Media psychology, symbolic power and social justice in Aotearoa

Psychologists reside in a world saturated by media. We work in professional contexts where guidelines for practice foreground ethical obligations to address issues of social justice. This paper addresses both these contextual dimensions of psychological research and practice. We explore the social significance of increased media production by Maori in challenging the tendency in mainstream media to marginalize Maori concerns while promoting Pakeha perspectives. The analysis focuses on the recent 'Inside Out documentary - Hikoi', which was initiated by two young Maori women as a challenge to media framing of Maori protests as 'unjustified' and 'disruptive' acts. We illustrate how this documentary furthers public dialogue regarding the foreshore and seabed controversy by promoting an alternative depiction of a Maori protest, which emphasize the history of grievances and social unity. The implications of such representations for psychologists working to address issues of social justice and to challenge abuses of symbolic power are discussed

Cohen-Macaulayness of monomial ideals and symbolic powers of Stanley-Reisner ideals

We present criteria for the Cohen-Macaulayness of a monomial ideal in terms of its primary decomposition. These criteria allow us to use tools of graph theory and of linear programming to study the Cohen-Macaulayness of monomial ideals which are intersections of prime ideal powers. We can characterize the Cohen-Macaulayness of the second symbolic power or of all symbolic powers of a Stanley-Reisner ideal in terms of the simplicial complex. These characterizations show that the simplicial complex must be very compact if some symbolic power is Cohen-Macaulay. In particular, all symbolic powers are Cohen-Macaulay if and only if the simplicial complex is a matroid complex. We also prove that the Cohen-Macaulayness can pass from a symbolic power to another symbolic powers in different ways.Comment: The published version of this paper contains a gap in the proofs of Theorem 2.5 and Theorem 3.5. This version corrects the proofs with almost the same arguments. Moreover, we have to modify the definition of tight complexes in Theorem 2.5. These changes don't affect other things in the published version. A corrigendum has been sent to the journa

Book review: Symbolic power, politics and intellectuals: the political sociology of Pierre Bourdieu

"Symbolic Power, Politics and Intellectuals: The Political Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu." David L. Swartz. University of Chicago Press. May 2013. --- Power is the central organizing principle of all social life, from culture and education to stratification and taste. And there is no more prominent name in the analysis of power than that of Pierre Bourdieu. In Symbolic Power, Politics, and Intellectuals, David L. Swartz delves into Bourdieu’s work to show how central – but often overlooked – power and politics are to an understanding of sociology. This book can be regarded as a superb piece of analysis, as well as a great read, and one which successfully sheds light on a neglected aspect of Bourdieu’s work, concludes Luke McDonagh

Responsibility, resilience and symbolic power

The reciprocal nature of the relationship between the concepts of responsibilisation and resilience appears, in policy and political circles at least, almost natural. Whilst both concepts have been subjected to sustained academic critique for their presentation as largely individual or familial qualities, and their negation of social and structural pressures, there has been more limited attention paid to the potential of the concepts if they were put to work in a different way. This article attempts to sketch out ways in which the fundamentally relational aspects of the concepts of responsibility and resilience can be brought to the fore. In doing so, it builds on Rose and Lentzos’s argument that we should perhaps ‘argue not against responsibility and resilience but on the territory of responsibilities and resiliencies’ and sets out the case for engaging with, rather than withdrawing from or resisting discussions of the meanings and uses of these concepts, in tandem. Extending the work of Bourdieu and Wacquant, it argues for the need to turn the lens on the structures and mechanisms of power which promote and maintain inequality and divisive complex social relations, which undermine the possibility of collective ‘resilience’. The article advocates our collective ‘responsibility’ as engaging in processes that challenge and redefine these practices and structures to enable resistance and progressive action