Suchergebnisse

"Cover" -- "Half Title" -- "Title Page" -- "Copyright Page" -- "Table of Contents" -- "Introduction" -- "1 Modern Society" -- "2 Modern Politics and Administration" -- "3 The Modern Administrator" -- "4 Ethics and Administration" -- "5 Freedom of Expression, the Public Space and Democracy" -- "6 The Obedient Administrator" -- "Notes".

This title was first published in 2000: Administration, Ethics and Democracy is concerned with the disciplines of philosophy, political science and sociology. jvind Larsen's book provides a deeper analysis of the relations between administration, ethics and democracy. In modern society, it is no longer sufficient to be the obedient administrator Max Weber speaks about. The time is ripe to re-evaluate the overriding responsibilities of the administration. Today, responsible administration demands an independent position to be taken. jvind Larsen views the administration from the continuous complex demands it is required to meet and proposes that the professional role is not exempt from personal responsibility or position. Therefore it is crucial that the administrator has freedom of expression and the opportunity to discuss his problems with others. Ethics are a common concern and also a political problem in democratic society. This is why there is a close connection between administration, ethics and democracy.

Aristoteles grundlægger et praksisbegreb, som bliver et af de fundamentale begreber i den politiske filosofi og den politiske sociologi. Hegel giver dette praksisbegreb en ny skikkelse med sit begreb om praksis som sædelighed. Habermas og Honneth tager begge udgangspunkt i den unge Hegels skrifter, når de skal forsøge at formulere det væsentlige i Hegels praksisfilosofi i et nyt begreb, som kan være aktuelt for vor tids politiske filosofi og politiske sociologi. Habermas sætter i en smart hermeneutisk manøvre sproget ind som erstatning for Hegels åndsbegreb. Med dette nye grundlag lykkes det Habermas at formulere en praktisk filosofi, i hvilken både praksis og sædelighed sammenfattes i den kommunikative handlen. Habermas' politiske filosofi fører direkte over i den politiske sociologi, hvor den kan indgå i en empirisk orienteret politisk-sociologisk udforskning af det moderne samfunds institutioner. Honneth er kritisk over for Habermas' sprogliggørelse af den politiske-sociologi. Honneth ønsker at holde fast i den klassiske kritiske teoris substantielle perspektiv. Honneth lægger vægt på den unge Hegels begreb om kamp om anerkendelse, som han sætter ind i et moderne demokratisk perspektiv. Honneths politiske sociologi har vist sig empirisk relevant i udforskningen af konfliktforhold og krænkelser i samfundets institutioner.

Individualisation and institutionalisation: The Significance of Individualisation in a
modern democratic society

In recent years modern sociology has discussed the increasing individualisation. However there is no consensus about how this individualisation should be understood. In this article, I present the thesis that individualisation is not a new phenomenon, but is rather a fundamental feature of modern society, as Hegel discussed maintained in his Philosophy of Law from 1821. Individualisation, as we witness it today should then be seen as the development of modern society, and it isn't a problem in itself. But it becomes a problem when it cannot be institutionalised. Put in another manner, the problem arises when institutions are not adapted to individual development. In modern society the state has become plural, it can no longer maintain the sovereignty that it is given in Hegel's philosophy. Institutions within the state such as the market and civil society can no longer be summarized within one framework. This means that there is no final instance that can secure individual?s continual self-reflection. The question then is if such a modernity can be normatively cohesive if there no longer is a final instance that can judge normative questions. Sociology must point out this question of the connection between individualisation and institutionalisation and the necessity of democratising institutions if modernity is to be a successful project.

Modern reflexive ledership

The communicative transformation of modernity has made it necessary to formulate a new understanding of leader-ship which is in contrast to the dominating management thinking. The global communication society opens up for a new form of leadership, which could be called reflexive leadership. The reflexive leadership is founded on a radical free communication, where there is no hinderance of the possibility to get information and where all participants have the possibility to have a reflexive relation to communication.
The concept of reflexive leadership is developed both from a sociological and a philosophical perspective. From the sociological perspective it is developed through a critique of Max Weber's three ideal types of leadership, namely the traditional, the charismatic and the legal form of leadership. From the philosophical perspective the concept is developed through a critique of the concept of leader-ship by Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Hegel and Habermas. It is shown that communication has to be in the centre of leadership in a communicative oriented modern society.
On this background it is shown that reflexive leadership has the advantage that it makes possible to reflect normative problems in modern society. Reflexive leadership can be seen as a further development of modern demo-cratic society towards an open society which is building on reflexive social relations in all the institutions of society.