History and Cultural Theory

Gunn, Simon

doi:10.4324/9781315835532

Cited by 11 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Reflexivity de-privileges a historian as the sole arbiter and authoritative voice of history. It encourages us to consider that all histories are provisional if only due to the politics of knowledge construction and the partiality of any representation (Gunn, 2006). It urges us to critically acknowledge that all historians are situated, thus they are grounded in a time and place which shapes their perspective.…”

Section: The Postmodern Historian and Her Contextsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Handbook of Research on Management and Organizational History

Bruce¹

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

At the April 2017 Economic and Social Research Council workshop on organizational history in Exeter, UK, Peter Miskell asked Gabrielle Durepos and Albert Mills 'who is the ANTi-Historian?' The group assembled for the small workshop included those most influential (including, but not limited to, Michael Rowlinson, Charles Booth and Peter Clark) in shaping what, over the past 10 years has become ANTi-History. Gabrielle took the liberty to answer simply: as an actor that does critical organizational history, my composition has been shaped by all of you, my network. Thus, I'm an ANTi-Historian, but only by virtue of you. The answer was inspired by a simple actor-network theory concept, actors (me, you) are punctuated networks (groups of other influential academics) that assume their configuration through translating and enrolling actors with similar interests (Callon, 1986). Our reply to Miskell was short and, likely, insufficient. Nonetheless, the question is stimulating. In this chapter, we take the opportunity to develop a more thoughtful answer to: who is the management ANTi-Historian?The question is timely and important. It is important because it invokes a normative answer that we feel is increasingly problematic. That normative answer is: the historian is the person (human actor) who writes history. Historians assume their status as such by undergoing years of professional academic training where they learn the disciplinary conventions and craft of history and historiography (Marwick, 2001). The training involves acquiring specialized knowledge of existing interpretations in the field and the ability for disciplined reading of primary and secondary sources through which the methods of verification are internalized (Elton, 1967;Munslow, 2006Munslow, [1997). Through this training, historians acquire a licence to legitimately translate stories of the past into history. So, what is the problem with this answer? And, why is it timely?Calls for an historic turn in 2004 led to increased attention on doing history research in management and organization studies (MOS) (Clark and Rowlinson, 2004;Üsdiken and Kieser, 2004). Though calls for more history did not result in a wholesale transformation of MOS as had been hoped for, many MOS researchers have taken an active interest in doing history. The attention is evidenced in the numerous edited collections (

show abstract

Section: The Postmodern Historian and Her Contextsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Handbook of Research on Management and Organizational History

Bruce¹

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A major axis that has structured the traditional debate since the 1970s and still holds firm today is precisely the controversy over the origins of nations. Despite the influence of postmodernism, postcolonialism, and other strands of critical theory (Gunn 2006) that have been trying to move the field toward a research question focused on how nations function as a social phenomenon (regardless of their origin), a question preoccupied with when nations came about still shapes our conceptual framework. 1 The idea that understanding the nature of something is inevitably linked to knowing about its inception has retained its appeal.…”

Section: Theoretical Legacies and Shiftsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nationhood as Practice and the Modernity of Nations: A Conceptual Proposal

Almendral

2020

Nationalities Papers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article revisits the debate on the modernity of nations considering recent critical approaches to national phenomena. It proposes an alternative model that addresses the existence of empirical evidence about nations before the 19th century without erasing key changes in the history of nationhood, such as the rise of the principle of national sovereignty. The model draws on existing literature and a corpus of British, French, Spanish, and Portuguese ego-documents from the Age of Revolutions. The study of patterns of usage of national languages in these life narratives supports the abandonment of the premodern/modern antinomy and the implementation of a more complex account. The proposal distinguishes republican, genetic, nonpoliticized ethnotypical, politicized ethnotypical, liberal, romantic, biological, cultural, and democratic forms of nationhood. It then develops the genetic and the ethnotypical forms using source materials and readdresses the issue of “modernity” in the light of this evidence.

