书评:全球化问题:索赔、框架和问题如何跨越国界

IF 1.3 3区 社会学 Q3 SOCIOLOGY
Niilo. Kauppi
{"title":"书评:全球化问题:索赔、框架和问题如何跨越国界","authors":"Niilo. Kauppi","doi":"10.1177/00016993211021928","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"consequences for this class across Europe. The authors’ final contribution deepens the analysis of European political conflicts by advancing Fligstein’s (2008) argument that the ‘European field’ pits a class of mobile, trans-European elites against working classes rooted in different nations, seeking to retain their former ‘citizenship rents’. They reveal the structural depth of this division, which has intensified as the European project has deepened. Rather than Brexit being due to English peculiarities, driven by political contingencies and populist rhetoric, Hugree et al. see it as characterising divides across Europe. They chart the systematic decline of popular engagement with European institutions over time. ‘Although the working class makes up 43% of people at work across Europe, it remains completely absent from EU institutions, and it struggles to establish a trade union and political presence at European level’ (p. 178–179). This underlines the structural difficulties of generalizing this class antagonism across Europe, and how nationalist and xenophobic repertoires have become a default. This is a bleak prognosis since there are no obvious progressive political responses by the EU because it is so bound up with elite privilege. It is also unclear how the left can respond. Streeck’s endorsement that the book is ‘an important step forward for the left in developing a European strategy’ is only true insofar as it reveals how bleak the landscape is. More balance tilted to the latter of Gramsci’s couplet ‘pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will’ would be welcome. It is telling that the authors do not address Streeck’s controversial call endorsing a nationalist left response to the European project. This book represents a major milestone in the maturation of a European sociology which does not default to internal national comparisons. It does this through readable prose with arresting insights – like how class divisions are rendered in terms of how much of our working time is spent standing. It underscores the cultural and symbolic dimensions of class, including ethnographic material revealing the texture of class inequality, as well as broad patterns. It covers many vital issues, including gender and migration, but says little about race and ethnicity. The handling of geographical variation, including the distinctive role of Eastern Europe’s ‘dominated dominant class’, is impressive. A nagging issue remains. The actual extent of class inequality sometimes seems rather modest (e.g., 84% of dominants read a book in the last year, compared to 76% of the middle class and 56% of the working class (p. 74)). Dominants broadly earn a bit less than three times as much as the working class and 50% more than the middle class. When equivalized at household level, dominants earn a bit less than twice as much as the working class. These are significant divisions but nothing like the scale revealed by economists like Piketty with their fine-grained percentile breakdowns. This use of ‘big class’ analysis turns out, at times, to be a blunt tool. Finally, it is important to put Europe in global perspective (Savage 2021) as the world’s least unequal continent. The rise of top income shares has been more subdued within Europe than anywhere else. We should note that the European project has restricted inequality and retained ‘social’ models committed to inclusion better than elsewhere. If the alternative is the hegemony of neo-liberal, authoritarian, and imperial models coming to the fore elsewhere, perhaps, despite it all, we should still remember Benjamin’s invocation to Adorno, who was urging him to flee the Nazis, ‘In Europe, there are still positions to defend’.","PeriodicalId":47591,"journal":{"name":"Acta Sociologica","volume":"65 1","pages":"350 - 352"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/00016993211021928","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Book Review: Globalizing Issues: How Claims, Frames, and Problems Cross Borders\",\"authors\":\"Niilo. Kauppi\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00016993211021928\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"consequences for this class across Europe. The authors’ final contribution deepens the analysis of European political conflicts by advancing Fligstein’s (2008) argument that the ‘European field’ pits a class of mobile, trans-European elites against working classes rooted in different nations, seeking to retain their former ‘citizenship rents’. They reveal the structural depth of this division, which has intensified as