Universitätspublikationen
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (60)
- Review (8)
- Doctoral Thesis (4)
- Working Paper (4)
- magisterthesis (2)
- Part of a Book (1)
- Preprint (1)
Language
- English (80) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (80) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (80)
Keywords
- Critical Theory (6)
- Frankfurt School (5)
- Walter Benjamin (4)
- Adorno (3)
- Escola de Frankfurt (3)
- Marcuse (3)
- critical theory (3)
- Escuela de Frankfurt (2)
- Estudios organizacionales (2)
- Estudos organizacionais (2)
Institute
- Philosophie (80) (remove)
Highlights
• Parents with and without migration background differ in educational knowledge.
• Parents with migration background have less educational knowledge on average.
• Variations in educational knowledge by immigrant groups.
• Social and cultural resources are central to explaining knowledge differences.
• Acculturation strategies prove to be of little relevance.
Abstract
Although extant research persistently highlights the importance of information for educational decision-making, better understanding the existence of, and the underlying reasons for, informational differences between immigrant and non-immigrant parents is important. This study examines the differences in the level of information between immigrant and non-immigrant parents of third graders just before they make probably their most important educational decision in the German education system. We draw on approaches highlighting the importance of resources and parents’ acculturation to explain the informational differences between immigrant and non-immigrant parents. Employing linear regression and probability models on data from the National Educational Panel Study in Germany (N = 3961), we demonstrate that all immigrant groups, particularly those from Turkey, the former Yugoslavia, the Middle East, and northern Africa, are significantly less informed than parents without own immigration experience. This result is evident both in our overall test and in various domains of the test, which analyze different aspects of information relevant to parents’ educational decision-making. Furthermore, different endowments with social and cultural capital largely explain the informational differences between parents with and without an immigrant background. In contrast, different acculturation strategies are almost negligible in explaining the differences in the level of information. Our findings provide important insights for research on migration-related inequalities in educational decision-making and for developing interventions to improve migrant parents’ ability to make well-informed and thus intended educational decisions.
Philosophy is essentially dialectical. One gets into a dialectic by a puzzle, an aporia in thought and understanding. The point of philosophizing is not (necessarily) to get hold of the ultimate, objective, and immutably correct answers. The point is rather to come to be able to see one’s way out of the aporia, and to understand how one got into it in the first place.
The essay that follows – which I am submitting as my dissertation – is dialectical in two senses. As a piece of philosophizing, the essay is guided by a problem, the problem of understanding how laws of nature are possible, and how it is possible for us to know them. The movement of thought generated by attempts to get out of the problem then yields some ideas that do not stay in the original context in which the problem was felt to exist. Two important ones are, first, perceptual experience is not the only ultimate source of warrant we have for empirical knowledge claims, and second, perceptual experience is not the only epistemically significant experience we can have. Both are consequences of the idea that the mastery of skills is a form of interaction with nature that provides epistemic warrant for nomological claims. I shall leave it to the epilogue to examine how this view of skills contrasts with the ways skills are ordinarily thought of in philosophy and the implication of it for empiricism.
The other sense in which the essay is dialectical is more interesting, and it has to do with the way in which I approach the problem that got me into started, namely, by paying special attention to the dialectic exchange between the realists and the antirealists about the laws of nature. Antirealism about the lawfulness of nature has experienced something like a post-Humean revival since the publication of van Fraassen’s The Scientific Image. Most, including me, have strong realist intuitions about nomological “connections” in nature. Philosophical positions that are strongly counterintuitive have mostly not ended well in history. So it becomes something of a puzzle why antirealism about laws of nature manages to enjoy popularity every now and then.
Objective: to systematize the strengths and challenges of Axel Honneth’s Theory of Recognition, and to reflect on these as support for research in health care. Method: this is a reflection article which considers the potential of incorporating the category of recognition in the Honnethian proposition for research, understanding, exercising of practice and management of health care. Results: the process of recognition promotes the exploration and understanding of relations of power and respect, above all in terms of conflict which are ascribed to these. As a result, it indicates support for diagnoses and structuring nuclei for overcoming oppressive and unequal practices, with consequences for dealing with situations of insecurity, weaknesses in self-esteem and vulnerabilities in the interactions between the subjects, which are configured as contemporary challenges. Conclusion: in the scientific exploration of care, management and public policies in health, this theoretical framework can assist in the visibility of the context and in its critical knots, in order to promote autonomy and human dignity, which are relevant for the interpersonal relations in the processes of care, with fruitful contributions to the qualification of the health care.
A decorated pair of trousers excavated from a well-preserved tomb in the Tarim Basin proved to have a highly informative life history, teased out by the authors – with archaeological, historical and art historical dexterity. Probably created under Greek influence in a Bactrian palace, the textile started life in the third/second century BC as an ornamental wall hanging, showing a centaur blowing a war-trumpet and a nearly life-size warrior of the steppe with his spear. The palace was raided by nomads, one of whom worked a piece of the tapestry into a pair of trousers. They brought no great luck to the wearer who ended his days in a massacre by the Xiongnu, probably in the first century BC. The biography of this garment gives a vivid glimpse of the dynamic life of Central Asia at the end of the first millennium.
