Abstract
Social alienation exists in many countries around the world. For example, over the decades, societies have continued to experience marginalization and lower social mobility. Inequalities in education, income, and health highlight the worsening impact of social alienation in the society.
Despite the existence of these social ills, western countries perceive social alienation differently from Eastern countries. America and Europe, for example, perceive social alienation as undesirable. Comparatively, Eastern countries accept social alienation as a normal practice.
This analysis shows that social alienation is perceptual. Based on this analysis, this paper explains the contextual nature of social alienation by demonstrating that, unlike western countries, countries from the East (notably Asia) have learned to embrace alienation as an acceptable social practice.
This view stems from the differences in economic, social, and political structures of western and non-western societies. These structures also inform the existence of social alienation and individualism in contemporary society.
Introduction
Social alienation refers to the lack of cohesion among groups or individuals. The low level of integration may arise from the lack of common values or beliefs among people (Ilardi, 2009). Social alienation is a growing problem in modern society and it exists in different contexts. Racism and class differentials are the most common denominators for defining social alienation today (Ilardi, 2009).
For example, some sociologists (Immanuel, 2011; Ilardi, 2009) believe racism is the most divisive social factor today. However, other researchers, such as Morrison (2006), say class overrides racism as the most divisive factor in modern society.
For example, many Americans understand social stratification along three lines – the rich, middle class, and the poor (Immanuel, 2011). Gilbert (2010), a sociologist, for example, uses six criteria for defining human societies – upper class, upper middle class, middle class, lower middle class, working class, and lower working class. He says many societies use such divisions to alienate people (Gilbert, 2010).
America leads most countries in practicing social alienation (Immanuel, 2011). Ilardi (2009) quotes a survey from Duke University, which reported that social alienation has worsened in the past two decades. Statistics show that a quarter of the American population feels segregated from the community (Gilbert, 2010).
Such people do not have anyone to confide in. Duke University further reports that 50% of Americans do not have a close “confidant,” besides their family members (Ilardi, 2009).
Statistics collected in 1985 reveal that this trend has worsened over the years because only 10% of the American population felt isolated at the time (Ilardi, 2009). Social alienation has spread to almost all aspects of society. For example, Ilardi (2009) says social alienation exists even in the highest and most prestigious educational institutions.
Although Gilbert (2010) says many people understand the need to eliminate social alienation, non-western societies (notably, Asia) do not have a problem with the practice (Mishra, 2012). For example, social alienation exists as an acceptable social practice in many Asian societies, like China and India (Mishra, 2012).
Moreover, such societies do not experience the same effects of social alienation as western societies do (for example, social alienation does not cause divisions among people in such societies) (Mishra, 2012). The differences between western and non-western perceptions of social alienation arouse curiosity regarding the reasons for this division.
To answer this question, this paper explains that social alienation is contextual. Therefore, unlike western countries, countries from the East (notably, Asia) perceive social alienation as an acceptable practice, while western societies do not.
This study explains these differences by discussing the economic, social and political structures of western and non-western societies, which inform isolation and individualism (or the lack of it) in contemporary society.
The structure of this paper explores the theoretical background of social alienation, eastern and western perceptions of alienation, and measures that both societies could take to reduce the practice. First, it is important to understand the depth of the differences in eastern and western perceptions of social alienation.
Perceptions of Social Alienation
Few researchers dispute the fact that social alienation is more severe today than in the past (Mishra, 2012; Immanuel, 2011). This paper already shows that western societies have the highest prevalence of social alienation today.
This section of the paper explains the depth of the differences in eastern and western perceptions of social alienation and how the social, economic, and political structures of the east and the west affect their perceptions of social alienation.
Western Perception
Although studies show that the prevalence of social alienation is higher in Western societies, it is important to point out that social alienation is undesired by western societies. Ilardi (2009) says most western societies consider social alienation as an unwanted and negative practice. In fact, western societies often associate social alienation with personal “emptiness” (Ilardi, 2009).
Szirmai (2005) says specific western liberties and rights have contributed to this perception. Notably, the quest to be free and independent has made most people to be individualistic (Szirmai, 2005). This fact stems from the western view that most people are private citizens and responsible for their destinies.
