Autore: Peter Herrmann's Blog

Dr. Peter Herrmann is a sociologist of German origin -- well, he was, before moving forward, being now ..., well, some say: social philosopher, permanently crossing borders between arts, economics, jurisprudence, philosophy, political science and .., yes, still sociology ... and having lost many links to the origins as fasr as nationality is concerned, trying to imagine that there is no border ...

Awkward Fame

da Peter Herrmann's Blog, posted in academic life - living in academia, general, thoughts on life and its philosophy

A note had been sent today, somebody proudly announcing that he had been mentioend in speech of a high ranking politician. And isn’t indeed that we all have a little it of this: like the midge being drawn to the light – there seems to be the strive to be part of the grandesse of power. As much as we stand on the sholders of giants, allowing dwarfs to look far afield, we seem to be glad seeing ourselves contributing as footnotes in the thoughts of others.
So, being recognised by the highest figure in the state is surely enviable – notwithstanding the critique one bring forward to the very same state and representative.
And in my own way I enter the arena for competition: I am moving towards some hectic days ahead (some info here), into the middle of trouble. Solidarity meetings in Athens with striking workers, meetings with trade-unionists and activists, talks in the parliament and also talks about the need to provide sound scientific answers: perception, evaluation, classification, interpretation, conclusion – never forgetting the very basic toolbox of research in daily life. hectic and challenging but good to be able to do something that may also be quoted by presidents etc.,though probably more interpreted there as rioting, agitating and asking for too much of a change.
But in which way ever, we need a really fundamental change – and we need to take up the question of political responsibility. As Aristotle states in his Politics

For man, when perfected, is the best of animals, but, when separated from law and justice, he is the worst of all; since armed injustice is the more dangerous, and he is equipped at birth with arms, meant to be used by intelligence and virtue, which he may use for the worst ends. Wherefore, if he have not virtue, he is the most unholy and the most savage of animals, and the most full of lust and gluttony. But justice is the bond of men in states, for the administration of justice, which is the determination of what is just, is the principle of order in political society.

But what he did not say is that there will not be a philosopher king – we are not living in Kallipolis. In the real world values, theory, analysis has to mean something different – as Marx said already in 1843, in the Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right

The weapon of criticism cannot, of course, replace criticism of the weapon, material force must be overthrown by material force; but theory also becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses. Theory is capable of gripping the masses as soon as it demonstrates ad hominem, and it demonstrates ad hominem as soon as it becomes radical.

Thus, at the end the question will be who the giants are and how the footnotes really contribute meaningfully the body text.

norm and deviation

da Peter Herrmann's Blog, posted in academic life - living in academia, works, projects, publications

Or: is there really no such thing as society?

Just doing the final preparation on the presentation

Norms and Deviations of Modern Information-Environments for Young People

tomorrow in Moscow. It is a bit worrying, in particular as thinking about it I am getting so aware about the major flaw of most of the debates and research: naming the youth, shaming the technology and blaming the bad spirit of our times.

The other day I went to see “The Iron Lady” (surely too favourable for her) – and it became shockingly clear in which way part of the critic of her politics had been to some extent mislead, rejecting her favoured orientation on responsibility, taking the burden away from the state but not seeing that her actual point had been very much a different one: the refusal of taking the sociability of humans into account. With this she fell, of course, far behind even Aristotelean thinking. Aristotle, as well known, discussed  four core matters: chremastike, oikonomia, eudamonia and not least phronimoi – all relating to each other and all only in this interplay elements of what he considered as “good society”. With this he had to reject any fundamentally orientation on chremastike (as orientation on pure maximisation of profit) and also any “pure” private property.

