Pub Date : 2022-01-10DOI: 10.1177/17499755211051559
C. Bandinelli, A. Gandini
Dating apps promise a ‘digital fix’ to the ‘messy’ matter of love by means of datafication and algorithmic matching, realising a platformisation of romance commonly understood through notions of a market’s rationality and efficiency. Reflecting on the findings of a small-scale qualitative research on the use of dating apps among young adults in London, we problematise this view and argue that the specific form of marketisation articulated by dating apps is entrepreneurial in kind, whereby individuals act as brands facing the structural uncertainty of interacting with ‘quasi-strangers’. In so doing, we argue, dating app users enact a Luhmanian notion of interpersonal trust, built on the assessment of the risk of interacting with unfamiliar others that is typical of digitally mediated contexts dominated by reputational logics. From a sociocultural perspective, dating apps emerge as sociotechnical apparatuses that remediate the demand to rationally choose a partner while at the same time reproducing the (im)possibility of doing so. In this respect, far from offering a new form of efficiency, they (re)produce the ontological uncertainty (Illouz, 2019) that characterises lovers as entrepreneurs.
{"title":"Dating Apps: The Uncertainty of Marketised Love","authors":"C. Bandinelli, A. Gandini","doi":"10.1177/17499755211051559","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17499755211051559","url":null,"abstract":"Dating apps promise a ‘digital fix’ to the ‘messy’ matter of love by means of datafication and algorithmic matching, realising a platformisation of romance commonly understood through notions of a market’s rationality and efficiency. Reflecting on the findings of a small-scale qualitative research on the use of dating apps among young adults in London, we problematise this view and argue that the specific form of marketisation articulated by dating apps is entrepreneurial in kind, whereby individuals act as brands facing the structural uncertainty of interacting with ‘quasi-strangers’. In so doing, we argue, dating app users enact a Luhmanian notion of interpersonal trust, built on the assessment of the risk of interacting with unfamiliar others that is typical of digitally mediated contexts dominated by reputational logics. From a sociocultural perspective, dating apps emerge as sociotechnical apparatuses that remediate the demand to rationally choose a partner while at the same time reproducing the (im)possibility of doing so. In this respect, far from offering a new form of efficiency, they (re)produce the ontological uncertainty (Illouz, 2019) that characterises lovers as entrepreneurs.","PeriodicalId":46722,"journal":{"name":"Cultural Sociology","volume":"16 1","pages":"423 - 441"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2022-01-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46989404","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-11-28DOI: 10.1177/17499755211051846
A. Gerber
A growing literature illuminates the limits of claims made on the basis of sensory perception in scientized, rationalized, and bureaucratic contexts. How to understand exceptions to the rule – cases where claims based on sensory experience are taken at face value, even without corroborating evidence? Here, I focus on one such exception, in which citizen complaints about the smell of a small shantytown functioned successfully as both demands and justifications despite a lack of the kinds of instrumentally and technologically enabled corroboration that the literature would suggest are necessary to strengthen such claims. I show how complaints slotted neatly into a specific cultural structure, an olfactory cosmology in which ‘bad air’ that endangers health can be identified by smell and requires ongoing management and amelioration, and where adherence to hygienic norms is required for full moral citizenship. The case suggests ways that the apparent weaknesses of olfactory claims might allow them to be uniquely weaponized in social and political life, and shows how such claims can exploit shared norms, values, and meanings to enroll others in the demand for action.
{"title":"‘Everyone’s Annoyed’: Leveraging Uncertainty in the Smell of Others","authors":"A. Gerber","doi":"10.1177/17499755211051846","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17499755211051846","url":null,"abstract":"A growing literature illuminates the limits of claims made on the basis of sensory perception in scientized, rationalized, and bureaucratic contexts. How to understand exceptions to the rule – cases where claims based on sensory experience are taken at face value, even without corroborating evidence? Here, I focus on one such exception, in which citizen complaints about the smell of a small shantytown functioned successfully as both demands and justifications despite a lack of the kinds of instrumentally and technologically enabled corroboration that the literature would suggest are necessary to strengthen such claims. I show how complaints slotted neatly into a specific cultural structure, an olfactory cosmology in which ‘bad air’ that endangers health can be identified by smell and requires ongoing management and amelioration, and where adherence to hygienic norms is required for full moral citizenship. The case suggests ways that the apparent weaknesses of olfactory claims might allow them to be uniquely weaponized in social and political life, and shows how such claims can exploit shared norms, values, and meanings to enroll others in the demand for action.","PeriodicalId":46722,"journal":{"name":"Cultural Sociology","volume":"16 1","pages":"338 - 357"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2021-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45744944","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-11-28DOI: 10.1177/17499755211053172
Mikael Holmqvist
In this article I report observations from an ethnographic study of a Swedish economic elite community, including interviews with residents and service staff, and participant observations in various social contexts stretching over a period of five years that can contribute to an understanding of how elite communities respond to potential social deviance among its members, such as feelings of insufficiency and stress, thus trying to avoid any ‘desecration’ of their social and cultural capital. Specifically, I examine how the practices through which desecration is avoided, for example the exclusion of unwanted members, interplay in the further consecration of the communities, thus maintaining and strengthening elites’ status and standing, Studying the problems and difficulties experienced by elites in their neighborhood settings, and how they try to manage them, is potentially an important step forward to better analyze and understand the way powerful groups in contemporary society maintain and strengthen their privileges and power.
