Suchergebnisse

"Eine frühe soziologische Antwort auf die Frage danach, wie das Neue in die Welt kommt, lautet: im Wesentlichen durch Rekombination von Bekanntem. Eine auf wissenschaftliche Neuerungen bezogene Variante dieses Erklärungsmusters besagt, dass wissenschaftliche Innovationen in günstigen Fällen durch Übertragung bewährten Wissens aus einem gut beherrschten Forschungsgebiet auf ein anderes, bislang weniger gut beherrschtes Gebiet erfolgen. Grundlage hierfür ist eine angenommene Strukturgleichheit zwischen den Phänomenen der beiden Forschungsgebiete, die es erlaubt, etabliertes Wissen aus dem einen Forschungsgebiet in geeignet modifizierter Form als theoretische Innovation in das andere Gebiet zu importieren. Der vorliegende Beitrag unternimmt den Versuch, dieses Konzept auf technische Innovationen zu übertragen. Es wird argumentiert, dass im Fall technikbezogener Konzeptübertragungen die Annahme einer Problemähnlichkeit der aufeinander bezogenen Bereiche in ähnlicher Weise konstitutiv ist wie dort die der Strukturgleichheit: die Annahme nämlich, dass sich eine bereits bewährte Problemlösung für Probleme eines neuen Technikfeldes deshalb als fruchtbar erweisen konnte, weil sich die jeweils zu lösenden Probleme in relevanten Hinsichten ähneln. Ein Rekurs auf Strukturgleichheit, so wird gezeigt, kann die Analogiebeziehung im Fall technikbezogener Konzeptübertragungen dagegen nicht fundieren. Dass entsprechende Annahmen über Strukturgleichheit unter Umständen dennoch getroffen werden, ist eine scheinbare Widersprüchlichkeit, für die der Beitrag eine Antwort sucht. Die konzeptionellen Überlegungen werden anhand einer empirischen Studie über Konzeptübertragungen in der Multiagentensystem-Forschung exemplarisch veranschaulicht." (Autorenreferat)

In dem vorliegenden Aufsatz wird der Lebenslauf des Soziologen Rene König aufgezeichnet. Geboren im Wilhelminischen Kaiserreich am 5. Juli 1906 in Magdeburg, erlebte er den Ersten Weltkrieg und an dessen Ende die Errichtung der ersten deutschen Republik, die Auflösung der österreichisch-ungarischen Monarchie und die russische Revolution, das Aufkommen der autoritären und faschistischen Regimes in Ungarn, Italien und Spanien, das Ende Weimars durch die nationalsozialistische 'Machtergreifung', den Zweiten Weltkrieg und den Holocaust, die Niederwerfung des Nationalsozialismus und die Teilung Europas, den Zerfall der Kolonialreiche und das Entstehen der Dritten Welt sowie den Zusammenbruch der UdSSR und somit das Ende der Teilung Europas und damit Deutschlands. Die existentielle Basis von Rene Königs intellektueller Entwicklung zum Soziologen war die entscheidende Lebenserfahrung der 'zwangsweisen Ortsveränderung', wie er selbst das Problem der Exilierung und Emigration bezeichnet hat. Er hat diese existentielle Herausforderung angenommen und sich für ein 'Leben im Widerspruch' entschieden. Er starb am 21. März 1992 in Köln. (psz)

This book offers an unprecedented account of recent and future developments in the sociology of intellectuals. It presents a critical exchange between two leading contemporary social theorists, Patrick Baert and Simon Susen, advancing debates at the cutting edge of scholarship on the changing role of intellectuals in the increasingly interconnected societies of the twenty-first century. The discussion centres on Baert's most recent contribution to this field of inquiry, The Existentialist Moment: The Rise of Sartre as a Public Intellectual (2015), demonstrating that it has opened up hitherto barely explored avenues for the sociological study of intellectuals. The authors also provide an overview of various alternative approaches that are available for understanding the sociology of intellectuals, such as those of Pierre Bourdieu, Randall Collins and Neil Gross. In doing so, they grapple with the question of the extent to which intellectuals can play a positive and empowering role in shaping the current and future development of society. This insightful book will appeal to students and scholars of the humanities and social sciences, particularly to those interested in social theory and the history of intellectual thought.

