scholarly journals From interacting systems to a system of divisions

2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 455-472 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcel Stoetzler

This article examines a fundamental theoretical aspect of the discourse on ‘intersectionality’ in feminist and anti-racist social theory, namely, the question whether intersecting social divisions including those of sex, gender, race, class and sexuality are interacting but independent entities with autonomous ontological bases or whether they are different dimensions of the same social system that lack separate social ontologies and constitute each other. Based on a historical reconstruction of its genesis, the article frames this as a dispute between system-theoretical and dialectical, ‘Critical Theory’-related approaches and argues that the latter better capture the dynamics of contemporary society, including the perspective of its transcendence.

2015 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 159
Author(s):  
Sermada Kelen Donatus

This essay elaborates the Critical Theory proposed by a group of German intellectuals who revived the anti-capitalist social theory of Karl Marx. They belong to what is called the “Frankfurt-School” which emphasises the contextualisation of Marx’ theory. Critical Theory emerged as a response to anti-socialist dominance in contemporary society. This essay takes up some of the ideas of Frankfurt-School members Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, Herbert Marcuse and Jürgen Habermas. Critical Theory can impact greatly on how we read present-day Indonesian society which is being destroyed by the global capitalist-system which in turn is producing social diseases like systemic corruption. Keywords: Teori Kritis, sekolah Frankfurt, Karl Marx, Horkhmeimer, Adorno, Marcuse, Habermas, relevansi teori kritis, realitas sosial Indonesia.


1992 ◽  
Vol 46 (2) ◽  
pp. 427-466 ◽  
Author(s):  
Markus Fischer

The discipline of international relations faces a new debate of fundamental significance. After the realist challenge to the pervasive idealism of the interwar years and the social scientific argument against realism in the late 1950s, it is now the turn of critical theorists to dispute the established paradigms of international politics, having been remarkably successful in several other fields of social inquiry. In essence, critical theorists claim that all social reality is subject to historical change, that a normative discourse of understandings and values entails corresponding practices, and that social theory must include interpretation and dialectical critique. In international relations, this approach particularly critiques the ahistorical, scientific, and materialist conceptions offered by neorealists. Traditional realists, by contrast, find a little more sympathy in the eyes of critical theorists because they join them in their rejection of social science and structural theory. With regard to liberal institutionalism, critical theorists are naturally sympathetic to its communitarian component while castigating its utilitarian strand as the accomplice of neorealism. Overall, the advent of critical theory will thus focus the field of international relations on its “interparadigm debate” with neorealism.


2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 21-38
Author(s):  
Per Cornell ◽  
Fredrik Fahlander

In this paper we propose an operative social theory that eliminates the need for a pre-defined regional context or spatio-temporal social entities like social system, culture, society or ethnic group. The archaeological object in a microarchaeological approach is not a closed and homogeneous social totality, but rather the structurating practices, the regulative actions operating in a field ofhumans and things. In order to address these issues more systematically, we discuss social action, materialities and the constitution of archaeological evidence. Sartre's concept of serial action implies that materialities and social agency are integrated elements in the structuration process. We suggest that such patterns of action can be partially retrieved from the fragmented material evidence studied by the archaeologist.


Author(s):  
Gerhard Fink

Three major power systems are described: The ‘inclusive' totalitarian system, the ‘non-inclusive' bureaucratic system, and the ‘exclusive' plan targeting system. The totalitarian system is aiming at controlling the whole population of a social system and based on resource exploitation. The bureaucratic system is aimed at information collection and decision making according to pre-established rules. The post-Taylor plan targeting system is aimed at determining and controlling the operative work of individual workers. As previous communist country experiences have shown, all three systems suffer from systemic constraints, that even if the three power systems are woven together, they are finally leading to the demise of a social system. Hope for change may come from moves towards cooperative management practices, as e.g. suggested by William Edwards Deming, and more complex theories with higher levels of integrity and complexity, as e.g. suggested by Steven Wallis, Foundation for the Advancement of Social Theory.


