Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:42:38.938Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Engineering Compassion: The Institutional Structure of Virtue

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 November 2014

JAMES GREGORY
JAMES GREGORY*
Affiliation:
School of Social Policy, University of Birmingham email: j.gregory@bham.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper offers a constructive critique of a recent account, in this journal, of the place of compassion as a virtue within social policy. The critique suggests that the ‘compassion thesis’ collapses into an account of duty rather than virtue, and that compassion as a virtue can only be exercised by individuals, and not by institutions. The paper goes on to suggest an alternative account of the relationship between social policy institutions and the virtue of compassion. It develops a broadly Humean account of ‘sympathy’ triggered by proximity to distress. In this alternative account, social policy is used to create the background conditions in which individuals are moved, and able, to exercise the virtues of sympathy and compassion. Special attention is paid to housing and mixed communities policy as a means of creating the social proximity that may underpin a welfare culture of understanding rather than blame.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 44 , Issue 2 , April 2015 , pp. 339 - 356
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allen, C., Camina, M., Casey, R., Coward, S. and Wood, M. (2005), Mixed Tenure Twenty Years On: Nothing Out of the Ordinary, York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.Google Scholar
Berube, A. (2005), Mixed Communities in England: A US Perspective on Evidence and Policy Proposals, York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.Google Scholar
Brewer, M. and Kramer, R. (1986), ‘Choice behavior in social dilemmas: effects of social identity, group size, and decision framing’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50: 3, 543–9Google Scholar
Collins, M. E., Cooney, K. and Garlington, S. (2012), ‘Compassion in contemporary social policy: applications of virtue theory’, Journal of Social Policy, 41: 2, 251–69.Google Scholar
Costa-Font, J., Jofre-Bonet, M. and Yen, S. (2013), ‘Not all incentives wash out the warm glow: the case of blood donation revisited’, Kylos, October.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dean, J. and Hastings, A. (2000), Challenging Images: Housing Estates, Stigma and Regeneration, York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.Google Scholar
Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) (2006), ‘Planning Policy Statement 3, NG-10’, Department for Communities and Local Government.Google Scholar
Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) (2007), Our Shared Future, Final Report of the Commission on Integration and Cohesion, Department for Communities and Local Government.Google Scholar
Esping-Andersen, G. (1990), The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Fitzpatrick, S. (2004), ‘Poverty of place’, keynote address to Joseph Rowntree Foundation Centenary Conference, Poverty and Place: Policies for Tomorrow, University of York, December.Google Scholar
Fleischacker, S. (2012), ‘Sympathy in Hume and Smith: a contrast, critique, and reconstruction’, in Fricke, C. and Føllesdal, D. (eds.), Intersubjectivity and Objectivity in Adam Smith and Edmund Husserl, Frankfurt: Ontos Verlag, pp. 273–311.Google Scholar
Glennerster, H. (2014), ‘Richard Titmuss 40 years on’, CASE Paper 180, February, London School of Economics.Google Scholar
Golding, P. and Middleton, S. (1982), Images of Welfare, Martin Robertson.Google Scholar
Gregory, J. (2009), In the Mix: Narrowing the Gap between Public and Private Housing, Fabian Society.Google Scholar
Hoffman, M. L. (2000), Empathy and Moral Development: Implications for Caring and Justice, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Horton, T. and Gregory, J. (2010), The Solidarity Society, Fabian Society.Google Scholar
Huffington Post (2012), ‘Mitt Romney video: Barack Obama voters ‘Dependent on Government’, 17 September, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/17/mitt-romney-video_n_1829455.html?1347909335.Google Scholar
Kearns, A., Bailey, N., Gannon, M., Livingston, M. and Leyland, A. (2014), ‘“All in it together”? Social cohesion in a divided society: attitudes to income inequality and redistribution in a residential context’, Journal of Social Policy, 43: 3, 453–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larsen, C. (2008), ‘The institutional logic of welfare attitudes: how welfare regimes influence public support’, Comparative Political Studies, 41: 2, 145–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ludwig, J., Duncan, G., Gennetian, L., Katz, L., Kessler, R., Kling, J. and Sanbonmatsu, L. (2012), ‘Neighborhood effects on the long-term well-being of low-income adults’, Science, 21 September.Google Scholar
Mahon, M. and Fox, B. (2014), ‘US health system ranks last among eleven countries on measures of access, equity, quality, efficiency, and healthy lives’, The Common Wealth Fund.Google Scholar
Mill, J. S. (2006), On Liberty, Penguin Classics.Google Scholar
Montada, L. and Schneider, A. (1989), ‘Justice and emotional reactions to the disadvantaged’, Social Justice Research, 3: 4, 313–34Google Scholar
Morton, A. (2012), ‘Ending expensive social tenancies: fairness, higher growth and more homes’, Policy Exchange, 2012.Google Scholar
Opotow, S. (1990), ‘Moral inclusion and injustice: an introduction’, Journal of Social Issues, 46: 1, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raz, J. (1988), The Morality of Freedom, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowlands, R., Murie, A. and Tice, A. (2006), More than Tenure Mix: Developer and Purchaser Attitudes to New Housing Estates, York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.Google Scholar
Rothstein, B. (1998), Just Institutions Matter: The Moral and Political Logic of the Universal Welfare State, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schiller, Werke (1943), Nationalausgabe, Petersen, Julius and Beißner, Friedrich (eds.), Weimar: Hermann Böhlaus Nachfolger.Google Scholar
Smith, A. (1969 [1759]), The Theory of the Moral Sentiments, Indianapolis: Liberty Classics.Google Scholar
Slote, M. (2007), The Ethics of Care and Empathy, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Social Exclusion Unit (SEU) (2000), ‘National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal: a framework for consultation’.Google Scholar
Social Exclusion Unit (SEU) (2001), ‘A new commitment to neighbourhood renewal: national strategy action plan’.Google Scholar
State opening of Parliament (2013), The Queen's Speech, May.Google Scholar
Taifel, H. and Turner, J. (1986),‘The social identity theory of inter-group behavior’, in Worchel, S. and Austin, L. (eds.), Psychology of Intergroup Relations, Chicago: Nelson-Hall.Google Scholar
Tighe, R. (2010), ‘Public opinion and affordable housing: a review of the literature’, Journal of Planning Literature, 25: 1, 3–17.Google Scholar
Tunstall, R. and Fenton, F. (2006), In the Mix: A Review of Mixed Income, Mixed Tenure and Mixed Communities, York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.Google Scholar
van Oorschot, W. (2000), ‘Who should get what, and why? On deservingness criteria and the conditionality of solidarity among the public’,Policy and Politics, 28: 1, 33–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar