What is the Relation between Human Practical Action and an Accompanying Discourse? Discussing the Status of Practical Theory

The article discusses the function of an accompanying discourse in relation to the genesis of human practical action. On the one side, theory cannot be taken as the ground for practical action; practical action is not a realisation of intentions. On the other hand, human practical action is accompanied by series of explanations, justifications, declarations of intent, pre‑ and post-rationalisations, motivations etc. These accompanying discourses seem in one way or the other to be necessary for the actual realisation of human practical action. Following Pierre Bourdieu, it is suggested that an accompanying discourse cannot in a meaningful manner be separated from the human practical action, that practical theory should be regarded not as theory but as part of practice, and that practical theory first of all provides a common language for talking about practice and hence for reproducing a fundamentally arbitrary idea of the genesis of human practical action. Parallels are drawn to the education/formal training of semi-professionals.

Rationalities, Practices, and Resistance in Post-Welfarism. A Comment on Kevin Stenson

The former welfare arrangements are, according to Stenson, in a process of fundamental re-structuring. Or regarding the topic of this SW&S-Special Issue (was meint ihr genau mit dem vorhergehenden Satz? Man sollte einen Satz besser nicht mit ‘or’ anfangen): the spatial scales of the welfare states are under siege. With this advice Stenson assents to the prevalent description of a fundamental shift of former welfare arrangements since the last third of the 20th century (see for welfare policy research, research on human services and social work: Castel 2003; Clarke 2004; Gilbert 2004; Lessenich 2008/forthcoming; Marston/McDonald 2006; Webb 2006).

Privacy in the Post-NSA Era: Time for a Fundamental Revision?

Big Brother Watch and others have filed a complaint against the United Kingdom under the European Convention on Human Rights about a violation of Article 8, the right to privacy. It regards the NSA affair and UK-based surveillance activities operated by secret services. The question is whether it will be declared admissible and, if so, whether the European Court of Human Rights will find a violation. This article discusses three possible challenges for these types of complaints and analyses whether the current privacy paradigm is still adequate in view of the development known as Big Data.