What we surely could learn from Thatcher is just the opposite what she said: There is such thing as society – and we need to destroy it. This is what happened under rulership, this happens currently in Hungary, Greece, Germany and so many other countries – not only within the EU but also for instance with the revival of religious fundamentalism under the conservative Turkish AKP-government (closely going hand in hand with more severe breaches of human rights not least against the Kurds) …

Coming then back to tomorrows lecture, it is getting so clear to me that the core deviation is twofold:

  • the withholding of rights of (not only) young people to fundamentally and closely control the process of production (production in the economic sense and the production of the social) going hand in hand with
  • the withholding of knowledge.

Surely the latter is a matter where I may be in part guilty myself. Of course, teaching in academia is also about “making existing knowledge available”, i.e. providing information. But isn’t it much more about developing knowledge, allowing – and demanding – serious research?
Universities – but in general any kind of teaching, social development should accept the need of time as core ingredient of knowledge.
If I will actually say what I prepared, I will end with a reference to Schiller who stated in his Letters upon the Æsthetic Education of Man.

Moreover, as the sensuous impulsion controls us physically, and the formal impulsion morally, the former makes our formal constitution contingent, and the latter makes our material constitution contingent, that is to say, there is contingence in the agreement of our happiness with our perfection, and reciprocally. The instinct of play, in which both act in concert, will render both our formal and our material constitution contingent; accordingly, our perfection and our happiness in like manner.

So true, we have to return to this much shared reasoning,

  • the Marx/Hegelian view on freedom as insight into and understanding of necessity
  • Spinoza’s understanding of freedom as acting with reference to the necessity of the own nature
  • or to use then Schiller’s words of the famous conclusio:

Man only plays when in the full meaning of the word he is a man, and he is only completely a man when he plays.

If we teach and allow such real play, computer games will surely not be a problem at all. – And there we are surely at the point of blaming ourselves for not taking enough initiative and following the rules of individualists rather then allowing phronesis to develop. And this is surely not least strictly against Thatcher’s and others attempt to destroy society as much as it is against the call for big society – doesn’t this speak volumes that both slogans come from the same father of thought (obviously a motherless child).

en route these days

da Peter Herrmann's Blog, posted in general, quotes

Ireland – Greece – Hungary – Turkey – Italy …. travelling these days and getting news

…. and receiving a message with the following words, from Zygmunt Bauman

What is novel [these days] is not uncertainty;
what is novel is a realization that uncertainty is here to stay

Surely one thing reaining to be done: still taking firm positions against the strength of claimed powers. The challenge of being human these days!

Once met … – truth

da Peter Herrmann's Blog, posted in academic life - living in academia, general

– or Sociology and the Beauty and the Beast

Those of you who met and knew Norbert Elias even a little bit will admit that he had been a personality with an attracting character. And even if one didn’t agree with what he said, he didn’t loose this attraction. And perhaps it had been exactly because he honestly encouraged disagreement, he never stopped to develop his thoughts, he always showed his open mind – open to engage real debate, though not to keen to engage in meaningless discourses.

And it had been this commitment – openness joined with precision in expression and readiness to decision and conviction – that is probably in a nutshell what good sociology is about. And in this tradition the Special Supplement 36 of the Newsletter of the Norbert Elias Foundation published considerations by Nico Wilterdink on sociology as

CONTROVERSIAL SCIENCE : GOOD AND BAD SOCIOLOGY

Probably it will be soon online

One of the beasts is surely the permanent effort of popularising sociological thought, presenting something that looks like sociology but is not much more than populist engagement. And it is just so delightful to see such procedere openly questioned, to witness the onset on the predestined gods of the discipline – predestined by their own discretion and by the ability to sell catchy formulation as witty insight: Bad sociology. So we read the dethroning of one of these authorities on page 8:

Apparently Beck conceives social structures as static, as opposed to social change. This makes social sociologically unexplainable; it is unclear where it would come from if not from ‘within’ social structures. Becks essentially static view of society also appears from the terminology of ‘first modernity’ and ‘second modernity’. It is on this basis that Beck can depict current social change as an extraordinary and sudden transition from ne to the other stage, a shocking, confusing, earthquake-like transformation. He projects his own static essentialism on historical reality in statements such as: ‘First modern society [that is, society in a phase of the first modernity] regards itself as the end and culmination of history, a social form that will last forever (Beck, Bonss, and Lau 2003: 6). This is bad sociology if only because ‘society’ is conceived here as a thinking entity, a reflecting being

