A sign of the times: To have or to be? Social capital or social cohesion?
Among various social factors associated with health behavior and disease, social cohesion has not captured the imagination of public health researchers as much as social capital as evidenced by the subsuming of social cohesion into social capital and the numerous studies analyzing social capital and...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Carrasco, Maria A. [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
E-Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
2016transfer abstract |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
|---|
| Umfang: |
5 |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
Enthalten in: Multiple stage IV colorectal cancers in a patient who received multidisciplinary treatment, including chemotherapy and Japanese Kampo medicine: A case report - Aomatsu, Naoki ELSEVIER, 2021, Amsterdam [u.a.] |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:159 ; year:2016 ; pages:127-131 ; extent:5 |
| Links: |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.05.012 |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
ELV035260432 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | ELV035260432 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230625203715.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 180603s2016 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.05.012 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a GBVA2016009000020.pica |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)ELV035260432 | ||
| 035 | |a (ELSEVIER)S0277-9536(16)30224-6 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 082 | 0 | |a 300 |a 610 | |
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 300 |q DE-600 |
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 610 |q DE-600 |
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 610 |q VZ |
| 084 | |a 44.90 |2 bkl | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Carrasco, Maria A. |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a A sign of the times: To have or to be? Social capital or social cohesion? |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2016transfer abstract | |
| 300 | |a 5 | ||
| 336 | |a nicht spezifiziert |b zzz |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a nicht spezifiziert |b z |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a nicht spezifiziert |b zu |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a Among various social factors associated with health behavior and disease, social cohesion has not captured the imagination of public health researchers as much as social capital as evidenced by the subsuming of social cohesion into social capital and the numerous studies analyzing social capital and the comparatively fewer articles analyzing social cohesion and health. In this paper we provide a brief overview of the evolution of the conceptualization of social capital and social cohesion and we use philosopher Erich Fromm’s distinction between “having” and “being” to understand the current research focus on capital over cohesion. We argue that social capital is related to having while social cohesion is related to being and that an emphasis on social capital leads to individualizing tendencies that are antithetical to cohesion. We provide examples drawn from the literature where this conflation of social capital and cohesion results in non-concordant definitions and subsequent operationalization of these constructs. Beyond semantics, the practical implication of focusing on “having” vs. “being” include an emphasis on understanding how to normalize groups and populations rather than providing those groups space for empowerment and agency leading to health. | ||
| 520 | |a Among various social factors associated with health behavior and disease, social cohesion has not captured the imagination of public health researchers as much as social capital as evidenced by the subsuming of social cohesion into social capital and the numerous studies analyzing social capital and the comparatively fewer articles analyzing social cohesion and health. In this paper we provide a brief overview of the evolution of the conceptualization of social capital and social cohesion and we use philosopher Erich Fromm’s distinction between “having” and “being” to understand the current research focus on capital over cohesion. We argue that social capital is related to having while social cohesion is related to being and that an emphasis on social capital leads to individualizing tendencies that are antithetical to cohesion. We provide examples drawn from the literature where this conflation of social capital and cohesion results in non-concordant definitions and subsequent operationalization of these constructs. Beyond semantics, the practical implication of focusing on “having” vs. “being” include an emphasis on understanding how to normalize groups and populations rather than providing those groups space for empowerment and agency leading to health. | ||
| 650 | 7 | |a Social factors |2 Elsevier | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Social cohesion |2 Elsevier | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Social capital |2 Elsevier | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Empowerment |2 Elsevier | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Bilal, Usama |4 oth | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |n Elsevier Science |a Aomatsu, Naoki ELSEVIER |t Multiple stage IV colorectal cancers in a patient who received multidisciplinary treatment, including chemotherapy and Japanese Kampo medicine: A case report |d 2021 |g Amsterdam [u.a.] |w (DE-627)ELV006279392 |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:159 |g year:2016 |g pages:127-131 |g extent:5 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.05.012 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_U | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ELV | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_U | ||
