Anthropologists and sociologists offer numerous critiques of bioethics. Social scientists criticize bioethicists for their arm-chair philosophizing and socially ungrounded pontificating, offering philosophical abstractions in response to particular instances of suffering, making all-encompassing universalistic claims that fail to acknowledge cultural differences, fostering individualism and neglecting the importance of families and communities, and insinuating themselves within the “belly” of biomedicine. Although numerous aspects of bioethics warrant critique and reform, all too frequently social scientists offer ungrounded, exaggerated criticisms of bioethics. Anthropological and sociological (...) critiques of bioethics are hampered by the tendency to equate bioethics with clinical ethics and moral theory in bioethics with principlist bioethics. Also, social scientists neglect the role of bioethicists in addressing organizational ethics and other “macro-social” concerns. If anthropologists and sociologists want to provide informed critiques of bioethics they need to draw upon research methods from their own fields and develop richer, more informed analyses of what bioethicists say and do in particular social settings. (shrink)

Tracing Kierkegaard's reception at the interfaces of anthropology, sociology, and psychology, this chapter focuses on his treatment in key figures such as Max Weber, Ernest Becker, Erich Fromm, Jean Baudrillard, René Girard, and Anthony Giddens. The chapter also contemplates Kierkegaard's psychosocial analysis of the relationship between the individual and society, concluding with an exploration of the insider/outsider dimensions of his critiques of modernity's despair and lived Christianity.

This volume concerns philosophical issues that arise from the practice of anthropology and sociology. The essays cover a wide range of issues, including traditional questions in the philosophy of social science as well as those specific to these disciplines. Authors attend to the historical development of the current debates and set the stage for future work.

In this article I consider the uses of the concepts ‘society’ and ‘culture’ in various sociological and anthropological traditions, arguing that sociology needs to learn from the division between social anthropology and cultural anthropology. First I distinguish the social and the cultural sciences: the former use ‘society’ as leading concept and ‘culture’ as a subordinate concept; the latter do the contrary. I discuss the origins of the terms société and Kultur in the classical French and German traditions (...) respectively, and their subsequent uptake in Anglo-American sociology and anthropology, ‘society’ becoming the leading concept for sociology and social anthropology, ‘culture’ the leading concept for cultural anthropology. I contrast the sociology of culture with the cultural anthropological consideration of society. I next examine the terms for ‘society’ in the classical German tradition, especially Weber, pointing to interpretivism as a cultural theory of society. I then consider Weber’s Kultursoziologie, arguing that it is culture (Kultur) not society (Gesellschaft) that is the ultimate object of Weber’s sociology. I conclude that sociology needs to identify classical German sociology and its derivatives as cultural science not social science, and to make comprehensive adjustments to its methodological debates accordingly. The implications of this for the problem of sociology’s encounter with the natural world are noted. (shrink)

This volume concerns philosophical issues that arise from the practice of anthropology and sociology. The essays cover a wide range of issues, including traditional questions in the philosophy of social science as well as those specific to these disciplines. Authors attend to the historical development of the current debates and set the stage for future work.

The article argues for the existence of an elective affinity between the systems theory of Niklas Luhmann and German philosophical anthropology, affinity that would bring to light a 'blind spot' of the functionalism of the equivalence that is placed in the antithesis of the so called anti humanism in Luhmann. The question asked by the German sociologist: which self-projection of man is behind the assumptions of functionalist thinking? He responded: the man as problem solver in a transcendental sense. As (...) well as in Goethe elective affinity of a 'new' theoretical content with pre-existing materials, in the case that concerns us, such pre-existing materials would have had a known address, so that the originality of Luhmann would be in a new composition of categories. The new luhmannian composition takes shape, at least in the following arguments: the distinction from man/environment to the distinction system/environment; the turn from contingency to double contingency; complexity and its reduction in German philosophy to complexity and its reduction in systems theory; from categories of self-reference and self-observation to the theory of the observer; the offset of the human and the world to the offset of society; the functionalism of the German philosophy to the functionalism of the equivalence. El artículo postula la existencia de una afinidad electiva entre la Teoría de Sistemas de Niklas Luhmann y la Antropología Filosófica Alemana , afinidad que traería a la luz un ‘punto ciego’ del funcionalismo de la equivalencia que se coloca en la antítesis del mentado antihumanismo luhmanniano. A la pregunta que el mismo sociólogo alemán se planteaba: ¿qué autoproyección del hombre está detrás de las suposiciones del pensamiento funcionalista?, se respondía: el hombre como solucionador de problemas en un sentido trascendental. Tesis antropológica central de la AFA. Así como en Goethe afinidad electiva dice de una ‘nueva composición’ teórica con materiales prexistentes, en el caso que nos ocupa, tales materiales preexistentes tendrían domicilio conocido, de modo que la originalidad de Luhmann estaría en una nueva composición de categorías de una tradición antropológica muy desarrollada en su época y país. La nueva composición luhmanniana toma forma, al menos, en los siguientes desplazamientos argumentales: de la distinción hombre/entorno a la distinción sistema/entorno; del giro a la contingencia al giro a la doble contingencia; de la complejidad y su reducción en la AFA a la complejidad y su reducción en la teoría de sistemas; de las categorías de autorreferencia y de autoobservación a la teoría del observador; del descentramiento de lo humano y del mundo al descentramiento de la sociedad; del funcionalismo de la AFA al funcionalismo de la equivalencia. (shrink)

