首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
相似文献
 共查询到20条相似文献,搜索用时 46 毫秒
1.
American organizational theorists have not taken up the call to apply Bourdieu’s approach in all of its richness in part because, for better or worse, evidentiary traditions render untenable the kind of sweeping analysis that makes Bourdieu’s classics compelling. Yet many of the insights found in Bourdieu are being pursued piecemeal, in distinct paradigmatic projects that explore the character of fields, the emergence of organizational habitus, and the changing forms of capital that are key to the control of modern organizations. A number of these programs build on the same sociological classics that Bourdieu built his own theory on. These share the same lineage, even if they were not directly influenced by Bourdieu.
Frank DobbinEmail:

Frank Dobbin   is Professor of Sociology at Harvard University. His The New Economic Sociology: A Reader (Princeton University Press 2004) traces modern paradigms in economic sociology to their origins in sociological classics. His Inventing Equal Opportunity, chronicling the construction of corporate anti-discrimination strategies by human resources professionals, will be published by Princeton University Press in 2008.  相似文献   

2.
This article argues that while elements of Pierre Bourdieu’s sociology are increasingly employed in American sociology, it is rare to find all three of Bourdieu’s master concepts—habitus, capital, and field—incorporated into a single study. Moreover, these concepts are seldom deployed within a relational perspective that was fundamental to Bourdieu’s thinking. The article “Bourdieu and Organizational Analysis” by Mustafa Emirbayer and Victoria Johnson is a welcomed exception, for it draws on all three of Bourdieu’s pillar concepts to propose a relational approach to the study of organizations. It both reframes existing thinking about organizations, particularly from the neo-institutional and resource dependence schools, and indicates new directions for research in organizations to move. This paper evaluates their contribution calling attention to its many strengths and suggesting a few points that need future clarification and elaboration.
David L. SwartzEmail:

David L. Swartz   is Assistant Professor of Sociology at Boston University. He is the author of Culture & Power: The Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu (University of Chicago Press 1997) and co-editor (with Vera L. Zolberg) of After Bourdieu: Influence, Critique, Elaboration (Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004). He is a Senior Editor and Book Review Editor for Theory and Society. His research interests include the study of elites and stratification, education, culture, religion, and social theory, and he is currently writing a book on the political sociology of Pierre Bourdieu.  相似文献   

3.
4.
This is a discussion of two books by Cas Wouters, Sex and Manners: Female Emancipation in the West 1890–2000 (London: Sage, 2004), and Informalization: Manners and Emotions since 1890 (Sage, forthcoming 2007, English version).
Peter N. StearnsEmail:
  相似文献   

5.
Jeffrey Alexander’s recent book on cultural sociology argues that sociologists must grant the realm of ideas autonomy to determine behavior, unencumbered by interference from instrumental or material factors. He criticizes the sociology of Pierre Bourdieu as “weak” for failing to give autonomy to culture by reducing it to self-interested behavior that immediately reflects class position. However, Alexander’s arguments seriously distort and misstate Bourdieu’s theory, which provides for the relative autonomy of culture through the concepts of habitus and field. Because habitus is a set of durable dispositions conditioned by past structures, it may contradict the changed structures of the present. Further, the influence of the habitus is always mediated by the structure and strategies of the field of contest in which it is deployed, so that the same habitus may motivate different actions in different circumstances. However, Alexander is correct to argue that in Bourdieu’s theory culture generally serves to reproduce, not contradict social structures. Yet Bourdieu addresses this and other problems in his later work, in which he argues for the existence of certain cultural universals transcending particular structures.
David GartmanEmail:
  相似文献   

6.
We study the general class of two-player public-policy contests and specify the asymmetry condition under which a more restrained government intervention that reduces the contestants’ prizes has the “perverse” effect of increasing their aggregate lobbying efforts.
Shmuel NitzanEmail:
  相似文献   

