We remember in social contexts. We reminisce about the past together, collaborate to remember shared experiences, and, even when we are alone, we remember in the context of our communities and cultures. Taking an interdisciplinary approach throughout, this text comprehensively covers collaborative remembering across the fields of developmental psychology, cognitive psychology, social psychology, discourse processing, philosophy, neuropsychology, design, and media studies. It highlights points of overlap and contrast across the many disciplinary perspectives and, with its sections on 'Approaches of Collaborative Remembering' and 'Applications of Collaborative Remembering', also connects basic and applied research. Written with late-stage undergraduates and early-stage graduates in mind, the book is also a valuable tool for memory specialists and academics in the fields of psychology, cognitive science and philosophy who are interested in collaborative memory research.

If government tells dependent people how to live today, will we have a more self-reliant society tomorrow? That's the critical question as government increasingly seeks to supervise the lives of poor citizens who are dependent on it, often in return for supporting them. This trend is most visible in welfare policy, where " welfare reform" largely means attempts to require adults receiving assistance to work or stay in school in return for aid. However, it can also be seen in policy toward the homeless, where shelters increasingly set rules for their residents; in education, where states have instituted tougher standards for children; and in drug programs that test addicts for compliance. The drift in antipoverty policy is toward paternalism--the close supervision of the dependent. Paternalism has been a major trend in social policy for the past decade, and it has support from the public. But it has received little attention from researchers and policy analysts--until now. The New Paternalism opens up a serious discussion of supervisory methods in antipoverty policy. The book assembles noted policy experts to examine whether programs that set standards for their clients and supervise them closely are better able to help them than traditional programs that leave clients free to live as they please. Separate chapters discuss programs to promote work in welfare, prevent teen pregnancy, improve fathers' payment of child support, shelter homeless men in New York City, deter drug addiction, and improve the education of the disadvantaged. Cross-cutting chapters address the management of paternalism, the psychological needs of poor adults, and the tension between paternalism andAmerican politics. The authors consider both sides of the debate over this controversial issue. Several chapters address the sensitive question of whether government or private organizations are best able to implement supervisory programs. The conclusions are optimistic but cautious. Most of the authors believe that paternalism can make an important contribution to overcoming poverty. But paternalism is not a panacea, and it makes severe demands on the capacities of government. Supervisory programs are difficult to justify politically and to implement well.

People who participate in debates about the causes and cures of poverty often speak from religious conviction. But those convictions are rarely made explicit or debated on their own terms. Rarely is the influence of personal religious commitment on policy decisions examined. Two of the nation's foremost scholars and policy advocates break the mold in this lively volume, the first to be published in the new Pew Forum Dialogues on Religion and Public Life. The authors bring their faith traditions, policy experience, academic expertise, and political commitments together in this moving, pointed, and informed discussion of poverty, one of our most vexing public issues. Mary Jo Bane writes of her experiences running social service agencies, work that has been informed by "Catholic social teaching, and a Catholic sensibility that is shaped every day by prayer and worship." Policy analysis, she writes, is often "indeterminate" and "inconclusive." It requires grappling with "competing values that must be balanced." It demands judgment calls, and Bane's Catholic sensibility informs the calls she makes. Drawing from various Christian traditions, Lawrence Mead's essay discusses the role of nurturing Christian virtues and personal responsibility as a means of transforming a "defeatist culture" and combating poverty. Quoting Shelley, Mead describes theologians as the "unacknowledged legislators of mankind" and argues that even nonbelievers can look to the Christian tradition as "the crucible that formed the moral values of modern politics." Bane emphasizes the social justice claims of her tradition, and Mead challenges the view of many who see economic poverty as a biblical priority that deserves "preference ahead of other social concerns." But both assert that an engagement with religious traditions is indispensable to an honest and searching debate about poverty, policy choices, and the public purposes of religion.