A prominent figure in the social sciences in Brazil and Latin America, Renato Ortiz is invited in this interview to reflect on his intellectual and academic trajectory, whose (re) beginning goes back to France in the 1970s. Professor at the Campinas State University since 1988, he addresses here the main concepts and references that make up his vast work, situated at the intersections between sociology and anthropology. The conversation begins by addressing the issue of his university education and (...) insertion in the Brazilian academic field and develops through the following topics: religion and popular culture, national identity and modernity, mundialization and globalization, the market of symbolic goods and the luxury universe. Finally, he focuses on the dilemma of intellectual work in the social sciences amidst the adversities of the present. (shrink)

This book is about the making and unmaking of socio-cultural differences, seen from anthropological, sociological and philosophical perspectives. Some contributions are of a theoretical nature, such as when the problem of translation, the enigma of alienity or queer theory are addressed; other contributors throw light on contemporary issues like the integration of Muslims in Norway, identity-forming processes in Creole societies or neo-traditionalist movements and identity in Africa. Moreover, the book deals with strangers looked at from an anthropology of the (...) night. Special emphasis is placed on how globalization and the rapid spread of ever new technologies of information have generated ever new patterns of inclusion and exclusion, and how these can be theorized. (shrink)

Charles Taylor’s A Secular Age generated a great deal of attention—and has stimulated important debates—among a diverse range of scholars in sociology, history, politics, religious studies and to a lesser extent, anthropologists. Much of the debate has focused on the implications of Taylor’s work for the so-called secularisation thesis and the place of religion in the so-called public sphere. The essays in this volume arise less out of such concerns and more from Taylor’s discussion of secularism in a third, (...) ‘experiential’ sense. Each paper addresses the question of what it is like to ‘believe’ in the modern world. Among other things the authors of the essays published in this Special Issue are concerned to develop better understandings of the conditions under which belief and unbelief may be experienced as open, rather than closed, to the possibility of other ontological construals, thereby building on Taylor’s insights into the phenomenology of modern secularism. (shrink)

How do human beings become human? This question lies behind the so-called human sciences. But these disciplines are scattered among many different departments and hold up a cracked mirror to humankind. This is why, in the view of Paul Ricoeur, we need to develop a philosophical anthropology, one that has a much older history but still offers many untapped resources. This appeal to a specifically philosophical approach to questions regarding what it was to be human did not stop Ricoeur (...) from entering into dialogue with other disciplines and approaches, such as psychoanalysis, history, sociology, anthropology, linguistics and the philosophy of language, in order to offer an up-to-date reflection on what he saw as the fundamental issues. For there is clearly not a simple, single answer to the question what is it to be human? Ricoeur therefore takes up the complexity of this question in terms of the tensions he sees between the voluntary and the involuntary, acting and suffering, autonomy and vulnerability, capacity and fragility, and identity and otherness. The texts brought together in this volume provide an overall view of the development of Ricoeurs philosophical thinking on the question of what it is to be human, from his early 1939 lecture on Attention to his remarks on receiving the Kluge Prize in 2004, a few months before his death. (shrink)

