Macht und die Genese sozialer Gruppen
Macht und die Genese sozialer Gruppen
复制标题
权力与现代社会集团
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2003
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
A. Bogner
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
A. Bogner
助理他试图将权力的概念发展为不对称的相互依赖，换句话说，作为对稀缺资源的相对垄断。他试图从过程和关系的角度来做这件事。包括马克斯·韦伯在内的几位作家的著作奠定了对这一术语的这种理解的基础，但首先是R.M.爱默生，布劳，伊莱亚斯和波皮茨。与此同时，他对权力概念的阐述，使权力的结构观与权力作为一种特定类型的行动的概念相协调。后者被解释为基本上是韦伯术语斗争（通常被翻译为冲突）的同义词。这一特定版本的权力的关系和差异，以邻近的概念，如交换，胁迫（或武力）和统治（或合法权威）进行了讨论。结合埃利亚斯和波皮茨的论点，权力的概念被证明是分析群体形成过程的重要工具。助理还认为，反之亦然，权力现象的充分理解需要把它的过程中的群体形成和社会群体结构的变化。Elias和Popitz认为，社会凝聚力或融合被认为是对社会群体具有首要意义的权力资源。群体魅力或集体污名的发生和转变，即集体认同和污名化（和反污名化）的过程，需要从这个特定的角度来分析。在最后一节中，A.解释并强调了集体认同过程与垄断群体成员沟通渠道之间的某些联系（有时在包容和排斥等标题下讨论）。
The A. attempts to develop the concept of power as asymmetrical interdependence - in other words as a relative monopoly over scarce resources. He tries to do this from a processual and relational perspective. The foundations of such an understanding of the term are laid by the works of several authors including Max Weber, but in the first instance the writings of R.M. Emerson, Blau, Elias and Popitz. At the same time he elaborates the concept in such a way as to reconcile a structural view of power with the conception of power as a specific type of action. The latter is interpreted as essentially synonymous to the Weberian term struggle (often translated as conflict). The relations and differences of this specific version of power to neighboring concepts such as exchange, coercion (or force), and domination (or legitimate authority) are discussed. By combining the arguments of Elias and Popitz the concept of power is shown as being an important instrument for the analysis of processes of group formation. The A. also argues that vice versa an adequate understanding of the phenomenon of power requires placing it within the context of processes of group formation and changes in the structure of social groups. According to Elias and Popitz social cohesion or integration is identified as a power resource of primary significance for social groups. The genesis and transformations of a group charisma or a collective stigma, i.e. processes of collective identification and stigmatization (and counter-stigmatization) need to be analyzed from this specific perspective. In the last section the A. explains and underlines some connections between such processes of collective identification and the monopolizing of channels of communication for group members (sometimes discussed under headings such as inclusion and exclusion).