Binder, Werner. 2010. Violence, Communication and Imagination. Pre-modern, Totalitarian and Liberal-Democratic Torture. In Totalitarian Communication. Hierarchies, Codes and Messages, ed. Kirill Postoutenko, 217–247. Bielefeld: transcript. Binder, Werner. 2016b. Magma und Scholle. Das soziale Imaginäre und die Wissenssoziologie. In Wissensforschung – Forschungswissen. Beiträge und Debatten zum 1. Sektionskongress der Wissenssoziologie, ed. Reiner Keller, Jürgen Raab, 533–543. Weinheim/Basel: BeltzJuventa. Kliebard, H. (2004). The struggle for the American curriculum 1893–1958 (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge Falmer. In 1975, Cornelius Castoriadis used the term in his book The Imaginary Institution of Society, maintaining that 'the imaginary of the society ... creates for each historical period its singular way of living, seeing and making its own existence'. [4] For Castoriadis, 'the central imaginary significations of a society ... are the laces which tie a society together and the forms which define what, for a given society, is "real"'. [5] Blyth, J. (1983). English university adult education 1908–1958: The unique tradition. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Lüdemann, Susanne. 2004. Metaphern der Gesellschaft. Studien zum soziologischen und politischen Imaginären. München: Fink. Editorial Collective. 2015. The Social Imaginaries. Social Imaginaries 1(1):7–13. Editorial. https://doi.org/10.5840/si2015111. Heidegger, Martin. 1977 (1938). The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays. New York: Harper Torchbooks.

Taylor C (2010) Afterword: apologia pro libro suo. In: Warner M et al (eds) Varieties of secularism in a secular age. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 300–321 Lakoff, George. 2016. Moral Politics. How Liberals and Conservatives Think. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Marcus, G.E. Technoscientific Imaginaries. Late Editions Vol. 2. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995. With contributions by Livia Polanyi, Michael M.J. Fischer, Mary-Jo DelVecchio Good, Paul Rabinow, Allucquere Rosanne Stone, Gary Lee Downey, Diana and Roger Hill, Hugh Gusterson, Kim Laughlin, Kathryn Milun, Sharon Traweek, Kathleen Stewart, Mario Biagioli, James Holston, Gudrun Klein, and Christopher Pound. Peter Olshavsky has analyzed the imaginary in the field of architecture. Based on the work of Taylor, the imaginary is understood as a category of understanding social praxis and the reasons designers give to make sense of these practices.

Marcus, George E. (1995-04-01). Technoscientific Imaginaries: Conversations, Profiles, and Memoirs. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 9780226504445.Frank, Thomas, Albrecht Koschorke, Susanne Lüdemann, and Ethel Matala de Mazza. 2002. Des Kaisers neue Kleider: über das Imaginäre politischer Herrschaft; Texte, Bilder, Lektüren. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer. David Macey, "Introduction", Jacques Lacan, The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psycho-Analysis (London 1994) p. xxi One of the most influential philosophers in the English-speaking world, Charles Taylor is internationally renowned for his contributions to political and moral theory, particularly to debates about identity formation, multiculturalism, secularism, and modernity. In Modern Social Imaginaries, Taylor continues his recent reflections on the theme of multiple modernities. To account for the differences among modernities, Taylor sets out his idea of the social imaginary, a broad understanding of the way a given people imagine their collective social life.

One of the principal concerns of The International Journal of Social Imaginaries is the issue of modernity, especially the possibility of multiple modernities as recently suggested by Shmuel Eisenstadt. We are also interested in how the labyrinths of meaning and power through imaginaries unfold in distinct regions of the world. One interesting case is East Asia during World War 2, especially Japan in its unique modernization process. How did modernity arise in Japan and how was it received by its intelletuals? The Kyoto School, a school of philosophy that arose in connection with the Dept. of Philosophy at the Imperial University of Kyoto in the decades preceding and during the war, and which gave birth to a number of major modern philosophers rom the 1920 even up to the 60s, has been noted—quite infamously—for its participation, along with other intellectuals, in a number of published round-table discussions and symposia, critiquing modernity. Well-known today, in particular, are two such meetings: the ‘Overcoming Modernity’ symposium of 1942 organized by the Bungakkai journal and the ‘The World-Historical Standpoint and Japan’ symposia of 1941–42 organized by the Chūōkōron journal. In her article, ‘“Overcoming Modernity,” Overcoming What?: “Modernty” in Wartime Japan and its Implication,’ Atsuko Ichijo examines the Zeitgeist of the period that was behind this questioning of ‘modernity’ in connection with what these intellectuals meant by ‘modernity’ and its ‘overcoming.’ She suggests that Eisenstadt’s notion of ‘multiple modernities’ may be helpful in understanding the motives of these intellectuals.Binder, Werner. 2013. Abu Ghraib und die Folgen. Ein Skandal als ikonische Wende im Krieg gegen den Terror. Bielefeld: transcript. Bringing new dimensions and insights to existing debates, such as currently in constitutional law and theory (‘constitutional imaginaries’), human rights law (‘human rights imaginary’), democratic theory (‘democratic imaginaries’), and populist politics (the ‘populist imaginary’). One of the most influential philosophers in the English-speaking world, Charles Taylor, has earned international acclaim for his contributions to political and moral theory, in particular to the debates on the formation of identity, multi-culturalism, secularism and modernity. In Modern Social Imaginaries, Taylor continues with his recent reflections on the issue of multiple modernities. To explain the differences between them, he puts forward the idea of social imaginary, in other words, of a broad understanding among a specific group on how they imagine their social life. You suggest that social imaginaries are a way of rethinking the sociological classics. Can we enlarge the scope and approach this from a different direction? What does the notion of social imaginaries bring to social theory and philosophy that other influential concepts, such as “culture” or “the life-world”, do not? Or, if social imaginaries are best considered a variant of such concepts, wherein lies its originality and significance? The International Journal of Social Imaginaries emerges from the journal Social Imaginaries, which consisted in an effort to gather philosophical, social-theoretical, and broader social-scientific research on the role of the creative imagination and of social imaginaries. A growing variety of approaches and disciplines focus on social imaginaries as ways in which people collectively and pre-theoretically make sense of their social and personal existence, to constitute a collective space of meanings or semantic space for co-being. 1 The International Journal of Social Imaginaries intends to build on the earlier publication effort, and helps to create a global platform for a dynamic and evermore interdisciplinary and intercultural interest in social imaginaries and aims to capture the increasingly prominent and interdisciplinary contributions in one globally accessible journal. In this, the International Journal of Social Imaginaries seeks to bring theoretical and analytical clarity in discussions on the imaginaries. It intends to do so by means of publishing established and emerging authors in human and social sciences who are shaping the field of social imaginaries.