Suchergebnisse

This book addresses the ideological figure of modernity, its presumed historical significance as an era, and its theoretical adequacy as a frame. It shows how science is evoked to prevent the sociological imagination from elaborating non-Eurocentric categories and terminologies that are more adequate for a global age. The idea of modernity should not only be contested, but radically unthought in its foundational assumptions. These assumptions inform concepts such as secularization, emancipation, the 'global' and accumulation of capital. This book frees these concepts from ethnocentrism and discloses a path toward a new, non-Eurocentric, global social theory. Gennaro Ascione explores the transformative potential of decolonizing knowledge through a radical reconsideration of the historical and epistemological role that the intellectual reference to science plays in the construction of concepts. This ground-breaking work challenges social theorists to think globally beyond modernity, bringing together social theory and science in an unprecedented way. Importantly, it makes accessible a new space of missing theorization for further developments and inquiries in the field.

The reaction to the pandemic has put in place some profound transformations. These transformations do not come entirely anew. They are rooted in the long-term process of oscillation between scientism and relativism. Yet, the fallout of the pandemic promises to work as a new global social regulatory system, different from the ones that predate it. Thereby, it preludes to a paradigmatic epistemological shift. I sketch out four dimensions of such a shift, which I refer to in terms of vectors, in order to emphasise the directional as well as orientational nature of such elements. A vector is a pattern of long-term and large-scale social change. It manifests as a historical configuration of power that organises the collective and individual activities of humans. The evolution of these four vectors designs trajectories of development. The four vectors of the shifting horizon of the pandemic are as follows: the normalisation of the colonial exception; the centrality of necro-politics as global technology of control; the displacement of uncertainty from the margin to the centre of the intersectional space between expert knowledge, political power and public opinion; the radicalisation of the word 'theory'.

In this article I take issues with some Eurocentric limits of the two contradictions of capital: capital/labour and capital/nature. These limits are exposed by elaborating on two theoretical insights from researches in critical race studies and indigenous political ecologies: respectively thingification and uncommon. These insights produce a tension between colonialism and capitalism, which calls for a post-Eurocentric process of concept formation. This reconceptualization of capital is pursued through the notion of muri, which the Japanese thinker Uno Kōzō deployed to designate a bold non-western pathway to reading Capital. The article elaborates and formulates three conceptual and terminological landmarks to unthinking capital for a global social theory.

In this article I take issues with some Eurocentric limits of the two contradictions of capital: capital/labour and capital/nature. These limits are exposed by elaborating on two theoretical insights from researches in critical race studies and indigenous political ecologies: respectively thingification and uncommon. These insights produce a tension between colonialism and capitalism, which calls for a post-Eurocentric process of concept formation. This reconceptualization of capital is pursued through the notion of muri, which the Japanese thinker Uno Kōzō deployed to designate a bold non-western pathway to reading Capital. The article elaborates and formulates three conceptual and terminological landmarks to unthinking capital for a global social theory.

What should 'global' stand for in order to qualify 'historical sociology' when it aspires to move beyond its Eurocentric foundations? The answer to this question lies in the ability to investigate the limits that Eurocentrism imposes on the possibility of reformulating the world as a unit of analysis, and simultaneously in tackling the centrality of the colonial question in methodological and epistemological terms, rather than exclusively in historical terms.

AbstractThe article criticizes the assumption that modernity is a rupture in time and space conceivable in terms of the coming of a secular age. It tackles Habermas concept of 'post‐secular' and denotes it as an attempt to provide new foundations to modernization narratives, in postmodern terms; it discusses Blumenberg's idea of secularization and questions the historical ontogenesis of what Blumenberg thinks of in terms of the transition to the modern age; it further elaborates on Wang Hui analysis of the relation between Western science and the role of China in global modernity. Secularization and the post‐secular, it is argued, re‐frame narratives of the disenchantment within a western geocultural ideology of western superiority.

