Antje Gimmler

Designing socially robust 4G wireless services

The difficulties and technical limitations of the third generation (3G) of wireless mobile communication systems as well as the emergence of new mobile broadband technologies on the market have prompted university and industry researchers to thoroughly reflect on the fourth generation (4G) of these technologies. In this article, we outline the interaction between technology and society that shall help to develop 4G in a way that maximize its acceptance and penetration in the market, while minimizing the downside risk of its failure. This presupposes that the user is considered as the cornerstone in the design of 4G. As a consequence, we sum up the relevant service design rules derived from such a user-centric model and propose innovative 4G services

Potentials and Limits of Cooperation in Wireless Communications: Toward 4G Wireless [Guest Editorial]

The five articles in this Special Issue reveal a variety of possibilities of the new socio-technological outlook of the future generation of wireless mobile communication.

Creativity, Pragmatism and the Social Sciences: A Discussion between Hans Joas and Richard Sennett

In this discussion, Richard Sennett and Hans Joas elaborate on the role of both creativity and pragmatism in the social sciences. They pursue these topics from different perspectives: the role creativity played in the history of ideas and in classical pragmatism, what creativity means in the practice of the arts and how a creative pragmatist sociology might be possible. Pragmatism, they conclude, may not be a new idea, but the practice of pragmatism offers a new political vision beyond the traditional frontiers of left and right.

Mobilität als Metapher – Zum Gebrauch von Metaphern in den Sozialwissenschaften

Die Metapher ubt auf die Wissenschaften eine eigentumliche Anziehungskraft aus. Ohne Metaphern – und dies wissen wir nicht erst seit Lakoff und Johnson (Lakoff, Johnson 2003) – scheinen die verschiedenen Wissenschaften nicht auszukommen. Was auf den ersten Blick als Mangel an Prazision erscheint – ein Mangel, den die Wissenschaften mit der im Alltag verwendeten lebensweltlichen Sprache teilen – erweist sich auf den zweiten Blick als Notwendigkeit. Ohne Metapher, so auch Susan Sontag (Sontag 1981), konnen wir nicht denken. In seiner Metaphorologie prazisiert Hans Blumenberg diese Ambivalenz von Mangel und Notwendigkeit.

Contextualized Action: Remarks on the Protestant Ethics

Max Webers study on The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism is still the subject of an ongoing debate about the conceptualization of modernity, the role of religion in social change and not least the interdependencies between structure and agent. This paper addresses mainly the third topic. The Protestant Ethic introduces the institutionalization of capitalism as a multi-factorial set of interdependencies between agent and structure along with surprising side effects and unintended consequences. This institutionalization pattern could be understood more precisely with the help of Webers basic sociological categories on action. On this background the standard interpretation of Webers concept of modernity has to be questioned—a possible new critical approach that is already visible in the recent discussion on multiple modernities.

The Mobilities of Home: Towards a new Planning for Mobilities based on an Actor-Relational Approach

This book is a message to be humble before truth and reality and to relinquish the idea of controlling them. Planners do not have that much control. In retrospect, it was easy to conclude that in conditions of constant population growth and with an economy in fairly good shape, a linear model of urban development would be relatively easy to maintain: the origin of the idea of certainty and control. The population in the Western world is no longer growing though; on the contrary, many regions and cities are facing population decline. Added to that, the economy is proving quite uncertain as well. The two together impact on spatial development. This all means that we have to consider a fundamentally different perspective on the role of spatial planning and its position in urban and rural development. Instead of planning aiming to achieve controlled development, it might get more out of the various autonomous processes affecting urban and the rural areas. In addition to planners being experts or mediators, we might appreciate planners becoming managers of change, transition managers, adaptive responders and social entrepreneurs, supporting and guiding the various parties within urban and rural areas to find the positions which suit them best. This book acknowledges these new identities and positions, with the planner acting as a manager of change. This book tries to present arguments in support of a discipline of spatial planning which adopts a different stance to the world, a more adaptive stance, and with a keen eye for self-organization processes: an eye for non-linear kinds of planning in a world of change.Does self-organization matter to planning? Spatial Planning and self-organization: the combination of these two themes is perhaps somewhat unexpected, one being the collective manifestation of ‘intentional’ action, the other representing ‘spontaneous’ phenomena. Spatial Planning labels itself a science of purposeful interventions, while self-organization is a theory of spontaneous order. Nevertheless, this combination has recently been getting serious attention from the planning community. There are a few empirical reasons for this interest, such as the spontaneous but devastating global crisis, affecting the housing, mortgage and financial markets. Since 2008, the crisis has challenged planners to assess traditional practices critically and develop alternative strategies. The repeated failures of large planning projects are another trigger. These projects can no longer be treated as isolated activities, as these are part of a highly interconnected world, which is evolving through unprecedented non-linear chains of causes and effects. Within the planning community there is a growing awareness of a world beyond the planners’ control, a world that is evolving in various autonomous ways. This abstract notion of our world developing non-linearly is a reason to explore emerging theories addressing complexity, non-linearity, adaptivity, co-evolution, transition and self-organization further. Notwithstanding the recent interest, the world in which planners operate has always supported self-organizing processes, even in the traditional, coordinative era of command-and-control policymaking and the controlled reality of technical and functional planning. In the communicative era of planning and policymaking self-organization processes are very much in evidence. Despite this, these processes were ignored, were overlooked, were taken for granted and never got much attention and therefore never became part of mainstream planning. They were just there and did not relate much to the planners’ language of control, regulation and rationality or the planner’s drive to reach consensus and shared responsibility. Therefore, the question is: does self-organization matter in understanding spatial development processes and will such an enriched understanding support planners in addressing a world which is moving beyond our control?Today’s world is predominantly urban. Most urban regions are located in delta regions. And delta regions face severe pressures because of their fragile environments, their delicate relationship with existing ecological habitats and coastal zones, which need protection, and the increasing constraints and threats due to climate change and sea level, rise. Delta regions are under pressure. Spatial planning is one of the means to maintain quality of living in delta regions. Spatial planning has a strong tradition in taking ‘here and now’ decisions to responding to problems and difficulties, with not much difference in technical and communicative approaches. If spatial planning wants to be supportive to transformations at various levels of scale in urbanized delta regions alternative time related approaches are desperately needed. The plurality of urbanized delta regions forces such time related planning approaches to be emergent, adaptive, co-evolving and transformative in nature. It means planning has to embrace a non-linear understanding of space and place. This book is meant as an introduction to non-linearity and spatial planning.

Distinktion Scandivian Journal of Social Theory

Citizenship is a much contested concept and has undergone numerous transformations in its long history. The classical concept of legal and political citizenship that became dominant with the rise of the nation states in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries has been the subject of numerous critiques and discussions (Isin 2002; Joppke 2007). The formal legal concept of citizenship has been criticized on the background of the evolving welfare states in the after war period for not taking the impact of class society and social issues into account (Marshall 1992). In Western welfare states today citizenship both as a social and political concept continues to be a major topic of discussion, especially on the background of welfare reforms in which citizens are expected to participate on both the level of decision making and services. In such an individualized setting the balance of duties and rights are tightly connected to the citizen as a single person and to a lesser degree to citizens as partakers in collective processes, critics have stated. Recognition is seen on the level of individual services, but not necessarily on the aggregated level of welfare policies and strategies (Banting and Kymlicka 2006; Boltanski and Chiapello 2005; Pedersen 2011). Another important critique has been directed against the alleged neutrality of purely formal citizenship. Citizenship has, from the point of view of its critics, always been conflated with ideologies of origin, of ethnic or racial homogeneity and culture (Yuval-Davis and Werbner 1999). The roles of cultural and ethnical diversity (Taylor 1992) as well as of gender differences (Lister 1997), not only for the practices of citizenship, but consequently also for how to depict the concept as such, have thus been subject of discussions. Formal citizenship is a rather thin concept and most of the critique of formal citizenship is based upon the supposition that citizenship as practice always rests on more substantial cultural and normative dimensions. A variety of theories of cultural citizenship thus adds thick descriptions of practices and imaginaries to the otherwise thinner concept of legal-political citizenship. These approaches to cultural citizenship encompass all types of rights regarding sexual, cultural, ethnic or other group-related specificities. But the cultural notion of citizenship concentrates not exclusively upon the execution of rights, it rather adds dimensions such as identity, cultural differences and the struggle for recognition to the concept of citizenship. Many scholars have pointed out that modern citizenship is comprised by new divides like gender, sexuality, race or religious beliefs (Lister 1997; Young 1989). How collective and individual identities are balanced with regard to multicultural and post-colonial societies poses new challenges for the conceptualization of citizenship (Benhabib 2002; Kymlicka 1996). Other current approaches that focus on alternative concepts of citizenship, such as postnational (Soysal 1994), flexible (Ong 1999), or cosmopolitan (Chandler 2003; Linklater 1998) citizenship manifest Distinktion: Scandinavian Journal of Social Theory Vol. 12, No. 3, December 2011, 249–253Editors Christian Borch – Copenhagen Business School, Denmark (editor-in-chief) Tiina Arppe – University of Helsinki, Finland Lisa Blackman – Goldsmiths, University of London, UK Mikael Carleheden – University of Copenhagen, Denmark Mitchell Dean – University of Newcastle, Australia Antje Gimmler – University of Aalborg, Denmark Carl-Göran Heidegren – Lund University, Sweden Thor Hvidbak – Danish Ministry of Finance, Denmark Holger Højlund – Copenhagen Business School, Denmark Lars Thorup Larsen – Aarhus University, Denmark Thomas Lemke – Institute for Social Research, Frankfurt am Main, Germany Ingunn B. Moser – Diakonhjemmet University College, Norway Urs Stäheli – University of Hamburg, Germany Svend Roald Thorhauge – Brøruphus Continuation School, Denmark Mikkel Thorup – Aarhus University, Denmark

