Suchergebnisse

The notes contain some comments related to the ongoing debates on sociology of globalization concentrated on U. Becks idea of cosmopolitisation and the shaping of cosmopolitan communities. A forthcoming paradigm shift in social sciences;the definition of cosmopolitanism and the establishment of cosmopolitan communities; what is the first phase of cosmopolitisation showed; an idea and possible scenarios of it realization; critics of cosmopolitisation theory concept; cosmopolitanism vs. corporate (or cluster) nationalism; and what is going now and what should be done are main issues in question.Author concluded that: the evolutionary potential of existing sociology is not exhausted; an anthropological shock should be avoided; much more attention should be given to the study of economic and political sources of current disasters; and that local and global sociologists should be much more active in public arena and environmental politics.

This essay draws insights from Pierre Bourdieu's field theory for the development of a sociological theory of deliberation. Most work on deliberative practice is strongly shaped by the concerns of deliberative democratic theory, and that theory tends to approach deliberation as a procedural mechanism for decision-making. Thus, there has been very little effort to theorize the sociological dimensions of deliberative practice. Bourdieu's theory highlights a crucial dilemma in that practice. Efforts to infuse community politics with deliberation represent a politics of the most fundamental kind: a struggle to redefine the preferred categories, rules, roles, values, and behaviors that structure public life. But deliberation itself does not constitute a cohesive field of social activity. There is no common sense definition of what deliberation is, or how to tell a good deliberator from a bad one; moreover, as yet one can achieve no social distinction or status from embracing deliberation. Thus, members of a community engage in a fundamental political struggle without a shared sense of what they are doing or why they are doing it, and without the rewards of status or distinction that come with participation in an ongoing social field. Illustrated with examples from two years of ethnographic fieldwork into the practice of deliberation, this theory shows deliberation to be a fluid, sociologically complex and politically charged exercise.

According to I.M. Lewis the cornerstones of religion are 1) belief, 2) ritual, and 3) spiritual experience, which together construct institutions within a society with typological effects that cut across diverse cultural forms, and thus according to him, can be meaningfully compared. The variety of cultural distinctive forms of spiritual experience, be it religious ecstasy, witchcraft, sorcery or possession, is in this interpretation of little sociological significance. What is of sociological significance are the distinctions between central and marginal (or peripheral) cults and how their sociological difference create different effects in a similar religious experience, in this case: spirit possession. Spiritual experiences as spirit possession are grounded in and related to a social environment in which they occur, they bear the 'stamp of the culture and society' in which they arise. In this political interpretation of a specific spiritual experience, Lewis constructs an epidemiology of possession with shared socio-political factors whereby the experience reflects the different social conditions in which it occurs ('the social context of possession'). (Lewis, 1993: 1-10, 23) The physical presence of spirits, which are believed in by a specific society, is therefore not just simply stated as inhabiting a metaphysical cosmology, but directly participate and inhabit in their culture and bodies (i.e. possession or ecstasy) as well. By correlating the possession experience with its socio-cultural context within different religions, a genus-typology of possession can possibly be constructed by comparing how the genus 'possession' exists and functions within them. (Freidenreich, 2004: 88-91)

The development of the sociology of work in Finland occurred in two phases: (1) the development of the welfare state (1945–1980s) marked by the consolidation of the sub-discipline, and (2) the rise of the competition state (late 1980s–present) when the scope of the sub-discipline was widened. Although the Finnish sociology of work has been equally influenced by positivist, reformist and critical approaches, it has maintained its fundamentally consensual nature. Critical paradigms have never assumed a central role. There is a considerable 'reformist' tendency in the SoW producing solutions to societal problems, and in many cases in the form of action-oriented research and developmental projects. This reflects the overall pragmatic nature of Finnish policy-making and close social distance between the government, labour market organizations and academia. ; Peer reviewed

