Suchergebnisse

Globalization is used to spatialize modernity in two senses. First, the globalization problematique enunciates that about which the previous temporal notion of modernity was suspiciously silent, that it is spatial, Western, & white. Modernity is not about the spread of ideas, but is fundamentally structural & world systemic. Second, modernity is also spatial in that it happens in cities, especially global cities. Urban & global modernity is that where "all that is solid melts into air." Modernity is no longer in metropolitan but in colonial space, where the solid is melting into air at the greatest speed. The most frantic development of migrant & finance flows takes place in colonial space. The global colonial cities have long ago undergone the sort of class polarization that core global cities have just begun to experience. There is no need for a concept of postmodernity when modernization on a world scale (& global colonial cities) has only been with us in the last quarter century. 47 References. V. Rios

(Originally published in John A. Hall & Ian C. Jarvie's [Eds], Transition to Modernity, 1992 [see abstract 93c01707].) Ernest Gellner's specification of the uniqueness of modern industrial-capitalist civilization (1975, 1988) is criticized for relying too heavily on a rigid philosophy of history. Gellner identifies the ascendancy of rationality as the first marker of modernity; the second is the artificial separation of the institutions of kinship, politics, religion, & economics. An explanation of the origin of these particular features of modern society eludes Gellner, who describes the transition to modernity as a series of near-miraculous accidents. Gellner's model of human history, based on the three stages of human development (hunting-gathering, agrarian, & industrial), fails to account for the differences between societies that fall within the same stage. Once this model is abandoned, the wholly contrived or accidental separation of institutions emerges as the crucial element of modernity. 6 References. H. von Rautenfeld

An introduction to this compilation of papers (see related abstracts in IRPS No. 83) explains that the book is constructed around two major themes. The first organizing theme is social theory. The extent to which the rise of the globalization problematique represents the spatialization of social theory is explored throughout the book. This is in line with postmodern theory, which has privileged the spatial over the temporal mode of analysis. In this context, globalization represents an important shift in transmuting this temporality into a spatial framework. The second organizing theme is the concern with social change. Here, the question revolves around the sociocultural processes & forms of life that are emerging as the global begins to replace the nation-state as the decisive framework for social life. It is important to become attuned to the nuances of the process of globalization & to develop theories sensitive to the different power potentials of the different players participating in global struggles. 27 References. V. Rios

Schulen bieten eine ausgezeichnete Möglichkeit zur Betrachtung und zum Verständnis der breiteren Gesellschaft, in welcher sie hervorgebracht und repliziert werden. Die Untersuchung der Art und Weise, in welcher Schulen strukturiert, positioniert, finanziert, verwaltet, wertgeschätzt, kritisiert, gepflegt und vernachlässigt werden, eröffnet uns - jenseits nationalstaatlicher Rhetorik - eine Sicht auf die von den Bürgern erlebten Realitäten. In diesem Artikel soll die Entwicklung der australischen Bildungspolitik zu Veränderungen in der soziokulturellen Theorie und Praxis, welche die mobile Moderne reflektieren und reproduzieren, in Beziehung gesetzt werden. Besonderes Interesse gilt dabei den Strategien zur Schulfinanzierung mit ihrem Bezug zum privaten bzw. nichtstaatlichen Bildungssektor von der späten Kolonialzeit bis in die sogenannten neoliberalen/spätmodernen Zeiten. Die vorgestellten Aspekte bewegen sich in einem Komplex wechselseitig verbundener Bereiche, vom Urbanen bis zum Ländlichen, vom Öffentlichen bis ins Private sowie in den primären, sekundären und tertiären Schichten von Bildungsangeboten. Die Periodisierung offenbart ein nachlassendes Engagement für eine säkulare, staatszentrierte und am Gemeinwohl orientierte Moderne zugunsten einer "zweiten Moderne" der Individualisierung und Privatisierung. Mit Bezug auf eine Bandbreite verschiedener empirischer Studien zur Schulwahl werden die sich wandelnden Ideen und Praktiken der in die Reproduktion von öffentlichen und privaten Schulen Involvierten hervorgehoben. Im Fokus stehen dabei einerseits die Fachleute und Angestellten des Systems und andererseits die "Konsumenten" der auf den "Quasi-Bildungsmärkten" angebotenen Produkte. (DIPF/Orig.).;;;Schools offer powerful scope for viewing and comprehending the wider society in which they are produced and replicated. The ways in which schools are structured, positioned, funded, managed, appreciated, critiqued, cared for and neglected, presents us with a means for seeing beyond the rhetoric of a nation state to the lived realities faced by its citizens. In this paper the author wants to link the development of Australian educational policies to shifts in socio-cultural thought and practice that reflect and reproduce a mobile modernity. He is interested in school funding policies as they relate to the private, or non-government education sector from the late colonial period to these so-called neo-liberal/late modern times. The interrogated scenes shift about amongst a complex of interrelated fields, from the urban to the rural, the public and the private, as well as the primary, secondary and tertiary layers of educational "offerings". The periodization reveals a loosening of commitments to a secular, state-centred, welfare-focused modernity, towards a privatizing, individualizing "second modernity". Drawing from a range of empirical studies of school choice the author highlights the shifting ideas and practices of those involved in the re-production of both public and private schools either as professionals/workers in the system, or as "consumers" of the products available in education's "quasi-markets". (DIPF/Orig.).