Citizenship under Transformation: Editorial

Citizenship is a much contested concept and has undergone numerous transformations in its long history. The classical concept of legal and political citizenship that became dominant with the rise of the nation states in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries has been the subject of numerous critiques and discussions (Isin 2002; Joppke 2007). The formal legal concept of citizenship has been criticized on the background of the evolving welfare states in the after war period for not taking the impact of class society and social issues into account (Marshall 1992). In Western welfare states today citizenship both as a social and political concept continues to be a major topic of discussion, especially on the background of welfare reforms in which citizens are expected to participate on both the level of decision making and services. In such an individualized setting the balance of duties and rights are tightly connected to the citizen as a single person and to a lesser degree to citizens as partakers in collective processes, critics have stated. Recognition is seen on the level of individual services, but not necessarily on the aggregated level of welfare policies and strategies (Banting and Kymlicka 2006; Boltanski and Chiapello 2005; Pedersen 2011). Another important critique has been directed against the alleged neutrality of purely formal citizenship. Citizenship has, from the point of view of its critics, always been conflated with ideologies of origin, of ethnic or racial homogeneity and culture (Yuval-Davis and Werbner 1999). The roles of cultural and ethnical diversity (Taylor 1992) as well as of gender differences (Lister 1997), not only for the practices of citizenship, but consequently also for how to depict the concept as such, have thus been subject of discussions. Formal citizenship is a rather thin concept and most of the critique of formal citizenship is based upon the supposition that citizenship as practice always rests on more substantial cultural and normative dimensions. A variety of theories of cultural citizenship thus adds thick descriptions of practices and imaginaries to the otherwise thinner concept of legal-political citizenship. These approaches to cultural citizenship encompass all types of rights regarding sexual, cultural, ethnic or other group-related specificities. But the cultural notion of citizenship concentrates not exclusively upon the execution of rights, it rather adds dimensions such as identity, cultural differences and the struggle for recognition to the concept of citizenship. Many scholars have pointed out that modern citizenship is comprised by new divides like gender, sexuality, race or religious beliefs (Lister 1997; Young 1989). How collective and individual identities are balanced with regard to multicultural and post-colonial societies poses new challenges for the conceptualization of citizenship (Benhabib 2002; Kymlicka 1996). Other current approaches that focus on alternative concepts of citizenship, such as postnational (Soysal 1994), flexible (Ong 1999), or cosmopolitan (Chandler 2003; Linklater 1998) citizenship manifest Distinktion: Scandinavian Journal of Social Theory Vol. 12, No. 3, December 2011, 249–253Editors Christian Borch – Copenhagen Business School, Denmark (editor-in-chief) Tiina Arppe – University of Helsinki, Finland Lisa Blackman – Goldsmiths, University of London, UK Mikael Carleheden – University of Copenhagen, Denmark Mitchell Dean – University of Newcastle, Australia Antje Gimmler – University of Aalborg, Denmark Carl-Göran Heidegren – Lund University, Sweden Thor Hvidbak – Danish Ministry of Finance, Denmark Holger Højlund – Copenhagen Business School, Denmark Lars Thorup Larsen – Aarhus University, Denmark Thomas Lemke – Institute for Social Research, Frankfurt am Main, Germany Ingunn B. Moser – Diakonhjemmet University College, Norway Urs Stäheli – University of Hamburg, Germany Svend Roald Thorhauge – Brøruphus Continuation School, Denmark Mikkel Thorup – Aarhus University, Denmark