Contrary to the popular definition of qualitative research as "the new mode" of cognition we can see qualitative methods as having at its essence the concepts of hermeneutics, pragmatism, and radical microsociology. The focus of this article is on the historical roots of qualitative method and the methodological tension created by the foundational and discoursive terminology. The goal of this paper is to discuss and suggest a need for sociology to more thoroughly integrate microsociological insights into its theory and practice. It is from this point of view that we must consider the contemporary "demise" of empiricism and make explicit some substantive connections between the new ways of cognition, i. e. qualitative methods, "post-" insights, and "radical" microsociological trends. Within the larger context of sociology as an academic discipline, a growing breach now exist between the proponents of a so-called quantitative epistemology and those who have identified themselves as qualitative researchers. The transformation of recent methodology has been accompanied by a proliferation of qualitative techniques of research. Its focus shifts from foundational attempts to the discoursive, contextual, and indexical problems. Supposing that the two ways of cognition are based on different sociological traditions and methodological justifications leads to asking the question posed to us by the dualist context of latter-day sociological inquiry: what are the roots of qualitative research? This paper begins by arguing that progress towards a fully articulated sociological practice must proceed now from a historically focused analysis of different methodological ideas. The themes and the principles of the classic methodological works of these traditions reveal the plausibility of the claim that the incorporation of their content is central for recent methodology. The main argument of this article is that the highlighting and criticizing particular arguments relevant to the debate between the quantitative sociologists and the critics of quantitative researches leads to a better understanding of the radical transformation of the contemporary critical sociological thought. From the critical point of view the main task is to ensure the proceeding potency to make sociological discourse negotiable.

Intro -- Half Title -- Endorsements -- Title Page -- Copyright Page -- Dedication -- Contents -- Figures -- Boxes -- Acknowledgements -- Chapter 1. Introduction -- Can we be optimistic about protest politics and social movement radicalism? -- Social movements in society -- Policing the post-protest society -- Social movements and protest politics -- Note -- Chapter 2. Social movement research methods -- Introduction -- Theory building over methodology? -- Possibilities for academic-activist research -- Sociological interventions in collective action -- Elements of an expanding methodological repertoire: Protest surveys, interviews, bias, and sampling -- Social movement research ethics -- Conclusion -- Suggested readings -- Chapter 3. Origins of social movement studies -- Introduction -- Social psychology of crowds -- Collective behaviour theory -- Symbolic interactionism: Blumer's theory of social movements -- Smesler's structural-functionalism and the value-added model -- Evaluating Blumer and Smelser -- The enduring influence of collective behaviour theories and symbolic interactionism -- Social movements as dramas -- Rational choice theory and the free rider problem -- Critiques of rational choice theory -- Conclusion -- Note -- Suggested readings -- Chapter 4. Political opportunity, resource mobilisation, and social movement organisation -- Introduction -- Resource mobilisation theory -- Political process model -- Structure of political opportunities -- Opportunity structures in anti-corporate activism -- Repertoires of contention -- Cycles of protest -- How organised should a social movement be? -- Assessing social movement success -- The 'cultural turn' in resource mobilisation theory: Framing processes and collective action -- Conclusion -- Note -- Suggested readings -- Chapter 5. Social movements, old and new -- Introduction.

"This book explores the role of theory and research in criminology. Adopting a unique and refreshing approach to criminological theory, this book focuses on the great debates in criminology from its inception as a field to the present day. It explores the debates that have motivated criminological thought, that have represented turning points in theoretical and empirical trajectories, that have offered mini-paradigm shifts, and that have moved the field forward. Coverage includes : - Classical Debates, including the work of Lombroso, Durkheim and Sutherland, - Sociological vs. psychological debates in criminology, - Control theory and cultural deviance theory, - Criminal career and trait-based theory, - Theory testing in criminology, - Critical theories in criminology, - Debates on the state of criminology and criminal justice, - Policy issues in criminology. Each chapter explores several key debates, summarizes key points, and offers a discussion of its current empirical status. This book is novel in emphasising the role of debate in criminology and offering an enlightening synthesis of theorists and their perspectives. It is essential reading for students taking courses on criminological theory and teachers of those theories. A companion website will include a sample syllabus, PowerPoint lecture slides, examples of assignments, and a test bank with sample exams for instructors, and video and website links, a glossary of important terms, audio content, and study guides for students"--

