Gesellschaftlicher Zusammenhalt zwischen Solidarität und Affinität

C. Peters
{"title":"Gesellschaftlicher Zusammenhalt zwischen Solidarität und Affinität","authors":"C. Peters","doi":"10.14361/zkkw-2022-080105","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Currently, many authors in public and academic discourse speak of an increasing „social divide“ that threatens social cohesion. There has been a broad discussion on social cohesion in social sciences ever since: Different conceptions could be ideally classified in a scheme with a more rational (Weber, Parsons) and a more emotional pole (Durkheim, Tönnies). I explore this tension by following an affective turn in conceptions of social cohesion. Therefore, I focus on the concept of solidarity as representing the rational model of cohesion and the concept of affinity standing for the affective one. The affective turn brings about a twofold shift in the understanding of the central processes of social cohesion: from collectivity to connectivity and from rationality to affectivity. Still, this shift runs the danger of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Cohesion must neither be understood as exclusively reyling upon on either rational or affective processes. I propose to overcome this dichotomy by employing Hemming´s concept of „affective solidarity“. Rationaliy and affectivity must be understood as being mutually effective, the former modulating the latter, the latter energizing the former.","PeriodicalId":106948,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift für Kultur- und Kollektivwissenschaft","volume":"50 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Zeitschrift für Kultur- und Kollektivwissenschaft","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14361/zkkw-2022-080105","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Currently, many authors in public and academic discourse speak of an increasing „social divide“ that threatens social cohesion. There has been a broad discussion on social cohesion in social sciences ever since: Different conceptions could be ideally classified in a scheme with a more rational (Weber, Parsons) and a more emotional pole (Durkheim, Tönnies). I explore this tension by following an affective turn in conceptions of social cohesion. Therefore, I focus on the concept of solidarity as representing the rational model of cohesion and the concept of affinity standing for the affective one. The affective turn brings about a twofold shift in the understanding of the central processes of social cohesion: from collectivity to connectivity and from rationality to affectivity. Still, this shift runs the danger of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Cohesion must neither be understood as exclusively reyling upon on either rational or affective processes. I propose to overcome this dichotomy by employing Hemming´s concept of „affective solidarity“. Rationaliy and affectivity must be understood as being mutually effective, the former modulating the latter, the latter energizing the former.
团结与友谊的社会联系
当前,在公共和学术话语中,许多作者都在谈论威胁社会凝聚力的日益严重的“社会鸿沟”。从那时起,社会科学就对社会凝聚力进行了广泛的讨论:不同的概念可以理想地归类为一个更理性的极点(韦伯,帕森斯)和更感性的极点(迪尔凯姆,Tönnies)。我通过遵循社会凝聚力概念的情感转变来探索这种张力。因此,我把重点放在团结的概念作为凝聚力的理性模型,亲和的概念代表情感模型。情感转向带来了对社会凝聚力核心过程理解的双重转变:从集体到连通性,从理性到情感。尽管如此,这种转变仍有把婴儿和洗澡水一起倒掉的危险。凝聚力既不能被理解为完全依赖于理性过程或情感过程。我建议采用亨明的“情感团结”概念来克服这种二分法。理性和情感必须被理解为是相互有效的,前者调节后者,后者激励前者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信