Suchergebnisse

Taking as a starting point the case of Iraq, it is argued that the administration of this country by the Coalition from May 2003 onward, is an American example of a culture-bound type of occupation. Already in the early eighteenth-century international differences in occupation regimes between France, England, and the Dutch Republic are discernable. Therefore, in all likelihood, the United States also developed in the course of their history a characteristic pattern of controlling foreign territories. This American modus occupandi could very well stem from the English style of occupying, but may differ in two important respects: it usually is a 'short-winded affair,' and it can either come down to a rather peaceful 'laissez-faire' or to a war-like type of occupation. Finally, the question is discussed in how far such a style of occupation can result in a more or less 'constructive' form of foreign domination. In the author's impression, occupational 'success' or 'failure' probably depends as much, if not more, on the state of the occupied system-to wit, the degree of unison between native elites-as on the strategy of the occupant. [Reprinted by permission; copyright Inter-University Seminar on Armed Forces and Society/Sage Publications Inc.]

Taking as a starting point the case of Iraq, it is argued that the administration of this country by the Coalition from May 2003 onward, is an American example of a culture-bound type of occupation. Already in the early eighteenth-century international differences in occupation regimes between France, England, and the Dutch Republic are discernable. Therefore, in all likelihood, the United States also developed in the course of their history a characteristic pattern of controlling foreign territories. This American modus occupandi could very well stem from the English style of occupying, but may differ in two important respects: it usually is a "short-winded affair," and it can either come down to a rather peaceful "laissez-faire" or to a war-like type of occupation. Finally, the question is discussed in how far such a style of occupation can result in a more or less "constructive" form of foreign domination. In the author's impression, occupational "success" or "failure" probably depends as much, if not more, on the state of the occupied system—to wit, the degree of unison between native elites—as on the strategy of the occupant.

Rebellion, Repression, Reinvention. Mutiny in Comparative Perspective. Ed. by Jane Hathaway. Foreword by Geoffrey Parker. Praeger, Westport (Conn.) [etc.] 2001. xix, 282 pp. Maps. £56.95.

Occupation, in the sense of foreign domination brought about or sustained by force, is nearly always characterized by the use (or threat) of negative sanctions, by some form of authority, and by the application of positive sanctions. Furthermore, loyal elites (auxiliaries legitimized from above) and native elites (legitimized from below) generally play a crucial role in the control of the subjugated populace. Intercultural variations in occupation regimes are illustrated by the historical example of Dutch, British and French patterns of control in the Spanish Netherlands in the early 18th century. Whereas the Dutch and the English preferred indirect rule via native elites, the French tended to favour direct rule by assimilated loyal elites. However, the French and the Dutch practised, albeit in varying ways, 'close supervision', while the British displayed a fairly relaxed 'laissez-faire' pattern of control. Similar differences were discerned in studies of the colonial administration practices of Britain, France and The Netherlands in Africa and Asia, while Hofstede's findings concerning the dimensions of culture suggest that the variations in question reflect home-grown styles of organizing. The results can be interpreted with the aid of rational choice theory in the manner of Coleman, Stinchcombe's theory about the historical insignia of organizational designs and a touch of Weberian thought.

Sociological thought on organizations exhibits considerable similarity with respect to modes of analysis: most studies of organizations represent either the model of a socio-cultural system, or a conglomerate of interest groups, or a mixture of the two. Furthermore, certain basic types such as the traditional organization, the 'classic' and the 'flexible bureaucracy' recur in one form or another in various typologies, theories or treatises. These and other types reflect three ubiquitous dimensions (traditional/modern, hierarchical/democratic, mechanical/organic) of sociological thinking on organizational forms and processes. The sociology of organizations consists of a hard core to which national varieties add their own local products. The sociology of organizations as developed in the U.S., the U.K., France, the Federal Republic of Germany and the Netherlands is characterized with reference to the model(s) and types emphasized in these countries. Furthermore, the degree of 'Americanization' (cosmopolitanism?) and of 'ethnocentrism' (localism) of organizational sociology in these five countries is illustrated by data on the references occurring in textbooks in use in the nations in question. It is concluded that the more the sociological approach to organization becomes popular as a point of view, the less viable it is in the form of a specific, well organized sociological sub-discipline.