DOCSLIB.ORG

Ihlo to Form a New Entity by Their Fusion Or Association

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ihlo to Form a New Entity by Their Fusion Or Association p rr * i h ' B l y B r ilis i W'S'L^b^ ‘Dualism and Duality: An Examination of the Structure- Agency Debate’ by Shaun Le Boutillier Department of Philosophy, Logic and Scientific Method, The London School of Economics and Political Science Ph.D Thesis UMI Number: U525503 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Dissertation Publishing UMI U525503 Published by ProQuest LLC 2014. Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 Abstract Within the structure-agency debate the works of Margaret Archer and Anthony Giddens represent opposite opinions of the society-person connection and the status of social types. Their views are defined, respectively, by an adherence to dualism or duality. Whilst Archer’s theory requires ontological proof that social structures, as emergent phenomena, exist sui generis Giddens’ argument, based on a commitment to hermeneutics and pragmatism carries no such ontological baggage. I argue that the demands of Archer’s and Bhaskar’s realism are unmet and that duality is the most plausible position to hold in the structure-agency debate. In Chapter One I set out Giddens’ theory and note his rejection of relativism in favour of pragmatism. In Chapter Two I argue that the bedrock of Archer’s theory, Bhaskar’s naturalism, when carried to the social sciences, is flawed by the inability to ‘close’ systems. In Chapter Three I show how realists have modified Bhaskar’s realism in order to separate structure from agency. However, as with past attempts at basing realism on the concept of emergence this raises the spectre of reification. In Chapter Four I discuss and demonstrate the ways in which the concept of supervenience may or may not be helpful in proving the sui generis status of social facts. In the first half of Chapter 5 I make a distinction between morphological and cultural types and demonstrate that separating ‘ideas’ from those individuals who hold them is nonsensical and therefore dualism is fundamentally flawed. In the second half of the chapter I argue that there are logical grounds for rejecting the transposition of realism from the natural to the social sciences. In Chapter Six I defend Giddens’ thesis against criticisms concerning voluntarism, the clarity of the notion of social structure and its relationship to system. 2 Table of Contents Chapters Introduction 4 1. Structuration Theory: An Overview 22 2. The Possibility of Naturalism(?) 53 3. Margaret Archer and the Limitations of Naturalism 79 4. Supervenience & Social Realism 99 5. Realism, Emergence and Social Kinds 121 6. Structuration Theory and its Critics 151 Conclusion 185 Bibliography 199 Figures Figure 1. The Stratification Model of Action 24 Figure 2. A Comparison of Structural-Functionalist Theory and the Theory of Structuration 30 Figure 3.The Duality of Structure 34 Figure 4. The Logic of Scientific Discovery 56 Figure 5. The Transformational Model of the Society/Person Connection 65 Figure 6. The Basic Morphological Cycle 91 Figure 7. A Reductionist Model of Pain 104 Figure 8. A Physical Supervenient Model 104 Figure 9. The Causal Relationship between Demography and Pensions’ Policies 107 Figure lO.Healy’s (Supervenience) Relationship between 107 Demography and Pensions’ Policies Figure 11 .A model of Demographic Trends 1930-2040 111 Figure 11 .A Subvenient-Supervenient Model of Action 114 3 Introduction One primary concern of this thesis is, to alter a chapter heading from Margaret Archer’s (1995) text, the vexatious problem of social facts1. This issue is never far from the agenda as it is central to what has come to be known as the structure-agency debate in sociology. Social facts are fundamental because they are analytical to the definition of social structure. Social structures are just social facts but the question that commentators both old and new have asked is: just where are they to be located? Answers to this question are as old as the subject- matter itself. Mainly these have focused on the connection or relationship between individual(s) and society and taken the title of the ‘structure-agency debate’. In recent years the structure-agency debate has, inter alia, centred around two very ambitious theoretical projects of the social sciences: Anthony Giddens’ (1976,1977,1979,1984) structuration theory and Margaret