Pub Date : 2023-10-25DOI: 10.1177/1468795x231208456
Will Atkinson
This paper puts Bourdieu’s influential field theory into dialogue with the classic sociological tradition of role theory. I argue that while role theory per se is certainly problematic, it nonetheless bore the virtue of conceptualising in clear terms something amply borne out by empirical research but underemphasised in Bourdieu’s account of the social world: that people are situated in more than one social structure, with differing salience to them, and that this can have profound effects on their experience, their wellbeing and their practice. Following Bourdieu’s own prompts, I thus appropriate and recast selected insights from role theory to elaborate field theory so that it might articulate how experience and practice are structured by multiple fields, introducing the notions of field-set, meta-habitus, lifeworld horizon, illusio space and greedy fields.
{"title":"Field theory, role theory and role conflict: Reappropriating insights from the past","authors":"Will Atkinson","doi":"10.1177/1468795x231208456","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1468795x231208456","url":null,"abstract":"This paper puts Bourdieu’s influential field theory into dialogue with the classic sociological tradition of role theory. I argue that while role theory per se is certainly problematic, it nonetheless bore the virtue of conceptualising in clear terms something amply borne out by empirical research but underemphasised in Bourdieu’s account of the social world: that people are situated in more than one social structure, with differing salience to them, and that this can have profound effects on their experience, their wellbeing and their practice. Following Bourdieu’s own prompts, I thus appropriate and recast selected insights from role theory to elaborate field theory so that it might articulate how experience and practice are structured by multiple fields, introducing the notions of field-set, meta-habitus, lifeworld horizon, illusio space and greedy fields.","PeriodicalId":44864,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Classical Sociology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135169622","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-10-24DOI: 10.1177/1468795x231208424
Lara-Zuzan Golesorkhi, Ellen M Freeberg, Gina Luria Walker
In this article, we map the idiosyncratic social research career of Frieda Wunderlich during her years in Berlin (1884–1963). We recover elements of Wunderlich’s unique deployment of social data and her analyses that are emblematic of contributions she made and that have been previously overlooked. We highlight Wunderlich as she lived and worked alongside other women in Berlin who shaped discourse and practice on social protections during a unique moment in the Weimar era. As a scholar and practitioner, Wunderlich helped transform the significance of the relationship between economy and society by insisting on the primacy of humane labor conditions. Our research explores two elements of Wunderlich’s contributions in this context: (1) her efforts to integrate academic social research into public policy and (2) her participation in active, feminist spaces for new policy practices, politics and education. To analyze Wunderlich’s career in Berlin, we refer to three interrelated arenas where she made significant contributions: the German Association of Female Civil Servants of Welfare (1919–1933), the German Democratic Party (1925–1933), the German Academy for Women’s Social and Educational Work (1925–1933). In our exploration of Wunderlich’s scholarship and policy practice within these arenas, we situate her contributions alongside other women including Dorothea Hirschfeld, Hedwig Wachenheim, Cora Berliner, Gertrud Bäumer, Helene Lange, Marianne Weber, Hanna Meuter, Alice Salomon, and Hilde Lion. Recovering and bringing into conversation several figures, we find that theory and praxis concurrently informed Wunderlich’s career, as it did for many of the women around her.