"Subjektivität der Beschäftigten ist nicht eindimensional als Reaktion auf unternehmerische Vorgaben und Anforderungen, oder als marktliche Einverleibung von Kreativitätspotentialen zu fassen, sondern sie weist als 'Eigensinn' der Subjekte darüber hinaus. Sie hat eine emanzipatorische, auf das 'ganze Leben' bezogene Dimension. Das Phänomen der Subjektivierung verstanden als Eigensinn der arbeitenden Subjekte ist nicht etwas komplett Neues. Zum einen war Eigensinn (Selbständigkeit/ Selbstorganisation) der Subjekte immer notwendig, damit Arbeitsprozesse im Sinne der Kapitalverwertung überhaupt funktionieren konnten; zum anderen sind die Arbeitenden den Widersprüchen, die aus dem Produktionsprozess erwachsen, nie passiv ausgesetzt, sondern sie führen im Arbeitsalltag immer auch einen impliziten Kampf um die Aneignung ihrer Arbeit und ihrer Selbsttätigkeit. Neu ist, dass die Subjektivität der Beschäftigten zum Produktivitätsfaktor des unternehmerischen Handelns wird. Es gibt eine breite soziologische Debatte zur Subjektivierung, die allerdings einige markante Leerstellen enthält, die im Referat herausgearbeitet werden sollen. Es sind beispielsweise: a) die unterschiedlichen Ebenen, Triebkräfte und Formen der Subjektivierung von Arbeit empirisch weitgehend ungeklärt, b) die Kriterien des 'Eigensinns' der Subjekte und der eigensinnigen Subjektivierungsleistungen der Subjekte offen und c) die emanzipatorische, auf die Aneignung des 'ganzen Lebens' bezogene Dimension von Subjektivierungsprozessen ist mehr als unscharf. In arbeitspolitischer Perspektive stellt sich die Frage, ob die durch Vermarktlichungsprozesse in den Unternehmen induzierte Subjektivierung dem Selbständigkeitsbedürfnis der ArbeitnehmerInnen entgegenkommt und ob darin auf das 'ganze Leben' bezogene Aneignungschancen enthalten sind. Insbesondere die geschlechtersoziologische Perspektive macht Paradoxien deutlich, die im Referat diskutiert werden sollen." (Autorenreferat)

Den Debatten über Aufgabenstellung, Funktion und Leistungsfähigkeit der DDR-Soziologie, die seit 1989 durch Schlagworte wie 'staatsdienende Wissenschaft', 'ideologisch ausgerichtete Wissenschaft', 'Legitimierungsinstrument des Systems', etc. gekennzeichnet sind, stehen Aussagen der Soziologen gegenüber, die seit den 50/60er Jahren die DDR-Soziologie mitbestimmt haben. Diese bewerteten die DDR-Soziologie eher als entmündigte und der ständigen strikten Kontrolle und Zensur durch Instanzen des Partei- und Staatsapparates ausgesetzte Wissenschaft. Auf dieser Grundlage versucht der Beitrag, diese grundsätzlich verschiedenen, jedoch wahren Bewertungen der soziologischen Forschung in der DDR zu diskutieren. In diesem Zusammenhang interessiert besonders die Frage, ob aus dieser Erörterung der osteuropäischen Soziologiegeschichte Anregungen für eine Diskussion des Zusammenhangs von Ethik und Wissenschaft zu gewinnen sind. Basis für die Überlegungen sind unveröffentlichte Qualifizierungsarbeiten und 'Schubladenmanuskripte' aus der DDR und die Entwicklung der sowjetischen Soziologie in der Zeit von Perestroika und Glasnost. In der neuen Situation des vereinten Deutschlands und mit dem rasanten Umbau der DDR-Gesellschaft stellt sich nun das Problem der zu schnellen Adaption der DDR-Soziologie an gängige theoretische Bezugsrahmen ohne kritische Überprüfung. (ICH)