There is therefore little concern regarding what other people do, or need (Ilardi, 2009). Particularly, this view explains the quest for individual success in western societies (Ilardi, 2009). Individualism is at the center of this analysis because success shares a close relationship with individualism.
Certainly, most westerners believe people should take ownership for their mistakes and success (Szirmai, 2005). To avoid the pitfalls of failure, people therefore strive to make individual decisions, thereby fuelling the spread of social alienation. There is therefore a strong sense of indifference to people in western societies because of this fact.
An example from the work of Pappenheim (2013) highlights an example of indifference towards people in western societies when he explains an incidence where a man attacked a woman with a knife in Kew gardens, New York.
In front of other people, the man wounded a woman with a knife and killed her, without experiencing any opposition from dozens of onlookers who witnessed the incident (Pappenheim, 2013). In fact, Pappenheim (2013) says 38 people witnessed the incident and none of them helped the victim, even as she cried for help.
This example shows the extent that social alienation has permeated western societies and almost like a plague, it has made people less “inhuman.” Consequently, Szirmai (2005) says people who are aware of social alienation in the society (in the western world) are few because many people have become immune to it.
From the extreme nature of social alienation and its undesirable effect on humanity, western societies consider it an undesirable concept (although few people do anything about it) (Pappenheim, 2013).
Nonetheless, as shown through the analysis below, most non-western societies do not experience the extremes of social alienation, as witnessed in western societies, because they have a different view of the practice. Indeed, such societies embrace social alienation as an acceptable social practice.
Eastern Perception
In the context of this study, the Eastern perception of social alienation mainly refers to the social, cultural, and economic systems of Asia, and similar subcultures shared by societies in the geographic Eastern region of the world, which inform their understanding of social alienation. Unlike western countries, most eastern societies support the existence of social alienation in the society.
A deeper comparison of Eastern and Western philosophies show that both paradigms perceive social alienation differently. Western societies conceive social alienation as an undesirable practice, while Eastern societies perceive the same practice as an important tool for self-growth.
These differences manifest in different ways. For example, Henion (2013) replicates the same differences in explaining the American and Chinese lifestyles. He says, Americans love a culture of self-promotion, but China prefers a society that promotes the “collective good.”
A study by Michigan state university affirms the same view after it reported that many Americans preferred having virtual friends, as opposed to spending quality time outside the realms of the virtual world (Henion, 2013). Their comparatively high presence on social networking sites, such as Facebook and Twitter, shows the extent that mass cultures prevail in the American society.
Comparatively, the same study found that Chinese people preferred to have many real friends, as opposed to virtual friends (hence their fewer numbers in social networking sites, compared to America and other western countries) (Henion, 2013). The same study affirmed that Chinese people dislike a “me too” culture, which characterizes the western society.
Henion (2013) says these differences show the individualistic nature of the American society, which strives to take credit for all good things that happen, while avoiding blame for any wrongdoing that may occur. The Chinese culture fails to mirror the same philosophy because people take responsibility for whatever wrongs that may happen and attribute successes to teamwork and group effort (Henion, 2013).
The public indifference to social alienation in the East stems from the political organization of Eastern States (Gluck, 1991). In China, for example, political mobilization occurs through the creation of an atomized society (Ernest & Breuilly, 2008). This situation is often normal for authoritarian regimes because it enables leaders to consolidate power (Wong & Bo, 2010).
Moreover, in such countries, the government does not recognize the distinction between public and private life. People live in atomized systems that pledge their loyalty to a central power (Henion, 2013).
Therefore, such societies regard any type of social organization that does not follow this structure as subversive to the goal of social cohesion. Wong & Bo (2010) say this situation is conducive to social alienation, but interestingly, he adds that social alienation is a normal characteristic of such societies.
Theoretical Background
This section of the paper explains the conceptual framework of social alienation. It explores the views of researchers who have greatly contributed to the understanding of social alienation in the western and non-western societies.
The significance of this theoretical framework is the understanding of social, political, and economic structures that differentiate the western and non-western perceptions of social alienation. Therefore, through this understanding, it would be easy to understand the structural differences of western and non-western societies that make both societies perceive social alienation differently.
Similarly, through this theoretical background, it would be easy to understand how the social, economic, and political pillars of non-western countries make them more receptive to social alienation. Notably, the theories of Durkheim, Weber, and Karl Marx contribute to this discussion.
