Suchergebnisse

Intro -- Preface -- Contents -- Sociologies of Class and Organization -- I. Classes, Structures and Actors -- Classes in Contemporary Capitalist Society: Recent Marxist and Weberian Perspectives -- Analytical Marxism and Class Theory -- Between Rational Choice and Durkheimian Solidarity -- "New" Social Inequalities and the Renewal of the Theory of Social Inequalities -- Classes, Collectivities and Corporate Actors -- II. Management in Class and Organization Structures -- Ownership and Management Strategy -- International Management and the Class Structure -- Managers and Social Classes -- Technical Workers: A Class and Organisational Analysis -- III. Class Restructuring and Organizations -- Disorganised Capitalism and Social Class -- Managing the Multinationals: The Emerging Theory of the Multinational Enterprise and Its Implications for Labour Resistance -- Work Organization Under Technological Change: Sources of Differentiation and the Reproduction of Social Inequality in Processes of Change -- The New Rise of Self-Employment and Industrial Structure -- IV. The Labour Process, Class Structure and Gender -- Exploring the Class and Organisational Implications of the UK Financial Services -- Organization and Class: Burawoy in Birmingham -- The Class/Gender/Organization Nexus -- Masculine/Feminine Organization: Class versus Gender in Swedish Unions -- V. Classless Organizations? -- Between Class Analysis and Organization Theory: Mental Labour -- Against the Current: Organizational Sociology and Socialism -- Political Domination and Reproduction of Classless Organizations -- Socialised Industry: Social Ownership or Shareholding Democracy? -- Notes on Contributors -- Index

All readings take place in the here-and-now, even of texts written back there and then. Nowhere in management and organization theory has this been truer of anyone than Max Weber. Unread in English during his lifetime, it was nearly 30 years after his death before his ideas had much impact. When they did, they were read in a context and tradition years away from those in which they were conceived. And, ever since, they have been subject to systematic reinterpretation on the one hand and neglect on the other. The paper addresses how one might use Weber today, in terms of his sensitivity to current issues, such as sustainability, as well as the still largely unacknowledged foundation that Weber constructed for contemporary cultural studies. The paper will bring these two themes together, using analysis of contemporary equivalents to the popular culture that formed the basis for some of Weber's own investigations.

Life, art and science are irremediably intertwined: how, where and with whom one shares the brief moments of existence necessarily affect what one thinks, how one writes, and what one will address. Being a scholar is a vocation, as Weber knew only too well, in which science, ethics and art blend; sometimes seamlessly, sometimes not. None who live an intellectual and public life are immune to the normal glosses of the sociology of knowledge and this paper provides glimpses, through a personal lens, of what such a gloss might see. It is a glimpse of a life still living and lived; an artist still at work, an agenda still being developed, frozen like a snapshot of an instant - and just as representative. Can a snapshot capture an essence? Sometimes. Whether this does is left to others to judge.

The analysis of power has fallen under two central traditions. The conventional organizational theory focuses on power as illegitimate organization, employing illicit methods to coerce others into taking action. The labor process theory assumes that any type of authoritative organization is manipulative. The main argument against each theory has been the question of resistance, with the first theory identifying subtle forms of resistance & the second neglecting it altogether. In an effort to reconcile this, the labor process debate solicited the assistance of Michel Foucault, whose work (around the late 1970s) advanced the idea that power could not exist without resistance. This theory, when applied to governmental power & legitimacy, produces the argument that neither resistance nor legitimacy can be assumed. Both are dependent on the day-to-day decisions made by citizens & on representative media. As a result, it cannot be assumed that governmental power precludes resistance; for it is only through social organization that true resistance can emerge. K. A. Larsen