Cover -- Half Title -- Book Title -- Copyright -- Dedication -- Table of Contents -- List of figures -- Acknowledgements -- 1 Introduction: political aesthetics, cultural studies, queer and reparative theory and method -- From cultural studies to cultural value -- The future of sociology -- Queering live sociology -- Towards a reparative sociology -- Some notes on method/ology -- Beyond narrow and northern epistemologies -- Outline of book -- Notes -- References -- 2 Politics and praxis of live art -- Introduction -- Political aesthetics -- Live art as a minor art -- The political work of live art -- The politics of participation and presence -- Fierce festival: 'Live Art: Collision: Hyperlocal: Supernow' -- Festivals -- Conclusions -- Notes -- References -- 3 Live sociology: generative and uncertain methodologies in action -- Introduction: a shift to the live -- Live sociological methods: space, time, scale -- Curating sociological knowledge -- Re/presenting live practice -- Representational failure in Fun with Cancer Patients -- Un/knowability -- A live sociology of death -- The Live Art Research Hub -- Fun with Cancer Patients wordweave -- Conclusions -- Notes -- References -- 4 Fierce pedagogies: producing dissensual knowledges and subjects -- Introduction -- Fierce pedagogies -- Pedagogic art: the epistemologies of social practice -- The Haircut Before the Party -- Archive and engagement with Vincent Dance Theatre -- Queer Salon: re-inventing pedagogies of gender and sexuality -- Faabulous knowledge production: live art interventions with/in the academy -- Conclusions -- Notes -- References -- 5 Bodies and embodied encounters in live practice -- Introduction -- Embodied theory -- Embodied activism and body art: bodies as canvas -- The politics of ethical spectatorship -- Cassils: Inextinguishable Fire -- Beyond the queer body?.

Special Characters: Korean Alphabets and Chinese Ideograms -- Chapter 1 -- Chapter 2 -- Chapter 3 -- Chapter 4 -- Notes on Korean and Chinese Words and Names -- Preface and Acknowledgments -- Contents -- List of Figures -- List of Tables -- Chapter 1: Prolegomena: Alternative Discourses in Social Science as "Culturally Independent" Scholarship -- Why Alternative Discourses? -- The Issue of Alternative Discourses in Social Science -- The Significance of Indigenization -- Alternative Discourses in Korean Sociology -- A Brief Overview -- Nationalism and Studies of Korean Social History -- Marxism and Critical Sociology -- Culture as the Source of Alternative Discourses: An Illustration of Indigenization of Sociological Concepts and Theories -- A Case of "Koreanization" in Social Science -- Reflections -- About This Volume -- Notes -- Chapter 2: The Yin-Yang Dialectic and Principles of Social Change: Culturally Independent Alternative Sociological Ideas -- Introduction -- The Cosmological Views of Ancient Thoughts of East Asia -- The Basic Idea of Immanent Change -- Naturalness and Spontaneity of Change -- The Dialectical-Cyclical Conceptions of Change -- Dialectical Holism -- The Three Powers and the Action Systems -- Three Principles of Dialectical Change -- The Principle of Limit and Return -- The Principle of Moderation or Equilibrium -- The Principle of Flexibility or Adaptability -- The Idea of Ki and Social Change -- Reflections upon Civilizational Dilemmas in the Yin-Yang Framework -- In Closing -- Notes -- Chapter 3: Selective Modernization and Alternative Modernities: In Search of an Alternative Theory -- Introduction: Why Modernization? -- A Theory of Selective Modernization -- Toward Reconceptualization -- The Historical Nature of Modernization -- Modernization as a Process -- International Acculturation

Abstract
This paper argues that, for both sociological and epistemic reasons, the ethics of war needs the social sciences and, accordingly, sets an alternative to the two prevailing approaches in the literature in the ethics of war field, i.e. the just war tradition model and the ethics of war theory. Given what we learn from the factual description of war and its interpretation in the social sciences, and given what their epistemic premises are, both models - and more particularly the second one – fail to address important normative issues that arise in the course of warfare. Based on the discussion of two case studies – states' policy in the face of hostage-taking and the rule of proportionality – I argue it is important to move beyond the divide between a state-centric approach (the just war tradition) and an individualistic one (the ethics of war theory): it is indispensable to take into consideration other social spheres where norms emerge and find, between those spheres, some 'overlapping normative ground'. I argue, both sociologically and normatively, that norms rely upon interlocking sets of expectations. I also argue that these social expectations need to be thoroughly examined in order to ascertain the plausibility of norms in warfare. As a conclusion, for reasons that are both sociological and normative, I stress the political importance, within a liberal and knowledge-oriented society, of the access to facts that always need to be interpreted when making normative claims.

English: The subject of this article are the factors and reasons for the bad results in reading of the Bulgarian 15-year-old students in PISA's international studies. The reference points of the analysis are the critical results from the last four studies - 2000, 2006, 2009 and 2012. The aim of this analysis is to bring up for discussion unformulated topics and reading angles which have not been covered, which may explain the reason for the critical results in reading, including in the European Union as a whole. The goals of the report are to look for arguments and evidence in communication theory, in the conclusions of sociological studies and to summarize the factors which may lessen the ongoing preoccupation with "mass non-reading" or the "drop in reader's literacy". Eight reasons for the critical state of reading literacy have been drawn: 1) basic illiteracies which stem from the incorrect attitude towards reading as a cultural technology; 2) the stereotype "book = literature"; 3) the stereotype "book = paper"; 4) helplessness of sociological tools; 5) the manipulative side of reading; 6) the harmful side of reading; 7) reading mutations; 8) the erroneous statement "Young people do not read". The scientists are presented with proposals to concentrate on two academic points: "Theory and practice of reading" classes on each educational level and focusing research efforts to improve readership culture of adults, including development of the so called "Acmeology of reading".

