|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. |
Record Nr. |
UNINA9910453551403321 |
|
|
Autore |
Kaya Ibrahim <1969-> |
|
|
Titolo |
Social theory and later modernities [[electronic resource] ] : the Turkish experience / / Ibrahim Kaya |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pubbl/distr/stampa |
|
|
Liverpool, : Liverpool University Press, 2004 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ISBN |
|
1-78138-845-8 |
1-84631-409-7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Descrizione fisica |
|
1 online resource (192 p.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Collana |
|
Studies in social and political thought ; ; 9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Disciplina |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Soggetti |
|
Sociology - Turkey |
Islam - Turkey |
Nationalism - Turkey |
Electronic books. |
Turkey Social conditions |
Turkey Politics and government |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lingua di pubblicazione |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Formato |
Materiale a stampa |
|
|
|
|
|
Livello bibliografico |
Monografia |
|
|
|
|
|
Note generali |
|
Description based upon print version of record. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nota di bibliografia |
|
Includes bibliographical references (p. 162-169) and index. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nota di contenuto |
|
Title Page; Contents; Preface; Introduction: The Theme of Varieties of Modernity; 1: Modernity as a Field of Tensions; 2: Social Theory and Later Modernities; 3: Ethnicity, Nation and Civilization; 4: State, Society and Economy: Tensions between Liberty and Discipline; 5: Islam and Modernity: Radical Openness to Interpretation; 6: Kemalism and Islamism on the 'Female Question'; 7: A Theory of Modernity in the Light of the Turkish Experience; Notes; References; Index |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sommario/riassunto |
|
The debate on varieties of modernity is central to current social theory and research, and this book explores the theme in relation to the culture and society of Turkey. The book focuses on the Kemalist project to create a modern Turkish nation-state, analysing its historical background, the role of concepts of ethnicity and nation, and the configurations of state, society and economy in the new Turkish republic. The author then moves on to examine the relations between Islam and modernity, arguing that both must be understood as open to multiple interpretations rather than seen as monolithic |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|