Der Beitrag beschreibt und illustriert einen spezifischen Entwicklungstrend, der als Übergang von der Logik des "Entweder-Oder" zur Logik des "Sowohl-als-auch" bezeichnet wird. In der Ersten Moderne ging es darum, binäre Schematisierungen und eindeutige Grenzen nach dem Modell der Differenzierung einzuüben und zu etablieren. Etwas ist entweder Natur oder Gesellschaft, entweder Arbeit oder Nicht-Arbeit, entweder rational oder emotional usw., wobei es darauf ankam, die Grenzen immer klarer und eindeutiger zu machen. Unter den Bedingungen reflexiver Modernisierung hingegen werden die "Entweder-Oder" Grenzziehungen unscharf. Die Dinge lassen sich nicht mehr einfach binär schematisieren, sondern sie können sowohl das eine als auch das andere sein. So leben wir sowohl in Deutschland als auch in Europa, wobei es zunehmend schwieriger wird, diese Sphären voneinander abzugrenzen. So ist der Nationalstaat nicht die einzige Möglichkeit der institutionellen Umsetzung des Prinzips der Staatlichkeit; es gibt nicht die Familie, sondern höchst unterschiedliche Möglichkeiten familialer Vergemeinschaftung, und die Realisierung der Arbeitsgesellschaft läuft nicht auf eine Homogenisierung, sondern auf eine Heterogenisierung der Arbeit hinaus. (ICA2)

In seinem Einführungskapitel zur ersten großen familiensoziologischen Nachkriegsuntersuchung "Wandlungen der deutschen Familie in der Gegenwart" (1953) setzte sich Helmut Schelsky mit einigen Thesen der US-amerikanischen Familiensoziologie auseinander, welche auch später die Richtung der deutschen Familiensoziologie bestimmt haben. Aus seiner Kritik an diesen Thesen entwickelte Schelsky eine eigene Perspektive auf den Zustand der Familie in modernen Gesellschaften, welche Anregungen für die gegenwärtige Familiensoziologie geben kann, wie die Autorin in ihrem Beitrag näher ausführt. Sie zeichnet zunächst die modernisierungstheoretisch fundierten Argumente der amerikanischen Familiensoziologie nach, um danach auf Schelskys Position und die sich hieraus ergebenden Impulse für die heutige Familiensoziologie einzugehen. Das Verdienst Schelskys liegt ihrer Ansicht nach vor allem darin, dass er die Grundbegriffe der Desintegration und Desorganisation von René König mit denen der Stabilität bzw. Elastizität im Sinne von Bewegung und Gegenbewegung zusammenführte - ein Konzept, dass auch in der gegenwärtigen Familiensoziologie von Nutzen sein kann. (ICI2)

The author presents a political analysis of violent conflict in Africa, focusing on two theoretical explanations. The first suggests that violence is part of the political & social development of a nation. The second focuses on features of modernization that might make Africa more "prone" to violence than other continents. Within this discussion the author focuses on: the nature of power in Africa, the links between politics & violence, & issues related to rationality & modernity. Adapated from the source document

Examines two distinct movements among Roman Catholics in the US, traditionalism & conservative Catholicism, which represent the fallout of the church's encounter with modernity, in particular as expressed in the changes brought on by the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II). The negative response of Catholic traditionalism to the decisions of Vatican II, centering on the power & authority to define Catholic identity, is analyzed, focusing on the schism caused by the excommunication of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. The central ideas & forms of dissent of his followers, along with organizations that arose to preserve & spread these ideas, are discussed. Catholic traditionalism & Protestant fundamentalism are compared, as are the educational & political activities & direct actions pursued by conservative Catholics. Interpretations of church history; attitudes toward Vatican II concerning the nature of the church, its doctrines, activities, & role in the modern world; & member actions are presented. The difficulties presented by separatism, roots of the movement's social & cultural positions, & new organizations that have emerged are described. It is concluded that, unlike the traditionalists, who sought to preserve or recreate the pre-Vatican II church, conservative Catholic activists have reshaped the US religious landscape. Bibliog. T. Arnold

