300 Sozialwissenschaften
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (995)
- Book (929)
- Part of Periodical (400)
- Contribution to a Periodical (374)
- Review (198)
- Part of a Book (163)
- Working Paper (133)
- Doctoral Thesis (124)
- Report (81)
- Conference Proceeding (18)
Language
- German (2578)
- English (530)
- Portuguese (224)
- Spanish (76)
- Italian (27)
- French (25)
- Multiple languages (10)
- Ukrainian (9)
- slo (7)
- Turkish (5)
Keywords
- Frauenarbeit (89)
- Arbeiterin (84)
- Adorno (56)
- Soziale Lage (56)
- Sozialdemokratische Frauenbewegung (53)
- Frauenfrage (51)
- Arbeitsbedingungen (48)
- Arbeiterinnenschutz (40)
- Mutterschutz (39)
- Lohn (37)
Institute
- Gesellschaftswissenschaften (1180)
- Präsidium (465)
- Philosophie (415)
- Institut für Sozialforschung (IFS) (400)
- Institut für sozial-ökologische Forschung (ISOE) (116)
- Exzellenzcluster Die Herausbildung normativer Ordnungen (92)
- Erziehungswissenschaften (64)
- Geographie (55)
- Cornelia Goethe Centrum für Frauenstudien und die Erforschung der Geschlechterverhältnisse (CGC) (47)
- Geschichtswissenschaften (40)
China’s law to control international non-governmental organisations (INGOs) has sent shockwaves through international non-governmental organisations (NGOs), civil society and expert communities as the epitome of a worldwide trend of closing civic spaces. Since the Overseas NGO Management Law was enacted in January 2017, its implementation has seen mixed effects and diverging patterns of adaptation among Chinese party-state actors at the central and local levels and among domestic NGOs and INGOs. To capture the formal and informal dynamics underlying their mutual interactions in the longer term, this article employs a theory of institutional change inspired by Elinor Ostrom’s distinction between rules-in-form versus rules-in-use and identifies four scenarios for international civil society in China – “no change,” “restraining,” “recalibrating” and “reorienting.” Based on interviews, participant observation and Chinese policy documents and secondary literature, the respective driving forces, plausibility, likelihood and longer-term implications of each scenario are assessed. It is found that INGOs’ activities are increasingly affected by the international ambitions of the Chinese party-state, which enmeshes both domestic NGOs and INGOs as agents in its diplomatic efforts to redefine civil society participation on a global scale.
The segregation of refugees in collective accommodation centres represents an integral component of the European border regime and its complex interplay of inclusion and exclusion. The corresponding spatial, symbolic and discursive demarcations, however, are not simply implemented politically from above, but negotiated on the ground on a daily basis. One crucial group of actors in the German context are neighbourhood-based volunteers. These groups frequently accompany accommodation centres with support structures. Based on contributions in the field of critical border studies and on the example of a municipal accommodation facility in Frankfurt, Germany, this paper demonstrates how volunteers, through their practices and engagement with refugees and others, on one hand, and dominant discourses, institutions and regulations on the other, participate in the production of locally specific spaces of asylum that are marked by simultaneous and contradictory processes of bordering and debordering.
Gender stereotypes and self-characterizations in Germany and Nigeria: a cross-cultural comparison
(2021)
Studies on the content of gender stereotypes have been conducted primarily in the United States, while research in other, particularly non-Western, countries is scarce. In this research, we assessed and compared the content of gender stereotypes and self-characterizations in Germany—a Western European country—and Nigeria—a West African country. We asked 403 Germans and Nigerians to rate three target groups (either men in general, women in general, or themselves) on 74 agentic and communal characteristics. We found that Nigerian women were rated as more agentic and more communal than German women, while German men were rated as more communal than Nigerian men, but similarly on agency. On self-characterizations, Nigerian men rated themselves as more communal than German men, but again similarly on agency; Nigerian women rated themselves as more agentic and more communal than German women. Within-country comparisons showed that in Germany, men and women were perceived as similarly agentic and communal, while in Nigeria, men and women were perceived as similarly agentic, but women were perceived as more communal than men (by both others and when rating themselves). Further analysis on individual agentic and communal characteristics, however, showed important differences in stereotypes and self-characterizations of men and women in both countries that were obscured when looking at overall agency and communion. Our results show that gender stereotyping of oneself and others is complex and highlights the impact of culture on people's perceptions of gender.
