超越党派政治的直接社会行动。新的主观主义如何改变社会转型的观念

IF 1.8 Q2 POLITICAL SCIENCE Political Research Exchange Pub Date : 2021-01-01 DOI:10.1080/2474736X.2021.1896343
Felix Butzlaff, Michael Deflorian
{"title":"超越党派政治的直接社会行动。新的主观主义如何改变社会转型的观念","authors":"Felix Butzlaff, Michael Deflorian","doi":"10.1080/2474736X.2021.1896343","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Currently proliferating alternative action organizations, such as food cooperatives, solidary agriculture, repair cafés, or DIY initiatives, pursue social transformation at a deliberate distance from party politics. Instead, they concentrate on changing society directly by altering everyday routines and thereby prefiguring an alternative society. Local and experimental movements promise to pioneer social alternatives, which traditional organizations appear to be unable to accomplish. This indicates a remarkable shift, since in the past, social mobilizations often pursued direct social action and party politics simultaneously. The current literature conceptualizes movements and parties primarily as cross-fertilizing allies or even potential hybrids (movement parties) yet struggles to explain why alternative action organizations in countries that have not experienced post-crisis austerity measures have largely abandoned the parliamentary arena. Addressing this gap, we compare contemporary understandings of direct social action in Germany with past understandings: that of the 1920s labour movement and the 1970s new social movements. Applying sociological theories of modernization, we demonstrate that processes of individualization and flexibilization have increased the demand for immediate experiences of social change and decreased the attractiveness of formal organization. Since this makes strategic alliances between movements and political parties increasingly unlikely, societies’ capacity to organize long-term social struggles might be impaired.","PeriodicalId":20269,"journal":{"name":"Political Research Exchange","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/2474736X.2021.1896343","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Direct social action beyond party politics. How new subjectivities change the idea of social transformation\",\"authors\":\"Felix Butzlaff, Michael Deflorian\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/2474736X.2021.1896343\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Currently proliferating alternative action organizations, such as food cooperatives, solidary agriculture, repair cafés, or DIY initiatives, pursue social transformation at a deliberate distance from party politics. Instead, they concentrate on changing society directly by altering everyday routines and thereby prefiguring an alternative society. Local and experimental movements promise to pioneer social alternatives, which traditional organizations appear to be unable to accomplish. This indicates a remarkable shift, since in the past, social mobilizations often pursued direct social action and party politics simultaneously. The current literature conceptualizes movements and parties primarily as cross-fertilizing allies or even potential hybrids (movement parties) yet struggles to explain why alternative action organizations in countries that have not experienced post-crisis austerity measures have largely abandoned the parliamentary arena. Addressing this gap, we compare contemporary understandings of direct social action in Germany with past understandings: that of the 1920s labour movement and the 1970s new social movements. Applying sociological theories of modernization, we demonstrate that processes of individualization and flexibilization have increased the demand for immediate experiences of social change and decreased the attractiveness of formal organization. Since this makes strategic alliances between movements and political parties increasingly unlikely, societies’ capacity to organize long-term social struggles might be impaired.\",\"PeriodicalId\":20269,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Political Research Exchange\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/2474736X.2021.1896343\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Political Research Exchange\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/2474736X.2021.1896343\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Research Exchange","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2474736X.2021.1896343","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

摘要

摘要当前,食品合作社、团结农业、修理咖啡馆或DIY倡议等替代行动组织正在蓬勃发展,它们与政党政治保持着刻意的距离,寻求社会变革。相反,他们专注于通过改变日常生活直接改变社会,从而预示着一个替代社会。地方和实验运动承诺开创社会替代方案,而传统组织似乎无法实现这一点。这表明了一个显著的转变,因为在过去,社会动员往往同时追求直接的社会行动和政党政治。目前的文献主要将运动和政党概念化为相互滋养的盟友,甚至潜在的混合体(运动政党),但很难解释为什么没有经历危机后紧缩措施的国家的替代行动组织基本上放弃了议会舞台。为了解决这一差距,我们将德国当代对直接社会行动的理解与过去的理解进行了比较:20世纪20年代的劳工运动和70年代的新社会运动。运用现代化的社会学理论,我们证明了个性化和灵活性的过程增加了对社会变革即时体验的需求,降低了正式组织的吸引力。由于这使得运动和政党之间的战略联盟越来越不可能,社会组织长期社会斗争的能力可能会受到损害。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Direct social action beyond party politics. How new subjectivities change the idea of social transformation
ABSTRACT Currently proliferating alternative action organizations, such as food cooperatives, solidary agriculture, repair cafés, or DIY initiatives, pursue social transformation at a deliberate distance from party politics. Instead, they concentrate on changing society directly by altering everyday routines and thereby prefiguring an alternative society. Local and experimental movements promise to pioneer social alternatives, which traditional organizations appear to be unable to accomplish. This indicates a remarkable shift, since in the past, social mobilizations often pursued direct social action and party politics simultaneously. The current literature conceptualizes movements and parties primarily as cross-fertilizing allies or even potential hybrids (movement parties) yet struggles to explain why alternative action organizations in countries that have not experienced post-crisis austerity measures have largely abandoned the parliamentary arena. Addressing this gap, we compare contemporary understandings of direct social action in Germany with past understandings: that of the 1920s labour movement and the 1970s new social movements. Applying sociological theories of modernization, we demonstrate that processes of individualization and flexibilization have increased the demand for immediate experiences of social change and decreased the attractiveness of formal organization. Since this makes strategic alliances between movements and political parties increasingly unlikely, societies’ capacity to organize long-term social struggles might be impaired.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Political Research Exchange
Political Research Exchange POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
25
审稿时长
39 weeks
期刊最新文献
Online repression and transnational social movements: Thailand and the #MilkTeaAlliance Did Russia’s invasion of Ukraine unite Europe? Cohesion and divisions of the European Parliament on Twitter Quantifying the ideational context: political frames, meaning trajectories and punctuated equilibria in Spanish mainstream press during the Catalan nationalist challenge Breakdown by disengagement: Tunisia’s transition from representative democracy Merging the Great Patriotic War and Russian warfare in Ukraine. A case-study of Russian military patriotic clubs in 2022
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1