In an epoch of ‘liquid modernity’, normativity assumes unforeseeable forms. Neither the theories of normative integration nor post-normative approaches can explain its contradiction: binding normativity still prevails, but its validity is limited in space and time. Only a ‘transnormative approach’ can therefore address the issue. An ideal-typical reconstruction of sociological theories as a contrast between normative and transnormative approaches allows us to appreciate the decisive contribution Simmel makes to the understanding of complex societies. A precondition is, however, to explain the (...) epistemological efforts he made to overcome axiomatic assumptions about human sociability that unconsciously guide sociological thought. To this end, Simmel develops two different nuclei of sociological and philosophical theory: sociological epistemology and philosophical anthropology of complex societies. These are analysed as a process of relationship-building in a transnormative sense. To interact, individuals are required to comply with expectations of the other. Therefore living in society always presupposes a dialectic between the public and the private person. Enquiring into this issue allows Simmel to ground a non-normative theory of social integration. As long as individuals realize their potential through social interaction, this process permits society building even though there are no shared value orientations. (shrink)

The following paper is a descriptive and retrospective study that analyses the basic elements of a methodological design in projects approved by Fondecyt in 1992 and 1999 considering the disciplines of anthropology and sociology. The analyses used four steps to create a methodological design. First, the projects selected were classified as qualitative or quantitative, according to the definition given by the own authors and looked for the arguments used by the authors for using the selected methodology. Then a (...) detailed analysis is done on how these selected projects describe and elaborate a methodological strategy, reviling or not their stringency and precision of the methodological proposals. El presente trabajo es un estudio descriptivo y retrospectivo que analiza los elementos básicos de un diseño metodológico en los proyectos aprobados por Fondecyt en los años 1992 y 1999 en dos disciplinas: antropología y sociología. Para ello se utilizó como criterio de análisis cuatro pasos para la elaboración de un diseño metodológico. Primero se definió a los proyectos como cualitativos o cuantitativos en el marco de la definición de los propios autores, buscándose también las argumentaciones dadas para el uso de una u otra metodología. Luego se realiza un análisis detallado acerca de cómo estos proyectos describen y elaboran una estrategia metodológica, develándose la rigurosidad y precisión de las propuestas metodológicas. (shrink)

This article presents the notions of ethos and eidos as field level concepts for the sociology of morality and the anthropology of ethics. This is accomplished in the context of Bourdieuan social theory and, therefore, from the broad standpoint of practice theory. In the first instance these terms are used to refer to the normative structures of social fields and are conceived so as to represent the way in which such structures fall between two planes, that of the (...) implicit and the explicit. Subsequently, they are used to further understand a distinction between morality—roughly, the implicit moral order of a social field—and ethics—the more explicit and often codified elements of a social field’s normative structure. When presented in relation to academic philosophical inquiries into the ethical issues in healthcare and the life sciences—meaning the disciplines of applied ethics in general and applied ethics in particular—the analytic perspective these terms facilitate enables us to represent the fundamental conditions required for academic enquiry; taken together the ethos and eidos of an intellectual field constitute the requisite background of its normative epistemic and methodological commitments, thereby providing the structures of disciplined intellectual practices. Seen in this light it not only becomes possible to grasp applied ethics as a socially structured practice but to understand it in terms that can also be used to frame our everyday moral practices. In this way applied ethics can be acknowledged as a relatively unique part of our contemporary moral culture. (shrink)

Caribbean sociology accords with the Du Boisan paradigm of sociology as a science. Caribbean sociology originated as an undifferentiated discipline. It is a panoply of social thought integrated with history, political science, anthropology, psychology, and philosophy. Sociology has never been a discipline sufficient unto itself. To speak of Caribbean sociology is to introduce space and place, territory, and identity as parameters of a social scientific discipline that is yet to adhere to its own boundaries (...) or adequately define itself. Caribbean countries constitute the poor West, and it is a challenge of the discipline to study a region where half of its peoples have migrated and are migrating to the global north. Caribbean sociology contributed diverse if not also original perspectives on significant humanity and is rich in the quality and sophistication of its thought. The sociology of the Caribbean is a sociology of possibilities—a sociology of solutions to the problems of underdevelopment and unfreedom. In the tradition of the scientific sociology of W. E. B. Du Bois it is a quest for social justice. (shrink)

The search for cultural sociology -- New intellectual concepts for cultural sociology -- Social sciences need for the HS paradigm -- Theory of HS and the rules of collective behavioural patterns of influence on people's behaviors -- Culture profile from a different Islamic view -- The Aql-Naql theory of human symbols and the making of cultural sociology -- HS behind human longer lifespan -- Social science illiteracy of the other underdevelopment in post-colonial societies -- The Arab Muslim (...) world set to dialogue with the West : a cultural perspective. (shrink)

In Anthropology in the Making, Laurent Vidal takes the reader into the world of research in the fields of health and development, providing a fresh and provocative perspective on the practice of anthropology. This volume investigates the "science of otherness" across four multi-disciplinary research projects in Africa, examining the practices of health workers, the behaviors of patients, and the organization and management of health systems struggling with AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. Balancing epistemological considerations with the practical concerns thrown (...) up by real-life situations, Vidal explores the researcher's choices - of method, objective, and terrain. (shrink)

This conversation attempts to critically map out the field of sociology/anthropology of religion as it is practised in select institutions of learning in India. The focus is not merely on the class...

