Search

Within a historical reference frame that acknowledges the social, cultural, and political specificity of 1980s modern western societies in general, and West Germany in particular - as the context in which Habermas presented his theory of communicative action as the center-piece of his social-theoretical contribution, and in which the foundations of Honneth's recognition paradigm were laid - what are the implications of Habermas's and Honneth's departures from the concerns and the program of the members of the first generation from the vantage point of the early twenty-first century? Critical theory during the 1930s and 1940s was concerned above all with how modern societies "play" with the projection of certain values and ideals in ways that sabotage the actualization of those values and ideals, while ascribing responsibility to the failure of attempts to actualize those values and ideals to forces and groups within society, thus distracting from the fact that the very design - the constitutional logic - of modern societies - is the result of extended processes of adaptation that follow the pattern of specific mediations between mind and matter, between humanity and nature, between individual and society - which are directly related to the inability of modern societies to realize guiding values and ideals as formal qualities, without destroying the substance of those values and ideals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite the attention interpreters have been paying to how the movies of THE MATRIX TRILOGY are saturated with cultural, religious, spiritual and philosophical content, little has been said about the affinity between the movies as a media phenomenon and the history of both social theory and sociology. My thesis is that it is not possible to fully appreciate the relevance of, and the messages encoded in, the movies, without relying on diverse contributions of social theory in general, and critical theory in particular. Indeed, there is a close link between the central message the movies were meant to convey, and both the goal and purpose of critical social theory, as far as illuminating the paradox of modern society is concerned. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Identifying the perimeter of "mainstream" approaches in social theory is both a necessary precondition for effective and pertinent social research, and a possible venue for illuminating the functioning and constitutional logic of modern societies. Mainstream approaches in one regard are an impediment to analyzing society as far as the currently most important issues and the critically reflexive purpose, responsibility, and promise of each and all of the social sciences are concerned. Yet in another regard, mainstream approaches also provide access to the problematic features of particular contexts, once we "calculate," as it were, the inability of mainstream approaches, first, to recognize their limitations as manifestation of specific social conditions, and secondly, to explain the consequences of those limitations for conceiving and designing social research programs-albeit in different ways and to different degrees. Thus, in a warped manner, mainstream approaches can in fact make decisive contributions to strategies for confronting more effectively social problems, and the prospect of their solution-just not in terms of mainstream social science, but read against the grain, within the more expansive perimeter of comprehensive social science that is capable of and fully engaged in critical reflexivity at all levels-and oriented toward the kind of qualitative transformations in and of modern societies whose urgency continues to become more obvious by the day. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In terms of its logic laid out during the 1930s and 1940s, critical theory works with the results of traditional or mainstream research, on a case-by-case basis, after determining whether, how, and to what degree a specific approach advocates, relies on, and is compatible with an interdisciplinary perspective, the dialectical mode of reasoning (theoretically and/or methodologically), a non-traditionalist concept of theory and/or research, and the concept of totality. Given the necessary resources in terms of funding and time, locating approaches along a spectrum-from most mainstream to least mainstream-would be the first step. In addition, such a framework would have the advantage of making accessible both the form and the content of "mainstream": what are the formative and organizing assumptions of approaches that reject interdisciplinary collaboration, dialectic outlook, concept of totality, and critical (non-traditionalist) reflexivity with regard to how an approach is socially and historically immersed? Is there a common denominator among approaches that subscribe to, reflect, and perpetuate what, for present purposes, we might refer to as "dominant ideology." [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Schumpeter's theory of the shift from competitive capitalism to corporate capitalism provides concepts and tools uniquely suited for framing and confronting challenges posed by "globalization." These tools apply especially well with regard to the future of capitalism and modernity-and their interrelation. "Creative destruction," in particular, grounds theoretical concerns that highlight the need for openness with regard to the trajectory of socio-economic change and development. Paradoxically, industrialized societies appear to be at a stage in their development where opportunities for further progress continue to proliferate. Yet at the same time, there seem to be growing threats to the diversity of technological and organizational innovations that result both from rigidities in the prevailing constellation of business, labor, and government, and from efforts on the part of vested interests to prevent necessary structural transformations and adaptations. The combination of these rigidities and efforts may imperil the very possibility of progress. Schumpeter's theory suggests a framework for distinguishing between "path-dependency" and the "inner logic" of economic, social and political processes, respectively, that was influenced by the work of Max Weber, and which is becoming more and more important, in light of the debate about "globalization" and the "new imperialism." ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

