300 Sozialwissenschaften
Refine
Year of publication
- 2019 (203) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (82)
- Contribution to a Periodical (42)
- Part of a Book (33)
- Part of Periodical (17)
- Doctoral Thesis (10)
- Working Paper (7)
- Book (5)
- Review (5)
- Bachelor Thesis (1)
- Master's Thesis (1)
Language
- German (111)
- English (60)
- Portuguese (15)
- Spanish (8)
- Ukrainian (4)
- Italian (2)
- mis (1)
- Multiple languages (1)
- Turkish (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (203)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (203)
Keywords
- Critical Theory (6)
- Frankfurt School (6)
- Adorno (5)
- critical theory (5)
- Escola de Frankfurt (4)
- Estudios organizacionales (4)
- Begriff (3)
- Digitalisierung (3)
- Escuela de Frankfurt (3)
- Estudos organizacionais (3)
Institute
- Gesellschaftswissenschaften (73)
- Präsidium (51)
- Philosophie (47)
- Institut für Sozialforschung (IFS) (42)
- Exzellenzcluster Die Herausbildung normativer Ordnungen (10)
- Institut für sozial-ökologische Forschung (ISOE) (9)
- Sprach- und Kulturwissenschaften (9)
- Cornelia Goethe Centrum für Frauenstudien und die Erforschung der Geschlechterverhältnisse (CGC) (8)
- Geographie (4)
- Geowissenschaften / Geographie (3)
This article analyzes and criticizes the temporal orientation of Catherine Lu’s theory of colonial redress in Justice and Reconciliation in World Politics. Lu argues that colonial historic injustice can, with few exceptions, justify special reparative measures only if these past injustices still contribute to structural injustice in contemporary social relations. Focusing on Indigenous peoples, I argue that the structural injustice approach can and should incorporate further backward looking elements. First, I examine how Lu’s account has backward-looking elements not present in other structural injustice accounts. Second, I suggest how the structural injustice approach could include additional backward-looking features. I presuppose here, with Lu, that all agents connected to an unjust social structure have a forwardlooking political responsibility to reform this structure, regardless of their relation (or lack thereof) to victims or perpetrators of historic injustice. However, I suggest that agents with connections to historic injustice can occupy a social position that makes them differently situated than other agents within that same structure, leading to differences in how these agents should discharge their forward-looking responsibility and differentiated liability for failure to do so. Third, I argue that Lu obscures the importance of rectifying material dispossession. Reparations, pace Lu, can be justified beyond a minimum threshold of disadvantage. Theorists of settler colonialism and Indigenous scholars show how the dispossession of Indigenous land can be seen as a structure that has not yet ended. I conclude by arguing that rectification can be a precondition for genuine reconciliation.
Structural alienation: Lu's structural approach to reconciliation from within a relational framework
(2019)
In Justice and Reconciliation in World Politics Catherine Lu argues that structural reconciliation, rather than interactional reconciliation, ought to be the primary normative goal for political reconciliation efforts. I suggest that we might have good reason to want to retain relational approaches – such as that of Linda Radzik – as the primary focus of reconciliatory efforts, but that Lu’s approach is invaluable for identifying the parties who ought to bear responsibility for those efforts in cases of structural injustice. First, I outline Lu’s analysis of reconciliation, where she argues for the normative priority of structural approaches within the global political sphere, and propose that it will be useful to identify whether or not a relational account could instead identify underlying structural injustices. Second, I examine one particular relational account of reconciliation (based on Radzik’s account of atonement) and argue that this type of account brings to light underlying structural injustices of the kind Lu is concerned with. Finally, I identify an issue for relational accounts in identifying relevant responsible parties for reconciliation before returning to Lu’s structural account to address this gap.
This essay presents contributions by Jürgen Habermas and Paulo Freire for the constitution of critical-reflexive subjects and the implications in the teaching-research-extension processes in the field of Organizational Studies. We show that intersubjectivity and dialogicity are conditions for the understanding between subjects and it is precisely through these conditions that the subjects are constituted, in a process that is dialogical, pedagogical and political. Freire and Habermas offer elements to deconstruct dominant instrumental logic and provide the basis for the reconstruction of unprecedented-viable possibilities of ways of organizing and managing. Therefore, this article highlights the importance of Organizational Studies to broaden the focus of teaching-research-extension possibilities and directs them to a communicative and dialogic engagement, beyond the borders of universities. This reconstruction indicates that researchers participate in different public arenas, debate and build public problems, processes of resistance, visibility, and dramatization of problematic issues. Observing the contributions of Freire and Habermas, Organizational Studies as a field cannot be limited to developing a critique, from a distant point of view: it is necessary to co-participate, co-act, co-operate and co-construct with its public.