| 912 | |a SSG-OLC-PHA | ||
| 936 | b | k | |a 44.90 |j Neurologie |q VZ |
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 159 |j 2016 |h 127-131 |g 5 | ||
| 953 | |2 045F |a 300 | ||
| author_variant |
m a c ma mac |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
carrascomariaabilalusama:2016----:sgoteiethvotbscacptlr |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2016transfer abstract |
| bklnumber |
44.90 |
| publishDate |
2016 |
| allfields |
10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.05.012 doi GBVA2016009000020.pica (DE-627)ELV035260432 (ELSEVIER)S0277-9536(16)30224-6 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 300 610 300 DE-600 610 DE-600 610 VZ 44.90 bkl Carrasco, Maria A. verfasserin aut A sign of the times: To have or to be? Social capital or social cohesion? 2016transfer abstract 5 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier Among various social factors associated with health behavior and disease, social cohesion has not captured the imagination of public health researchers as much as social capital as evidenced by the subsuming of social cohesion into social capital and the numerous studies analyzing social capital and the comparatively fewer articles analyzing social cohesion and health. In this paper we provide a brief overview of the evolution of the conceptualization of social capital and social cohesion and we use philosopher Erich Fromm’s distinction between “having” and “being” to understand the current research focus on capital over cohesion. We argue that social capital is related to having while social cohesion is related to being and that an emphasis on social capital leads to individualizing tendencies that are antithetical to cohesion. We provide examples drawn from the literature where this conflation of social capital and cohesion results in non-concordant definitions and subsequent operationalization of these constructs. Beyond semantics, the practical implication of focusing on “having” vs. “being” include an emphasis on understanding how to normalize groups and populations rather than providing those groups space for empowerment and agency leading to health. Among various social factors associated with health behavior and disease, social cohesion has not captured the imagination of public health researchers as much as social capital as evidenced by the subsuming of social cohesion into social capital and the numerous studies analyzing social capital and the comparatively fewer articles analyzing social cohesion and health. In this paper we provide a brief overview of the evolution of the conceptualization of social capital and social cohesion and we use philosopher Erich Fromm’s distinction between “having” and “being” to understand the current research focus on capital over cohesion. We argue that social capital is related to having while social cohesion is related to being and that an emphasis on social capital leads to individualizing tendencies that are antithetical to cohesion. We provide examples drawn from the literature where this conflation of social capital and cohesion results in non-concordant definitions and subsequent operationalization of these constructs. Beyond semantics, the practical implication of focusing on “having” vs. “being” include an emphasis on understanding how to normalize groups and populations rather than providing those groups space for empowerment and agency leading to health. Social factors Elsevier Social cohesion Elsevier Social capital Elsevier Empowerment Elsevier Bilal, Usama oth Enthalten in Elsevier Science Aomatsu, Naoki ELSEVIER Multiple stage IV colorectal cancers in a patient who received multidisciplinary treatment, including chemotherapy and Japanese Kampo medicine: A case report 2021 Amsterdam [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV006279392 volume:159 year:2016 pages:127-131 extent:5 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.05.012 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U SSG-OLC-PHA 44.90 Neurologie VZ AR 159 2016 127-131 5 045F 300 |
| spelling |
10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.05.012 doi GBVA2016009000020.pica (DE-627)ELV035260432 (ELSEVIER)S0277-9536(16)30224-6 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 300 610 300 DE-600 610 DE-600 610 VZ 44.90 bkl Carrasco, Maria A. verfasserin aut A sign of the times: To have or to be? Social capital or social cohesion? 