The “Social Question,” 1820–1920

Case, Holly

doi:10.1017/s1479244315000037

Cited by 20 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…But as soon as liberals arrived in power, they started to face a new problem, the 'social question' i.e. the situation of workers, for three reasons (Castel 2002;Stedman Jones 2005;Case 2016). First, it was clear that the revolution had been done mostly by Parisian workers, who then proved to be the best supporters of liberal values and agenda -an unexpected turn from previous liberal revolutionary attempts, most importantly the carbonari plots of the early 1820s where the rank and file was composed of students and soldiers (Spitzer 1971).…”

Section: I-turning Workers Into Owners: Labour Property and Political...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Conceptualisations of Labour and the Making of the French Working Class in the 1830s

Hayat¹

2022

Redescriptions: Political Thought, Conceptual History and Feminist Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The emergence of the working class as a unified subject in France at the beginning of the 19th century was linked to transformations in the conceptualisation of work. At the beginning of the July Monarchy, two distinct conceptions of labour emerged within the nascent liberal and socialist movements. What they had in common was that they saw the working class as a single, unified entity, over and above the trade differences that had organised labour before the 1789 Revolution. But they differed in important respects. For the liberals, labour, as a social activity, put workers at risk of being influenced by immoral doctrines and examples of vice. In contrast to property, which led the middle classes to political moderation, work was seen as potentially radicalising workers, who therefore had to be kept under the supervision of the state and employers. For socialists, on the other hand, labour was an all-encompassing activity that should make the working class a hegemonic subject.

show abstract

Section: I-turning Workers Into Owners: Labour Property and Political...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Conceptualisations of Labour and the Making of the French Working Class in the 1830s

Hayat¹

2022

Redescriptions: Political Thought, Conceptual History and Feminist Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Milton Friedman, writing in the 1970s, argued that “the social responsibility of business is to increase its profits” (Friedman, 1970; September 13). Soon after, the discussion began to focus more specifically on corporations, and the term “corporate social responsibility” was born (Carroll, 1979), along with other related concepts such as “corporate citizenship” (Matten and Crane, 2005). From that point on, there are almost as many definitions of CSR as there are authors!…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Who responds to whom and for what? A grounded theory analysis of social responsibility in the 1857 Frankfurt Bienfaisance Congress

Good

Husted

Palomares-Aguirre

et al. 2020

JMH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this study is to examine and interpret the characteristics of social responsibility in general, and business responsibility in particular, that were evident during a period in European history that was plagued by widespread social problems and change. Based on that interpretation, the authors explore the lessons those characteristics may have for social responsibility in a contemporary world that is facing similar conditions. Design/methodology/approach The paper presents a qualitative analysis of the proceedings of the Bienfaisance Congress held in Frankfurt in 1857, where societal leaders from different nations met to answer the question, who has responsibility for whom, and for what? The authors use grounded theory, as it is operationalized in what is known as the “Gioia template,” to conduct a structured analysis of this particular text, and to in turn produce a theoretical interpretation of how that question was answered. Findings The interpretation from this study is that congress participants articulated certain established dimensions of responsibility (individual, organizational, national), as well as one new dimension (international), and did so by differentiating boundaries of responsibility; in turn, the authors suggest that these dimensions and boundaries work together to form a nested system of responsibilities. Research limitations/implications There is limited empirical evidence available that documents the variety of responsibility-based initiatives that were being conducted during the 19th century. An analysis of the congress proceedings allows us to gain a better understanding of how the 19th-century world, particularly the upper echelons of European society, approached the question of under what conditions actors in different domains have responsibility for another. While the implications are limited by the analysis of the proceedings of one congress that was attended by elites, they do provide a snapshot of how Europe sought to articulate a system of bounded responsibilities during a time of widespread social problems and change. Practical implications Although the nested system of responsibilities framework that emerged from the grounded theory analysis is not applicable to all situations, it should sensitize policymakers and business leaders to the need to address social problems in a systemic way. Originality/value The authors both present a systems-based framework for understanding how responsibility is differentiated among actors (individual, organizational, state and international) and demonstrate how a theoretical interpretation of historical documents can be accomplished through the use of grounded theory, as operationalized through the Gioia template.

show abstract

“…Different meanings are attached to this expression, ranging from moral indignation about poverty and the poor to the fear of “dangerous classes” [Fregier 1839] and the “spectre of communism” [Marx/Engels 1848]. While in the period stretching into the early twentieth century it had a “structuring presence” for political discourse all over Europe [Case 2015: 3], it was not always clear what the expression actually encompassed [Howerth 1906: 254]. In retrospect, it connotes “a concern about a society’s ability to maintain its own cohesion” [Castel 2003: 3].…”

Section: The Social Question and State Formation: Europe And Africa Cmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Social Question and State Formation in British Africa

Veit¹,

Schlichte²,

Karadag³

2017

Arch. eur. sociol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper explores governmental perceptions and reactions to “social questions” in British colonial Africa, c. 1880-1950. By comparing three different political entities, Egypt, South Africa and Uganda, we find that authorities across cases have been acutely aware of potentially destabilising social change. Some social problems actually resulted from colonial projects themselves, giving rise to rather contradictory interpretations and policies. However, the intensity of political reactions to social questions varied widely, ranging from a largely passive approach in Egypt to the introduction of modern welfare in South Africa. We argue that perceptions and responses to social dislocation had a long-term impact on patterns of state formation and social policy development.

show abstract

The “Social Question,” 1820–1920

Cited by 20 publications

References 11 publications

Conceptualisations of Labour and the Making of the French Working Class in the 1830s

Conceptualisations of Labour and the Making of the French Working Class in the 1830s

Who responds to whom and for what? A grounded theory analysis of social responsibility in the 1857 Frankfurt Bienfaisance Congress

The Social Question and State Formation in British Africa

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About