A feature of globalisation is encouragement of universities to become more businesslike, including adoption of the type of accounting routines and regulations used by businesses. The question debated in higher education policy research is whether this focus on being businesslike is compatible with the statutory public benefit obligations of universities. This question is addressed from a financial-management perspective, drawing on Max Weber's discussion of the effects of accounting in business, governmental and not-for-profit organisations. 1 His approach is applied to three ideal-typical universities, focussing on differences in legal terms of reference and sources of funding. The article argues that the proposed reforms of public-sector accounting will make it difficult (if not impossible) to ascertain whether the publicbenefit aims of not-for-profit universities have been achieved. In addition, once installed, the business systems of accounting will encourage pecuniary rationality at the expense of the traditional value rationalities that ought to govern resource allocation in public-benefit organisations. The interaction between these effects introduces new risks, including the possibility that the controllers of universities may fail in their fiduciary obligations by wasting scarce resources on projects that, according to financial measures, appear profitable while neglecting those that have important public benefit and educational merit.
an accounting perspective
One Hundred Years of Anthropology of Religion
Ramon Sarró, Simon Coleman, and Ruy Llera Blanes
One could say that in 2012 the scientific study of religion, particularly in its anthropological form, has become one hundred years old. In 1912, Durkheim published The Elementary Forms of Religious Life, perhaps the most influential book in the social study of religion, and certainly in the anthropology of religion, of the entire twentieth century. But this was not the only seminal work published around a century ago. A little earlier than that, in 1909, Arnold van Gennep’s Les rites de passage inaugurated an interest in liminality and ritual that has accompanied our discipline ever since. That same year, Marcel Mauss wrote La prière, an unfinished thesis that started an equally unfinished interest in prayer, one of the central devotional practices in many religions across the globe. In 1910, Lévy-Bruhl published his first explicitly anthropological book, How Natives Think, a problematic ancestor of a debate about rationality and modes of thought that has accompanied anthropology and philosophy ever since. In 1913, Freud tackled the then fashionable topic of totemism in his Totem and Taboo. Around those early years of the century, too, Max Weber was starting to write about charisma, secularization, and rationalization, topics of enduring interest.
The Reception of a Conceptual Dichotomy
Ferdinand Tönnies's oeuvre Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft, published in 1887, has been seminal for the social and human sciences in general, and is no less interesting for intellectual historians and theoreticians of concept formation in particular. Tönnies subscribed to the belief that terms could be rendered less ambiguous, defining the words Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft more narrowly than their contemporary usage. In so doing, he sought to reconcile a heterogeneous agenda initially consisting in offering a diagnosis of vast historical developments and later consisting in providing heuristic tools to analyze individual relationships. This article examines the origins of the concepts and their politicized transformation prior to and subsequent to the publication of his work. As such, it takes on the transformation of Gemeinschaft during the romantic era and its revival by Germany's nationalist right wing and contrasts it with its appropriation by left-leaning communitarian movements in the English-speaking world. The polysemy of the terms in the German language accounts for their semantic evolution, for amalgamations of meanings within Tönnies's conceptual system, and for conundrums in translating the work into English or French. Although the terms were erroneously supposed to have been immediately applicable as ideal types, their adaptation, inter alia by Max Weber or by Talcott Parsons in the form of pattern variables, has been important in the reception of Tönnies's work in the social sciences.
Erich Fromm’s Early Writings (1922–1930)
Judaism, a complex network of links, of ‘elective affinities’ – to use a concept (wahlverwandtschaft) borrowed from Goethe by Max Weber, in his sociology of religion – will be established between Romanticism, Jewish messianism, anti-bourgeois cultural
Leonidas Sotiropoulos and
permeates with something more than mere rationality. If we stand by Max Weber’s view (1946; Colliot-Thélène 1990) that we are gradually moving with modernity into a disenchanted world, void of significance and holding no special meaning for us, we could say
Life . New York : Other Press . Steiner , Philippe . 2009 . “ Who Is Right about the Modern Economy: Polanyi, Zelizer, or Both? ” Theory and Society 38 ( 1 ): 97 – 110 . Weber , Max . 1991 . From Max Weber . Ed. Bryan S. Turner . London
From Redemptive Revolution to Human Rights on the Temple Mount
second book was published posthumously ( Ben-Dov 1979 ). In both, he elaborated a revolutionary-redemptive ideology of Zionism that drew on such European thinkers as Max Weber and perhaps Nietzsche ( Inbari 2009 ; Fischer 2007 2009a ). 2 Yehuda Etzion
Friedrich Ratzel’s Impact on German Education from the Wilhelmine Empire to the Third Reich
Max Weber, to cite one example. 6 Similarly, the importance of the state as a human achievement was a staple of late nineteenth-century German historiography. 7 Yet, as one contemporary admirer of Ratzel noted, “Prof. Ratzel’s Anthropogeography may
Constructing and practising student engagement in changing institutional cultures
Lisa Garforth and Anselma Gallinat
change to meet established university cultures. 4 In fact, as Trowler explains, the concept derives originally from Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. Its sociological use is rooted in Hans Gerth and C. Wright Mills’s (1946) description of Max Weber’s analysis
one of the main founders of this principle. This unorthodox reading drew considerable criticism. How can we explain it? One can suppose that it was by his reading of Max Weber, which it seemed he did not know of much before the 1980s. It seems clear