»Erinnerungen aus der Kindheit kann man doch nur haben, wenn man selbst kein Kind ist« (de Velasco 2013, S. 10) – so kommentiert die 13-jährige homodiegetische Erzählerin Nini im Roman Tigermilch das Auftauchen einer ersten bewussten »richtige[n] Kindheitserinnerung« (ebd.). Angesprochen ist damit der zunächst paradox anmutende Zusammenhang von Kindsein und Erinnern. Sich selbst im umfassenderen Sinn daran zu erinnern, wie es ist, ein Kind zu sein, gehört zu den Fähigkeiten, die Kindern nicht zugesprochen werden. Die Kindheit gilt als das Lebensalter, in dem man ganz bei sich ist, in dem alles gegenwärtig und vieles möglich ist. Pläne und Perspektiven richten sich in die offene Zukunft, im Rückblick über Erinnerungen zu verfügen und sie als Teil der eigenen Biografie zu begreifen, wird selbst zum Zeichen der Differenz: ein Indiz dafür, dass die Kindheit bereits an ihr Ende gekommen ist....
Previous research has found higher levels of heatwave mortality and morbidity among urban residents with a migration background because of their social, health and environmental conditions. The purpose of the study was to investigate and compare heat induced changes in the outdoor recreation behaviours of Turkish migrants with those of non-migrants on hot days in Vienna. Specifically, the study compared coping behaviours due to heat such as inter-area, intra-area, temporal and activity displacement between migrants and non-migrants. The study interviewed 400 migrants and non-migrants in four public green spaces of different area sizes and asked about their outdoor recreation motives and activities, as well as behavioural changes, due to summer heat. Results show that migrants have different motives for visiting urban green spaces on hot days, and that they visit these less frequently on hot days compared to non-migrants. While both groups shift their outdoor uses more to shady areas and the cooler times of the day, more migrants visit green spaces in the afternoon, perform more energetic recreational activities, and use sunnier sites more frequently than non-migrants on hot days. Few migrants and non-migrants stated that they would visit alternative green spaces when it is hot. The results indicate that migrants’ behaviours result in higher heat exposure, while making less use of the opportunities larger green spaces such as forests can provide for heat relief. Recommendations on how green and city planners could reduce heat related health risks for both study groups are presented.
In ‘Justice and Natural Resources,’ Chris Armstrong offers a rich and sophisticated egalitarian theory of resource justice, according to which the benefits and burdens flowing from natural (and non-natural) resources are ideally distributed with a view to equalize people’s access to wellbeing, unless there are compelling reasons that justify departures from that egalitarian default. Armstrong discusses two such reasons: special claims from ‘improvement’ and ‘attachment.’ In this paper, I critically assess the account he gives of these potential constraints on global equality. I argue that his recognition of them has implications that Armstrong does not anticipate, and which challenge some important theses in his book. First, special claims from improvement will justify larger departures from the egalitarian default than Armstrong believes. Second, a consistent application of Armstrong’s life planfoundation for special claims from attachment implies that nation-states may move closer to justify ‘permanent sovereignty’ over the resources within their territories than what his analysis suggests.
In this paper, we discuss Armstrong’s account of attachment-based claims to natural resources, the kind of rights that follow from attachment-based claims, and the limits we should impose on such claims. We hope to clarify how and why attachment matters in the discourse on resource rights by presenting three challenges to Armstrong’s theory. First, we question the normative basis for certain attachment claims, by trying to distinguish more clearly between different kinds of attachment and other kinds of claims. Second, we highlight the need to supplement Armstrong’s account with a theory of how to weigh different attachment claims so as to establish the normative standing that different kinds of attachment claims should have. Third, we propose that sustainability must be a necessary requirement for making attachment claims to natural resources legitimate. Based on these three challenges and the solutions we propose, we argue that attachment claims are on the one hand narrower than Armstrong suggests, while on the other hand they can justify more far-reaching rights to control than Armstrong initially considers, because of the particular weight that certain attachment claims have.
The paper analyses the interrelationship between Armstrong’s egalitarian theory and his treatment of the ‘attachment theory’ of resources, which is the dominant rival theory of resources that his theory is pitched against. On Armstrong’s theory, egalitarianism operates as a default position, from which special claims would need to be justified, but he also claims to be able to incorporate ‘attachment’ into his theory. The general question explored in the paper is the extent to which ‘attachment’ claims can be ‘married’ to an egalitarian theory. The more specific argument is that a properly constrained attachment theory is more plausible than Armstrong’s egalitarian theory. Armstrong’s paper also criticizes attachment and improvement accounts as justifying permanent sovereignty over resources. This paper argues that neither of those arguments aim to justify the international doctrine of permanent sovereignty.
This paper argues that land and resource rights are often essential in overcoming colonial inequality and devaluation of indigenous populations and cultures. It thereby criticizes global welfare egalitarians that promote the abolition of national sovereignty over resources in the name of increased equality. The paper discusses two ways in which land and resource rights contribute to decolonization and the eradication of the associated inequality. First, it proposes that land and resource rights have acquired a status-conferring function for (formerly) colonized peoples so that possession of full personhood and relational equality is partially expressed through the possession of land and resource rights. Second, it suggests that successful internal decolonization depends on access to and control over land and resources, especially for indigenous peoples.
