La vigencia de Karl Polanyi en tiempos de crisis: una reconstrucción histórico-intelectual

This article reviews the concepts of New Economic Sociology (NES) and its application on solidarity economy’s field. At first, we use Karl Polanyi’s concept of embeddedness . Based on this and other key concepts (such as habitus , rationality, interest and gift), we try to analyze the social construction of the field of solidarity economy and how its agents reproduce their livelihoods, seeking a ful lsociability. The NES opposes to economic view and criticizes it, by considering economic facts as social facts. In line with this analytical proposal, in solidarity economy is possible to ascertain a characteristic habitus and a supportive culture, which escape from the logic of economic interest and are guided to targets that are not material and that do not follow a strictly economic logic. Key words: solidarity economy, economic sociology, embeddedness.

Objective: To analyze social and solidarity economy (SSE) contribution aiming on associations and cooperatives, concerning dynamics of artisanal fishing and fish farming in Colombia. Theoretical Framework: This study values the contributions of New Economic Sociology (NES) and Convention Theory (French), based on analytical concepts of social networks, embeddedness, conventions and social construction of markets. Approaches to markets and the social and solidarity economy are connected to the theoretical framework. Method: This research is characterized as descriptive, exploratory and typological, therefore, with a qualitative emphasis. The typological construction of social networks considered eight qualitative variables that allow us to understand the nature of social networks in their interactions with markets, and associations and cooperativism contribution in the outlined social networks Results and Discussion: Four social networks were identified: one of them is related to artisanal fishing (artisanal fishing net) and three belong to fish farming, namely: fish farming network; fish farming in network “transition” and; commodity fish farming network. Social and solidarity economy is present in artisanal fishing networks, fish farming networks, and fish farming networks in “transition”, while associations are the most predominant manifestation, with practices that aim at improving productive processes and quality of life. Research Implications: To understand the contribution of social and solidarity economy of the artisanal fishing network and the three Colombian fish farming networks, regarding the strong spirit of fishermen and fish farmers for the practices of solidarity cooperation and to observe the limits and perspectives that can contribute to cooperative entrepreneurship. Originality/Value: Analyze the contribution of social and solidarity economy in artisanal fishing and fish farming context, based on the notion of social networks, which allow us to observe different patterns present on fishermen and fish farmers’ behaviors in their fishing enterprises and the role played by both Associativism and Cooperativism in different described and analyzed networks.

Introduction Capitalism is a production system established on the widening of commodity production. This means that it tries to transform everything possible into commodity forms and capital has an everlasting effort to succeed and render sustainable this transformation. Nowadays, what is happening in cultural production sphere indicates that capital has been expanded in this domain as well. Consequently, there is a widespread industry that mediates culture and posits it as a commodity. In order to understand this industry, it is necessary to comprehend the commodity production processes in it. This brings on an inevitable discussion on whether these cultural products and practices are commodities or not. In this study, it is discussed whether the cultural products and practices we consume on daily basis, such as music we listen; news, articles and books we read; television dramas and movies we watch, are commodities or not. The relationship between culture and commodity, shaped by the logic of capitalist production, is explored in the studies focusing on Marx's theoretical and conceptual set. The initial works related to cultural production were produced in the early 20th century by members of the Frankfurt School such as Walter Benjamin ([1936] 2010), Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer ([1947] 2002). In addition to these works, between the 1970s and 1990s, the issue was also discussed by British communication theorists such as Nicholas Garnham (1977; 1990), Graham Murdock and Peter Golding (1973), as well as by French scholar Bernard Miège (1979; 1989), from the perspective of political economy of communication. Nowadays, the subject is discussed in the recent studies of these theorists (Miège, 2011, Murdock, 2006; 2011, Garnham, 2000; 2011; Wayne, 2003) and in some other works (Louw, 2001; Mosco, 2009; Hesmondhalgh, 2011; Bolin, 2011). In this discussion, Dallas Smythe's thesis is important from several perspectives. Smythe (1977), a Canadian communication theorist who had a background of economist, broke the ground in the field with his influential thesis of "audience commodity". The thesis has become the main discussion axis related to the subject since its appearance in the late 1970s. It sparked a vivid and important debate between Smythe (1978), Murdock (1978), Bill Livant (1979; 1982), Sut Jhally (1982) and Eileen R. Meehan (1984). Smythe's audience commodity thesis continues to be the case today. Contemporary studies on the commodification processes in communication regularly make reference to Smythe's work, as is the case in the works of Christian Fuchs (2012; 2013; 2015), Fernando Bermejo (2009), William H. J. Hebblewhite (2012), Brice Nixon (2014), Brett Caraway (2011), Micky Lee (2011), Philip M Napoli (2003), Robert Prey (2012), Earn Fisher (2012), Jernej A. Prodnik (2012). It must be stressed that new technologies of communication have played an important role in the revival of the commodification discussion in the field given that activities of users in the Internet or in social networks are subjected to commodification. Together with this, new concepts are emerging such as prosumption or prosumer. In this study, the commodification processes in communication will be investigated from a different perspective in order to contribute to the literature. Commodity in Marx's Theory There is a valid reason to have this discussion in commodity framework. Above all, commodity is the mean of production of the "surplus value", which is the anchor of the capitalist production system. Briefly, it can be said that accumulation in capitalist societies occurs with the transfer of a piece of this surplus value, which is acquired by means of commodity production and exchange, into production once again. Thus, it is extremely important for capitalism the commodity form of anything. In this framework, it is also essential whether cultural products and practices are commodities. Given the importance of commodity, Marx (1992: 125) starts his analysis in the Capital with commodity. Just after mentioning the importance of commodity, Marx stresses the qualities of a commodity. Accordingly, a commodity has simultaneously a use value and a value in exchange. This quality is mentioned as the necessary feature of any single commodity without giving further details. So, it is difficult to understand why commodity has to have these values. However, in subsequent chapters, rendering various concepts comprehensible, Marx offers a comprehensive analysis of capitalist production process. Thus, it becomes clear why and how a commodity has this quality. It must be noticed that Marx takes firstly a result of the capitalist production in the beginning of his analysis. In other words, commodity is the starting point in Marx's analysis but is not more than a result in the general framework. Behind this stress on commodity, whole capitalist production system is standing. It can be said that Marx starts first and foremost from a result, which is commodity, and analysis comprehensively the mode of production which creates it. This is the reason why commodity can only be understood in the framework of capitalist mode of production and by considering the wholeness of this production. In communication field, while discussing the commodity form of cultural products and practices, there is a general tendency that ignores this matter. In the literature, the wholeness of capitalist production, or the process that shapes "capitalist commodity", is usually ignored. Rather, qualities acquired by things after their commodification is brought into the forefront, and the commodity character of cultural products and practices is analyzed from this perspective. In this kind of analysis, the problem is not addressing these qualities. As a matter of fact, these are necessary qualities of any single commodity has to have. The main problem is paying no attention to the fact why and how a commodity has gained these qualities in the capitalist production process. As a result of this, cultural products and practices, at the first glance, seems to be commodities to