the European project has deepened. Rather than Brexit being due to English peculiarities, driven by political contingencies and populist rhetoric, Hugree et al. see it as characterising divides across Europe. They chart the systematic decline of popular engagement with European institutions over time. ‘Although the working class makes up 43% of people at work across Europe, it remains completely absent from EU institutions, and it struggles to establish a trade union and political presence at European level’ (p. 178–179). This underlines the structural difficulties of generalizing this class antagonism across Europe, and how nationalist and xenophobic repertoires have become a default. This is a bleak prognosis since there are no obvious progressive political responses by the EU because it is so bound up with elite privilege. It is also unclear how the left can respond. Streeck’s endorsement that the book is ‘an important step forward for the left in developing a European strategy’ is only true insofar as it reveals how bleak the landscape is. More balance tilted to the latter of Gramsci’s couplet ‘pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will’ would be welcome. It is telling that the authors do not address Streeck’s controversial call endorsing a nationalist left response to the European project. This book represents a major milestone in the maturation of a European sociology which does not default to internal national comparisons. It does this through readable prose with arresting insights – like how class divisions are rendered in terms of how much of our working time is spent standing. It underscores the cultural and symbolic dimensions of class, including ethnographic material revealing the texture of class inequality, as well as broad patterns. It covers many vital issues, including gender and migration, but says little about race and ethnicity. The handling of geographical variation, including the distinctive role of Eastern Europe’s ‘dominated dominant class’, is impressive. A nagging issue remains. The actual extent of class inequality sometimes seems rather modest (e.g., 84% of dominants read a book in the last year, compared to 76% of the middle class and 56% of the working class (p. 74)). Dominants broadly earn a bit less than three times as much as the working class and 50% more than the middle class. When equivalized at household level, dominants earn a bit less than twice as much as the working class. These are significant divisions but nothing like the scale revealed by economists like Piketty with their fine-grained percentile breakdowns. This use of ‘big class’ analysis turns out, at times, to be a blunt tool. Finally, it is important to put Europe in global perspective (Savage 2021) as the world’s least unequal continent. The rise of top income shares has been more subdued within Europe than anywhere else. We should note that the European project has restricted inequality and retained ‘social’ models committed to inclusion better than elsewhere. If the alternative is the hegemony of neo-liberal, authoritarian, and imperial models coming to the fore elsewhere, perhaps, despite it all, we should still remember Benjamin’s invocation to Adorno, who was urging him to flee the Nazis, ‘In Europe, there are still positions to defend’.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47591,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Acta Sociologica\",\"volume\":\"65 1\",\"pages\":\"350 - 352\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-06-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/00016993211021928\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Acta Sociologica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00016993211021928\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Sociologica","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00016993211021928","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

对整个欧洲这一阶层的影响。作者的最后一篇文章深化了对欧洲政治冲突的分析,提出了Fligstein(2008)的论点,即“欧洲领域”使一类流动的跨欧洲精英与植根于不同国家的工人阶级对立,试图保留他们以前的“公民租金”。它们揭示了这种分歧的结构性深度,这种分歧随着欧洲项目的深化而加剧。Hugree等人认为,英国脱欧不是由于英国的特殊性,而是由政治突发事件和民粹主义言论驱动的,而是欧洲各地分歧的特征。他们绘制了民众与欧洲机构的接触随着时间的推移而系统性下降的图表尽管工人阶级占整个欧洲工作人员的43%,但它仍然完全没有出现在欧盟机构中,它很难在欧洲层面建立工会和政治存在”(第178–179页)。这突显了在整个欧洲推广这种阶级对立的结构性困难,以及民族主义和仇外心理的剧目如何成为默认。这是一个黯淡的预测,因为欧盟与精英特权紧密相连,因此没有明显的进步政治回应。左派如何回应也不清楚。Streeck认为这本书是“左派在制定欧洲战略方面向前迈出的重要一步”,只有在它揭示了前景有多黯淡的情况下,这一点才是正确的。葛兰西的对联“理智的悲观,意志的乐观”中的后一句更为平衡,这将是受欢迎的。很明显,作者没有回应斯特雷克关于支持民族主义左翼对欧洲项目的回应的有争议的呼吁。这本书代表了欧洲社会学成熟的一个重要里程碑,而欧洲社会学并不默认内部国家比较。它通过可读的散文和引人注目的见解来做到这一点——比如阶级划分是如何根据我们有多少工作时间是站着的来呈现的。它强调了阶级的文化和象征层面,包括揭示阶级不平等结构的民族志材料,以及广泛的模式。它涵盖了许多重要问题,包括性别和移民,但很少涉及种族和民族。对地理差异的处理,包括东欧“主导阶级”的独特作用,令人印象深刻。一个恼人的问题仍然存在。阶级不平等的实际程度有时看起来相当温和(例如,84%的支配者在去年读过一本书,而中产阶级和工人阶级的这一比例分别为76%和56%(第74页))。统治阶级的收入一般不到工人阶级的三倍,比中产阶级高50%。如果在家庭层面上等同,支配者的收入略低于工人阶级的两倍。这些都是重大的分歧,但与皮克提等经济学家用精细的百分位数细分所揭示的规模完全不同。这种“大类”分析的使用有时被证明是一种生硬的工具。最后,重要的是将欧洲作为世界上不平等程度最低的大陆放在全球视野中(Savage 2021)。欧洲最高收入股票的涨幅比其他任何地方都要小。我们应该注意到,欧洲项目限制了不平等,并比其他地方更好地保留了致力于包容的“社会”模式。如果另一种选择是新自由主义、威权主义和帝国主义模式的霸权在其他地方崭露头角,也许,尽管如此,我们仍然应该记得本杰明对阿多诺的呼吁,他敦促他逃离纳粹,“在欧洲,仍然有阵地需要捍卫”。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Book Review: Globalizing Issues: How Claims, Frames, and Problems Cross Borders