Citizenship under transformation

Citizenship is a much contested concept and has undergone numerous transformations in its long history. The classical concept of legal and political citizenship that became dominant with the rise of the nation states in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries has been the subject of numerous critiques and discussions (Isin 2002; Joppke 2007). The formal legal concept of citizenship has been criticized on the background of the evolving welfare states in the after war period for not taking the impact of class society and social issues into account (Marshall 1992). In Western welfare states today citizenship both as a social and political concept continues to be a major topic of discussion, especially on the background of welfare reforms in which citizens are expected to participate on both the level of decision making and services. In such an individualized setting the balance of duties and rights are tightly connected to the citizen as a single person and to a lesser degree to citizens as partakers in collective processes, critics have stated. Recognition is seen on the level of individual services, but not necessarily on the aggregated level of welfare policies and strategies (Banting and Kymlicka 2006; Boltanski and Chiapello 2005; Pedersen 2011). Another important critique has been directed against the alleged neutrality of purely formal citizenship. Citizenship has, from the point of view of its critics, always been conflated with ideologies of origin, of ethnic or racial homogeneity and culture (Yuval-Davis and Werbner 1999). The roles of cultural and ethnical diversity (Taylor 1992) as well as of gender differences (Lister 1997), not only for the practices of citizenship, but consequently also for how to depict the concept as such, have thus been subject of discussions. Formal citizenship is a rather thin concept and most of the critique of formal citizenship is based upon the supposition that citizenship as practice always rests on more substantial cultural and normative dimensions. A variety of theories of cultural citizenship thus adds thick descriptions of practices and imaginaries to the otherwise thinner concept of legal-political citizenship. These approaches to cultural citizenship encompass all types of rights regarding sexual, cultural, ethnic or other group-related specificities. But the cultural notion of citizenship concentrates not exclusively upon the execution of rights, it rather adds dimensions such as identity, cultural differences and the struggle for recognition to the concept of citizenship. Many scholars have pointed out that modern citizenship is comprised by new divides like gender, sexuality, race or religious beliefs (Lister 1997; Young 1989). How collective and individual identities are balanced with regard to multicultural and post-colonial societies poses new challenges for the conceptualization of citizenship (Benhabib 2002; Kymlicka 1996). Other current approaches that focus on alternative concepts of citizenship, such as postnational (Soysal 1994), flexible (Ong 1999), or cosmopolitan (Chandler 2003; Linklater 1998) citizenship manifest Distinktion: Scandinavian Journal of Social Theory Vol. 12, No. 3, December 2011, 249–253Editors Christian Borch – Copenhagen Business School, Denmark (editor-in-chief) Tiina Arppe – University of Helsinki, Finland Lisa Blackman – Goldsmiths, University of London, UK Mikael Carleheden – University of Copenhagen, Denmark Mitchell Dean – University of Newcastle, Australia Antje Gimmler – University of Aalborg, Denmark Carl-Göran Heidegren – Lund University, Sweden Thor Hvidbak – Danish Ministry of Finance, Denmark Holger Højlund – Copenhagen Business School, Denmark Lars Thorup Larsen – Aarhus University, Denmark Thomas Lemke – Institute for Social Research, Frankfurt am Main, Germany Ingunn B. Moser – Diakonhjemmet University College, Norway Urs Stäheli – University of Hamburg, Germany Svend Roald Thorhauge – Brøruphus Continuation School, Denmark Mikkel Thorup – Aarhus University, Denmark

Max Weber und der Wohlfahrtsstaat

Bei den letzten danischen Wahlen im November 2007 gewann das burgerliche Regierungsbundnis aus Liberalen (Venstre) und Konservativen (Det Konservative Folkeparti) unter Duldung der populistischen Danischen Volkspartei (Dansk Folkeparti) erneut die Wahlen. Das zentrale Thema des Wahlkampfes war der Wohlfahrtsstaat, vom Ministerprasidenten Anders Fogh Rasmussen (Venstre) als die entscheidende Problematik der kommenden Jahrzehnte ausgerufen. Interessant ist, dass hier auch von liberaler Seite der Wohlfahrtsstaat keineswegs in Frage gestellt wurde und der politische Streit vielmehr der konkreten Reform und dem Ausbau des Wohlfahrtsstaates galt.1 Die burgerlichen Parteien konnten damit das Wohlfahrtsstaatsthema positiv besetzen und liesen der klassischen Wohlfahrtsstaatspartei, der Sozialdemokratie, nicht mehr allzu viel Raum, ihre eigene Position darzustellen. Zu dieser positiven Behandlung des Themas Wohlfahrtsstaat passt auch, dass die Mehrzahl der Danen keine Einschrankungen der wohlfahrtsstaatlichen Leistungen wunschen, auch wenn dies mit einer Steuerreduktion einhergehen wurde (Andersen 2007: 7).