Suchergebnisse

AbstractIt is thought that political order in premodern Europe was characterized by overlapping and crosscutting forms of authority. Scholars have called this heteronomy, arguing that it preceded and may follow the modern sovereign state system and that it has characterized various historical locales around the world. We maintain that this conception has been under-examined, and we identity three different forms of heteronomy that existed historically. These include: (1) interstitial heteronomy, where polities with limited capacity in low-density regions experience zones of informal mixed rule on the frontier; (2) functional heteronomy, where states in thickly populated systems develop complex patterns of functional differentiation; and (3) personalistic heteronomy, where power that is invested in individuals rather than territorially defined polities can produce patterns of dual vassalage. We develop a theory of heteronomy based on the density of the system (low, high) and the nature of political relations (territorial, personal), and using the resulting two-dimensional map we explore the form of heteronomy that existed and may exist in different systems across time and space. We conclude that when scholars envisage heteronomy in the modern system, it is mostly functional, and not interstitial or personalistic heteronomy, which they have in mind.

Digitalization has two very different effects on work. On the one hand, it leads to a re-Taylorization of work, de-qualification and a loss of workers autonomy. On the other hand, digitalization of work leads to new forms of indirect control and algorithmic control that can be used to manage and instrumentalize the supposed autonomy of workers to actually enable an unequal and exploitative labour process. This article discusses the questions of heteronomy related to the digitalization of work, presents central aspects of new forms of control (direct, indirect, and algorithmic) and explains why formalization, data centred decision making and flexible structures are used to control the labour process and improve heteronomy of work.

AbstractThe concept of the Anthropocene reflects a particular meaning of the "human" as it exists in society, and a specific understanding of freedom, which only became possible at the close of the twentieth century. Whereas Enlightenment thinkers such as Kant, Rousseau, and Adam Smith attempted to grasp the potential for humanity to be changed through society in a self-conscious process of attaining freedom, the "Age of Man" today appears entirely disconnected from human agency. Indeed, the Anthropocene is associated not with the flourishing of life but with the sixth mass extinction. Drawing insight from classical and contemporary critical theory, this paper seeks to explicate the emancipatory potential within the concept of the Anthropocene, and the ways in which this potential is blocked by material circumstances that masquerade as "freedom."

This book analyzes ways how three fringe players of the modern diplomatic order - the Holy See, the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, and the EU - have been accommodated within that order, revealing that the modern diplomatic order is less state-centric than conventionally assumed and is instead better conceived of as a heteronomy.

Is it possible to limit heteronomy under oppression through critical self-assessment and self-transformation? I answer by testing available models of autonomy in light of their capacity to deal with the forms of heteronomy which typically characterise oppression. Drawing from Foucault's analysis of power relations, I claim that there are significantly different ways of being oppressed in contemporary Western societies and that we need to account for this difference when answering if self-emancipation under oppression is possible. First, I look into paradigmatic examples of the two main strategies available in the literature on autonomy: Christman's procedural account, and Stoljar's and Oshana's substantive accounts. I analyse the strengths of these accounts but conclude that, as they stand, they are ill-suited to problematize forms of (what I call) 'subjection', namely forms of oppression which affect agents' "normal" developments qua subjects of different kinds. Crucially, Christman's model lacks resources to problematize settled characters and values, while Stoljar's and Oshana's models cannot sufficiently account for resistance and transgression in oppressive environments. To find a way out of the impasse of the substantive-procedural debate, I turn to Foucault's analysis of power. Foucault's resources are useful both to problematize agency and self-relations as effects of social power relations and to distinguish between the different interferences that contemporary theorists would call 'oppressive'. I argue that some forms of oppression qualify as Foucauldian 'domination', where power imbalances are frozen and irreversible through the (limited) margin of freedom available to the individuals living in those conditions. Other forms of oppression, however, can be likened to what Foucault calls 'government of individualisation', where practices of self-clarification and self-transformation can make agents less heteronomous vis-à-vis specific power configurations. I propose a two-tracked approach to autonomy: a revised procedural account for cases of 'subjection', and a substantive one for cases of 'domination'. ; Agencia Nacional de Investigación e Innovación ; Royal Institute of Philosophy

