Suchergebnisse

"An innovative contribution to debates on the internationalization and globalization of the social sciences, this book pays particular attention to their theoretical and epistemological reconfiguration in the light of postcolonial critiques and critiques of Eurocentrism. Bringing together theoretical contributions and empirical case studies from around the world, including India, the Americas, South Africa, Australia and Europe, it engages in debates concerning public sociology and explores South-South research collaborations specific to the social sciences. Contributions transcend established critiques of Eurocentrism to make space for the idea of global social sciences and truly transnational research. Thematically arranged and both international and interdisciplinary in scope, this volume reflects the different theoretical and thematic backgrounds of the contributing authors, who enter into dialogue and debate with one another in the development of a more inclusive, more representative and more theoretically relevant stage for the social sciences. A rigorous critique of the contemporary state of the social sciences as well as an attempt to find another way of doing transnational sociology, Global Knowledge Production in the Social Sciences will appeal to scholars of sociology, political science and social theory with interests in the production of social scientific knowledge, postcolonialism and transnationalism in research"--EBL.

Im Weltmaßstab gesehen erscheinen die afrikanischen und lateinamerikanischen Sozialwissenschaften als peripher. Doch entstehen hier aus der Auseinandersetzung mit lokal relevanten gesellschaftlichen Fragestellungen originelle, eigenständige Bereiche der soziologischen Forschung und Lehre, die als konterhegemoniale Strömungen konzeptualisiert werden. An der Schnittstelle von Wissenschaftssoziologie und Globalisierungsforschung verbindet dieser Band theoretische und empirische Perspektiven auf Entwicklungen und Positionierungen der »Soziologien des Südens« und ist ein Gewinn für alle, die sich kritisch mit dem Eurozentrismus der Sozialwissenschaften befassen

AbstractF. Oppenheimer's System der Soziologie is a multivolume publication that contains a general sociology as a common basis for all social sciences; a theory of development; as well as specialized sociologies: sociology of the economy, of law, of the state, etc. Oppenheimer conceived sociology as a historically grounded universal science. Ibn Khaldun came into play in relationship with Oppenheimer's state theory. His approach directly built on Gumplowicz's "sociological state theory". An overview on Oppenheimer's works shows that Ibn Khaldun was by no means the starting point of theorization on the state. We do not find any reference to him in an earlier publication, Der Staat (1912), that already contained the full elaboration of Oppenheimer's theory. Nevertheless, his reception of Ibn Khaldun is important: Ibn Khaldun was mobilized within the framework of a scholarly debate that was ongoing amongst European sociologists at the time, and whose key representative, Ludwig Gumplowicz, contributed significantly to his reception in the concerned period. In this context, Oppenheimer did not merely mention Ibn Khaldun in an encyclopaedic endeavor to present a complete overview on "precursors" of sociology, but as a representative and contributor to a theoretical approach which, Oppenheimer believed, they both shared.

AbstractAuthoritarians are back: Demanding the restoration of community against formalized society and of tradition against the stranger; asking for strong states enforcing law and order, closing borders, preventing dark men from threatening white women; defending traditional family models against individualism and gender‐pluralism; claiming to represent "the people." Today many denounce them as "Fascists!". This article tries to conceptually capture the recent developments in two countries, France and Germany. In both cases, a diachronic comparison seems tempting. Are the '30s ahead of us? What is the extent and what is the impact of the fascist legacy today? The comparison in this article is based on Mann's book "Fascists" (2004). The paper argues that while the current far‐right cannot be considered fascist anymore and resembles interwar fascism only remotely, we have to consider it post‐fascist. If interwar fascism is largely explicable out of a context of multilevel crises to which it provided answers that many found convincing, I conclude that the current strength of the German and French far‐right does happen in a rather moderate crisis context to which it provides some answers.

