The German left and democracy: A difficult relationship

The term “false consciousness” was first coined by Friedrich Engels; there is no evidence that Karl Marx himself ever used it in his writing. The term's initial appearance in print was in a letter written by Engels to Franz Mehring in 1893. The concept, as developed in Engels's letter and in his later writings, is rooted in the earlier writings of Marx and Engels in The German Ideology . While theorists have debated whether Marx himself would have accepted the precise term “false consciousness,” the concept is closely tied to Marx's notion of a “dominant ideology” and is useful for understanding Marx's theory of historical change. As with many sociological ideas, the meaning of false consciousness has varied and changed over time as new theorists have drawn on it and as these new formulations have been challenged and contested.

There is a need to act with regard to research ethics in the social and economic sciences in Germany. More recently, this realisation has led to a rise in ethics commissions at German social science and economics faculties, although this has been the result of individual and non-consolidated efforts. The following report is a first step towards a more comprehensive, interdisciplinary understanding of the principles of research ethics and review procedures in German social and economic research. The German Data Forum's recommendations are aimed at initiating the emergence of a new infrastructure comprised of local ethics commissions, which are embedded into a harmonised comprehensive concept for ethical reflexivity in research and build on existing structures, codes and international developments.

Does Germany Need a (New) Research Ethics for the Social Sciences?

The relationship between Marxism, morality, and ideology has been fraught with controversy and heated debates throughout the century. Advocates of ‘scientific socialism’ tend to dismiss morality as mere ideology, which serves as a camouflage for class interests. In this view, Marxism is a science, separate from and opposed to morality; morality is conceived of as part of the ideological superstructure: false consciousness, containing lies and illusions, which seduces the bourgeoisie into self-satisfaction and complacency, while blinding the working class to their own class-interests and exploitation by the ruling class and the capitalist mode of production. Since, however, there are powerful moral impulses in Marx's own critique of capitalism and call to socialist revolution, and since those engaged in political struggle invariably make use of moral terms and exhortations, the self-reflexive ‘scientific socialist’ comes to devise some sort of moral doctrine: Engels, Kautsky, Trotsky and others talked of a higher socialist morality which would govern the future socialist society and, in some versions, which is to become already the guiding morality for a socialist revolutionary.

Metadata is key - the most important data after data

Deliberative democratic theorists argue that important moral questions turn on whether regimes are sufficiently deliberative. To attribute “deliberativeness” to a regime, we need an account of “deliberative integration” that connects such a holistic assessment to the acts or qualities of individuals and smaller groups. I turn to Aristotle'sPoliticsfor instruction in developing such accounts, arguing that he judges regimes according to how reliably they act pursuant to excellent common deliberation—a manner of excellent rule that I call the “rule of reason.” I then interpret Aristotle's metaphorical argument for the “wisdom of the multitude” to establish the claim that democracies may best integrate citizens’ deliberations. This interpretation illuminates Aristotle's complex evaluation of regimes, including his ambivalent views on the rule of the many. It also suggests a structure for contemporary accounts of deliberative integration helpful even for those who differ from Aristotle in their basic moral concerns.

Notes on Contributors

Specializing in Interdisciplinarity: The Committee on Social Thought as the University of Chicago's Antidote to Compartmentalization in the Social Sciences

This article describes the way in which emotion can lead to false consciousness by analysing a single incident in Goethe's novel The Sorrows of Young Werther. We trace a sequence of events which occur after the hero is humiliated in public, utilizing Helen Lewis's theory of shame dynamics. We argue that such an analysis may led towards models of causality in social science. Our interpretation of class idealization in the mass media, myths and legends, and class shaming in humour suggests that social differentiation between sacred and profane persons may have an emotional basis.

Resumo O objetivo deste artigo é discutir o caráter ideológico dos delineamentos teóricos de Jürgen Habermas acerca de sua noção de esfera pública no bojo de sua teoria democrática deliberativa, bem como sua apropriação teórico-conceitual pela gestão social no campo da administração. Nosso propósito é contribuir com uma abordagem crítica à influência do pensamento habermasiano na conformação da concepção de gestão social, sobretudo no que tange à categoria da esfera pública, recorrendo ao tema ideologia à luz do Estado capitalista e da sociedade de classes. Para tanto, analisamos a evolução e as continuidades do pensamento de Habermas acerca da categoria da esfera pública e discutimos o alinhamento da gestão social com os pressupostos teórico-conceituais da teoria deliberativa habermasiana. Em seguida, defendemos o argumento de que o esforço teórico habermasiano aponta uma ideologia do consenso quanto aos desenvolvimentos sociais, bem como o de que, ao supor a possibilidade de um diálogo completamente espontâneo e não condicionado, Habermas acaba por projetar idealisticamente a comunicação intersubjetiva e a esfera pública enquanto instância “ideal” de discurso como garantias apriorísticas de sucesso. Concluímos que a esfera pública “real” deve ser tomada menos como arena de condições comunicativas idealísticas e mais como espaço deliberativo originariamente conflitual e assimétrico e que uma esfera pública eficaz deve abranger tanto a formação informal da opinião pública quanto a tomada formal de decisão coletiva, isto é, deve promover a efetiva partilha de poder decisório, tal como preconizada pela gestão social.