This book combines organization theory oriented institutionalism with Eisenstadt's work on comparative liminality, to develop a unique analytical framework and explore the dynamic of stability and change in institutionalized orders. It then applies this framework to analyze ways how three fringe players of the modern diplomatic order - the Holy See (HS), the Sovereign Military Order of Malta (SMOM), and the European Union (EU) have been accommodated within that order. Batora and Hynek reveal that the modern diplomatic order is less state-centric than conventionally assumed and is instead better conceived of as a heteronomy - an order characterized by co-existence of units with different age, and structurally and ontologically different principles of growth and operation. They argue that this heteronomous character of the modern diplomatic order renders it more robust and far less susceptible to change than much of the proliferating literature on the changing nature of diplomacy has presented it.

This article takes the main arguments made by Bourdieu in his late work On Television and Journalism and applies them to the empirical case of the production of discursive visions of Italy and the Italians in Britain from approximately 1840 to the present day. In doing so, Bourdieu's field theory is applied in order to examine and compare the range and diversity of the Italian visions produced at around the mid-point of the 19th century — a period of high cultural autonomy in England — with those produced in the present day. In the account of the present day, the dominant assemblage of discursive practices and the fields from which they derive is explicated and the extent to which these visions are shaped by the `audience ratings' mindset is scrutinized.The article concludes by reflecting on the analytical utility of Bourdieu's field theory for understanding inter-cultural representation.

Abstract
The international tax system is targeted by a diverse range of networked civil society actors, from critical professionals mobilizing their expertise to anti-austerity protestors targeting the consequences of tax dodging. The years following the 2008 financial crisis saw an increase in the range of these actors and their cooperation with one another. This paper argues that a transnational field analysis complements existing expertise-oriented approaches, by identifying the overarching objective of the tax justice agenda as increasing heteronomy in the international taxation field relative to political fields. This objective requires the mobilization of diverse resources across different fields, resulting in network relationships crossing field boundaries to contest inter-field relations, rather than any single bounded field struggle. The findings are supported by an analysis of tax justice advocacy after the 2008 financial crisis in the United Kingdom and Australia, including thirty-seven in-depth interviews with different organizations involved in the network.

This article analyses the degree-granting economics programs offered in French universities in the period 1970-2009 from a disciplinary socio-historical approach. Archival data was compiled into a database used to map the space of these universities with the help of geometric data analysis (principal component analysis and ascending hierarchical clustering). Interpretation of the resulting space reveals a utilitarian shift in university curricula to the detriment of research, as well as a trend towards modelling studying programs on templates of professional schools. Economics instruction has become increasingly heteronomic, critical economics has been marginalized and professionalized programs are today perceived as the 'gold standard' of teaching.

Scholars of International Relations (IR) and Global Historical Sociology alike have recently become more and more interested in Eurasian order(s). Yet, most recent works on Eurasian historical international relations approach the subject from a long durée perspective, mostly focusing on "big polities" from a "high altitude." Central Asia, or "Turkestan," and its constitutive polities such as the khanates of Bukhara, Khiva, and Khoqand and the vast array of nomadic groups surrounding them are yet terra incognita in IR, specifically with respect to the pre-Tsarist period. By relying on both primary and secondary sources, this inductive research reveals how precolonial Central Asia was an interpolity order on its own, premised on heteronomy and based on the institutions of sovereignty between the khanates and suzerainty between khanates and nomads; territoriality; Sunni Islam; trade and slavery; diplomacy; and war and aq oyluk. This paper contributes to filling this gap, and to the broader literature on Eurasian historical orders, in three respects. First, it adds granularity, detail, and specificity to current IR knowledge on Eurasia by looking at smaller polities as opposed to empires, which as noted have been the main analytical focus so far. Second, the paper adopts an emic approach to uncover local practices, institutions, and norms of precolonial Central Asia, thus adding to the recent "Global IR" debate. Third, by focusing on a case where heteronomy was the rule, this paper adds a new case to the literature on the entrenchment and durability of heteronomy in historical IR and contributes to its theory-building.