{"title":"Consecrating and Desecrating Elite Communities: Fearing and Dealing with Social Deviance in Sweden’s Wealthiest Neighborhood","authors":"Mikael Holmqvist","doi":"10.1177/17499755211053172","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17499755211053172","url":null,"abstract":"In this article I report observations from an ethnographic study of a Swedish economic elite community, including interviews with residents and service staff, and participant observations in various social contexts stretching over a period of five years that can contribute to an understanding of how elite communities respond to potential social deviance among its members, such as feelings of insufficiency and stress, thus trying to avoid any ‘desecration’ of their social and cultural capital. Specifically, I examine how the practices through which desecration is avoided, for example the exclusion of unwanted members, interplay in the further consecration of the communities, thus maintaining and strengthening elites’ status and standing, Studying the problems and difficulties experienced by elites in their neighborhood settings, and how they try to manage them, is potentially an important step forward to better analyze and understand the way powerful groups in contemporary society maintain and strengthen their privileges and power.","PeriodicalId":46722,"journal":{"name":"Cultural Sociology","volume":"16 1","pages":"358 - 378"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2021-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41606934","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-11-17DOI: 10.1177/17499755211052363
Mischa van Kan
By introducing a wider understanding of the discourse of modernism at the time that record covers were introduced, this article investigates record covers as a means through which various actors in the Swedish jazz scene connected jazz with modernist art forms. In the 1950s, specific designs for record sleeves became integrated into the ways in which jazz was mediated in Sweden, which coincided with wider debates about whether jazz could be seen as an art form. The main question of this article is: How did the artwork on record covers influence the acceptance of jazz as an art form in Sweden? In responding to this question, the article aims to demonstrate that, in addition to written discourse, visual objects – in this case record covers – were of great importance to the rising status of jazz in Sweden in the 1950s and 1960s. More broadly, I argue that the visual elements in music cultures can be just as important, if not more so, than written forms of discourse, for negotiating the social status of music.
{"title":"Modernism and Record Covers: Raising the Status of Jazz in Sweden","authors":"Mischa van Kan","doi":"10.1177/17499755211052363","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17499755211052363","url":null,"abstract":"By introducing a wider understanding of the discourse of modernism at the time that record covers were introduced, this article investigates record covers as a means through which various actors in the Swedish jazz scene connected jazz with modernist art forms. In the 1950s, specific designs for record sleeves became integrated into the ways in which jazz was mediated in Sweden, which coincided with wider debates about whether jazz could be seen as an art form. The main question of this article is: How did the artwork on record covers influence the acceptance of jazz as an art form in Sweden? In responding to this question, the article aims to demonstrate that, in addition to written discourse, visual objects – in this case record covers – were of great importance to the rising status of jazz in Sweden in the 1950s and 1960s. More broadly, I argue that the visual elements in music cultures can be just as important, if not more so, than written forms of discourse, for negotiating the social status of music.","PeriodicalId":46722,"journal":{"name":"Cultural Sociology","volume":"16 1","pages":"165 - 189"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2021-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45681624","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-11-12DOI: 10.1177/17499755211048435
Kim de Laat, Allyson Stokes
This article offers a regional spotlight introduction to Anglo-Canadian cultural sociology. The question of what makes Canada unique has long preoccupied Canadian writers, artists, and policy makers, and is central to scholarly debates about Canadian sociology’s position relative to British, American, and other national sociologies, as well as the need for decolonization and diversification of the disciplinary canon. As a subfield, Anglo-Canadian cultural sociology receives little attention within these wider debates despite its emphasis on issues of cultural difference, identity, and evaluation. We provide an analysis of the dynamics of the field. Using course syllabi and survey data from instructors (N = 28), we examine whether there is a unique canon in Anglo-Canadian cultural sociology, and how cultural sociology is taught across Canada. Network analysis of texts assigned on syllabi and survey responses from cultural sociology instructors reveal, first, a thematic canon in Canadian cultural sociology, with a plurality of authors used to teach four main themes: identity and representation, cultural production, cultural consumption, and conceptualizing and measuring culture. Second, we find the positionality of Anglo-Canadian cultural sociology (with respect to both other national sociologies and neighboring subfields/disciplines) is uncertain and widely variant. Finally, survey responses concerning identity and representation suggest a reflexivity about the politics of canonization, and a gendered interest in decolonizing curricula. We conclude by arguing that a thematic canon in cultural sociology facilitates the maintenance of fuzzy boundaries with other subfields, national and Indigenous intellectual traditions, and a critical feminist lens.