Why, when and where are some moral systems supported and followed whilst others are condemned? Are moral values relative or universal? Can immoral actions be tolerated in times of crisis? Is the dream of becoming better sufficient for prompting virtuous behavior, or should we dream about what is best? Do moral values last? The divergence in practices and codes of moral belief and action present significant challenges but also offer opportunities to anthropologists for understanding social life. In this book, Monica (...) Heintz explores these questions, drawing on case studies from Eastern Europe that encompass migration, religion, economic and social policies and paying particular attention to the way morality works in communities undergoing rapid social change. She uses these examples to reflect on the wider question of societal conflict and change, showing how they are driven by moral values. By highlighting the centrality of such values as engines for action and questioning the limits of universal moral values, she argues that anthropology has the capacity to shed light on the study of morality and moral values generally. The Anthropology of Morality: A Dynamic and Interactionist Approach will be of interest to students and researchers in anthropology, as well as those in politics and sociology with an interest in European politics. (shrink)

Purpose. The paper considers the establishment of the paradigmatic determinants of the understanding of crime on the basis of fundamental changes in understanding of the essence of a man in ancient, medieval, Renaissance, modern and postmodern philosophy. Theoretical basis. The author determines that the understanding of the concept of crime is possible only in the combination of historical, philosophical, legal and sociological approaches. The interpretation of the essence of this concept dynamics and relevant legal practices is based on structuralist, post-structuralist (...) and hermeneutical methodological principles. Originality. The author has proved that the concept of "crime" is not a constant but a historically variable category whose dynamics of meanings is linked to a change in philosophical anthropological paradigms. Its understanding is primarily related to the interpretation of the essence of a man and the imperatives of his behavior. This allows a new understanding of the philosophical foundations of modern criminology. Conclusions. The article establishes that in the history of Western philosophy, there are five anthropological paradigms that differ in a thorough rethinking of the essence of a man. The first cosmocentric regards man as a microcosm, his soul and actions must be in harmony with the harmony of the Cosmos. The second Theocentric considers a man the image and likeness of God, though he is at the same time burdened with original sin. In the era of early Modernism, the third paradigm, which we called cognitive-centric, becomes dominant, since the essence of a man is reduced primarily to his mind. It gradually changes to the fourth – sociocentric, which focuses on the social essence of a man. However, despite its continued existence in our time, at the end of the XX century, there is a transition to the fifth paradigm – postmodernist, which deconstructs the essence of a man, reducing it to the role of an element of power systems. These paradigms, with a certain synchronicity, create the corresponding concepts of "crime": from violation of polis-space laws to identification with sin, from non-observance of mental and moral standards to social deviance. Contemporary understandings of crime are, for the most part, relativistic and constructivist, which is consistent with the postmodern anthropological paradigm. However, the diversity of interpretations of the concept of "crime" that exists in the current scientific literature needs further comprehension. (shrink)

Specification of an appropriate relationship, or division of labor, between sociology and philosophy, remains a sensitive issue. Anthony Giddens offers a distinctive variant in his concern, in structuration theory, to develop an ontology of the social without participating in epistemological debate and without articulating and justifying a normative theory (whether a philosophical anthropology or a political philosophy). Both omissions impair the wider reception of structuration theory. The second is the more serious, however, insofar as the postempiricist community of (...) inquirers may make a virtue of the ethical and political factors that inform social science, but it does not yet have any settled means of assessing different, and contesting, values; even if it did, it could not invent Giddens's position for him. There are signs that Giddens now recognizes the need to formulate and justify models of the good society and of the actualized self. (shrink)

This article argues against a leading cognitivist and moral interpretation of shame that is present in the philosophical literature. That standard view holds that shame is the felt-response to a loss of self-esteem, which is the result of negative self-assessment. I hold that shame is a heteronomous and primitive bodily affect that is perceptual rather than judgmental in nature. Shame results from the breakdown and thwarting of our desire for anonymous, unexceptional, and disattentive co-existence with others. I use the sociological (...) theory of Erving Goffman and the theory of shame found in philosophical anthropology to support this view. I also use the cases of shame and chronic shame that often accompany disability to show that shame is separable from negative self-assessment and, instead, emerges as an affective response to a world (of equipment, things, and people) that disallows unburdened and unreflective interpersonal equilibrium. (shrink)

