Beyond Mannheim: Conceptualising how people 'talk' and 'do' generations in contemporary society

被引:17
|
作者
Timonen, Virpi [1 ]
Conlon, Catherine [1 ]
机构
[1] Trinity Coll Dublin, Sch Social Work & Social Policy, Dublin, Ireland
关键词
Generation; Grounded Theory; Qualitative methods; Karl Mannheim; Conceptual analysis;
D O I
10.1016/j.alcr.2015.03.001
中图分类号
C [社会科学总论];
学科分类号
03 ; 0303 ;
摘要
In the 1920s, Karl Mannheim developed the concept of generation in a treatise entitled 'The Problem of Generations' (1952/1928). His conceptualisation pertained to what Pitcher (1994) calls 'social generations', that is, cohort members who have similar attitudes, worldview and beliefs grounded in their shared context and experiences accumulated over time. It is often argued that social generation has been hollowed out as a sociological concept, yet it continues to feature prominently in policy debates, media, academic literature and everyday talk. This article develops a grounded conceptual framework of how the notion of 'generation' is employed by 'ordinary people'. We induct the meaning of 'generation' from how people use the term and the meaning they attribute to it. We contribute to the current scholarship engaging with Mannheim to explore how people's portrayals of their 'performance' of generation can help to develop further the concept of social generation. We draw on qualitative primary data collected in the Changing Generations project, a Grounded Theory study of intergenerational relations in Ireland. Far from outdated or redundant, generation emerges as a still-relevant concept that reflects perceptions of how material resources, period effects and the welfare state context shape lives in contemporary societies. Generation is a conceptual device used to 'perform' several tasks: to apportion blame, to express pity, concern and solidarity, to highlight unfairness and inequity, and to depict differential degrees of agency. Because the concept performs such a wide range of important communicative and symbolic functions, sociologists should approach generations (as discursive formations) as a concept and practice that calls for deeper understanding, not least because powerful political actors have been quicker than sociologists to recognise the potential of the concept to generate new societal cleavages. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
下载
收藏
页码:1 / 9
页数:9
相关论文
共 32 条
  • [1] Beyond the Campus How Do Academic Institutions Contribute to Conversations in Contemporary Society?
    Moore, Darnell
    THEOLOGY TODAY, 2020, 76 (04) : 322 - 335
  • [2] How people talk about politics: brexit and beyond
    Hawes, Derek
    JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY EUROPEAN STUDIES, 2021, 29 (02) : 297 - 298
  • [3] Receptionist or Information Kiosk: How Do People Talk With a Robot?
    Lee, Min Kyung
    Kiesler, Sara
    Forlizzi, Jodi
    2010 ACM CONFERENCE ON COMPUTER SUPPORTED COOPERATIVE WORK, 2010, : 31 - 40
  • [4] How do we talk about impact? Engineering education change language beyond "dissemination"
    Chua, Mel
    Adams, Robin S.
    Fincher, Sally
    Stein, Lynn Andrea
    2014 IEEE FRONTIERS IN EDUCATION CONFERENCE (FIE), 2014, : 60 - 62
  • [5] How Do We Talk With People Living With Dementia About Future Care: A Scoping Review
    Visser, Mandy
    Smaling, Hanneke J. A.
    Parker, Deborah
    van der Steen, Jenny T.
    FRONTIERS IN PSYCHOLOGY, 2022, 13
  • [6] How Do People Talk with a Virtual Philosopher: Log Analysis of a Real-World Application
    Wang, Xuan
    Nakatsu, Ryohei
    ENTERTAINMENT COMPUTING - ICEC 2013, 2013, 8215 : 132 - 137
  • [7] WORKING - PEOPLE TALK ABOUT WHAT THEY DO ALL DAY AND HOW THEY FEEL ABOUT WHAT THEY DO - TERKEL,S
    LIEBOW, E
    MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, 1974, 97 (10) : 81 - 81
  • [8] WORKING - PEOPLE TALK ABOUT WHAT THEY DO ALL DAY AND HOW THEY FEEL ABOUT WHAT THEY DO - TERKEL,S
    TYLER, G
    INDUSTRIAL & LABOR RELATIONS REVIEW, 1975, 28 (02): : 324 - 325
  • [10] WORKING - PEOPLE TALK ABOUT WHAT THEY DO ALL DAY AND HOW THEY FEEL ABOUT WHAT THEY DO - TURHEL,S
    不详
    NEW YORK TIMES BOOK REVIEW, 1984, (NOV): : 54 - 54