简·亚当斯和玛丽·帕克·福莱特的《寻求合作

J. Soeters
{"title":"简·亚当斯和玛丽·帕克·福莱特的《寻求合作","authors":"J. Soeters","doi":"10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197544518.013.36","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter compares essentials in Jane Addams’s and Mary Parker Follett’s thinking on cooperation and the resolution of conflicts. The analysis shows that both scholars had much in common, including many theoretical and practical ideas, even though the domains of their activities differed. Their attempts to come to grips with the resolution of conflicts and the creation of cooperation turn out to be remarkably convergent, implying that their analyses strengthen each other. Both stressed the importance of actions accompanied by reflection, of rejecting the idea that conflicts necessarily have a zero-sum (win/lose) character, of being critical of vast disparities in income and wealth, of the belief that punishment is not the way to deal with difficult and “nasty” people, of striving for new things (i.e., social, political, and business innovations), of democratic action at the “grassroots” (i.e., community or neighborhood) level, and, last but not least, of women being part of all political, social, and business processes. Interestingly, these ideas stemming from about a century ago are validated in today’s research on cooperation that is based on computer simulations, game theoretical tests, and field experiments across countries.","PeriodicalId":191932,"journal":{"name":"The Oxford Handbook of Jane Addams","volume":"154 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Jane Addams and Mary Parker Follett’s Search for Cooperation\",\"authors\":\"J. Soeters\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197544518.013.36\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This chapter compares essentials in Jane Addams’s and Mary Parker Follett’s thinking on cooperation and the resolution of conflicts. The analysis shows that both scholars had much in common, including many theoretical and practical ideas, even though the domains of their activities differed. Their attempts to come to grips with the resolution of conflicts and the creation of cooperation turn out to be remarkably convergent, implying that their analyses strengthen each other. Both stressed the importance of actions accompanied by reflection, of rejecting the idea that conflicts necessarily have a zero-sum (win/lose) character, of being critical of vast disparities in income and wealth, of the belief that punishment is not the way to deal with difficult and “nasty” people, of striving for new things (i.e., social, political, and business innovations), of democratic action at the “grassroots” (i.e., community or neighborhood) level, and, last but not least, of women being part of all political, social, and business processes. Interestingly, these ideas stemming from about a century ago are validated in today’s research on cooperation that is based on computer simulations, game theoretical tests, and field experiments across countries.\",\"PeriodicalId\":191932,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Oxford Handbook of Jane Addams\",\"volume\":\"154 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-02-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Oxford Handbook of Jane Addams\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197544518.013.36\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Oxford Handbook of Jane Addams","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197544518.013.36","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本章比较了简·亚当斯和玛丽·帕克·福莱特关于合作与冲突解决的思想要点。分析表明,两位学者有很多共同点,包括许多理论和实践思想,尽管他们的活动领域不同。他们在解决冲突和建立合作方面的努力是非常一致的,这意味着他们的分析相互加强。两人都强调了行动与反思的重要性,拒绝冲突必然具有零和(赢/输)特征的想法,对收入和财富的巨大差距持批评态度,相信惩罚不是对付难对付和“讨厌”的人的方法,争取新事物(即社会,政治和商业创新),在“基层”(即社区或邻里)层面采取民主行动,最后但并非最不重要的是,女性成为所有政治、社会和商业过程的一部分。有趣的是,这些产生于大约一个世纪前的想法,在今天基于计算机模拟、博弈论测试和各国实地实验的合作研究中得到了验证。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Jane Addams and Mary Parker Follett’s Search for Cooperation
This chapter compares essentials in Jane Addams’s and Mary Parker Follett’s thinking on cooperation and the resolution of conflicts. The analysis shows that both scholars had much in common, including many theoretical and practical ideas, even though the domains of their activities differed. Their attempts to come to grips with the resolution of conflicts and the creation of cooperation turn out to be remarkably convergent, implying that their analyses strengthen each other. Both stressed the importance of actions accompanied by reflection, of rejecting the idea that conflicts necessarily have a zero-sum (win/lose) character, of being critical of vast disparities in income and wealth, of the belief that punishment is not the way to deal with difficult and “nasty” people, of striving for new things (i.e., social, political, and business innovations), of democratic action at the “grassroots” (i.e., community or neighborhood) level, and, last but not least, of women being part of all political, social, and business processes. Interestingly, these ideas stemming from about a century ago are validated in today’s research on cooperation that is based on computer simulations, game theoretical tests, and field experiments across countries.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信