Violaine Girard: Le vote FN au village: Trajectoires de ménages populaires du périurbain. Paris: Editions du Croquant 2017. 978-2-36512-110-1

International audience ; The central question of this chapter is about socio-historical implications of colonialism for ways of dealing with deviance in the metropoles. Postcolonial studies metaphorically talk about the colonies as "laboratories" of modern societies. Indeed, a series of political reforms and interventions aiming at society as a whole or, to put it more strongly, at creating the "ideal society", have been experimented with in the colonies. The historical development of the European metropole was heavily affected by the colonial experience (either simultaneously or with some time-delay), an insight that leads to rejecting any assumption of a uni-directional "modernisation"-flow.We will see that there are obvious continuities in terms of social thought. Concrete connections between organizational, institutional and juridical forms of dealing with deviance are more difficult to describe in clear-cut terms, if we do not want to fall into simplistic accounts of a complex story. In the conclusion, we will have to reconsider Baumann's claim that the Holocaust has to be understood as the product of modern society and of a highly developed civilization.

International audience ; This essay deals with a specific historical context for sociology: the period 1933–45 in Germany. It raises questions about the definition and self-definition of the discipline. i How far did the given historical, socio-cultural, economic, and legal contexts affect the work of sociologists? Can we speak of sociology as soon as the actors of the period speak of themselves as sociologists? Or otherwise, if we are to avoid historical relativism, what are the general criteria and requirements that allow us to define whether a given academic field, its actors, and activities were sociology or not, independently of the self-definition of those actors? Finally, what have the consequences been of the 1933–45 period for German sociology and for the discipline as such through to the present? If there is little literature within German-language sociology on the history of the discipline between 1933 and 1945, it appears that there is still much less available for an international audience. The essay thus also attempts to familiarize non-German readers with the state of the art. In order to understand the developments between 1933 and 1945, and to evaluate the significance of this historical period for the discipline in Germany and beyond, it is vital to get an impression of the state of affairs before 1933. This paper is thus structured into two periods—prior to 1933 and 1933–1945—and examines the contexts and contents of sociology for each of them. We can assume a dialectical relationship between contexts and contents, where the given socio-historical context strongly affects developments within the discipline, while the latter also has some reflexive repercussions on how society was perceived and how non-academic actors, here especially the political power elites, thought it should and could be organized and administered. The focus will mainly be on the extent to which context affects content.

International audience ; Mit der Entstehung moderner Staaten im europäischen Raum seit der frühen Neuzeit und mit den damit verbundenen kolonialistischen und imperialistischen Tendenzen entwickelte sich auch eine dominante Sicht auf die Welt. Sie war und ist noch heute weitgehend eurozentrisch. Alternative, "dezentrale" Karten können dazu dienen, einen Perspektivenwechsel herbeizuführen. In diesem Sinne bedienen sich zwei kürzlich erschienene Werke solchen Bildmaterials, die den Blick auf die Situation und Errungenschaften der Sozialwissenschaften außerhalb Europas lenken wollen – der von Edgardo Lander herausgegebene Sammelband über die Kolonialität des Wissens (Lander 2000), sowie Vermessene Disziplin (Keim 2008). Beide Werke weisen auf das konterhegemoniale Potential der Gesellschaftswissenschaften des globalen Südens hin – ein Thema von hoher wissenschaftlicher, erkenntnistheoretischer und politischer Relevanz, wenn man die problematische Lage vieler außereuropäischer Länder hinsichtlich ihrer Wissensproduktion sowie vor allem die "internationalen Beziehungen" in den Sozialwissenschaften bedenkt, die – entgegen aller Proklamationen von Internationalisierung oder Globalisierung – heutzutage ein hochgradig nordatlantisches Unterfangen darstellen. Während Landers Publikation eine theoretische Kritik an dieser Dominanz übt, verweist Keim auf das konterhegemoniale Potential gesellschaftlich relevanter Sozialwissenschaft.

In recent years, the articulation between the common core of the discipline and its local manifestations has become increasingly problematic. It might seem paradoxical that calls for more local sociologies appear at the very time of globalization. However, I argue that this double move — the internationalization of the scholarly community on the one hand and the localization of specific claims on the other — is not as ironic as it first appears. On the contrary, it has its foundations in the very history of the discipline, in the realities of its worldwide spreading, and in the forms of its international constitution that are marked by hierarchies and inequalities, especially with regard to South-North-relations.

