Suchergebnisse

"The paper rejects the notion of 'multiple modernities' as both conceptually flawed and empirically unfounded. In line with the sociological tradition, it will argue that we should speak of modernity only in the singular. Modernity, according to this view, denotesa peculiar epoch in the history of human kind, originating in Europe and spreading from there to the rest of the world. We may well be tempted to succumb too quickly to ill-conceived generalizations of what are in fact often only particular, locally based experiences. But we should also not lose sight of the truly revolutionary character of the historical 'breakthrough' to modernity. The protagonists of the multiple modernities paradigm appear to be doing precisely this: their very terminology impliesa trivialization of what is common to 'the' modern condition. At the same time, it suggests an overrating of which ever diversities (may) exist in different parts of the world. The paper will identify four main conceptual flaws in the pertinent literature: 1. The proclivity to equate modernity with its polity. The proposed conception of modernity is thus too thin for capturing the complex social structure of modern society as a whole. 2. To the extent that a theory of modernity is proposed at all, this theory is a self proclaimed cultural theory. Such a theory may shed light on some of the historical roots and self-perceptions of modernity, but it does so at the cost of excluding any thorough analysis of institutions. 3. The conceptualization of inter-societal difference in civilizational terms is misleading because it rules out, almost by definition, the possibility that countries belonging to different civilizations may in certain respects have more in common with ones from other civilizations than with some of the members of their 'own'. 4. The account's notion of diversity is exceedingly vague - the nature and profundity of the differences that are said to exist between different modernities are nowhere discussed at adequate length. But we need to know them to assess their social theoretic significance. In addition to these conceptual flaws, there are also various empirical phenomena and trends that challenge key premises of the multiple modernities approach. None of this is to say there are no differences between different regions, countries, civilizations. Nor is it to suggest their insignificance. It is, however, to suggest that we be more precise and that we extend our analyses beyond the confines of culture and politics - at least if we want to say something meaningful about modernity or modern society at large. Rather than speaking of multiple modernities, a better alternative to accommodate existing differences might be a yet to be developed concept of 'varieties of modernity' - akin to (but naturally pitched at a higher level of abstraction than) the notion of 'varieties of capitalism' which is beginning to crystallize in the new political economy literature." (author's abstract)

"The past two decades have seen a marked increase in conflict prevention and peacebuilding activity on all levels, involving, among others, local activists, international civil society organizations and diplomats. Training in conflict resolution or management skills has become an important part of such conflict prevention and peacebuilding activity (Kriesberg 2009, 26 / 27), as a growing number of people who are interested or involved in conflict transformation are looking for opportunities to expand and refine their skills. They are faced with a variety of offers - and there is still little guidance for choosing from the wide and diverse array of organizers and formats. The mainstreaming of conflict resolution into other fields (development, environment, etc.) has only further diversified the field (Zelizer / Rubinstein 2009, 1). No unified methodology and approach has thus far emerged; and despite some calls for standardization or harmonization (ITS 2008; Arajärvi 2007), a great number of different formats continues to be tailored to the great variety of audiences and practitioner-learners. This chapter introduces different training approaches and agencies and provides an extensive resource section as a first step in organizing this wide variety. It does so by taking a step back and surveying the field through the eyes of a prospective 'trainee'. Trainees usually come from one of three groups (the boundaries admittedly blur): People who engage in constructive, nonviolent conflict transformation, and who come from or work in regions where conflict is, or has been, fought out violently. When considering training opportunities, this group of (local or international) 'activists' generally looks for capacity-building that will prove useful in achieving a tangible transformation of violent conflict. People who aim to become trainers (or multipliers of another kind) for conflict transformation themselves (either working locally or internationally). This group of 'potential trainers' usually looks for both content-based and educational skills-training and 'training on / for the job'. 3. People who - in a more indirect, yet connected sense - work in the environment of violent conflict. They include stall of national and international agencies, donors, decision-makers, etc. This broad and heterogeneous group of 'interested third parties' often takes to conflict transformation training in order to become more informed about, or sensitized to, conflict transformation work. Their expectations center on conflict analysis and basic skills, which may or may not be implemented in their day-to-day jobs. While all these trainee groups are bound to have somewhat different expectations and needs, there are questions that arise for all of them: who is offering training for which audience? Which designs, contents and methods of training are commonly applied? Are there criteria that can help assess training for conflict transformation? What challenges remain, and what recommendations can be made for improving training offers? These are the organizing questions of the following sections. Section 2 reviews different training agencies and takes a closer look at training design, contents and methods. Section 3 presents lessons and challenges. Section 4 focuses on the most important next steps in improving training for conflict transformation. Section 5, finally, provides an extensive resource section on tools, methods, organizations arid programs." (excerpt)