Suchergebnisse

"Known for his most famous works, such as The Myth of the Lazy Native (1977) and The Problem of Corruption (1986), as well as his concept of the "captive mind," Syed Hussein Alatas (1928-2007) has made significant contributions to decolonization theory, social theory, and other forms of thought critical of the current neo-colonial and neoliberal world. Although Edward Said acknowledged his debt to Syed Hussein Alatas' work, especially its influence on Edward W. Said's most famous book, Orientalism, Syed Hussein Alatas' work has long been overlooked by Western academia, trapped in its Eurocentric perspective. Spurred by the commitment to continue the development of Syed Hussein Alatas' work, this edited volume attempts to demonstrate the relevance of Syed Hussein Alatas to numerous academic fields, and the potential for his thought to be transformative in the international socio-political realm. Twenty-one authors from various disciplines and countries have contributed to Syed Hussein Alatas and Critical Social Theory: Decolonizing the Captive Mind, in the hopes of bringing his work to the forefront of social and political theory. Contributors are: Mona Abaza, Joseph Alagha, Masturah Alatas, Sharifah Munirah Alatas, Syed Farid Alatas, Syed Imad Alatas, Hira Amin, Dustin J. Byrd, Karim Douglas Crow, Zawawi Ibrahim, N. Jayaram, Habibul Haque Khondker, Teo Lee Ken, Victor T. King, João Marcelo E. Maia, Seyed Javad Miri, Carimo Mohomed, Chandra Muzaffar, Norshahril Saat, Mostafa Soueid, and Esmaeil Zeiny"--

"Dem Beitrag liegt ein Naturbegriff zugrunde, der ebenso sehr mit antiken wie mit modernen Referenzen arbeitet. War für Aristoteles die Natur ein Prozess der Auseinandersetzung zwischen Perfektion und Korruption, so ist sie für die Naturwissenschaften der Moderne ein Prozess der Auseinandersetzung zwischen Ordnung und Chaos. In beiden Versionen liegt der Akzent nicht darauf, entweder die Perfektion und die Ordnung oder die Korruption und das Chaos für den gleichsam 'natürlichen' Zustand zu halten, um die jeweilige andere Seite der Unterscheidung zur Bezeichnung entweder göttlich oder teuflisch intervenierender Instanzen zu verwenden, so als seien entweder die Perfektion und die Ordnung oder die Korruption und das Chaos nicht natürlichen Ursprungs. Stattdessen liegt der Akzent auf dem Prozess der Auseinandersetzung selbst. Naturbeobachtung zielt darauf, Perfektion und Korruption sowie Ordnung und Chaos als die beiden Seiten einer Medaille zu verstehen. Darauf ist um so mehr zu verweisen, als es sich historisch als schwierig erwiesen hat, die Natur nicht entweder für das eine oder das andere, für Perfektion und Ordnung oder für Korruption und Chaos, verantwortlich zu machen, um so Raum dafür zu gewinnen, ihr die Gesellschaft gegenüberstellen und an ihr messen zu können. Dann war die Natur entweder jenes Ideal, das von der Gesellschaft laufend verfehlt wird, oder jenes Böse, gegen das die Gesellschaft laufend zu schützen ist. Von diesem imago der Natur gilt es Abschied zu nehmen, um statt dessen nach einer Natur der Gesellschaft fragen zu können, die gemäß der Tendenz der modernen Kognitionswissenschaften ebenso sehr als ein Prozess der Auseinandersetzung zwischen Perfektion und Korruption oder zwischen Ordnung und Chaos verstanden werden kann wie die Natur selbst. Damit sollen die erheblichen Differenzen zwischen dem antiken und dem modernen Naturbegriff ebenso wenig geleugnet werden wie die ganz unterschiedlichen Gesellschaftsvorstellungen, die von der Antike oder der Moderne in Anlehnung an entweder die eine oder die andere Seite der Unterscheidung von Perfektion und Korruption oder von Ordnung und Chaos entwickelt worden sind. Vielmehr geht es darum, sich darüber klar zu werden, dass jede Unterscheidung zwischen Natur und Gesellschaft ihrerseits bereits ein Moment der Auseinandersetzung mit der Natur, aber auch ein Moment der Reproduktion von Gesellschaft ist. Maßgeblich für die Frage nach der Natur der Gesellschaft ist daher eine genaue Kontrolle der Zurechnung von Zuständen der Perfektion und der Ordnung beziehungsweise der Korruption und des Chaos sowie die Entwicklung einer Theorie, die darüber Auskunft zu geben vermag, wie man sich diesen Prozess der Auseinandersetzung zwischen dem einen und dem anderen vorstellen kann." (Autorenreferat)

The practice of social theory is too often given to celebrity hunting, the polemical vulgarizing of one's putative enemies, or the precocious production of totalizing and redemptive theories purporting to rescue social theory from its perennial crises of meaning, naming and explanation. The constructive task of social theory, however, can be both more modest and productive when attention is given to its substantive concern to provide codes, narratives and explanations of modernity, in all its pluralist and democratic dimensions. This is in effect the self-description of Jeffrey Alexander's own work. This paper provides an empathetic account of Alexander's approach to the practice of social theory via a synopsis of his collected essays in Fin de Siècle Social Theory (1995). In particular, it claims that Alexander's critique of the reductionist propensities of Pierre Bourdieu's macro-sociological theory is exemplary in its constructive cast as a systematic analysis of the universalizing contents of the conceptual and methodological claims themselves. Herein lies the use of reason itself.

