Thriving families and friendships are close interpersonal relationships with significant impact on experiences of mattering and well-being across the lifespan. This chapter explores the social ecology of thriving through interpersonal relationships with family and friends. The focus is on how relationships are shaped by their types of constellations as well as interdependent processual, contextual, and political drivers. The chapter concludes that valuing families and friends as the basic units of thriving ultimately might have ripple effects on intergenerational solidarity and promote social cohesion and reciprocal support in the wider society.

By analyzing government documents from 1885 to the present, the chapter first argues that the liberal movement’s introduction of parliamentary rule in Norway in 1884 was a critical juncture in the state’s language regime. During the union with Denmark (1380-1814), Danish replaced Norwegian as Norway’s written language. In 1885, parliament adopted official equality for a new written Norwegian language (Nynorsk) along with Dano-Norwegian (Bokmål). From 1885, The Liberal Party implemented language regulations, and was also the power behind welfare regulations that are often described as universal. Consequently, the state tradition of Norway has been labelled welfare state universalism. The chapter’s second objective is to explore how Norway’s language policy is related to the social welfare model, and to discuss whether the language regime can be considered universalist. The Labour Party came into office in 1935, completing welfare and language reforms introduced by The Liberal Party. The universalist regime was not challenged by any government of the last part of the century. However, parliament will probably adopt a general language law, and this has sparked a new debate on language rights. The chapter’s third objective is to discuss whether Norway’s linguistic universalism is currently at a critical juncture.

“As food increasingly disappeared from shops, market stalls, and restaurants, wartime shortages badly affected city life. By 1917, most Prague residents struggled to obtain basic food items; the city and its inhabitants were cold, due to coal shortages, and dirty, through lack of soap. The state’s rationing system proved insufficient to cover the needs of the population, leading to the blossoming of a black market. Discrepancies in access to food shaped new divisions. Prague was ‘ruralized’ as people grew vegetables in allotments and on balconies. Hungry city-dwellers went on trips to the countryside to purchase food. This new reliance on farmers subverted social hierarchies. An antagonism grew between Prague and the countryside, undermining the unity of the Czech nation. The association ‘The Czech Heart’ attempted to heal the rift by sending hungry Prague children to better-fed villages. Food provision shifted legitimacy away from the Austrian state to national organizations.”

Chapter 3 examines the connections with the front through the support to local soldiers and the arrival of war victims, highlighting the dialectics of the war’s absence and presence in a city at the rear. The city functioned as a dynamic space, not in any way sealed off from the realities of war. Local solidarity played a major role in wartime mobilization, as evidenced by the gifts sent to absent soldiers. The commemoration of war dead without bodies and the requisition of church bells marked the changes in mourning rituals. The cityscape underwent visible transformations due to the arrival of both wounded soldiers and refugees from the East fleeing the Russian advance. Both groups brought home the destruction and suffering created by the war Austria–Hungary was fighting. Initial support from the authorities and the population soon gave way to fears of epidemics and growing hostility in the case of the refugees.

Social justice has returned to the heart of political debate in Europe. While the phenomenon has received significant attention from several academic disciplines, social justice has rarely been explored as a historical subject in its own right. This chapter explores why this should have been so. It argues that the elusiveness of social justice as a historical subject can be explained by the way in which conceptions of social justice were located at the confluence of other historical narratives that have shaped the historiography of twentieth-century Europe. The chapter provides an extensive survey of these influential narratives, which include the rise of state power, the development of cultures of social improvement, the changing popular expectations of government, and the domain of citizenship. The chapter then presents an innovative approach for the historical study of ‘social justice in context’. Focusing on the ways in which conceptions of social justice grew out of the intricate interplay between rulers and ruled, it develops a research agenda that concentrates on the analysis of three distinctive dimensions, including the temporalities, the spatiality, and the actors and agencies of conceptions of social justice.

This chapter seeks to explain one element of inequality in Western Europe by focusing on the treatment of immigrant communities. It focuses on how attitudes to immigrants – and conceptions of them within a broader framework of social justice – evolved. One of the ways that the ‘long 1968’ challenged European complacency was to present the cause of immigrants as a cause of social justice. By contrast, today immigrants are often depicted as antithetical to social justice. Many commentators have argued that a fundamental tension exists between ethnic diversity and social equality, and depict mass migration as undermining social justice. But where did such ‘welfare chauvinism’ originate from, and how did these ideas entrench themselves within public discourse? In other words, how did we get from social justice for immigrants to immigrants as the antithesis of social justice? A conventional answer to this question might focus on the loss of confidence of left-wing political projects towards the end of the twentieth century, and the concomitant rise of the radical right. This chapter, however, interrogates tensions within social-justice discourses of the left and centre-left, paying attention to emancipatory and exclusionary aspects, and drawing links between the ‘guest worker’ era and the present day.

Southern European Fascist regimes claimed to be ruled by a higher concept of ‘social justice’. While the propagandistic nature of this claim is clear, this chapter argues that behind it lies a coherent (if at times paradoxical) ideal that directed the action of states and institutions. Drawing on the cases of Italy and Portugal, this chapter charts the roots of fascist ‘social justice’ and how it reflected a core set of ideas about the relationship between the individual and the state where hierarchy and the primacy of the nation shaped a deeply anti-egalitarian idea of justice.

This chapter examines individual, social, and environmental factors associated with judicial decisions in juvenile dependency and juvenile justice cases. The structure and process of juvenile justice decisions are described along with a brief comparison to the adult courts. Current models and recommended guidance on juvenile dependency and juvenile justice cases are explored. Factors reviewed include, but are not limited to, legal considerations (e.g., removal, reunification, transfer/waiver, pleas, and placements), judicial education and expertise (e.g., formal training and judicial stress), bias (e.g., racial and socioeconomic prejudice), parent and youth characteristics (e.g., age and gender), family dynamics (e.g., parental engagement, child and parent attachment, and exposure to substances use and abuse), trauma, hearing practice, and representation. The chapter synthesizes the body of current research, discusses limitations in the current juvenile dependency and juvenile justice literature, and provides recommendations for future directions in both basic and applied research as well as policy implications for the legal decision-making field.

In Chapter 3, the overarching question of this book starts to be answered: how do advocacy groups intervene in policymaking processes to represent intersectionally marginalized populations? Here, work is presented that examines how advocacy groups representing intersectionally-marginalized groups have participated in this policymaking process. Analyses of the testimony and statements from advocacy groups during Congressional hearings over the reauthorization of VAWA from the past 25 years is provided to show that select organizations were successfully advocating for linkages between policies and issues that reflected the experiences of intersectionally marginalized groups. These linkages were between VAWA and policies on welfare, immigration, and tribal rights. In this chapter, “intersectional advocacy,” is identified to explain how advocacy groups in this setting engaged in it to change VAWA policy over time. The chapter shows that VAWA changes in remarkable ways that better represent and serve intersectionally marginalized groups.