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)
La cultura, en tanto manifestación de la actividad del espíritu en oposición a la actividad material, se ha entendido, generalmente, como expresión del progreso humano, que nos aleja de la barbarie. Adorno somete este concepto a un riguroso análisis dialéctico y descubre que la barbarie misma puede estar encarnada en la cultura, y que esta, como bien sucede con la industria cultural, puede estar al servicio de la dominación antes que al de la emancipación. Sin embargo, no renuncia a su espíritu utópico. Este texto explora no solo la crítica de Adorno al concepto tradicional de cultura y su complicidad con la barbarie, sino también las indicaciones en el pensamiento del mismo autor para comprender las posibilidades emancipatorias de la cultura.
Frankfurt Okulu düşünürleri otoritaryenliğe ilişkin araştırmalarını 1930’lu ve 1940’lı yıllarda yapmışlardır. Theodor W. Adorno ile Leo Lowenthal ve Norbert Guterman’ın araştırmaları ve analizlerinde ortaya koydukları “otoritaryen kişilik”ler, ajitatörler ve demagogların söylemiyle günümüzde ABD’deki siyasi liderlerin resmi olmayan sözcülerinin yeni medyadaki söylemleri arasında paralellikler bulunmaktadır. Bu anlamda Frankfurt Okulu düşünürlerinin otoritaryenizm teorisinin günümüzün otoritaryen popülist söylemini eleştirel bir şekilde analiz etmemize yardımcı olacağı düşünülmektedir. Bunun için öncelikle otoritaryen popülizm kavramı tartışılacak, ardından elitleri, beyaz olmayan tüm insanları, göçmenleri, Müslümanları, Yahudileri ve komünistleri, beyaz Hıristiyan Amerika'nın mevcut önyargılarını kullanarak düşman olarak etiketleyen yeni medya kişiliği Nicholas J. Fuentes’in söylemi analiz edilecek; otoritaryenlik ve anti-Semitizm üzerine yapılan ilk dönem araştırmalar, çevrimiçi haberlerde ve sosyal medyada “sahte peygamberler”in yeni söylemiyle karşılaştırılacaktır
Свою роботу «Актуальність філософії» молодий філософ-неомарксист Теодор Адорно прочитав улітку 1931 року як лекцію, вступаючи на посаду приват-доцента Франкфуртського університету імені Йогана Вольфґанґа Ґете. У цій лекції Т. Адорно критично проаналізував філософію позитивізму, неокантіанство, філософію життя та феноменологічне вчення Едмунда Гуссерля, ідейно впливових течій і шкіл німецької філософії, що мали статус панівного теоретичного знання в суспільстві. Також Т. Адорно здійснив неомарксистську критику онтологічних проєктів таких німецьких філософів, як Макс Шелер та Мартін Гайдеґґер, які зазнали ідейного впливу Гуссерлевого вчення. На переконання Т. Адорно, ці онтологічні проекти через первинну присутність у них ірраціоналістичних елементів існування людини формують таку манеру суб’єктивного мислення, що не спроможне дієво поєднати його суб’єкта із зовнішньою дійсністю. Іншим об’єктом критики Т. Адорно була філософія Віденського гуртка, яка, на його переконання, хоча й переймалася розглядом людини як суб’єкта емпіричного пізнання, однак не зауважила дійсну суть його існування як історичної істоти. Неомарксист Т. Адорно запропонував убачати спільний сцієнтизм феноменології, філософії емпіріокритицизму та Віденського гуртка такою теоретичною тенденцією, котра неспроможна надавати аподиктичні відповіді на основні, сутнісні питання людського буття як історично плинного. Тим самим ця теорія доводить свою ідейну недосконалість, а також й історичну неактуальність. Виходячи зі своєї критики цієї філософії, Т. Адорно запропонував власне, неомарксистське бачення філософії, котра мусить замінити попередню філософію як панівну в суспільстві. Ця нова, матеріалістична теорія, що перебуває в буттєвому діалектичному зв’язку із соціальною практикою, має сприяти самостійному тлумаченню суб’єктом буттєвих сенсів та історичних картин, що формує за допомогою понять його розуміння соціальної дійсності як історичної, і водночас вона мусить ідейно скасовувати претензії будь-якої філософії на статус офіційної теорії. У цій лекції Т. Адорно також представив ідейний задум свого вчення про людське буття, суть якого у зміненому вигляді він пізніше експлікував у «Негативній діалектиці» (1966), своєму головному філософському творі.
