DOCSLIB.ORG

Introduction: Anthony Giddens – Social Theory and Politics

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Introduction: Anthony Giddens – Social Theory and Politics Notes Introduction: Anthony Giddens – Social Theory and Politics 1. To clarify, ‘his Third Way’ refers to the cluster of texts forming his political project, whilst The Third Way denotes the specific book (1998a). 2. A close relationship has been pointed out between Giddens and Weber’s class analysis (Weber, 1947; Loyal, 2003: 98). 3. Giddens’ adversarial stance towards Foucault is especially clear in The Trans- formation of Intimacy (1992). As I note subsequently, this adversarialism is unfortunate, as synergies between these two authors are in fact feasible, with promising scope. 4. For a systematic contrast between Giddens’, Beck’s and Bauman’s analyses of late modernity, see Dawson (2013) and Archer (2014). 5. Finlayson (2003) opts for an even broader perspective, considering also cultural influences. 6. Loyal (2003) is a key exception: he notes that an integrated reading of Giddens can yield new insights because his work as a whole represents at some level a comprehensive project. However, his analysis focuses largely on Giddens’ earlier work, exposing a continuous struggle to sociologically accommodate liberal values. Loyal’s focus on Giddens’ attempt to balance various standpoints and traditions to uphold a certain set of values reveals some important points, but ultimately says more about those traditions than about the political relevance and utility of Giddens. Indeed, his book con- cludes with hardly any points on utility, and is as such relevant mainly to theoretical rather than practical concerns. 7. A notable exception to this is Leggett (2005, 2009), who endeavours a recon- struction of New Labour, based in part on Giddens. But whilst this signals acknowledgement of multiple political paths from Giddens’ work, critical engagement centres on his Third Way, whilst his pre-Third Way work is generally taken at face value. 8. This phrase originally stems from Beck (1992: 93). As I note at various points in this book, his assessment of individualization is similar to Giddens in many ways, and this phrase succinctly encapsulates the implications of their observed social transformations for the constitution of the self. 9. I hope this brief definition will avoid any confusion when I use this term. Varela (2007) is among the few authors who use it. It is slightly more com- mon in German, for instance, in Kiessling’s Kritik der Giddenschen Sozialtheorie (1988). These two authors use the term differently from me and indeed from each other. 10. Giddens notes that establishing a dialogue and becoming able to influ- ence high-level political movements and decisions is a challenge many have underestimated, including himself: a robust analysis with fit- ting political implications and conclusions is unlikely to gather much 173 174 Notes support – highlighting issues that already have visible salience and iden- tifying agents willing and capable of addressing them are additional and essential tactical elements of such endeavours, as are translation from schol- arly language into salient and politically digestible messages, as well as sufficient networking (Giddens, 2007c). 1 Critical Foundations – Structuration and System Transformation 1. Similar points are also made by Gregson (1997) and Urry (1997). 2. Bryant and Jary’s (1997) four volumes of Critical Assessments provide an excellent collection, but for an impressively concise summary of criticisms, see Mestrovic (1998). 3. At one point, he even implies mortality as a source of structural constraint, an indication of just how wide the definition of ‘rules’ might be (1984: 175). 4. This shows an important separation between constraint and domination on the part of Giddens, where the two are nevertheless still part of the same framework. 5. It is therefore not by chance that structuration theory has been used success- fully for research in areas such as management and policymaking, and less on subject matters where social conditions are such that individual scope for transformation intuitively seems more limited. 6. Lockwood’s (1964) distinction between social and system integration poten- tially presents an alternative way of understanding simultaneous presence of enabling and constraining aspects of structure. However, in Giddens’ analysis, this distinction is not evident: constraining and enabling features can derive from one and the same structural property. For a discussion on Lockwood and Giddens, see Mouzelis (1997). 7. This approach to critical theory is not unique to Giddens: O’Kane notes that others have referred to ...the miutic approach [to critical theory], which aims to engender the realization of emerging tendencies towards the good life. (O’Kane, 2009: 5) 8. Nevertheless, he notes that he still finds the concept of utopian realism important in some of his most recent contributions (Giddens, 2005, 2009). 9. There is the additional issue here that subjectivity already enters into play when the researcher chooses which aspects of social life to study in the first place. The point is not to ignore the implications of the researcher’s subjec- tivity and situatedness altogether but to mediate it as far as possible within these parameters. 10. I do not infer here that Giddens’ approach necessarily leads to moderation of political views. The given example could just as easily be the other way around. 