researchers but why and how they are transformed into commodities stay in obscurity. Therefore, it can lead us to wrong conclusions. Given that commodity has more dimensions than it seems to have at the first glance, these kinds of conceptualizations must be addressed carefully. Hence, Marx (1992: 163) states that though commodity appears something that is easily comprehensible, a detailed analysis shows that it is more complex than it appears. In the light of Marx's analysis, we know that not all but some things can gain commodity form in capitalist societies. Why it is so? Marx (1992: 273) indicates certain necessary conditions to produce a product as a commodity. It is obvious that things can gain commodity form and have aforementioned qualities when some factors get together in the historical-social process of capitalist production. To determine these factors, we must first look at the whole capitalist production. Let's take Capital of Marx as an example of cultural product. While Marx was writing or producing Capital, any capitalist appropriated the value produced by him. As a matter of fact, Marx did not even produce a surplus value. He did not encounter a direct exploitation. His labor was qualitatively different; he was exerting an intellectual labor. Moreover, this intellectual labor was not commodified because it was not bought by a capitalist as a labor-power. At the same time, Capital was not the bearer of a surplus value, contrary to any commodity. From this perspective, instead of conceptualizing arbitrarily cultural products and practices in order to put them in commodity form, just like stretching them in "Procrustes bed", it is wiser to analyze them in the context of the peculiarity of their producers and their own "uniqueness". In this study, following this way, we will explore firstly why and how things acquire commodity forms by paying attention to whole capitalist production. Then, based on this first analysis, we will try to determine whether cultural products and practices gain commodity forms according to their production processes in different production relations. If it is so, we will also try to explain why and how they gain this form. Basically, it is argued that the idea of cultural products and practices as a commodity must be addressed cautiously. This is not a denial of the fact that they are commodities indeed. This is to say that not all but only some parts of this products and practices transform into commodities in some certain conditions. The reason of this is the production of these products and practices in very different relations of production and the fact that they are not general but special products and practices (Wayne, 2003: 21). Given that it is the main assumption of the study, this matter must be explained in detail. Commodification of Cultural Products and Practices Nowadays, cultural products and practices are mostly produced within cultural industry. First of all, we must consider these cultural products and practices produced in this industry through "content" and "medium" as a way of materialization and mediation for the content. In other words, the products and practices require certain type of medium for their production, distribution and consumption. For example, a piece of music can be listened with a radio or mp3 player; a television drama or movie can be watch with television or in a movie theater; news can be read on papers or internet; theatrical works are performed on stage that can be considered as a medium in that point. Content and medium cannot be separated easily from each other in "essence" and in "form". Content, which can exist in the absence of medium, can only transform into a general consumption object solely when it becomes "objectified" through medium. Similarly, medium can also exist in the absence of content but its transformation into a general consumption object requires content. Briefly, each one transforms the other into a consumption object by means of its existence; content provides internal object whereas medium constitutes external object of the consumption related to cultural products and practices. The medium that offers a milieu for cultural products and practices is commodity. Diversification and variation that come with the commodification mostly result from the content. It can be said that cultural products and practices have two different dimensions; on the one hand there is content and on the other hand there is the combination of the content with the medium. When we focus on content, commodity character of the majority of cultural products and practices is questionable. However, despite their differences they all become commodities peculiarly when they are combined with a medium, or a technology, that offers them a milieu. For instance, a piece of music turns into a commodity when it is finished by its composer and recorded afterwards on a CD or DVD. Likewise, a book becomes a commodity when it is send from the writer to the publisher to be published. Here, we can indicate a "two step production". In the study, this situation will be conceptualized as "dual production". The first step is the materialization of the content. In this step, mainly intellectual or "creative" labor is performed. In the second step, there is the combination of the first step product with a technological medium, causing mainly a commodity production. My argument is that cultural products and practices gain their commodity form in the second step, and turn into cultural commodities. I also argue that, in cultural production, the integration of the ideological (content) and the economical (medium) is materialized in this second step. If we take again the aforementioned example, the writing Capital corresponds to the first step. In this phase, the production process contains such a great diversity, to the point that we must have a Procrustean bed to qualify the end product as a commodity. However, the editorial process and the publication of Capital correspond to the second step. After this phase, there is no reason not to qualify the book as commodity. Notably, there is the