Karl Marx
Karl Marx contributed to the understanding of social alienation through the Marxist theory which explains societal structures that support social alienation in the western world. He described social alienation as an antecedent of the industrial revolution (Morrison, 2006). Marx says social alienation affects people because the industrial revolution produces a “mechanized” society (Morrison, 2006).
He attributes this situation to the spread of capitalism in the western world because capitalism denies workers their right to forge fulfilling social relationships (Morrison, 2006). Stated differently, Marx said the capitalist system alienates workers from their humanity by depriving them the power to think (mechanistic lifestyles) (Morrison, 2006).
For example, capitalism reduces people to factors of production (Immanuel, 2011). Most people are therefore at work and rarely get time to spend with their family.
Marx says although the capitalist system recognizes workers as individual entities, the upper class (owners of factors of production) normally dictate their lives (mostly their goals and ambitions) (Immanuel, 2011).
He further says, the bourgeoisie class does not sympathize with the working class because they want to extract maximum value from them (Immanuel, 2011). It is difficult to blame them for pursuing this goal because they are following the rules of business competition, which started from the industrial revolution.
From the Marxist view, a structural analysis of social alienation in the East reveals that its acceptance stems from labor structures of these countries. Certainly, unlike the capitalist system, the communist system broadens the definition of labor by seeking people’s talents and abilities for mass production (Mishra, 2012).
Comparatively, the capitalist system narrows the definition of labor into a small perspective of minimal wage analysis. As opposed to benefitting both the workers and the organizations that employ them, the capitalist system exploits workers by deriving maximum value from them (Kenneth & Topik, 2012).
The communist perception of labor differs from this view because bourgeoisie wishes do not define the relationship between factors of production and production. Instead, communism operates from a classless framework, where the system recognizes worker-inputs, based on the value they create to the society, and not the profits they provide to the ruling class (Mishra, 2012).
Overall, the communist system differs from the capitalist system because communist societies have a collective ownership of production factors, while capitalist systems do not. Workers in the communist system therefore develop identities that mirror the ideals of a communist society. Through the collective ownership of the factors of production, Kenneth & Topik (2012) say Eastern countries embrace social alienation.
Weber and the Theory of Rationalization
Weber explored the role of industrial growth in regulating human interaction. He explored how the influence of the industrial revolution affected people’s happiness (Morrison, 2006). His analysis shows that the industrial revolution rationalized societies in three distinct ways. The first involved a personal cost-benefit calculation of social interactions (Morrison, 2006). To explain this view, Weber said,
“Human beings choose the basis of rational calculi by weighing up advantages and disadvantages with the goal of an optimization. They then estimate a risk, as the product of the extent of the damage threatening and the probability of the event, and weigh it with their personal risk preference” (Hronszky, 2005, p. 59).
His second view of how the industrial revolution rationalized the society involves the transformation of human societies into bureaucracies (Morrison, 2006). Weber believed that bureaucratic principles would have a firm grip on human society.
He made this assertion by associating bureaucracy to rationalization. Through this view, he believed rationalization charts the course of human interaction and societal development (Morrison, 2006). Unlike modern theorists that advocate for the elimination of bureaucracy as a form of institutional governance, Weber did not see an alternative to the concept.
He therefore believed that the bureaucracy would eventually lead to the creation of an “iron-cage” society (Hronszky, 2005). This perception forced Weber to predict a bleak future for human interaction (Morrison, 2006). He said people would eventually be unhappy because capitalism would force them to operate within a narrow realm of rules and control, without the hope of ever changing this situation.
Besides bureaucratization, Weber also perceived rationalization as a process that strives to conceive reality through magic and mystery (Hronszky, 2005). This view was his third explanation of how the industrial revolution rationalized the society.
Although most of Weber’s assertions affirmed Marxist principles, it is important to understand that his views also contradicted the latter. One distinctive difference of their views was the use of profit-maximization and rational calculations, as bases for understanding human relationships.
Marx advocated for the use of profit-maximization, as the basis for understanding human relationships, while Weber said rational calculations could explain the same (Hronszky, 2005). Weber also used the Marxist understanding of capitalism to present a wider conception of bureaucracy (Hronszky, 2005). He said capitalism was a wider long-run social trend of bureaucratizing the society (Morrison, 2006).
