Beställningsvara. Skickas inom 3-6 vardagar. Fri frakt för medlemmar vid köp för minst 249 kr.
Contemporary social ontology is a rapidly growing but divided area of study. In Nonideal Social Ontology, Åsa Burman provides a systematic overview and synthesis of core ideas in the field by showing that its key questions and central dividing lines can be fruitfully reconstructed as a clash between ideal and nonideal social ontology. Burman argues for the use of nonideal theory in social ontology, claiming that a paradigm shift from ideal to nonideal social ontology is underway, and that this shift should be fully followed through.Burman offers a new theory, called the Power View, of nonideal social ontology. It uses social power as the central building block, showing how this can partly bridge the divide between ideal and nonideal social ontology. The Power View replaces the flat and narrow conception of social power in ideal social ontology with a richer and more extensive conception. In addition, it rectifies a shortcoming in other theories of nonideal social ontology by attending to class, which has been notably overlooked in that literature.
Åsa Burman (formerly Andersson) is Reader in Practical Philosophy at Stockholm University and an affiliated researcher at the Institute for Futures Studies. She is an editor of the Journal of Social Ontology. She holds a Ph.D. from Lund University in Sweden and was a Fulbright Scholar at the University of California, Berkeley.
AcknowledgmentsPermissions Introduction: Ideal and nonideal social ontology PART I. CRITIQUE: IDEAL SOCIAL ONTOLOGYChapter 1: The Standard Model of Ideal Social OntologyChapter 2: Critique of The Standard Model of Ideal Social Ontology PART II. RECONSTRUCTION: NONIDEAL SOCIAL ONTOLOGYChapter 3: Nonideal Social OntologyChapter 4: Critique of Nonideal Social OntologyChapter 5: Telic PowerChapter 6: A Taxonomy of Social Facts ReferencesIndex
Nonideal Social Ontology is an important achievement and will form a landmark in social ontology that articulates the shortcomings of the old approach, shows why a change is needed to meet other important goals, and shows how we can do it. It will be essential reading for anyone interested in understanding the history of recent work in social ontology, or in doing social ontology going forward.