(Beck, Ulrich, Wolfgang Bonss, Christoph Lau (2003) ‘The theory of reflexive modernization’, Theory, Culture&Society, 20(2): 1-33)

The beauty is seeing that still sociologists are ready to seriously engage in attempts to look for good sociology – and isn’t this actually very much: engaging in working for good society?

Of course, this means also in looking at the grand narrative but doing so by not forgetting the fact that sociology is about sociogenetic and psychogenetic moments of processes, the interlocking of people acting within certain structures and – as the creators of these structures – re-creating themselves. Reading work of good sociology always confirms me in looking for ways to further my own approach of looking at processes of relational appropriation. – Then the question if chicken, hen or egg came first can easily be answered. It is just real life – and it didn’t have any beginning as it existed by establishing itself. In other words, acknowledging the fact that there is no social space or time “without culture”.

Once met – truth … — it would be so good if such truth, the genuine sense for open discussio would return into academia rather than universities being a kind of amphithatre for international shows: shalow as Eurovision-contests, identified and assessed by international rankings rather than originality and genuine debate.

The Celtic tiger revived – now taking shape of paper tiger

da Peter Herrmann's Blog, posted in academic life - living in academia, general, thoughts on life and its philosophy, works, projects, publications

Sure, there  had been some danger Mr Murphy could have been hit by the brick he dropped – but he stumbled briefly, and the attempt to regain balance nearly increased his speed though unfortunately not changing the direction. And now it seems that he lined up to revive the Celtic tiger and smart economies surely require smart societies and smart universities and only smart people will be able to move Ireland towards a big society – finally big brothers are not only there to watch but they are also there to be followed.
So, a recent mail to all staff in the ivory tower of the academic savour reminded that

The first half of 2013 will mark Ireland’s Presidency of the European Union.

and stated

This is an opportunity for UCC to enhance its international recognition.

The following content then said:

I will be grateful if each of you would consult with your local management teams on themes for conferences or symposia that might be organised here during the first half of 2013.  You might then send a one pager to me by the end of January and thereafter we will prioritise those projects that are likely to have maximum impact, likely to acquire support and enthusiasm from the relevant Minister, government department, state agency etc.  An indication of pragmatic budget requirement will also help.

Yes, it is admittedly difficult to outline in such a letter to so many different department, schools, disciplines – and people – the substantial side of it. However, the entire mail doesn’t even mention really even the honest question if we, UCC, departments and schools thereof have anything to say that is “outstanding”. It is not to say that we don’t have anything to say. But there is another point which makes me thinking.
I just finished reviewing “tons of abstracts” for a world congress later this year – something with social science, social development, social policy – doesn’t play a role here to say more. There had been many submissions. My general comment, sent to the organisers:

I just completed the review. Somewhere in the foregoing process the reviewers had been asked to be generous, not least in the light as not all submitters would have an academic background. My point would be more that some of the contributors are so much caught in very tight academic frameworks of a “technicist minimalism” they they fail seeing new, real questions. They are very much basic standard presentations, probably by young academics. Though I accepted them, I think the most important contributions are actually coming from those who are open and bring new perspectives into the debate – academic or not. I look very much forward to taking part in the debates

And another point coming to my mind: two days before I submitted a paper for publication – some time back I had been asked to write it. And it took longer than expected. AndI sent the document also to some close colleagues, writing in an accompanying mail:

…. , some reading – the draft of a chapter I just submitted – and some short remarks: the topic and approach is rather unconventional and in particular this approach is somewhat unusual as it contradicts to a more or less large extent the traditional “regime analysis”, aiming on linking into the traditional social policy debate, however, also adding a different dimension to it by looking for the link of social and welfare politics into a wider framework of the mode of production. This allows making the economic perspective much clearer than especially Esping-Andersen does without falling into the trap of seeing social policy and the link to the economic system only by way of ‘productive social policy’. As such it is not meant to give an alternative view by way of an exclusionary perspective. But it may well be useful as adding to other perspectives of the debate. And it may also serve as contribution to a debate on the future of the ‘welfare state’ – not a revolutionary perspective but nevertheless a perspective that is reflecting the current stage of development of capitalism and a scenario that can be developed (as one option) from there.

Please, note that this text is not for further distribution.
….

Not well advertised, and it will not be part of mainstream-publishing and going beyond “smart solutions” it will be most likely not easily recognised by such “high-level” enterprises as the EU and the respective presidencies. But I admit I feel touched by the expression of interest by some colleagues – from different continents, showing interest. And I am actually somewhat touched (if this is the right term), reading in one of the mails:

I have two main comments.  The first relates to your use of Marx in your analysis.  While you write in English you do not write for Americans. Reading your Marxist analysis would bring about two responses from an American audience.  The first is that they have no idea what you are talking about.   Second, it is the enemy and if not that, irrelevant. My position to your writing is that to be useful it needs to be debated and in our world today and that needs to be done on both sides of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.

Thank you – and thank the others for these nice encouragements. And thank you, my Hungarian friend, writing today, in a completely different context:

things are worse than turmoil, I am very sceptic to see the reactions to all the errors of the past years

We see, there is surely more needed than inviting people to take up an

opportunity for UCC to enhance its international recognition

Though it is an old joke it is still true:

….. but I would not start from here ….

It is not about saying something; it is still about what to say.

Sure, some postmodernists claim that we are in principle all experts for everything. Though I am not denying the actual problematique of post-modernism, I see a simplified understanding of such statement simply as problematic. The many Mr. Murphys, well trained medical experts, getting the unbelievable high income of medical consultants, should work in that field where there specific qualification is required.
Would he trust me if stand in front of him, the scalpel in the hand …?

SMART – Silly Move Against Reason – Tautology

Democracy, Science and Business-isation of Academic Work

da Peter Herrmann's Blog, posted in academic life - living in academia, works, projects, publications

Again and again we hear about the democratic deficit – leaving aside the half-hearted debates on contemporary issues: der EU and the lack of democratic accountability, the oppressive demands by the IMF when it comes to national policies answering the crisis – the main critique is directed against so-called totalitarian theories, in particular Marxism. On the other hand, however, we find not less frequently the emphasis of a need of holistic approaches, aiming on overcoming the separation between different areas of science and even recognising the problematic issue of drawing a fundamental division between “science” and “social science”. Of course, much had been written about it – and as much as the “totalitarian character” of Marxism as theory had been wrongly equalised with undemocratic as obvious had been the failure of an open society of Popperian stance.

And also we hear again and again the problems of academic work and academia – seemingly being trapped by elitism on the one hand and opening universities on the other hand (see on this issue the recent posts).

Leaving this aside I experienced over the last days again an interesting issue, seemingly not linked and nevertheless so obvious part of the same issue: writing a dictionary.