{"title":"Cultural Sociology and the Politics of Canonization: An Anglo-Canadian Perspective","authors":"Kim de Laat, Allyson Stokes","doi":"10.1177/17499755211048435","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17499755211048435","url":null,"abstract":"This article offers a regional spotlight introduction to Anglo-Canadian cultural sociology. The question of what makes Canada unique has long preoccupied Canadian writers, artists, and policy makers, and is central to scholarly debates about Canadian sociology’s position relative to British, American, and other national sociologies, as well as the need for decolonization and diversification of the disciplinary canon. As a subfield, Anglo-Canadian cultural sociology receives little attention within these wider debates despite its emphasis on issues of cultural difference, identity, and evaluation. We provide an analysis of the dynamics of the field. Using course syllabi and survey data from instructors (N = 28), we examine whether there is a unique canon in Anglo-Canadian cultural sociology, and how cultural sociology is taught across Canada. Network analysis of texts assigned on syllabi and survey responses from cultural sociology instructors reveal, first, a thematic canon in Canadian cultural sociology, with a plurality of authors used to teach four main themes: identity and representation, cultural production, cultural consumption, and conceptualizing and measuring culture. Second, we find the positionality of Anglo-Canadian cultural sociology (with respect to both other national sociologies and neighboring subfields/disciplines) is uncertain and widely variant. Finally, survey responses concerning identity and representation suggest a reflexivity about the politics of canonization, and a gendered interest in decolonizing curricula. We conclude by arguing that a thematic canon in cultural sociology facilitates the maintenance of fuzzy boundaries with other subfields, national and Indigenous intellectual traditions, and a critical feminist lens.","PeriodicalId":46722,"journal":{"name":"Cultural Sociology","volume":"16 1","pages":"274 - 298"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2021-11-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44075955","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-11-08DOI: 10.1177/17499755211045034
Marcus Morgan
decision to split ‘relational’ from ‘material’ power. Morgan asks whether a re-fused material-relational account of power might not continue to serve us well in highlighting one of the necessary economic features of the various global transitions to modernity. Emily Erikson chooses to interrogate Reed’s identification of the body metaphor as constitutionally significant to modernity, questioning how this metaphor applies in nonEuropean contexts, and highlighting the exclusionary implications it holds. Stephen Kemp’s review is interested in how Reed’s work might be seen as a development of his earlier writing on the place of hermeneutics in the social sciences. In particular, he is interested in the degree to which Reed’s latest book can be read as expressing a continuity with his earlier preoccupations with understanding society in terms of meaning, interpretation, and process, as opposed to the constraining influence of an external ‘social structure’ existing ‘out there’. Kemp suggests that this new book occasionally risks treating meaning as though it were such a reified social structure, rather than the variable and contingent product of a sequence of interactions. Monika Krause raises several important critical points of her own. Amongst them, she questions whether the theoretical term ‘exclusion’ adequately captures all the various ills and victimisations produced by the exercises of social power Reed identifies. Krause also senses some ambiguity over whether Power in Modernity should be read as an analysis of a particular social sphere – the specific sphere of political power – that assumes a broader theory of a differentiation of spheres, or whether his account of power should be taken as a critique of such differentiation theories altogether. Leonidas Tsilipakos takes up the issue of how Reed builds on Ernst Kantorowicz’s work, singling out analytically the various methodological, theoretical and conceptual choices that provide for the claim that ‘the King’s second body’ eternally recurs. His review appreciates the scope of Reed’s work but remains circumspect as to its (or any work’s) ability to adequately synthesise such a broad sweep of ideas and arguments, and, further, to handle the clash between historicist and formal theoretical modes of inquiry. As readers will discover, in his reply to critics, Isaac Ariail Reed, has chosen to helpfully restate the intent of the book as well as the scope of its argument and to engage with and defend against some of the critical issues this introduction has itemised.