production of use values in the first step and the production of exchange values in the second step. Conclusion This character of cultural products and practices underscores the reason why we must cautiously approach to the idea of cultural commodity. But it is important not to have a generalization on the issue. What is at stake here is just a general tendency. On the other hand, we must not consider the two steps of production as wholly separated and independent domains. In other words, it cannot be said that use values are always generated in the first step and their transformation into exchange values always happens in the second step. There can be other kind of transformations. It is important to emphasize here that capital tries to commodify these products and practices despite of all differences they have. References Benjamin, W. The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, London: Penguin Books, [1936] 2010. Bermejo, F. "Audience manufacture in historical perspective: from broadcasting to Google", New Media & Society, 2009, V. 11, No. 1-2, pp. 133-154. Bolin, G. Value and the Media: Cultural Production and Consumption in Digital Markets, London: Ashgate Publishing, 2011. Caraway, B. "Audience Labor in the New Media Environment: A Marxian Revisiting of the Audience Commodity", Media, Culture & Society, 2011, V. 33, No. 5, pp. 693-708. Fisher, E. "How Less Alienation Creates More Exploitation? Audience Labour on Social Network Sites", tripleC-Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society, 2012, V. 10, No. 2, pp. 171-183. Fuchs, C. "Dallas Smythe Today - The Audience Commodity, the Digital Labour Debate, Marxist Political Economy and Critical Theory. Prolegomena to a Digital Labour Theory of Value", tripleC-Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society, 2012, V. 10, No. 2, pp. 692-740. Fuchs, C. Digital Labour and Karl Marx, New York: Routledge, 2013. Fuchs, C. Culture and Economy in the Age of Social Media, New York: Routledge, 2015. Garnham, N. "Towards a Political Economy of Culture", New University Quarterly, 1977, V. 31, No. 3, pp. 341-357. Garnham, N. Capitalism and Communication, London: SAGE Publications, 1990. Garnham, N. Emancipation, the Media and Modernity: Arguments about the Media and Social Theory, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Garnham, N. "The Political Economy of Communication Revisited", in J. Wasko, G. Murdock and H. Sousa (eds.) The Handbook of Political Economy of Communications, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2011, pp. 41-61. Hebblewhite, H. J. W. "Means of Communication as Means of Production" Revisited", tripleC-Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society, 2012, V. 10, No. 2, pp. 203-213. Hesmondhalgh, D. The Cultural Industries, London: Sage, 2011. Horkheimer, M., Adorno, W. T., Dialectic of Enlightenment: Philosophical Fragments, California: Standford University Press, [1947] 2002. Jhally, S. "Probing The Blindspot: The Audience Commodity", Canadian Journal of Political and Social Theory, 1982, V. 6, No. 1-2, pp. 204-210. Lee, M. "Google Ads and the Blindspot Debate", Media, Culture and Society, 2011, V. 33, No. 3, pp. 433-447. Livant, B. "The Audience Commodity: On The 'Blindspot' Debate", Canadian Journal of Political and Social Theory, 1979, V. 3, No. 1, pp. 91-106. Livant, B. "Working At Watching: A Reply To Sut Jhally", Canadian Journal of Political and Social Theory, 1982, V. 6, No. 1-2, pp. 211-215. Louw, E. The Media and Cultural Production, London: SAGE Publication, 2001. Marx, K. Capital: Volume 1: A Critique of Political Economy, New York: Penguin Books, 1992. Meehan, E. R. "Ratings and the institutional approach: A third answer to the Commodity Question", Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 1984, V. 1, No. 2, pp. 216-225. Miège, B. "The Cultural Commodity", Media Culture Society, 1979, V. 1, No. 3, pp. 297-311. Miège, B. The Capitalization of Cultural Production, New York: International General, 1989. Miège, B. "Principal Ongoing Mutations of Cultural and Informational Industries", in D. Winseck and D. Y. Jin (eds.) The Political Economies of Media: The Transformation of the Global Media Industries, London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2011, pp. 51-65. Mosco, V. The Political Economy of Communication, Los Angeles: Sage, 2009. Murdock, G. "Blindspot About Western Marxism: A Reply To Dallas Smythe", Canadian Journal of Political and Social Theory, 1978, V. 2, No. 2, pp. 109-119. Murdock, G. "Marx on Commodities, Contradictions and Globalisations Resources for a Critique of Marketised Culture", E-Compós, 2006, V. 7, pp. 1-23. Murdock, G. "Political Economies as Moral Economies: Commodities, Gifts and Public Goods", in J. Wasko, G. Murdock and H. Sousa (eds.), The Handbook of Political Economy of Communications, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2011, pp. 13-40. Murdock, G., Golding, P. "For A Political Economy of Mass Communication", The Socialist Register, 1973, V. 10, pp. 205-234. Napoli, P. M. Audience Economics and the Audience Marketplace, New York: Columbia University Press, 2003. Nixon, B. "Toward a Political Economy of 'Audience Labour' in the Digital Era", tripleC-Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society, 2014, V. 12, No. 2, pp. 713-734. Prey, R. "The Network's Blindspot: Exclusion, Exploitation and Marx's Process-Relational Ontology", tripleC-Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society, 2012, V. 10, No. 2, pp. 253-273. Prodnik, J. "A Note on the Ongoing Processes of Commodification: From the Audience Commodity to the Social Factory", tripleC-Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society, 2012, V. 10, No. 2, pp. 274-301. Smythe, D. W. "Communications: Blindspot Of Western Marxism." Canadian Journal of Political and Social Theory, 1977, V. 1, No. 3, pp. 1-28. Smythe, D. W. "Rejoinder To Graham Murdock", Canadian Journal of Political and Social Theory, 1978, V. 2, No. 2, pp. 120-127. Wayne, M., Marxism and Media Studies: Key Concepts and Contemporary Trends, London: Pluto Press, 2003.