Society is a dialectical process: men produce society, which in turn produces them. Certain Marxist categories are especially useful for the sociology of knowledge, dealing with the relation between consciousness and society. Social structure is nothing but the result of human enterprise. Alienation-rupture between producer and product-leads to a false consciousness in neglecting the productive process. Reification, historically recurrent though not anthropologically necessary, while bestowing ontological status on social roles and institutions only sees society as producing men. Certain social (...) conditions encourage de-reification. Philosophy and sociology, superstructures rooted in intersubjectivity, must co-operate in pursuing the sociology of knowledge. (shrink)

Carl Jung has always lain at the edge of sociology's consciousness, despite the existence of a long-established Freudian tradition. Yet, over the years, a small number of sociological writers have considered Jung; one or two Jungian writers have considered sociology. The range of perspectives is quite wide: Durkheim, Weber, Marx, Levi-Strauss, feminism, mass society, postmodernism. These scattered writings, however, have had little cumulative impact and inspired little debate. The authors seem often not to have known of each other, (...) while the sociological mainstream has remained unmoved or unaware. This is the situation that this book seeks to change. Jung and Sociological Theory brings together a selection of articles and excerpts in a single volume, together with some writings from anthropology, and seeks to begin the task of critical evaluation. Presented in three parts, the book covers anthropology, sociology and an appraisal of Jung and sociological theory. Gavin Walker explores the relationship between Jung and sociology, asking what the writers included here wanted from Jung, how we should locate Jung on the sociological landscape, and how this might link to anthropology. In conclusion he suggests that sociology's problem with Jung is less that he is difficult to place, than that he compels sociology to face some of its own inconsistencies and evasions. Jung and Sociological Theory will be of interest to all academics and students working in the fields of Jungian studies, analytical psychology and psychoanalysis, sociology, anthropology, feminism, comparative religion and the history of ideas. (shrink)

The first part of the article discusses the conditions under which the “school” of thought known as “philosophical anthropology” arose and the relevance today of the problems it posed, concluding with a look at the recent prevalence taken by biological research. The second part examines the conceptions advanced by its leading figures, Max Scheler, Helmuth Plessner and Arnold Gehlen, and shows how each of them contributed to a “sociologization of anthropological knowledge.” On the basis of this analysis, philosophical (...) class='Hi'>anthropology proves itself capable of making a significant contribution to an interdisciplinary understanding of the conditions of human life and to reflection on the foundations of sociological research and social theory. (shrink)

Modern sociology has set itself up as a specialised discipline dissociating itself from the broad-ranging theories of development of the early sociologists and breaking the links with economics, social anthropology and politics which had formed such an exciting unity in their works or at least in their lives.

For the first time in book format, the sociology or grace (or enchantment) is explained and explored in some detail. Grace is a central concept of theology, while the term also has a wide range of meanings in many fields. The results of this study are fascinating. The author's writings on this topic take the reader on an intriguing journey which traverses subjects ranging from theology, through the history of art, archaeology and mythology to anthropology. As such, this (...) volume will interest academics across a wide range of disciplines apart from sociology. (shrink)

The postmodern critique of Objectivism, Realism and Essentialism has somewhat shattered the foundations of anthropology, seriously questioning the legitimacy of studying others. By confronting the critique and turning it into a vital part of the anthropological debate, A Passage To Anthropology provides a rigorous discussion of central theoretical problems in anthropology that will find a readership in the social sciences and the humanities. It makes the case for a renewed and invigorated scholarly anthropology with extensive reference (...) to recent anthropological debates in Europe and the US, as well as to new developments in linguistic theory and, especially, newer American philosophy. Although the style of the work is mainly theoretical, the author illustrates the points by referring to her own fieldwork conducted in Iceland. A Passage to Anthropology will be of interest to students in anthropology, sociology and cultural studies. (shrink)

Currently, much of sociology lacks an accurate understanding of what it means to be human. Hence, as a discipline, it often finds itself erroneously searching for probabilistic social laws based on inadequate philosophical anthropologies derived from the natural sciences. This article proffers a solution by re-acknowledging an overlooked axis of ‘human nature’. By conceiving of human beings as fundamentally moral, believing creatures, I argue that more adequate explanations of social life require a hermeneutical, historical and moralistic reading. Employing this (...) alternative approach to sociological analysis, I unearth the moral groundwork under-girding the debate between Easterners and Westerners over the question of whether the Hindu caste system is exploitative. Having done so, I conclude that only a more in-depth acknowledgment and articulation of the moral sources from which we draw our beliefs can propel debaters of both Eastern and Western philosophical dispositions towards resolution. (shrink)