Este artigo apresenta contribuições de Jürgen Habermas e Paulo Freire para a constituição de sujeitos crítico-reflexivos e suas implicações nos processos de ensino/pesquisa/extensão no campo dos Estudos Organizacionais. Mostramos que intersubjetividade e dialogicidade são condições para o entendimento entre sujeitos e é justamente por meio delas que ocorre sua constituição em um processo que é dialógico, pedagógico e político. Freire e Habermas oferecem elementos para desconstruir a lógica instrumental dominante e fornecem bases para a reconstrução de possibilidades inéditas/viáveis de formas de organizar e gerir. A partir disso, este artigo destaca a importância dos Estudos Organizacionais ampliarem o foco das possibilidades de ensino/pesquisa/extensão e direciona-os para um engajamento comunicativo e dialógico, ultrapassando as fronteiras das universidades. Essa reconstrução indica aos pesquisadores que participem de diferentes arenas públicas, do debate e da construção de problemas, em processos de resistência, da visibilidade e dramatização de questões problemáticas. Nos caminhos de Freire e Habermas, os Estudos Organizacionais não podem apenas desenvolver uma crítica à distância: é preciso coparticipar, co-agir, co-operar e coconstruir com os públicos em que se engajam.
En este artículo se examina la aceptabilidad de las acciones wrongful birth (WB) a partir de la teoría discursiva del derecho de Jürgen Habermas. Inicialmente, se describe el alcance que tienen hoy diversas pruebas genéticas para informar decisiones reproductivas. En un segundo momento, se delimitan reclamaciones judiciales presentadas en ordenamientos jurídicos que admiten la interrupción voluntaria del embarazo (IVE), debido a afectaciones en el embrión y el feto que no fueron conocidas por los padres por no seguirse la lex artis ad hoc en el diagnóstico preconceptivo, preimplantatorio y prenatal. En tercer lugar, se explican los puntos con base en los cuales Habermas, en debate con Thomas McCarthy, propone la evaluación de la legitimidad de normas y fallos judiciales en términos de discursos de fundamentación y aplicación. Finalmente, se plantean las consecuencias que surgen de estos argumentos para valorar la admisibilidad de este tipo de demandas.
Nhakanomics: Harvesting Knowledge and Value for Re-generation Through Social Innovation is a radical departure from the commonly held belief that neo-liberal economics from the US and the West is universal, and is the only solution to underdevelopment and poverty throughout the world. Instead, the book teases out and theorises the intellectually rutted terrain of development studies, and neo-liberal economics from a decolonial Pan-Africanist perspective. Following a path of social innovation, with perspectives drawn from social anthropology, economics, and business and management studies Nhakanomics is a unique socio-economic approach applicable in the Global South and in Southern Africa in particular. The study argues that the process and substance of nhakanomics with its pre-emphasis on the relational South provides a robust and holistic approach to social innovation and social transformation grounded in relational networks and meshworks. The central idea is a call to re-GENE-rate society, through local Grounding and Origination, and tapping into local-global Emergent Foundations via a newly global Emancipatory Navigation, while ultimately culminating in global-local transformative Effects in four recursive cycles of re-GENE-rating C(K)umusha, Culture, Communication, and Capital after re-Constituting Africa-the 5Cs. With a novel and radical approach the book is an interrogation of neo-liberal economics in the Global South. As such, this book is remarkably handy to students and practitioners in the fields of economics, development studies, political science, science and technology studies, business management, sociology, transformation studies, and development related non-Governmental Organisations working with grassroots communities.
In June 2016, the Norwegian Programme for Capacity Development in Higher Education and Research for Development (Norhed) hosted a conference on the theme of 'knowledge for development' in an attempt to shift the focus of the programme towards its academic content. This book follows up on that event. The conference highlighted the usefulness of presenting the value of Norhed's different projects to the world, showing how they improve knowledge and expand access to it through co-operation. A wish for more meta-knowledge was also expressed and this gives rise to the following questions: Is this way of co-operating contributing to the growth of independent post-colonial knowledge production in the South, based on analyses of local data and experiences in ways that are relevant to our shared future? Does the growth of academic independence, as well as greater equality, and the ability to develop theories different to those imposed by the better-off parts of the world, give rise to deeper understandings and better explanations? Does it, at least, spread the ability to translate existing methodologies in ways that add meaning to observations of local context and data, and thus enhance the relevance and influence of the academic profession locally and internationally? This book, in its varied contributions, does not provide definite answers to these questions but it does show that Norhed is a step in the right direction. Norhed is an attempt to fund collaboration within and between higher education institutions. We know that both the uniqueness of this programme, and ideas of how to better utilise the learning and experience emerging from it, call for more elaboration and broader dissemination before we can offer further guidance on how to do things better. This book is a first attempt.
Prof. Axel Honneth hat zum Ende des letzten Jahres die Leitung des Instituts für Sozialforschung (IFS) abgegeben; seit 2001 stand er an der Spitze des Instituts, das Max Horkheimer und Theodor W. Adorno berühmt gemacht haben. Der UniReport hatte die Gelegenheit, mit dem Sozialphilosophen, der noch eine Professur an der Columbia University in New York innehat, in der altehrwürdigen Adorno-Bibliothek im Institut zu sprechen.