Suchergebnisse

AbstractThis paper seeks to appreciate the significance of Churchman's philosophy and a meta‐theoretical level of an inquiring system, which can be developed from the reflexive learning on participatory action research. Extending Churchman's thought from American pragmatism to post‐structuralism, rhizomatic systems thinking is proposed. Rhizomatic systems methodology is described and demonstrated as an inquiring system, which facilitates the process of problematization within local and contingent contexts. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

A review essay on 10 books exemplifying recent development theory & discourse focuses on the political implications of poststructuralist challenges to Marxism & assesses whether Marxist insights can be integrated into a radical political economy perspective that does not relativize the realities of power & exploitation in poor countries. The academic institutionalization of development discourse is chronicled, as are the real-world policy effects of elite academic production. The strengths & limitations of postcolonial alternatives to Eurocentric development theory are considered, & poststructuralist approaches to identity, new social movements, the state, class, civil society, & development institutions are elaborated. Some of the authors locate the possibility of postdevelopment change in civil society, while others underscore the continuing need to engage the state & international lenders. It is concluded that poststructuralist insights can inform political responses to development issues, but postmodern relativism is a threat to political agency & action, which should include class awareness & promote progressive reform & the democratization of development institutions. 43 References. Adapted from the source document.

Productive debates between theories from different problematics are a fascinating challenge in social sciences, but they are practiced fairly seldom. Different theoretical approaches are not incommensurable but can be partially articulated if they have at least some similar premises in common - which is the case with Critical realism and post-structuralism. In order to make productive discussions possible, certain criteria for a systematic reasoning about premises must be formulated. For this purpose I will explicate the methods of reconstruction and of immanent critique of 'problematics? (a concept developed by Gaston Bachelard and Louis Althusser). After outlining the ontological and epistemological premises of Critical realism and of Laclau and Mouffe's post-structuralism qualitative differences between as well as possibilities of a combination of these two approaches are demonstrated, taking as an example the relationship between structure and agency, an issue central to political science. Adapted from the source document.

Despite the consolidation of "critical studies on men" or "masculinity studies" in recent years, critics have pointed to a kind of feminist theory deficit due to the relative lack of engagement with contemporary developments of feminist theory. By focusing on post-structuralist feminist and feminist phenomenological accounts of subjectivity, this article seeks to contribute to the emerging body of work that brings such theories into critical studies on men. I argue that making use of these perspectives is not only a matter of replacing dominant theories, but rather offers possibilities for creative rereading of earlier work on masculinity, which may not have been sufficiently appreciated from the viewpoint of dominant structural perspectives. My argument proceeds through a reading of John Stoltenberg as a post-structuralist feminist, and a reading of Victor Seidler as a feminist phenomenologist. I suggest that the study of masculinity can benefit from both traditions, and as an example I consider Jonathan Salisbury's and David Jackson's work on "boys' work." Drawing in particular on Sara Ahmed's innovative combination of post-structuralism and phenomenology, I suggest an understanding of masculinity as "sticky."

As urban self-organization grows into a key concept in spatial planning—explaining spontaneous spatial transformations—the understandings and applications of the concept divert. This article turns to the ontological dimension of urban self-organization and scrutinizes how a critical realist and a post-structuralist ontology inspire theoretical practices, analytical tendencies, empirical readings, and subsequent planning interventions in relation to urban self-organization. This is illustrated with an example of the self-organized regeneration of a deprived street in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. With this contribution, we aim to create ontological self-awareness among planning scholars in studying urban self-organization and invite them to reflect on how their positions complement, deviate, and potentially challenge or inspire those of others. We argue that by clarifying ontological diversity in urban self-organization, theoretical practices and complexity-informed planning interventions can be further deepened and enriched.