{"title":"Power, Culture, and Materiality in Modernity","authors":"Marcus Morgan","doi":"10.1177/17499755211045034","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17499755211045034","url":null,"abstract":"decision to split ‘relational’ from ‘material’ power. Morgan asks whether a re-fused material-relational account of power might not continue to serve us well in highlighting one of the necessary economic features of the various global transitions to modernity. Emily Erikson chooses to interrogate Reed’s identification of the body metaphor as constitutionally significant to modernity, questioning how this metaphor applies in nonEuropean contexts, and highlighting the exclusionary implications it holds. Stephen Kemp’s review is interested in how Reed’s work might be seen as a development of his earlier writing on the place of hermeneutics in the social sciences. In particular, he is interested in the degree to which Reed’s latest book can be read as expressing a continuity with his earlier preoccupations with understanding society in terms of meaning, interpretation, and process, as opposed to the constraining influence of an external ‘social structure’ existing ‘out there’. Kemp suggests that this new book occasionally risks treating meaning as though it were such a reified social structure, rather than the variable and contingent product of a sequence of interactions. Monika Krause raises several important critical points of her own. Amongst them, she questions whether the theoretical term ‘exclusion’ adequately captures all the various ills and victimisations produced by the exercises of social power Reed identifies. Krause also senses some ambiguity over whether Power in Modernity should be read as an analysis of a particular social sphere – the specific sphere of political power – that assumes a broader theory of a differentiation of spheres, or whether his account of power should be taken as a critique of such differentiation theories altogether. Leonidas Tsilipakos takes up the issue of how Reed builds on Ernst Kantorowicz’s work, singling out analytically the various methodological, theoretical and conceptual choices that provide for the claim that ‘the King’s second body’ eternally recurs. His review appreciates the scope of Reed’s work but remains circumspect as to its (or any work’s) ability to adequately synthesise such a broad sweep of ideas and arguments, and, further, to handle the clash between historicist and formal theoretical modes of inquiry. As readers will discover, in his reply to critics, Isaac Ariail Reed, has chosen to helpfully restate the intent of the book as well as the scope of its argument and to engage with and defend against some of the critical issues this introduction has itemised.","PeriodicalId":46722,"journal":{"name":"Cultural Sociology","volume":"16 1","pages":"112 - 117"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2021-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43268519","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-11-08DOI: 10.1177/17499755211049172
Marcus Morgan, Leonidas Tsilipakos
The following book review symposium began life in the form of an event that took place on 14 October, 2020, organised on behalf of the group for Social, Cultural and Political Theory within the School of Sociology Politics and International Studies (SPAIS), at the University of Bristol. The idea for that event was to invite a selection of key scholars to discuss an important new work in social theory, namely, a recent and particularly promising book by Isaac Ariail Reed, entitled Power in Modernity: Agency Relations and the Creative Destruction of the King’s Two Bodies. The book caught our attention as it seemed to offer a wealth of insights on classical sociological topics, but at the same time to propose a fresh understanding of those topics, and to provide an important new intervention in the field of the cultural and historical sociology of power. For the initial event, the author kicked things off by outlining the book, followed by discussants who, having carefully studied the book in advance, provided their responses, and in some cases objections, which were in turn met by further elaborations and counterarguments by the author. Although in our initial plans we intended to hold this event in Bristol, we unfortunately had to abandon those plans due to COVID-19 related restrictions. Resorting to an online platform, however, proved to be a particularly rewarding experience: most importantly, it enabled the gathering of a larger and certainly more diverse audience than we could have possibly convinced to make the trip to Bristol. After the success of the initial event, it was agreed that we would seek the publication of a book symposium. In terms of contributors, we were grateful that Emily Erikson was kind enough to accept an invitation to join us at this later stage. On the other hand, we were sad that Eric Lybeck, one of the initial participants, had to withdraw. Most contributions have been reworked through discussion as well as further study and reflection, while also retaining some of the stylistic imprint of their initial status as relatively informal talks. Complementary summaries of the book are offered in all of the following pieces, so we will refrain from adding yet another here. Whilst all the responding scholars identify a great deal of merit in Reed’s work, they also, each in their own way, provide critical engagement. What follows is a highly abridged summary of some of the key critical themes raised. Marcus Morgan’s response focuses on Reed’s typology of dimensions of power. Whilst sympathetic overall to the utility of Reed’s categorisations, he nevertheless questions his 1049172 CUS0010.1177/17499755211049172Cultural SociologyBook Review Symposium research-article2021