Résumé. Récemment, l'articulation entre le corpus commun de la discipline d'un côté et ses manifestations locales de l'autre côté se trouve remise en question. Il peut paraître paradoxal que les revendications de sociologies plus « locales » émergent simultanément au processus de mondialisation. Toutefois, j'argumenterai que ce double mouvement vers l'internationalisation de la communauté scientifique d'un côté, et la localisation de ses réalisations spécifiques de l'autre côté, n'est pas aussi ironique que cela puisse paraître à première vue. Au contraire, il semble que ces développements récents trouvent leur origine dans l'histoire même de la discipline, dans les réalités de son expansion globale et dans les formes de sa constitution internationale qui sont marquées par des hiérarchies et des inégalités profondes, surtout en ce qui concerne les relations Sud-Nord.

International audience ; The development of sociology in Africa and Latin America has remained largelyunder-researched until now. Ongoing debates on the globalisation of economy andsociety, as well as the increasingly cross-national activities of the scholarlycommunity, have been enhancing reflections on the internationalisation orglobalisation of the discipline, a topic on the agenda of each of the more recentWorldCongresses of Sociology. Diverging perceptions of these processes within sociologyhave been articulated, opposing those who argue for the internationalisation orglobalisation of the discipline without explicitly insisting on present North-Southdivides (Albrow/King 1990; Archer 1991; Genov 1991) on the one hand, and thosewho insist on the disadvantaged position of, for instance, African (Adésínà 2002) orIndian (Oommen 1991) sociologies, on the other hand. The debate around theglobalisation of sociology, political and often polemical at first sight, illustrates theincreasingly difficult articulation between the universalistic claims of the discipline assuch and its particular developments locally or nationally (Berthelot 1998; Keim2006), and is thus of epistemological importance as well.

Im Weltmaßstab gesehen erscheinen die afrikanischen und lateinamerikanischen Sozialwissenschaften als peripher. Doch entstehen hier aus der Auseinandersetzung mit lokal relevanten gesellschaftlichen Fragestellungen originelle, eigenständige Bereiche der soziologischen Forschung und Lehre, die als konterhegemoniale Strömungen konzeptualisiert werden.An der Schnittstelle von Wissenschaftssoziologie und Globalisierungsforschung verbindet dieser Band theoretische und empirische Perspektiven auf Entwicklungen und Positionierungen der »Soziologien des Südens« und ist ein Gewinn für alle, die sich kritisch mit dem Eurozentrismus der Sozialwissenschaften befassen.

Le savoir est une ressource de plus en plus indispensable à l'économie mondiale, d'où la tendance capitaliste à y voir une forme de capital et un moteur de l'innovation et du profit. Comme toute autre forme de produit soumis au capitalisme, il a donné lieu à des différends portant sur la propriété et l'utilisation des diverses catégories qui le composent, ce qui rend nécessaire de lui assurer une protection juridique. Les États tout comme les organismes interétatiques mettent en place des cadres juridiques pour régler les différends entre divers acteurs sociaux. La réflexion sur le savoir et le pouvoir a donc évolué pour inclure la protection du savoir contre ceux qui s'efforcent de s'en emparer par le biais de droits juridiques, par exemple de droits de propriété intellectuelle ( pi ). Dans beaucoup de pays industrialisés où le savoir est commercialisé, il existe déjà, pour protéger la pi , des cadres juridiques prenant la forme de brevets et de droits d'auteur, mais aussi de marques déposées, de droits d'accès à des bases de données, etc. Cependant, dans de nombreux pays en développement peu avancés technologiquement et commercialement, il n'existe pas encore de mécanismes bien établis de protection de la pi , et ce malgré les ressources génétiques et les savoirs traditionnels dont disposent ces pays et qui sont aussi précieux pour eux que pour le reste du monde. La protection des savoirs autochtones est aussi ancienne que ces derniers, mais la reconnaissance de ces mécanismes de protection est étroitement contrôlée par un pouvoir supérieur. Nous évoquons dans le présent article l'argument selon lequel, quoi que les communautés locales choisissent de faire pour protéger leurs savoirs autochtones, face au régime actuel de pi et à la position de force d'acteurs mondiaux mus par des considérations commerciales, le concept de savoir traditionnel ou autochtone devient lui-même politique. Si le caractère traditionnel du savoir peut raisonnablement être mis en question d'un point de vue épistémologique, il semblerait qu'il soit possible de revendiquer droits et reconnaissance pour les communautés locales sur une scène internationale où les différends et les intérêts commerciaux revêtent une importance primordiale.