@article{DagistanliPossamaiTurneretal.2018, author = {Dagistanli, Selda and Possamai, Adam and Turner, Bryan S. and Voyce, Malcolm and Roose, Joshua}, title = {The limits of multiculturalism in Australia?}, series = {The Sociological Review}, volume = {66}, journal = {The Sociological Review}, number = {6}, publisher = {Sage Publ.}, address = {London}, issn = {0038-0261}, doi = {10.1177/0038026118768133}, pages = {1258 -- 1275}, year = {2018}, abstract = {This article focuses on the marginal extremities - the limits - of Shari'a practices in Australia, through the example of a criminal case in which four Sydney-based Muslim men whipped a Muslim convert to punish him for his excessive consumption of drugs and alcohol. The men claimed they acted in line with the doctrines of Shari'a practice to 'purify' or absolve the victim of his sins. While the case was tried before a magistrate in a lower court, it is argued in this article that its social and political significance was wider, reaching into contemporary debates around multiculturalism and immigration from non-western, non-liberal and mainly Muslim nations. Mainstream media and political narratives viewed the whipping as an example of the moral dangers of accommodating Shari'a norms, eliding the differences between peaceable Shari'a and its violent extremities, while situating the case at the limits of multicultural accommodation. This article interrogates the objectionable margins of some cultural practices through this limit case. At the same time it questions the limits or limitations of a multiculturalism that homogeneously views the practices of entire ethnic or religious groups as violent and incommensurable with dominant norms, while using these understandings as a justification for marginalising these groups.}, language = {en} } @article{YılmazTurner2019, author = {Y{\i}lmaz, Zafer and Turner, Bryan S.}, title = {Turkey's deepening authoritarianism and the fall of electoral democracy}, series = {British journal of Middle Eastern studies}, volume = {46}, journal = {British journal of Middle Eastern studies}, number = {5}, publisher = {Routledge, Taylor \& Francis Group}, address = {Abingdon}, issn = {1353-0194}, doi = {10.1080/13530194.2019.1642662}, pages = {691 -- 698}, year = {2019}, language = {en} } @misc{Turner2019, author = {Turner, Bryan S.}, title = {Time, Science and the Critique of Technological Reason: Essays in Honor of Herminio Martins}, series = {European Journal of Social Theory}, volume = {22}, journal = {European Journal of Social Theory}, number = {4}, publisher = {Sage Publ.}, address = {London}, issn = {1368-4310}, doi = {10.1177/1368431018824454}, pages = {571 -- 574}, year = {2019}, language = {en} } @misc{TurnerContrerasVejar2019, author = {Turner, Bryan S. and Contreras-Vejar, Yuri}, title = {Introduction}, series = {Regimes of happiness : comparative and historical studies}, journal = {Regimes of happiness : comparative and historical studies}, publisher = {Anthem Press}, address = {London}, isbn = {978-1-78308-886-7}, pages = {1 -- 8}, year = {2019}, abstract = {This book started as a conversation about successful societies and human development. It was originally based on a simple idea— it would be unusual if, in a society that might be reasonably deemed as successful, its citizens were deeply unhappy. This combination— successful societies and happy citizens— raised immediate and obvious problems. How might one define "success" when dealing, for example, with a society as large and as complex as the United States? We ran into equally major problems when trying to understand "happiness." Yet one constantly hears political analysts talking about the success or failure of various democratic institutions. In ordinary conversations one constantly hears people talking about being happy or unhappy. In the everyday world, conversations about living in a successful society or about being happy do not appear to cause bewilderment or confusion. "Ordinary people" do not appear to find questions like— is your school successful or are you happily married?