Archer’s (1982, 1988,1995, 2000) morphogenetic realism2. Each is responsible for a radical re­ conceptualisation of the key terms in the debate and each has, at its heart, a particular way of interpreting social facts and their relationship to agents. For Giddens the relationship between structure and agency or the connection between individual and society is that of a ‘duality’; structure is both medium and outcome of social action. For Archer, and realism in general, social facts, and the society-person connection, are to be understood in terms of a dualism; social structures exist in separation from agents and represent the pre-conditions o f individual actions. As such, Archer’s theoretical work is premised on the notion of emergent properties. ‘Emergent properties’ (in short ‘emergence’) are read by social scientists not as empirically given or situated phenomena, but in a post-empiricist manner as the ‘capacities’ or ‘generative mechanisms’ of a social object. Social objects, or what Archer refers to as the stratified parts of society, exist, sui generis, in ‘relative autonomy’ from the people that make up society. And, it is in this sense that her version of realism might be described as a dualist response to the structure-agency or person-society connection. Thus 4 dualism, as opposed to duality, suggests that the stratified parts of society and the agents that exist as a part of society exist in relative distinction. Anthony Giddens holds an opposite, or antithesis position. For him, social facts, and the agent-structure relationship, cannot be explained in terms of emergent properties. Emergence implies a mechanistic relationship between social structures and actions or agents. Instead, social structures ultimately reside in the minds of agents as memory traces that tell us, as actors, ways of ‘going on’ or how to act in social circumstances. That we, as actors, cannot escape or are indeed constituted of social structures, suggests that the relationship between agent and structure is that of a duality: analytically distinguishable but ontologically inseparable. Thus, duality provides two faces on the same coin. Social structures exist in a virtual realm but as actors we are nothing more than the intelligent beings that are socialised and re-socialised through a nexus of social structural interactions. Each of these authors has been influenced by different sources and each has different concerns (see below) beyond the main objective of the structure- agency debate which aimed to overcome the obstacle of the so-called subject- object divide in social science. This divide, as it was presented until relatively recently, pitted structuralist’s theories of society against theories of individual or subjective actions. The resulting reduction on one side or the other (structure or agency) has been described, by Archer (1995:6), as ‘conflationary thinking’ or ‘one-dimensional theorizing’. Most contemporary theorists would now agree with Archer on this point. The result of this kind of theorizing is, on the one hand, and typified in the early works of Emile Durkheim3, and, inter alia, both structural-functionalism4 and French structuralism5, the absence of agency or free will or, as Giddens’ (1976:22) observes, ‘the conceptual blotting-out of the active subject’. On the other hand, both methodological individualism6 and action theories, and theories that focus upon the subjective interpretation o f the social world lacked an adequate theory of institutions, institutional change, or, more generally, an account of how social structures may influence and/or constrain individuals’ actions, wants, and purposes. The aim of both structuration theory and Archer’s realist morphogenetic account was to 5 overcome the problem of thinking and explaining, exclusively, from one side (social structure) or the other (subjective or interpretive accounts of action). With regard to this, both theorists approvingly recall and cite Marx’s dictum that: ‘Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered, given, and transmitted from the past’ (Marx, 1977:300). At the same time, both theorists agree that agency is the driving force of history. Equally, for Archer and Giddens history provides a ready made social world into which the agent is absorbed. However, the post-Bhaskarian realist conception of this is to view history in terms of social structural properties which are external to the individual and provide pre-conditions of action. Thus, social structures are externally ‘real’ to the individual who must fashion or re-fashion them according to the parameters that they provide. For Giddens, whilst socialisation runs throughout an individual’s life, and social life is he says, an ‘on-going process’ which cannot be dissected into discrete acts, social causes (or social facts) cannot be separated from individuals’ actions in this way. Giddens views the problems of past social theorising as a consequence of the dualisms of structural and subjectivist sociologies. Ultimately, history enters into the social realm through the memories of those individuals who constitute society.