7.
The inverse plurality rule—an axiomatization   总被引:1,自引:1,他引:0  
Under the ‘inverse plurality rule’, voters specify only their least preferred alternative. Our first result establishes that this rule is the only scoring rule that satisfies the minimal veto condition (MV). We then prove that the inverse plurality rule is characterized by MV and the four well known conditions that characterize scoring rules; namely, Anonymity (A), Neutrality (N), Reinforcement (RE) and Continuity (CO). Our new characterization result is related to the characterizations of approval voting and of the widely used plurality rule. We finally show how the axiomatization of the inverse plurality rule can be extended to the axiomatization of elementary scoring rules (vote for t-alternatives scoring rules). We are indebted to two anonymous referees for their most useful comments.
Eyal Baharad (Corresponding author)Email:
Shmuel NitzanEmail:
  相似文献   

8.
Plurality rule is mostly criticized from being capable of choosing an alternative considered as worst by a strict majority. This paper considers elections in which the agenda consists of potential candidates strategically choosing whether or not to enter the election. In this context, we examine the ability of scoring rules to fulfil the Condorcet criterion. We show for the case of three potential candidates that Plurality rule is the only scoring rule that satisfies a version of the Condorcet criterion in two cases: 1) when preferences are single-peaked and, 2) when preferences are single-dipped.
Bernardo MorenoEmail:
M. Socorro Puy (Corresponding author)Email:
  相似文献   

9.
Bourdieu and organizational analysis   总被引:1,自引:0,他引:1  
Despite some promising steps in the right direction, organizational analysis has yet to exploit fully the theoretical and empirical possibilities inherent in the writings of Pierre Bourdieu. While certain concepts associated with his thought, such as field and capital, are already widely known in the organizational literature, the specific ways in which these terms are being used provide ample evidence that the full significance of his relational mode of thought has yet to be sufficiently apprehended. Moreover, the almost complete inattention to habitus, the third of Bourdieu’s major concepts, without which the concepts of field and capital (at least as he deployed them) make no sense, further attests to the misappropriation of his ideas and to the lack of appreciation of their potential usefulness. It is our aim in this paper, by contrast, to set forth a more informed and comprehensive account of what a relational – and, in particular, a Bourdieu-inspired – agenda for organizational research might look like. Accordingly, we examine the implications of his theoretical framework for interorganizational relations, as well as for organizations themselves analyzed as fields. The primary advantage of such an approach, we argue, is the central place accorded therein to the social conditions under which inter- and intraorganizational power relations are produced, reproduced, and contested. Emirbayer and Johnson are equal co-authors of this article
Mustafa Emirbayer (Corresponding author)Email:
Victoria JohnsonEmail:

Mustafa Emirbayer   is Professor of Sociology at the University of Wisconsin at Madison. He is the author of numerous articles on pragmatist sociological theory, cultural analysis, and Bourdieusian sociology, including “Pragmatism, Bourdieu, and Collective Emotions in Contentious Politics” (with Chad Goldberg, Theory and Society 2005), “Bourdieu and Social Work” (with Eva Williams, Social Service Review 2005), and “Manifesto for a Relational Sociology” (American Journal of Sociology 1997). He is currently at work on two companion volumes on race (both with Matthew Desmond): an undergraduate textbook entitled The Sociology of Racial Domination (McGraw-Hill, forthcoming) and a theoretical study entitled The Theory of Racial Domination. Victoria Johnson   is Assistant Professor of Organizational Studies at the University of Michigan. She is the author of Backstage at the Revolution: How the Royal Paris Opera Survived the End of the Old Regime, to be published in 2008 by the University of Chicago Press. She also lead-edited the interdisciplinary volume Opera and Society in Italy and France from Monteverdi to Bourdieu (Cambridge University Press 2007). Her current research focuses on mission and identity shifts in U.S. botanical gardens from the nineteenth century to the present.  相似文献   

10.
A new version of the age-old controversy between religion and science has been launched by today’s intelligent design movement. Although ostensibly concerned simply with combating Darwinism, this new creationism seeks to drive a “wedge” into the materialist view of the world, originating with the ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus and manifested in modern times by Darwin, Marx, and Freud. Intelligent design proponents thus can be seen as challenging not only natural and physical science but social science as well. In this article, we attempt to explain the long history of this controversy, stretching over millennia, and to defend science (especially social science) against the criticisms of intelligent design proponents – by defending science’s materialist roots.
Brett Clark (Corresponding author)Email:
John Bellamy FosterEmail:
Richard YorkEmail:

Brett Clark   received his Ph.D. from the University of Oregon and is the Editorial Director of Monthly Review Press. His research interests are ecology, political economy, and science. He has published articles and review essays in Theory and Society, The Sociological Quarterly, Organization & Environment, and Critical Sociology. He received the 2007 Outstanding Publication Award from the Environment and Technology Section of the American Sociological Association for a series of articles (one of which was the article “Carbon Metabolism: Global Capitalism, Climate Change, and the Biospheric Rift,” published in Theory and Society in 2005) with Richard York. John Bellamy Foster   is Professor of Sociology at the University of Oregon and editor of Monthly Review (New York). He is the author of The Theory of Monopoly Capitalism (1986); The Vulnerable Planet (1994); “Marx’s Theory of Metabolic Rift,” American Journal of Sociology (1999); Marx’s Ecology (2000); Ecology Against Capitalism (2002); Naked Imperialism (2006); and (with Paul Burkett) “Metabolism, Energy, and Entropy in Marx’s Critique of Political Economy,” Theory and Society (2006). Richard York   is Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Oregon and co-editor of the Sage journal Organization & Environment. His research focuses on human interaction with the natural environment and the philosophy, history, and sociology of science. He has published articles in American Sociological Review, Gender & Society, Rural Sociology, Social Problems, Social Science Research, Sociological Forum, The Sociological Quarterly, Theory and Society, and other scholarly journals. He has twice (2004 and 2007) received the Outstanding Publication Award from the Environment and Technology Section of the American Sociological Association.  相似文献   

11.
The current crisis of neoliberalism is calling into question the relevance of key international institutions. We analyze the origins, nature, and possible impacts of the crisis through comparing two such institutions: the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Trade Organization (WTO). Both originated in the post-World War II U.S.-led hegemonic order and were transformed as part of the transition to global neoliberalism. We show that while the IMF and the WTO have been part of the same hegemonic project, their distinct institutional features have put them on significantly different trajectories. Historical differences in the two institutions’ systems of rules have placed the IMF in a more vulnerable position than the WTO, which provides clues to the future contours of global economic governance.
Nitsan Chorev (Corresponding author)Email:
Sarah BabbEmail:

Nitsan Chorev   is Assistant Professor of Sociology at Brown University. She is the author of Remaking U.S. Trade Policy: from Protectionism to Globalization (Cornell University Press, 2007), and is now working on a book on the global politics of health. Sarah Babb   is Associate Professor of Sociology at Boston College. She is the author of Behind the Development Banks: Washington Politics, World Poverty, and the Wealth of Nations (University of Chicago Press, 2009), which explores the impact of American politics on the World Bank and regional development institutions.  相似文献   

12.
This paper analyzes nature protection by a social planner under different ‘utilitarian’ social welfare functions. For that purpose we construct an integrated model of the economy and the ecosystem with explicit consideration of nonhuman species and with competition between human and nonhuman species for land and prey biomass. We characterize and compare the efficient allocations when social welfare is anthropocentric (only consumers have positive welfare weights), when social welfare is biocentric (only nonhuman species have positive welfare weights) and when social welfare is nonanthropocentric (all species have positive welfare weights). Not surprisingly, biocentric social welfare calls for suspending all economic activities. It is more important, however, that both anthropocentrism and nonanthropocentrism make the case for nature protection through different channels, though. Our analysis suggests that one may dispense with the concept of nonanthropocentric social welfare provided that in the anthropocentric framework the consumers' intrinsic valuation of nature is properly accounted for.
Thomas Eichner (Corresponding author)Email:
Rüdiger PethigEmail:
  相似文献   

