Suchergebnisse

Art critics straddle the boundaries between art worlds and the public. To legitimate and maintain this role, critics must be able to justify their standing as judges of the creation and display of art. This article draws on Boltanski's and Thévenot's work on the sorts of justifications which arise when joint action is interrupted. Specifically, we look at the justifications embedded in two seemingly disparate critiques – one from Clement Greenberg dating from the 1950s and another by Michael Kimmelman from the 2000s. An investigation of the justifications used within these critiques – separated by over five decades – reveals how boundaries between art and its public have been generated and maintained over the years.

Most survey research involves a large number of schedules with nonresponses, but no commonly agreed upon guidelines exist for handling the phenomenon in analysis. Part of the reason for this lack of guidelines may lie in the very conception of the phenomenon as random. Evidence presented here suggests that nonresponse is not a random phenomenon but is systematically related to definite R characteristics. An index of nonsubstantive response was developed for R's interviewed in connection with the 1960, 1964, & 1968 national election studies (N=1,181, 1,834, & 1,673 respectively) conducted by the U of Michigan's Survey Research Center. The index was found to be systematically related to R's age, education, income, sex, race, political involvement, & an index of political efficacy. In general it is hypothesized that nonsubstantive responses like "don't know" are a response style evinced by people excluded from information, influence, & decision-making processes. 7 Tables. AA.

Introduction of biotechnologies, particularly genetically modified (GM) technologies, have led to varying public responses from the government, general public and concerned farmers who use the technological products at the field level. Introduction of Bt cotton in India over the last five years generated considerable debate from the time open field testing of Bt cotton commenced towards the late 1990s. This paper is a modest attempt to map the contours of this debate and analyse it from a sociological perspective of the actors. Most significantly, actors in government and industries express trust in the ar rangements governing biotechnology, while actors in civil society point out problems with the functioning of the relevant governing bodies. We first present a brief overview of the events of the controversy, and then proceed with the body of our study.

Diffusion theory and political economy are the two most common ways by which rural sociologists have explained the widespread use of agricultural innovations. In this paper, we argue, borrowing from science studies and using the empirical case of soybeans in Brazil, that the use of agricultural innovations is better understood as the result of the construction of networks of people and things. Thirty years ago soybean production in Brazil was insignificant. However, at that time a soybean network began to be formed. Initial actors were, among others, (1) soybean varieties produced in the United States, (2) wheat farmers located in the south of Brazil, and (3) soil in need of nitrogen, an expensive input for the new wheat varieties. State policies were no doubt important in consolidating that network. However, other persons, institutions and things were also necessary, including science and technology, the creation and/or expansion of farmers' organizations such as cooperatives, and the solution to the problem of photoperiod sensitivity in soybeans. We follow the soybean from its introduction in Brazil to its present status as an important crop. The overall context within which the soybean network began is also described. We conclude that the actor network approach is more congruent with the history of soybeans in Brazil than diffusion theory or political economy.

AbstractSociotechnical imaginaries are collectively imagined forms of social life reflected in the design and fulfillment of technological projects. While it is implied that there may be contention around sociotechnical imaginaries, the literature on how that contention is manifested is scant. We use a frame‐analytic approach to demonstrate the potency of collective action frames for making sense of the national imaginaries underpinning siting proposals. As a case study, we use woody biomass bioenergy development in northern Michigan. After briefly outlining the multiple frames that are encompassed in the imaginary of bioenergy development, we focus on the "wood for energy" frame, employing the concept of "frame keys" to demonstrate how national imaginaries are interpreted differently by local and nonlocal actors involved in community sitings of proposed facilities. We find not only that frame keys are essential to how the national imaginary of bioenergy is interpreted, (re)produced, and responded to but also that framing processes are related to social movements that coalesce around competing collective memories of place.

In the contemporary global agrifood system, the emergence of a plethora of new agricultural biotechnologies poses a series of far-reaching social, technical and ethical consequences and contradictions. These tools have radically merged questions of design at the molecular level with those of agricultural change. With more possible technological paths than ever before, the new biotechnologies have made technology choice central in the discourse over the future of agriculture. Implicit in the choice of these technologies is a redesigning of nature that could profoundly transform the agrifood system, ecosystems, and the social organization of agriculture. Indeed, global food production and consumption currently stand on the brink of a fundamental alteration in organizational form, which conceivably could surpass the redistributional outcomes of twentieth-century industrialization of farming, agriculture and the food system.

New agricultural biotechnologies that can design agricultural products at the molecular level are beginning to impact society in social, technical, & ethical ways without the safeguards of democratic rules & regulations. Not only can these methods transform the agrifood system, but they can alter ecosystems, the organization of agriculture, & the development, or lack of development, of Third World countries. As industries create microorganisms, plants, & animals to specifically meet human needs & desires, moral & ethical dilemmas are raised; & the expanded claims to intellectual property rights for genetic advancements could privatize plants & animals that were once public domain. Such changes could take the market of crops such as cocoa, vanilla, sugar cane, & coffee away from Third World countries; & give unprecedented power to large corporations. Most of this transformation is taking place quietly within the private sector without public awareness, input, or decision making. While claims of humanitarian reasons for increasing agricultural output are given, the taking of jobs from Third World countries leaves their peoples without the means of purchasing food & other necessities. The author details current biotechnological advances in plants, enzymes within foods, & animals. While biotechnologies could benefit society, they need to be democraticized to ensure that they are used for beneficial purposes. 1 Table. L. A. Hoffman