— meaningless or absurd. Yet, in the social sciences, both "successful societies" and "happy lives" are seen to be troublesome. As our research into happiness and success unfolded, the conundrums we discussed were threefold: societal conditions, measurements and concepts. What are the key social factors that are indispensable for the social and political stability of any given society? Is it possible to develop precise measures of social success that would give us reliable data? There are a range of economic indicators that might be associated with success, such as labor productivity, economic growth rates, low inflation and a robust GDP. Are there equally reliable political and social measures of a successful society and human happiness? For example, rule of law and the absence of large- scale corruption might be relevant to the assessment of societal happiness. These questions about success led us inexorably to what seems to be a futile notion: happiness. Economic variables such as income or psychological measures of well- being in terms of mental health could be easily analyzed; however, happiness is a dimension that has been elusive to the social sciences. In our unfolding conversation, there was also another stream of thought, namely that the social sciences appeared to be more open to the study of human unhappiness rather than happiness.}, language = {en} } @article{Turner2019, author = {Turner, Bryan S.}, title = {A Nineteenth-Century Turning Point}, series = {Regimes of happiness : comparative and historical studies}, journal = {Regimes of happiness : comparative and historical studies}, publisher = {Anthem Press.}, address = {London}, isbn = {978-1-78308-886-7}, pages = {235 -- 248}, year = {2019}, abstract = {Happiness as the ultimate goal of human endeavour is a thread running through theology and philosophy from the ancient Greeks to modern times. Such a claim raises immediately a host of critical objections and problems relating to the idea of cultural relativism. Can the theme of happiness be continuous and how would we know that? One way to overcome this dilemma is to identify 'regimes of happiness' - that is, clusters of ideas, practices and institutions that in one way or another connect to broad ideas of human wellbeing, flourishing and satisfaction or Eudaimonia to use the word that dominates Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics (Contreras- Vejar and Turner, 2018). Contemporary discussions of happiness almost invariably start with Aristotle (Nagel, 1972). However, the methodology here is to some extent borrowed from Michel Foucault to understand the 'genealogy' of happiness across different social and cultural formations. In the Western world one could identify an Aristotelian regime of happiness based on the idea of a sound polity and flourishing citizens. There is also a Christian regime of happiness around such figures as St. Augustine and within which there have been radical shifts most notably brought about by Luther and the Protestant Reformation. Regimes of happiness can overlap with each other and their borders are obviously fuzzy. Some regimes may last a long time in various forms. For example, Aristotle's treatment of happiness is one of the most cited versions of happiness across the West. The idea of happiness is, however, not confined to the West. For example, the Vietnamese Constitution that was devised by Ho Chi Minh, an admirer of America society, crafted the 1945 Constitution with three key words as its primary values - Independence-freedom-happiness (or niem hanh phuc). The 2013 version of the Constitution in Article 3 says, 'The state guarantees […] that people enjoy what is abundant and free for a happy life with conditions for all- round development.' One further notion behind our discussion of 'regimes of happiness' is that in principle we can detect important shifts in regimes that are associated both with specific networks of individual thinkers, and with institutional changes in the location of intellectuals in these networks. In this chapter I am especially interested in the transitions in thinking about happiness from the late eighteenth century and through the nineteenth century.}, language = {en} } @incollection{TorpeyTurner2017, author = {Torpey, John C. and Turner, Bryan S.}, title = {Demography and social citizenship}, series = {The Transformation of Citizenship : Political Economy}, booktitle = {The Transformation of Citizenship : Political Economy}, number = {1}, publisher = {Routledge Taylor}, address = {London}, isbn = {978-1-138-67290-1 (print)}, pages = {188 -- 203}, year = {2017}, language = {en} } @incollection{MackertTurner2017, author = {Mackert, J{\"u}rgen and Turner, Bryan S.