Die Cholera-Epidemie in St. Petersburg 1848

Sociologus, N.F. 16.1966

Bibliographische Daten

Monographie

Strukturtyp:: Monographie

Werks-URN (URL):: https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:kobv:11-709932

URN:: urn:nbn:de:kobv:11-709932

Persistenter Identifier:: BV042480532

Titel:: Die Cholera-Epidemie in St. Petersburg 1848

Untertitel:: beobachtet im Obuchowschen Hospital

Erscheinungsort:: St. Petersburg

Verlag:: Schmitzdorff

Erscheinungsjahr:: 1849

Umfang:: 64 S., [5] Bl. : graph. Darst.

Beschreibung:: Medizingeschichte

Signatur:: Med Re 71

Sammlung:: Allgemeiner Bestand

Wissensgebiet:: Medizingeschichte

Hinterer Buchspiegel

Strukturtyp:: Hinterer Buchspiegel

Sammlung:: Allgemeiner Bestand

10 Johannes Fabian What we have been questioning so far — admittedly in a somewhat “ideological” manner — should be formulated in a more theoretical way: Let us assume that ideology in its broadest sense may be defined as a system of symbols giving orientation to human (individual as well as social) action by providing a vehicle for the conception of meaning (cf. for the latter part of the definition Geertz in Apter 1964: 59). In one more restricted sense (there is more than one restriction pos sible) ideology is, despite Mannheim’s attempt at panideologism, best conceived of as a meaning-conveying symbol system in certain situations of strain and change affecting a collectivity. It is this restricted aspect that gives the concept of ideology its dynamic, creative, often polemic, in short, its political connotation. The question is: How can we as social scientists incorporate into our analysis “meaning”, i. e. that cognitive and affective content of the symbol systems defined as ideologies? Or to put the same problem in another way: Is the specific kind of meaning or the specific combination of elements of meaning which orient action via symbolization a mere historical accident, and there fore, intrinsically unexplainable — or is this aspect a reality sui generis, demanding the methodological attention of the social scientist? (There is no question of philosophers and historians being concerned with the problem.) Let me add this: If our question — the content, meaning, sense, of social-political action — is a valid one, then it is also an eminently practical one. Mannheim has demonstrated that, at least since Marx, thinking about social action (social science) and programs for social action (ideology) increasingly tend to become one. The consequences of this development are perhaps more conspicuous in modem psychology and psychiatry where formalistic-functionalistic concepts of personality are about to take the place of defunct moral orientations. IV How does the emphasis on the content-aspect of social-political action affect the problem of comparative study of ideology? For an unchal lenged structural-functional approach (which is not concerned with “content”) the question is answered by definition: To analyze a set of phenomena, personality, society, ideology etc., means ipso facto to prepare one’s material for comparison. If something can be identified as a “role”, or as “institution” it can be compared with any other role or institution.

Zugriffsbeschränkung

Nutzungslizenz

Volltext: Sociologus, N.F. 16.1966

Monographie

Hinterer Buchspiegel

Inhaltsverzeichnis

Downloads

Ganzer Datensatz

Diese Seite

Bildfragment

Formate und Verlinkungen

Links

Zitieren

Ganzer Datensatz

Diese Seite

Zitierempfehlung