13.
Business ethics of innovation strives to give orientation in settings where new products, new markets, new environments are predominant. The provision of new products and solutions is inseparably intertwined with the consequences of their use. These can be manifold and in some cases an (unwanted) consequence might even preclude them from being used. A case in point is illustrated by an example from the pharmaceutical industry.An earlier version of this paper appeared in the Newsletter No. 49, September 2004 of the Europäische Akademie GmbH, ISSN 1432–0150.
Gerd HanekampEmail:
  相似文献   

14.
In the public sector, Canadian governments intervene frequently in labor disputes by suspending collective bargaining and curtailing legal strikes. Previous research has focused on the contours of government intervention, such as its overall effects on collective bargaining and strikes. The discussion highlights one actor, a government, restricting the behavior of another actor, a union, using legislation and policy making. As a result, we know less about more micro-level elements and implications of the process of government intervention. I address these themes using a detailed case study of the Alberta Teachers’ Association and the strikes it coordinated in 2002.
Yonatan ReshefEmail:
  相似文献   

15.
While the problem of intersubjectivity has motivated a great deal of sociological research, there has been little consideration of the relationship between intersubjectivity-sustaining practices and the physical environment in which these are enacted. The Museum of Jurassic Technology (MJT) is a strategic site for exploring this relationship. With its labyrinthine layout and bewildering exhibits, the MJT provides a natural “breaching experiment” in which concrete elements of the space disrupt normal competencies for sustaining presumptions of intersubjectivity. Using ethnographic data on visitor interaction, this article specifies two disruptive aspects of the physical environment and identifies four methods of repair on which visitors rely to reestablish presumptions of intersubjectivity. The analysis of spatially situated processes of intersubjective disruption and repair in an extreme case such as the MJT is a first step toward “emplacing” the intersubjectivity problem in more everyday settings.
Robert S. JansenEmail:

Robert S. Jansen   is a Ph.D. candidate in Sociology at the University of California, Los Angeles. His interests include culture, nationalism, social movements, and the state. He is currently completing a dissertation on populism in Latin America and has recently published an article on memory entrepreneurship in the American Journal of Sociology entitled “Resurrection and Appropriation: Reputational Trajectories, Memory Work, and the Political Use of Historical Figures” (2007).  相似文献   

16.
This paper introduces the concept of “mindsharing” as an overarching construct that encompasses the familiar clinical phenomena described by the concepts transitional objects, auxiliary ego functions, selfobject functions, intersubjective sharing, and others. The common denominator in each of these is that one person uses others psychological functions for the purposes of maintaining self-cohesion. A case is presented to illustrate some of the implications of this position.
Joseph PalomboEmail:
  相似文献   

17.
In the late twentieth century, many social scientists and other social commentators came to characterize the world as evolving into an “information society.” Central to these claims was the notion that new social uses of information, and particularly application of scientific knowledge, are transforming social life in fundamental ways. Among the supposed transformations are the rise of intellectuals in social importance, growing productivity and prosperity stemming from increasingly knowledge-based economic activity, and replacement of political conflict by authoritative, knowledge-based decision-making. We trace these ideas to their origins in the Enlightenment doctrines of Saint Simon and Comte, show that empirical support for them has never been strong, and consider the durability of their social appeal.
James B. Rule (Corresponding author)Email:
Yasemin BesenEmail:

James B. Rule   is Distinguished Affiliated Scholar at the Center for the Study of Law and Society, University of California, Berkeley. He has researched and published widely on matters relating to sociological theory and the role of information in social life. His most recent books are Theory and Progress in Social Science (Cambridge University Press, 1997), Computing in Organizations; Myth and Experience (co-authored with Debra Gimlin and Sylvia Sievers, Transaction, 2002) and Privacy in Peril (Oxford University Press, 2007). Yasemin Besen   focuses on young people in the United States in her work, which combines qualitative and quantitative methods. Her research interests include teenage labor, gender, and inequality. Her work has been published in Contexts, Berkeley Journal of Sociology, Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, NWSAJ, and Equal Opportunities International. She received her Ph.D. in Sociology from the State University of New York at Stony Brook. She is currently Assistant Professor of Sociology at Montclair State University.  相似文献   

