Morphogenesis and Human Flourishing pp 63-91

Part of the Social Morphogenesis book series (SOCMOR)

Reflexivity in a Just Morphogenic Society: A Sociological Contribution to Political Philosophy

Chapter

Abstract

This chapter examines whether, why and how fundamental powers of human reflexivity deserve fuller consideration by liberal egalitarian theories of justice. The discussion focuses on two reflexive powers. Firstly, social reflexivity which can broadly be defined as each person’s capacity to formulate, respond and act on the question: ‘how should I make my way through the social world?’ Secondly, political reflexivity which can broadly be defined as each person’s capacity to formulate, respond and act on the question: ‘how can we steer society together?’

I discuss why each of these reflexive powers matters all the more in the context of a morphogenic society; to what extent they seem to be missing from key theories of justice; what other personal powers are required for the realisation of these forms of reflexivity; and what sort of organisations might be conducive to fostering these powers.

Keywords

Archer Liberalism Nussbaum Political philosophy Rawls Reflexivity Sen Social change 

References

  1. Al-Amoudi, I. (2014). Morphogenesis and normativity: Problems the former creates for the latter. In: Archer MS (Ed.) Late modernity: Trajectories towards morphogenic society. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  2. Al-Amoudi, I. (2016). In letter & in spirit: Social morphogenesis and the interpretation of codified social rules. In M. S. Archer (Ed.), Morphogenesis and the crisis of normativity. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  3. Al-Amoudi, I., & Latsis, J. (2015). Death contested: morphonecrosis and conflicts of interpretation. In M. S. Archer (Ed.), Generative mechanisms transforming late modernity. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  4. Alvesson, M. (2013). The triumph of emptiness. Consumption, higher education & work organization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Archer, M. S. (1995). Realist social theory: The morphogenetic approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Archer, M. S. (2003). Structure, agency and the internal conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Archer, M. S. (2007). Making our way through the world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Archer, M. S. (2012). The reflexive imperative in late modernity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Archer, M. S. (2013). Social morphogenesis and the prospects of morphogenic society. In M. S. Archer (Ed.), Social morphogenesis. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Archer, M. S. (2014). Introduction: Stability or stabilization – On which would morphogenic society depend? In M. S. Archer (Ed.), Late modernity: Trajectories towards morphogenic society. Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Archer, M. S. (2016). Anormative social regulation: An attempt to cope with social morphogenesis. In M. S. Archer (Ed.), Morphogenesis and the crisis of normativity. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bauman, Z. (2012). Liquid modernity. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  13. Bhaskar, R. (1998). The possibility of naturalism. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Blanc, S. (2014). Expanding workers’ ‘Moral Space’: A liberal critique of corporate capitalism. Journal of Business Ethics, 120(4), 473–488.Google Scholar
  15. Blanc, S., & Al-Amoudi, I. (2013). Corporate institutions in a weakened welfare state: A Rawlsian perspective. Business Ethics Quarterly, 23(4), 497–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Callinicos, A. T. (2006). The resources of critique. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  17. Cederstrom, C., & Spicer, A. (2015). The wellness syndrome. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  18. Chernilo, D. (2014). The idea of philosophical sociology. The British Journal of Sociology, 65(2), 338–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Collins, R. (1988). For a sociological philosophy. Theory and Society, 17(5), 669–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dean, M. (2007). Governing societies: Political perspectives on domestic and international rule. Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Dean, M. (2010). Governmentality: Power and rule in modern society. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  22. Donati, P. (2013). Morphogenesis and social networks: Relational steering not mechanical feedback. In M. S. Archer (Ed.), Social morphogenesis. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  23. Donati, P., & Archer, M. S. (2015). The relational subject. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Freeman, J. (1972). The tyranny of structurelessness. Berkeley Journal of Sociology, 17, 151–164.Google Scholar
  25. Gorski, P. (2013). Beyond the fact/value distinction: Ethical naturalism and the social sciences. Society, 50, 543–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Graeber, D. (2011). Debt: The first 5000 years. New York: Melville House.Google Scholar
  27. Habermas, J. (2007). Moral consciousness and communicative action. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  28. Halbwachs, M. (1992). On collective memory. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Halbwachs, M. (1997). La Memoire collective. Paris: Albin Michel.Google Scholar
  30. Hartnell, C., & Walumba, F. (2011). Transformational leadership and organizational culture. In N. Ashkanazy et al. (Eds.), The handbook of organizational culture and climate (pp. 225–248). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  31. Lawson, T. (1997). Economics and reality. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lawson, T. (2003). Reorienting economics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. Lawson, T. (2014). A speeding up of the rate of social change? Power, technology, resistance, globalisation and the good society. In M. S. Archer (Ed.), Late modernity: Trajectories towards morphogenic society. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  34. Maccarini, A. M. (2015). Turbulence and relational conjunctures: The emergence of morphogenic environments. In M. S. Archer (Ed.), Generative mechanisms transforming late modernity. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  35. New York Times. (2015). Italian neighbors build a network. First online, then off. Article by Gaia Pianigiani. Published 24 Aug 2015. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/25/world/europe/italian-neighbors-build-their-own-social-network-online-and-off.html?_r=0. Accessed 8 Apr 2016.
  36. Nussbaum, M. C. (2003). Capabilities as fundamental entitlements: Sen and social justice. Feminist Economics, 9(2–3), 33–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Picketty, T. (2014). Capital in the twenty-first century. London: Belknap Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  39. Rawls, J. (1993). Political liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Rawls, J. (2001/3). Justice as fairness: A restatement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Sayer, A. (2011). Why things matter to people. Cambridge: New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sen, A. (1992). Inequality reexamined. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  43. Smith, C. (2015). To flourish or self – destruct: A personalist theory of human goods, motivations, failure, and evil. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tocqueville, A. (2013). Democracy in America. Available via Project Guttenberg. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/815/815-h/815-h.htm. Accessed 8 Apr 2016.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cardiff Business SchoolUniversity of CardiffCardiffUK

Personalised recommendations