Unlike Marx, Weber said the motive to make a profit was not only distinct to the capitalist system. Instead, he said, “new in capitalism is the rational organization of production for sustained profitability, making use of systematic book-keeping records” (Hronszky, 2005, p. 2).
Weber also equated the rise of new and emerging markets (mostly in non-western societies) to the spread of rationalization. He said the emergence of new markets spurred a new way of thinking, in terms of cost and benefits (Morrison, 2006).
Personal concerns and relationships were therefore secondary considerations in this new way of thinking. The emergence of the growth of radical thinking is therefore a new system of harnessing human capabilities for the benefit of corporations and multinationals (with little regard for human relationships). This view explains why many emerging markets (mostly in Asia) accept social alienation.
Durkheim and Solidarity
Durkheim’s principles closely resembled the principles of Marx and Weber. Like his colleagues, he blamed social alienation to the growth of industrialization (Morrison, 2006). Notably, Durkheim feared that the industrial revolution would eventually lead to unhappiness. Stated differently, Durkheim said the most important attribute of human existence was social solidarity.
Some researchers refer to the same concern as “promoting a sense of community” (Hronszky, 2005, p. 5). Durkheim’s beliefs appeared in most of his work.
For example, in his book, Suicide, he said that the lack of social solidarity explains the high incidence of suicide in the society (Hronszky, 2005). He equated the lack of social solidarity to the rising individuality in Protestant churches because Catholics often advocate for social solidarity (Morrison, 2006).
A deeper analysis into the works of Durkheim shows that social solidarity manifests in different clusters. He said the first cluster was the mechanical adoption of social cohesiveness (Morrison, 2006).
A mechanical organic society bonds people through mechanistic attributes like education, religion, and training (Morrison, 2006). Some researchers say this type of social cohesion stems from homogeneous traits that attract people to one another (the prevalence of mechanistic solidarity is higher in small societies) (Hronszky, 2005).
The second cluster of social cohesion is organic solidarity. This type of solidarity stems from the interdependence that binds different societies together. Again, industrialization birthed this interdependence because job specialization formed different interdependent social and professional groups (Morrison, 2006). Unlike mechanical solidarity, the prevalence of organic solidarity is higher in advanced societies.
To further explain this type of social cohesion, Hronszky (2005) says, “Although individuals perform different tasks and often have different values and interest, the order and very solidarity of society depends on their reliance on each other to perform their specified tasks” (p. 5). These three types of social solidarity explain social alienation through the rationalization theory.
How to Reduce Social Alienation
Stewart & Barrón (2006) admit that the elimination, or reduction, of social alienation in the society is a difficult and multifaceted issue. From this admission, they advocate for a sensible approach to the formulation of social, economic, or political interventions to solve this issue.
Regardless of this suggestion, both researchers admit that any intervention aimed at stemming out this vice should address group discrimination (Stewart & Barrón, 2006). They also say any intervention for eliminating social alienation should have a political dimension (Stewart & Barrón, 2006). Nonetheless, broad understandings of such interventions highlight similarities with affirmative action.
In fact, both interventions ordinarily include political and economic interventions for allocating political and economic power to vulnerable groups. This action should not discriminate between public and private sectors, but Stewart & Barrón (2006) admit that such interventions are more effective in the public sector. This focus shows that policy interventions present the highest hope for reducing social alienation.
Policy interventions ordinarily cover legislative approaches for empowering disenfranchised groups. Lee (2010) says policy formulators should ensure they consider the political and social sensitivity (described above) when formulating effective policy interventions.
He also says policies should go beyond providing opportunities for marginalized groups because such groups cannot exploit these opportunities with the same effectiveness as other groups would (Lee, 2010). This observation is especially true for groups that have experienced social alienation for long periods. To affirm this view, Stewart & Barrón (2006) argue that,
“Without any overt discrimination, the children of long-term privileged groups may do better in any competitive examinations, and so on. Moreover, disadvantage has many aspects, some of which are unclear. Social networks and information about education, jobs, and economic opportunities are often strongly group-related, so what seems like a level playing field is not” (p. 11).
After acknowledging the weaknesses of general policy interventions, Stewart & Barrón (2006) say policy interventions to eliminate social alienation may take three formats. The first type involves the elimination of policies that promote social alienation.
