In this collaboratively authored work, five distinguished sociologists develop an ambitious theoretical model of "cultural trauma"--and on this basis build a new understanding of how social groups interact with emotion to create new and binding understandings of social responsibility. Looking at the "meaning making process" as an open-ended social dialogue in which strikingly different social narratives vie for influence, they outline a strongly constructivist approach to trauma and apply this theoretical model in a series of extensive case studies, including the Nazi Holocaust, slavery in the United States, and September 11, 2001.
| |||||||||||||||
Book Description
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
|
Product Description
From the Inside Flap
"A timely and sophisticated series of studies. Articulating diverse strands of social theory with the historical episodes that have had major affective resonances within national cultures, the volume as a whole contributes significantly to our understanding of relationships between collective affect and social process."--Michael Shapiro, Professor of Political Science at the University of Hawaii
"The fine and deeply argued essays in this book build a strong case against a naturalistic theory of collective traumas. Traumas are made, not born, claim the authors. And they brilliantly cast a steely gaze on several social nightmares--the Nazi holocaust, slavery in the United States, September 11, 2001--in order to limn the social and cultural processes by which events come to be viewed as threatening to the very identity of collectivities. Ultimately this is a book about the nature of the very normative order that gives meaning to the human condition."--Robin Wagner-Pacifici, author of Theorizing the Standoff
"Near the end of the 20th century, scholarly interest in collective memory surged, spurred on both by re-examinations of the Holocaust and other canonical sources of trauma, and by the rise of a new set of institutionalized processes of collective memory-work. It is the great merit of these essays to approach the problems of collective trauma in sociological terms, as theorizable patterns in socially and culturally organized processes. This is a vital corrective to more naturalistic understandings and complement to those focused more narrowly on psychology or textual analysis."--Craig Calhoun, President, Social Science Research Council
"This interactive collection of essays breaks new ground in the sociology of trauma. With its rich range of empirical cases, this book will inspire new debates across the social sciences about memory, collective suffering, and coping."--Arjun Appadurai, Professor of International Studies, Yale University
"The fine and deeply argued essays in this book build a strong case against a naturalistic theory of collective traumas. Traumas are made, not born, claim the authors. And they brilliantly cast a steely gaze on several social nightmares--the Nazi holocaust, slavery in the United States, September 11, 2001--in order to limn the social and cultural processes by which events come to be viewed as threatening to the very identity of collectivities. Ultimately this is a book about the nature of the very normative order that gives meaning to the human condition."--Robin Wagner-Pacifici, author of Theorizing the Standoff
"Near the end of the 20th century, scholarly interest in collective memory surged, spurred on both by re-examinations of the Holocaust and other canonical sources of trauma, and by the rise of a new set of institutionalized processes of collective memory-work. It is the great merit of these essays to approach the problems of collective trauma in sociological terms, as theorizable patterns in socially and culturally organized processes. This is a vital corrective to more naturalistic understandings and complement to those focused more narrowly on psychology or textual analysis."--Craig Calhoun, President, Social Science Research Council
"This interactive collection of essays breaks new ground in the sociology of trauma. With its rich range of empirical cases, this book will inspire new debates across the social sciences about memory, collective suffering, and coping."--Arjun Appadurai, Professor of International Studies, Yale University
About the Author
Jeffrey C. Alexander is Professor of Sociology and Chair of the Sociology Department at Yale University, the author of The Meanings of Social Life: A Cultural Sociology (2003), and the editor of Real Civil Societies (1998). Ron Eyerman is the author of Cultural Trauma: Slavery and the Formation of African American Identity (2001). Bernhard Giesen is the author of Intellectuals and the Nation: Collective Identity in a German Axial Age (1997). Neil J. Smelser is the author of The Social Aspects of Psychoanalysis (California, 1998). Piotr Sztompka is the author of Trust: A Sociological Theory (1999).
Sell a Digital Version of This Book in the Kindle Store
If you are a publisher or author and hold the digital rights to a book, you can sell a digital version of it in our Kindle Store.
Learn more
Customer Reviews
There are no customer reviews yet on Amazon.ca
5 star
4 star
3 star
2 star
1 star
Most Helpful Customer Reviews on Amazon.com (beta)
Amazon.com:
4.0 out of 5 stars
2 reviews
9 of 11 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars
A fair approach to an important issue
Oct 30 2007
By M. Schaeffer
- Published on Amazon.com
Format:Paperback
I acknowledge, that Alexander and his colleagues raise the topic of the growing importance of trauma in our societies. Being a German myself I totally agree to the importance of the task. Furthermore I appreciate the normative dimension of Alexander's work. I think it is great, that Alexander does not only theorize trauma but tries to show us a way towards responsibility and solidarity.
