Why do so many people take-for-granted the idea that they live in and belong to a nation? Do national identities matter and, if so, to whom? To what extent are processes of globalisation undermining or reinforcing attachments to the nation? Drawing on insights from sociology, social psychology and anthropology, Michael Skey addresses these complex questions by examining the views and attitudes of a group that has been overlooked in much of the recent literature; the ethnic majority. Through a detailed analysis of the ways in which members of the majority in England discuss their own attachments, their anxieties about the future, and, in particular, their relations with minority groups, Skey demonstrates the link between a more settled sense of national belonging and claims to key material and psycho-social resources. By analysing what is at stake for the majority, the book offers a more complete understanding of recent controversies over immigration, multiculturalism and community cohesion in Western settings, as well as a framework for theorising the significance of nationhood in the contemporary era.
0 有用 cast-l 2022-12-27 17:05:29 云南
Michael Skey 在写论文批判比利格的时候还挺能说,结果自己做研究就写个这种东西……书目加个“everyday life"结果全是访谈而且并不深,简直是对“everyday life"的亵渎
0 有用 魏禾Ifree 2025-02-03 18:28:51 甘肃
全球化下占主导地位的群体感到不安,借民族主义(believe they are entitled to)寻求安全感,这解释了英格兰白人中产阶级大多数普通成员对national ideas and assumptions的持续认同。典型的everyday nationhood著作,经验材料挺扎实。理论切入在当时视角下有新意[majority-minority and ontological secu... 全球化下占主导地位的群体感到不安,借民族主义(believe they are entitled to)寻求安全感,这解释了英格兰白人中产阶级大多数普通成员对national ideas and assumptions的持续认同。典型的everyday nationhood著作,经验材料挺扎实。理论切入在当时视角下有新意[majority-minority and ontological security (Giddens)],但微观且偏心理学的分析既无趣又缺乏说服力。提到“national cultural capital”实在牵强,好在没有继续深入,对边界与排斥的文献梳理几乎没有。 (展开)