In actual fact, i received the three volumes of a dictionary to which I delivered the texts of some entries – published by a “major publisher”, and buying it will ask for a major “contribution” . The same day I received incidentally the same day a mail from a colleague: a reminder to deliver the promised contributions to another dictionary, its second edition – another “standard dictionary” which you can buy for a price  that is standard too, sadly high (the author’s “income”: the opportunity to buy the final opus for a reduced price or even getting a free copy of the complete  work). Working on such projects usually means one gets at most finally a a  “review” – some comments which are sent on a draft – I say comments though I probably could also say demands and orders to change. No names – the name of the author is not known to the reviewer and the reviewer is the one frequently publicly mentioned in a footnote: My thanks go to the two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on a first draft; and frequently they are talked about privately: there had been somebody making some requests as s/he had to show the importance of the review process but actually the comments clearly show that s/he didn’t even read the text let alone showing any insight of understanding – this is especially obvious when two reviews are completely contradicting each other).
Trinity – I am currently again more involved in the elaboration of a less standard dictionary – the HKWM, Historical-Critical Dictionary of Marxism. The entire group – be it during meeting face to face meetings, be it via e-mail exchange around the globe – thinks about the key words that are worth to be considered to written about, a draft is circulated, commented, different people take initiative, decide themselves if they feel competent, engage in discussions, are criticised and even rebuked …, a second draft, discussion, the work across different languages as somebody may have submitted for instance a text in …, Italian (this happened recently where language caused difficulties during the debate and commenting) … – somebody who volunteered to write in the first instance is “kindly” pushed out … – yes, discussions can be hard at times. And of course there are hierarchies etc.. but it seems to me that the work is truly academic in the sense of a social science: social not least by recognising the social process of elaborating “knowledge”, academic as well by way of an open process, indeed: producing not an open society in which decisions on truth are then made by the top: managers, efficiency planners, organisers. Instead here it is about producing a comprehensive knowledge in the best way: bringing different perspectives together, making up for a “totality” that then allows developing knowledge based on reflecting the totality of reality – as a complex identity with its various reifications. – And here, everybody has a name rather than remaining covered by a veil of anonymity.

To me this seems to be a more workable model than that one that pursues the permanent re-invitation of the wheel by individuals: contributing to the building of a railway of which the single wheels may look perfectly constructed, where every screw fits neatly and where the public rail-transport nevertheless remains a disaster.

Coming to a forth way then: WIKIPEDIA seems the worst conglomeration of these different moves: “democracy as arbitrary coming together” of knowledge, commitment and political orientation – control left to arbitrary activities, underlying the control of randomness. The look good factor, put over the factor of being good: total, comprehensive and disputatious.

Surely, personally for me it is exciting being part of all this.

Social Quality From Theory to Indicators

da Peter Herrmann's Blog, posted in academic life - living in academia, social quality

Social Quality From Theory to Indicators
Edited by Laurent J. G. Van Der Maesen and Alan Walker;
Palgrave/MacMillan

Now it is out – the publication is now available, the work done and at the same time it is just the point of departure for further elaboration of the social quality approach. This work started already with major cooperations in particular in the city of The Hague. Next Wednesday important negotiations will take place in order to venture future plans, not least consider closer cooperation with Eurispes – Istituto di Studi Politici Economici e Sociali in Rome
This is not least  and in particular an important issue on taking centrally the question of sustainability on board. The present book can sulrey be seen as a mile stone in this respect.

On the book the following information is taken from the flyer.

This book provides the most up to date account of the concept of social quality. Developed originally as a response to the promotion of neo-liberal policies in Europe, the idea has been taken up and applied in China and East Asia. This book is the key reference point for the continuing spread and adoption of the concept. It develops the theoretical foundations of social quality and locates it within the main theoretical frameworks of western social science. It provides a clear account of the methods for measuring social quality which includes the initial indicators developed by a major European research project. It includes an in-depth analysis of the four core components of social quality: socio-economic security, social cohesion, social inclusion and social empowerment. Then it applies the concept of social quality to some of the most pressing policy challenges, including the future of the European Union and sustainability. Its theory, methods and compelling arguments in favour of social justice are essential for students studying a wide variety of social sciences and policy makers and general readers interested in creating a more socially just society.
CONTENTS:

  • Introduction; L.van der Maesen & A.Walker
  • European and Global Challenges; L.van der Maesen & A.Walker
  • Theoretical Foundations; W.Beck, L.van der Maesen & A.Walker
  • Conceptual Location of Social Quality; P.Herrmann, L.van der Maesen & A.Walker
  • Social Quality Indicators; P.Herrmann, L.van der Maesen & A.Walker
  • Socio-Economic Security; D.Gordon Social Cohesion; Y.Berman & D.Phillips
  • Social Inclusion; A.Walker & C.Walker
  • Social Empowerment; P.Herrmann
  • The Functions of Social Quality Indicators; L.van der Maesen
  • Social Quality and Sustainability; L.van der Maesen & A.Walker

It remains to be emphasised that the work on the book, taking so much time, had been a most exciting and valuable experience of … – social quality. Combining individual work with close cooperation – and with gaining and maintaining collegiality and friendships.
From my side I want to add my very personal Thank You to Laurent for all the work and also to Yitzhak with whom I galdly maintained contact even after our immediate cooperation ended.

The cooperation – for me at least – showes: also in academia another world is possible, not in need of any presidential elitist advise (on this also here).

Having Time

da Peter Herrmann's Blog, posted in joys - what we usually take for it, quotes
“I do not have the time for that, I am just composing my 4th symphony.”
According to the program of yesterday’s Bruckner-concert*:
‘This is the answer Anton Bruckner gave during the winter 1873/74, responding to the advise of one of his pupils to enjoy the ordinary niceties of life, to prefer the norms of the ordinary civil life rather than those of living as an artist, consider to marry.’
Fortunately he didn’t have the time for that …  😉 – and I guess I don’t have to add: Danny B. had been amazing as ever. And the question, the alterative that is proposed shows part of the mendacity of the life of many. Giving some impression, here from a performance in Vienna …, the same conductor, the same orchestra …, but not life …

Not the Time to Say Good-Bye

da Peter Herrmann's Blog, posted in academic life - living in academia, contemporary socio-economic situation, general, thoughts on life and its philosophy

January 15th, looking back over the many years, one may even say: over an entire era that seems to be behind us, overcome – looking back to the 15th of January 1919 shows so clear that an era ended but this end is far from being the end of history.

Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht, most consequent members of the German left, fundamentally opposing against militarism not only by words but also by their political action had been killed on that day – after a trial: briefly pretending that everything would be dealt with according to the rules of the proverbial German law and order they had been stabbed and thrown in the river, showing to which extent the German law and order had been ready to bend the law in favour of ‘order’. It had been the order or normality – the mad normality. The 3rd commandment (see comments for correction) – here from the Exodus-version

Though shalt have no other gods before me

– had been translated by German law and order politics into the sovereignty of the state, disjoined from the people, disjoined from truth, opening the way to any arbitrary ruling within an illusionary world of rational-legal authority. It had not been by accident that one of the most pronounced analysis of the development of different systems of authority, ruling and governance had been presented by the German sociologist MaxWeber, not least pointing out the complex contradictions, highlighting the dangers of a development towards an iron cage in which we may be easily trapped; law and order – the seedbed and fruit of an authoritarian personality as analysed by Theodor W. Adorno, Else Frenkel-Brunswik, Daniel Levinson and Nevitt Sanford (1950), the dangers “eclipsed by the light of reason“.

It is true:

With the finest leaders of the German Communist movement murdered, the gates of rising German facism opened unhindered.

And it is equally true that shooting people, throwing them into a river as it happened to Rosa and Karl, is not the only way of killing. The Silent Revolution which Ronald Inglehart had in mind after wrapping everything into figures surely shows something as all statistics say something. But it easily lets us forget its companion: the silent killing – performed on the catwalk, in the statistical offices, and the careless orientations on an alleged elitism…, and the hesitant agreement with critical voices: remaining on the surface level or limited to agreement behind the closed doors …. all this should makes us think of the two and what happened to the world after they had been silenced.

It may sound distant – but it may sound obvious and challenging at the same time, not least for working in academia: we have to be brave, looking for powerful points even if they are not obvious, not matching the powerpoint-format.

Yes, it is time to look back – not in order to say good-bye, but in order to move forward.