed at strengthening this scalability of the energy commons.

BackgroundThe hierarchical pyramid inside Spanish public hospitals was radically changed by the Health Reform Law promulgated in 1986. According to it, the manpower of the hospitals was divided into three divisions (Medical, Nursing, General Services/Administration), which from then on occupied the same level, only subject to the general manager. Ten years after the implementation of the law, the present study was designed in order to investigate if the legal changes had indeed produced a real change in the balance of power inside the hospitals, as perceived by the different workers within them.Materials and MethodsA questionnaire was administered to 1,027 workers from four different public hospitals (two university-based and two district hospitals). The participants belonged to all divisions, and to all three operative levels (staff, supervisory and managerial) within them. The questionnaire inquired about the perceived power inside each division and hierarchical level, as well as about that of the other divisions and hierarchical levels.ResultsEvery division attributed the least power to itself. The Nursing and the Administrative division attributed the highest power to the physicians, and these attributed the highest power to the General Services/Administrative division.All hierarchical levels (including the formal top of the pyramid) attributed significantly more power to the other than to them.ConclusionsMore than ten years after the implementation of the new law, the majority of workers still perceive that the real power within the hospitals is held by the physicians (whereas these feel that it has shifted to the administrators). No division or hierarchical level believes it holds any significant degree of power, and this carries with it the danger of also not accepting any responsibility.

No abstract

Nunca como hoy hemos tenido toda la realidad del mundo a nuestro alcance. Difícilmente podremos decir que no nos hemos enterado de catástrofes o de violaciones de los derechos humanos, aunque hayan ocurrido en lugares lejanos. Los medios de comunicación nos acercan al configurar, aunque sea un tópico, una aldea global. La cercanía es una condición de posibilidad para el compromiso solidario. ¿Puede ser también un problema? Es preciso la conformación de un «nosotros» que incluya a todos los seres humanos, pero esto es algo que no podrá hacerse sin costes.