在这篇文章中，我们描绘了弗里达·温德利希在柏林(1884-1963)的特殊社会研究生涯。我们恢复了Wunderlich对社会数据的独特部署和她的分析的元素，这些元素是她做出的贡献的象征，以前被忽视了。在魏玛时代的一个独特时刻，温德利希与柏林的其他女性一起生活和工作，塑造了关于社会保护的话语和实践。作为学者和实践者，温德利希坚持人道劳动条件的首要地位，帮助转变了经济与社会关系的意义。我们的研究探讨了温德利希在这一背景下的贡献的两个要素:(1)她将学术社会研究融入公共政策的努力;(2)她积极参与新的政策实践、政治和教育的女权主义空间。为了分析温德利希在柏林的职业生涯，我们参考了她做出重大贡献的三个相互关联的领域:德国福利女公务员协会(1919-1933)，德国民主党(1925-1933)，德国妇女社会和教育工作学院(1925-1933)。在我们对温德里奇在这些领域的学术和政策实践的探索中，我们将她的贡献与其他女性相提并论，包括Dorothea Hirschfeld, Hedwig Wachenheim, Cora Berliner, Gertrud Bäumer, Helene Lange, Marianne Weber, Hanna Meuter, Alice Salomon和Hilde Lion。我们发现，理论和实践同时影响了温德利希的职业生涯，就像她身边的许多女性一样。
{"title":"Frieda Wunderlich: Feminist research and activism in Berlin","authors":"Lara-Zuzan Golesorkhi, Ellen M Freeberg, Gina Luria Walker","doi":"10.1177/1468795x231208424","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1468795x231208424","url":null,"abstract":"In this article, we map the idiosyncratic social research career of Frieda Wunderlich during her years in Berlin (1884–1963). We recover elements of Wunderlich’s unique deployment of social data and her analyses that are emblematic of contributions she made and that have been previously overlooked. We highlight Wunderlich as she lived and worked alongside other women in Berlin who shaped discourse and practice on social protections during a unique moment in the Weimar era. As a scholar and practitioner, Wunderlich helped transform the significance of the relationship between economy and society by insisting on the primacy of humane labor conditions. Our research explores two elements of Wunderlich’s contributions in this context: (1) her efforts to integrate academic social research into public policy and (2) her participation in active, feminist spaces for new policy practices, politics and education. To analyze Wunderlich’s career in Berlin, we refer to three interrelated arenas where she made significant contributions: the German Association of Female Civil Servants of Welfare (1919–1933), the German Democratic Party (1925–1933), the German Academy for Women’s Social and Educational Work (1925–1933). In our exploration of Wunderlich’s scholarship and policy practice within these arenas, we situate her contributions alongside other women including Dorothea Hirschfeld, Hedwig Wachenheim, Cora Berliner, Gertrud Bäumer, Helene Lange, Marianne Weber, Hanna Meuter, Alice Salomon, and Hilde Lion. Recovering and bringing into conversation several figures, we find that theory and praxis concurrently informed Wunderlich’s career, as it did for many of the women around her.","PeriodicalId":44864,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Classical Sociology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135273052","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-09-28DOI: 10.1177/1468795x231202868
Christopher Thorpe
{"title":"Critically appraising Bourdieu and Marx: Practices of Critique","authors":"Christopher Thorpe","doi":"10.1177/1468795x231202868","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1468795x231202868","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44864,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Classical Sociology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135344176","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-08-18DOI: 10.1177/1468795x231194361
M. Freeden
{"title":"The chronicle of a silent liberalism","authors":"M. Freeden","doi":"10.1177/1468795x231194361","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1468795x231194361","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44864,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Classical Sociology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2023-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49171982","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-08-10DOI: 10.1177/1468795x231186010
A. King
On 9 October 2022, Bruno Latour died. His death was widely and deeply mourned. He is a great loss to sociology. This article takes Latour’s death as cue to make an initial posthumous assessment of his work. It argues that, with Latour’s death, sociology is at a cross-roads which in some ways reprises the Tarde-Durkheim debate. When Tarde died in 1904, the Durkheimian school became dominant. After Latour’s death, this article considers whether that history might now been reversed with a subsidence of the Durkheimian tradition. The article argues it should not. While recognising Latour’s ingenious creativity and his massive contribution to sociology, the article rejects Actor-Network Theory (ANT). Despite the many strengths of ANT and the extraordinary influence it has exerted, the article dissects the actant to claim that ANT is a flawed project. It argues in order to avoid accusations of determinism, the status of the actant was always ambiguous in ANT. As a result, although Latour consistently denied the power of human social groups, his analyses eventually relied upon surreptitious appeals to them. The neo-Durkheimian currents which are evident in contemporary sociology should re-assert themselves.
{"title":"Disassembling the actant: A valediction to actor-network theory","authors":"A. King","doi":"10.1177/1468795x231186010","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1468795x231186010","url":null,"abstract":"On 9 October 2022, Bruno Latour died. His death was widely and deeply mourned. He is a great loss to sociology. This article takes Latour’s death as cue to make an initial posthumous assessment of his work. It argues that, with Latour’s death, sociology is at a cross-roads which in some ways reprises the Tarde-Durkheim debate. When Tarde died in 1904, the Durkheimian school became dominant. After Latour’s death, this article considers whether that history might now been reversed with a subsidence of the Durkheimian tradition. The article argues it should not. While recognising Latour’s ingenious creativity and his massive contribution to sociology, the article rejects Actor-Network Theory (ANT). Despite the many strengths of ANT and the extraordinary influence it has exerted, the article dissects the actant to claim that ANT is a flawed project. It argues in order to avoid accusations of determinism, the status of the actant was always ambiguous in ANT. As a result, although Latour consistently denied the power of human social groups, his analyses eventually relied upon surreptitious appeals to them. The neo-Durkheimian currents which are evident in contemporary sociology should re-assert themselves.","PeriodicalId":44864,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Classical Sociology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2023-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44961909","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-08-01DOI: 10.1177/1468795X231190756
A. Honneth
To respond to my critics I concentrate on three systematic problems they have brought up in their articles: First, there are repeated concerns that my proposal for determining what we should regard as social labor may be too narrow, too conventionalist, or simply misleading (I); second, a number of contributions raise the question of whether I am right to discard the idea of “alienated” or “meaningless” labor as the standard of critique of contemporary labor relations and replace it with the weaker standard of democratic compatibility (II); and third, some of the contributors reproach me for being too moderate in my proposals for reforming labor relations and for conceptually excluding more radical alternatives from the outset (III). I will try to defend my own approach on all three counts.