}, title = {Introduction}, series = {The Transformation of Citizenship : Volume 1 Political Economy}, booktitle = {The Transformation of Citizenship : Volume 1 Political Economy}, number = {1}, publisher = {Routledge Taylor}, address = {London}, isbn = {978-1-138-67290-1 (print)}, doi = {10.4324/9781315562285}, pages = {1 -- 12}, year = {2017}, abstract = {In the course of the last four decades, neo-liberalism has established itself as the dominant form of governing both national societies and global affairs. On the foundation of both Keynesian economic policies and the Bretton Woods system of fixed exchange rates among currencies, the world economy recovered. The classical sociological meaning and concept of citizenship as defined by T. H. Marshall and others after World War II rests on an analysis of the relationship between the capitalist economy and political democracy against the background of 'embedded liberalism'. Today, however, the enforcement of neo-liberal principles in order to turn modern democracies into 'market societies' impinges heavily on our idea of citizenship. The critical aspects of a flawed citizenship go directly to the heart of the idea of citizenship itself, as both democratic and social participation and a substantial conception of individual liberty all seem to be under attack from the global politico-economic regime.}, language = {en} } @incollection{MackertTurner2017, author = {Mackert, J{\"u}rgen and Turner, Bryan S.}, title = {Introduction}, series = {The Transformation of Citizenship : Volume 3 Struggle, Resistance and Violence}, booktitle = {The Transformation of Citizenship : Volume 3 Struggle, Resistance and Violence}, number = {3}, publisher = {Routledge Taylor}, address = {London}, isbn = {978-1-138-67288-8 (print)}, doi = {10.4324/9781315562278}, pages = {1 -- 14}, year = {2017}, abstract = {The history of citizenship is one of social struggle against pre-modern authorities, nobles and aristocracies, of class struggles and the demands of social movements, and no less of cultural, ethnic, indigenous protests against the long history of colonialism. Paths to citizenship in Europe have taken very different directions, as Charles Tilly has shown with regard to England, the Netherlands, Russia or Prussia. Max Weber's dictum of defining the state by the accomplishment of the monopolisation of the legitimate means of violence is of utmost significance for the history of citizenship. There can be no doubt that the experience of World War II prepared the ground for the twentieth-century idea of citizenship. Consequently the Western concept of citizenship has been promoted as a role model in the march towards modernity as peaceful, democratic and universalistic. Finally, this chapter presents an overview of the key concepts discussed in the subsequent chapters of this book.}, language = {en} } @incollection{MackertTurner2017, author = {Mackert, J{\"u}rgen and Turner, Bryan S.}, title = {Introduction}, series = {The Transformation of Citizenship : Volume 2 Boundaries of Inclusion and Exclusion}, booktitle = {The Transformation of Citizenship : Volume 2 Boundaries of Inclusion and Exclusion}, number = {2}, publisher = {Routledge Taylor}, address = {London}, isbn = {978-1-138-67289-5 (print)}, doi = {10.4324/9781315562261}, pages = {1 -- 14}, year = {2017}, abstract = {This introduction presents an overview of the concepts discussed in the subsequent chapters of this book. The book examines the role of Frontex in the European Union as an agency to protect its external borders in the Mediterranean from irregular or 'illegal' migration. It discusses that Europe is an arrangement for European citizens only - and for some privileged non-citizens as in the Swiss case. The book explains the points to the possibility of a transnational membership regime that, however, bears certain antinomies that also point to unresolved problems. It offers an interesting view on the symbolic boundary between the citizen and the consumer, discussing this nexus from the perspective of citizenship studies, consumer culture and surveillance studies. Among the many far-reaching transformations that both societies and citizens have faced in recent years, the European migration crisis has most urgently brought to mind the fact that modern citizenship has always been about boundaries and about processes of inclusion and exclusion}, language = {en} } @misc{Turner2021, author = {Turner, Bryan S.}, title = {Book review: Populism in the civil sphere / edited: Jeffrey C. Alexander, Peter Kivisto, Giuseppe Sciortino. - Cambridge ; Medford : Polity, 2021. - ISBN 978-1-5095-4474-5 ; 978-1-5095-4473-8}, series = {Journal of classical sociology : JCS}, volume = {21}, journal = {Journal of classical sociology : JCS}, number = {3-4}, publisher = {Sage Publ.}, address = {London}, issn = {1468-795X}, doi = {10.1177/1468795X21996104}, pages = {357 -- 360}, year = {2021}, language = {en} }