We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
This contribution examines social practices in the Central Bathhouse in Jerash in Late Antiquity based on the ceramic assemblage, vessel glass, faunal remains, and small finds retrieved from two sections of the bathhouse's sewer. We argue that although the bathhouse underwent significant architectural alterations from its construction in the 4th c. CE to its abandonment in the late 7th, the activities taking place inside the building remained largely the same. Our study shows that even towards the end of the bathhouse's lifespan, bodily grooming remained integral to the bathing experience, while food and drink were consumed on the premises even though the bathing facilities had been reduced to a bare minimum. The faunal remains indicate the type of food consumed, while the small finds illustrate a lively environment where gaming and gambling took place in a social space frequented by men, women, and children.
Legal norms serve as practical standards for individuals and officials. While this ‘normative aspect’ of law is widely acknowledged, its significance for theories of law remains contested. In this paper, I examine three views on the matter. First, that we should explain legal norms as reason-giving. Second, that we should explain legal discourse as being about reasons for action. Third, that we should explain law as capable of being reason-giving. I survey some challenges associated with each of these views. What they have in common is an implicit assumption about the form that normative explanation must take: that it must be a linear, non-reductive explanation. There is an alternative model for normative explanation available, however. That model explains normative notions in terms of the practices and attitudes involved in recognizing, offering, and demanding them. I highlight the potentials, and limitations, of this practice-centered alternative.
Variants like negative concord may be highly stigmatised because they have obvious standard alternatives in writing. But what about syntactic features that only ever occur in spoken discourse? One example of a variant that meets this criteria is right dislocation: this refers to the occurrence of a clause followed by a noun phrase or pronoun tag which is co-referential with the preceding subject or object pronoun; for instance, ’She’s lovely, her mum’ or ’I’ve not got an accent, me’. The Midlan High data shows that, unlike negative concord, right dislocation is used by all communities of practice, but there are differences in its frequency of use and, particularly, in the precise formulations of right dislocation used by different communities of practice. These differences reflect how speakers make social moves by exploiting the links between precise syntactic configuration and possible meanings. Significantly, this chapter suggests that the frequency with which certain social groups use particular syntactic constructions is a direct consequence of the need or willingness to express the pragmatic meaning the construction encodes.
This chapter begins by showing why Hegel thinks that recognition depends on sociality, on shared forms of “ethical life” (Sittlichkeit). Drawing on a comparison with Rahel Jaeggi’s conceptions of “social practices” and “forms of life,” I consider the central elements of the social theory advanced in the Phenomenology. I show that “ethical life,” in particular when understood as a configuration of “spirit,” both provides the terms for individual self-understanding and secures the conditions for equality and reciprocity with other subjects. At the same time, I demonstrate that relations of reciprocal intersubjective recognition will not be possible in all forms of social life. While social forms that entrench relations of domination and inequality among their members are among the primary threats to the achievement of reciprocal recognition, I argue that, in the Phenomenology, Hegel makes a unique argument that it is possible for a form of social life to be structured so that no one is recognized within them, in which even one-sided configurations of recognition are impossible. I conclude by pointing to Hegel’s proposed solution to this problem, a universal conception of the self that is explicitly articulated within a shared way of life.
In this study, we theorize humanness in organizations as a property of practice. We apply practice theory to examine how humanness becomes enacted in a business organization as people prioritize organizational and individual ends in their work activities. Our empirical case study examines the everyday interactions of development team members in an R&D organization of a large Nordic cooperative. Challenging the dominant individualist and structuralist approaches in humanness and human dignity studies, we identify and locate four different aspects of humanness in organizational practices. As a result, we show how the emergence of humanness is an ongoing process that transpires through two mechanisms: site shifting and reconciliation; that is, people shift between different sites of the social, consisting of different sets of practices with underlying disparate assumptions of humanness, which requires reconciliation. These findings provide a basis for an alternative theorizing of humanness in organizations.
