Search

Theorien multipler Differenzierung haben Konjunktur. Sie teilen die Annahme, die Gegenwartsgesellschaft sei durch mehr als eine Differenzierungsachse (z. B. funktionale Differenzierung oder vertikale Ungleichheit) charakterisiert. Solche Theorien thematisieren Anregungen sozialen Wandels höchst unterschiedlich. Der Beitrag unterscheidet drei Ausprägungen: (1) Anregungen als von eher historischem Interesse; (2) als inflationärer Dauerzustand; (3) als durch spezifische Modi (Kritik/Kooperation) ermöglicht. Die evolutionär-institutionalistische Perspektive Seth Abrutyns stellt demgegenüber ein Theorieangebot dar, das multiple Differenzierung auch als Ergebnis der Gestaltungsarbeit institutioneller Entrepreneure auffasst. Sie verzahnt multiple Differenzierung und Wandel unmittelbar. Dabei stellt sie die Überzeugungsarbeit solcher Wandelarchitekten in den Vordergrund und spielt Gestaltung und Evolution nicht gegeneinander aus. Abrutyns Rekonstruktion stoppt kurz vor der Gegenwartsgesellschaft. Hieran anschließend beleuchtet der Beitrag philanthropische Organisationen als zeitgenössische institutioneller Entrepreneure. Theories of multiple differentiation have been gaining momentum. They share the assumption that contemporary society is characterized by more than one axis of differentiation (e.g., functional differentiation or vertical inequality). Such theories address the instigation of social change in very different ways. The paper distinguishes three types: (1) instigating as of more historical interest; (2) disturbance as the usual case; (3) as enabled by specific modes (critique/cooperation). In contrast, Seth Abrutyn's evolutionary institutionalist perspective presents a theoretical proposition that conceives of multiple differentiation also as the result of the formative work of institutional entrepreneurs. It directly links multiple differentiation and change. In doing so, it foregrounds the persuasive work of such change architects and does not play design and evolution off against each other. Abrutyn's reconstruction ends shortly before the present society. Following this, the article sheds light on philanthropic organizations as contemporary institutional entrepreneurs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Peace of Venice (1177), which ended the nearly twenty-year-long schism between Pope Alexander III and his opponents supported by Emperor Frederick I Barbarossa, has long been the subject of controversy among scholars, who focused initially on the concrete provisions of the treaty and more recently on the symbolic acts that affirmed it. This paper uses Alexandrian sources to concentrate on peace itself as the pope's most important political goal: the biography of Alexander written by his cardinal Boso, the frescoes in the Lateran Palace painted after the victory, and other statements made by the pope himself and his supporters reveal his primary goal to be the restoration of unity and peace. This thinking may have been rooted in the Christian ethic of peace as well as in the enduring ideal of cooperation between pope and emperor. It offers an explanation for the pope's willingness to compromise in Venice, often viewed with astonishment today, expressed through the choice of location, the staging, as well as personnel and material decisions. Alexander did not aim to supercede the emperor, nor to achieve victory on specific issues in detail; instead, his goal throughout the schism seems to have been a return to peace and cooperation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Bibliothek Forschung und Praxis is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Zeitschrift für das Gesamte Genossenschaftswesen is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Fortbildungsveranstaltungen zur Dokumentation wurden vom Lehrinstitut für Dokumentation (LID) in der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Dokumentation (DGD) von 1974 bis 1991 angeboten. Themen waren u. a. die dokumentarische Methodik, Arbeitsabläufe, Dienstleistungsangebote, Produkte und neuesten Informations- und Kommunikationstechnologien sowie der Umgang mit den dadurch ausgelösten Veränderungen ggf. auch aus Leitungsperspektive. Die Strukturen, Entwicklungsphasen, Themenschwerpunkte, Kooperationen – insbesondere mit Partnereinrichtungen aus der Mediendokumentation, aber auch mit regionalen Organisationen von Informationsspezialist*innen innerhalb und außerhalb der DGD – und der Stellenwert der LID-Fortbildung im Rahmen der Qualifizierungsangebote der DGD werden in diesem Beitrag beschrieben und analysiert. Training courses on documentation were offered by the Lehrinstitut für Dokumentation (LID) in the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Dokumentation (German Society for Documentation, DGD) from 1974 to 1991. Topics included documentary methodology, work processes, service offerings, products and the latest information and communication technologies, as well as dealing with change caused by these developments, if necessary also from a management perspective. The structures, development phases, main topics, cooperations – especially with partners from media documentation, but also with regional organizations of information specialists within and outside the DGD – and the significance of LID training within the framework of the DGD's qualification lines are described and analyzed in this paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Praehistorische Zeitschrift is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Militärgeschichtliche Zeitschrift is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)