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Contemporary Social Theory
    CONTEMPORARY SOCIAL THEORY General Editor: ANTHONY GIDDENS This series aims to create a forum for debate between different theoretical and philosophical traditions in the social sciences. As well as covering broad schools of thought, the series will also concentrate upon the work of particular thinkers whose ideas have had a major impact on social science (these books appear under the sub-series title of 'Theoretical Traditions in the Social Sciences'). The series is not limited to abstract theoretical discussion - it will also include more substantive works on contemporary capitalism, the state, politics and other subject areas. Published titles Tony Bilton, Kevin Bonnett, Philip Jones, Ken Sheard, Michelle Stanworth and Andrew Webster, Introductory Sociology Simon Clarke, Marx, Marginalism and Modern Sociology Emile Durkheim, The Division of Labour in Society (trans. W. D. Halls) Emile Durkheim, The Rules of Sociological Method (ed. Steven Lukes, trans. W. D. Halls) Boris Frankel, Beyond the State? Anthony Giddens, A Contemporary Critique of Historical Materialism Anthony Giddens, Central Problems in Social Theory Anthony Giddens, Profiles and Critiques in Social Theory Anthony Giddens and David Held (eds), Classes, Power and Conflict: Classical and Contemporary Debates Geoffrey Ingham, Capitalism Divided? Terry Johnson, Christopher Dandeker and Clive Ashworth, The Structure of Social Theory Douglas Kellner, Herbert Marcuse and the Crisis of Marxism Jorge Larrain, Marxism and Ideology Ali Rattansi, Marx and the Division of Labour Gerry
    [Show full text]
  • Facing an Unequal World: Challenges for a Global Sociology1
    Facing an Unequal World 3 Facing an Unequal World: Challenges for a 1 Global Sociology Michael Burawoy, University of California, Berkeley, USA2 Yuan-Tseh Lee, former president of Academia Sinica and Nobel Prize Winner, opened the second conference of the Council of National Asso- ciations with a call to scientists the world-over to come together and con- front ever-deepening global problems. Some of the most serious chal- lenges facing mankind -- climate change, energy crisis, and disease – stem from processes that transcend national boundaries and social divi- sions, yet the tools to tackle them are still largely locked within national boundaries and controlled by powerful, vested interests. The problem, Dr. Lee insisted, is not so much globalization but its incompleteness. Devel- oping global communities along with global governance is necessary for tackling global problems. We can no longer retreat back to an insular lo- calism, so we must move forward to realize the potentials of a more com- plete and complex globalization. He posed the challenge to sociology: how did we respond? As sociologists we specialize in studying the downside of globaliza- tion, the obstacles to a globalization that will benefit humanity. We are experts in the ways inequality and domination present the deepest barriers to tackling the daunting challenges of our epoch. We postulate conditions for overcoming such barriers while criticizing false solutions that redis- tribute rather than diminish the ill-effects incomplete globalization. It is the presumption of this conference that for sociologists to address the exclusion and oppression underlying poverty and war, disease and envi- ronmental degradation on a global scale, our scientific community must itself first assume a global character ruled by dialogue and accountability We gathered together in Taipei, therefore, to examine our own discipline through the bifocal lens of domination and inequality – a risky but neces- sary project -- so as to create and embrace a global sociology that is equal to the global tasks we face.