Ce mémoire s'appuie sur les liens entre théâtre et histoire. Deux disciplines intrinsèquement liées dans leurs apports mutuels et dans leur évolution respective. Ce mémoire montre notamment que l'histoire s'est toujours nourrie du théâtre dans ses rituels sociétaux, religieux et politiques. Néanmoins, la place du corps a été paradoxalement tardivement reconnue et il a fait l'objet d'études épisodiques. De la même manière, le corps, et par extension le théâtre, ont eu une reconnaissance tardive à l'école. On reconnaît pourtant aujourd'hui leurs bienfaits multiples en matière de pédagogie et d'acquisition des apprentissages. Ce mémoire s'interroge en parallèle sur la place et l'évolution de l'histoire et de se didactique. Une didactique figée dans des techniques frontales qui cultivent souvent la passivité de l'apprenant. Nous avons donc décidé d'intégrer les pratiques théâtrales à l'histoire et de rendre celle-ci plus vivante et plus accessibles auprès des jeunes élèves grâce au jeu de rôles et aux techniques du Théâtre de l'Opprimé. L'expérimentation mise en oeuvre dans une classe de CE2 montre que l'impact de ces pratiques théâtrales n'a pas forcément beaucoup d'incidence sur les acquis des élèves. En revanche, c'est un apport réel en termes de motivation pour les élèves.

Ce mémoire s'appuie sur les liens entre théâtre et histoire. Deux disciplines intrinsèquement liées dans leurs apports mutuels et dans leur évolution respective. Ce mémoire montre notamment que l'histoire s'est toujours nourrie du théâtre dans ses rituels sociétaux, religieux et politiques. Néanmoins, la place du corps a été paradoxalement tardivement reconnue et il a fait l'objet d'études épisodiques. De la même manière, le corps, et par extension le théâtre, ont eu une reconnaissance tardive à l'école. On reconnaît pourtant aujourd'hui leurs bienfaits multiples en matière de pédagogie et d'acquisition des apprentissages. Ce mémoire s'interroge en parallèle sur la place et l'évolution de l'histoire et de se didactique. Une didactique figée dans des techniques frontales qui cultivent souvent la passivité de l'apprenant. Nous avons donc décidé d'intégrer les pratiques théâtrales à l'histoire et de rendre celle-ci plus vivante et plus accessibles auprès des jeunes élèves grâce au jeu de rôles et aux techniques du Théâtre de l'Opprimé. L'expérimentation mise en oeuvre dans une classe de CE2 montre que l'impact de ces pratiques théâtrales n'a pas forcément beaucoup d'incidence sur les acquis des élèves. En revanche, c'est un apport réel en termes de motivation pour les élèves.

AbstractModernity remains the privileged theoretical frame and narrative for long term processes at the global scale, notwithstanding the heterogeneously contested definition of its spatiotemporal coordinates, the irreconcilability of contradictions inherent to its alleged emancipatory power and the accusations of complicity with Eurocentrism. This article explores some logical, epistemological and historical‐sociological contradictions inherent in the effort to produce non‐euorcentric categories of social and historical analysis, and explains why such an effort is doomed to failure if modernity keeps on being accepted as the epistemic territory within which such an effort is located. Eurocentrism is thus defined as palingenetic, to the extent it constantly shifts its contextual meaning while reformulating European centrality in different and ever‐changing modalities; such properties of Eurocentrism as a paradigm are conceptualized in terms of its ability to operate by means of consequential isomorphism. Evidences from recent debates in history of scientific modernity are considered, in order to articulate analytical tensions between connected histories and dialogical civilizational narratives of East and West relation at the global scale. The impossibility to explain the 'why' of modernity according to a coherent 'how' of modernity without falling into Eurocentric structures of thinking is assessed. Finally, theoretical project of "unthinking modernity" is introduced as a possible way to reframe the problem of Eurocentric limits in historical and social sciences.