Les études contemporaines du bouddhisme, plus précisément celles préoccupées par sa modernisation, son occidentalisation et sa mondialisation, proposent un large éventail d’outils conceptuels pour qualifier la spécificité du bouddhisme qui se forme, qui se pratique et dont parlent de plus en plus de gens aujourd’hui. Du point de vue dit « populaire », le bouddhisme est rarement perçu comme une religion et il est plus souvent considéré comme un « art de vivre », une « spiritualité », une « science de l’esprit » ou une « philosophie de vie ». Pourtant, le bouddhisme n’échappe pas à des transformations religieuses que des analyses qualifient à l’aide de concepts comme « traditionalisme », « fondamentalisme », « (post)modernisme », bouddhisme « engagé socialement » et « postbouddhisme ». Les études bouddhiques américano-européennes, tributaires des courants de pensée postcolonialiste et postorientaliste, envisagent désormais leur objet sous l’angle inclusif du pluralisme socioculturel, lequel accorde une place et un rôle importants aux pratiques ainsi qu’aux discours des bouddhistes eux-mêmes. La cimentation au sein des observations d’un modèle des « deux bouddhismes », opposant les bouddhistes « ethniques-asiatiques­immigrants » aux bouddhistes « occidentaux-convertis », a renforcé l’idée selon laquelle seuls les premiers sont « ethniques », les seconds échappant virtuellement à une catégorisation ethnique. La distinction ethnique/converti présuppose ainsi une distinction fort problématique du type ethnique/non ethnique. Le modèle fait l’impasse sur les processus religieux actuels, en amont de l’ethnicité, concernant la formation sociale de la religion et des religions, en général, et du bouddhisme, en particulier. L’idée selon laquelle le bouddhisme est une réalité religieuse sur le plan social – idée que certains pratiquants reconnaissent et que d’autres contestent – ne peut être traitée sans faire l’économie d’envisager les (ré)appropriations et les contestations du bouddhisme sous l’angle des processus contemporains de la mondialisation des religions. Parent pauvre des études bouddhiques, la mondialisation est souvent tenue pour admise et n’est que rarement considérée du point de vue de ses dynamiques internes de relativisation et de différenciation. Je soutiens que le bouddhisme constitue un système sociétal fonctionnel au sein du système religieux de la société mondiale. En faisant usage de la théorie des systèmes sociaux développée par le sociologue allemand Niklas Luhmann, je propose ainsi d’observer le bouddhisme non pas à partir d’unités d’analyse comme des types, des identités, des discours, des interprétations ou des intentions, mais en fonction de communications autoréférentielles qui (re)produisent une convergence et une différence bouddhiques dans le social. Au moyen d’observations ethnographiques consignées sur le terrain et grâce à l’analyse qualitative d’entrevues menées auprès de voyageurs étrangers en Inde, le bouddhisme est reconstruit à partir des éléments et des relations qui constituent sa distinction religieuse tant sur le plan interne (la pluralité du bouddhisme) que celui externe (l’unité du bouddhisme par rapport aux autres religions). Par conséquent, ce n’est un bouddhisme ni « mondial » ni « mondialisé » que dépeignent les analyses qui suivent, mais une forme de « mondialité bouddhique » constitutive des processus mêmes de la mondialisation. Les interrelations entre un système bouddhique de la société mondiale et d’autres systèmes fonctionnels contemporains, dont l’économie (capitaliste), les médias de masse et le tourisme (de loisir), sont approfondies pour illustrer de quelles façons le modelage mutuel est caractéristique de la différenciation moderne et mondiale du bouddhisme au sein du social.

