{"id":26804,"title":"James Davison Hunter, \"Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America\"","dimensions":"16 x 24 x 3.5 cm","date_begin":"1991-01-01","material":"paper, ink","art_status_id":48,"legal_status_id":47,"category_id":26,"platform_id":1,"deleted":false,"asset_count":1,"stream_count":0,"collection":"Collection MHKA, Antwerp","cached_tag_list":"Monoculture Culture Wars","publishing_process_id":1,"annotation":"\u003cp\u003ePublished by Basic Books\u003cbr /\u003e\r\nFirst edition\u003c/p\u003e\r\n","date_end":null,"reference":"","stream_count_app":20,"permalink":"culture-wars-the-struggle-to-define-america","description_ca":"","short_description_ca":"","description_it":"","short_description_it":"","cached_primary_asset_url":"http://s3.amazonaws.com/mhka_ensembles_production/assets/public/000/060/929/medium_500/VVG0_28.jpg?1598431249","cached_actor_names":"","hide_from_json":false,"prev_platform_id":null,"description_uk":"","short_description_uk":"","description_tr":null,"short_description_tr":null,"mhka_works":true,"category":{"en":"Book","nl":"Boek","fr":"Livre"},"poster_image":"https://s3.amazonaws.com/mhka_ensembles_production/assets/public/000/060/929/large/VVG0_28.jpg?1598431249","poster_credits":"scan: (c) M HKA, Published by Basic Books","translations":[{"locale":"en","short_description":"","description":"\u003cp\u003eWith his book \u003cem\u003eCulture Wars: The Struggle to Define America\u003c/em\u003e, American sociologist James Davison Hunter reintroduced the historical concept of \u0026#39;culture war\u0026#39;, in response to what he considered to be a far-reaching polarisation within American politics and culture. According to his analysis, the latter was driven by the sexual revolution and by identity politics. Starting from an analysis of urgent contemporary social issues such as abortion, arms legislation, separation of church and state, privacy, recreational drug use and homosexuality, Hunter argues that the dichotomy of society is no longer primarily defined by a religious, ethnic, socio-economic or political fault line. Rather, he identifies two morally opposite world views: a progressive and an orthodox one. Hunter defines the orthodox worldview as a static, universal and externally imposed view of morality. The progressive attitude assumes that ethics are contextual and evolving, tending towards a tolerant and inclusive society. According to Hunter, these two groups are constantly fighting for moral authority and are trying to gain control over cultural and political institutions. For this reason, a cordial and constructive debate between \u0026#39;the progressives and the orthodox\u0026#39; does not seem to be possible.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;The fundamental reason why each side characterizes their rivals as extremists\u0026nbsp;outside the mainstream is because each ardently believes that the other embodies and expresses an aggressive program of social, political, and religious intolerance\u0026rdquo;.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n"},{"locale":"nl","short_description":"","description":"\u003cp\u003eMet zijn boek \u003cem\u003eCulture Wars: The Struggle to Define America\u003c/em\u003e herintroduceerde de Amerikaanse socioloog James Davison Hunter het concept \u0026lsquo;cultuurstrijd\u0026rsquo; als reactie op wat hij beschouwde als een door de seksuele revolutie en de identiteitspolitiek aangedreven, verregaande polarisatie binnen de Amerikaanse politiek en cultuur. Vanuit zijn analyse van op dat moment urgente maatschappelijke vraagstukken, zoals abortus, wapen wetgeving, scheiding van kerk en staat, privacy, recreatief druggebruik en homoseksualiteit, argumenteert Hunter dat de tweedeling van de samenleving niet langer in eerste instantie langs een religieuze, etnische, sociaaleconomische of politieke breuklijn loopt, maar eerder te begrijpen is als twee moreel tegengestelde wereldbeelden: progressief en orthodox. Hunter definieert het orthodoxe wereldbeeld als een statische, universele en extern opgelegde opvatting van moraal. De progressieve houding gaat ervan uit dat ethiek contextueel gebonden is en evolueert naar een tolerante en inclusieve maatschappij. Deze twee groepen voeren volgens Hunter voortdurend strijd om de morele autoriteit en proberen controle te verwerven over culturele en politieke instituten. Een sereen en constructief debat tussen \u0026lsquo;progressieven en orthodoxen\u0026rsquo; lijkt Hunter onmogelijk.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp style=\"margin-left: 40px;\"\u003e\u0026quot;De belangrijkste reden waarom elke partij haar rivalen karakteriseert als extremisten buiten de mainstream, is dat elke partij vurig gelooft dat de andere een agressieve agenda van sociale, politieke en religieuze onverdraagzaamheid belichaamt en uitvoert.\u0026quot;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n"},{"locale":"fr","short_description":"","description":"\u003cp\u003eDans son livre, \u003cem\u003eCulture Wars: The Struggle to Define America\u003c/em\u003e (\u0026laquo; Guerres\u0026nbsp;culturelles : la lutte pour d\u0026eacute;finir l\u0026rsquo;Am\u0026eacute;rique \u0026raquo;), le sociologue James Davison Hunter, des \u0026Eacute;tats-Unis, r\u0026eacute;introduit le concept de \u0026laquo; guerre culturelle \u0026raquo; en r\u0026eacute;ponse \u0026agrave; ce qu\u0026rsquo;il consid\u0026eacute;rait comme une profonde polarisation dans la politique et dans la culture des \u0026Eacute;tats-Unis, fruit de la r\u0026eacute;volution sexuelle et de la politique des identit\u0026eacute;s. De son analyse des questions sociales pressantes du moment, telles que l\u0026rsquo;avortement, la l\u0026eacute;gislation relative au port d\u0026rsquo;armes \u0026agrave; feu, la s\u0026eacute;paration de l\u0026rsquo;\u0026Eacute;glise et de l\u0026rsquo;\u0026Eacute;tat, le respect de la vie priv\u0026eacute;e, la consommation de drogues \u0026agrave; des fins r\u0026eacute;cr\u0026eacute;atives et l\u0026rsquo;homosexualit\u0026eacute;, Hunter soutient que la division de la soci\u0026eacute;t\u0026eacute; ne repose plus principalement sur une division religieuse, ethnique, socio\u0026eacute;conomique ou politique, mais doit plut\u0026ocirc;t \u0026ecirc;tre comprise comme une division entre deux visions du monde oppos\u0026eacute;es sur le plan \u0026eacute;thique : le camp progressiste, et le camp orthodoxe. Hunter d\u0026eacute;finit la vision du monde orthodoxe comme une conception de la morale statique, universelle et impos\u0026eacute;e de l\u0026rsquo;ext\u0026eacute;rieur. L\u0026rsquo;attitude progressiste suppose une \u0026eacute;thique li\u0026eacute;e au contexte, qui \u0026eacute;volue vers une soci\u0026eacute;t\u0026eacute; tol\u0026eacute;rante et inclusive. Selon Hunter, ces deux groupes m\u0026egrave;nent une lutte constante pour l\u0026rsquo;autorit\u0026eacute; morale et cherchent \u0026agrave; prendre le contr\u0026ocirc;le des institutions culturelles et politiques. Un d\u0026eacute;bat serein et constructif entre \u0026laquo; progressistes et orthodoxes \u0026raquo; lui parait impossible.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n"},{"locale":"ru","short_description":"","description":""},{"locale":"de","short_description":"","description":""},{"locale":"es","short_description":"","description":""},{"locale":"el","short_description":"","description":""}],"actors":[]}