Suchergebnisse

Der Beitrag liefert "neue Ergebnisse zur kritischen Untersuchung des 'Postmaterialismus-Index'" von R. Inglehart. Dabei finden die Daten des kumulierten Allbus 1980-1986 Verwendung. Es wurden die Daten von vier verschiedenen Allbus-Ergebungen 1980-1986 auf die Kategorien des vierstufigen Inglehart-Index (Postmaterialisten, Postmateralistischer Mischtyp, Materialistischer Mischtyp, Materialisten) verteilt, wobei sich feststellen läßt, daß die Zahl der Postmaterialisten im Zeitverlauf stetig zunimmt, die der Materialisten hingegen kontinuierlich abnimmt. Dann wurden die Wahlabsichten der Befragten in ihrer Verteilung auf die Kategorien des Inglehart-Indexes dargestellt. Da die Postmaterialisten in allen Wählergruppen der vier Bundestagsparteien mit nennenswerten Anteilen vertreten sind, wurde in einer Korrespondenzanalyse untersucht, ob sie auch hinsichtlich anderer persönlicher Merkmale differieren. Dies konnte ebenfalls bestätigt werden. Die Ergebnisse lassen den Schluß zu, daß die Postmaterialisten zukünftig stärker konservative Parteien präferieren. Im Anhang wurde die Indexbildung und ihr theoretischer Hintergrund dargestellt. (AG)

'Ziel der folgenden Untersuchung ist es, die Anteile von Materialisten und Postmaterialisten und vor allem den Anteil der unzuverlässigen Antworten beim einfachen Postmaterialismusindex zu schätzen. Das dazu erforderliche Modell wird in drei Schritten entwickelt. Zunächst wird überprüft, inwieweit die beobachtete Verteilung reproduziert werden kann, wenn man unzuverlässiges Antwortverhalten bei allen Befragten unterstellt. Im nächsten Schritt wird das Black and White Modell von Converse auf den Index angewandt. Im dritten Schritt schließlich werden einige der sehr restriktiven Annahmen dieses Modells abgeschwächt. Als Datenbasis dient ein dreiwelliges Panel, nämlich die ALLBUS-Retest-Studie 1984.' (psz)

Cover page; Halftitle page; Title page; Copyright page; Dedication page; Contents; Preface; chapter one Materialisms; chapter two Do Badgers Have Souls?; chapter three Emancipating the Senses; chapter four High Spirits; chapter five The Rough Ground; Notes; Index.

This paper sets out to evaluate several common theoretical frameworks employed in critical studies of brownfield redevelopment. Specifically, it analyzes the relevance of governmentality, the post-political, and non-essentialist materialism in that context. To do so, it explores how these theoretical frameworks map on to Bridgeport, Connecticut's BGreen 2020, and its approach to the redevelopment of vacant and underutilized land – and brownfields more specifically. It argues that these frameworks come up short when applied to this empirical case because they put forth untenable ontological claims regarding the constitution of the subject and political agency. Going further, it asserts that these frameworks fail to identify a way forward for those seeking emancipatory political interventions in the context of brownfield redevelopment and urban environmental politics. In closing this paper suggests that Jason W. Moore's recent writing on "capitalism as world-ecology" can provide a way forward where these other frameworks fail.

Although Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels strictly speaking never used the term, "dialectical materialism" refers to the philosophy of science and nature developed in (and on the basis of) their writings, emphasising the pivotal role of real-world socio-economic conditions (e.g. labour, class struggle, technological developments). As indicated by their correspondence (Marx & Engels, 1983), their collaboration represented a unique intellectual partnership which began in Paris in 1844 and continued after Marx's death, when Engels took care of Marx's legacy, notably the sprawling mass of manuscripts which he managed to transform into Volume II and III of Capital. While their joint effort (resulting in no less than 44 volumes of collected writings known as the Marx Engels Werke, published by Dietz Verlag Berlin) began as co-authorship, they eventually decided on a division of labour (with Marx focussing on Capital), although reading, reviewing, commenting on and contributing to each other's writings remained an important part of their research practice. As a result of this division of labour, while Marx focussed on political economy, Engels dedicated himself to elaborating a dialectical materialist philosophy of nature and the natural sciences, resulting in works such as the Anti-Dühring and his unfinished Dialectics of Nature (published posthumously), although Engels (a voracious intellectual) wrote and published on may other topics as well, so that his output can be regarded as a dialectical materialist encyclopaedia in fragments. Again, although I will start with an exposition of dialectical materialism, my aim is not to contribute to scholarly discussions on dialectical materialism. My focus is on the how and now, and my aim is to explore how to practice dialectical materialism of technoscience today (cf. Žižek, 2014/2015, p. 1; Hamza, 2016, p. 163).

AbstractThe works reviewed in this year's essay on New Materialisms raise queries about first-wave New Materialism and signal what some critics refer to as second-phase Neo-materialism. The 'Neo' or New Materialisms of 2022 increasingly commingle the rhetorical and the material and address the Western-centric focus of previous New Materialisms. The works reviewed here, including Rosi Braidotti's 'The Virtual as Affirmative Praxis: A Neo-Materialist Approach', Anne Elvey's Reading with Earth: Contributions of the New Materialism to an Ecological Feminist Hermeneutics, Nina Lykke's Vibrant Death: A Posthuman Phenomenology of Mourning, and Clayton Crockett's Energy and Change a New Materialist Cosmotheology, engage new intersections between New Materialist theory and decoloniality, making deliberate gestures to integrate the idea of vibrant materiality and Indigenous cultures. This review essay is divided into five parts: 1. Introduction; 2. Neo-Materialism; 3. Literary Studies; 4. Theology; 5. Postcolonialism/Decoloniality. The essay concludes that New Materialism may indeed be on the brink of a second phase, especially if decolonial New Materialism continues to be explored.

The new forms of feminist realism and materialism could have significant political ramifications that should be owned by feminist scholars and activists as a way to create new possibilities for an internationalist political language and action that would be geographically, economically and in terms of nation-state politics as varied and as multi-centered as possible. Such a new universalism must emerge at the economic and academic margins, move concentrically toward the center seeking to provide the grounds for uncompromising comradeship worldwide. The universe it will establish is one in which power will be measured in materialist or realist terms and its chief categories will also be the most robust ones: economy and the power of the nation-state as the main means of women's subjugation.