In this article, I criticize environmental sociology’s conventional diagnosis of its methodological situation and overly narrow definition of its field. I argue for a greater engagement with the natural science base and consideration of anthropological approaches. I start with conceptual analysis, identifying the human-environment relationship as a pro-active two-way interaction. I then present an outline of global environmental dynamics, highlighting the unequal size of human activities on geosphere and biosphere scale, and the role of the biosphere as manager of (...) the geosphere, this as context for the human population problem. Three types of environmental problems are next identified: urban-industrial, rural-agrarian, and high hazard exposure. These are seen as forming a continuum, with anthropogenic and natural factors synergizing at the centre. I comment on their geographic distribution, noting Europe’s limited and specific environmental experience. Lastly I attempt an overview without biological metaphors of the humanenvironment relationship through time, commenting on its inherent imbalances and how these might be diagnosed. I conclude that sociology’s bias to modernity and the West renders it inadequate to the global environmental question. A wider and deeper spacio-temporal consideration is needed, with the whole continuum of environmental problems considered. For this, environmental sociology should seek a synthesis with cultural anthropology centring on the anthropological concept of culture, an approach, I argue, that is accessible through the sociology of Max Weber. (shrink)

Naked Science is about contested domains and includes different science cultures: physics, molecular biology, primatology, immunology, ecology, medical environmental, mathematical and navigational domains. While the volume rests on the assumption that science is not autonomous, the book is distinguished by its global perspective. Examining knowledge systems within a planetary frame forces thinking about boundaries that silence or affect knowledge-building. Consideration of ethnoscience and technoscience research within a common framework is overdue for raising questions about deeply held beliefs and assumptions we (...) all carry about scientific knowledge. We need a perspective on how to regard different science traditions because public controversies should not be about a glorified science or a despicable science. Contributors are: Ward Goodenough, Eloisa and Brent Berlin, Colin Scott, Jean Lave, Emily Martin, Troy Duster, Hugh Gusterson, Charles Schwartz, Joan Fujimura, Sharon Traweek, Estellie Smith, Ellen Bielawaski, David Jacobon, Charles Ziegler, Pamela Asquith. (shrink)

I soon discovered that I was quite isolated in my attempts to pursue the sociology of literature. In any case, one searched almost in vain for allies if one wanted to approach a literary text from the perspective of a critical theory of society. To be sure, there were Franz Mehring’s articles which I read with interest and profit; but despite the admirable decency and the uncompromising political radicalism of the author, his writings hardly went beyond the limits of (...) a socialist journalist who wrote in essentially the same style about literature as about political and the economy. George Lukács had not yet published his impressive series of essays on Marxist aesthetics and interpretation of literature. Of course, I was deeply touched and influenced by his fine little book, The Theory of the Novel , which I practically learned by heart. Besides Levin Schücking’s small volume on the sociology of literary taste, the only other major influence I can recall was George Brandes’ monumental work on the literary currents of the nineteenth century.Nonetheless, I had the courage, not to say hubris, to plan an ambitious, socially critical series on French, English, Spanish, and German literature, the beginning of which was to be formed by the above-mentioned studies. My attention was especially focused on the writes and literary schools which the German literary establishment either punished by total silence or raised up into the clouds of idealistic babble or relegated to quasi-folkloric anthropology .In these studies, I limited myself to the narrative forms of literature; for reasons which I hold to be sociologically and artistically valid, I believe that novels and stories represent the most significant aspect of German literature in the nineteenth century. While I in no way feel ashamed of these documents of my youth, I am conscious of their weaknesses. If I were to write them over again, I would certainly be less sure of some of the direct connections I drew between literature and writers on the one hand, and the social infrastructure on the other. In later publications I attempted to analyze with greater circumspection the mediation between substructure and superstructure, between social currents and ideologies; but my views on the social world and the necessity to combine social theory and literary analysis have not changed in any essential way. In the last decades the sociology of literature has become progressively more fashionable. The writings of my contemporaries have often amazed me because some—frequently in unnecessarily complicated and esoteric language—are so concerned with “mediation” that the connections between social being and social consciousness became almost obscured. Leo Lowenthal is professor emeritus of sociology at the University of California, Berkeley. He is also professor emeritus at the University of Frankfurt in West Germany. His collected works have been published in five volumes in German and in a parallel English edition. Lowenthal’s autobiographical writings, edited by Martin jay, will appear in the fall of 1987 under the title An Unmastered Past. Lowenthal’s present studies deal with German postmodernism. Ted. R. Weeks is a graduate student at the University of California, Berkeley, specializing in imperial Russian history. (shrink)