As a cognitively-mediated response, autonomous adaptation at farm-gate levels constitutes reactionary actions by farmers against climate impacts. These actions are shaped by interacting factors such as household characteristics, livelihood scope and resources. It is driven by the goal of adapting cultivated farmlands to climate and for sustaining crop yields. Thus, interest in balancing adaptation goals with protection of vegetation conditions is less of a priority. Lack of research interest in understanding the gap between objectives of reactionary adaptation and protection of surface conditions (vegetation canopies) is a gap in research. In many studies, farm-gate level adaptation is described as a set of zero-feedback actions in response to climate impacts. This perception conceals the stress and impact-engendering attribute of reactionary adaptation. Inspired towards addressing this conceptual gap; this study investigates impact of farmers’ reactionary adaptation on vegetation cover in Keffi, Nasarawa, Nigeria. A twenty-year time-series NDVI and rainfall datasets are linearly regressed to examine the extent of NDVI-rainfall sensitivity. A weak linear relationship between NDVI and rainfall in Keffi for the period, 1999-2018 is observed. At a regression slope of 0.001, R squared, R2=0.129 (implying that only about 13% of the variability in NDVI in Keffi are explained by rainfall amount) and a bivariate regression coefficient, r=0.359; statistical evidence shows that rainfall amount are not significant predictors of NDVI in Keffi. In investigating the possible interference of non-rainfall factors on vegetation productivity (NDVI) in Keffi; a residual trend (RESTREND) analysis was carried out. Regression of residuals from NDVI-Rainfall linear regression produced a R=0.192 with a negative and downwards slope. The downward character of the RESTREND slope is suggestive of non-rainfall factors contained in the residuals. In validating the RESTREND analysis, a comparative analysis between observed and predicted NDVI derived from a reference NDVI value of 0.46 was carried out. The NDVI value of 0.46, is empirically assumed to be average NDVI value expected at a minimum rainfall amount of 850mm/year reported in tropical Savanna ecosystems. Using this empirical relationship, NDVI values were predicted for Keffi. Even at higher rainfall amounts≈1340mm/year, amounts were unable to produce corresponding higher NDVI values; rather a more plausible correlation between reference-derived predicted NDVI values and rainfall was obtained. A further analysis with predicted NDVI values, based on 1999 NDVI value in Keffi returned higher NDVI units than observed NDVI values. This strengthens the attribution of the possible interference of rainfall-NDVI sensitivity by non-rainfall factors like human activities on vegetation productivity. Surface soil analysis to exclude potential impacts of soil nutrients and moisture deficiency on vegetation productivity, showed that soil had insignificant effect on vegetation dynamics. Further inferential analysis, using the inter-annual NDVI and the reclassified bi-decadal NDVI maps showed that spatial vegetation distribution in Keffi were driven by farmers inter-annual rotational cultivation footprints than rainfall variability. With a three-class categorization, “gain, loss and significant loss”, the spatial distribution of vegetation in Keffi between (1999-2008) and (2009-2018) was assessed. Temporal condition (stressed and healthy) across the three classes supports the attribution of farmers’ reactionary adaptation and cultivation practices on the dynamic spatial vegetation distribution. Between 1999 -2018, an increase in areas with significant vegetation loss (42%), so with a decrease of -25% in areas with healthy vegetation was observed. The character of vegetation cover across the two decadal time slices, reflects landuse intensity and unsustainable farming practices. Preferences for modification of cultivation practices and changes in seed by farmers exerts positive feedbacks on vegetation cover. Higher statistical measures, 38.4% (yearly cropping) and 44% (shifting cultivation with less fallow periods) were observed in the chi-square analysis. These measures were higher than 2.0% relating to shifting cultivation with more fallow periods. While 11.6% farmers noted cultural practices as reasons for preferred cultivation methods, 48.4% farmers attributed climate as reason behind cultivation modification. This was higher than 24.4% who linked issues of tenure rights to cultivation practices. With preferences for yield- breaching strategies, the non-receding cultivation and shorter fallow practices in Keffi triggers feedback on vegetation dynamics. Evidence from this study shows that the NDVI-rainfall functional sensitivity in Keffi is plausibly dampened by effects of reactionary farm-gate level adaptation practices.
This article claims that the institution of the market is structurally exploitative. It allows for exploitation, it encouragesactors to engage in it and it even pressurizes them to do so. Within Marxism, this claim is well known, but can it bedefended without strongly relying on Marxist concepts and arguments? I will answer in the affirmative and identify theforces of market competition to be a fundamental source of exploitative pressures...
El objetivo principal de este trabajo es replantear la posibilidad de realizar una síntesis entre la fenomenología de Husserl y la teoría crítica de la Escuela de Frankfurt. Para ello realizaremos una revisión crítica de los textos del primer Marcuse (1928-1933), cuyo proyecto filosófico consistió en formular una síntesis entre la ontología fenomenológica de Heidegger y el materialismo dialéctico de Marx. La tesis que defenderemos aquí es que este proyecto sigue siendo vigente, pero tomaremos como referente la fenomenología de Husserl, desde la que interpretaremos los textos de Marcuse, y no la ontología existencial de Heidegger.