11. There have in recent years been claims about a ‘crisis of sociology’, owing in part to a lack of coherence between these different aspects of the discipline (Lopreato and Crippen, 2002). Giddens’ ontology of critique may well present a helpful perspective in this context. Notes 175 2 Utopian Realism – Late Modernity Revisited 1. Giddens does not give an exact timeframe for when late modernity is sup- posed to have begun, until 2003, when he notes as a starting point the ‘marriage of satellite and information technology that dates from the early 1970s’ (2003: 24). However, in Beyond Left and Right, he notes that many of the processes he talks about have taken place ‘over no more than the past four or five decades’ (1994: 4). McCullen and Harris (2004) note that ‘the year of the first satellite TV broadcast [is] sometimes identified as a water- shed’ (ibid: 48–9), although they give no reference for this. We may thus infer that the supposed beginnings of late modernity can be placed roughly in the 1950s at the very earliest but likely somewhat later. 2. Expressed amongst others by O’Boyle (2013). 3. For a similar synopsis of Giddens’ late modernity thesis, see Leggett (2005: 16–17). I note the point of caution around attributing a linear character to Giddens’ perspective, as Leggett and others have a tendency to do so, when Giddens’ work, in fact, contains little ground for such inference (Anderson, 1995). In my view, this in itself has not resulted in any problematic conclu- sions about Giddens, yet it is worth keeping in mind that his late modernity thesis is, for lack of a better word, messier than the linearity inferred by others suggests. 4. Whilst time and space are previously discussed abstractly, Giddens now contextualizes them, explaining how they have become standardized and conceptually altered, citing concrete examples such as clocks, time-zones and maps (Giddens, 1990: 17–21). For the first time in Giddens’ work, the reader is therefore given an understanding of how time and space are to be understood, how these elements must be viewed specifically in the present age and thereby affect the agent’s perception of the social world, thus shaping the sociological character of our time. 5. Not least because the rise of science and especially literacy provides means by which to counter long-established norms and claims around sexuality and intimacy propagated most notably by religious faith. Giddens, of course, stands in considerable contrast here to Foucault (1976), who attributes a more damaging role to science in relation to sexuality. Yet, it is worth not- ing that the two positions are not mutually exclusive: whilst science can be a tool to classify and standardize sexuality, it can likewise be the vehicle through which formally constraining norms in this domain are overcome. The two authors each make salient points in their own right, and Giddens’ structuration theory can provide us with a rationale where the two are not contradictory. Scientific knowledge can be viewed as a structural feature of modern societies, which has been drawn on to both positive and destructive effect in relation to sexuality and intimacy. 6. It has been argued that Giddens’ reading of Foucault is poor in this respect. For a more detailed account of what some critics may indeed term ‘misrepresentation’, see Boyne (1997). However, although the charges of misrepresentation are significant, they do not matter for the point here: whether he is misrepresenting Foucault or not, it is evident that he is design- ing his theory explicitly in opposition to a structure-centred theoretical approach. This misrepresentation of Foucault is unfortunate nevertheless: as 176 Notes I noted in Chapter 1, structuration theory is in fact capable of accommodat- ing a Foucauldian dimension, and, as noted earlier, Giddens’ and Foucault’s positions are not as adversarial as they may at first seem. More broadly, in my view the two figures could be combined to fruitful effects, in a framework that might, for instance, respectively expose and then connect enabling and disempowering facets of discourse, information and social reality. This, however, would be the topic of a separate book altogether. 7. For further discussion
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Global Political Ecology
    Global Political Ecology The world is caught in the mesh of a series of environmental crises. So far attempts at resolving the deep basis of these have been superficial and disorganized. Global Political Ecology links the political economy of global capitalism with the political ecology of a series of environmental disasters and failed attempts at environmental policies. This critical volume draws together contributions from 25 leading intellectuals in the field. It begins with an introductory chapter that introduces the readers to political ecology and summarises the book’s main findings. The following seven sections cover topics on the political ecology of war and the disaster state; fuelling capitalism: energy scarcity and abundance; global governance of health, bodies, and genomics; the contradictions of global food; capital’s marginal product: effluents, waste, and garbage; water as a commodity, human right, and power; the functions and dysfunctions of the global green economy; political ecology of the global climate; and carbon emissions. This book contains accounts of the main currents of thought in each area that bring the topics completely up-to-date. The individual chapters contain a theoretical introduction linking in with the main themes of political ecology, as well as empirical information and case material. Global Political Ecology serves as a valuable reference for students interested in political ecology, environmental justice, and geography. Richard Peet holds degrees from the London School of Economics (BSc (Econ)), the University of British Columbia (MA), and the University of California, Berkeley (PhD). He is currently Professor of Geography at Clark University, Worcester, MA. His interests are development, global policy regimes, power, theory and philosophy, political ecology, and the causes of financial crises.