2016transfer abstract 5 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier Among various social factors associated with health behavior and disease, social cohesion has not captured the imagination of public health researchers as much as social capital as evidenced by the subsuming of social cohesion into social capital and the numerous studies analyzing social capital and the comparatively fewer articles analyzing social cohesion and health. In this paper we provide a brief overview of the evolution of the conceptualization of social capital and social cohesion and we use philosopher Erich Fromm’s distinction between “having” and “being” to understand the current research focus on capital over cohesion. We argue that social capital is related to having while social cohesion is related to being and that an emphasis on social capital leads to individualizing tendencies that are antithetical to cohesion. We provide examples drawn from the literature where this conflation of social capital and cohesion results in non-concordant definitions and subsequent operationalization of these constructs. Beyond semantics, the practical implication of focusing on “having” vs. “being” include an emphasis on understanding how to normalize groups and populations rather than providing those groups space for empowerment and agency leading to health. Among various social factors associated with health behavior and disease, social cohesion has not captured the imagination of public health researchers as much as social capital as evidenced by the subsuming of social cohesion into social capital and the numerous studies analyzing social capital and the comparatively fewer articles analyzing social cohesion and health. In this paper we provide a brief overview of the evolution of the conceptualization of social capital and social cohesion and we use philosopher Erich Fromm’s distinction between “having” and “being” to understand the current research focus on capital over cohesion. We argue that social capital is related to having while social cohesion is related to being and that an emphasis on social capital leads to individualizing tendencies that are antithetical to cohesion. We provide examples drawn from the literature where this conflation of social capital and cohesion results in non-concordant definitions and subsequent operationalization of these constructs. Beyond semantics, the practical implication of focusing on “having” vs. “being” include an emphasis on understanding how to normalize groups and populations rather than providing those groups space for empowerment and agency leading to health. Social factors Elsevier Social cohesion Elsevier Social capital Elsevier Empowerment Elsevier Bilal, Usama oth Enthalten in Elsevier Science Aomatsu, Naoki ELSEVIER Multiple stage IV colorectal cancers in a patient who received multidisciplinary treatment, including chemotherapy and Japanese Kampo medicine: A case report 2021 Amsterdam [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV006279392 volume:159 year:2016 pages:127-131 extent:5 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.05.012 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U SSG-OLC-PHA 44.90 Neurologie VZ AR 159 2016 127-131 5 045F 300 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.05.012 doi GBVA2016009000020.pica (DE-627)ELV035260432 (ELSEVIER)S0277-9536(16)30224-6 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 300 610 300 DE-600 610 DE-600 610 VZ 44.90 bkl Carrasco, Maria A. verfasserin aut A sign of the times: To have or to be? Social capital or social cohesion? 2016transfer abstract 5 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier Among various social factors associated with health behavior and disease, social cohesion has not captured the imagination of public health researchers as much as social capital as evidenced by the subsuming of social cohesion into social capital and the numerous studies analyzing social capital and the comparatively fewer articles analyzing social cohesion and health. In this paper we provide a brief overview of the evolution of the conceptualization of social capital and social cohesion and we use philosopher Erich Fromm’s distinction between “having” and “being” to understand the current research focus on capital over cohesion. We argue that social capital is related to having while social cohesion is related to being and that an emphasis on social capital leads to individualizing tendencies that are antithetical to cohesion. We provide examples drawn from the literature where this conflation of social capital and cohesion results in non-concordant definitions and subsequent operationalization of these constructs. Beyond semantics, the practical implication of focusing on “having” vs. “being” include an emphasis on understanding how to normalize groups and populations rather than providing those groups space for empowerment and agency leading to health. Among various social factors associated with health behavior and disease, social cohesion has not captured the imagination of public health researchers as much as social capital as evidenced by the subsuming of social cohesion into social capital and the numerous studies analyzing social capital and the comparatively fewer articles analyzing social cohesion and health. In this paper we provide a brief overview of the evolution of the conceptualization of social capital and social cohesion and we use philosopher Erich Fromm’s distinction between “having” and “being” to understand the current research focus on capital over cohesion. We argue that social capital is related to having while social cohesion is related to being and that an emphasis on social capital leads to individualizing tendencies that are antithetical to cohesion. We provide examples drawn from the literature where this conflation of social capital and cohesion results in non-concordant definitions and subsequent operationalization of these constructs. Beyond semantics, the practical implication of focusing on “having” vs. “being” include an emphasis on understanding how to normalize groups and populations rather than providing those groups space for empowerment and agency leading to health. Social factors Elsevier Social cohesion Elsevier Social capital Elsevier Empowerment Elsevier Bilal, Usama oth Enthalten in Elsevier Science Aomatsu, Naoki ELSEVIER Multiple stage IV colorectal cancers in a patient who received multidisciplinary treatment, including chemotherapy and Japanese Kampo medicine: A case report 2021 Amsterdam [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV006279392 volume:159 year:2016 pages:127-131 extent:5 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.05.012 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U SSG-OLC-PHA 44.90 Neurologie VZ AR 159 2016 127-131 5 045F 300 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.05.012 doi GBVA2016009000020.pica (DE-627)ELV035260432 (ELSEVIER)S0277-9536(16)30224-6 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 300 610 300 DE-600 610 DE-600 610 VZ 44.90 bkl Carrasco, Maria A. verfasserin aut A sign of the times: To have or to be? Social capital or social cohesion? 2016transfer abstract 5 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier Among various social factors associated with health behavior and disease, social cohesion has not captured the imagination of public health researchers as much as social capital as evidenced by the subsuming of social cohesion into social capital and the numerous studies analyzing social capital and the comparatively fewer articles analyzing social cohesion and health. In this paper we provide a brief overview of the evolution of the conceptualization of social capital and social cohesion and we use philosopher Erich Fromm’s distinction between “having” and “being” to understand the current research focus on capital over cohesion. We argue that social capital is related to having while social cohesion is related to being and that an emphasis on social capital leads to individualizing tendencies that are antithetical to cohesion. We provide examples drawn from the literature where this conflation of social capital and cohesion results in non-concordant definitions and subsequent operationalization of these constructs. Beyond semantics, the practical implication of focusing on “having” vs. “being” include an emphasis on understanding how to normalize groups and populations rather than providing those groups space for empowerment and agency leading to health. Among various social factors associated with health behavior and disease, social cohesion has not captured the imagination of public health researchers as much as social capital as evidenced by the subsuming of social cohesion into social capital and the numerous studies analyzing social capital and the comparatively fewer articles analyzing social cohesion and health. In this paper we provide a brief overview of the evolution of the conceptualization of social capital and social cohesion and we use philosopher Erich Fromm’s distinction between “having” and “being” to understand the current research focus on capital over cohesion. We argue that social capital is related to having while social cohesion is related to being and that an emphasis on social capital leads to individualizing tendencies that are antithetical to cohesion. We provide examples drawn from the literature where this conflation of social capital and cohesion results in non-concordant definitions and subsequent operationalization of these constructs. Beyond semantics, the practical implication of focusing on “having” vs. “being” include an emphasis on understanding how to normalize groups and populations rather than providing those groups space for empowerment and agency leading to health. Social factors Elsevier Social cohesion Elsevier Social capital Elsevier Empowerment Elsevier Bilal, Usama oth Enthalten in Elsevier Science Aomatsu, Naoki ELSEVIER Multiple stage IV colorectal cancers in a patient who received multidisciplinary treatment, including chemotherapy and Japanese Kampo medicine: A case report 2021 Amsterdam [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV006279392 volume:159 year:2016 pages:127-131 extent:5 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.05.012 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U SSG-OLC-PHA 44.90 Neurologie VZ AR 159 2016 127-131 5 045F 300 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.05.012 doi GBVA2016009000020.pica (DE-627)ELV035260432 (ELSEVIER)S0277-9536(16)30224-6 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 300 610 300 DE-600 610 DE-600 610 VZ 44.90 bkl Carrasco, Maria A. verfasserin aut A sign of the times: To have or to be? Social capital or social cohesion? 2016transfer abstract 5 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier Among various social factors associated with health behavior and disease, social cohesion has not captured the imagination of public health researchers as much as social capital as evidenced by the subsuming of social cohesion into social capital and the numerous studies analyzing social capital and the comparatively fewer articles analyzing social cohesion and health. In this paper we provide a brief overview of the evolution of the conceptualization of social capital and social cohesion and we use philosopher Erich Fromm’s distinction between “having” and “being” to understand the current research focus on capital over cohesion. We argue that social capital is related to having while social cohesion is related to being and that an emphasis on social capital leads to individualizing tendencies that are antithetical to cohesion. We provide examples drawn from the literature where this conflation of social capital and cohesion results in non-concordant definitions and subsequent operationalization of these constructs. Beyond semantics, the practical implication of focusing on “having” vs. “being” include an emphasis on understanding how to normalize groups and populations rather than providing those groups space for empowerment and