社会可持续性的理念?德国衔接的概念与分歧

IF 2.3 Q1 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Katarina Marej
{"title":"社会可持续性的理念?德国衔接的概念与分歧","authors":"Katarina Marej","doi":"10.3389/fpos.2023.1135205","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The UN 2030 Agenda calls for the development and promotion of societies that pursue not only ecological and economic, but also socio-political sustainability goals. Yet, the political as well as academic discourse on that is marginal. Conducting an empirical case study in Germany, this article examines existing political ideations about societal integration and thus cohesion and discusses ideational obstacles to the development of a socially sustainable society. First, the concept of ideations is made accessible for empirical analysis by distinguishing cognitive and affective elements with symbolic, sentimental, programmatical and ideological foundations. The focus is not on the implementation of specific policies, but on the negotiation processes of the ideational foundations of integration governance. The following critical discourse analysis elaborates central aspects of ‘constitutional patriotism' and ‘Leitkultur.' It traces their emergence and characteristics and thereby reveals how different historical contexts and political interests of the actors influence the emergence and dissemination of ideations. Furthermore, it demonstrates how formerly opposing positions converge, emphasizing the impact of ideational processes on changing governance trends. Subsequently, inherent elements of cultural racism and hegemony, religion and ‘values,' and emotion politics are critically discussed as obstacles to developing decolonial ideations about integration. Accordingly, the widespread appreciation of patriotism and national pride as a foundation for successful integration is questioned. The conclusion diagnoses that republican elements are gaining influence with the tendency to individualize, paternalize, and depoliticize integration. Shared cognitive and emotional ideations are intended to ensure support for democracy, but the extent to which these policies themselves exhibit undemocratic tendencies must be critically observed. The two ideations examined are therefore not or only partially suitable for promoting social sustainability.","PeriodicalId":34431,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Political Science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ideations of social sustainability? Concepts and cleavages of cohesion in Germany\",\"authors\":\"Katarina Marej\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/fpos.2023.1135205\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The UN 2030 Agenda calls for the development and promotion of societies that pursue not only ecological and economic, but also socio-political sustainability goals. Yet, the political as well as academic discourse on that is marginal. Conducting an empirical case study in Germany, this article examines existing political ideations about societal integration and thus cohesion and discusses ideational obstacles to the development of a socially sustainable society. First, the concept of ideations is made accessible for empirical analysis by distinguishing cognitive and affective elements with symbolic, sentimental, programmatical and ideological foundations. The focus is not on the implementation of specific policies, but on the negotiation processes of the ideational foundations of integration governance. The following critical discourse analysis elaborates central aspects of ‘constitutional patriotism' and ‘Leitkultur.' It traces their emergence and characteristics and thereby reveals how different historical contexts and political interests of the actors influence the emergence and dissemination of ideations. Furthermore, it demonstrates how formerly opposing positions converge, emphasizing the impact of ideational processes on changing governance trends. Subsequently, inherent elements of cultural racism and hegemony, religion and ‘values,' and emotion politics are critically discussed as obstacles to developing decolonial ideations about integration. Accordingly, the widespread appreciation of patriotism and national pride as a foundation for successful integration is questioned. The conclusion diagnoses that republican elements are gaining influence with the tendency to individualize, paternalize, and depoliticize integration. Shared cognitive and emotional ideations are intended to ensure support for democracy, but the extent to which these policies themselves exhibit undemocratic tendencies must be critically observed. The two ideations examined are therefore not or only partially suitable for promoting social sustainability.\",\"PeriodicalId\":34431,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in Political Science\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in Political Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2023.1135205\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Political Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2023.1135205","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

联合国2030年议程呼吁发展和促进不仅追求生态和经济目标,而且追求社会政治可持续性目标的社会。然而,关于这一点的政治和学术讨论都是边缘化的。本文在德国进行了一个实证案例研究,考察了现有的关于社会融合和凝聚力的政治观念,并讨论了社会可持续社会发展的观念障碍。首先,通过区分具有象征性、情感性、程序性和意识形态基础的认知和情感元素,概念的概念可以进行实证分析。重点不是具体政策的实施,而是一体化治理概念基础的谈判过程。以下批判性话语分析阐述了“宪法爱国主义”和“文化”的核心方面它追溯了它们的产生和特征,从而揭示了不同的历史背景和行动者的政治利益如何影响概念的产生和传播。此外,它还展示了以前对立的立场是如何趋同的,强调了思维过程对不断变化的治理趋势的影响。随后,文化种族主义和霸权、宗教和“价值观”以及情感政治的固有因素被批判性地讨论为发展关于融合的非殖民化思想的障碍。因此,人们普遍认为爱国主义和民族自豪感是成功融合的基础,这一点受到质疑。结论表明,共和主义成分的影响力正随着一体化的个体化、家长化和非政治化的趋势而增强。共同的认知和情感理念旨在确保对民主的支持,但必须严格观察这些政策本身表现出不民主倾向的程度。因此,所研究的两个概念不适合或仅部分适合于促进社会可持续性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Ideations of social sustainability? Concepts and cleavages of cohesion in Germany
The UN 2030 Agenda calls for the development and promotion of societies that pursue not only ecological and economic, but also socio-political sustainability goals. Yet, the political as well as academic discourse on that is marginal. Conducting an empirical case study in Germany, this article examines existing political ideations about societal integration and thus cohesion and discusses ideational obstacles to the development of a socially sustainable society. First, the concept of ideations is made accessible for empirical analysis by distinguishing cognitive and affective elements with symbolic, sentimental, programmatical and ideological foundations. The focus is not on the implementation of specific policies, but on the negotiation processes of the ideational foundations of integration governance. The following critical discourse analysis elaborates central aspects of ‘constitutional patriotism' and ‘Leitkultur.' It traces their emergence and characteristics and thereby reveals how different historical contexts and political interests of the actors influence the emergence and dissemination of ideations. Furthermore, it demonstrates how formerly opposing positions converge, emphasizing the impact of ideational processes on changing governance trends. Subsequently, inherent elements of cultural racism and hegemony, religion and ‘values,' and emotion politics are critically discussed as obstacles to developing decolonial ideations about integration. Accordingly, the widespread appreciation of patriotism and national pride as a foundation for successful integration is questioned. The conclusion diagnoses that republican elements are gaining influence with the tendency to individualize, paternalize, and depoliticize integration. Shared cognitive and emotional ideations are intended to ensure support for democracy, but the extent to which these policies themselves exhibit undemocratic tendencies must be critically observed. The two ideations examined are therefore not or only partially suitable for promoting social sustainability.
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
Frontiers in Political Science
Frontiers in Political Science Social Sciences-Political Science and International Relations
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
135
审稿时长
13 weeks
×
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