    [Show full text]
  • The Morphogenetic Approach and Immanent Causality: a Spinozian Perspective*
    Received: 4 October 2017 Revised: 10 June 2018 Accepted: 18 June 2018 DOI: 10.1111/jtsb.12181 ORIGINAL ARTICLE The morphogenetic approach and immanent causality: A spinozian perspective* Karim Knio Institute of Social Studies (ISS), Erasmus Abstract University Rotterdam, The Netherlands The morphogenetic approach as powered by analytical Correspondence dualism offers an appealing account of the processes Karim Knio, Institute of Social Studies – – (ISS), Erasmus University Rotterdam, The whereby people through their reflexivities reflect Netherlands. back on structures and cultures during the double Email: [email protected] and triple morphogenesis of agency. However, in order to further specify an account of social change, this paper argues that it would be helpful to provide an account of what occurs in the other direction as well: from the direction of structures and cultures, between each other and towards people, also at the points of double and triple morphogenesis of agency. This article is therefore a theoretical piece that proposes a reading of the morphogenetic model imbued with an enlightened understanding of immanent causality, driven by the Spinozian doctrine of parallelism and operationalized by his understanding of the two expressive roles of ideas. KEYWORDS analytical dualism, dispositions (capabilities), immanent causality, role of ideas, structure/agency debate Margaret Archer's morphogenetic approach is currently one of the most eminent and highly esteemed accounts of structure and agency in the social sciences. By referring to the concept of *I would like to thank Professor Archer for commenting on an earlier draft of this article. I also would like to thank Aleksandra Piletic for her assistance in preparing this article.
    [Show full text]
  • Margaret S. Archer Editor Morphogenesis and the Crisis of Normativity Morphogenesis and the Crisis of Normativity
    Social Morphogenesis Margaret S. Archer Editor Morphogenesis and the Crisis of Normativity Morphogenesis and the Crisis of Normativity [email protected] Social Morphogenesis Series Editor: MARGARET S. ARCHER Centre for Social Ontology, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK Aims and scope: To focus upon ‘social morphogenesis’ as a general process of change is very different from examining its particular results over the last quarter of a century. This series ventures what the generative mechanisms are that produce such intense change and discusses how this differs from late modernity. Contributors examine if an intensification of morphogenesis (positive feedback that results in a change in social form) and a corresponding reduction in morphostasis (negative feedback that restores or reproduces the form of the social order) best captures the process involved. The series consists of 5 volumes derived from the Centre for Social Ontology’s annual workshops “From Modernity to Morphogenesis” at the University of Lausanne, headed by Margaret Archer. More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/11959 [email protected] Margaret S. Archer Editor Morphogenesis and the Crisis of Normativity 123 [email protected] Editor Margaret S. Archer Centre for Social Ontology University of Warwick Coventry, UK This volume IV follows the book “Social Morphogenesis”, edited by Margaret S. Archer, which was the first book in the series published in 2013 http://www.springer.com/social+ sciences/book/978-94-007-6127-8, the volume “Late Modernity”, edited by Margaret S. Archer, published in 2014 and the volume “Generative Mechanisms Transforming the Social Order”, edited by Margaret S.
    [Show full text]
  • Advancing a Morphogenetic Understanding of Organisational Behaviour
    ADVANCING A MORPHOGENETIC UNDERSTANDING OF ORGANISATIONAL BEHAVIOUR An Investigation into the Psychological Mechanisms and Organisational Behavioural Tendencies of Autonomous Reflexivity By Royston Francis Meriton Submitted in accordance with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy The University of Leeds Leeds University Business School September 2016 The candidate confirms that the work submitted is his/her own and that appropriate credit has been given where reference has been made to the work of others. This copy has been supplied on the understanding that it is copyright material and that no quotation from the thesis may be published without proper acknowledgement. ©2016 “The University of Leeds” Royston Francis Meriton Acknowledgement “Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery None but ourselves can free our mind…” Bob Marley (1945 – 1981) RIP To Thierry and Keisha Nicky and Mark thank you for your patience and confidence showed in me. I cannot express enough in words how much your guidance has been valued. Granny, you have been my rock, you may never know how much your influence runs deep in this work. I thank Professor Ann Cunliffe for her comments on an earlier draft and Dr Andy Brown for lending a listening ear. Without her confidence and understanding this work would not have been possible, a special mention goes to Professor Margaret Archer for her informal guidance, you are an inspiration to many. A special mention also goes to Maha, a friend I have shared many a thought with, you have the ability to inspire even without trying. All of this would have been but a fleeting illusion without Richard, thank you.