Author(s):  
Raymond Geuss ◽  
J. M. Bernstein

The term ‘critical theory’ designates the approach to the study of society developed between 1930 and 1970 by the so-called ‘Frankfurt School’. A group of theorists associated with the Institute for Social Research, the School was founded in Frankfurt, Germany in 1923. The three most important philosophers belonging to it were Max Horkheimer, Theodor Wiesengrund Adorno and Herbert Marcuse. The project was renewed by the second- and third-generation critical theorists, most notably, Jürgen Habermas and Axel Honneth. Horkheimer, Adorno and Marcuse feared that modern Western societies were turning into closed, totalitarian systems in which all individual autonomy was eliminated. In their earliest writings from the 1930s they presented this tendency towards totalitarianism as one result of the capitalist mode of production. In later accounts they give more prominence to the role of science and technology in modern society, and to the concomitant, purely ‘instrumental’, conception of reason. This conception of reason denies that there can be any such thing as inherently rational ends or goals for human action and asserts that reason is concerned exclusively with the choice of effective instruments or means for attaining arbitrary ends. ‘Critical theory’ was to be a form of resistance to contemporary society; its basic method was to be that of ‘internal’ or ‘immanent’ criticism. Every society, it was claimed, must be seen as making a tacit claim to substantive (and not merely instrumental) rationality; that is, making the claim that it allows its members to lead a good life. This claim gives critical theory a standard for criticism which is internal to the society being criticized. Critical theory demonstrates in what ways contemporary society fails to live up to its own claims. The conception of the good life to which each society makes tacit appeal in legitimizing itself will usually not be fully propositionally explicit, so any critical theory will have to begin by extracting a tacit conception of the good life from the beliefs, cultural artefacts and forms of experience present in the society in question. One of the particular difficulties confronting a critical theory of contemporary society is the disappearance of traditional substantive conceptions of the good life that could serve as a basis for internal criticism, and their replacement with the view that modern society needs no legitimation beyond simple reference to its actual efficient functioning, to its ‘instrumental’ rationality. The ideology of ‘instrumental rationality’ thus itself becomes a major target for critical theory.


Author(s):  
Raymond Geuss

The term ‘critical theory’ designates the approach to the study of society developed between 1930 and 1970 by the so-called ‘Frankfurt School’. A group of theorists associated with the Institute for Social Research, the School was founded in Frankfurt, Germany in 1923. The three most important philosophers belonging to it were Max Horkheimer, Theodor Wiesengrund Adorno and Herbert Marcuse. Horkheimer, Adorno and Marcuse feared that modern Western societies were turning into closed, totalitarian systems in which all individual autonomy was eliminated. In their earliest writings from the 1930s they presented this tendency towards totalitarianism as one result of the capitalist mode of production. In later accounts they give more prominence to the role of science and technology in modern society, and to the concomitant, purely ‘instrumental’, conception of reason. This conception of reason denies that there can be any such thing as inherently rational ends or goals for human action and asserts that reason is concerned exclusively with the choice of effective instruments or means for attaining arbitrary ends. ‘Critical theory’ was to be a form of resistance to contemporary society; its basic method was to be that of ‘internal’ or ‘immanent’ criticism. Every society, it was claimed, must be seen as making a tacit claim to substantive (and not merely instrumental) rationality; that is, making the claim that it allows its members to lead a good life. This claim gives critical theory a standard for criticism which is internal to the society being criticized. Critical theory demonstrates in what ways contemporary society fails to live up to its own claims. The conception of the good life to which each society makes tacit appeal in legitimizing itself will usually not be fully propositionally explicit, so any critical theory will have to begin by extracting a tacit conception of the good life from the beliefs, cultural artefacts and forms of experience present in the society in question. One of the particular difficulties confronting a critical theory of contemporary society is the disappearance of traditional substantive conceptions of the good life that could serve as a basis for internal criticism, and their replacement with the view that modern society needs no legitimation beyond simple reference to its actual efficient functioning, to its ‘instrumental’ rationality. The ideology of ‘instrumental rationality’ thus itself becomes a major target for critical theory.


2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (7) ◽  
pp. 24
Author(s):  
Nijolė Aukštuolytė ◽  
Aušra Stepanovienė

The article deals with compatibility of personal freedom and public security. The aim of the research is to analyse theoretical aspects of the correlation between personal freedom and public security and evaluate their assurance possibilities in the context of contemporary global migration. The article emphasizes value of freedom and security, their interconnection as well as demand and possibilities of their compatibility. Aspects of freedom as personal decision-making and freedom as realizing that decision are analyzed by revealing that extension of freedom boundaries common to contemporary society can turn into self-will with regard to other individuals or society. Such concept of freedom subsequently raises the issue of public security. The following research methods were employed: text interpretation, rational reconstructions, historical explications. On the basis of the methods, the essential ideas of the issue under discussion, its arguments and meanings within historical context were revealed. The conducted analysis allows one to make a conclusion that an individual is free in the society as much as he acknowledges others’ right for freedom whereas the society is secure if certain individual’s self-will is limited for the sake of all society members’ right to freedom. Assurance of personal freedom and public security is the goal of contemporary democratic society and different state institutions including the State Border Guard Service, and has become extremely relevant in the context of modern global migration.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document