The article takes up J. P. Arnason's basic theoretical assumption that the western trajectory to modernity marks only one possibility of the modern constellation and that modernity has to be pluralized. Arnason's differentiation between a civilizational paradigm and a civilizational horizon allows us to acknowledge the ambivalent perceptions of modernity prevalent in the colonial and postcolonial encounter and gives space for counter-paradigms of modernity. Through a brief discussion of Indian reflections on modernity (P. Chatterjee, J. Alam) I want to argue (...) that the aspect of agency, marginalized in the philosophical and sociological debate on multiple modernities, has to be integrated into the theory. Examples from the Indian Himalayas should show how in everyday life as well as in the course of a social movement for regional autonomy `preferred futures' are negotiated on the basis of a reflexive balancing of `traditional' and `modern' elements which are articulated and joined in a self-made present. The article ends with a plaidoyer for an anthropology of modernity. (shrink)

Like some other human sciences, sociology has had a recurrent concern to clarify the ambivalent relationship between its professional accounts of social reality on the one hand and lay understandings of social reality on the other. Sociological ethnographers have claimed to accomplish this clarification by including in their accounts both direct representation and responsive interpretation of the vernacular voice of those human subjects whose actions and understandings comprise the focus of their inquiries. I briefly examine some of the practical (...) and textual strategies by which studies have accomplished this. I go on to note that the authenticity of ethnographic work has itself become a matter of dispute on the grounds of the ineradicable asymmetry between the professional voice of the researcher and the vernacular voice of research subjects. Drawing on work in literary theory, anthropology and feminist scholarship, a favoured solution to this problem has argued for the necessity of acknowledging the essentially dialogical character of the relationship between researchers and subjects and also of finding ways to make ethnographic texts reflect this character. This article draws attention to an alternative set of professional practices that prefer ‘co-construction’ to ‘dialogue’ as a term of art. Its use encourages and facilitates the close and detailed examination of the multiple ways in which subjects already speak of and for themselves and others within the local sites of their real-world activities. Studies of these matters accord the vernacular voice of human subjects renewed significance for sociological investigation as part of a radical ‘respecification’ of prior understandings of the proper relationship between vernacular and professional accounts of social reality. The article assesses the upshot of these claims for the current practice and future prospects of sociology as one of the human sciences. (shrink)

Debating Humanity explores sociological and philosophical efforts to delineate key features of humanity that identify us as members of the human species. After challenging the normative contradictions of contemporary posthumanism, this book goes back to the foundational debate on humanism between Jean-Paul Sartre and Martin Heidegger in the 1940s and then re-assesses the implicit and explicit anthropological arguments put forward by seven leading postwar theorists: self-transcendence, adaptation, responsibility, language, strong evaluations, reflexivity and reproduction of life. Genuinely interdisciplinary and boldly argued, (...) Daniel Chernilo has crafted a novel philosophical sociology that defends a universalistic principle of humanity as vital to any adequate understanding of social life. (shrink)

This volume explores the anthropology of knowledge. Inspired by eminent scholar Marilyn Strathern, leading anthropologists explore key theoretical themes of subjectivity, ethics and gender through global ethnographies.

The method chosen here draws on concepts borrowed from sociology and anthropology. This double conceptual approach is necessary for a society divided between values inherited from medieval Christianity and precapitalist practices. Seventeenth-century France did not think of itself as a class society but as a society of orders. Since sociology is a system of knowledge whose concepts are taken from an imaginary construct, it is thus more suited to analyzing bourgeois society than societies in transition.6 In trying (...) to measure the past with the aid of tools forged in and for contemporary societies, the sociologist runs the risk of only measuring an artifact, produced by his theories in the field of history. Hence the need for the anthropological concepts, including the notion of exchange, among others, whether material , symbolic , or sexual .This approach will bring to light the contradictions underlying the society of the ancient régime. Whereas an ordinary sociohistorical approach views the reign of Louis XIV as unified under a dogmatic classicism, the socioanthropological approach stresses the tensions and oppositions running through this society. Classicism appears then as a façade covering up the change that it cannot imagine. This “spectacle”7 makes it possible to unite contradictory social practices, both those produced by consumption and which originate in the medieval economy and those belonging to the early accumulation of capital which sketch future bourgeois economic practices. 6. See Cornelius Catoriadis, The Imaginary Institution of Society, trans. Kathleen Blamey .7. See Guy Debord, Society of the Spectacle, rev. English ed. . Jean-Marie Apostolidès is professor of French literature at Stanford University. His publications include Le roi-machine, Les metamorphoses de Tintin, and Le prince sacrifié. Alice Musick McLean, a Ph.D. student at the University of Chicago, is specializing in medieval narrative and the literature of the fantastic. (shrink)