{"title":"Rejoinder to my critics","authors":"A. Honneth","doi":"10.1177/1468795X231190756","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1468795X231190756","url":null,"abstract":"To respond to my critics I concentrate on three systematic problems they have brought up in their articles: First, there are repeated concerns that my proposal for determining what we should regard as social labor may be too narrow, too conventionalist, or simply misleading (I); second, a number of contributions raise the question of whether I am right to discard the idea of “alienated” or “meaningless” labor as the standard of critique of contemporary labor relations and replace it with the weaker standard of democratic compatibility (II); and third, some of the contributors reproach me for being too moderate in my proposals for reforming labor relations and for conceptually excluding more radical alternatives from the outset (III). I will try to defend my own approach on all three counts.","PeriodicalId":44864,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Classical Sociology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47783520","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-07-28DOI: 10.1177/1468795x231186933
Julian Müller
The influence of Georg Simmel on American sociology has been repeatedly pointed out. Robert E. Park and the Chicago School of Sociology in particular owe important impulses to Simmel. It is sometimes overlooked, however, that Simmel himself drew on imported knowledge in his famous essay ‘Die Großstädte und das Geistesleben’ when focusing on the nervousness of the city dweller. This article will therefore tell the brief story of a reciprocal transatlantic knowledge transfer between Berlin and Chicago. It looks at the mutual fascinations and influences, examining both the Americanisation of knowledge and the Europeanisation of experience.
格奥尔格·西梅尔对美国社会学的影响已被反复指出。罗伯特·E·帕克和芝加哥社会学学院尤其将重要的推动力归功于西梅尔。然而，有时人们会忽略的是，西梅尔本人在他的著名文章《Die Großstädte und das Geistesleben》中，在关注城市居民的紧张情绪时，借鉴了外来知识。因此，本文将讲述柏林和芝加哥之间跨大西洋知识交流的简短故事。它着眼于相互的魅力和影响，考察了知识的美国化和经验的欧洲化。
{"title":"Import and export of ideas: Georg Simmel in Chicago, George M. Beard in Berlin","authors":"Julian Müller","doi":"10.1177/1468795x231186933","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1468795x231186933","url":null,"abstract":"The influence of Georg Simmel on American sociology has been repeatedly pointed out. Robert E. Park and the Chicago School of Sociology in particular owe important impulses to Simmel. It is sometimes overlooked, however, that Simmel himself drew on imported knowledge in his famous essay ‘Die Großstädte und das Geistesleben’ when focusing on the nervousness of the city dweller. This article will therefore tell the brief story of a reciprocal transatlantic knowledge transfer between Berlin and Chicago. It looks at the mutual fascinations and influences, examining both the Americanisation of knowledge and the Europeanisation of experience.","PeriodicalId":44864,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Classical Sociology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2023-07-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47404293","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-07-12DOI: 10.1177/1468795x231186756
José Juan Osés Bermejo
In light of the postcolonial critique of Eurocentrism, the epistemological foundations of sociology and the legacies of classical sociologists have certainly become controversial. Postcolonial critiques of sociology’s Eurocentrism have denounced the “parochial” nature and limitations of the theoretical contributions left by Marx, Weber, and Durkheim, the reductive and stereotyping orientation of the “primitivist” and/or “orientalist” representations of non-Western peoples that can be identified in their work, and the incomplete and misleading accounts of the Western processes of modernization that we have inherited from them, which fail to fully address and satisfactorily account for the realities of modern Western forms of colonialism and imperialism. However, the nature and consequences of Durkheim’s specific sociological Eurocentrism raise opposing views within postcolonialism. This article aims to evaluate the pertinence of the divergent and sometimes contradictory postcolonial appraisals of Durkheim’s Eurocentrism by focusing particularly on the controversies generated by his sociological approach to religion. Placing Durkheim’s sociological project within both the academic field and the socio-political context in which it took shape, this article highlights the shifting relevance and the implications of his evolving sociological approach to this object of study in his science of morals. Although it is not exempt from inconsistencies and Eurocentric assumptions, Durkheim’s sociological approach to religion leaves an invaluable legacy for a non-dualistic sociological understanding of the rituals through which humans (re)create their social identities and their forms of belonging and solidarity. In line with the priorities of some postcolonial agendas, it can fully reveal its explanatory potential in the sociological investigation of modern and contemporary interethnic and racial conflicts and forms of colonialism and neo-colonialism.