However great his claims I cannot accept Alexander's theory. There is a great critique by Hans Joas in the European Journal of Social Theory. I do not want to repeat this critique here. I could not formulate it any better nor shorter, so please have a look at it yourself.
Yet I want to give a short outline of what I think Alexander's fallacy is: Orthodox Theories conceptualize trauma as an experience that cannot be grasped and integrated into our understanding of the world. Therefore this experience disturbs, injures and haunts us. Alexander criticizes these approaches by saying, that it is not the events but their meaning, which shock and frighten us. These meanings of course have to be mediated and constructed first. I think with this critique he gets it all wrong.
The basic characteristic of a trauma is, that it has no meaning within our every day lives!
Therefore it cannot be understood nor talked about. This incoherency between horrible experience and normal every-day-life causes anxiety, phobia and so on and so forth. First it was recognized that homecoming soldiers had mental and physical problems. Then it was thought about an explanation and scientists came up with ideas like "shelter shock" or "post traumatic depression". If Alexander was right, we first would need the definition and then people would show the symptoms.
Am I confusing the individual and the collective level? Then let me ask the following question: Did it really need the experience of a failed emancipation and reconstitution for African Americans to be traumatized by slavery? (see Eyermans chapter)
What Alexander calls the "Trauma Process" does not establish the trauma but its cure and its cultural memory. The "Trauma Process" makes it possible for people to integrate their experiences into their everyday life.
The field of trauma research is too well established to just revolutionize it with one such book by people who have not worked in this area before.
As Joas sais, Alexander fails to differentiate between cultural and personal trauma. If such a differentiation was introduced, the cultural trauma could be acknowledged as a special case of a cultural memory, which might even help to cure (collectivities of) personal traumatized people.
However great his claims I cannot accept Alexander's theory. There is a great critique by Hans Joas in the European Journal of Social Theory. I do not want to repeat this critique here. I could not formulate it any better nor shorter, so please have a look at it yourself.
Yet I want to give a short outline of what I think Alexander's fallacy is: Orthodox Theories conceptualize trauma as an experience that cannot be grasped and integrated into our understanding of the world. Therefore this experience disturbs, injures and haunts us. Alexander criticizes these approaches by saying, that it is not the events but their meaning, which shock and frighten us. These meanings of course have to be mediated and constructed first. I think with this critique he gets it all wrong.
The basic characteristic of a trauma is, that it has no meaning within our every day lives!
Therefore it cannot be understood nor talked about. This incoherency between horrible experience and normal every-day-life causes anxiety, phobia and so on and so forth. First it was recognized that homecoming soldiers had mental and physical problems. Then it was thought about an explanation and scientists came up with ideas like "shelter shock" or "post traumatic depression". If Alexander was right, we first would need the definition and then people would show the symptoms.
Am I confusing the individual and the collective level? Then let me ask the following question: Did it really need the experience of a failed emancipation and reconstitution for African Americans to be traumatized by slavery? (see Eyermans chapter)
What Alexander calls the "Trauma Process" does not establish the trauma but its cure and its cultural memory. The "Trauma Process" makes it possible for people to integrate their experiences into their everyday life.
The field of trauma research is too well established to just revolutionize it with one such book by people who have not worked in this area before.
As Joas sais, Alexander fails to differentiate between cultural and personal trauma. If such a differentiation was introduced, the cultural trauma could be acknowledged as a special case of a cultural memory, which might even help to cure (collectivities of) personal traumatized people.
1 of 8 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars
Great book
Sep 2 2007
By Francisco J. Eiroa Orosa
- Published on Amazon.com
Format:Paperback
This book offers a very nice overviell in collective traumas and their impact over collective identity under a sociological perspective.
›
Go to Amazon.com to see both reviews
4.0 out of 5 stars
Listmania!
Look for similar items by category
- Books > New & Used Textbooks > Social Sciences > Geography
- Books > New & Used Textbooks > Social Sciences > Political Science > Political History
- Books > New & Used Textbooks > Social Sciences > Political Science > Public Policy
- Books > New & Used Textbooks > Social Sciences > Sociology
- Books > Politics & Social Sciences > Current Events > Poverty > Social Services & Welfare
- Books > Politics & Social Sciences > Politics > History & Theory
- Books > Politics & Social Sciences > Social Sciences > Human Geography
- Books > Politics & Social Sciences > Social Sciences > Political Science
- Books > Politics & Social Sciences > Social Sciences > Sociology
- Books > Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007 > Social Sciences
Feedback
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
|