Recent years have witnessed a revival of interest in Marcuse's critical theory. This can be partly ascribed to Marcuse's interdisciplinary approach to humanities and social sciences. Many of Marcuse's ideas and concepts are tacitly present in contemporary social and ecological movements. Contemporary literature on Marcuse is positively inclined to his theory while the critique of Marcuse dates back to the '70s, and remains largely unimpaired. This fact poses significant challenges to the revival of Marcuse's critical theory. This study sets out to report on current interest in Marcuse's critical theory trying to correct "past injustices" by responding to negative criticism. The main flaw of such criticism - as we see it - is in failing to perceive interdisciplinary character of Marcuse's critical theory. Marcuse's renaissance cannot be complete without, to use dialectical term, sublating the history of negative criticism.
During the last thirty years or so, there has been a veritable renaissance of the classical ethical idea of the "art of living". Far from being restricted to philosophical discourse, it has also successfully entered the arena of popular culture. This renaissance is closely linked to the late work of Foucault, in which he attempts to restore this classical idea, which he thinks is lacking in modern Western societies. The author aims to assess the Foucaultdian idea of the art of living, and argues that Foucault greatly transformed the Graeco-Roman idea by radicalizing the dimension of artistic activity. In the second part of the paper the author asks whether this radicalized idea can live up to Foucault’s own emancipatory expectations. Lastly, the author argues that the radicalization of the aesthetic dimension has a contradictory effect.
This article is an inquiry into the concept of metaphysical experience through a joint discussion of two authors and philosophers with different approaches that nevertheless converge in the reclamation of the concept and rely both on the experience of death as an example. In both cases, the authors are guided by the central problem of how not to relinquish metaphysical experience to unscrutinized immediacy or a powerful conversion which enjoins subjection, putting it in contact with aesthetics and ethics at once. Theodor Adorno situates metaphysical experience as a problem of philosophy of history and devotes attention to the contemporary possibility of experiences that evoke transcendence. The transformations he identifies in the concept also lead him to propose art as a domain where metaphysical experience is alive. The implicit personal investment Adorno makes is much more clear in Lacoue-Labarthe who, in a dialogue with Maurice Blanchot, shows the experience as deeply bound up with literature and its links to subjectivity. The article argues that the main difference between the two approaches is modal and temporal from the side of the object, aside from the different modes of interrogation recognized with the labels deconstruction and critical theory.
The one-dimensionality of econometric data: the Frankfurt School and the critique of quantification
(2020)
Econometric data are used to produce authoritative facts about the world. Yet, as numbers enjoy a central place in modern reasoning (particularly in government as their presumed objectivity and neutrality assist impartial decision-making), it is important that they receive scrutiny. Using methodological techniques from Western Marxism, with special reference to the work of Lukács, Horkheimer and Adorno, and Marcuse to inform a critique of Acemoglu and Robinson, I argue that the historical emergence of econometrics as a mode of mediated knowledge is a reified practice within the broader technical administration of social life, a practice that is not a transparent representation of social phenomena. This is because when econometrics transforms the thing being measured into a statistical indicator it eclipses political disputes with technical disputes, sidestepping good faith democratic deliberation about what goods are worth pursuing. Effectively, one-dimensional thought cannot perceive the origins of items put into circulation and so ideology is produced – what seems value-free is value-laden.
The practical aim of this work is twofold. Firstly, it is to construct a theory of language based on historical-materialist premises, i.e. a theory which stresses the sociality and historicity of language, and finds in them the fundamental characteristics which make language one of the central phenomena of human life. Such a theory is inherently counterposed to the dominant theories and philosophies of language in the last century, be they Saussurean, idealistic, structuralist, psychologistic or Chomskyan etc. It also rejects vulgar materialistic accounts of language, where language is seen merely as a “reflection” of the economic base of society, as well as the version proposed in Stalin’s short pamphlet, Marxism and Linguistics, which sees language merely as a means of communication, regardless of society or class, therefore neutralised and consequently branded irrelevant for Marxist theory. In short, the first aim would be showing what language is not and what it cannot be by showing what it is.
The second aim is related to Marxist theory in general. Following the presuppositions of this work, a Marxist account of language proves to be an immensely important field of research for Marxism. The reasons are fairly simple, if one is willing to accept them: language is a certain type of social practice, it is related to the way people act, which also means that it is interconnected with consciousness, i.e. to the way people think and to the content of their thought. Language is ideological and political; it is an element of class rule and class struggle. Thus, understanding language should be of utmost importance for any socialist revolutionary project, as ideological struggle is central not only to a revolutionary period, but, perhaps even more, to a period where revolution is not even in sight. I do not wish to derogate other Marxist fields of research, but, on the contrary, to simply insist on their equal importance. Ideological phenomena should not be a secondary or inferior object of research to strictly economic phenomena, or vice-versa. In reality, those phenomena form a dialectic unity; only if theory follows suit, can a pregnant Marxist philosophy be formed.