The second volume of the collection Social and solidarity economy in higher education: a space for innovation addresses issues related to pedagogical models and approaches. Here the epistemological reflection that underlies the disciplines is given relevance and the social and solidarity economy is included as an object of study that allows us to respond to the crisis of civilization. Classroom processes that create links with formative research and active methodologies are also included. Curricular developments that show the potential to promote student retention and graduation through cooperativism are exposed. It is also shown how this socioeconomic and environmental model is the basis of an integration and interaction exercise with the society based on a recycling and waste management program. Besides, the good practice of the technopole or technology park of the Yaoundé II Public University (Cameroon) is presented, where, through the social and solidarity economy, teaching, research, and social projection come together for the benefit of the community and the University.

Uncorking an Old Bottle Found in the Atlantic Sea—What Does Critical Theory Want from Film? Gertrud Koch (bio) On several occasions, Theodor W. Adorno compared the work of art to the monad. Like Leibniz's monad, the work of art lacks windows that open onto the world, while at the same time confining the whole world inside of itself. The work of art contains a blueprint of the world and was not made to bring it outside. On another occasion, Adorno found a nautical metaphor for the negative dialectic of art: the work of art is a message in a bottle, which floats in the ocean with no guarantee if or when the bottle may be uncorked and the message may find an addressee. During the last decades, one sometimes gets the impression that Critical Theory, especially the writings on mass culture, was doomed to share the fate of art: caught in between two continents. And it was Miriam Hansen's courageous task to start to decipher the message in the bottle as a tale of two continents. Starting in Frankfurt with American Studies and closing her final book on the Frankfurt School in Chicago, she shipped the transatlantic messages in both directions. Miriam Hansen's posthumously published book on the positions in and the implications of the thinkers and thoughts of the so-called "Frankfurter Schule" on film and mass culture was the sum of a lifelong dialogue with a paradigm that never was placed in the center of academic philosophy or cultural theory, nor did it enter into the [End Page 654] mainstream of film or media studies.1 Why, then, does the "Critical Theory" of the Frankfurt School still haunt our concepts and understanding of mass culture? As we know, the so-called Frankfurt School only became a brand long after its foundations were built in the city of Frankfurt. Even during its best times, the members of the club lived in different cities and parts of the world—the center was a group of persons and a growing number of texts and commentaries. Its history was linked to the practices that were inspired by those texts and performed on the part of students from around the globe and members of civil rights movements from Berlin to Berkeley and Tokyo. Do these practices extend to the present field of media studies? I would venture to say yes: we encounter a continuing preoccupation with Walter Benjamin and a growing serious interest in the rediscovery of Siegfried Kracauer, and last year has seen celebrations of the fiftieth anniversary of Marcuse's book, One Dimensional Man, which took place at least at Columbia University and Brandeis University. If I am reading the signs correctly, there is also a return to one of the most strictly banned text in media studies, the chapter on the "Culture Industry" in the Dialectic of Enlightenment. This text assembles the most radical aspects and positions of the Frankfurt School: a nearby pre-Foucauldian perspective on Freud's psychoanalysis, reflecting the tension between a social technology of the self and a redemptive reading as Nietzschean culture critique; a Marxist analysis of the economy of distribution or, to quote more frequently used Marxist terminology, an analysis of the circulation and fetishization that comes with the commodity form. It addresses a fate that is at stake for all culture in capitalism—not only popular culture, but all mediated art that is sold and distributed on the market. The questioning of abandoned Marxist approaches touches upon the scars that were left after the expulsion of Marx from the Western philosophical and sociological canon, an expulsion that started early and has never fully ceased. The nostalgia that whispers its sorrows in the question, "Where Is the Frankfurt School Now?" also conjures the specter of Marx. Let me take us back to the terms themselves. When did theory become critical? When the term "Critical Theory" was first introduced as proper name for the project of the Frankfurt School, it was a replacement for the Marxist notion of "materialism" that had to be banned under [End Page 655] the conditions of the American exile. "Critical Theory" still refers to Marx's...