    [Show full text]
  • Mouzelis, Archer and the Concept of Social Structure
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Crossref SOCIOLOGY Vol. 32 No. 3 August 1998 509–522 CONCEPTUALISING CONSTRAINT: MOUZELIS, ARCHER AND THE CONCEPT OF SOCIAL STRUCTURE KIERAN HEALY Abstract This paper outlines and evaluates recent contributions by Nicos Mouzelis and Margaret Archer to the structure–agency debate. Mouzelis offers an internal reconstruction of Giddens’s structuration theory; Archer an external alternative. I show that, although representing an advance on Giddens’s position, Mouzelis’s account fails because he relies on the former’s definition of structure as comprising rules and resources. I then examine Archer’s solution to the problem. I argue that her definition of activity-dependence makes her account of the relationship between agents and structures unclear. I outline an alternative account in terms of super- venience, and argue that it contains the minimum ontological claim necessary for a realist understanding of the structure–agent relationship. Key words: Archer, Mouzelis, social ontology, social structure, supervenience. This paper evaluates two recent attempts to prune the hardy perennial of structure and agency. In their recent writing, both Nicos Mouzelis and Margaret Archer offer alternatives to Anthony Giddens’s structuration theory (Mouzelis 1995, 1996; Archer 1995, 1996b). The renewed attention paid to older writing in this field, and particularly to the work of David Lockwood, has caused McLennan (1995:117) to note ‘a loose but noticeable neo- traditionalist revival’ in sociological theory. The two authors exemplify this trend in different ways. Mouzelis says we should go ‘back to sociological theory,’ whereas Archer sees Lockwood as a forebear but explicitly tries to formulate a new research paradigm.
    [Show full text]
  • Structuration Theory Amid Negative and Positive Criticism
    Structuration theory amid negative and positive criticism Wafa Kort Ligue laboratory Assistant at ISG Tunis E-mail : [email protected] Jamel Eddine Gharbi Ligue laboratory Lecturer at FSEG Jendouba E-mail : [email protected] ABSTRACT This paper tries to sum up the criticism that turns around structuration theory to help the applications in MIS field. The literature review allow to advance three categories of criticisms: (1) the conflation of structure and human agent, (2) the complexity and the outspread of the theory that lead to contradictions, and (3) the lack of assumptions and methodological guidelines. Some recommendations are given to direct future researches. Key words: Structures, Agency, Duality of structural, Time-space dimension. Introduction Structuration theory is more and more used in the field of management information system. In fact, it offers the possibility to conceptualize IT artifact in a dynamic way and goes beyond the deterministic conceptualization in previous studies. The concept of the duality of structure is the main concept in structuration theory. It means that structural properties are at the same time the result and medium of practices which are organized in a recursive way. It allows a new perspective of the relationship between technology and user. Hence, the use of structuration theory in the IS field aims to provide a theoretical approach that helps the understanding of the interaction between user and information technology, the implications of these interactions, and the way to control their consequences (Pozzebon and Pinsonneault, 2005). More specifically, structuration theory allows human agency to surface and gives them the power to explain the difference of outcome in presence of technology (Boudreau and Robey, 2005).
    [Show full text]
  • Margaret Archer and a Morphogenetic Take on Strategy Abstract The
    Margaret Archer and a morphogenetic take on strategy Abstract The morphogenetic framework developed by the social theorist Margaret Archer is outlined in order to suggest what it might bring to the study of strategy. It is contrasted to practice-based approaches, notably those associated with the work of Richard Whittington and the domain of strategy as practice. Archer’s work provides a non-deterministic approach which enables the situating of moments of strategic practice in a wider context. Its stress on agential reflexivity opens up interesting lines of inquiry, not least on the language of strategizing facilitated and encouraged by the multinational corporation. The approach needs to pay more attention to practices, notably organizational routines, but it offers rich resources to the student of organizational strategy. Keywords Margaret Archer; critical realism; strategy; structure; agency; reflexivity 1. Introduction Margaret Archer is a major figure in the world of social theory and sociology. Starting as a sociologist of education she has developed a distinctive approach to the study of society through her engagement with the philosophical tradition of critical realism. Through a critique of how these ideas have been applied in the social domain, she has progressively developed and refined a view of what she terms the ‘morphogenesis’ of society. This view, recognising that society is activity dependent and is changed and reproduced through the activities of human agents who operate in conditions not of their choosing, has had increasing traction in many domains of 1 inquiry, not least in the field of organization studies. Her body of work is extensive and complex.