Changes in such policies should address indirect and direct social alienation. The second category of policy interventions should strive to empower alienated groups to perform better in social, economic, or political contexts (Stewart & Barrón, 2006). The third approach involves the formulation of social, economic, and political targets for the betterment of a person’s abilities.
Lee (2010) believes the second category of policy intervention would be the most effective way of eliminating social alienation because it promotes competition. This advantage makes it easy to rally people to support this cause. The redirection of public expenditure would also achieve the same objective of reducing social alienation by redirecting more resources to marginalized people.
This strategy would solve a perennial problem of capitalism – the failure of the capitalist system to empower everybody. In fact, many pundits say capitalism creates an extremely wealthy society, which thrives under the sweat of an extremely poor society (social alienation) (Morrison, 2006).
The redirection of resources to these vulnerable groups would help to solve some of the problems associated with capitalism because it may give an opportunity for vulnerable groups to enjoy the fruits of capitalism, as people who own factors of production do.
Nonetheless, the possibility that privileged groups would oppose this strategy is high. Similarly, there is a high possibility that some sections of government, which represent these privileged groups, would also oppose the same strategy. One issue that may arise during the process of implementing such a strategy is the public expenditure implications of introducing such a strategy.
The introduction of targets, or quotas, as a measure of reducing social alienation is perhaps the most controversial strategy for reducing social alienation. The controversy surrounds the implementation of the strategy in the private sector. For example, it is easy for governments to implement elements of affirmative action in their policy frameworks.
However, it is very difficult to introduce the same standard in the private sector. The difficulty exists from the fact that introducing extraneous policies in the private sector contravenes the spirit of pro-liberalization of the free market. Despite this difficultly, history shows that some countries have adopted this strategy with relative success.
For example, America, New Zealand, and Northern Ireland (examples of western countries) have used the same strategy to reduce social alienation (Stewart & Barrón, 2006). Fiji, India, and Malaysia are some Eastern countries that have also adopted the same strategy successfully (Stewart & Barrón, 2006). Some of these countries have achieved a reduction of social alienation by promoting the group ownership of assets.
For example, some countries promote group ownership of land, as a strategy for reducing social alienation. The same countries have achieved the same objective by regulating employment policies to promote equal access to employment (Stewart & Barrón, 2006).
Research shows that the adoption of the above strategies reduces social alienation, but does not eliminate the practice from the society (Lee, 2010). The same studies do not guarantee an improvement in the effectiveness of production if societies adopt the same strategies to reduce social alienation (Lee, 2010).
Theoretically, it is important to understand that the adoption of the above strategies should provide both positive and negative effects to the society. One negative effect is the interference with competitive activities in a free-market system.
However, such negative effects do not override the benefit of reducing discrimination and social alienation in the society. In fact, a broader analysis of this issue shows that the existence of social alienation would eventually lead to inefficient resource allocation, thereby eroding the assumption that a free-market system would lead to efficient allocation of resources, if left alone.
Evidence of the adoption of the above strategies in Malaysia undermines concerns that the adoption of the above strategies would introduce inefficiencies in free-market economies. Indeed, Malaysia has adopted strategies that reduce social alienation, while upholding economic growth, at the same time (Stewart & Barrón, 2006).
A deeper analysis of the Malaysian case shows that the country minimized social alienation (associated with capitalism) by adopting the above strategies. For example, Lee (2010) says in 1969, the country experienced ethnic riots that decried the high level of social alienation in the country. Before the riots, race was a function of economic position.
This situation led to poverty and economic imbalance in the country (Lee, 2010). Policy interventions aimed to correct this situation by expanding social services and promoting rural development. The central government also encouraged group land ownership to promote the distribution of national assets to marginalized groups (Stewart & Barrón, 2006).
The formulation and implementation of these policies reduced intergroup inequalities. Income distribution among different groups also improved significantly. Malaysia also experienced political harmony after the introduction of these policies. In fact, Lee (2010) says that after 1969, the country has not witnessed any serious political conflict.
Besides Malaysia, some western countries have also adopted the above strategies to reduce social alienation. Notably, Northern Ireland successfully formulated and adopted inclusionary policies to reduce the high level of social alienation that most Catholics faced in the country.