Dash convincingly raises the issue of the various forms of Social and Solidarity Economy (SSE) as a way of reinventing “economic life on the margins of the capitalist system” (p. 61). He correctly ...

[Extract] Where is business ethics today? And with this, where are business ethics today? Where do we find them? Are there enough? These questions strike us today, and present us with our starting points. First of all in considering how business ethics has evolved, and what state it is in. But also, in asking where business and ethics are today and how and where they might be in the future. Starting out with these seemingly innocent questions, we face a set of somewhat more troubling questions about the location of business ethics. For some, business ethics is quite easy to locate. When seen as a business function, an academic discipline or a part of business school education, business ethics is often taken as something that obviously has a location. If business ethics is readily locatable, then it can be disciplined, generalised, taught and instituted as part of best practice and corporate strategy. But are business ethics so easily locatable? Are they a 'something' characterised by a 'thingliness' that might allow them to be taken in hand and put to use? If business ethics are not open to such reification, then we might find that ethics in business involves a basic dislocation relating to phenomenal experiences arising when things are out of place. Business ethics would then take place when, as was sensed by Hamlet, things are 'out of joint'. The experience of whistleblowers and the victims of corporate malfeasance is certainly one of deeply felt dislocation. If we find business ethics in these practices, might ethics also be found in other spaces of dislocation?

The merit of Evandro Agazzi’s epistemological reflection can be found in the following proposal: the history of science should be understood and studied as a meeting point between philosophical reflection and scientific research. Science and philosophy are thus closely united. In the words of Kant, science without philosophy is blind and philosophy without science is empty. Not only that: for Agazzi, the philosophy of science helps society as a whole to better understand the cultural (and human) value of science. Conversely, the history of science helps us to understand the perennially progressive nature of our knowledge. Why is this so? Because we can never disregard the intrinsic historicity of scientific knowledge.The historical approach to science also helps us to understand how scientific development always takes place within different choices. Conversely, epistemological reflection also helps historical research to better understand the development of our cognitive and technical heritage. On this basis, Agazzi worked - in collaboration with Ludovico Geymonat - to spread the institutional presence of the philosophy of science and the history of science (as well as mathematical logic) in universities, especially in Italy. Today, all of us are like dwarfs on the shoulders of giants, since we can better understand the connections between science and philosophy precisely because we can avail ourselves of Evandro Agazzi’s historical contributions.

This study focuses economic and social relationships in a fruit culture community under the prism of both principles established by Polanyi (2000) in his work “The Great Transformation” and central assumptions of New Economic Sociology (NES) and Solidarity Economy. The community of Povoado cruz, in the municipality of Currais Novos (Rio Grande do Norte - Brazil), was studied through non-participant observation, and data gathered was analyzed with a qualitative approach. The paper aims at identifying how, and if, social not capitalist relationships, guided by reciprocity, domesticity and redistribution principles, survive within the general capitalist environment. It was observed that, even in predominant market reality, Polanyi and Solidarity Economy principles prevail. Such principles are grounded in values such as solidarity, integration, respect, mutual assistance, cooperation and autonomy.

The article sets out to demonstrate the continuing relevance of the concept of embeddedness in economic sociology, juxtaposing it with the question of disembeddedness through an analysis of three time periods. In the first period, the interpretation of the concept introduced by Karl Polanyi was marked by the notion of “social construction of the economy.” In the second period, the debate focused on criticizing the liberalizing agenda of the Washington Consensus, suggesting that its negative effects on economic development and social solidarity would force the state to retake control of the economy, re-embedding it. The third period acknowledges the specificity of the market economy through an analysis of neoliberalism as a political-institutional arrangement and a moral-normative system that produces “embeddedness on disembeddedness.” The article also discusses the re-establishment of social solidarity in an increasingly disembedded economy.

The participatory construction of new economic models in short food supply chains