{"title":"Durkheim, Religion, and the Postcolonial Critique of Sociology’s Eurocentrism","authors":"José Juan Osés Bermejo","doi":"10.1177/1468795x231186756","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1468795x231186756","url":null,"abstract":"In light of the postcolonial critique of Eurocentrism, the epistemological foundations of sociology and the legacies of classical sociologists have certainly become controversial. Postcolonial critiques of sociology’s Eurocentrism have denounced the “parochial” nature and limitations of the theoretical contributions left by Marx, Weber, and Durkheim, the reductive and stereotyping orientation of the “primitivist” and/or “orientalist” representations of non-Western peoples that can be identified in their work, and the incomplete and misleading accounts of the Western processes of modernization that we have inherited from them, which fail to fully address and satisfactorily account for the realities of modern Western forms of colonialism and imperialism. However, the nature and consequences of Durkheim’s specific sociological Eurocentrism raise opposing views within postcolonialism. This article aims to evaluate the pertinence of the divergent and sometimes contradictory postcolonial appraisals of Durkheim’s Eurocentrism by focusing particularly on the controversies generated by his sociological approach to religion. Placing Durkheim’s sociological project within both the academic field and the socio-political context in which it took shape, this article highlights the shifting relevance and the implications of his evolving sociological approach to this object of study in his science of morals. Although it is not exempt from inconsistencies and Eurocentric assumptions, Durkheim’s sociological approach to religion leaves an invaluable legacy for a non-dualistic sociological understanding of the rituals through which humans (re)create their social identities and their forms of belonging and solidarity. In line with the priorities of some postcolonial agendas, it can fully reveal its explanatory potential in the sociological investigation of modern and contemporary interethnic and racial conflicts and forms of colonialism and neo-colonialism.","PeriodicalId":44864,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Classical Sociology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2023-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48518180","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-07-10DOI: 10.1177/1468795X231187110
W. Streeck
I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to Colin Crouch’s essay. To avoid being too long, I will address only one of the issues raised, that of “globalization” and “deglobalization”—a quite central one of course. Beholding the reactions to my book, scholarly and otherwise, I was struck by how often readers, Crouch included, accused me of calling for “globalization” to be reversed, in favor of a “return” to isolated—in German: abgeschottet, best translated as “sealed off”—nations and national states. How could that be? Probably I did not expect that reasonable interlocutors, even with polemical intent, would attribute such nonsense to the author of the book at issue, so I failed to hedge against it. When I still had students, I used to tell them that “globalization” has been around for a long time, as an irreversible stage of world history. Its beginning may be dated to October 14, 1492, when Columbus’ fleet landed on the island of Guanahani, later called San Salvador. This was the moment when the two wings of the human race, which had migrated from Africa to Eurasia some 60,000 years earlier, met again and reunited forever. One had moved west, where for many thousands of years, until they understood how to sail against the wind, they had to stop at the Atlantic. The other went east to the opposite coast where they ended up settling the two Americas. With the Spanish fleet’s landing, humankind was “globalized.” The political organization of the now earth-spanning human species changed continuously, from the empire of Charles V, in which the sun never set, through a variety of intermediate forms to the post1990 U.S.-centric world capitalism, the New World Order of the elder Bush. What I discuss in my book is the merits and demerits, not of globalization as such—this would be utterly foolish—but of the economic and political form it has today taken, a form that—fortunately, I believe—is currently about to break down, after it has proved neither technically nor politically sustainable. What exactly is it that we are talking about as we discuss the kind of “globalization” that existed at the turn of the 21st century? As a political-economic project it was associated with the post-communist “end of history” period of the early 1990s. Then already undergoing its neoliberal transformation, capitalism ruled supreme. On the part of the sole remaining superpower, it invited confident hopes for a “New American Century,” a borderless world of free markets under American law, unhampered by the petty politics of nation or class. It was no longer countries competing with countries that would make 1187110 JCS0010.1177/1468795X231187110Journal of Classical SociologyResponse to review review-article2023