The present work deals with the motif of money in contemporary German literature, taking as examples the two novels <i>Die Nacht der Händler</i> (1995) by Gert Heidenreich and <i>MOI</i> by Heiko Michael Hartmann (1997). This motif is investigated through an analysis based mainly on four monetary theories: Karl Marx's <i>Das Kapital</i>, Georg Simmel's <i>Philosophie des Geldes</i>, Niklas Luhmann's <i>Die Wirtschaft der Gesellschaft</i> and Jochen Hörisch's <i>Kopf oder Zahl. Die Poesie des Geldes</i>. Additionally, theorists such as Jean Baudrillard and Marshall McLuhan will be included in the work. Both relatively recent narratives choose to depict money as subject to dysfunction, and by this means show the dependence of western society on the monetary system. Following Jochen Hörisch's argument, this thesis shows that money is the leading medium of modern times: without it, the entire social system would collapse. Through its failure to function as expected, it becomes obvious that money (an artificial human invention) turns against its creator, since money is not only responsible for how people perceive reality but is also the determining factor for human conduct in western society. In depicting this dysfunction, both novels deal with money in its most prominent recent forms - in Heidenreich's novel, virtual money; in Hartmann's, the Euro. These new money form has a big impact on society, as the novels show. As <i>Die Nacht der Händler</i> demonstrates, money is nowadays the reality-generating medium, which has become congruent with the real reality (as far as it is generally perceivable). Money obscures reality; because it duplicates the world and yet remains an abstract medium, this doubling causes people to become estranged from the world, its objects and also themselves. This process culminates in the development of virtual money, which reduces everything to a binary code of zeroes and ones. The growing virtualization of other media further amplifies people's alienation. Because money is the ruling medium in our society, humanity is in the grasp of the "Midas touch," as described by Marshall McLuhan. Money encodes everything, even human conduct. According to Georg Simmel, in a monetarily-ruled society lack of character, recklessness and greediness increase, since this is what money requires. In a rationalized society one can only be successful who acts in selfish interests. The MOI-disease passed on by infected currency in Hartmann's novel is an ego-disease, because humans have become increasingly self-centered since the invention of money. Together with the new media, money causes the diminishment and brutalization of human relations, whereby the individual becomes more and more an object of money-ruled processes, as Hartmann in particular shows. Money thus destroys the subject. This thesis also shows, on the basis of the two novels, how money in modern times has come to replace the older medium of religion, as Jochen Hörisch has argued. Money creates an alliance with the new electronic media, thus strengthening its reality-generating abilities. It is no longer religion that is responsible for giving meaning to our lives, but rather this new alliance. Both novels demand a return to cultural roots: Heidenreich does so by opposing the counting (<i>Zahlen/Zählen</i>) in modern society with the old medium of narration (<i>Erzählen</i>). Hartmann, on the other hand, comes to the conclusion that real knowledge can only be reached by religion and philosophy, since they show the way to one's own real self.

Securitization is the process by which subjects move from the mundane to “worth securing”. What a group of people consider to be “worth securing” reflects how they understand that subject’s value in relation to their lives. A dominant trend in securitization studies has been the use of speech-act theory to allocate the “source” of security to some specific dominant influence; speech-act securitization is not necessarily coercive, but it privileges the act of declaring security, and only offers that privilege to a handful of actors. This paper instead proposes that declaration is not the dominant aspect of securitization. Rather than stemming from communication, security is a feature of a social system that exists within communication. Securitization is an autopoeitic (in the language of social theorist Niklas Luhmann, whose work this paper draws upon heavily) process that allows society to adapt and respond to threats and change in specific ways.

Diss.--Stuttgart, 2002. / Bibliogr. p. 363-386.

This work constitutes a macro-sociological study of suicide. The empirical focus is on suicide mortality in Russia, which is among the highest in the world and has, moreover, developed in a dramatic manner over the second half of the 20th century. Suicide mortality in contemporary Russia is here placed within the context of development over a longer time period through empirical studies on 1) the general and sex- and age-specific developments in suicide over the period 1870–2007, 2) underlying dynamics of Russian suicide mortality 1956–2005 pertaining to differences between age groups, time periods, and particular generations and 3) the continuity in the aggregate-level relationship between heavy alcohol consumption and suicide mortality from late Tsarist period to post-World War II Russia. In addition, a fourth study explores an alternative to Émile Durkheim’s dominating macro-sociological perspective on suicide by making use of Niklas Luhmann’s theory of social systems. With the help of Luhmann’s macro-sociological perspective it is possible to consider suicide and its causes also in terms of processes at the individual level (i.e. at the level of psychic systems) in a manner that contrasts with the ‘holistic’ perspective of Durkheim. The results of the empirical studies show that Russian suicide mortality, despite its exceptionally high level and dramatic changes in the contemporary period, shares many similarities with the patterns seen in Western countries when examined over a longer time period. Societal modernization in particular seems to have contributed to the increased rate of suicide in Russia in a manner similar to what happened earlier in Western Europe. In addition, the positive relationship between heavy alcohol consumption and suicide mortality proved to be remarkably stable across the past one and a half centuries. These results were interpreted using the Luhmannian perspective on suicide developed in this work.

Securitization is the process by which subjects move from the mundane to “worth securing”. What a group of people consider to be “worth securing” reflects how they understand that subject’s value in relation to their lives. A dominant trend in securitization studies has been the use of speech-act theory to allocate the “source” of security to some specific dominant influence; speech-act securitization is not necessarily coercive, but it privileges the act of declaring security, and only offers that privilege to a handful of actors. This paper instead proposes that declaration is not the dominant aspect of securitization. Rather than stemming from communication, security is a feature of a social system that exists within communication. Securitization is an autopoeitic (in the language of social theorist Niklas Luhmann, whose work this paper draws upon heavily) process that allows society to adapt and respond to threats and change in specific ways.

Zugl.: Göttingen, Univ., Diss., 2003

Universiẗat, Diss., 2006--Heidelberg.

Zugl.: Frankfurt (Main), Univ., Diss., 2007

Master-Arbeit Univ. St. Gallen, 2006.