This chapter presents an approach to the study of learning which analyzes small groups – such as a dyad, a group, a classroom – or large groups – for example, a community or a social movement. This approach is based on a situativity or sociocultural theory of cognition and learning, where learning is “situated” within complex social and material contexts known as activity systems. Sociocultural theories are related to cultural-historical activity theory, situated learning theory, distributed cognition theory, and cultural psychology. These theories suggest that a full account of learning must extend beyond individualist psychology to analyze and explain social practices, technological artifacts, interactional patterns, and the different roles occupied by the participants.
What is the relation between words and action? How does a person decide, based on what someone is saying, what an appropriate response would be? We argue: (1) Every move combines independent semiotic features, to be interpreted under an assumption that social behaviour is goal-directed; (2) Responding to actions is not equivalent to describing them; (3) Describing actions invokes rights and duties for which people are explicitly accountable. We conclude that interaction does not involve a binning procedure in which the stream of conduct is sorted into discrete action types. Our argument is grounded in data from recordings of talk-in-interaction.
Chapter 2 explores how the anxiety of productivity played out in the bureaucratic system, by focusing on how laziness and inefficiency were criminalized in the Ottoman bureaucracy from the late nineteenth century until the end of World War I. This chapter considers the daily practices of the Ottoman reform period as central to the construction of a culture of productivity, rather than attributing causality to an emulation of certain idealized notions of the “West.” A plethora of documents (personnel records, bills, memorandums, and petitions, along with accounts by and about officeholders) show how in these empire-wide offices Ottoman citizens, bureaucrats and laypeople alike, experienced the anxiety of efficiency and modern practices of work. The personnel files document the severe responses meted out to those deemed lazy, slow, and careless. In turn, bureaucrats disputed these accusations through legal means. These processes reveal a contested realm over the expectations and actual performance of duties from the perspective of both the state and its employees.
The on-going rise in demand experienced by voluntary and community organisations (VCOs) providing emergency food aid has been described as a sign of a social and public health crisis in the UK (Loopstra, 2018; Lambie-Mumford, 2019), compounded since 2020 by the impact of (and responses to) Covid 19 (Power et al., 2020). In this article we adopted a social practice approach to understanding the work of food bank volunteering. We identify how ‘helping others’, ‘deploying coping strategies’ and ‘creating atmospheres’ are key specific (and connected) forms of shared social practice. Further, these practices are sometimes suffused by faith-based practice. The analysis offers insights into how such spaces of care and encounter (Williams et al., 2016; Cloke et al., 2017) function, considers the implications for these distinctive organisational forms (the growth of which has been subject to justified critique) and suggests avenues for future research.
Institutions can be strong or weak. But what does this mean? Equilibrium theories equate institutions with behavioural regularities. In contrast, rule theories explicate them in terms of a standard that people are supposed to meet. I propose that, when an institution is weak, a discrepancy exists between the regularity and the standard or rule. To capture this discrepancy, I present a hybrid theory, the Rules-and-Equilibria Theory. According to this theory, institutions are rule-governed behavioural regularities. The Rules-and-Equilibria Theory provides the basis for two measures of institutional strength. First, institutions that pertain to coordination games solve problems of information. Their strength is primarily a matter of the expected degree of compliance. Second, institutions that concern mixed-motive games solve problems of motivation. Their strength can be measured in terms of the weight people attribute to its rule.
Philosophical accounts of humour standardly account for humour in terms of what happens within a person. On these internalist accounts, humour is to be understood in terms of cognition, perception, and sensation. These accounts, while valuable, are poorly situated to engage the social functions of humour. They have difficulty engaging why we value humour, why we use it define ourselves and our friendships, and why it may be essential to our self-esteem. In opposition to these internal accounts, I offer a social account of humour. This account approaches humour as a social practice. It foregrounds laughter and participation, and thereby gives an account of humour that helps to understand why we value humour, why we use it as we do, and why we use it to define our relationship to the world.