This paper presents a new conceptual framework for the analysis of authority in anti-authoritarian environments. Legitimate domination in commons-based peer production projects such as Wikipedia rests on two main principles: the extraordinary qualities of charismatic individuals and collectively-formulated norms and rules. Self-governed authority is in turn based on a critique of separated power in the realms of expertise and justice. It thereby constitutes a prefigurative response to widespread democratic aspirations in technologically advanced societies. However this conceptual framework also raises analytical and practical questions. In the first instance, critiques of separation on Wikipedia are hindered by the persistent regard for outside expertise, and by perceptions that justice is unfairly applied because of the ever-increasing power of the administrative caste as well as the anonymity of some participants. Second, the proposed sociology of critical actions in Wikipedia requires discussions of specific decisions by project officers and may thus contradict traditional ethical prohibitions regarding the identifications of online research subjects, suggesting the need for a clarification of the aims of research into peer production projects.

Zimbabwe, a country that is made up of around 80% of Christians find itself as among the worst administered countries, among the most corrupt nations and overflowing with injustice. This paradox urges to question the role of Christianity in shaping the morality of the nation and in creating a just society for all its citizens. While acknowledging the major role played by politics and politicians in putting Zimbabwe at the crossroads, this book does not absolve the Church of complicity in making the country what it is today. Taking lessons from the Jesus Movement,, this book proposes ways in which the Church can reclaim her role in shepherding the nation towards justice, equality and equity. As the current system running the nation is anti-Christian at its core, it needs to be challenged by a propagation of the authentic faith in Jesus Christ. Christian leaders are called upon to re-direct politics instead of politics re-directing the faith towards empire sustenance.

Die Arbeit bietet keine Monographie, sondern eine Sammlung verschiedener Aufsätze, die für diese Arbeit neu durchgesehen und ergänzt wurden. Zusammengebunden werden die einzelnen Kapitel in dem religionspädagogischen Interesse, das einen großen Teil der beruflichen Tätigkeit des Autors geprägt hat (vgl. Vorwort). Mit dem Titel "Religion zur Erfahrung bringen" ist auch die These benannt, die sich als roter Faden durch die Arbeit zieht: Religion, so wird behauptet, stellt eine originäre Form menschlicher Erfahrung dar und muss deshalb ein unverzichtbarer Bestandteil auch von Bildung sein, gerade von öffentlich verantworteter. Bildung in Religion gehört darum auch nicht allein in den kirchlich verantworteten konfessionellen Religionsunterricht, sondern ebenso in den staatlich verantworteten nichtkonfessionellen Ethikunterricht. Umgekehrt setzt Bildung in Religion mehr voraus als eine selbstverständliche Weitergabe des Glaubens an religiös gebundene junge Menschen, mehr auch als eine oft unterstellte schlichte Information über Religionen, nämlich die Auseinandersetzung damit, was überhaupt Religion ist. Damit wird die Tür aufgestoßen zu einem allgemeinen Unterricht in Religion, der über das traditionell für den Religionsunterricht einerseits, den Ethikunterricht andererseits oft Unterstellte hinausgreift. Die Arbeit gliedert sich in eine umfangreiche Einleitung und fünf Teile, die ihrerseits insgesamt sechzehn unterschiedlich lange Teilkapitel umfassen. Die Einleitung bietet neben einer Übersicht die Einbindung des Programms in die aktuelle Rede von der Wiederkehr des Religiösen und liefert als systematischen Bezugspunkt eine differenzierte Skizze des Erfahrungsbegriffs. Der Teil I entwirft dann Fundamente einer Didaktik des Religiösen. Ausgehend von einer Kritik soziologischer und bildungskonzeptioneller Perspektiven wird ein philosophisches Verständnis von Religion vorgestellt, aus dem die zentralen und notwendigen Ebenen einer Didaktik des Religiösen entwickelt werden. Die Teile II und III konzentrieren sich auf das Element der Sprache als Basis aller tragfähigen Auseinandersetzung mit Religion, Sprache zunächst (Kap.2-1) als Ausdruck der Vernunft, notwendig für alle Formen religiöser Bildung, dann in eher allgemein hermeneutisch orientierender Weise (Kap.2-2) und schließlich als Form des Gesprächs, das im Teil III als Basis behauptet wird für Möglichkeiten eines auch religiöse Themen einbeziehenden Philosophierens mit Kindern. Es liegt in der Konsequenz der Arbeit, dass der Versuch einer Grundlegung einer Didaktik von Religion sich zu bewähren hat an Modellen unterrichtlicher Umsetzung, auch an konkreten methodischen Hinweisen. Dem dient der Teil IV der Arbeit. Die Auswahl ist in Orientierung an die in Kap. 1-4 erläuterten Ebenen gewählt: Im Sinne einer für Religiosität sensibilisierenden Propädeutik werden zunächst einige religiöse Bilderbücher religionsphilosophisch erschlossen (4-1). Dass auch Religionskunde im Sinne des Kennenlernens religiöser Lebensanschauungen, Vollzüge und Symbole ertragreich nur geleistet werden kann, wenn sie erfahrungsdimensioniert arbeitet, dafür bietet dieses Kapitel ebenso ein Beispiel wie das folgende, das in die zentrale Frage glaubender Existenz über religionskundliche Stoffe einführt (4-2). 4-3 zeigt Möglichkeiten zur Erschließung religiöser Sprache. Die Kapitel 4-4 und 4-5 sind demgegenüber einzuordnen in die Ebene der Orientierung im Sinne einer Befähigung zu eigenverantwortlicher Lebensentscheidung, 4-4 leistet das auf der Ebene der Moral, 4-5 auf der Ebene des Politischen. Der Teil V schließlich liefert Impulse zur Konzeption und Organisation eines heute tragfähigen Religionsunterrichts. Nach kritischen Auseinandersetzungen zu Halbfas, Lehrplänen und dem LER-Modell wird mit dem Abschlusskapitel 5-4 ein systematisch wie organisatorisch begründeter Vorschlag eines Unterrichts in Religion für alle Schülerinnen und Schüler vorgelegt, der Innovation, Konsistenz wie auch die Möglichkeit konkreter Umsetzung für sich beansprucht. Die Sammlung richtet sich an einen unterschiedlichen Leserkreis: Angesprochen sind vor allem Lehrerinnen und Lehrer der Fächer Religion, Ethik und Philosophie. Einige Kapitel bieten Anregungen auch für Erzieherinnen und Eltern. Je nach Kapitel mehr oder weniger explizit wird zudem die wissenschaftliche Auseinandersetzung um religiöse Bildung in pluraler Welt (Nipkow) aufgenommen und weitergeführt. Dies dürfte schließlich für bildungspolitisch engagierte Menschen und Institutionen in Deutschland wie in Europa (Politiker, Kirchen, Verbände) von Interesse sein. ; This work is not a monograph but a collection of essays revised and supplemented for the present publication. The individual chapters are connected by the author's interest in religious education, which has determined a large part of his professional life (see Preface). Making Religion an Experience is not only the title but also the purpose uniting the book. Its central thesis is that religion is a fundamental human experience and is therefore has to be an indispensable component in public education. Accordingly, religious education is not only a matter of confessional religious instruction, it also embraces the teaching of secular ethics. Vice versa, religious education involves more than the communication of faith to religiously committed young people, and also more than mere information on the religions of the world (as is frequently stated). It calls rather for a discourse on what religion really is. This opens the door to a generally conceived education in religion with broader horizons than those frequently imputed to the teaching of religion or ethics alone. The book is divided up into a detailed introduction and five chapters, made up of 16 subchapters varying in length. The Introduction does not only offer an overview but also relates the program to the ongoing discussion about the return of the religious and provides a differentiated outline of the notion of experience as a systematic point of reference. Part I outlines the fundamental elements of a didactics of religion. On the basis of a criticism of sociological and educational concepts, a philosophical understanding of religion is introduced, from which the essential and central levels of a didactics of the religious are developed. Parts II and III concentrate on the language element as a basis for any kind of serious engagement with religion. It deals first (Ch. 2-1) with language as an expression of the rational, which is necessary for all forms of religious education, proceeding from there to language used in a general hermeneutic way (Ch. 2-2), and finally to a form of interpersonal discourse set out in Part III as the basis for the possible inclusion of religious themes in philosophizing with children. It is obvious that the attempt to lay the foundation for a didactics of religion has to prove itself useful in models for classroom realization, including concrete methodological indications. Part IV serves this purpose. The selection focuses on the levels set out in Ch. 1 4. In terms of a propaedeutic preparation creating sensitivity for religious issues, a number of picture books are first of all discussed from a religio-philosophical viewpoint. (4 1). To ensure that religious learning - getting to know religious outlooks on life, rituals, and symbols - can be carried out successfully, it needs to be experience-oriented. Both this chapter and the next offer an example of this approach, the latter leading into the central topic of existence in faith with the help of religious educational material (4-2). 4-3 indicates possibilities for the comprehension of religious language, while Chs. 4-4 and 4-5 concern themselves with the level of orientation, i.e. enabling the individual to take mature decisions in life. 4-4 deals with this issue on the moral plane, 4-5 on the political. Part V offers impulses regarding the conceptualization and organization of a form of religious instruction relevant to the present day. After critical discussions of Halbfas, curricula., and the LER model –, the final chapter presents a systematic and organizationally well established proposal for religious instruction for all pupils. The proposal claims to be innovative, consistent, and susceptible of actual realization. This collection addresses a wide-ranging circle of readers, notably teachers of religion, ethics, and philosophy. Some chapters offer suggestions for educators and parents. With a differing degree of explicitness depending on the chapter in question, scholarly discourse on religious education in a pluralistic world (Nipkow) is thematized and developed. This should be of interest for people and institutions committed to issues of education policy both in Germany and in Europe as a whole (politicians, churches, associations).

Religious pluralism is a necessity. In Indonesia, there are six officially recognized religions, and some religious denominations. In the context of the challenges of democracy, religion in Indonesia faces daunting challenges This paper focuses on two challenges facing the religions related to the conception of democracy in Indonesia, namely the problem of understanding of religious teachings and politicization of religion. In the context of understanding religious teachings, believers interpret them correctly through exploring the substantial meaning, particularly in understanding religious doctrines regarding to the values of justice, human rights, democratization, and so forth. Furthermore, religion is understood as the truth rather than as an identity and a symbolic form. This is because understanding religion as an identity tends to create conflicts. In regard to the politicization of religion, religious followers provide a basis for common purpose and values that can help maintain a society's political life and national solidarity as well as control to the political system.

The environment cannot plead its own case but must be represented. The aim of this paper is to elaborate on the concept of representation and demonstrate its relevance for environmental sociology. Drawing on Pitkin's classic work on representation, we discuss representation as both 'acting for' and 'standing for'. We also make a distinction between actors (representatives) and devices used as representations (e.g. descriptions, graphs and images), while discussing the intertwinement of these two aspects in representative practices. This paper stresses the performativity dimension and social embeddedness of representative practices. It sheds light on different meanings and implications of environmental representation, examining issues of claimmaking and what it means to represent the environment in various instances. Given the complex, durable and transboundary character of many topical environmental problems, the paper argues that it is essential to recognize and understand environmental representation in all its variety. It is moreover argued that a sociological elaboration of the concept of representation provides a basis for understanding the conditions for environmental politics, governance, management and