    [Show full text]
  • Beck's Risk Society and Giddens' Search for Ontological Security: a Comparative Analysis Between the Anthroposophical Society and the Assemblies of God
    Volume 15, Number 1 27 Beck's Risk Society and Giddens' Search for Ontological Security: A Comparative Analysis Between the Anthroposophical Society and the Assemblies of God Alphia Possamai-Inesedy University of Western Sydney There is a contention by social theorists such as Beck, Giddens, Bauman and Lash that contemporary Western society is in a transitional period in which risks have proliferated as an outcome of modernisation. In accordance with these changes individuals' sense ofselfhood have moved toward being more sensitive as to what they define as risks, such as threats to their health, as economic security or emotional wellbeing than they were in previous eras. Living in such a world can lead individuals to what Giddens would term ontological insecurity. Obsessive exaggeration of risks to personal existence, extreme introspection and moral vacuity are characteristics of the ontologically insecure individual. The opposite condition, ontological security, when achieved, leaves the individual with a sense of continuity and stability, which enables him or her to cope effectively with risk situations, personal tensions and anxiety. This emergent field of study in sociology has nevertheless poorly addressed religious issues; as if these social researchers have omitted parts of the religious aspects ofcontemporary society. This article attempts to fill this lacuna and explores the notion of risk society and ontological security with that of postmodern religion/spiritualities. Two case studies of the Anthroposophical society and Pentecostalism aid in this task. UlrichBeck(1992; 1994; 1995; 1996)andAnthonyGiddens(1990; 1991; 1994; 1999) while differing in their approaches, share similar concerns, foci and epistemological underpinnings in their work.
    [Show full text]
  • Capitalism and Risk: Concepts, Consequences, and Ideologies Edward A
    digitalcommons.nyls.edu Faculty Scholarship Articles & Chapters 2016 Capitalism and Risk: Concepts, Consequences, and Ideologies Edward A. Purcell New York Law School Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/fac_articles_chapters Part of the Consumer Protection Law Commons, and the Law and Economics Commons Recommended Citation 64 Buff. L. Rev. 23 (2016) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at DigitalCommons@NYLS. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles & Chapters by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@NYLS. Capitalism and Risk: Concepts, Consequences, and Ideologies EDWARD A. PURCELL, JR.t INTRODUCTION Politically charged claims about both "capitalism" and "risk" became increasingly insistent in the late twentieth century. The end of the post-World War II boom in the 1970s and the subsequent breakup of the Soviet Union inspired fervent new commitments to capitalist ideas and institutions. At the same time structural changes in the American economy and expanded industrial development across the globe generated sharpening anxieties about the risks that those changes entailed. One result was an outpouring of roseate claims about capitalism and its ability to control those risks, including the use of new techniques of "risk management" to tame financial uncertainties and guarantee stability and prosperity. Despite assurances, however, recent decades have shown many of those claims to be overblown, if not misleading or entirely ill-founded. Thus, the time seems ripe to review some of our most basic economic ideas and, in doing so, reflect on what we might learn from past centuries about the nature of both "capitalism" and "risk," the relationship between the two, and their interactions and consequences in contemporary America.
    [Show full text]
  • LETTER to G20, IMF, WORLD BANK, REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT BANKS and NATIONAL GOVERNMENTS
    LETTER TO G20, IMF, WORLD BANK, REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT BANKS and NATIONAL GOVERNMENTS We write to call for urgent action to address the global education emergency triggered by Covid-19. With over 1 billion children still out of school because of the lockdown, there is now a real and present danger that the public health crisis will create a COVID generation who lose out on schooling and whose opportunities are permanently damaged. While the more fortunate have had access to alternatives, the world’s poorest children have been locked out of learning, denied internet access, and with the loss of free school meals - once a lifeline for 300 million boys and girls – hunger has grown. An immediate concern, as we bring the lockdown to an end, is the fate of an estimated 30 million children who according to UNESCO may never return to school. For these, the world’s least advantaged children, education is often the only escape from poverty - a route that is in danger of closing. Many of these children are adolescent girls for whom being in school is the best defence against forced marriage and the best hope for a life of expanded opportunity. Many more are young children who risk being forced into exploitative and dangerous labour. And because education is linked to progress in virtually every area of human development – from child survival to maternal health, gender equality, job creation and inclusive economic growth – the education emergency will undermine the prospects for achieving all our 2030 Sustainable Development Goals and potentially set back progress on gender equity by years.