agency leading to health. Among various social factors associated with health behavior and disease, social cohesion has not captured the imagination of public health researchers as much as social capital as evidenced by the subsuming of social cohesion into social capital and the numerous studies analyzing social capital and the comparatively fewer articles analyzing social cohesion and health. In this paper we provide a brief overview of the evolution of the conceptualization of social capital and social cohesion and we use philosopher Erich Fromm’s distinction between “having” and “being” to understand the current research focus on capital over cohesion. We argue that social capital is related to having while social cohesion is related to being and that an emphasis on social capital leads to individualizing tendencies that are antithetical to cohesion. We provide examples drawn from the literature where this conflation of social capital and cohesion results in non-concordant definitions and subsequent operationalization of these constructs. Beyond semantics, the practical implication of focusing on “having” vs. “being” include an emphasis on understanding how to normalize groups and populations rather than providing those groups space for empowerment and agency leading to health. Social factors Elsevier Social cohesion Elsevier Social capital Elsevier Empowerment Elsevier Bilal, Usama oth Enthalten in Elsevier Science Aomatsu, Naoki ELSEVIER Multiple stage IV colorectal cancers in a patient who received multidisciplinary treatment, including chemotherapy and Japanese Kampo medicine: A case report 2021 Amsterdam [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV006279392 volume:159 year:2016 pages:127-131 extent:5 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.05.012 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U SSG-OLC-PHA 44.90 Neurologie VZ AR 159 2016 127-131 5 045F 300 |
| language |
English |
| source |
Enthalten in Multiple stage IV colorectal cancers in a patient who received multidisciplinary treatment, including chemotherapy and Japanese Kampo medicine: A case report Amsterdam [u.a.] volume:159 year:2016 pages:127-131 extent:5 |
| sourceStr |
Enthalten in Multiple stage IV colorectal cancers in a patient who received multidisciplinary treatment, including chemotherapy and Japanese Kampo medicine: A case report Amsterdam [u.a.] volume:159 year:2016 pages:127-131 extent:5 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| bklname |
Neurologie |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
Social factors Social cohesion Social capital Empowerment |
| dewey-raw |
300 |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
false |
| container_title |
Multiple stage IV colorectal cancers in a patient who received multidisciplinary treatment, including chemotherapy and Japanese Kampo medicine: A case report |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Carrasco, Maria A. @@aut@@ Bilal, Usama @@oth@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2016-01-01T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
ELV006279392 |
| dewey-sort |
3300 |
| id |
ELV035260432 |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">ELV035260432</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230625203715.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">180603s2016 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.05.012</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="028" ind1="5" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">GBVA2016009000020.pica</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)ELV035260432</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(ELSEVIER)S0277-9536(16)30224-6</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">300</subfield><subfield code="a">610</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">300</subfield><subfield code="q">DE-600</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">610</subfield><subfield code="q">DE-600</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">610</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">44.90</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Carrasco, Maria A.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">A sign of the times: To have or to be? Social capital or social cohesion?</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2016transfer abstract</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">5</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zzz</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">z</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zu</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Among various social factors associated with health behavior and disease, social cohesion has not captured the imagination of public health researchers as much as social capital as evidenced by the subsuming of social cohesion into social capital and the numerous studies analyzing social capital and the comparatively fewer articles analyzing social cohesion and health. In this paper we provide a brief overview of the evolution of the conceptualization of social capital and social cohesion and we use philosopher Erich Fromm’s distinction between “having” and “being” to understand the current research focus on capital over cohesion. We argue that social capital is related to having while social cohesion is related to being and that an emphasis on social capital leads to individualizing tendencies that are antithetical to cohesion. We provide examples drawn from the literature where this conflation of social capital and cohesion results in non-concordant definitions and subsequent operationalization of these constructs. Beyond semantics, the practical implication of focusing on “having” vs. “being” include an emphasis on understanding how to normalize groups and populations rather than providing those groups space for empowerment and agency leading to health.