{"title":"Rejoinder to Crouch","authors":"W. Streeck","doi":"10.1177/1468795X231187110","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1468795X231187110","url":null,"abstract":"I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to Colin Crouch’s essay. To avoid being too long, I will address only one of the issues raised, that of “globalization” and “deglobalization”—a quite central one of course. Beholding the reactions to my book, scholarly and otherwise, I was struck by how often readers, Crouch included, accused me of calling for “globalization” to be reversed, in favor of a “return” to isolated—in German: abgeschottet, best translated as “sealed off”—nations and national states. How could that be? Probably I did not expect that reasonable interlocutors, even with polemical intent, would attribute such nonsense to the author of the book at issue, so I failed to hedge against it. When I still had students, I used to tell them that “globalization” has been around for a long time, as an irreversible stage of world history. Its beginning may be dated to October 14, 1492, when Columbus’ fleet landed on the island of Guanahani, later called San Salvador. This was the moment when the two wings of the human race, which had migrated from Africa to Eurasia some 60,000 years earlier, met again and reunited forever. One had moved west, where for many thousands of years, until they understood how to sail against the wind, they had to stop at the Atlantic. The other went east to the opposite coast where they ended up settling the two Americas. With the Spanish fleet’s landing, humankind was “globalized.” The political organization of the now earth-spanning human species changed continuously, from the empire of Charles V, in which the sun never set, through a variety of intermediate forms to the post1990 U.S.-centric world capitalism, the New World Order of the elder Bush. What I discuss in my book is the merits and demerits, not of globalization as such—this would be utterly foolish—but of the economic and political form it has today taken, a form that—fortunately, I believe—is currently about to break down, after it has proved neither technically nor politically sustainable. What exactly is it that we are talking about as we discuss the kind of “globalization” that existed at the turn of the 21st century? As a political-economic project it was associated with the post-communist “end of history” period of the early 1990s. Then already undergoing its neoliberal transformation, capitalism ruled supreme. On the part of the sole remaining superpower, it invited confident hopes for a “New American Century,” a borderless world of free markets under American law, unhampered by the petty politics of nation or class. It was no longer countries competing with countries that would make 1187110 JCS0010.1177/1468795X231187110Journal of Classical SociologyResponse to review review-article2023","PeriodicalId":44864,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Classical Sociology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2023-07-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41576854","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-06-25DOI: 10.1177/1468795X231182636
Rahel Jaeggi
Work is topic often neglected by contemporary philosophy. In academic political philosophy, this is due, among other things, to the dominance of analytic political liberalism and its bracketing of substantive questions regarding the “good” life. Surprisingly, however, even in critical theory there have been few exceptions to the general shunning of the question of work. That Axel Honneth, in his 2021 Benjamin Lectures, has now brought the subject out of the black box is an invaluable asset of his project. Nevertheless, I would like to ask two critical questions and make a suggestion. The first part of my inquiry concerns the side of the materiality of labor and expresses doubts whether the material basis Honneth seeks to recover is sufficiently material. The second part of my inquiry concerns the normative character of his understanding of work (i.e., the question of good work and the pathologies of labor) and suggests a Hegelian understanding of work, that is, work as participating in the universal resources of society. I argue that such an understanding would provide us with a much-needed sufficient basis for an encompassing but non-essentialist critique of the pathologies of labor.
{"title":"Sharing the universal resources: Remarks on Honneth’s understanding of work","authors":"Rahel Jaeggi","doi":"10.1177/1468795X231182636","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1468795X231182636","url":null,"abstract":"Work is topic often neglected by contemporary philosophy. In academic political philosophy, this is due, among other things, to the dominance of analytic political liberalism and its bracketing of substantive questions regarding the “good” life. Surprisingly, however, even in critical theory there have been few exceptions to the general shunning of the question of work. That Axel Honneth, in his 2021 Benjamin Lectures, has now brought the subject out of the black box is an invaluable asset of his project. Nevertheless, I would like to ask two critical questions and make a suggestion. The first part of my inquiry concerns the side of the materiality of labor and expresses doubts whether the material basis Honneth seeks to recover is sufficiently material. The second part of my inquiry concerns the normative character of his understanding of work (i.e., the question of good work and the pathologies of labor) and suggests a Hegelian understanding of work, that is, work as participating in the universal resources of society. I argue that such an understanding would provide us with a much-needed sufficient basis for an encompassing but non-essentialist critique of the pathologies of labor.","PeriodicalId":44864,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Classical Sociology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2023-06-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47665214","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：