Search results

For sociological perspectives on globalization to do justice to its many facets, they must be informed by an understanding of modern societies as simultaneously complex, contingent, and contradictory – as modern capitalist societies. As is becoming ever more apparent, such an understanding of modern societies is the necessary precondition for identifying the defining features of globalization. Yet, for the most part, the history of the social sciences did not produce research agendas, theories, and methods designed to grasp complexity, contingency, and contradiction as core dimensions of modern social life that continually reinforce each other. The social sciences did not evolve as ongoing efforts to grasp the gravity each dimension exerts on concrete forms of political, economic and cultural life, and how the force of each depends on the constant exchange of energy with the other two. To the extent that scrutinizing the impact of globalization on the future – and possible futures – of human civilization is the primary challenge for social scientists to confront today, the current condition presents a unique, and perhaps most unusual opportunity to conceive anew the promise of each and all the social sciences, as elucidating how the complex, contingent, and contradictory nature of modern societies, in the name of advancing social justice, has engendered a regime of managing “social problems.”

For perspectives on globalization to do justice to its many facets, they must be informed by an understanding of modern societies as simultaneously complex, contingent, and contradictory – as modern capitalist societies. As is becoming ever more apparent, such an understanding of modern societies is the necessary precondition for identifying the defining features of globalization. Yet, for the most part, the history of the social sciences did not produce research agendas, theories, and methods designed to grasp complexity, contingency, and contradiction as core dimensions of modern social life that continually reinforce each other. The social sciences did not evolve as ongoing efforts to grasp the gravity each dimension exerts on concrete forms of political, economic, and cultural life, and how the force of each depends on the constant exchange of energy with the other two. To the extent that scrutinizing the impact of globalization on the future – find possible futures – of human civilization is the primary challenge for social scientists to confront today, the current condition presents a unique, and perhaps most unusual opportunity to conceive anew the promise of each and all the social sciences, as elucidating how the complex, contingent, and contradictory nature of modern societies, in the name of advancing social justice, has engendered a regime of managing “social problems.”

Marx's formulation of the alienation problematic is grounded in a strategic set of underlying assumptions concerning the human condition. On the one hand, people are seen as the creators of their material and mental world through their labour activity. They are endowed with natural human qualities, creative powers and historically existing potentialities that are essential to human growth. People are, in essence, free, creative, productive beings of praxis in conscious control of their activities and the world they have created. But the material and mental products of human labour (e.g. commodities, ideas, social institutions) assume an autonomous life of their own. They come to rule over people as dehumanizing objects and powers, as alien and hostile forces operating independently above and against the common will of their own creators. People no longer experience themselves as active human agents in conscious control of their life circumstances. Their own productive activities, human creations, social relationships and nature at large remain alien and beyond their grasp. The realization of natural human capacities and potentialities for a genuinely human life in an alienating world of domination and oppression is consequently thwarted, repressed or denied. Alienation is construed as a universal social phenomenon that pervades all spheres of human life in the existing world.

As a major concept in sociological theory, estrangement can be understood through a diversity of theoretical lenses. However, there is a tendency among sociologists to identify the idea of estrangement with a version of alienation. In this chapter, I counter this tendency to reduce estrangement to one of its conceptual possibilities. To provide a theoretical analysis of estrangement, I first examine the classical views of the issue. I argue that classical theories – both critical and interpretive – fail to theorize sufficiently self-estrangement, a dimension of the concept that remains underexplored. Thus, I move beyond classical sociology to reconstruct the idea of self-estrangement, drawing on more recent interpretive and critical theories, especially theories of social interaction and the self. Specifically, I discuss several interactional forms of self-estrangement, and the connection between self-estrangement, institutional contexts, emotions and the body. Finally, I consider this concept in the context of civil society. This discussion demonstrates the merits of a focus on self-estrangement applied to the study of political exclusion.

Marx's writings were the first sustained and rigorous attempt to identify and scrutinize inherent contradictions as a constitutive feature of early modern society – the society he referred to as “bourgeois” society.¹ In the related literature, scholars have paid ample attention to the fact that the German term Marx used, and which had been a key concept in Hegel's philosophy of right ([1821] 1967) – bürgerliche Gesellschaft – refers to early modern society as both a society in which wealthy “burghers” are the driving force and primary decision-makers – bourgeois society – and a society of equal citizens – civil society (see especially Cohen & Arato, 1992; Riedel, 1988). The conceptual differentiation of bürgerliche Gesellschaft into bourgeois society and civil society suggests that it is not possible to discern the nature of this emergent society according to one overarching principle. Instead, it is necessary to recognize underlying contradictions as a key structuring principle. The contradictions are most conspicuous in tensions between the values of democracy (as espoused most explicitly during and by the French Revolution, in terms of liberty, equality, and fraternity/solidarity) and the imperative of a market-based economy operating according to the capitalist mode of production and foreshadowing industrialization.

To pay tribute to Felix Geyer's contributions to the activities of Research Committee (RC) 36, alienation research and theory, of the International Sociological Association.

The author recollects his involvement with RC36 and his longstanding relationship with Felix Geyer.

The establishment of RC36 and its current viability stand as testimony to the effort of Felix Geyer.

Alienation, one of the oldest concepts in social analysis and critique, remains a lively and exciting topic for theory and research, thanks not least to Felix Geyer. It is right that he should receive recognition for his hard work and achievements.

This study tests the relationships between control mechanisms such as leadership, job design, performance appraisal, and workers’ alienation in Cuba. Beyond internal Cuban economic data or external intelligence reports, limited evidence has appeared in Western business journals on management practices and worker alienation in Cuba. The present research examines the responses of 327 workers who were surveyed anonymously. The results suggest that Western management control mechanisms such as leadership and job design have the potential of reducing alienation, while a worker’s job performance appraisal does not influence alienation. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

Alienation will be viewed as a generic term for different kinds of information‐processing problems in human individuals, viewed as autopoietic, variable‐boundary systems. Applying general systems theory (GST), especially second‐order cybernetics, to alienation theory not only results in a reconceptualisation and increased mutual comparability of existing (e.g. Marxist and psychoanalytic) theories of alienation, but also presents a rationale for subsuming several typical, modern, “information‐overload” problems in Western societies under the rubric of alienation theory. Such problems include those of selection and scanning, assimilation, flexibility, overchoice, and self‐realisation or self‐actualisation — problems which typically occur in complex and fast‐changing environments.

Provides definitions of the three concepts in the title and explores their interrelationships. Distinguishes six alienation dimensions – powerlessness; meaninglessness; normlessness; social isolation; cultural estrangement; self‐estrangement – and combines them with three kinds of participation: spontaneous, negative, and compensatory. Describes increasing societal complexity from a general systems perspective. Explores the psycho‐ and sociogenesis of unalienated as well as alienated participation. Increasing societal complexity creates new forms of alienation and participation, but also resistances of groups that feel threatened or left out by an excessively fast rate of change, which in turn threatens macro‐societal stability. Those left without the means to participate in the economic or political process tend to be the alienated “negative participants”; they are generally destructive and anti‐outgroup as a result of personal experiences or economic deprivation.

A systems theoretical reconceptualisation of certain parts of alienation theory is considered. Two opposed forms of alienation are distinguished, interpersonal alienation and societal alienation. Political alienation is described as a subform of societal alienation which does not necessarily correlate with the different forms of interpersonal alienation, as is often assumed. Alienation is viewed as a generic term for information processing problems of individuals.