    [Show full text]
  • Politics of Care
    THE POLITICS OF CARE' Laura T. Kessler INTRODUCTION Can family caregiving be a form of political resistance or expression? It can, especially when done by people ordinarily denied the privilege of family privacy by the state. Feminist and queer theorists within law have, for the most part, over- looked this aspect of caregiving, regarding unpaid family labor as a source of gender-based oppression or as an undervalued public commodity. Conse- quently, prominent feminist and queer legal theorists have set their sights on wage work1 or sexual liberation2 as more promising sources of emancipation for women. Although other legal feminists continue to focus on the problem of devalued family labor, these theorists tend to justify increased support for care work primarily on the benefits it confers on children and society, on liberal theories of societal obligation, on ending gender oppression, or on simple hu- man needs.3 This article examines a less well-explored conception of family caregiving within the feminist and queer legal theory literature, revealing the way that family caregiving can be a liberating practice for caregivers qua caregivers. Specifically, care work can constitute an affirmative political practice of resis- tance to a host of discriminatory institutions and ideologies, including the fam- ily, workplace, and state, as well as patriarchy, racism, and homophobia. I label such political work "transgressive caregiving" and locate it most centrally- * Professor of Law, University of Utah; email: [email protected]. Many thanks to Mar- tha Fineman and Victoria Nourse for inviting me to share this work as part of this celebration t of the 2 5 h Anniversary of the Feminism and Legal Theory Project and to Mary Ann Call for research assistance.
    [Show full text]
  • A Jurisprudence of Nonviolence
    A Jurisprudence of Nonviolence YXTA MAYA MURRAYt Is there a way we could theorize about law that would make the world a less violent place? In the 1980s, cultural, or "different voice," feminist legal theory seemed poised to take up the mantles of Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King by incorporating nonviolent values into society and the law. Based on the work of psychologist Carol Gilligan, cultural feminist legal theory valorizes the supposedly female virtues of caretaking and connectivity.' As elaborated by theorists such as Robin West, 2 Martha Minow, Joan Williams, and Christine Littleton,5 it also celebrates women's "ethic of care," which is a brand of moral reasoning that emphasizes empathy, particulars, and human relationships, as opposed to men's "standard of justice," which stresses individualism, abstraction, and autonomy. 6 Though these cultural feminists wrote on issues such as employment law7 and family law,8 their ideas about caring also promised to transform criminal law, Second Amendment jurisprudence, and international law. Indeed, no other jurisprudential school of thought appeared as well equipped to craft a legal theory of peace.9 As we all Professor of Law, Loyola Law School-Los Angeles. B.A., University of California Los Angeles; J.D., Stanford University. A warm and loving thanks to all the members of Movie Nite: Allan Ides, David Leonard, and Victor Gold, who all helped usher this article to publication. I also benefited from the generous and brilliant help of Francisco Valdes and Angela Harris, two wonderful colleagues in legal education. Thank you. See, e.g., CAROL GILLIGAN, IN A DIFFERENT VOICE: PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORY AND WOMEN'S DEVELOPMENT 167-68 (1982).