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Among various social factors associated with health behavior and disease, social cohesion has not captured the imagination of public health researchers as much as social capital as evidenced by the subsuming of social cohesion into social capital and the numerous studies analyzing social capital and the comparatively fewer articles analyzing social cohesion and health. In this paper we provide a brief overview of the evolution of the conceptualization of social capital and social cohesion and we use philosopher Erich Fromm’s distinction between “having” and “being” to understand the current research focus on capital over cohesion. We argue that social capital is related to having while social cohesion is related to being and that an emphasis on social capital leads to individualizing tendencies that are antithetical to cohesion. We provide examples drawn from the literature where this conflation of social capital and cohesion results in non-concordant definitions and subsequent operationalization of these constructs. Beyond semantics, the practical implication of focusing on “having” vs. “being” include an emphasis on understanding how to normalize groups and populations rather than providing those groups space for empowerment and agency leading to health.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Social factors</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Social cohesion</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Social capital</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Empowerment</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Bilal, Usama</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="n">Elsevier Science</subfield><subfield code="a">Aomatsu, Naoki ELSEVIER</subfield><subfield code="t">Multiple stage IV colorectal cancers in a patient who received multidisciplinary treatment, including chemotherapy and Japanese Kampo medicine: A case report</subfield><subfield code="d">2021</subfield><subfield code="g">Amsterdam [u.a.]</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)ELV006279392</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:159</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2016</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:127-131</subfield><subfield code="g">extent:5</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.05.012</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ELV</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">44.90</subfield><subfield code="j">Neurologie</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">159</subfield><subfield code="j">2016</subfield><subfield code="h">127-131</subfield><subfield code="g">5</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="953" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="2">045F</subfield><subfield code="a">300</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| author |
Carrasco, Maria A. |
| spellingShingle |
Carrasco, Maria A. ddc 300 ddc 610 bkl 44.90 Elsevier Social factors Elsevier Social cohesion Elsevier Social capital Elsevier Empowerment A sign of the times: To have or to be? Social capital or social cohesion? |
| authorStr |
Carrasco, Maria A. |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)ELV006279392 |
| format |
electronic Article |
| dewey-ones |
300 - Social sciences 610 - Medicine & health |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut |
| collection |
elsevier |
| remote_str |
true |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| topic_title |
300 610 300 DE-600 610 DE-600 610 VZ 44.90 bkl A sign of the times: To have or to be? Social capital or social cohesion? Social factors Elsevier Social cohesion Elsevier Social capital Elsevier Empowerment Elsevier |
| topic |
ddc 300 ddc 610 bkl 44.90 Elsevier Social factors Elsevier Social cohesion Elsevier Social capital Elsevier Empowerment |
| topic_unstemmed |
ddc 300 ddc 610 bkl 44.90 Elsevier Social factors Elsevier Social cohesion Elsevier Social capital Elsevier Empowerment |
| topic_browse |
ddc 300 ddc 610 bkl 44.90 Elsevier Social factors Elsevier Social cohesion Elsevier Social capital Elsevier Empowerment |
| format_facet |
Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
zu |
| author2_variant |
u b ub |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
Multiple stage IV colorectal cancers in a patient who received multidisciplinary treatment, including chemotherapy and Japanese Kampo medicine: A case report |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
ELV006279392 |
| dewey-tens |
300 - Social sciences, sociology & anthropology 610 - Medicine & health |
| hierarchy_top_title |
Multiple stage IV colorectal cancers in a patient who received multidisciplinary treatment, including chemotherapy and Japanese Kampo medicine: A case report |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
false |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)ELV006279392 |
| title |
A sign of the times: To have or to be? Social capital or social cohesion? |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)ELV035260432 (ELSEVIER)S0277-9536(16)30224-6 |
| title_full |
A sign of the times: To have or to be? Social capital or social cohesion? |
| author_sort |
Carrasco, Maria A. |
| journal |