18.
Although a central construct for sociologists, the concept of institution continues to elude clear and full specification. One reason for this lack of clarity is that about 50 years ago empirical researchers in the field of sociology turned their gaze downward, away from macro-sociological constructs in order to focus their attention on middle-range empirical projects. It took almost 20 years for the concept of the institution to work its back onto the empirical research agenda of mainstream sociologists. The new institutional project in organizational sociology led the way. Since then, scholars in this tradition have achieved a great deal but there is still much more to accomplish. Here, future directions for research are considered by reviewing how the concept of the institution has come to be treated by mainstream philosophers, sociologists of science and technology studies, and social network theorists.
John W. Mohr (Corresponding author)Email:
Roger Friedland (Corresponding author)Email:

John W. Mohr   is Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of California, Santa Barbara. He received his Ph.D. in sociology at Yale University. He has a longstanding interest in using formal network methods to analyze cultural meaning systems. Along with Roger Friedland, he is the organizer of the Cultural Turn Conference series at UCSB and the co-editor of Matters of Culture (Cambridge University Press 2004). He has published a number of articles on the formal analysis of meaning structures. His current research projects include a study of faculty change agents in higher education and the rise of nano-technology as a scientific project. This material is based [in part] upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Cooperative Agreement No. 0531184. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. Roger Friedland   is Professor of Religious Studies and Sociology at the University of California, Santa Barbara. He co-authored with Harold Zelmann The Fellowship: Frank Lloyd Wright and the Taliesin Fellowship (2006), with John Mohr Matters of Culture (2004), and authored “Money, Sex and God: The Erotic Logic of Religious Nationalism” (2002). He is currently working on politicized religion as a case of institutional politics and on the relations among religion, sexuality, and love. His latest essay is “Institution, Practice and Ontology: Towards a Religious Sociology” to appear in Ideology and Organizational Institutionalism, Research in the Sociology of Organizations.  相似文献   

19.
This is a discussion of a book by Kathryn Linn Geurts, Culture and the Senses. Bodily Ways of Knowing in an African Community, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2002; and a book by Judith Farquhar, Appetites. Food and Sex in Post-Socialist China, Durham, NC and London: Duke University Press, 2002.
Larissa BuchholzEmail:
  相似文献   

20.
How to model an institution   总被引:2,自引:0,他引:2  
Institutions are linkage mechanisms that bridge across three kinds of social divides—they link micro systems of social interaction to meso (and macro) levels of organization, they connect the symbolic with the material, and the agentic with the structural. Two key analytic principles are identified for empirical research, relationality and duality. These are linked to new research strategies for the study of institutions that draw on network analytic techniques. Two hypotheses are suggested. (1) Institutional resilience is directly correlated to the overall degree of structural linkages that bridge across domains of level, meaning, and agency. (2) Institutional change is related to over-bridging, defined as the sustained juxtaposition of multiple styles within the same institutional site. Case examples are used to test these contentions. Institutional stability is examined in the case of Indian caste systems and American academic science. Institutional change is explored in the case of the rise of the early Christian church and in the origins of rock and roll music.
John W. Mohr (Corresponding author)Email:
Harrison C. WhiteEmail:

John Mohr   is Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of California, Santa Barbara. He received his Ph.D. in sociology at Yale University. He has a longstanding interest in using formal network methods to analyze cultural meaning systems. Along with Roger Friedland he is the organizer of the Cultural Turn Conference series at UCSB and the co-editor of Matters of Culture (Cambridge University Press 2004). He has published a number of articles on the formal analysis of meaning structures. His current research projects include a study of faculty change agents in higher education and the rise of nano-technology as a scientific project. Harrison White   is Giddings Professor of Sociology at Columbia University and most recently author of Identity and Control: How social formations emerge (2008) and Markets from Networks (2002), both from Princeton University Press. He is currently working on a variety of writings around sociology of meaning, including linguistics, with special focus around uncertainty and switchings. White has published numerous articles, both field studies and mathematical analyses of business firms and market operation. He is a founder of the joint doctoral program between sociology, psychology, and the business school at Harvard University and University of Arizona, and has served on the board of directors of an urban system consulting firm.  相似文献   

设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号