Search results

To provide a systems explanation of world wars as civilizational phenomena with a special focus on the cold war defined as an interaction war between two parties which cannot communicate with each other.

As a theoretical framework for this analysis an elaborated version of Luhmann's systems theory is used which discusses the relationship between systems and media. The method is defined as a third‐order cybernetics which entails first‐order observations, second‐order observation of observers, and finally their mutual observations as being observed.

Identifies the east‐west ideological conflict as a conflict within the world system of society by which the system is at war with itself. This “self” is considered as comprising two parts: self and other. The one is identified as an autopoietic system and the other as an allopoietic system, each struggling for the status of system and for the transformation of the other into its medium. The traditional understanding of the history of the European civilization as having one single ancestor is challenged.

It is not an exhaustive analysis but rather an outline of a theory whose purpose is to define the source of international and intranational confrontations.

The approach can be developed further and used for the analysis of the war on terrorism and the relationship between political system and social movements.

The paper offers an innovative systems perspective on world wars with a special focus on the cold war which promises to overcome the difficulties which their analysis with traditional sociological theories at present encounters.

The purpose of this paper is to illustrate discourses on globalisation and world society and to disclose the commonalities and differences of both scientific debates. In particular, it draws attention to theoretical concepts of globalisation and world society. This is considered fruitful for comprehending the complex mechanisms of sociological theory-building in a globalised world.

The article first contextualises the multi-dimensionality and ambiguity of globalisation. It then reflects on the consequences of globalisation for socio-scientific considerations. The third part of the paper highlights scientific discourses on world society and globalisation, especially illustrating the commonalities and differences of both debates. In the concluding remarks of the article, discourses on world society are presented as a seismograph of contemporary socio-scientific debates encountering processes of globalisation.

The paper does not simply present scientific discourses as isolated from a globalised world, but discloses the challenges of socio-scientific disciplines facing the global frame of reference for research. To balance the research analyses of scientific discourses, those on globalisation and world society are illustrated.

The interplay between discourses on globalisation and those on world society is rarely reflected upon in publications. This paper provides insights into how, on the one hand, scientific debates on globalisation and on world society act together as part and parcel of the overall global frame of reference for research, yet it also shows, on the other hand, how different the discourses are. Furthermore, it highlights the prospective role of socio-scientific disciplines in a globalised world.

The social sciences and institutional theory have seen the proliferation of the term actor and the profusion of its meanings. Despite the importance and ubiquity of actor in institutional theory, the term is largely taken-for-granted, which has stunted the development of institutional theories of actors. The authors aspire to spur theorization of actor in institutional theory in the hope of carving out institutional theories of actor in the collective research agenda. The authors first contextualize their interest in actor in institutional theory and discuss the intellectual context within which the authors put this agenda forward. The authors briefly sketch out the main themes that would provide fruitful areas of inquiry in this new agenda and bring together a variety of strands in institutional theory with a clear focus on the relationship between institutions and actors. The authors conclude by discussing the contributions included in the volume.

Where international nonviolence organizations have increasingly become key players in both the development and evaluation of effective nonviolent movements, little scholarly attention has been given to their role in transnational mobilization. In this chapter, I present new data on a growing population of nonviolent protest INGOs, a transnational nonviolence network, working to globally spread tactical knowledge and resources. To examine determinants of how this population has grown as a whole, I employ negative binomial regression analysis to weigh the effect of nonviolent protest, social movements, and world society theories on nonviolent INGO expansion. I then examine how this network and its ties to different world regions have changed over the latter half of the twentieth century. I find it has been most significantly shaped by the expansion of global political and civil society networks, global human rights work, and a global discourse about nonviolence. The purpose here is to expand knowledge of the global institutional foundations of transnational protest resources, opportunities, and discourse among nonviolent movements.

Volumes 70 and 71 of Research in the Sociology of Organizations combine to comprise cutting edge theory and empirical scholarship at the interface of practice and institution in organization studies. As we highlight, this interface has spurred particularly generative conversations with many open questions, and much to explore. We provide a review of scholarly developments in practice theory and organizational institutionalism that have given rise to this interest in building a bridge between scholarly communities. As signaled by recent efforts to construct a practice-driven institutionalism, we highlight how connecting practice theory with the institutional logics perspective provides a particularly attractive focal point for scholarship at this interface due to a variety of shared ontological and epistemological commitments, including the constitution of actors and their behavior. Collectively, the papers assembled unlock exciting opportunities to connect distinct, but related scholarly communities on practice and institution, seeding scholarship that can advance our understanding of organizational and societal dynamics.