    [Show full text]
  • Against the New Maternalism
    Michigan Journal of Gender & Law Volume 18 Issue 2 2012 Against the New Maternalism Naomi Mezey Georgetown University Law Center Cornelia T. L. Pillard Georgetown University Law Center Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjgl Part of the Family Law Commons, Law and Gender Commons, Law and Society Commons, and the Legal History Commons Recommended Citation Naomi Mezey & Cornelia T. Pillard, Against the New Maternalism, 18 MICH. J. GENDER & L. 229 (2012). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjgl/vol18/iss2/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Journal of Gender & Law by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. AGAINST THE NEW MATERNALISM 7,aomi C7ezey* Cornelia T( Pillard" INTRODUCTION: LAW AND CULTURE AT ODDS IN THE FAMILY * 230 I. MATERNALISMS ACROSS TIME . 237 A. Old Maternalism:Righteousness in Separate Spheres . 237 B. New Maternalism: Conciliation in the Neo- TraditionalFamily . 243 1. E-Maternalism in the Virtual Landscape . 243 2. MomsRising as Paradigmatic New Maternalism * 248 C. Hybrid Maternalism:Mama Grizzlies . 250 II. THE PARADIGMATIC MOTHER OF NEW MATERNALISM * 253 A. The CulturalPerformance ofMomsRising . 254 1. Rosie the Mom . 254 2. Bev Betters: The Self-Mocking Super Mom . 258 3. The Centrality of the Domestic Arts . 259 B. The Conflicted Feminisms and Identity Politics of MomsRising and New Maternalism . 262 1. Banishing Men . 264 2. Banishing Feminism .
    [Show full text]
  • Factor Endowment Versus Productivity Views
    Globalization, Poverty, and All That: Factor Endowment versus Productivity Views William Easterly New York University Prepared for NBER Globalization and Poverty Workshop, September 10-12, 2004 Globalization causing poverty is a staple of anti-globalization rhetoric. The Nobel prizewinner Dario Fo compared the impoverishment of globalization to September 11th: "The great speculators wallow in an economy that every year kills tens of millions of people with poverty—so what is 20,000 dead in New York?” 1 The protesters usually believe globalization is a disaster for the workers, throwing them into “downward wage spirals in both the North and the South.” Oxfam identifies such innocuous products as Olympic sportswear as forcing laborers into “working ever-faster for ever-longer periods of time under arduous conditions for poverty-level wages, to produce more goods and more profit.”2 According to a best-selling book by William Greider, in the primitive legal climate of poorer nations, industry has found it can revive the worst forms of nineteenth century exploitation, abuses outlawed long ago in the advanced economies, including extreme physical dangers to workers and the use of children as expendable cheap labor.3 Oxfam complains about how corporate greed is “exploiting the circumstances of vulnerable people,” which it identifies mainly as young women, to set up profitable “global supply chains” for huge retailers like Walmart. In China’s fast-growing Guandong Province, “young women face 150 hours of overtime each month in the garment factories
    [Show full text]
  • Beck's Cosmopolitan Politics
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Sussex Research Online A later version of this article is in Contemporary Politics 14, 2, June 2008 Beck’s Cosmopolitan Politics Luke Martell Abstract This article evaluates Ulrich Beck’s cosmopolitan global politics. I argue that areas where Beck sees bases for communal and cosmopolitan politics are structured by power, inequality and conflict. Beck has a conflict perspective on local responses to globalisation but this is not carried through to his global politics. There are issues that need to be tackled at a global level but I argue that this will have to be done on the basis of conflicting interests, power and nation-states as much as through global cosmopolitanism and co-operation. Keywords: Ulrich Beck, globalisation, cosmopolitanism, conflict, power. Ulrich Beck argues for global cosmopolitan politics with a co-operative and consensual approach over state-based and conflictual politics with a ‘national outlook’. This article focuses on Beck’s books Cosmopolitan Vision (2006) and What is Globalisation? (2000) and associated articles (eg Beck, 2000a, Beck and Sznaider, 2006). It is relevant also to his books on Power in the Global Age (2005) and Europe (Beck and Grande 2007) and, in parts, to other advocacies of cosmopolitan politics (eg Held, 1995, Archibugi and Held 1995, Kaldor 2003). I wish to argue that power, inequality and conflict, and a role for nations, are acknowledged by Beck but undermine his cosmopolitan outlook. Beck is important for his analyses of modernisation and the development of a ‘second modernity’.
