English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

This Paper discusses ARNOLD GEHLEN’s institution theory and tries to develop viewpoints on its reconstruction. It proceeds from the fact that this reconstruction must occur in the way of action theory, i. e. particularly must be understood as reality-science („Wirklichkeitswissenschaft“) (Sect. I), that it can further prove the relevant results of institution theory (Sect. II) to the objections which HABERMAS, with the formula of discursion, mainly raised (Sect. II), but that it must not ignore part criticism and open questions either. Primarily GEHLEN’s action scheme is regarded as doubtful; it is labelled “mimeological” by a concept which argues “dramatologically”, and is programmatically rejected (Sect. IV). The task, to comprehend social behaviour as a drama in this correlation requires not only a look upon the implications of the metaphorism of the theatre (play), which penetrates sociological imagination either latently or openly (Sect. V), but the draft of an ideal type of dramatical action in an explicit way: this draft is carried out in accordance with the rules of the classical antique drama (Sect. VI). The so acquired conceptional instrumentarium particularly permits, to raise the problem of foundation within the frame of institution theory and to show that GEHLEN’s category of “Darstellung” (representation, mimesis) is theoretically estimating too narrowly, so does not fully penetrate foundations reconstructively (Sect. VII). In the comparative picture of action thery, as the one developed by MAX WEBER, on the other hand is explained, that foundations under a dramatological aspect which predominates with WEBER, are to be discussed reality-scientifically more suitably; now the category of “charisma” becomes prominent as the leading concept, and with it the theme of the tension between here a foundation act, there the routines of day life (Sect. VIII). Conclusive reflextions which apostrophize BENJAMIN finally ask (Sect. IX) inhowfar the intermedial links which explain institutions as a context of behaviour, reflexivity and language are not in general to be referred to factors of the dramatical. The reality of being, which man experiences: a reality which means need, refusal and resistance, can only be self obtained resistingly through action and thus be liberated for the wealth of discursion.

zeitschrift für soziologie

Institutionen — Mimesis oder Drama? Gesichtspunkte zur Neufassung einer Theorie / Institutions — Mimesis or Drama? Thoughts on the reconstruction of a theory