THE MATRIX film trilogy communicates the insight into social theory needed to lure the sociologist into the subjective, cathartic experience of its symbolic content. ?Matrix? is the Latin word for ?womb, In the movie, THE MATRIX, it takes the form of an iron clad structure that molds and regulates all spheres of human life. As the story unfolds, however, the matrix is exposed as the system that must undergo radical reconstruction. At the metaphorical level, the matrix most closely resembles the media, and, insofar as the media is the site at which the film-makers envision social change, the media may well be the conceptual womb of revolution. The film-makers project the conviction that the cultural norms projected by visual media can be re-envisioned on the screen to reflect the embrace of more inclusive and rational norms by a deliberatively democratic public. The film attains the depth of focus to draw viewers into critical reflection not only on the global dimensions of socio-political conflict, but also on the entertainment industry?s politically hegemonic effect on undiscerning mass audiences. As we elaborate, the trilogy illuminates, aesthetically rational insights on social science and the normative fabric in which science as a social endeavor is embedded. Our aim is to consider how we might diminish the tension between the linguistic communication and the ocularcentrism that prevails in traditionally modern concepts of public discourse by viewing an inspiring film media that invite thought and deliberation within the public terrain of visual images. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Individuals cannot actively overcome alienation, since it is an inherently social condition at the core of modern society. Yet we may be able to take steps toward recognizing the power of alienation over our lives and existence. Since alienation first and foremost is manifest in concrete practices, relationships, and ways of thinking, altering each and all of those will be necessary first steps. As sociologists, one of our most important responsibilities may relate to our ability to conceive of, and to scrutinize rigorously, how who and what we are as individuals, inevitably, is a reflection and representation of specific, defining features of modern society-both in general and in particular. As long as individuals are oblivious to this fact, our lives-more than not-are re-enactments of practices related to values which, in the interest of social stability and integration, we must regard as our very own, but which are, in fact, imprinted onto our selves as an integral part of the process of identity-formation, well before we become conscious of our own self. The nature of the relationship between self and society is becoming increasingly problematic proportionately to the degree to which the configuration of modern society itself is becoming problematic. Compounded layers of alienation undermine our ability to recognize the intrinsic relationship between the growing potential for destruction that comes with the pursuit of prosperity. In analogy to psychoanalysis, sociology must embrace the possibility of and need for socioanalysis as one of its greatest, yet unopened treasure troves. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Marx's theory must be visualized as an attempt to provide a framework for tracking the relationship between "quantitative" (economic) and "qualitative" (political, social, and cultural) changes, as a field of tensions, or force-field, that never quite is the same at any two moments in time. Grasping this nexus requires a theoretical and cognitive framework that departs from ingrained habits and underlying patterns of "thinking"; we must presume that the most basic assumptions we inherit from earlier social scientists may be highly problematic, as they could function as unintended mechanisms to conceal the most conspicuous paradox of advanced capitalist societies--that increasing societal wealth does not translate, inevitably, into decreasing social inequality. Departing from ingrained practices is eminently difficult, as our selves are bound up with these practices to a far greater degree than educational systems are equipped to convey to students, and Marx's critiques of alienation and commodity fetishism must be viewed as addressing precisely this issue. His theory was not so much about the "objective possibility of overcoming reification" (to paraphrase Lukcs), as about the growing difficulties to overcome the effects of the capitalist mode of production as reflected in politics, culture, and society, with each successive mediation--alienation, commodity fetishism, and reification--re-patterning the thoughts, desires, and actions of subsequent generations, making it ever more difficult to conceive of adequate means for analyzing this condition. This take on Marx's theory, and its importance for analyzing today's world, has immediate implications for how to critique the thrust of sociological theory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]