{"title":"Introduction to the Book Review Symposium","authors":"Marcus Morgan, Leonidas Tsilipakos","doi":"10.1177/17499755211049172","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17499755211049172","url":null,"abstract":"The following book review symposium began life in the form of an event that took place on 14 October, 2020, organised on behalf of the group for Social, Cultural and Political Theory within the School of Sociology Politics and International Studies (SPAIS), at the University of Bristol. The idea for that event was to invite a selection of key scholars to discuss an important new work in social theory, namely, a recent and particularly promising book by Isaac Ariail Reed, entitled Power in Modernity: Agency Relations and the Creative Destruction of the King’s Two Bodies. The book caught our attention as it seemed to offer a wealth of insights on classical sociological topics, but at the same time to propose a fresh understanding of those topics, and to provide an important new intervention in the field of the cultural and historical sociology of power. For the initial event, the author kicked things off by outlining the book, followed by discussants who, having carefully studied the book in advance, provided their responses, and in some cases objections, which were in turn met by further elaborations and counterarguments by the author. Although in our initial plans we intended to hold this event in Bristol, we unfortunately had to abandon those plans due to COVID-19 related restrictions. Resorting to an online platform, however, proved to be a particularly rewarding experience: most importantly, it enabled the gathering of a larger and certainly more diverse audience than we could have possibly convinced to make the trip to Bristol. After the success of the initial event, it was agreed that we would seek the publication of a book symposium. In terms of contributors, we were grateful that Emily Erikson was kind enough to accept an invitation to join us at this later stage. On the other hand, we were sad that Eric Lybeck, one of the initial participants, had to withdraw. Most contributions have been reworked through discussion as well as further study and reflection, while also retaining some of the stylistic imprint of their initial status as relatively informal talks. Complementary summaries of the book are offered in all of the following pieces, so we will refrain from adding yet another here. Whilst all the responding scholars identify a great deal of merit in Reed’s work, they also, each in their own way, provide critical engagement. What follows is a highly abridged summary of some of the key critical themes raised. Marcus Morgan’s response focuses on Reed’s typology of dimensions of power. Whilst sympathetic overall to the utility of Reed’s categorisations, he nevertheless questions his 1049172 CUS0010.1177/17499755211049172Cultural SociologyBook Review Symposium research-article2021","PeriodicalId":46722,"journal":{"name":"Cultural Sociology","volume":"16 1","pages":"111 - 112"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2021-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46450819","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-11-08DOI: 10.1177/17499755211033554
Leonidas Tsilipakos
Elias N (1996) The Germans: Power Struggles and the Development of Habitus in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries. New York: Columbia University Press. Kuzmics H and Axtman R (2007) Authority, State and National Character. The Civilizing Process in Austria and England, 1700–1900. Aldershot/Burlington: Ashgate. Langman L and Lundskow G (2017) God, Guns, Gold and Glory American Character and its Discontents. Leiden: Brill. Latour B (1993) We Have Never Been Modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Latour B (2018) An Inquiry into Modes of Existence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Elias N（1996）《德国人：十九世纪和二十世纪的权力斗争和习惯的发展》。纽约：哥伦比亚大学出版社。Kuzmics H和Axtman R（2007）权威、国家和民族特征。奥地利和英国的文明进程，1700–1900年。奥尔德肖特/伯灵顿：阿什盖特。Langman L和Lundskow G（2017）《上帝、枪支、黄金和荣耀——美国性格及其不满》。莱顿：布里尔。拉图尔B（1993）《我们从未现代化》。马萨诸塞州剑桥：哈佛大学出版社。Latour B（2018）《生存模式探究》。马萨诸塞州剑桥：哈佛大学出版社。
{"title":"The Recurrence of the King’s Second Body?","authors":"Leonidas Tsilipakos","doi":"10.1177/17499755211033554","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17499755211033554","url":null,"abstract":"Elias N (1996) The Germans: Power Struggles and the Development of Habitus in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries. New York: Columbia University Press. Kuzmics H and Axtman R (2007) Authority, State and National Character. The Civilizing Process in Austria and England, 1700–1900. Aldershot/Burlington: Ashgate. Langman L and Lundskow G (2017) God, Guns, Gold and Glory American Character and its Discontents. Leiden: Brill. Latour B (1993) We Have Never Been Modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Latour B (2018) An Inquiry into Modes of Existence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.","PeriodicalId":46722,"journal":{"name":"Cultural Sociology","volume":"16 1","pages":"128 - 133"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2021-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42248256","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-11-08DOI: 10.1177/17499755211034817
Emily Erikson
{"title":"Power and the People","authors":"Emily Erikson","doi":"10.1177/17499755211034817","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17499755211034817","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46722,"journal":{"name":"Cultural Sociology","volume":"16 1","pages":"117 - 120"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2021-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43041149","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","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：