In Justice and Natural Resources: An Egalitarian Theory (2017), Chris Armstrong proposes a version of global egalitarianism that – contra the default renderings of this approach – takes individual attachment to specific resources into account. By doing this, his theory has the potential for greening global egalitarianism both in terms of procedure and scope. In terms of procedure, its broad account of attachment and its focus on individuals rather than groups connects with participatory governance and management and, ultimately, participatory democracy – an essential ingredient in the toolkit of green politics and policy-making. In terms of scope, because it does not commit itself to any particular moral framework, Armstrong’s theory leaves the door open for non-human animals to become subjects of justice, thus extending the realm of the latter beyond its traditionally anthropocentric borders. I conclude that these greenings are promising, but not trouble-free.
A reply to my critics
(2021)
It is a real pleasure to reply to so many thoughtful and probing responses to my book. In what follows, I will focus on six key themes that emerge across the various pieces. Some of them call into question core commitments of my theory, and in those cases I will try to show what might be said in its defence. Quite a number of the critics, however, present what we might call expansionist arguments: though they endorse some of the arguments I make, that is – or pick up some of its key concepts – they seek to push them in new and interesting directions. I will suggest that many of those arguments look likely to be successful, though I will also express caution about one or two of them. I doubt, however, that I will be the final judge of their success. Early on in the book I express the hope that it might provide a set of conceptual tools capable of advancing discussions about resource justice more broadly, even for scholars who reject my own idiosyncratic approach. Having made that gambit, I cannot now claim to have a monopoly on the use of the tools in question. Witnessing the use that others have already made of them has been a refreshing and rewarding experience.
This paper uses a novel account of non-ideal political action that can justify radical responses to severe climate injustice, including and especially deliberate attempts to engineer the climate system in order reflect sunlight into space and cooling the planet. In particular, it discusses the question of what those suffering from climate injustice may do in order to secure their fundamental rights and interests in the face of severe climate change impacts. Using the example of risky geoengineering strategies such as sulfate aerosol injections, I argue that peoples that are innocently subject to severely negative climate change impacts may have a special permission to engage in large-scale yet risky climate interventions to prevent them. Furthermore, this can be true even if those interventions wrongly harm innocent people.
Chris Armstrong argues that attempts at justifying special claims over natural resources generally take one of two forms: arguments from improvement and arguments from attachment. We argue that Armstrong fails to establish that the distinction between natural resources and improved resources has no normative significance. He succeeds only in showing that ‘improvers’ (whoever they may be) are not necessarily entitled to the full exchange value of the improvement. It can still be argued that the value of natural and improved resources should be distributed on different grounds, but that the value of improvements should be conceived differently.
This paper argues first that Armstrong is led to see natural resources primarily as objects of consumption. But many natural resources are better seen as objects of enjoyment, where one person’s access to a resource need not prevent others from enjoying equal access, or as objects of production, where granting control of a resource to one person may produce collateral benefits to others. Second, Armstrong’s approach to resource distribution, which requires that everyone must have equal access to welfare, conceals an ambiguity as to whether this means equal opportunity for welfare, or simply equal welfare – the underlying issue being how far individuals (or countries) should be held responsible for the use they make of the resources they are allocated. Third, when Armstrong attacks arguments that appeal to ‘improvement’ as a basis for claims to natural resources, he treats them as making comparative desert claims: if country A makes a claim to the improved resources on its territory, it must show that their comparative value accurately reflects the productive deserts of its members compared to those of countries B. But in fact, A needs only to make the much weaker claim that its members have done more than others to enhance the value of its resources. Overall, Armstrong’s welfarist approach fails to appreciate the dynamic advantages of allocating resources to those best able to use them productively.
Introduction
(2021)
Today in the United States, the notion that ‘the rise of the far right’ poses the greatest threat to democratic values, and by extension, to the nation itself, has slowly entered into common sense. The antecedent of this development is the object of our study. Explored through the prism of what we refer to as the domestication of the War on Terror, this publication adopts and updates the theoretical approach first forwarded in Policing the Crisis: Mugging, the State, the Law and Order (Hall et al. 1978). Drawing on this seminal work, a sequence of three disparate media events are explored as they unfold in the United States in mid-2015: the rise of the Trump campaign; the release of an op-ed in The New York Times warning of a rise in right-wing extremsim; and a mass shooting at a historic African American church in Charleston, South Carolina. By the end of 2015, as these disparate events converge into what we call the public face of the rise of the far right phenomenon, we subsequently turn our attention to its origins in policing and the law in the wake of the global War on Terror and the Great Recession. It is only from there, that we turn our attention to the poltical class struggle as expressed in the rise of 'populism' on the one hand, and the domestication of the War on Terror on the other, and in doing so, attempt to situate the role of the rise of the far right phenomenon within it.