Kõigil, keda huvitavad küsimused sellest, miks ja kuidas mingid ühiskondlikud sündmused saavad erineva kaalu tuleviku arengute kujundamisel, tasub silma peal hoida Thijs van Dooremalen publikatsioonidel ja intervjuudel.
Siinviidatu konteksti avamisel märgib autor muuhulgas:
To what extent do events like 9/11, the Brexit referendum, or the Trump election offer the possibility to transform the given cultural repertoires, cleavage structures, and discursive opportunities? Events often remain a black box in each of the perspectives. Either they are presented as occasions that simply reproduce long-term trends (e.g., Koopmans & Olzak, 2004; Lamont et al., 2016) or they are conceptualized as shocking happenings that spontaneously create a radical break with existing traditions (e.g., Kriesi & Pappas, 2015; Lamont, 1992).
Lisaks sellele, et siin tegeleb autor küsimustega, mis on olulised siinse kodulehe kõiki peateemasid silmas pidades, on siin tekstis veel üks ambitsioon, mis võib osutuda metoodiliseks abiliseks paljudele uurijatele:
I introduce a typology that helps to understand why some happenings do not become events (which means that the existing repertoires, cleavages, and discourses remain the same), whereas others do (which implies transformation). This typology indicates that happenings either turn into events because they are significant confirmations of existing cultural or political patterns (“focus events”) or because they significantly break with them (“shock events”). […] I argue that structure and event should be conceptualized as strongly linked to one another.
The happenings in the typology are—obviously—very much ideal types. In empirical reality, many occurrences will have in-between positions somewhere at the two axes. In addition, it is important to emphasize that a happening’s position within the typology can potentially change over time
USA ja Hollandi näide
happenings turn into events because they are a significant rejection or since they present a significant confirmation of the ideas and expectations that comprise existing interpretative structures. […] The analysis of the case of 9/11 in the American and Dutch public spheres then illustrated that this typology can be applied empirically by analyzing how public actors link happenings and interpretative structures. […] My findings indicate that in the United States, up until the Summer of 2016 (the Orlando shooting), 9/11 was (still) not viewed as an event regarding Muslim integration—even though anti-Muslim public discourses had become widespread by then. Why? It may be that in the 9/11 has become “locked in”—to use the terminology of path dependency scholars (e.g., Mahoney, 2000)—as an American inconceivable happening concerning Muslim integration.
van Dooremalen, T. (2021) How happenings do (not) turn into events: A typology and an application to the case of 9/11 in the American and Dutch public spheres. Br J Sociol. 00: 1– 17. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468‐4446.12847