41 research outputs found

    On subjects, informants, audiences, and encounters: contributions to reflexivity from engaged and detached forms of social research

    Get PDF
    This is a commentary on the three other papers included in the symposium "Paving the Paths Towards Reflexive Social Research".info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

    The privilege to select in an unequal research system

    Get PDF

    Die netten Nationalisten von nebenan: Rezension zu "Le vote FN au village: Trajectoires de ménages populaires du périurbain" von Violaine Girard

    Get PDF
    Violaine Girard: Le vote FN au village: Trajectoires de ménages populaires du périurbain. Paris: Editions du Croquant 2017. 978-2-36512-110-

    Online-appendices to the volume: Wiebke Keim (2017): Universally comprehensible, arrogantly local. South African labour studies from the apartheid era into the new millennium. Paris: Editions des Archives Contemporaines

    Get PDF
    This document contains the online-apendices to the volume Wiebke Keim (2017): Universally comprehensible, arrogantly local. South African labour studies from the apartheid era into the new millennium. Paris: Editions des Archives Contemporaines. The appendices include the complete empirical data that are analysed and indexed in the book

    What are the Criteria for Truth in Globalized Sociology? A Critical Appraisal of Go’s Southern Standpoint Approach

    Get PDF
    Starting from fundamental acknowledgment of Julian Go’s core argument that scientific pluralism permits multiple objectivities, my comment first includes a complementary argument: to complement Go’s standpoint approach, I suggest not an analytical but a practical strategy towards alternative approaches in sociology. Second, I put forth a few minor criticisms. And third, I formulate two more fundamental questions that go beyond Go’s text: in international scholarly debate, what criteria do we have at hand to differentiate between knowledges and to dismiss those we consider false? Furthermore, what is the relationship between different standpoints and different theories

    Ibn Khaldun in early German-language sociological theory

    No full text
    In the course of recent debates, Ibn Khaldun has been (re-)claimed not as a precursor, but as one of the “founding fathers” of sociology. This entails the suspicion that Ibn Khaldun’s legacy, especially his Muqaddima as an important reference in the foundational phase of modern European sociology, has been sidelined in the construction of the sociological canon and thus remains an unacknowledged source today. This paper presents a historical case of South-North reception of sociological theory. A systematic assessment of the reception of Ibn Khaldun in early German-language sociology reveals that while his acknowledgment was quantitatively rather low, it was indeed qualitatively interesting. In particular, two important early sociologists, Ludwig Gumplowicz and Franz Oppenheimer, mobilized references to his Muqadimma in the context of their “sociological theory of the state.” They discovered the fundamental theoretical convergence between their approach and the early Arab scholar. Against the ahistorical philosophical idea of the state and the non-historical juridical idea of the state, both authors defended the sociological idea of the state. It is the conquest of one tribe over another with the aim of economic exploitation through political subjugation that gives rise to the state. Here, Ibn Khaldun appeared as a particularly reliable reference. His reception in the works of Gumplowicz and Oppenheimer also sheds a different light on the much-voiced refusal of imported social theory as being irrelevant.Au cours de dĂ©bats rĂ©cents, des voix se sont Ă©levĂ©es pour reconnaĂźtre Ibn Khaldoun non pas comme un prĂ©curseur, mais comme l’un des « pĂšres fondateurs » de la sociologie. Cela laisse entendre Ă  quel point l’hĂ©ritage d’Ibn Khaldoun, en particulier sa Muqaddima en tant que rĂ©fĂ©rence importante dans la phase fondatrice de la sociologie europĂ©enne moderne, aurait Ă©tĂ© mis de cĂŽtĂ© avec la construction du canon sociologique et resterait donc aujourd’hui une source non reconnue. Cet article prĂ©sente un cas historique de rĂ©ception Sud-Nord de la thĂ©orie sociologique. Une Ă©valuation systĂ©matique de la rĂ©ception d’Ibn Khaldoun dans les dĂ©buts de la sociologie germanophone rĂ©vĂšle que si sa reconnaissance Ă©tait quantitativement plutĂŽt faible, elle Ă©tait en revanche qualitativement intĂ©ressante. En particulier, deux importants sociologues de la premiĂšre heure, Ludwig Gumplowicz et Franz Oppenheimer, ont mobilisĂ© des rĂ©fĂ©rences Ă  sa Muqadimma dans le contexte de leur « thĂ©orie sociologique de l’État ». Ils ont dĂ©couvert la convergence thĂ©orique fondamentale entre leur approche et celle de ce savant arabe. Contre l’idĂ©e philosophique ahistorique de l’État et contre l’idĂ©e juridique non historique de l’État, les deux auteurs ont dĂ©fendu l’idĂ©e sociologique de l’État. C’est la conquĂȘte d’une tribu sur une autre dans le but d’une exploitation Ă©conomique par la soumission politique qui donne naissance Ă  l’État. Sur ce point, Ibn Khaldoun apparaissait comme une rĂ©fĂ©rence particuliĂšrement fiable. Sa rĂ©ception dans les travaux de Gumplowicz et d’Oppenheimer apporte Ă©galement un Ă©clairage diffĂ©rent sur le refus trĂšs remarquĂ© de thĂ©ories sociales importĂ©es, considĂ©rĂ©es comme non pertinentes

    Émile Durkheims Programm einer wissenschaftlichen Soziologie in Deutschland

    No full text
    International audienceDieser Beitrag soll der Frage nachgehen, wie das Programm einer wissenschaftlichen Soziologie, das Durkheim in seinen Regeln der soziologischen Methode prĂ€sentiert, in Deutschland aufgenommen wurde. WĂ€hrend die Durkheim-Rezeptionen andernorts etwa anlĂ€sslich des JahrhundertjubilĂ€ums der Regeln untersucht wurden (vgl. dazu fĂŒr Frankreich: Berthelot 1995; Borlandi/Mucchielli 1995; Cuin 1997; fĂŒr England Platt 1995; und fĂŒr Russland Gofman 1996, 1997), fehlt unseres Wissens bisher eine historisch-systematische Untersuchung des Rezeptionsprozesses seines programmatisch-methodologischen Hauptwerks in Deutschland. Dieser WissenslĂŒcke sucht dieser Beitrag abzuhelfen – in Konzentration also auf das ‚Manifest‘, wĂ€hrend die anderen Hauptwerke Durkheims hier unberĂŒcksichtigt bleiben
    corecore