2017/01/01 by Stefanie Ernst, Ernst, Stefanie, Christoph Weischer +3
Social Sciences · #Norbert Elias #Pierre Bourdieu #World Systems and Global Transformations #drag effect #habitus #hysteresis effect #social habitus #sociology of transformation
paper · pdf · doi:10.12759/hsr.42.2017.4.7-21
openalex publication_date 2017/01/01 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/28
The objectives of this HSR Special Issue is to provide a comparative discussion and further perspectives of the Sociology of Transformation at the macro-, meso-, and micro-sociological levels. We would like to pursue this perspective based on a problem-oriented and comparative approach to the concepts of Norbert Elias and Pierre Bourdieu. Despite all differences in their theoretical concepts such as habitus, social field, and figuration, these two sociologists share a great deal of similarities. Not only their critical reflections on the classical philosophy and their attempt to establish a theoretical-empirical science, but also their synthetic way of sociological reflections, distinguishes them from many of their contemporary sociologists. Both of them criticize the over-specialized approaches in their discipline and its dominant ethnocentric view limited to the present time based on experiences of some highly individualized societies. With the aid of the theoretical concepts of these both sociologists, the authors of this special issue deal with different topics and problems in their own field of sociology such as work, globalization, social conflicts, immigration, democrati-zation, as well as education.The objectives of this HSR Special Issue is to provide a comparative discussion and further perspectives of the Sociology of Transformation at the macro-, meso-, and micro-sociological levels. We would like to pursue this perspective based on a problem-oriented and comparative approach to the concepts of Norbert Elias and Pierre Bourdieu. Despite all differences in their theoretical concepts such as habitus, social field, and figuration, these two sociologists share a great deal of similarities. Not only their critical reflections on the classical philosophy and their attempt to establish a theoretical-empirical science, but also their synthetic way of sociological reflections, distinguishes them from many of their contemporary sociologists. Both of them criticize the over-specialized approaches in their discipline and its dominant ethnocentric view limited to the present time based on experiences of some highly individualized societies. With the aid of the theoretical concepts of these both sociologists, the authors of this special issue deal with different topics and problems in their own field of sociology such as work, globalization, social conflicts, immigration, democrati-zation, as well as education.