Search results

The purpose of this paper is to use the theoretical insights provided by reflexive modernisation in examining the effects of globalisation on the development policies and trajectories of India.

After a presentation of the main ideas and concepts of reflexive modernisation and globalisation, the principal characteristics of the reflexive modernisation of India are identified and discussed.

This paper demonstrates that the development path taken by India is characterised by ambiguity, contradiction, and paradox. There is much doubt, uncertainty, and debate in academic, political, and social forums about whether India is on the right development path, as the nation attempts to graft western‐style capitalist structures and technologies on to traditional ways of life. Indeed, in its drive towards economic development and enhanced social well‐being India is at the same time compromising that development and wellbeing through the production of risks.

There are two main limitations of this paper. The first relates to reflexive modernisation. It is a much discussed and controversial theory that requires further enhancement, particularly with regard to developing nations. The second relates specifically to India in that it is difficult to make generalisations about such a diverse nation.

In spite of its limitations, reflexive modernisation offers a sound theoretical foundation for alternative perspectives and policy approaches to development. As developing nations such as India engage with global economic, cultural, and political structures and institutions, they are at the same time transforming and being transformed by the influences that these structures and institutions exert.

This paper aims to trace and/or historicise modernisation as a conceptual framework from the antecedents to present times. It also highlights the recent and past attention provided to modernisation by business and economic history scholars to recognise their contribution.

This paper is a literature review which offers a sample of debate from foundational scholars regarding the concept of modernisation emanating from sociologists, historians and business scholars. To present an analysis of the recent activity from business scholars on modernisation from highly recognizable journals and draw conclusions about the conceptual framework regarding its future as a framing device, the authors used search functions in the Business Source Complete database and specific journal search engines.

A keyword search of modernisation produced 45 published articles from 2000 to 2016 in business-related history and Financial Times top 50 journals. The foremost recognizable aspect of modernisation, as a construct presented here, demonstrates the concept that aims to illustrate a basic and/or universal pattern of the social processes that primarily affect development (e.g. cultural, economic, organisational, ecological, technological, etc.). Moreover, the authors demonstrate that economic and business scholars helped identify and explain different types of modernisation, reinforce or connect specific characteristics to modernisation, develop modernisation as an index capable of measurement and provide evidence of modernisation as a rhetorical strategy.

Little to no previous studies on modernisation emphasised on the contribution of business and economic historians; instead, they focused on the contributions of sociologists and social historians. Business and management historians served as an important voice in the development of modernisation as a conceptual frame. They highlighted the opportunities that are available to position modernisation as a useful tool to predict the future of traditional and advanced organisations.

Since the late 1980s, social theorists championed for the birth of a new era, in which societies were increasingly exposed to growing global risks. The presence of increasing risks including natural disasters, technological errors, terrorist attacks, nuclear wars and environmental degradation suggests that human beings are becoming increasingly vulnerable. Therefore, an understanding of vulnerability is crucial. Vulnerability is often considered as the potential to suffer from physical attacks. This approach, however, has limited capacity to explain many forms of suffering including not only physical aspects, but also mental, social, economic, political and social dimensions. This chapter draws on the vulnerability literature to present an overarching framework for the book. It starts with an outline of the concept origins, then discusses its relationship with the risk society thesis before forming conceptualisation. The chapter then points out the key similarities and differences between vulnerability and other concepts such as risk, disaster, poverty, security and resilience. The authors rework an existing “security” framework to develop a new definition of the concept of vulnerability. Finally, the authors look into the root causes and the formation of vulnerability within social systems.

The prospect that technological and social innovation in the use of communication and information technologies are bringing about an end to sovereignty has been a source of optimism, pessimism and ambivalence. It has captured the popular imagination and it can be found in the anxieties of national leaders about the mingling and collision of cultures and cultural products within and across their borders, and about growing awareness that environmental threats bow to no flag. According to much of this discourse, national governments are becoming increasingly powerless in their battles against real or imagined plights of cultural imperialism (and sub‐imperialism, that is, cultural imperialism within states) and capital mobility, as well as in their efforts to effectively exercise political control through surveillance and censorship. The end of sovereignty is a theme in political discussions about new pressures brought on by global regimes of trade and investment, and by unprecedented levels of global criminal networks for drug trafficking, money laundering and trade in human flesh. Social movements and non‐governmental organizations (NGOs) have reflected this by recognizing the need to match the scale of the problems they confront with appropriately scaled collective action. This article examines the discourse about the end of sovereignty and therise of new institutions of global governance. Particular emphasis is given to how advancements in the means of communication have produced the ambivalent outcomes of threatening the democratic governance of sovereign states, and serving as foundations for the assertion of democratic rights and popular sovereignty on a global scale.