Stewart & Barrón (2006) say the Northern Ireland society alienated Catholics in the 15th and 16th centuries after groups from Protestant churches colonized the country (the Protestants controlled vast economic resources throughout the country). They also ensured they controlled political power by controlling economic activities and maintaining majority representation in government.
The Catholics experienced social alienation on many fronts (political, social, and economic). This marginalization led to the outbreak of violence in the 1970s (Stewart & Barrón, 2006). However, after the British government committed itself to reduce this social inequality by introducing corrective policies, Catholics decided to stop the violence.
The government introduced fair employment acts to stop the high level of unemployment witnessed among the Catholic population. This legislation also reduced inequalities in education and housing. Another agreement between the Catholics and the Protestants (Good Friday Agreement) also corrected economic inequality.
Comprehensively, these legislative changes led to a revolution of the social status of the Catholics in Northern Ireland. To sum them up, Stewart & Barrón (2006) say,
“Inequality in access to higher education was eliminated by the 1990s; inequality in incomes was reduced; the housing inequality was significantly reduced; and the employment profile and unemployment rates became more equal; even the imbalance in recruitment to the RUC was slowly being reversed” (p. 17).
Today, observers say the policy interventions in Northern Ireland stand out among the greatest governmental efforts to reduce social alienation in one generation (Lee, 2010). Evidence of the adoption of inclusive policy interventions therefore shows that they can work in Eastern and Western societies.
Conclusion
After weighing the findings of this study, it is important to acknowledge the differences between Eastern and Western perceptions of social alienation. Both regions acknowledge the existence of social alienation, but western societies consider it an undesirable practice.
However, Eastern societies accept social alienation as an acceptable practice. Social, economic, and political structures explain why such societies embrace the practice.
Although the political view of this analysis shows that most Eastern societies embrace social alienation because it is the main platform for the mass mobilization of people, the economic structures of such societies outline the main reason for the acceptance of social alienation in the East.
The same is true for western societies because economic structures created (and supported) social alienation. Indeed, from an economic standpoint, Weber and Marx say that industrialization has worsened social alienation because it dehumanizes societies by creating social tiers of production.
This paper draws from this understanding and shows that the minimization of social alienation could occur if policy interventions correct the excesses of capitalism. The elimination of policies that promote social alienation should be the first strategy for reducing its effects on the society.
However, the “politically correct” strategy to adopt is empowering alienated groups to compete with privileged groups because this strategy does not interfere with the spirit of fair competition.
The success of such interventions in Malaysia and Northern Ireland shows that such interventions could be successful in reducing social alienation in the East and West. Significant challenges exist with the introduction of these policy interventions, but most of them should correct economic, political, and social imbalances.
References
Ernest, G., & Breuilly, J. (2008). Nations and nationalism. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.
Gilbert, D. (2010). The American Class Structure in an Age of Growing Inequality. New York, NY: Pine Forge Press.
Gluck, M. (1991). Georg Lukács and His Generation, 1900-1918. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Henion, A. (2013). Social Network Use Reflects East-West Disparity. Web.
Hronszky, I. (2005). Rationality in an Uncertain World. New York, NY: Edition sigma.
Ilardi, S. (2009). Social Isolation: A Modern Plague. Web.
Immanuel, W. (2011). The Modern World System IV: Centrist Liberalism Triumphant, 1789-1914. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Kenneth, P., & Topik, S. (2012). The World That Trade Created: Society, Culture, and the World Economy, 1400 to the Present. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
Lee, J. (2010). Islamization and Activism in Malaysia. Singapore, SI: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
Mishra, P. (2012). From the Ruins of Empire: The Revolt against the West and the Remaking of Asia. New York, NY: Penguin.
Morrison, K. (2006). Marx, Durkheim, Weber: Formations of Modern Social Thought. London, UK: SAGE.
Pappenheim, F. (2013). Alienation in American Society.
Stewart, F., & Barrón, M. (2006). Social Exclusion and Conflict: Analysis and Policy Implications. University of Oxford, UK: Centre for Research on Inequality, Human Security and Ethnicity, CRISE.
Szirmai, A. (2005). The Dynamics of Socio-Economic Development: An Introduction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Wong, J., & Bo, Z. (2010). China’s Reform in Global Perspective. New York, NY: World Scientific.