This chapter outlines pertinent work on stance and evaluation that has emerged over the past two decades or so, with a specific focus on studies that have both catalysed and contributed to the discursive turn in sociopragmatics. Such studies share an understanding of stance taking and evaluation as intersubjective, dialogic processes that are collaboratively constructed and negotiated in and through interaction in various contexts. The role of stance and stance taking has been examined as local sequentiallyorganized phenomena in everyday and institutional interactions and in a larger sociolinguistic framework. The study of evaluation has similarly branched out to a discursive direction, adopting various methods that facilitate the analysis of evaluative practices in various discursive contexts. The body of work pertaining to this turn has facilitated a pivotal shift in understanding stance and evaluation as intersubjective rather than subjective phenomena, at the same time putting forward the notion that stance taking and evaluative practices take much more complex and multidimensional forms in face-to-face and mediated interpersonal communication than previously thought. Furthermore, this work has demonstrated the involvement of such practices in a great number of local and global linguistic and social processes to do with issues ranging, for example, from epistemic authority to social distribution of power.
Proceeding from the conviction that the concept of power remains seriously undertheorized, this chapter explores the notions of power implicit or explicit in a number of currently dominant paradigms in pragmatics, and in sociopragmatics more specifically, and suggests some alternatives and possible further lines of development. First, after an overview of different concepts of power (as presented by, among others, Bourdieu and Foucault), it argues the linguistic and the social are more deeply mutually implicated than is often realized and that, hence, the study of language use may benefit from a closer attention to questions of power. Next, it addresses questions concerning power and legitimacy in Speech Act Theory as developed by Austin and Searle; these questions are posed anew and answered in a rather different way in the study of pornography as a kind of speech act. Finally, it discusses the conceptions of power employed in the study of polite and impolite language use, arguing that some of the currently dominant frameworks in Politeness Theory rest on a number of language-ideological assumptions that appear to elide, neutralize or naturalize power relations.
Poststructuralism has brought social, cultural and political theories into a productive exchange with methods and tools for analyzing text and talk. My contribution outlines the contours of poststructuralist discourse studies (PDS), which is an interdisciplinary field of discourse research inspired by poststructuralism. It gives an overview of poststructuralism, tracing its evolution and identifying its key questions. I then spell out the consequences of poststructuralism for discourse studies, where it has given birth to the new field of PDS. PDS critically relates to the structuralist, top-down tendencies that have characterized some of the pioneering “French School” and “Critical” strands in discourse studies. It defends posthumanist and antiessentialist views on power and knowledge. Perceiving language as a socially constitutive practice, it places emphasis on the critical and reflexive dimensions of discourse research. Situated at the interdisciplinary intersection of language and society, PDS aims to bridge structure- and practice-oriented strands of discourse research and to overcome the divisions between linguistics and other disciplines in the social sciences and humanities.
This chapter discusses the idea that discourse is central to how race is culturally understood and the form it takes in different contexts. Through the notions of “racialization” and “racialized,” as the semiotic and ideological processes through which race comes to be produced and reified through language practices, it proposes to study ideological processes instead of fixed racial categories, which entails moving beyond the study of the ideology of racism towards the study of its ideological practice. This chapter also addresses the links between race and language that emerge dynamically through discursive practice. It sustains that language and race intersect in two main ways: in “racial discourse,” or discourse that takes race as its topic, and in “racialized linguistic practice,” or the use of language associated with specific racialized groups. It finally recommends integrating the different discursive approaches that address language and race under the wider perspective of language as social practice. This entails researching what race does in specific contexts through the understanding of how power relations emerge in local contexts, how people make sense of their social practices, and how wider social structures influence discursive practices.
This paper discusses whether a consideration of the capacity of rocks to affect humans in terms of their charisma or object-agency can aid in understanding identified variation in patterns of lithic procurement, distribution, and use. Lithic assemblages at sites dating to both the Late Mesolithic and Early Neolithic in two separate areas of the central mountain plateau in southern Norway demonstrate use of locally available rock. Their use contrasts with that of flint which could only be sourced at the coast. While the use of flint in regions with a restricted range of available and suitable rock types is understandable, the presence of flint in regions rich in flint alternatives is more puzzling. In order to understand the choices and actions of prehistoric communities we must consider other factors, such as a sensorial exploration of the ability of raw materials to affect humans, together with the diverging ontological perspectives that shape human–material relations and the social situations of practice. This paper argues that, in addition to their straightforward utility, lithic raw materials had socially situated object-agency and inherent characteristics of charisma and that these exerted powerful influences on human choice, perception, and preference.