    [Show full text]
  • Redalyc.Structuration to Research in Information Systems
    Opción ISSN: 1012-1587 [email protected] Universidad del Zulia Venezuela Andrade, Jesús Alberto Structuration to research in information systems Opción, vol. 23, núm. 54, septiembre-diciembre, 2007, pp. 9-23 Universidad del Zulia Maracaibo, Venezuela Available in: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=31005402 How to cite Complete issue Scientific Information System More information about this article Network of Scientific Journals from Latin America, the Caribbean, Spain and Portugal Journal's homepage in redalyc.org Non-profit academic project, developed under the open access initiative Opción, Año 23, No. 54 (2007): 9 - 23 ISSN 1012-1587 Structuration to research in information systems Jesús Alberto Andrade Universidad del Zulia. Facultad Experimental de Ciencias [email protected] Abstract Information and communications technologies cannot be studied in isolation from their social contexts. Structuration is a theory that has been in the information systems field; it might be a promising avenue to better understand how technologies interact within organizations. Be- cause technology and information systems cannot usefully be studied in isolation from their social contexts, this paper analyzes how Giddens’ Structuration Theory is used to offer a theoretical understanding be- tween technology and information systems, and organizational structure and social practices. The idea being that social systems and information systems and technologies are structures that adapt well to strengthen the role of human beings as actors within the organizations. Key words: structuration, information systems, information systems research. Estructuración para investigar en sistemas de información Resumen Las tecnologías de la información y de las comunicaciones no pue- den ser estudiadas solo pensando en la utilidad que puedan reportar, in- dependientemente del contexto social.
    [Show full text]
  • Structuration Theory and Information System Development - Frameworks for Practice
    Global Co-Operation in the New Millennium The 9th European Conference on Information Systems Bled, Slovenia, June 27-29, 2001 STRUCTURATION THEORY AND INFORMATION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT - FRAMEWORKS FOR PRACTICE Jeremy Rose Department of Computing Science, Aalborg University, Fredrik Bajers Vej 7, DK-9220 Aalborg, Denmark Tel.: +45 96 35 89 17 [email protected] Rens Scheepers School of Information Technology, Swinburne University of Technology, PO Box 218, Hawthorn,Victoria 3122, Australia Tel.: +61 3 9214 8439, Fax: +61 3 9214 5501 [email protected] Jeremy Rose, Rens Scheepers ABSTRACT Giddens’ structuration theory (ST) offers an account of social life in terms of social practices developing and changing over time and space, which makes no attempt to directly theorize the Information Systems (IS) domain. IS researchers have long been interested in it as a way of deepening understanding; a common application is the analysis of empirical situations using Giddens’ ‘dimensions of the duality of structure’ model. Other writers, most notably Orlikowski, have used it help theorize the field. Often the mode of research employed has been the interpretative case study. However, direct attempts to influence practice (an important component of working in an applied field), perhaps through the vehicle of action research, have yet to be undertaken. There are at least three serious problems with attempting this. The first is the inaccessibility of the theory to IS researchers and practitioners. The second is the absence of specific theories of technology. The third is Giddens’ own disinterest in practical uses of his work – which leaves no obvious path to follow.
