Suchergebnisse

This study examines the tunic designed by Lemur Nguyễn Cát Tường—most often cited as the precursor to the modern áo dài—as a physical entity and as a historical and abstract symbol of modernity. My argument is twofold: first, that Lemur was the first modern Vietnamese designer, evidenced by his engagement in two modern fashion practices—the establishment of an institutionalized system and his proposal for a Vietnamese national costume. Second, I argue that despite protestations of its insignificance, dress served as a ground on which weighty social and cultural battles—such as gender, class, national identity, aesthetics, and modernity itself—were fought.

The contention of this paper is that organic farming, the movement and ideology, challenges sociological theory of the nature–culture relation (environmental issues, the role of science). The idea is discussed and explored in two ways. Firstly the paper gives a 'diagnosis' of organic farming in terms of modernization. The organic farming movement is a social movement having some success in a period when the power of social movements in general seems low. It is also a movement with a radical view on environmental issues and the man–nature relationship. Recently, several researchers have written about the institutionalization of organic farming, where institutionalization might be understood as a kind of modernization. How can we understand the organic farming movement in terms of modernization? Is the organic farming movement a movement opposing modernity, arguing for pre‐modern structures of society? Is it perfectly modern in the classical sense? Or is the existence of the organic farming movement rather a frontier empirical example of the reflexive state of modern society? The Danish organic farming movement serves as an example for the discussion. The 'diagnosis' depends on the theoretical point of departure – which theory of modernity is used. This leads to the second approach, namely the comparison of Ulrich Beck's theory of risk society and Bruno Latour's theory of actor‐networks. Both theories are dealing explicitly with the nature–culture relation in late (or 'post' or 'reflexive') modern societies.

How can Catherine Pickstock's statement that "Traditional communities governed by liturgical patterns are likely to be the only source of resistance to capitalist and bureaucratic norms today" be interpreted in contemporary South Africa in such a way that justice and recognition are upheld? I propose to answer this question in the following four steps. First, the notion of liturgy with reference to politics will be briefly discussed. Second, modernity as an ongoing liturgical disruption, in general, and more particularly in South Africa will be discussed. Third, South Africa as a country between tradition and modernity will be addressed. In conclusion, some proposals for the facilitation of a liturgical politics in modernity, in general, and in South Africa, in particular, will be made. These proposals will be concerned with a plea for the province, the contemplative church and the contemplative university.

The paper focuses on the Latin American perspective on modernity, especially on the Peruvian sociologist Anibal Quijano's notion of coloniality. Coloniality is explained as a theoret- ical framework for critical reflection of modernity with an emphasis on the forms of knowledge (episteme) and on non-Western, more specifically Latin American historical experiences and perspectives. The aim is to introduce some Latin American efforts to critically understand coloniality as the other face of modernity and to develop a distinctive critique of capitalism, globalisation and Eurocentrism in their historical dynamics, In the first part, the paper briefly introduces Latin America as a geocultural place and a object of social research in a historical perspective. Special attention is paid to the question of racial classification and authenticity. In the second part, the paper focuses on the notion of coloniality as it was conceptualised by A. Quijano and by other Latin American authors. In the third and fourth parts, the paper deals with the problem of coloniality in wider epistemic contexts of modern social sciences and in relation to the notion of alterity and to the question of decolonisation of social scientific thinking. The final discussion addresses some of inspirational and problematic points of this conception such as problems of decolonisation, intellectual dependency and critique, and the problem of conceptualisation of differences in scientific discourses.

Karl Marx's work can be read as a set of complete answers, or as a compelling formulation of timeless problems. Favoring the second interpretation, the following constituent features of modernity are discussed as originally highlighted by Marx: (1) the inherent dynamism of modern society makes expansion & industrialization its main features; (2) modern society is rationalized; (3) modern society is functionalist; (4) science, rather than religion, becomes the basis for the accumulation of knowledge; (5) traditional customs are dismantled & traditional virtues lost while certain values become increasingly universalized; (6) the erosion of the canons of creation & interpretation; & (7) the pluralization of the concepts of "right" & "true." S. Karganovic.

The article contains an analysis of the major lessons of Immanuel Kant's philosophical project of perpetual peace in the context of development of contemporary political systems and international order. The author reviews the history of philosophical and legal accounts of perpetual peace, as well as the political context of Kant's project. The third part of the article offers a detailed analysis of Kant's proposals with regard to the institutional construction of constitutional republics and of a global federation of peoples. The author concludes that from the perspective of the 'second Modernity,' the experience of early Modern philosophers might assist in resuming a more active dialogue between philosophers and political leaders, as well as inviting contemporary philosophers to take a leadership role in the institutional construction of preconditions for civil peace and the prevention of wars in Eastern Europe.