In the article author offers a new interpretation of Mannheim’s sociology of knowledge given in his Ideology and Utopia (1929). This is demonstrated contrary to well known critical works so far, especially from Marxist perspective. As a paradigm of unsuccessful critique due to ideological blindness author points out the works of authors from Frankfurt School (Horkheimer, Marcuse, Adorno). Then author gives analysis amid to provide argument in favor of necessity to formulate new concept of ideology, after expansion of ideology on the typos of Mannheim’s general total concept of ideology wherefore sociology of knowledge ought to arise. After that topic of analysis is epistemological neutrality as a condition of objective investigation in the history of ideas. Both topics provide the ground for new look at ideology with two special traits: first, ideology could contain truths, therefore it is no more "false consciousness" (Marx); second approach of sociology of knowledge to any idea does not mean to discredit it but to analyze it objectively with the aim to obtain wider knowledge. In concluding part author pays attention to the elements of Mannheim’s program that were skipped in literature so far, namely question of our self reflection, and freeing ourselves of social determination of our knowledge as much as we obtain better knowledge about it. Author concludes with remarks that Mannheim sociology of knowledge on the point of universalisation of ideology amounts to three problems: 1) problem of reenacting of radical skepticism (nothing is truthful), as a principle of modern rationalism; 3. return of modern Enlightenment to its initial principles (beside skepticism, there is also problem of prejudice); 3) necessity of self reflection of Enlightenment as a condition to complete constitution of sociology of knowledge understood in Mannheim’s sense as a epistemology of the social sciences. These three problems were completely neglected in literature on Mannheim’s concept so far.

Higher education research has intensively investigated how social class and academic education work together to create social selectivity at the college level. However, little is known about the relationship between social class and academic careers. This paper discusses how social class influences dispositions, strategies, and positioning in the academic field and what it means for an individual’s habitus to traverse across class boundaries. Results from a grounded theory study on the social sciences in Germany show that academics from the lower classes with resistant habitus may be likely to be successful if they have already established a distinct position within the field, whereas middle-class academics with conformist habitus and strong meritocratic beliefs are especially likely to be excluded from high positions in academia. The paper points to the differences in strategies within academic careers and shows that a good student will not necessarily become a successful scientist.

Will we ever speak about Elster’s Tocqueville as we are used to speak about Skidelsky’s Keynes, Winch’s Smith, Hollander’s Ricardo or … Elster’s Marx? Following his lifelong research, Jon Elster presents in this book the political and social thinker that he regards not only as his predecessor, but also, as the title of the book indicates, as the first social scientist: Alexis de Tocqueville. Elster recognizes how contestable this claim of being the first, and particularly, the first social sc...

Journal Article Thomas E. Willey. Back to Kant: The Revival of Kantianism in German Social and Historical Thought, 1860–1914. Detroit: Wayne State University Press. 1978. Pp. 231. $17.95 Get access Willey Thomas E.. Back to Kant: The Revival of Kantianism in German Social and Historical Thought, 1860–1914. Detroit: Wayne State University Press. 1978. Pp. 231. $17.95. David Lipton David Lipton Toronto Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The American Historical Review, Volume 85, Issue 2, April 1980, Pages 418–419, https://doi.org/10.1086/ahr/85.2.418-a Published: 01 April 1980

Social and cultural sciences in Germany are finally concerned with disability and develop theoretic approaches. Thereby two main fields of work appear. Current works in tradition of »systems theory« focus on specific operating modes of social institutions in systems of welfare work and social help. They describe processes of exclusion and integration of people with disabilities in terms of addressability and exclusion carriers. Alongside works connected and critical engaged with concepts of »disability studies« search for normative and cultural fundamentals of these mechanisms. They identify discourse power as main force in social construction of disability. However, both theoretical approaches to understand disability are not mutually exclusive but enriching in answering extensively the questions of “how” and “why” of social exclusion of disabled people.