Multiple stage IV colorectal cancers in a patient who received multidisciplinary treatment, including chemotherapy and Japanese Kampo medicine: A case report |
| journalStr |
Multiple stage IV colorectal cancers in a patient who received multidisciplinary treatment, including chemotherapy and Japanese Kampo medicine: A case report |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
false |
| dewey-hundreds |
300 - Social sciences 600 - Technology |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2016 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
zzz |
| container_start_page |
127 |
| author_browse |
Carrasco, Maria A. |
| container_volume |
159 |
| physical |
5 |
| class |
300 610 300 DE-600 610 DE-600 610 VZ 44.90 bkl |
| format_se |
Elektronische Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Carrasco, Maria A. |
| doi_str_mv |
10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.05.012 |
| dewey-full |
300 610 |
| title_sort |
a sign of the times: to have or to be? social capital or social cohesion? |
| title_auth |
A sign of the times: To have or to be? Social capital or social cohesion? |
| abstract |
Among various social factors associated with health behavior and disease, social cohesion has not captured the imagination of public health researchers as much as social capital as evidenced by the subsuming of social cohesion into social capital and the numerous studies analyzing social capital and the comparatively fewer articles analyzing social cohesion and health. In this paper we provide a brief overview of the evolution of the conceptualization of social capital and social cohesion and we use philosopher Erich Fromm’s distinction between “having” and “being” to understand the current research focus on capital over cohesion. We argue that social capital is related to having while social cohesion is related to being and that an emphasis on social capital leads to individualizing tendencies that are antithetical to cohesion. We provide examples drawn from the literature where this conflation of social capital and cohesion results in non-concordant definitions and subsequent operationalization of these constructs. Beyond semantics, the practical implication of focusing on “having” vs. “being” include an emphasis on understanding how to normalize groups and populations rather than providing those groups space for empowerment and agency leading to health. |
| abstractGer |
Among various social factors associated with health behavior and disease, social cohesion has not captured the imagination of public health researchers as much as social capital as evidenced by the subsuming of social cohesion into social capital and the numerous studies analyzing social capital and the comparatively fewer articles analyzing social cohesion and health. In this paper we provide a brief overview of the evolution of the conceptualization of social capital and social cohesion and we use philosopher Erich Fromm’s distinction between “having” and “being” to understand the current research focus on capital over cohesion. We argue that social capital is related to having while social cohesion is related to being and that an emphasis on social capital leads to individualizing tendencies that are antithetical to cohesion. We provide examples drawn from the literature where this conflation of social capital and cohesion results in non-concordant definitions and subsequent operationalization of these constructs. Beyond semantics, the practical implication of focusing on “having” vs. “being” include an emphasis on understanding how to normalize groups and populations rather than providing those groups space for empowerment and agency leading to health. |
| abstract_unstemmed |
Among various social factors associated with health behavior and disease, social cohesion has not captured the imagination of public health researchers as much as social capital as evidenced by the subsuming of social cohesion into social capital and the numerous studies analyzing social capital and the comparatively fewer articles analyzing social cohesion and health. In this paper we provide a brief overview of the evolution of the conceptualization of social capital and social cohesion and we use philosopher Erich Fromm’s distinction between “having” and “being” to understand the current research focus on capital over cohesion. We argue that social capital is related to having while social cohesion is related to being and that an emphasis on social capital leads to individualizing tendencies that are antithetical to cohesion. We provide examples drawn from the literature where this conflation of social capital and cohesion results in non-concordant definitions and subsequent operationalization of these constructs. Beyond semantics, the practical implication of focusing on “having” vs. “being” include an emphasis on understanding how to normalize groups and populations rather than providing those groups space for empowerment and agency leading to health. |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U SSG-OLC-PHA |
| title_short |
A sign of the times: To have or to be? Social capital or social cohesion? |
| url |
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.05.012 |
| remote_bool |
true |
| author2 |
Bilal, Usama |
| author2Str |
Bilal, Usama |
| ppnlink |
ELV006279392 |
| mediatype_str_mv |
z |
| isOA_txt |
false |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| author2_role |
oth |
| doi_str |
10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.05.012 |
| up_date |
2024-07-06T17:06:38.025Z |
| _version_ |