El siguiente artículo quiere contribuir a realizar una reconstrucción de la vida de Herbert Marcuse, centrada principalmente en su dificultosa relación con Martin Heidegger entre los años 1927 y 1947. Apoyándose en su correspondencia inédita, que se encuentra hoy en el Archivo Marcuse de la Universidad de Frankfurt, el escrito repasa los estadios más importantes de su formación intelectual: sus primeros estudios culminados en el trabajo sobre la novela del artista alemán, el intento de realizar una lectura marxiana de Ser y tiempo, las dificultades para habilitarse bajo la tutela de Heidegger, el acercamiento al instituto de investigación social de Frankfurt, su exilio tras el auge del nazismo y la ruptura definitiva con Heidegger finalizada la Segunda Guerra Mundial.
O objetivo deste ensaio é argumentar em favor da frankfurtianidade de Jürgen Habermas, isto é, estudar os pontos de convergência de sua obra em relação ao projeto teórico do Instituto de Pesquisa Social de Frankfurt e, a partir dessa ênfase, apontar novas possibilidades de pesquisa no campo de Estudos Organizacionais (EO). Para isso, refletimos sobre aspectos teóricos essenciais do ensaio “Teoria tradicional e teoria crítica” (HORKHEIMER, 1975) e elaboramos uma crítica aos intérpretes que utilizam a cronologia geracional como principal critério para a compreensão de diferenças no movimento intelectual da Escola de Frankfurt. Metodologicamente, inspiramo-nos na proposta de crítica à interpretação por meio da hermenêutica filosófica (RICOEUR, 1990) e na natureza propositiva de interpretação de um ensaio teórico (MENEGHETTI, 2011). Para sustentar a proposição expressa de forma provocativa no título deste artigo, dialogamos com comentadores (BOTTOMORE, 2001; FREITAG, 2004; NOBRE, 2004; MELO, 2013), a fim de propor uma caracterização não geracional de seus membros e a proximidade de Habermas em relação ao marco fundador da Teoria Crítica. Nesse sentido, acreditamos que (a) a releitura da intenção emancipadora (HABERMAS, 2002), (b) a desconstrução da isenção do conhecimento científico (HABERMAS, 1987) e (c) a incorporação da filosofia da linguagem à crítica social frankfurtiana (HABERMAS, 2012) são contribuições importantes de sua obra à Teoria Crítica de Frankfurt. Como proposição para a área de EO, em nossas considerações finais argumentamos que a recolocação do autor no posto de genuíno teórico crítico da Escola de Frankfurt pode constituir uma nova agenda de pesquisa para o campo. Acreditamos que nosso esforço pode auxiliar pesquisadores da área de EO a compreender a obra de Habermas a partir de uma via que os afasta da armadilha de considerá-lo um teórico não crítico e/ou utópico. Sob esse enfoque, torna-se evidente sua produção intelectual politicamente engajada nos problemas sociais contemporâneos – dimensão que vem sendo negligenciada pelos pesquisadores do campo de EO no Brasil.
This essay reflects on the convergence between Jürgen Habermas’ work and the theoretical framework put forward by the Institute of Social Research in Frankfurt, arguing in favor of the characteristics of the Frankfurt school in Habermas and pointing out research possibilities in the field of Organizational Studies (OS). We discuss the essential theoretical aspects of the work by Horkheimer (1975) “Traditional and Critical Theory,” and produce a critique on the use of generational chronology as the main criterion for understanding the intellectual movement of the Frankfurt School. The methodology is based on the critique of the interpretation using the philosophical hermeneutics (RICOEUR, 1990) and observes the propositional nature of an interpretation offered in theoretical essays (MENEGUETTI, 2011). To support the provocative proposition of this work, we establish a dialogue with authors such as Bottomore (2001), Freitag (2004), Nobre (2004), and Melo (2013)) discussing a non-generational characterization of the Frankfurt School’s members and the proximity of Habermas in relation to the pioneer works on the Critical Theory. We believe that (i) the re-reading of the emancipatory purpose (HABERMAS, 2002); (ii) the deconstruction of the impartiality of the scientific knowledge (HABERMAS, 1987); (iii) and the incorporation of the philosophy of language into the Frankfurtian social criticism (HABERMAS, 2012) are important contributions of Habermas to the Frankfurt’s critical theory. As for a proposal for the field of organizational studies, this esseay concludes that recognizing Habermas as a Critical Theory scholar of the Frankfurt School may constitute a new research agenda for the field. The contribution of this essay lies in helping researchers in the field of Organizational Studies to understand Habermas’ work differently and not as a non-critical or utopian production. In this perspective, it is clear that Habermas’ intellectual production is politically engaged in contemporary social problems, which is a dimension neglected by the researchers of the field of Organizational Studies in Brazil.