The political implications of figurational sociology
|Title:||The political implications of figurational sociology||Authors:||Mennell, Stephen||Permanent link:||http://hdl.handle.net/10197/11102||Date:||8-Dec-2018||Online since:||2019-10-03T10:42:10Z||Abstract:||By this title, I do not mean the short-term and party-political implications of figurational sociology, but something broader and longer-term in perspective. Starting in particular from the ‘Game Models’ set out in chapter 3 of Elias’s What is Sociology?, I want to pose the question of how little influence sociology has had on how people at large think about and understand how society works. In the main, they continue to think in psychologistic rather than sociological terms, notably by using what Godfried van Benthem van den Bergh has called ‘the attribution of blame’ as a means of orientation. What does a general deficiency in ‘joined-up’ thinking imply about the prospects of (relatively) democratic government in today’s highly joined-up world?||Type of material:||Conference Publication||Keywords:||Norbert Elias; Sociological models; Ideologies; Myth||Other versions:||https://eliasbrussels2018.wordpress.com/||Language:||en||Status of Item:||Peer reviewed||Conference Details:||Norbert Elias Conference Brussels 2018, Brussels, Belgium, 5-8 December 2018|
|Appears in Collections:||Sociology Research Collection|
Show full item record
This item is available under the Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Ireland. No item may be reproduced for commercial purposes. For other possible restrictions on use please refer to the publisher's URL where this is made available, or to notes contained in the item itself. Other terms may apply.