Detailed analysis of the animal bone assemblage at Gola Dhoro here throws light on the expansion of the Indus civilisation into Gujarat. A square fort, imposed on a settlement of livestock herders in the later third millennium BC, was shown to have contained people who introduced a broader diet of meat and seafood, and new ways of preparing it. These social and dietary changes were coincident with a surge in craft and trade.
The methods and theoretical repertoire of the biomedical sciences are undergoing rapid change fuelled, first and foremost, by advances in genomics and molecular biology. At the same time, social and environmental phenomena are being incorporated in new ways into medical frames of reference affecting professional practice as well as regimes of prevention and health promotion. In turn, these developments impact upon the social sciences and humanities concerned with new forms of dynamic corporealities in social and medical practice. This article outlines in a programmatic fashion three sets of issues that are likely to acquire significant relevance in this context: (1) looping effects will emerge along different pathways between medical diagnosis, selfhood, social practice and the body itself. The investigation of these dynamic interactions has so far received little attention in the social sciences and will require the development of a different methodological approach to do justice to different kinds of data and long-term effects. (2) Advances in the understanding of epigenetic regulation have begun to fundamentally change notions of inheritance and development and to differentiate the central dogma of genetics (DNA makes RNA makes Protein), with significant implications for notions of interand intra-generational responsibility and biographical time regimes. (3) The incorporation of ‘things social’ into medical domains is being taken to a new level of significance, fuelled by a number of fundamental shifts in medical reasoning and practice. The social sciences’ current focus on (epi)genetics can only be a starting point for a broader interdisciplinary agenda to better understand the pathways through which ‘the social and cultural’ enters the body. The final section of this article discusses somatography as a practice-oriented approach attempting to address some of these issues in a symmetrical investigation across epistemic cultures.
This article investigates the utility of Eckert
& McConnell-Ginet's concept of “community
of practice” for an analysis of the language used
by women in a sexual assault tribunal. It is shown how
the questions asked by two tribunal members (a male and
a female faculty member), in a university sexual “harassment”
tribunal, function to (re)frame and (re)construct the events
in question as consensual sex. Although the female complainants
(i.e. victims) in the tribunal characterize their experiences
as sexual assault, two of the tribunal members –
one of whom is a female faculty member – ask questions
that presuppose the inadequacy and deficiency of the complainants'
signals of resistance, suggesting that their so-called
lack of resistance was tantamount to consent. Clearly,
any homogeneous notion of “woman's speech style”
or “woman's point of view” would fail
to account for the differences between the discursive patterns
of this woman tribunal member and the women complainants
in this context. However, if (as argued by Eckert &
McConnell-Ginet 1992a,b) our linguistic practices arise
out of the kinds of community of practice with which we
are involved, then an understanding of such local practices
and activities should provide greater insight into the
differential linguistic behavior of the women involved
in this sexual “harassment” tribunal.
Gendered linguistic practices emerge as people
engage in social practices that construct them not only
as girls or boys, women or men – but also as, e.g.,
Asian American or heterosexually active. Adequate generalizations
about gendered language use and explanations of such generalizations
require understanding the place of particular linguistic
practices in the life of what Lave & Wenger 1991 and
Wenger 1998 call a Community of Practice: a group whose
joint engagement in some activity or enterprise is sufficiently
intensive to give rise over time to a repertoire of shared
practices. Eckert's ethnographic/sociolinguistic workin
pre-adolescent and adolescent communities of practice illustrates
ways in which gender and other aspects of identity are
co-constructed. We use these and other sociolinguistic
data to suggest some of the many different kinds of generalizations,
emerging from studies of language and gender, that look
to communities of practice.