The great monotheistic religions –Judaism, Christianity, and Islam– agree in announcing God's love for men, while demanding men's love for God and for their neighbors. However, a brief look at these religions' praxis leads to doubt whether this love is not a mere statement, while in history and at present were and are still imposed exclusive truth claims exercising violence against the adepts of the own religion ("internally") and, in especial, against the followers of other religions ("externally") in order to attain political power. Now, a distinction between the just sovereign power of God and detrimental violence should be made, asides from the fact that God's sovereign power and God's concept is not the same in the three great monotheistic religions. In Judaism God governs with love and as king, in Christianity with love and as servant, in Islam with love and majesty. Nevertheless, sovereign power is exclusive of God and detrimental violence is never desired among men. Only thus is power constitutive of religion's inner nature, but not of the relation between religions or of religions with the world: "There is no coercion in religion". ; Las grandes religiones monoteístas –Judaísmo, Cristianismo e Islam– coinciden en anunciar el amor de Dios a los hombres, y reclaman el amor de los hombres a Dios y al prójimo. Sin embargo, una breve mirada a la praxis de estas religiones hace dudar de si este amor no es una mera afirmación, mientras que en la historia y en el presente se impusieron y se imponen las pretensiones exclusivas de verdad mediante el ejercicio de la violencia en contra de los adeptos de la propia religión ("internamente") y, en especial, en contra de los seguidores de otras religiones ("externamente") para así alcanzar el poder político. Ahora bien, hay que distinguir entre el justo poder soberano de Dios y la violencia lesiva, además de que el poder soberano de Dios, al igual que el concepto de Dios, no es el mismo en las tres grandes religiones monoteístas. En el Judaísmo domina Dios con amor y como rey; en el Cristianismo, con amor y como servidor; en el Islam, con amor y majestad. Aunque siempre el poder soberano es exclusivo de Dios y nunca se desea la violencia lesiva entre los hombres. Solo así el poder es constitutivo de la naturaleza interna de la religión, mas no de la relación entre las religiones o de las religiones con el mundo: "No hay coacción en la religión".

25 páginas ; Este artículo explora el problema de la política y la religión en JeanJacques Rousseau desde una perspectiva filosófica. Para ello expone la forma como Rousseau concibe la religión en sus principales obras, destacando su carácter equívoco y polémico. Luego analiza el concepto de la religión civil desde la óptica del papel público que debía desempeñar en la comunidad política. Finalmente, sugiere los argumentos que fundamentan la propuesta rousseauniana como el diseño de una religión civil o política, o si, por el contrario, es una suerte de instrumentalización política de la religión, elemento que lo emparentaría con otros autores modernos. Este texto no pretende resolver el dilema, sino sugerir que hay razones para sostener cualquiera de estas dos lecturas de la obra del ginebrino. ; This article explores the problem of politics and religion in Jean-Jacques Rousseau from a philosophical perspective. In order to achieve this goal, this paper firstly shows how Rousseau conceives religion in his major works, and it emphasizes in their ambiguous and controversial character. After that, this paper analyzes the concept of civil religion based on the public role that it was called to play within the political community. Finally, this paper deals with the issue of whether the arguments behind Rousseau's proposal are the design of a civil or political religion; or is it a sort of political manipulation of religion, and in consequence, an element that evidences a link between Rousseau and other modern authors. The text does not purport to resolve the dilemma, but suggest that there are reasons to support either of these two readings of the work of the author.

