Published by De Gruyter Oldenbourg

Volume 13 Issue 1

Issue of Analyse & Kritik

Contents
Journal Overview

Publicly Available May 12, 2016

Die Dimensionen der Ungleichheit in der modernen Gesellschaft

Thomas Burger

Page range: 1-33

More Download PDF

Abstract

Recent developments in advanced industrial societies have increased the prominence of kinds of social inequality not adequately accomodated in traditional theories of class and social stratification. It is argued that the source of this failure is not, as has been claimed, the vertical imagery informing these theories, but rather their one-dimensionality, i.e., their assumption of a single unitary distributive mechanism as the essential generator of comprehensive social inequality. The weakness of a one-dimensional approach is illustrated through an analysis of Beck’s criticism of a class-hierarchy model and his notion of ‘individualized’ inequality. The analytic superiority of a three-dimensional view of social stratification is advocated, and its systematic foundations in Weber’s statements on classes, estates, and political domination are explicated and elaborated. The shortcomings of Weber’s views on social status are diagnosed, some elements of a theory of status inequality compatible with Weber’s analytical schema are presented, and the multidimensionality of status inequality is underscored.

Publicly Available May 12, 2016

Max Weber and the Legitimacy of the Modern State

David Beetham

Page range: 34-45

More Download PDF

Abstract

Max Weber’s typology of legitimate ‘Herrschaft’ has provided the basis for the treatment of legitimacy in twentieth century sociology and political science. The thesis of the article is that this typology is a misleading tool for the analysis of the modern state, and especially for the comparative analysis of political systems. This is because of basic flaws in Weber’s conceptualisation of legitimacy itself, and in his account of the normative basis of authority. The article offers an alternative, multi-dimensional, account of political legitimacy, and suggests how it might be used to develop a typology of forms of ‘Herrschaft’ more appropriate to the analysis of the modern state.

Publicly Available May 12, 2016

Two Theorists of Action: Ihering and Weber

Stephen P. Turner

Page range: 46-60

More Download PDF

Abstract

Rudolf von Ihering was the leading German philosopher of law of the nineteenth century. He was also a major source of Weber’s more famous sociological definitions of action. Characteristically, Weber transformed material he found: in this case Ihering attempt to reconcile the causaland teleological aspects of action. In Ihering’s hands these become, respectively, the external and internal moments of action, or intentional thought and the factual consequences of action. For Weber they are made into epistemic aspects of action, the causal and the meaningful, each of which is essential to an account of action, but which are logically and epistemically distinct. Ihering thought purposes were the products of underlying interests, but included ‘ideal’ interests in this category. Weber radicalized this by expanding the category and making it historically central. This radicalization bears on rational choice theory: if ideal interests have a large historical role independent of material interests, and are not fully explicable on such grounds as ‘sour grapes’, the methods appropriate to the study of the transformation of ideas, meaning genealogies in the Nietzschean sense, are central to the explanation of action.

Publicly Available May 12, 2016

Is Analytical Action Theory Reductionist?

Ian Carter

Page range: 61-66

More Download PDF

Abstract

Steven Lukes and Alasdair MacIntyre have accused analytical action theory of being motivated by reductionist aims and of ignoring the fact that what is distinctively human about actions is their essentially social character. These reductionist aims are said to ‘subvert’ the search for the distinctively human. Enterprises that have particularly come under fire (and which Lukes recommends ‘abandoning’) are the search for ‘basic’ actions and attempts to solve problems regarding the ‘individuation’ of actions. Lukes and MacIntyre are mistaken however, both in their interpretation of the aims which motivate analytical action theory, and in their characterisation of the search for the distinctively human. ‘lndividuated’ or ‘basic’ actions are not complex social actions reduced down to their ‘simplest elements’. They represent attempts to resolve problems which arise prior to the examination of the social character of actions.

Publicly Available May 12, 2016

Rawls and the Socratic Ideal

Kai Nielsen

Page range: 67-93

More Download PDF

Abstract

John Rawls’s recommendation that political philosophy should be kept free of metaphysics has recently come under attack by Jean Hampton. According to her philosophy as a Socratic quest has to orient itself by radical probing and that unavoidingly involves us in metaphysical commitment. Non-Socratic philosophy in the later Rawls, she claims, reduces itself to a mere ‘modus vivendi’. In defending Rawls the article makes clear how Hampton underrates the method of reflective equilibrium. Rawls makes a rationally reconstructed use of the Socratic ideal, that can be turned not only against Hampton’s critique of Rawls, but also against its relativist appropriation by Richard Rorty.

Publicly Available May 12, 2016

Objectivity of the Concepts of Health and Disease

Paul Thompson

Page range: 94-100

More Download PDF

Abstract

It is now widely accepted that the concepts of “health” and “disease” in psychiatric and psychological contexts are value laden. In this article I argue that even in the realm of physical illness and disease (appendicitis, phenylketonuria, etc.), the concepts of “health”, “illness” and "disease” are value laden. I explore the four most common bases used to objectively ground the key concept “normal functioning”, namely, genetic structure, evolutionary fitness, non-premature death and absence of pain. I argue that they all fail to adequately provide an objective grounding for the. concept “normal functioning” (health) and, hence, for “abnormal functioning” (illness, disease). The reason an objective grounding cannot be given is that physical “health”, “illness” and “disease” rest on widely shared values in addition to the condition of the organism.

Publicly Available May 12, 2016

Wrong Register: Kindstötung als Nichtaufnahme in den Club

Peter Koslowski

Page range: 101-102

Download PDF

Publicly Available May 12, 2016

Antwort auf eine ‘Richtigstellung’

Hartmut Kliemt

Page range: 102-104

Download PDF

About this journal

ANALYSE & KRITIK

is devoted to the fundamental issues of empirical and normative social theory
is directed at social scientists and social philosophers who combine commitment to political and moral enlightenment with argumentative rigour and conceptual clarity
develops social theorizing in connection with analytical philosophy and philosophy of science
promotes the dialogue between Anglo-American and Continental traditions in the social sciences and ethics
publishes articles in English