Consists chiefly of papers presented before the Social science history association, 1976.

chapter 1 Empowering the Self: Romanticism, the French Revolution, and the Rise of Sociological Hermeneutics -- chapter 2 Reforming American Democracy: Socialism, Progressivism, and Pragmatic Reconstruction -- chapter 3 Envisioning Pragmatist Sociology: Philosophical Sources, Methodological Principles, and Political Underpinnings of Social Interactionism -- chapter 4 Challenging Critical Theory: The Frankfurt School, Communicative Action, and the Pragmatist Revival -- chapter 5 Reading Text Pragmatically: Modernity, Postmodernism, and Pragmatist Inquiry -- chapter 6 Signing in the Flesh: Pragmatist Hermeneutics, Embodied Sociology, and Biocritique -- chapter 7 Reframing the Law: Legal Pragmatism, Juridical Moralism, and the Embodied Democratic Process -- chapter 8 Cultivating Democratic Demeanor: Liberalism, Affect Control, and Emotionally Intelligent Democracy -- chapter 9 Becoming a Public Intellectual: Advocacy, National Sociology, and Paradigm Pluralism.

Frontmatter -- CONTENTS -- ACKNOWLEDGMENTS -- INTRODUCTION. Updating Practice Theory -- CHAPTER ONE. Reading America: Preliminary Notes on Class and Culture -- CHAPTER TWO. Resistance and the Problem of Ethnographic Refusal -- CHAPTER THREE. Identities: The Hidden Life of Class -- CHAPTER FOUR. Generation X: Anthropology in a Media-Saturated World -- CHAPTER FIVE. Subjectivity and Cultural Critique -- CHAPTER SIX. Power and Projects: Reflections on Agency -- NOTES -- REFERENCES CITED -- INDEX

In this provocative analysis of the central issues and developments in modern social theory, Dr Strasser contends that enquiry into the function, tasks and mission of sociology as a discipline can be understood only in relation to the subject''s historical development. He believes that a discussion of the origin and intention of sociology, particularly in relation to the established social order, enables us to grasp fully the nature of sociological theory, both past and present. He maintains that a sociologist''s own position in society, and consequently his views on its development and his wa

This article asks about the conditions of a sociological operationalization of the capability approach developed by Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum. Raising the question of freedom and social opportunities, the capability approach has so far mainly been discussed by economists and philosophers. In order to adopt this approach for a sociological and pragmatist perspective, it engages with methodological and theoretical issues. Whereas capabilities have until now mainly been studied within quantitative frameworks, the author opts for a qualitative method of inquiry that draws on a pragmatist and configurational approach. Such a shift towards qualitative inquiry is a key condition for a better sociological understanding of notions like freedom and opportunities that stand at the core of the capability approach.

This paper presents a theoretical framework as a first step in the constructing of a body of theory for under standing certain types of policy outcomes. While the frame work operates at a somewhat general level, it does not apply to all policy problems. Nevertheless, it does permit us to code most policy studies and offers some potential for de veloping generalizations which transcend a number of policy sectors. The essay combines general variables with an interest group approach to the study of public policy. By knowing the relative power of specific interest groups, we are able to increase the predictability of what policy outcomes will prevail. The type of analysis presented herein should help to establish more clearly the constraints under which policy- makers operate and to clarify the consequences that are likely to follow when certain kinds of policies are adopted.

Abstract
This article uses the dilemma of climate change as an entry point to explore the utility of a complexity framework for a more comprehensive social science of environmental sustainability. A theory of complex adaptive systems (CAS) is especially appropriate for the Anthropocene, a newly proposed geological period defined around humanity's impact on the biosphere. Aspects of complexity theory have been entering public consciousness through popular accounts of climate "tipping points" and "emergent" change—the risk that Earth's climate could shift into a new pattern in a relatively short time period. Social structures, including capitalism, are complex systems, as are social movements. The paper reviews CAS research with special attention to applications in social ecology. It discusses two case studies of exemplary research on human management of environmental resources and one case study of the antiglobalization movement, all conceived within a complexity framework. The central argument is that complexity thinking will enhance social studies of sustainability and efforts to create a more resilient economy and biosphere.