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

Reflecting on the development of the global economic system, the present article describes the phenomenon of hyper-individualism in the age of "second modernity" and, making a distinction between the "family collective" and the "patriotic collective", discusses the individual's oscillating loyalty between the family and the nation state in this process. An answer is sought to the question why, in the contemporary period, individuals who are confronted with a (health) crisis appear to have lost confidence in the authority of the nation state, regardless of whether they live in a country with a democratic government or one with an authoritarian regime. Building on this finding, the article also addresses the importance of a revival of the political agora. ; Kot razmislek o razvoju globalnega ekonomskega sistema pričujoči članek opisuje pojav hiperindividualizma v obdobju »druge modernosti«. Avtor razlikuje med »družinskim« in »patriotskim kolektivom« ter na tej osnovi prikaže, kako v tem procesu posamezniki in posameznice nihajo med družino in nacionalno državo. Članek išče odgovor na vprašanje, zakaj vse kaže na to, da posameznice in posamezniki, ki se soočajo z (zdravstveno) krizo, v sodobnem času izgubljajo zaupanje v nacionalno državo, in sicer ne glede na to, ali živijo v državi z demokratično vlado ali v takšni, ki ji vlada avtokratski režim. Na osnovi rezultatov pričujoče študije avtor izpostavi tudi pomen preporoda politične agore.

In this article I respond to the important questions raised by Roger Griffin and David D. Roberts by asserting the following points. First, that there is no justification to the position that the historical function of fascism was to establish the political hegemony of finance capital, as Marxist-Leninist scholars have maintained without providing a shred of evidence in support of their position. On the contrary, fascism was an epochal phenomenon which occured on several continents and had features which point to a declaration of war against bourgeois society, its power structures, its values and its way of life. It was a revolt generated by disgust for a world dominated by those whom Hitler called 'the worshippers of Mammon'. Second, that fascism was not at all an alternative modernity, but a violent and radical reaction which rejected all the values and institutions of the modern world, from individual freedom to the rights of man and citizen, from pluralist democracy to secularization. Third, that the history of fascism, like the history of communism, has shown that ideas are no mere fantasmagorical reflexes of the socioeconomic structure, as Marxist sociology claims. This was demonstrated by its political ideology, which was intent on revolutionizing the foundations of society and producing a new man, diametrically opposed to the 'bourgeois'.

In contemporary renderings of modernity, it is patented to the West and assumed to include gender equality; a commitment to gender equality then risks becoming overlaid with hierarchies of country and culture. One way of contesting this, associated with alternative modernities, takes issue with the presumed Western origins of modernity. Another, associated with feminism, subjects the claim the modern societies deliver gender equality to more critical scrutiny. But the first is vulnerable to the charge of describing different routes to the same ideals, and the second to the response that evidence of shortcomings only shows that modernity has not yet fully arrived. The contribution of the West to the birth of modernity is not, in my argument, the important issue. The problem, rather, is the mistaken attribution of a "logic" to modernity, as if it contains nested within it egalitarian principles that will eventually unfold. Something did indeed happen at a particular moment in history that provided new ways of imagining equality, but the conditions of its birth were associated from the start with the spread of colonial despotisms and the naturalisation of both gender and racial difference. There was no logic driving this towards more radical versions. It is in the politics of equality that new social imaginaries are forged, not in the unfolding of an inherently "modern" ideal.

chapter 1 The Sociological Status of Marginality: The Contribution of the Chicago School -- chapter 2 Structural Functionalism and Parsons: The Relevance of Social Order and the Limitation of Marginality -- chapter 3 Merton and Functionalism: The Return to Marginality Studies -- chapter 4 The Contribution of Sociology of the Second Postwar Period to Marginality Studies, with Particular Reference to Latin America -- chapter 5 The Concept of Modernization according to Germani and the Study of Marginality -- chapter 6 Marginality, the Structural Phenomenology of Modernization -- chapter 7 The Paradigm of Marginality: A Descriptive Analysis -- chapter 8 Descriptive Dynamics of the Multidimensional Level of Marginality -- chapter 9 The Paradigm of Marginality: From Analyses of Typologies to the Process of Operationalization -- chapter 10 The Paradigm of Marginality: Explanatory Analysis.

"This book traces the major stages in the evolution of the sociological concept of marginality, highlighting in particular the contribution made by Gino Germani. Its purpose is to analyse, starting with the sociological theory of the early 1960s, the progressive maturation of the scientific status of the concept of marginality, and to test the theoretical premise that gave rise to Germani's theory of marginality. The author begins by examining the contribution of the Chicago School. He explores the complex relationship between the theory of marginality and modernization by analysing North American theses and the criticisms mainly generated in Latin America. The goal is to reconstruct Germani's theoretical model of marginality, addressing its application to contemporary social and economic conditions. Giardiello's analysis is intertwined with two themes that are central to Germani's thought about marginality. The first concerns the origin of the concept of social exclusion within sociological thought. The second shows how marginality is clearly a phenomenology connected to the contradictions of modernity. Germani's paradigm of marginality enables the social scientist to resolve the contradictions between the analytical perspectives that deal with marginality in an objective way and the one that observes it subjectively."--Provided by publisher

Mass Dictatorship and Modernity is the second volume in the 'Mass Dictatorship' series. A transnational, academic research venture, it interrogates mass dictatorship in a broad historical context, focusing on the emergence of modernity through interactions of center and periphery, empire and colony, and democracy and dictatorship on a global scale