“对大众有害”:卢德分子、制度变革的分配效应,以及建设公正社会的挑战

IF 2.8 Q2 BUSINESS
Katharine McGowan, Sean Geobey
{"title":"“对大众有害”:卢德分子、制度变革的分配效应,以及建设公正社会的挑战","authors":"Katharine McGowan, Sean Geobey","doi":"10.1108/sej-11-2020-0118","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nWhen complex social-ecological systems collapse and transform, the possible outcomes of this transformation are not set in stone. This paper aims to explore the role of social imagination in determining possible futures for a reformed system. The authors use a historical study of the Luddite response to the Industrial Revolution centred in the UK in the early-19th century to explore the concepts of path dependency, agency and the distributional impacts of systems change.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nIn this historical study, the authors used the Luddites’ own words and those of their supporters, captured in archival sources (n = 43 unique Luddite statements), to develop hypotheses around the effects on political, social and judicial consequences of a significant systems transformation. The authors then scaffolded these statements using the heuristics of panarchy and basins of attraction to conceptualize this contentious moment of British history.\n\n\nFindings\nRather than a strict cautionary tale, the Luddites’ story illustrates the importance of environmental fit and selection pressures as the skilled workers sought to push the English system to a different basin of attraction. It warns us about the difficulty of a just transition in contentious economic and political conditions.\n\n\nSocial implications\nThe Luddites’ story is a cautionary tale for those interested in a just transition, or bottom-up systems transformation generally as the deep basins of attraction that prefer either the status quo or alternate, elite-favouring arrangements can be challenging to shift independent of shocks. While backward looking, the authors intend these discussions to contribute to current debates on the role(s) of social innovation in social and economic policy within increasingly charged or polarized political contexts.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nSocial innovation itself is often predicated on the need for just transitions of complex adaptive systems (Westley et al., 2013), and the Luddite movement offers us the opportunity to study the distribution effects of a transformative systems change – the Industrial Revolution – and explore two fundamental questions that underpin much social innovation scholarship: how do we build a just future in the face of complexity and what are likely forms those conversations could take, based on historical examples?\n","PeriodicalId":46809,"journal":{"name":"Social Enterprise Journal","volume":"40 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"“Harmful to the commonality”: the Luddites, the distributional effects of systems change and the challenge of building a just society\",\"authors\":\"Katharine McGowan, Sean Geobey\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/sej-11-2020-0118\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nPurpose\\nWhen complex social-ecological systems collapse and transform, the possible outcomes of this transformation are not set in stone. This paper aims to explore the role of social imagination in determining possible futures for a reformed system. The authors use a historical study of the Luddite response to the Industrial Revolution centred in the UK in the early-19th century to explore the concepts of path dependency, agency and the distributional impacts of systems change.\\n\\n\\nDesign/methodology/approach\\nIn this historical study, the authors used the Luddites’ own words and those of their supporters, captured in archival sources (n = 43 unique Luddite statements), to develop hypotheses around the effects on political, social and judicial consequences of a significant systems transformation. The authors then scaffolded these statements using the heuristics of panarchy and basins of attraction to conceptualize this contentious moment of British history.\\n\\n\\nFindings\\nRather than a strict cautionary tale, the Luddites’ story illustrates the importance of environmental fit and selection pressures as the skilled workers sought to push the English system to a different basin of attraction. It warns us about the difficulty of a just transition in contentious economic and political conditions.\\n\\n\\nSocial implications\\nThe Luddites’ story is a cautionary tale for those interested in a just transition, or bottom-up systems transformation generally as the deep basins of attraction that prefer either the status quo or alternate, elite-favouring arrangements can be challenging to shift independent of shocks. While backward looking, the authors intend these discussions to contribute to current debates on the role(s) of social innovation in social and economic policy within increasingly charged or polarized political contexts.