In the post-9/11 context, security issues have become increasingly central to the hosting of sport mega-event (SMEs). Security budgets for events like the Olympic Games now run into billions of dollars. This article seeks to advance the emerging field of SME security research in substantive and analytical terms. We identify three sets of issues and problems that are taking shape within this field: first, comparative issues in relationship to the Global North and Global South, notably given the growing number of SMEs set to be staged in the Global South; second, various risks and security strategies that are specific to different SMEs, including perceived terrorist threats, spectator violence, and broader risks associated with poverty, social divisions, and urban crime; and third, the security legacies that follow from SMEs, such as new surveillance technologies, new security-focused social policies, and security-influenced urban redevelopment. We argue that future research into SME security governance should be underpinned by a synthetic theoretical framework. This framework brings together three particular strands: first, a sociological approach that explores the _security field,_ drawing in part on Bourdieu; second, critical urban geographical theory, which contextualizes security strategies in relationship to new architectures of social control and consumption in urban settings; and third, different strands of risk theory, notably in regard to reflexive modernization, governmentality, and cultural sociological questions.

The work of Anthony Giddens is indicative of much contemporary social and political theory which posits the new neo-liberal global order as the paradigm of progress. Giddens' theoretical arguments, concerning reflexive modernisation and the virtues of the third way, have become hugely influential, not only in academia but, more significantly, within political circles: underpinning, among others, the former Clinton administration, Schroder's Social Democrats and the policies of the New Labour government. This paper argues however that structuration — the theory which underpins Giddens' sociological take on the world — is inherently flawed and is inadequate in accounting for many of the real issues of power and inequality that many individuals face in today's world. As such, it is argued that, in appropriating the core principles of this flawed sociological interpretation of human behaviour, the third way promoted by New Labour serves to legitimize rather than to regulate the structuring principles of economic globalization. While this paper acknowledges many of the arguments postulated by Giddens and Blair regarding the realities of the contemporary world and the uncertainties surrounding the modernization project, through the work of Beck and an exploration of some of the differences in the French and Swedish welfare regimes, it seeks to ask whether the concept of the third way that has been developed through the Blair/Giddens model is necessarily the political blueprint through which to reinvigorate social democracy.

Although it is well-recognized that Max Weber was of central importance to many of the emigre social scientists who fled Hitler, commentators have overlooked both Weber's attempt to found a new dynamic political science that would test partisan commitments and the endeavors of emigre political scientists to develop this project. This article lays out this new Weberian political science and assesses the fate of the various attempts on the part of the emigres to translate it into their new setting. It shows that Weber forged a notion of political science that combined an existential notion of politics as inexorable power struggle with a sociology of the business of politics that provided the setting in which that struggle was to take place. It also shows that the central purpose of this political science was to aid political partisans in clarifying the meaning of their political commitments by forcing them to view these commitments as they are shaped in the socio-political context that determines the struggle for power. I then show that Mannheim sought to radicalize this approach to political science by seeking to construct the political backdrop for the testing of political ideas out of a political field not out of parties, politicians, and state institutions but out of competing ideologies, each of which could be shown to have some insight into the dynamics of political conflict. For Mannheim we could now test political ideas against political reality by playing them off against each other. I call this project of testing political ideas against existential and sociological notions of the political field the Weber–Mannheim project. I then show how three emigre political scientists – Arnold Brecht, Hans Morgenthau, and Franz Neumann – sought to carry on the Weber–Mannheim project in their new setting. I argue that, of the three, Franz Neumann in his great work Behemoth, was most successful in staying true to that project. For he was able to find in his analysis of the Weimar Republic and the fascist regime a way of demonstrating the dynamics under which democracy and dictatorship fail or succeed while still maintaining openings for political will. Both Brecht and Morgenthau seem to have flattened the dynamic aspect of the Weberian and Mannheimian notions of a prudential political science – though it was Morgenthau who had the most successful reception in political science.