1803850191236759552 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">ELV035260432</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230625203715.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">180603s2016 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.05.012</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="028" ind1="5" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">GBVA2016009000020.pica</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)ELV035260432</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(ELSEVIER)S0277-9536(16)30224-6</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">300</subfield><subfield code="a">610</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">300</subfield><subfield code="q">DE-600</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">610</subfield><subfield code="q">DE-600</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">610</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">44.90</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Carrasco, Maria A.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">A sign of the times: To have or to be? Social capital or social cohesion?</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2016transfer abstract</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">5</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zzz</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">z</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zu</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Among various social factors associated with health behavior and disease, social cohesion has not captured the imagination of public health researchers as much as social capital as evidenced by the subsuming of social cohesion into social capital and the numerous studies analyzing social capital and the comparatively fewer articles analyzing social cohesion and health. In this paper we provide a brief overview of the evolution of the conceptualization of social capital and social cohesion and we use philosopher Erich Fromm’s distinction between “having” and “being” to understand the current research focus on capital over cohesion. We argue that social capital is related to having while social cohesion is related to being and that an emphasis on social capital leads to individualizing tendencies that are antithetical to cohesion. We provide examples drawn from the literature where this conflation of social capital and cohesion results in non-concordant definitions and subsequent operationalization of these constructs. Beyond semantics, the practical implication of focusing on “having” vs. “being” include an emphasis on understanding how to normalize groups and populations rather than providing those groups space for empowerment and agency leading to health.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Among various social factors associated with health behavior and disease, social cohesion has not captured the imagination of public health researchers as much as social capital as evidenced by the subsuming of social cohesion into social capital and the numerous studies analyzing social capital and the comparatively fewer articles analyzing social cohesion and health. In this paper we provide a brief overview of the evolution of the conceptualization of social capital and social cohesion and we use philosopher Erich Fromm’s distinction between “having” and “being” to understand the current research focus on capital over cohesion. We argue that social capital is related to having while social cohesion is related to being and that an emphasis on social capital leads to individualizing tendencies that are antithetical to cohesion. We provide examples drawn from the literature where this conflation of social capital and cohesion results in non-concordant definitions and subsequent operationalization of these constructs. Beyond semantics, the practical implication of focusing on “having” vs. “being” include an emphasis on understanding how to normalize groups and populations rather than providing those groups space for empowerment and agency leading to health.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Social factors</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Social cohesion</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Social capital</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Empowerment</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Bilal, Usama</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="n">Elsevier Science</subfield><subfield code="a">Aomatsu, Naoki ELSEVIER</subfield><subfield code="t">Multiple stage IV colorectal cancers in a patient who received multidisciplinary treatment, including chemotherapy and Japanese Kampo medicine: A case report</subfield><subfield code="d">2021</subfield><subfield code="g">Amsterdam [u.a.]</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)ELV006279392</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:159</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2016</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:127-131</subfield><subfield code="g">extent:5</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.05.012</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ELV</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">44.90</subfield><subfield code="j">Neurologie</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">159</subfield><subfield code="j">2016</subfield><subfield code="h">127-131</subfield><subfield code="g">5</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="953" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="2">045F</subfield><subfield code="a">300</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.3981466 |