show abstract

“…Prosvjetiteljstvo je, pak, religiju lišilo svake spoznajne vjerodostojnosti i tako spoznajne vjerodajnice predalo umu, glavnom organ(on)u probuđenog subjekta, a Deklaracija o pravima čovjeka supstancijalnu osnovu države vidjela je u načelu slobodne (umski posredovane) voljeshvaćene u suprotstavljenosti povijesno zatečenim ili tradicijski zajamčenim pravima.« 61 »Nastavljajući svoj rad na postavke prosvjetiteljskog filozofa Immanuela Kanta, Weber je princip modernosti promatrao kao razdiobu znanja u niz autonomnih sfera, ponajprije u znanost (poistovjećenu s razumom), moralnost (povezanu s pravdom) i umjetnost (povezanu s ljepotom). Stvaranje ovih sfera i prilika za ra- 58 zvoj, oslobađanje i istinu -koje su one sa sobom donijele -izgradilo je obećanje prosvjetiteljstva i modernosti.« 62 Stoga se naizmjence pozivamo na ideje sociologa Maxa Webera u ranom dvadesetom stoljeću, jednog od prvih intelektualaca koji je svjesno upotrebljavao termin modernost. 63 Weber je smatrao da je obećanje modernosti ujedno i iskvareno nekim suprotnim pritiscima: tendencijom da se oslobodilački potencijal razuma potkopa birokratskim i kapitalističkim pravilima; sklonošću samih sfera da njima dominiraju profesionalni specijalisti, koji ih stoga čine isključenima za ostale; te mogućnošću da se vrijednosti pojedinih autonomnih sfera preliju u druge, kao što je to slučaj kod estetizacije politike, vidljive u raskoši fašizma.…”

Section: Društveno-povijesni Kontekst Totalitarnog Refleksa Post-modeunclassified

“…Posljedice ovih pritisaka su smanjena nadanja za društvom temeljenom na slobodi i pravdi, kakvo je zamislio moderan razum, te njegova zamjena u formi »željeznog kaveza racionalnosti«, karakteriziranog »razočaranjem u svijet« i širenjem birokratizacije. 64 U Weberovu pesimističkom promišljanju modernost je definirana kao diferencijacija u sferi znanja, što pruža temelj za racionalno djelovanje. 65 »Rastuća intelektualizacija i racionalizacija prema tome ne označavaju porast općeg poznavanja uvjeta života u kojima se živi.…”

Section: Društveno-povijesni Kontekst Totalitarnog Refleksa Post-modeunclassified

“…Razmatranje definicija i značenja moderniteta i postmoderniteta pokazuje nam da ne postoji samo jedna i jasna definicija navedenih pojmova, što se zapravo može promatrati kao izvor konceptualnog bogatstva -koje povjesničaru omogućuje kretanje među različitim analitičkim dimenzijama, kao i opažanje neočekivanih poveznica. 84 Pristup razumijevanju pojma moderniteta traži povijesno mišljenje u obzorju one povijesti koja ga određuje i nosi te po kojoj je moguć. Weberu je unutrašnja, tj.…”

Section: Dokidanje Idejno-političkog Karaktera Religije Unutar Razumiunclassified

See 1 more Smart Citation

Odnos totalitarnog refleksa postmodernog doba prema religiji

Kovačević

Milošić

Rušinović

2018

Nova prisut. (Online)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

U ovom radu se postavlja sociološki problem religijskog opredjeljenja u odnosu na političku korektnost radi postizanja razumijevanja postmodernog doba prema religiji. Historijski se u radu uvažavaju problemi totalitarizma i sklonost religije da padne u totalitarni društveni koncept, izgubivši tako svoju eshatološku i duhovnu bit i tako bude antipod političkoga, kao što je bilo slučajeva u povijesti moderne. Pokušavajući prikazati različite načine na koje se religija proučavala, te se i danas proučava, dajemo prednost razumijevanju i analizi političke korektnosti prema religijskom opredjeljenju koliko je to potrebno unutar fenomenologijsko-hermeneutičkog kruga religijskog vidika. Bit te analize kritički produbljuje religijski (i svaki drugi društveni) fenomen i ne dopušta da se on svodi jedino na imanentnu sociološku razinu prema sustavu religije i posebno sustavu politike koji, usprkos političkoj korektnosti »posmoderne politike«, ima imanentnu i tako ograničenu viziju. Pojmovni instrumentarij totalitarizma u ovom radu prvenstveno analiziramo referirajući se na autore koji sociološki i filozofski analiziraju probleme moderne i postmoderne, posebno odnos religije i političke korektnosti u kontekstu »neo-totalitarizma«. Tako se u radu analizira sociološki put k »otvorenosti« postmodernoga u kontekstu društvenih teoretičara »razumijevajuće sociologije« Maxa Webera, najranijih članova čikaškog sociološkog odjela, Thomasa Williama, postmoderne Jeana-Françoisa Lyotarda, Frankfurtske škole kritičke teorije, Thedora Adorna, Maxa Horkheimera i Jürgena Habermasa.

show abstract

History and Cultural Theory

Cited by 11 publications

References 0 publications

Handbook of Research on Management and Organizational History

Handbook of Research on Management and Organizational History

Nationhood as Practice and the Modernity of Nations: A Conceptual Proposal

Odnos totalitarnog refleksa postmodernog doba prema religiji

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About