    [Show full text]
  • Living in and Coping with World Risk Society: the Cosmopolitan Turn
    Ulrich Beck Living in and Coping with World Risk Society: The Cosmopolitan Turn – Lecture in Moscow, June 2012 – When a world-order collapses, then the analysis begins, though that doesn’t seem to hold for the type of social thinking social theory currently prevalent. With universalist aloofness and somnambulant certainty, it hovers above the currents of epochal change. Just think for a moment of the ‘cosmopolitical events’ that changed the world during the last 25 years – 9/11, the ongoing financial crisis, the ongoing climate change, the ongoing nuclear catastrophe in Fukushima, the ongoing Arab spring, the ongoing euro-crisis, the ongoing Occupy-Wall-Street Movement. All of those have at least two features in common: (1) they came and come by total surprise, which means: they are beyond our political and sociological categories and imagination; and (2) all of them are transnational or global in their scope and implications. From this follows my question: Is it true that today this kind of universalist social analysis [whether it be structuralist, interactionist, Marxist or based on critical or system theory] is antiquated and provincial? Antiquated because it excludes what is patent, namely, a paradigm shift in modern society and politics; provincial because it falsely absolutizes the path-dependent scope of experience and expectation in Western European and American modernization, thus distorting the sociological view of its particularity? It would be an understatement to say that European sociology and sociology in general needs to understand the modernization of other societies for supplementary reasons, in order to complete its world-view. It is rather the case that we Europeans can understand ourselves only if we ‘deprovincialize’ – in other words, if we learn to „Cosmopolitanism“ is a loaded concept, especially in the Russian context; it does not mean ‘unpatriotic sentiment and behavior’ as Stalin defined it politically.
    [Show full text]
  • Marriage Equality and the New Maternalism Cynthia Godsoe Brooklyn Law School, [email protected]
    Brooklyn Law School BrooklynWorks Faculty Scholarship 11-2015 Marriage Equality and the New Maternalism Cynthia Godsoe Brooklyn Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/faculty Part of the Family Law Commons, Law and Gender Commons, Other Law Commons, and the Sexuality and the Law Commons Recommended Citation 6 Cal. L. Rev. Cir. 145 (2015) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by BrooklynWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of BrooklynWorks. California Law Review Circuit Vol.6 November 2015 Copyright © 2015 by California Law Review, Inc. Marriage Equality and The “New” Maternalism Cynthia Godsoe* April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse now ask whether Michigan may continue to deny them the certainty and stability all mothers desire to protect their children, and for them and their children the childhood years will pass all too soon. --Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584, 2606 (2015) (emphasis added). The battle over same-sex marriage centered on children, with both sides claiming to be the guardians of children’s welfare.1 Opponents’ arguments were based on faulty science2 and, as Justice Kennedy noted in Obergefell, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15779/Z38454Z * Assistant Professor, Brooklyn Law School. J.D., Harvard Law School; A.B., Harvard College. Thanks to Bill Araiza, Liz Schneider, and Eric Pitt for helpful comments, Jessica Schneider for adept research assistance, and the editors of California Law Review Circuit for thoughtful editing. 1. Cynthia Godsoe, Adopting the Gay Family, 90 TUL.
    [Show full text]
  • Revisiting Risk Society a Conversation with Ulrich Beck
    Perspectives Revisiting Risk Society A Conversation with Ulrich Beck 2011 / 6 RCC Perspectives Revisiting Risk Society A Conversation with Ulrich Beck Lawrence Culver, Heike Egner, Stefania Gallini, Agnes Kneitz, Cheryl Lousley, Uwe Lübken, Diana Mincyte, Gijs Mom, Gordon Winder (authors listed in alphabetical order) 2011 / 6 2 RCC Perspectives About the Authors Prof. Dr. Lawrence Culver is associate professor in the Department of History at Utah State University. He was a Carson fellow from July through December 2010. Prof. Dr. Heike Egner was a fellow at the Rachel Carson Center from April through July 2010, and subsequently took up a position as professor of geography at the Alpen-Adria- Universität in Klagenfurt, Austria. Prof. Dr. Stefania Gallini is a professor of history at the National University of Colombia, in Bogotá, and was a Carson fellow from July through December 2010. Agnes Kneitz is a research associate at the Rachel Carson Center, and is writing her dissertation entitled Eco-Novels: The Concept of Environmental Justice through Nine- teenth Century Social Novels. Prof. Dr. Cheryl Lousley took up a position as assistant professor in the Department of English at Lakehead University in Ontario, Canada, following her Carson fellowship from January through December 2010. PD Dr. Uwe Lübken is Project Director of Climates of Migration, a cooperative project between the Rachel Carson Center and the Center for Advanced Studies (KWI) in Essen. Prof. Dr. Diana Mincyte was a fellow at the Rachel Carson Center 2009–2010 and a fellow in the Program in Agrarian Studies at Yale University 2010–2011. She is now assistant professor at the Center for European and Mediterranean Studies at New York University.
    [Show full text]