The societal changes of the last century, especially in the aftermath of World War II, have led thinkers to imagine philosophical anthropology centred on the concept of hope. From very different perspectives, authors such as Ernst Bloch, Erich Fromm, and Hannah Arendt understood that hope is deeply connected with the condition and destiny of humanity. Various sociologists have developed concepts closely linked with hope: action, social change, utopia, revolution, emancipation, innovation, and trust. However, a coherent and systematic analysis is yet (...) to emerge. Taking up the threads of this rich but fragmented reflection, this paper intends to outline the traits of a “sociology of hope” as a tool for critically interpreting today’s society and the processes of change crisscrossing it, starting from some crucial questions: Who are the actors and historical bearers of hope? What are the main socio-historical forms of hope? What social, political, and cultural conditions favour the emergence and strengthening of this disposition? What are the effects and consequences on personal and social life? (shrink)

(1989). Three waves of political mobilization in Western Europe and the coming of a fourth. World Futures: Vol. 26, European Perspectives II, pp. 155-191.

In a world filled with “ambient violence”, public protest is a vital signal of shared discontent. The essential compulsion at the heart of protest, however, is conventionally not recognised for what it is: solidarity with those suffering injustices. Amid authorities’ often-fierce efforts to curtail gatherings of people whose experiences of injustice propel them into the streets, a sharp rise in public protests has been perceived since the early 2000s. Thousands of column inches dedicated to reporting on protests are rivalled in (...) volume only by the reams of academic theories produced around causes. Despite this overabundance of discourses, it often remains unclear what protest, at heart, constitutes. That is, what are we talking about when we talk about protest, and why does this question matter? In this paper I consider the constituent parts of protest formation in the abstract, including grievances, gestures, and tactics, among other. Developing these constituent parts reveals protest to be, first and foremost, a manifestation of a nonhegemonic ethical commitment to justice, requiring courage and coordination, and whose outcome is always contingent, that is, an act of love. I also reflect on the nature of protest as a direct political action that sits on a continuum that ranges from opposition politics to civil war. This continuum offers a graded view ranking expressions of discontent by severity of outcome. (shrink)

Through an empirical approach of several conspiracy theories, I have noticed they develop six main characteristics. First, the conspiratorial myth points out scapegoats in a non-aleatory way. They usually belong to ethnical or religious minorities. Secondly, those scapegoats try to acquire an overwhelming power in all fields. Thirdly, to achieve this goal, they corrupt the whole society, especially on mores and sexuality. Fourthly, to set up their domination the scapegoats use the art of simulation and dissimulation. They yield a cult (...) of secrecy. Fifthly, the scapegoats are consistently portrayed through symbolic morphological types, frequently as animals. Finally, conspiratorial myths undergo a process of hybridization and creolization. They go through transformations, alterations and medleys. Every conspiracy theories mix up into one another. (shrink)

Disputes between those holding differing political views are ubiquitous and deep-seated, and they often follow common, recognizable lines. The supporters of tradition and stability, sometimes referred to as conservatives, do battle with the supporters of innovation and reform, sometimes referred to as liberals. Understanding the correlates of those distinct political orientations is probably a prerequisite for managing political disputes, which are a source of social conflict that can lead to frustration and even bloodshed. A rapidly growing body of empirical evidence (...) documents a multitude of ways in which liberals and conservatives differ from each other in purviews of life with little direct connection to politics, from tastes in art to desire for closure and from disgust sensitivity to the tendency to pursue new information, but the central theme of the differences is a matter of debate. In this article, we argue that one organizing element of the many differences between liberals and conservatives is the nature of their physiological and psychological responses to features of the environment that are negative. Compared with liberals, conservatives tend to register greater physiological responses to such stimuli and also to devote more psychological resources to them. Operating from this point of departure, we suggest approaches for refining understanding of the broad relationship between political views and response to the negative. We conclude with a discussion of normative implications, stressing that identifying differences across ideological groups is not tantamount to declaring one ideology superior to another. (shrink)

This study explores new philosophical foundations for democracy in revolutions. Alain Badiou’s thought is in focus, but this essay is not just an exegesis. The thought of Alain Badiou is appraised (and adapted) in this essay in the light of the main currents of European thought on the hopes and history of European revolutions. This essay dismisses Badiou’s ultra-gauche Maoism, focusing instead on Badiou’s ways to reconcile revolutionary change, social inclusion and human freedom. These ways are important. By overcoming hegemonic (...) traditions of study, Badiou’s methods promote democratic ethics of restraint. They also help re-invigorate methods in the social sciences privileging participant perspectives. (shrink)

This essay examines the relationship between Philipp Frank and James Bryant Conant in light of two issues that engaged leading American intellectuals in the mid-twentieth century: the place of metaphysics in higher education and the responsibilities of intellectuals as educators to defend democracy against the rise of totalitarianism. It suggests that Frank’s relationship to pragmatism was nourished by his professional and intellectual relationships to Conant and that each of their contributions to our understanding of science is inseparable from their efforts (...) to engage their fellow intellectuals as well as the public about these pressing issues of their day. (shrink)

The concept of major scientific advances occurring as a short-term ‘revolutionary’ change in thinking interspersed by long periods of so-called ‘normal’ science seems to be losing ground to more ecological models, which are more inimical of the twists and turns of life. From this idea it is a short step to charting science’s progress against stages used in fictional storytelling, which after all is life-based. This paper explores the development of the periodic table in terms of the achievement of a (...) fictional ‘quest’, and finds the stages of such a story are well represented. While Mendeleev or perhaps Meyer might be considered by some to be the hero of the quest, its first stage—the call—is represented by the Karlsruhe conference in 1860, with an international cast of ‘companions’ and ‘helpers’ who contributed to the Table’s early development. The ‘journey’ may have been frustrated by lack of appropriate data and understanding of concepts, but the ‘arrival’ phase is clearly marked by the award of the Davy medal jointly to Mendeleev and Meyer in 1882, Throughout these stages there are lesser, although still significant contributions made by “little people” of science to the overall progress of the Table. The end of the journey is not the end of the quest: the discovery of new elements—“new ordeals”—and their incorporation into an increasing range of types and styles of periodic table, which—akin to the “life-renewing goal” of the fictional quest—continue. (shrink)

Not many years ago both anthropology and political science experienced internal disputes—in the first case over the publication of a book accusing a noted anthropologist of endangering indigenous subjects and in the second over the nature of the field. While the first led to polarization, the second produced a partial convergence and modest reforms. This article examines the two processes and seeks the key mechanisms that produced those differences, closing with a call for broadening the study of contentious politics to (...) cover non-public controversies like the ones examined in this article. (shrink)