\\n\\n\\nOriginality/value\\nSocial innovation itself is often predicated on the need for just transitions of complex adaptive systems (Westley et al., 2013), and the Luddite movement offers us the opportunity to study the distribution effects of a transformative systems change – the Industrial Revolution – and explore two fundamental questions that underpin much social innovation scholarship: how do we build a just future in the face of complexity and what are likely forms those conversations could take, based on historical examples?\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":46809,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Social Enterprise Journal\",\"volume\":\"40 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-02-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Social Enterprise Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/sej-11-2020-0118\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Enterprise Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/sej-11-2020-0118","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

当复杂的社会生态系统崩溃和转变时,这种转变的可能结果并不是一成不变的。本文旨在探讨社会想象在确定改革后的制度可能的未来中的作用。作者通过对19世纪早期以英国为中心的工业革命的卢德派反应的历史研究,探索了路径依赖、代理和制度变化的分配影响等概念。设计/方法/方法在这项历史研究中,作者使用了在档案资料中捕获的勒德分子自己和他们支持者的话(n = 43个独特的勒德分子声明),围绕重大制度变革对政治、社会和司法后果的影响提出了假设。然后,作者用启发式的等级制度和吸引力盆地来构建这些陈述,以概念化英国历史上这一有争议的时刻。研究结果与严格的警世故事不同,卢德分子的故事说明了环境适应和选择压力的重要性,因为熟练工人试图将英国体系推向一个不同的吸引力盆地。它警告我们在有争议的经济和政治条件下实现公正过渡的困难。对于那些对公正转型或自下而上的体制转型感兴趣的人来说,卢德分子的故事是一个警世故事,因为吸引力的深层盆地要么喜欢现状,要么喜欢另一种有利于精英的安排,要在不受冲击的情况下实现转型,可能是一项挑战。虽然回顾过去,但作者希望这些讨论有助于当前在日益紧张或两极分化的政治背景下,社会创新在社会和经济政策中的作用的辩论。社会创新本身通常基于复杂适应系统的过渡需求(Westley et al., 2013),而勒德运动为我们提供了研究转型系统变化(工业革命)的分配效应的机会,并探索了支撑许多社会创新学术的两个基本问题:我们如何在复杂的情况下建立一个公正的未来?根据历史的例子,这些对话可能采取什么形式?
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
“Harmful to the commonality”: the Luddites, the distributional effects of systems change and the challenge of building a just society
Purpose When complex social-ecological systems collapse and transform, the possible outcomes of this transformation are not set in stone. This paper aims to explore the role of social imagination in determining possible futures for a reformed system. The authors use a historical study of the Luddite response to the Industrial Revolution centred in the UK in the early-19th century to explore the concepts of path dependency, agency and the distributional impacts of systems change. Design/methodology/approach In this historical study, the authors used the Luddites’ own words and those of their supporters, captured in archival sources (n = 43 unique Luddite statements), to develop hypotheses around the effects on political, social and judicial consequences of a significant systems transformation. The authors then scaffolded these statements using the heuristics of panarchy and basins of attraction to conceptualize this contentious moment of British history. Findings Rather than a strict cautionary tale, the Luddites’ story illustrates the importance of environmental fit and selection pressures as the skilled workers sought to push the English system to a different basin of attraction. It warns us about the difficulty of a just transition in contentious economic and political conditions. Social implications The Luddites’ story is a cautionary tale for those interested in a just transition, or bottom-up systems transformation generally as the deep basins of attraction that prefer either the status quo or alternate, elite-favouring arrangements can be challenging to shift independent of shocks. While backward looking, the authors intend these discussions to contribute to current debates on the role(s) of social innovation in social and economic policy within increasingly charged or polarized political contexts. Originality/value Social innovation itself is often predicated on the need for just transitions of complex adaptive systems (Westley et al., 2013), and the Luddite movement offers us the opportunity to study the distribution effects of a transformative systems change – the Industrial Revolution – and explore two fundamental questions that underpin much social innovation scholarship: how do we build a just future in the face of complexity and what are likely forms those conversations could take, based on historical examples?
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
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
14.30%
发文量
14
×
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