Suchergebnisse

The state of theorizing bearing on an explicit, contemporary, critical theory of society is first of all outlined. While contemporary conditions of scholarship are not promising in this respect, the potential of a distinctive critical theory of society nonetheless remains tantalizing. The mostly agreed, even if mostly only implicitly, core architectonic of critical theory is outlined as a foundation, though disagreements persist over the significance of the linguistic turn and context-transcendent versus context-immanent modes of theorizing. On the basis of the outline of the general architectonic, suggestions are made, pointing forward to the articles in the special issue, as to how the contemporary democratic focus of the theory offers inspiration for a more explicit, modern articulation. Such a theory would follow the lead of the first generation, but it would additionally take on board the multiple theoretical as well as social changes that have since occurred.

This unique volume brings together a selection of the most important texts of Nico Stehr for the first time and puts them in dialogue with original research that draws on his prolific work. Covering five decades of pioneering sociological research on the theory of society and knowledge, the book introduces the reader to Stehr's seminal inquiries into the economic, political and social role of knowledge. Original concepts, such as his groundbreaking studies on the Knowledge Society, are introduced as the volume traces Stehr's pursuit of social scientific research as a source of practical knowledge for modern society. The book comprises three parts devoted to the many facets and the remarkable range of Nico Stehr's oeuvre. Part 1 provides an introduction to the significance of his pioneering work and career. Part 2 demonstrates the practical application of Nico Stehr's research as seen through the eyes of eminent scholars. Part 3 presents a selection of the milestones of his publications.--

The article is a comparative study of Hegel and Marx on the nature and function of the political state and it argues that Marx's critique of Hegel on this topic is aimed not at the "idealism" of the state, which concerns the principle of universal freedom, but rather at the "material" presuppositions of the state. Indeed, Marx's critique of political institutions is premised upon the way in which they are infected with the egoism and self-seeking of civil (bürgerliche) society. The relationship between the views of Hegel and Marx on these points is explored by (1) giving an exegesis of Hegel's conception of civil society as a foundation for freedom, (2) examining Marx's critique of Hegel's theory of the state, (3) distinguishing the Hegelian and Marxian philosophical conceptions of freedom, the individual, and community, and (4) evaluating the fairness and cogency of Marx's critique of Hegel.

Zusammenfassung: In times of entrenched social upheaval and multiple crises, we need the kind of social theory that is prepared to look at the big picture, analyze the broad developmental features of modern societies, their structural conditions and dynamics, and point to possible ways out of the crises we face. Over the last couple of decades, two German sociologists, Andreas Reckwitz and Hartmut Rosa, have sought to provide wide-ranging social theories of this kind. While their theories are very different, they share in common the view that the analysis of modernity as a social formation must be kept at the heart of sociology, and that the theory of society should ultimately serve to diagnose the crises of the present.In this book, Andreas Reckwitz and Hartmut Rosa join forces to examine the value and the limits of a theory of society today. They provide clear and concise accounts of their own theories of society, explicate their key concepts - including "singularization" in the case of Reckwitz, "acceleration" and "resonance" in the case of Rosa - and draw out the implications of their theories for understanding the multiple crises we face today. The result is a book that provides both an excellent introduction to the work of two of the most important sociologists writing today and a vivid demonstration of the value of the kind of bold social theory of modern societies that they espouse

In the Dialectic of Enlightenment (New York, 1972) Theodor W. Adorno & Max Horkheimer developed a radical critique of civilization; while it is not always clear whether their main concern is with structural constraints & deformations, or with a culturally codified logic of domination, on both readings, the autonomy & efficacy of social relations seem severely reduced. Behind this manifest reductionism, there is an implicit line of reasoning that has some interesting points of contact with recent debates in social theory, especially with the critique of functionalism. It is suggested that Adorno & Horkheimer simultaneously radicalized & relativized the functionalist approach. The radicalization consists of a shift to the anthropological level; the functional circle of self-preservation, anchored in the fundamental relationship between man & nature, encompasses the totality of human life & determines the structures of its specific spheres. However, it also draws on irreducibly transfunctional aspects of the human condition. Two essential components of subjectivity, mimesis & thinking, participate in the universe of self-preservation without being fully absorbed by it. Every structured expression of mimesis & thinking is inextricably bound up with the logic of domination & the acceptance of power as the "principle of all relations." Although the notion of power as a principle of system-building is only outlined in the Dialectic of Enlightenment, the implications are clear enough to cast further doubt on Jurgen Habermas's critique of Adorno & Horkheimer, ie, that they lacked a system-theoretical perspective. Their argument is not a final affirmation of the functional principle: the idea of a process of system formation through the necessarily incomplete & contested subsumption of the human condition under structures of power differs from the mainstream functionalist emphasis on adaptation & self-reproduction. Also, the transfunctional aspect is reintroduced through the cultural -- ie, imaginary -- dimension of the configurations of power. Modified AA