Volumes 70 and 71 of Research in the Sociology of Organizations combine to comprise cutting edge theory and empirical scholarship at the interface of practice and institution in organization studies. As we highlight, this interface has spurred particularly generative conversations with many open questions, and much to explore. We provide a review of scholarly developments in practice theory and organizational institutionalism that have given rise to this interest in building a bridge between scholarly communities. As signaled by recent efforts to construct a practice-driven institutionalism, we highlight how connecting practice theory with the institutional logics perspective provides a particularly attractive focal point for scholarship at this interface due to a variety of shared ontological and epistemological commitments, including the constitution of actors and their behavior. Collectively, the papers assembled unlock exciting opportunities to connect distinct, but related scholarly communities on practice and institution, seeding scholarship that can advance our understanding of organizational and societal dynamics.

What is “postcolonial sociology”? While the study of postcoloniality has taken on the form of “postcolonial theory” in the humanities, sociology's approach to postcolonial issues has been comparably muted. This essay considers postcolonial theory in the humanities and its potential utility for reorienting sociological theory and research. After sketching the historical background and context of postcolonial studies, three broad areas of contribution to sociology are highlighted: reconsiderations of agency, the injunction to overcome analytic bifurcations, and a recognition of sociology's imperial standpoint.

This chapter addresses the concern that much theory building in organization and management (OM) research suffers from de-contextualization. The authors argue that de-contextualization comes in two main forms: reductionism and grand theory. Whereas reductionism tends to downplay context in favor of individual behavior, grand theory looks at context only in highly abstract ahistorical terms. Such de-contextualization is problematic for at least two reasons. First, the boundary conditions of theories remain unexplored in ways that threaten scientific validity. Second, de-contextualization limits the potential of OM theory to fully understand the role of organizations in society and thereby address societal grand challenges. These claims are exemplified through critical reviews of four fields in OM research – gender, employee voice, corporate social responsibility (CSR), and institutional logics – and counterpoints that may help to overcome de-contextualized research are presented.

Zygmunt Bauman's work is a case study in the possibilities of postmodernism for sociology. Characterized on the one hand by a gloomy epistemology about knowledge and morality in a postmodern world and on the other, by provocative new concepts to empirically describe a postmodern world, Bauman's work evidences a key tension within postmodern thought. Is it possible to reconcile Bauman's pessimistic epistemology with his optimistic sociology? My argument is that if we recast Bauman as a critical theorist and his method as dialectical immanent critique, we can see how his positive empirical concepts are based on his negative epistemology. In this way we can make sense of the complexity of Bauman's work and appreciate his prophetic abilities. The complexities and possibilities of postmodern thought in general become clearer as well.

We argue that entrepreneurship emerged as a celebrated global cultural ideology during the neoliberal era; it is a product of the intensified celebration of the individual as the source of progress. As a result of these cultural roots, contemporary ideas of entrepreneurship are constituted by intertwined dimensions that reflect the sacred status of individuals; namely, vision and leadership. We illustrate our arguments about the expanded discursive celebration of entrepreneurship and its dimensions using the empirical example of changes in the content of Harvard Business Review articles over time. Our analysis of 13,117 abstracts and titles over the period 1925–2019 show an early focus on concrete industry settings, followed by a period dominated by formal organization and management, and then the rise of a focus on entrepreneurship, vision, and leadership since the 1990s. As a cultural trend, the discursive valorization of entrepreneurship is disconnected from the typical entrepreneurial experience (of failure) and from actual founding rates of new ventures (which decline in recent years). Moreover, the shift from liberal to neoliberal cultural ideologies supported a fundamental transformation away from formal management and organization and toward leadership and entrepreneurship. If the cultural foundations shift again, as recent global declines in democracy and trade suggest may be occurring, we are likely to see changes in the nature of the favored models for structuring economy and society.