consequences for this class across Europe. The authors’ final contribution deepens the analysis of European political conflicts by advancing Fligstein’s (2008) argument that the ‘European field’ pits a class of mobile, trans-European elites against working classes rooted in different nations, seeking to retain their former ‘citizenship rents’. They reveal the structural depth of this division, which has intensified as the European project has deepened. Rather than Brexit being due to English peculiarities, driven by political contingencies and populist rhetoric, Hugree et al. see it as characterising divides across Europe. They chart the systematic decline of popular engagement with European institutions over time. ‘Although the working class makes up 43% of people at work across Europe, it remains completely absent from EU institutions, and it struggles to establish a trade union and political presence at European level’ (p. 178–179). This underlines the structural difficulties of generalizing this class antagonism across Europe, and how nationalist and xenophobic repertoires have become a default. This is a bleak prognosis since there are no obvious progressive political responses by the EU because it is so bound up with elite privilege. It is also unclear how the left can respond. Streeck’s endorsement that the book is ‘an important step forward for the left in developing a European strategy’ is only true insofar as it reveals how bleak the landscape is. More balance tilted to the latter of Gramsci’s couplet ‘pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will’ would be welcome. It is telling that the authors do not address Streeck’s controversial call endorsing a nationalist left response to the European project. This book represents a major milestone in the maturation of a European sociology which does not default to internal national comparisons. It does this through readable prose with arresting insights – like how class divisions are rendered in terms of how much of our working time is spent standing. It underscores the cultural and symbolic dimensions of class, including ethnographic material revealing the texture of class inequality, as well as broad patterns. It covers many vital issues, including gender and migration, but says little about race and ethnicity. The handling of geographical variation, including the distinctive role of Eastern Europe’s ‘dominated dominant class’, is impressive. A nagging issue remains. The actual extent of class inequality sometimes seems rather modest (e.g., 84% of dominants read a book in the last year, compared to 76% of the middle class and 56% of the working class (p. 74)). Dominants broadly earn a bit less than three times as much as the working class and 50% more than the middle class. When equivalized at household level, dominants earn a bit less than twice as much as the working class. These are significant divisions but nothing like the scale revealed by economists like Piketty with their fine-grained percentile breakdowns. This use of ‘big class’ analysis turns out, at times, to be a blunt tool. Finally, it is important to put Europe in global perspective (Savage 2021) as the world’s least unequal continent. The rise of top income shares has been more subdued within Europe than anywhere else. We should note that the European project has restricted inequality and retained ‘social’ models committed to inclusion better than elsewhere. If the alternative is the hegemony of neo-liberal, authoritarian, and imperial models coming to the fore elsewhere, perhaps, despite it all, we should still remember Benjamin’s invocation to Adorno, who was urging him to flee the Nazis, ‘In Europe, there are still positions to defend’.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Acta Sociologica
Acta Sociologica SOCIOLOGY-
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
27
期刊介绍: Acta Sociologica is a peer reviewed journal which publishes papers on high-quality innovative sociology peer reviewed journal which publishes papers on high-quality innovative sociology carried out from different theoretical and methodological starting points, in the form of full-length original articles and review essays, as well as book reviews and commentaries. Articles that present Nordic sociology or help mediate between Nordic and international scholarly discussions are encouraged.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信