Filtern
Erscheinungsjahr
- 2015 (239) (entfernen)
Dokumenttyp
Sprache
- Deutsch (156)
- Englisch (62)
- Portugiesisch (9)
- Spanisch (8)
- Italienisch (4)
Volltext vorhanden
- ja (239)
Gehört zur Bibliographie
- nein (239) (entfernen)
Schlagworte
- Islamischer Staat (34)
- IS (25)
- Terrorismus (23)
- Deutschland (14)
- Dschihadismus (13)
- Syrien (12)
- Terror (11)
- Irak (10)
- Islamismus (10)
- Salafismus (10)
Institut
- Gesellschaftswissenschaften (239) (entfernen)
La temática de nuestro artículo remite al problema de la dominación en el último libro de Axel Honneth El derecho de la libertad. Para abordar satisfactoriamente este problema consideramos necesario, previamente, reseñar cuáles son las principales afirmaciones del libro y cuál es su enfoque teórico general (1). En el libro de Honneth el tema de la dominación se asocia fuertemente a dos nociones: la de “patologías sociales y de la razón” y la de “anomia”, motivo por el cual centraremos fuertemente la atención en estas cuestiones y llevaremos adelante -y esto vale para todo el artículo- lo que metodológicamente se denomina una reconstrucción conceptual-sistemática (2). Nuestra tesis de lectura es que en el Derecho de la Libertad se echa en falta una concepción “robusta” de dominación que el autor promete en otros libros suyos –tal y como lo advertimos en nuestra investigación doctoral, aún en curso–, pero que finalmente no elabora. Entendemos que esto es una laguna conceptual significativa, sobre todo si se tiene en cuenta que se trata de una reflexión sobre la libertad que pretende inscribirse en el legado de la Teoría Crítica de Frankfurt (3).
En el presente trabajo abordo la interpretación que Axel Honneth realiza, en su libro Crítica del poder, de la propuesta de Michel Foucault. Honneth señala, a modo de crítica, la existencia de una contradicción entre lo que denomina la teoría del poder de Foucault y sus estudios históricos –en particular, los reunidos en Vigilar y Castigar–. Uno de mis objetivos es explicar esta contradicción y, a partir de ella, proponer una lectura alternativa. En contraposición a Honneth, para quien las instituciones disciplinarias que analiza Foucault terminarían desplazando la acción y la lucha social, intento mostrar –y este es el aporte que busco realizar en el trabajo a partir de una reconstrucción conceptual– que las disciplinas y por añadidura las instituciones disciplinarias deben considerarse tácticas que nunca alcanzan del todo su objetivo. Son tácticas que no logran bloquear, de manera definitiva, las expresiones de resistencia y conflictividad. Esta lectura alternativa que aquí propongo permitiría, en principio, ensayar al menos dos puntos de contacto entre Foucault y la teoría crítica que aún no han sido elucidados.
The text reframes the current debate about refugees in Germany by contrasting Germany’s recent history of racist violence and limitations of asylum laws with the resistance and agency of refugee movements across Germany. Both provide an important lens to re-examine the simultaneous heralding of „welcome culture“, a sharp rise in arson attacks on asylum centres and the current legislative roll-back of refugee rights in Germany.
This is the seventh article in our series on refugees. This article deals with the accommodation of Syrian refugees living in Germany. Based on my personal experience living in a refugee camp („Heim“) in the city of Cologne (Köln), and based on relevant literature, the article will, firstly, address the different types of temporary residences for refugees in Germany, and, secondly, the process through which refugees pass while looking for a permanent accommodation. Thirdly, and most importantly, the article discusses the ongoing shift within Köln’s urban and social structure in the light of the emerging resettlement of refugees. Although the urban structure of Köln, like many other German cities, has a certain level of urban segregation manifested in the settlement of immigrant communities (Friedrichs 1998, p.1), I argue that, on the contrary, the resettlement of Syrian refugees shows coherence and dispersion. The article is accompanied by a mapping survey that investigates on the spatial aspect of the accommodation distribution...
In this review, I argue that this textbook edited by BENNETT and CHECKEL is exceptionally valuable in at least four aspects. First, with regards to form, the editors provide a paragon of how an edited volume should look: well-connected articles "speak to" and build on each other. The contributors refer to and grapple with the theoretical framework of the editors who, in turn, give heed to the conclusions of the contributors. Second, the book is packed with examples from research practice. These are not only named but thoroughly discussed and evaluated for their methodological potential in all chapters. Third, the book aims at improving and popularizing process tracing, but does not shy away from systematically considering the potential weaknesses of the approach. Fourth, the book combines and bridges various approaches to (mostly) qualitative methods and still manages to provide abstract and easily accessible standards for making "good" process tracing. As such, it is a must-read for scholars working with qualitative methods. However, BENNETT and CHECKEL struggle with fulfilling their promise of bridging positivist and interpretive approaches, for while they do indeed take the latter into account, their general research framework remains largely unchanged by these considerations. On these grounds, I argue that, especially for scholars in the positivist camp, the book can function as a "how-to" guide for designing and implementing research. Although this may not apply equally to interpretive researchers, the book is still a treasure chest for them, providing countless conceptual clarifications and potential pitfalls of process tracing practice.
In the last few years, Myanmar has undergone a severe and unexpected change. The military-led country has been starting to open up its borders and economy, enhance citizens’ rights and, allegedly, democratize. While the EU and US were quick to celebrate the changes and lift sanctions in return, a number of questions remain: Will the changes be sustainable? Does the opening-up indicate a movement towards democracy? What were the reasons for the military to relinquish some of its power – and has it actually done so in the first place?