The Strategic Utility of ‘Chineseness’ in the Political Cultures of Diasporic Chinese Communities: Some Preliminary Thoughts

It is not especially controversial to suggest that the academic literature on Chineseness has for some time been focused upon the ‘porousness’ and ‘strategic’ possibilities of identity categories. This is most clearly observable in the legacy of cultural theory upon identity politics. In particular, terms such as hybridity have not only expanded the political potential for fragmenting conventional identifications, but also symbolised the sorts of ‘complicated entanglements’ within which individuals and communities are perpetually caught. The discursive mileage of hybridity has meant, over time, that it has also attracted criticism. Some of this criticism comes from academics engaged in more materialist forms of research. These sorts of contrary perspectives have often sought to ground hybrid identifications within the cultural and historical milieu from which they are enacted, whenever they are enacted.

Why is Werner Sombart not part of the core of classical sociologists? From fame to (near) oblivion:From Fame to (Near) Oblivion

The life and work of Werner Sombart poses an intellectual puzzle in the genealogy of modern social theorists. During his lifetime, Sombart was probably the most influential and prominent social scientist in Germany as well as in many other countries. Today he is among the least known social scientists. Why did he lose his status as one of the most brilliant and influential scholars and intellectuals of the 20th century? Why is his work almost forgotten today? While Weber's thesis about the influence of Protestantism on the development of capitalism is widely known, even beyond sociological circles, few sociologists today know that Sombart had an alternative explanation. An obvious explanation for Sombart's fall from grace is his embrace of Nazism. As Heidegger provides a counter-example, Sombart's fate requires a more complex explanation. In addition, we explore the different reception of his work in economic and sociological circles as compared to cultural theory and history. © 2001, SAGE Publications. All rights reserved.