    [Show full text]
  • The Emotionalisation of Reflexivity
    Edinburgh Research Explorer The Emotionalization of Reflexivity Citation for published version: Holmes, M 2010, 'The Emotionalization of Reflexivity', Sociology, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 139-154. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038509351616 Digital Object Identifier (DOI): 10.1177/0038038509351616 Link: Link to publication record in Edinburgh Research Explorer Document Version: Peer reviewed version Published In: Sociology General rights Copyright for the publications made accessible via the Edinburgh Research Explorer is retained by the author(s) and / or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing these publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. Take down policy The University of Edinburgh has made every reasonable effort to ensure that Edinburgh Research Explorer content complies with UK legislation. If you believe that the public display of this file breaches copyright please contact [email protected] providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Download date: 01. Oct. 2021 The Emotionalization of Reflexivity Mary Holmes Department of Sociology Flinders University [email protected] Biography: Mary Holmes is a senior lecturer in sociology at Flinders University in Australia. She has published various articles relating to her empirical work on distance relationships and to her other research interests in the sociology of the body and in social movements and emotions. She has recently published The Representation of Feminists as Political Actors (VDM, 2008) What is Gender?(Sage, 2008) and Gender in Everyday Life (Routledge, 2007). 1 The Emotionalization of Reflexivity Abstract Reflexivity refers to the practices of altering one’s life as a response to knowledge about one’s circumstances.
    [Show full text]
  • Isa Bulletin NO 19 (PRINTEMPS 1979) NO
    isa bulletin NO 19 (PRINTEMPS 1979) NO. 19 (SPRING 1979) EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 1978-1982 PRESIDENT: lnst. of Philosophy & Sociology Juan Linz Ulf Himmelstrand Nowy Swiat 72 Guido Martinotti Sociological Institute 00-330 Warszawa Kh. N. Momdjian Sturegatan 2 B POLAND Stefan Nowak S-752 23 Uppsala Pamela Roby SWEDEN VICE-PRES. & CHAIRPERSON, Alexander Szalai PROGRAM COMMITTEE: Francisco Zapata VICE-PRES. & CHAIRPERSON, Ralph Turner MEMBERSHIP & FINANCE Department of Sociology COMMITTEE: University of California EXECUTlVE SECRETARIES: Fernando Henrique Cardoso Los Angeles, Ca. 90024 Céline Saint-Pierre CEBRAP U.S.A. Kurt Jonassohn Alameda Campinas, 463-13° 01404 Sao Paulo, SP MEMBERS: BRAZIL Akinsola Akiwowo ISA SECRETARIAT: Joseph Ben-David C.P. 719, Succursale "A" VICE-PRES. & CHAIRPERSON, Jacques Dofny Montréal, Qué. H3C 2V2 RESEARCH COUNCIL: Leela Dube CANADA Magdalena Sokolowska Anne-Marie Guillemard Tel:(514) 282-4634 Polish Academy of Sciences Shogo Koyano Cable - ISAGRAM MONTREAL SUB-COMMITTEES RESEARCH COORDINATlNG Shogo Koyano Margaret Archer COMMITTEE: Alexander Szalai Andrée Michel Magdalena Sokolowska, Chairperson Francisco Zapata Else ~yen Leela Dube Tom Bottomore Akinsola Akiwowo PROGRAM COMMITTEE: Katy Brooks Joseph Ben-David Ralph Turner, Chairperson (one additional member remains to be Anne-Marie Guillemard (members to be elected) elected) Enzo Mingione Stefan Nowak Else Oyen PUBLICATlONS COMMITTEE: STA TUTES REVISION COMMITTEE: Pamela Roby Jacques Dofny, Chairperson Ulf Himmelstrand, Chairperson Guido Martinotti Albert Cherns MEMBERSHIP & FINANCE COMMITTEE: Arthu: Meier Juan Linz Fernando Henrique Cardoso, Chairperson Gennadi Osipov Alexander Szalai CONTENTS Report on the Meeting of the Publications Calendar of Future Meelings ..........•...... p.13 Committee . ....... ...... p.2 Journals p.15 Report on the Meeting of the Statutes Revision Commitlee p.2 Olher Informalion p.15 ISA Grants lo Research Committees .....•..
    [Show full text]