The Rhodes‐Livingstone Institute , founded in Northern Rhodesia in 1937, was the first social science research institute in Africa. This book is a history of the RLI from its earliest beginnings with emphasis on the years up to 1960. The author, who identifies herself as a historian, supplemented her archival research with periods of fieldwork mainly devoted to oral history but including shorter spells of anthropological participant observation in association with African assistants employed by the institute. She is therefore well (...) equipped to comment on the activities of the RLI, which consisted principally of field research in social anthropology and sociology.She organizes her data in terms of “field generations,” cohorts of researchers who, although they worked alone or with one assistant at their field sites, nevertheless developed a collective identity through visits to each others' sites and through participation in seminars and conferences arranged by the successive RLI directors. Many published histories of research institutions focus on theoretical assumptions, but Lyn Schumaker instead looks more at the methods and practices of field research. Indeed, she tends to treat the divisions between theory and practice, and between theoretical and applied research, as unproblematic, while successfully avoiding any naïve positivism. She demonstrates her expertise as a historian by providing abundant details of the diversity of conflicting interests that influenced the choice of topics for investigation and of the modes of collecting data in the field. With over seven hundred footnotes, fifty interviews, and more than three hundred bibliographic items, the book serves anthropologists well.The book's title indicates its main theme. The institute started in a colonial environment in which white anthropologists who had trained in Britain, the United States, and South Africa carried out anthropological research, mainly in rural areas, using African assistants as interpreters and language teachers. Over the years more of the inquiries were made in towns than in villages, with teams of African assistants working more and more autonomously. During the same time, the colonial regime was replaced after bitter struggle by indigenous political independence. The first Zambian director was appointed in 1973, by which time the institute's research had shifted from anthropology and sociology to psychology.Schumaker uses the concept of “work culture” to explore the significance of the pattern of daily activity of researchers and assistants, thus exposing data usually neglected in anthropological monographs. She draws attention to the vigorous collective interaction that distinguished the RLI from many other research organizations: the RLI, for example, depended significantly for its success on its symbiotic link with Manchester University, where Max Gluckman, its director from 1941 to 1947, became Foundation Professor of Anthropology. Schumaker is, however, careful to point out that her book is not a history of the Manchester department, whose activities extended far beyond the RLI.The author sometimes ranges widely to relate aspects of the RLI story to topics in the literature on the history of science. For instance, she links the problems faced by Elizabeth Colson, the only female RLI director, to wider discussions of the impact of gender on professional careers. Likewise, she discusses the frequently made claim that anthropology was the “handmaid of colonialism.” Her book supplies more than ample ammunition to refute this claim and gives us an impressive and well‐documented account of how a social science research institute operated in a colonial society undergoing radical transformation. (shrink)

The aim of this article is to question the nature of the socio-anthropological approach in Lefort’s thought. The author explores the complex relationship between Lefort and the Durkheimian French school of sociology in four stages: in the first, he shows Lefort as a sociologist ‘worthy of its name’ or, in other words, a sociologist interested in questioning the ‘institution of the social’. In the second, he focuses on the disturbing elements that Lefort introduces: the political and the division into (...) the French sociological approach. In the third stage, he focuses his attention on the sociological approach in Lefort’s way of thinking about democratic society. Finally, he concludes by referring to Lefort’s apparent opposition between philosophy and social sciences – and the errors that this may have engendered – in order to demonstrate the continuity of Lefort’s sociological approach. (shrink)

Doubt, Conflict, Mediation is an interdisciplinary examination and reassessment of standard assumptions in social theory about modern time. Rethinks capitalist and neo-liberal conceptions of time from both a sociological and anthropological perspective Blends innovative and rich ethnographic studies from around the world with clear theoretical approaches Examines the timescapes of a variety of institutions and social movements, such as biotech laboratories, civic organizations, planning offices, global sea-trade, urban squatting, and state bureaucracies.