Contemporary debates on freedom of religion are based on the following premises: a) Human beings are born free, as unique individuals with distinct personalities shaped by natural and social influences; b) human rationality, being the seat of human freedoms, is universal; c) Religion, and hence freedom thereof, might as well be relegated to the realm of individual consciousness. This explains the reference to "the freedom of consciousness and belief" in many international and legal documents. d) Therefore as an individual human right, freedom of religion, consisting of one's right to uphold any belief, dogma, conviction or practice, must be protected against external coercion and interference of any sort. So, the question arises as to the nature of freedom of religion; does it belong inside or outside the realm of human rights? It appears that once a religion is perceived from a majority perspective, it is positioned outside and, hence, falls under the political rights - and if it is perceived from a minority perspective or from the point of view of the latecomers to a country, it is positioned inside. It comes easier for some adherents of different religious traditions to try to devalue all the "other religions" in a spirit of competition for influencing public opinion rather than focusing on the common issues facing all religions alike. Freedom of religion is unquestionably one of these issues at stake now. In this paper, I intend to provide a short analysis of the philosophical perspectives developed by some Muslim philosophers on the question of freedom of religion. Since freedom of religion is a social and first-order political issue, it must be dealt with in the theoretical context of social and political philosophy. But contemporary philosophy has almost severed its ties with religion. To the modern view, philosophy involves rational reflection on the nature of things and religion is concerned with practices based on revealed doctrines which are presumably impervious to rational scrutiny. However, I will attempt to argue that freedom of religion can only be resolved by a philosophical perspective on truth, which was the nature of philosophy as understood by some Muslim philosophers, like Alfarabi and Avicenna. We cannot analyze freedom of religion within a single religious perspective, nor one philosophical perspective on modernity. The perspective of these Muslim philosophers of 10th to 13th century are relevant here because for them, philosophy was not just a rational discourse, as it is for us today, but also a matter of academic exchange or statements; it was about primarily ways involving 'practice of spiritual exercises with the aim of the transformation of the self by the acquisition of wisdom."

Este artículo explora el problema de la política y la religión en JeanJacques Rousseau desde una perspectiva filosófica. Para ello expone la forma como Rousseau concibe la religión en sus principales obras, destacando su carácter equívoco y polémico. Luego analiza el concepto de la religión civil desde la óptica del papel público que debía desempeñar en la comunidad política. Finalmente, sugiere los argumentos que fundamentan la propuesta rousseauniana como el diseño de una religión civil o política, o si, por el contrario, es una suerte de instrumentalización política de la religión, elemento que lo emparentaría con otros autores modernos. Este texto no pretende resolver el dilema, sino sugerir que hay razones para sostener cualquiera de estas dos lecturas de la obra del ginebrino. ; This article explores the problem of politics and religion in Jean-JacquesRousseau from a philosophical perspective. In order to achieve this goal,this paper firstly shows how Rousseau conceives religion in his majorworks, and it emphasizes in their ambiguous and controversial character. After that, this paper analyzes the concept of civil religion based onthe public role that it was called to play within the political community.Finally, this paper deals with the issue of whether the arguments behindRousseau's proposal are the design of a civil or political religion; or is it asort of political manipulation of religion, and in consequence, an elementthat evidences a link between Rousseau and other modern authors. Thetext does not purport to resolve the dilemma, but suggest that there arereasons to support either of these two readings of the work of the author.

Stigma is not a self-evident phenomenon but like all concepts has a history. The conceptual understanding of stigma which underpins most sociological research has its roots in the groundbreaking account penned by Erving Goffman in his best-selling book Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity (1963). In the 50 years since its publication, Goffman's account of stigma has proved a productive concept, in terms of furthering research on social stigma and its effects, on widening public understandings of stigma, and in the development of anti-stigma campaigns. However, this introductory article argues that the conceptual understanding of stigma inherited from Goffman, along with the use of micro-sociological and/or psychological research methods in stigma research, often sidelines questions about where stigma is produced, by whom and for what purposes. As Simon Parker and Robert Aggleton argue, what is frequently missing is social and political questions, such as 'how stigma is used by individuals, communities and the state to produce and reproduce social inequality'. This article expands on Parker and Aggleton's critique of the limitations of existing conceptual understandings of stigma, through an examination of the anti-stigma campaign Heads Together. This high-profile campaign launched in 2016 seeks to 'end the stigma around mental health' and is fronted by members of the British Royal Family. By thinking critically with and about this campaign, this article seeks to both delineate the limitations of existing conceptual understandings of stigma and to begin to develop a supplementary account of how stigma functions as a form of power. We argue that in order to grasp the role and function of stigma in society, scholarship must develop a richer and fuller understanding of stigma as a cultural and political economy. The final part of this introduction details the articles to follow, and the contribution they collectively make to the project of rethinking the sociology of stigma. This collection has been ...

Call for Papers for a Routledge Handbook. Deadline: March 31, 2024