Fancy names of subject areas of scientific knowledge in the modern scientific world, like nothing else, reflect the excessive consumption in society. The variety of choices that postulates human freedom eventually turns into chaos: something that is neither controlled, nor measured, nor regulated, nor, in the end, amenable to ordinary formal logic. Socionomics, socieconomics, social economics, solidarity economics, sociological economics, etc., no amount of abstract is enough to list only combinations of social and economic. But, if you undertake to list, for example, combinations of ecology and economics, then there will be such a number of directions that a reasonable person will have a natural question: the global issues facing humanity from year to year are the same, the answers are the same, and the number of directions that are theorizing, explaining, measuring, evaluating the same phenomena is increasing. And the completion of such a variety of theories and currents of economic thought is moral economics, in the essence and content of which there are absolute antipodes that disorient the axiological space of modern society. In this study, the authors will try to use scientific methods of cognition that have a philosophical basis to reveal the nature of the appearance of contradictions in economic knowledge when materialized matters are mixed with spiritual values. The necessity, causal mechanisms of occurrence are considered, the objectivity of the need for the presence of moral signs of economic processes is studied. The subject of the study is moral economics, as a characteristic example of an absolutely contradictory axiological and economic phenomenon. The aim of the research is a theoretical analysis of the truth of the synthesis of morality and economics in the modern social formation. The materials and results of the study are: 1. Theoretical analysis of the subject area, expressed in three main sections: The history of the issue, Morality, ethics and economics, general logical understanding of concepts, Ethics of morality and ethics of economics; 2. Formal and logical argumentation of the inconsistency of the causality of the presence of morality in the economy of D. M. Hausman; 3. Argumentation of the absence of signs of convergence of morality and economics at the present stage of economic formation.

Other| March 01 1987 The making of Marx's critical theory: a bibliographical analysis Allen Oakley. Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1983. Pp. 143, $8.95. John Elliott John Elliott Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google History of Political Economy (1987) 19 (1): 165–166. https://doi.org/10.1215/00182702-19-1-165 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Twitter Permissions Search Site Citation John Elliott; The making of Marx's critical theory: a bibliographical analysis. History of Political Economy 1 March 1987; 19 (1): 165–166. doi: https://doi.org/10.1215/00182702-19-1-165 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search Books & JournalsAll JournalsHistory of Political Economy Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. Copyright © 1987 by Duke University Press1987 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal Issue Section: Book Reviews You do not currently have access to this content.

Critical feminism, like other critical approaches, builds on recent currents in social theory that have made theorizing increasingly problematic. Post-modern and post-structural traditions that have influenced left legal critics presuppose the social construction of knowledge. From both a philosophical and pragmatic standpoint, feminist legal critics have less stake in the assault on liberalism than critical legal studies (CLS). One central difference between critical feminism and other critical legal theory involves the role of rights. Although both bodies of work have challenged liberal legalism's reliance on formal entitlements, feminist accounts, like those of minority scholars, have tended more toward contextual analysis than categorical critique. One final issue on which critical feminism often parts company with other critical theory involves the construction of alternative visions of the good society. Feminist legal critics have been less interested in predicting the precise role that gender would play in the good society than in undermining its role in this one.

The fundamental purpose of my study is trying to reconstruct and extend the economic research approach”, which was proposed by Karl Polanyi in Trade and Market, in the Early Empire(1957), and then use the economic research approach” to establish a sociological conceptualization and research program of the “Economy” that can solve the conceptualization problems which exist in new economic sociology. The main content of the thesis can be divided into four chapters. The first chapter discusses that the conceptualization problems of the “economy” which exist in the new economic sociology, and shows that how to apply the “substantive economy research approach” to solve these conceptualization problems. Chapter two is dedicated to reconstruct the “substantive economics research approach” and make some simple assessment and evaluation of the research approach. In the third chapter, I apply Karl Polanyi's “substantial economic research approach” to construct a “self-regulated market” model, which can describe and explain the overall economic operational pattern and the effect of the modern “money-good” exchange economy at collective level and long run. Finally, in the fourth chapter, in order to further clarify the uniqueness of “self-regulated market” model and its proper use, I compare the “self-regulated market” model which deriving from substantive economy research approach to the neoclassical economics and the new economic sociology. Moreover, I will re-evaluate the new-economic-sociology-evaluation of the theory of Karl Polanyi in the latter part of this chapter. Chapter five is a simple conclusion. In conclusion, I think the reason why “substantive economic research approach” can grasp the characteristics of the modern economic system better than new economic sociology (as well as neoclassical economics) is that : “substantive economic research approach” point out correctly that we cannot derived the inappropriate proposition that economic activities are embedded-in the non-economic social relations from the rather appropriate proposition that “economic relations are embedded in the non-economic social relations. On the contrary, economic relations which are supported or constituted by non-economic social relations can shape the overall economic operational pattern according to the principles that different from the principles which non-economic social relations comply with. That is to say, modern economic system ought to be identified as a “self-regulated market” economy which is embedded-in the two kinds of economic relations----the “self-regulated market social relation” and the “price-making market social relation”.