In this chapter, I want to take some stock of the subdiscipline of environmental sociology. I believe that a productive approach to restoring some of the coherence of environmental sociology is to conceive of mainstream environmental sociology as reflecting several paradoxes. The bulk of this chapter will be devoted to a brief explication of environmental sociology's theoretical and empirical paradoxes. I will begin with three paradoxes that have played a major role in environmental sociology since the 1970s. However, many of the theoretical and empirical paradoxes of the subfield are relatively new ones – and some have not even been thought of as paradoxes. The thrust of the present chapter consists of something of a research agenda for environmental sociology for the next decade or so.

Blogs have become a widespread means for the exchange of information, where topics regarding food and nutrition feature with increasing prominence. In the sphere of online risk communication, food bloggers are relevant actors because they pass on practical information about food preparation and crucial phases of food safety (preservation, handling and cooking of food). Moreover, they have the ability to reach user networks in a rapid and capillary manner. This paper focusses on the figure of the food blogger, the context in which he/she acts and his/her perceptions and type of communication of food safety issues.

Quantitative and qualitative data were collected using an online survey and an online training programme was implemented to actively engage food bloggers in the creation of food risk communication.

This study showed that a common reason for the creation of a food blog is the love for food and the practice of caring for themselves and others through food. Food bloggers feel responsible for taking care of their users by providing accurate information related to health and safety. Communication via blogs is based on the shared experiences of users, thereby representing a type of knowledge that is closer to direct practice. Interacting with these new actors in the field of food is important for institutions traditionally committed to promoting public health and food safety.

The research stands out for its innovative purpose of using the network of food blogs as a communication tool that overcomes the traditional linear communication model (top-down) to experiment with a new participatory model and spread to Internet users good practices related to food management.

The purpose of this paper is to ask how we can think about critical reflection as a pedagogical practice given the “confessional turn”. By the “confessional turn” the author refers to the idea that “subjective, autobiographical and confessional modes of expression” have expanded exponentially across a wide range of social spheres, including education, the legal system, the media and the workplace. Examining these developments, this paper asks what these debates on critical reflection and confession mean for pedagogical practice.

The main approach is a review of key debates in the literature on critical reflection and also in the wider social sciences.

The discussion compares different debates. Thus it shows that for critics, the turn to the “first person” technologies is narcissistic, psychologistic and de‐politicising. On this view, critical reflective practice might be understood as an individualistic and individualising pedagogy in spite of its claims to be critical. The paper discusses how in contrast, others see this move to talk about the subjective and the self as an extension of the feminist project of the personal is political – i.e. that personal stories, feelings and issues have social and political roots and consequences. For them, reflection can be critical, leading to political consciousness‐raising, i.e. a new awareness about social, political and personal processes. It finishes by examining the view that the idea of reflexivity might help us out of the conflict between these debates.

The paper poses a number of questions in relation to critical reflection that can be taken up by practitioners in the field.

The paper brings new literature to bear on the practice of critical reflection and raises important questions relevant to academics and practitioners.

Accounting’s definition of accountability should include attributes of socioenvironmental degradation manufactured by unsustainable technologies. Beck argues that emergent accounts should reflect the following primary characteristics of technological degradation: complexity, uncertainty, and diffused responsibility. Financial stewardship accounts and probabilistic assessments of risk, which are traditionally employed to allay the public’s fear of uncontrollable technological hazards, cannot reflect these characteristics because they are constructed to perpetuate the status quo by fabricating certainty and security. The process through which safety thresholds are constructed and contested represents the ultimate form of socialized accountability because these thresholds shape how much risk people consent to be exposed to. Beck’s socialized total accountability is suggested as a way forward: It has two dimensions, extended spatiotemporal responsibility and the psychology of decision-making. These dimensions are teased out from the following constructs of Beck’s Risk Society thesis: manufactured risks and hazards, organized irresponsibility, politics of risk, radical individualization and social learning. These dimensions are then used to critically evaluate the capacity of full cost accounting (FCA), and two emergent socialized risk accounts, to integrate the multiple attributes of sustainability. This critique should inform the journey of constructing more representative accounts of technological degradation.