Divorce, common-law marriage and illegitimacy (irrespective of its forms) were, no matter the society typology as the phenomenon is approached, forms of social deviation that entailed the dilution of the family image and norms. We do not discuss here about a dilution of the traditional norms concerning family, as someone might misunderstand, it was an erosion of the idea of family in general. The "family" could acquire different forms as compared to the "official" one. Paradoxically, all these were not only the result of personal emancipation, when the youth broke from the traditional norms, which were strongly influenced by religious norms and values, and would have got involved in "dangerous and shameful relationships". The peasant "forgot" to marry his woman not out of emancipation. The theory of personal emancipation leading to the erosion of the idea of family through the dilution of traditional norms, which was valid from the urban perspective (here, due to the affirmation of modernity, the alterity of religious norms led to such relationships), was not supported in the peasant countryside.
The Church fought all these. In fact, the bishopric sent guidelines to priests to take steps against common-law marriages very often. Despite priests' endeavours, the results were not considerable. Few priests could boast (after the first recommendation) in their subsequent parish report to have significantly contributed to diminishing the number of common-law marriages in their parish. The Church faced another issue brought about by its long debate with the State to control the act of marriage. The marriage laws set out in 1894 were the most complex laws regulating the political-religious relations in the matrimonial field in the second half of the 19th century. Due to their clarity, they managed to put an end to the conflicts between the lay and church authorities. Moreover, the debate concerning matrimonial issues for different confessions ended, too, in favour of the State. The State managed to impose its authority in the matrimonial field. The Church was thus compelled to accept the increased competence of the State by introducing the civil documents. All these caused mutations that triggered very different behaviours. Nevertheless, the Church kept imposing religious marriage, divorce and re-marriage for all its parishioners. In such a situation, by analysing the evolution of common-law marriages from the perspective of the Church, we may notice that, on the level of the whole area we focused on, there was a greater easiness in approaching religious marriage after 1895, once the compulsory civil marriage was imposed. The perception of the divorce also changed when the civil matrimonial law was introduced at the end of 1894. Through a last effort, as the Church did not acknowledge lay divorce, they did not grant the right to a second marriage to the individuals. Moreover, from the perspective of the Church, the possible future marriage was considered as a mere common-law marriage, although the State approved of the divorce and the second marriage in which a divorced partner was involved.

Does the result of the discussion that there is more than one rationality at stake in environmental policy-making imply a relativistic methodological conclusion? There are three reasons that could pull us toward a relativistic notion of rationality: (1) The existence of competing cultural models of nature forces us to abandon the idea of nature as something outside society. Nature exists for us only through culture. To the extent that we have to accept that nature is a cultural construction, the notion of 'hard facts' vanishes. Nature is - like all social facts - a soft fact. This will open our way of 'regulating nature' through environmental politics and policies to moral claims and moral discourse. (2) Environmental policy cannot be based on the authoritative nature of 'hard facts'. Nature as a collective good is a soft fact that will increase communication and argumentation about what should be done because of the possibility of competing claims of these facts. A political culture of communicating 'as-if-facts' develops. Groups begin to argue as if there were 'hard facts'. To free political communication from 'hard facts' will accelerate communication - and the remaining problem is to guarantee communicability and solve the problem of emerging communicative power. (3) Cultural analysis leads us to question the very basis of modern rationality: the idea of bare facts. Policy analysis as the most advanced form of rationalizing the reproduction of modern societies has given us the possibility to explore the cultural basis of this advanced form of formal rationality. When environmental policy analysis can no longer be based upon this type of rationality we are forced to base the rationality of policy decisions on soft facts. Thus policy-making will be drawn into the communication of 'as-if-facts' (which are soft facts) using institutional power to validate them. That there are no hard facts, that we can talk about everything, that everything is a social construction: all these claims come close to a relativistic position. We do not, however, have to draw such a relativistic conclusion from these arguments. There are again at least three reasons that limit this potential relativism: (1) As long as there is a struggle over 'as-if-facts', rationality lies in the process of communicating such soft facts. The institutionalization of procedures of negotiating and communicating interpretations of facts contains the possibility of procedural rationality. This does not imply a return to absolutism, but rather an 'anti-antirelativism' (Geertz 1984). The purity model is not only a second type of rationality developed within the European tradition that competes with others but also creates the conditions of arguing about the relative weight of each. (2) The observation of two traditions in one culture is an argument against the hegemonic role of one culture and also an argument against relativism. Therefore the purity model becomes the key to an understanding of new and so far suppressed elements of rationality in environmental policy-making. Since this model is the dominated one its thematization not only lays bare the suppressed model but also lays the bare fact of suppression as such which has repercussions on the legitimacy of the dominant model. (3) To conceive nature - in line with what we have called the Jewish model - as an indivisible, holistic entity justifies the construction of nature as a collective good to be shared equally by all. Thus a new ground for fairness and justice can be laid in the modern discourse of a just and fair society. The reconstruction of cultural traditions regulating the relationship of man to nature allows us to identify the forms of symbolically mediated relationships between the two. We do not only use nature for instrumental purposes, we also use it to 'think' the world (to use an expression of Tambiah (1969)). We use natural differences to make sense of social differences, which in turn gives meaning to natural differences (Douglas 1975). Nature, in a sense, gives lessons on how to conceive differences. Moving our focus from justice to purity gives us a better understanding of the differences underlying the emerging modern European culture of environmentalism. The analysis of cultural movements carrying counter cultural traditions thus forces us not only to broaden our theoretical notion of the cultural 'code' underlying European culture, it also forces us to see the carriers of counter cultural traditions as more than movements of protest against modernity and modernization. I claim that the two competing models relating man to nature have become the field of a new emerging type of social struggle over two types of modernity in advanced modern societies. It is my contention that the culture of environmentalism contains the elements for an alternative way of organizing social relations in modern society.