Fetishes and factishes: Durkheim and Latour

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › fagfællebedømt

Standard

Fetishes and factishes : Durkheim and Latour. / Andersen, Bjørn Schiermer.

I: British Journal of Sociology, Bind 67, Nr. 3, 2016, s. 497-515.

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › fagfællebedømt

Harvard

Andersen, BS 2016, 'Fetishes and factishes: Durkheim and Latour', British Journal of Sociology, bind 67, nr. 3, s. 497-515. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-4446.12199

APA

Andersen, B. S. (2016). Fetishes and factishes: Durkheim and Latour. British Journal of Sociology, 67(3), 497-515. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-4446.12199

Vancouver

Andersen BS. Fetishes and factishes: Durkheim and Latour. British Journal of Sociology. 2016;67(3):497-515. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-4446.12199

Author

Andersen, Bjørn Schiermer. / Fetishes and factishes : Durkheim and Latour. I: British Journal of Sociology. 2016 ; Bind 67, Nr. 3. s. 497-515.

Bibtex

@article{6ed9ff0c6ed94573b5e26bd6a5bb68bd,
title = "Fetishes and factishes: Durkheim and Latour",
abstract = "This paper defends the concept of {\textquoteleft}fetishism{\textquoteright} as an explanatory parameter in sociological theorizing on Durkheimian grounds, while at the same time paying due attention to important insights regarding the role of objects in social life,originating from Actor-Network Theory (ANT). It critically assesses the current critique of the concept of fetishism propagated by ANT protagonist Bruno. Latour and suggests a compromise between these two {\textquoteleft}schools{\textquoteright}. First, to place the paper firmly in context, I analyse some examples of modern fetishism and outline the themes of the ensuing discussion. Next, I turn to Durkheim, seeking to develop a distinct interpretation of the concept of the social and of fetishism, and then point to some of Durkheim{\textquoteright}s shortcomings and attempt to make room for Latourian perspectives. Finally, I critically assess Latour{\textquoteright}s dismissal of forms of social {\textquoteleft}explanation{\textquoteright} and of the concept of fetishism.",
author = "Andersen, {Bj{\o}rn Schiermer}",
year = "2016",
doi = "10.1111/1468-4446.12199",
language = "English",
volume = "67",
pages = "497--515",
journal = "British Journal of Sociology",
issn = "0007-1315",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "3",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Fetishes and factishes

T2 - Durkheim and Latour

AU - Andersen, Bjørn Schiermer

PY - 2016

Y1 - 2016

N2 - This paper defends the concept of ‘fetishism’ as an explanatory parameter in sociological theorizing on Durkheimian grounds, while at the same time paying due attention to important insights regarding the role of objects in social life,originating from Actor-Network Theory (ANT). It critically assesses the current critique of the concept of fetishism propagated by ANT protagonist Bruno. Latour and suggests a compromise between these two ‘schools’. First, to place the paper firmly in context, I analyse some examples of modern fetishism and outline the themes of the ensuing discussion. Next, I turn to Durkheim, seeking to develop a distinct interpretation of the concept of the social and of fetishism, and then point to some of Durkheim’s shortcomings and attempt to make room for Latourian perspectives. Finally, I critically assess Latour’s dismissal of forms of social ‘explanation’ and of the concept of fetishism.

AB - This paper defends the concept of ‘fetishism’ as an explanatory parameter in sociological theorizing on Durkheimian grounds, while at the same time paying due attention to important insights regarding the role of objects in social life,originating from Actor-Network Theory (ANT). It critically assesses the current critique of the concept of fetishism propagated by ANT protagonist Bruno. Latour and suggests a compromise between these two ‘schools’. First, to place the paper firmly in context, I analyse some examples of modern fetishism and outline the themes of the ensuing discussion. Next, I turn to Durkheim, seeking to develop a distinct interpretation of the concept of the social and of fetishism, and then point to some of Durkheim’s shortcomings and attempt to make room for Latourian perspectives. Finally, I critically assess Latour’s dismissal of forms of social ‘explanation’ and of the concept of fetishism.

U2 - 10.1111/1468-4446.12199

DO - 10.1111/1468-4446.12199

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 27255935

VL - 67

SP - 497

EP - 515

JO - British Journal of Sociology

JF - British Journal of Sociology

SN - 0007-1315

IS - 3

ER -

ID: 132903253