Search results

Проанализированы основные понятия социальной теории К. Маркса: общественно-экономическая формация, производительные силы, производственная отношения, экономический базис, политико-правовая и идеологическая надстройка, социальная революция. Рассмотрены причины и движущие силы социальной революции. Показано значение идей К. Маркса для изучения современного общества. ; The basic concepts of Marx's social theory are analyzed: socio-economic formation, productive force, industrial relations, economic basis, political and legal and ideological superstructure, social revolution. The causes and driving forces of the social revolution are considered. The causes and driving classes of the social revolution are considered. The significance of Marx's ideas for the study of modern society is shown.

The aim of the article is to identify and critically assess the key concepts, ideas, and the epistemological principles of the contemporary sociological theory. In light of the "peripheral" concerns, the aim of the paper is to identify and critically assess the meta-methodological principles of the contemporary sociological theory. The article focuses on the relations between sociology, society, modernization, and globalization, including the "borderline" Lithuanian case. In the later analysis, the paper focuses on the differences of social theory and sociological theory, the sociological forms and the criteria of their differentiation. The article attempts to provide an understanding of the conceptual connections between social theory and political philosophy. Although the concept of "theory" has deep roots in the professional discourses of East European intellectuals, sociological theory finds itself in a position where it cannot significantly affect the socio-political intellectual agenda. Moreover, the theoretical sociology more and more is identified with the role of the 'under laborer'. The situation is further complicated by the fact that the deterministic scheme of the old (Soviet) historicism corresponds to the optimistic perspective of the new (Western) historicism. The article points out to an urgent need to re-think the perspectives of sociological theory for contemporary times. The article concludes with discussion of criteria in the assessment of status and value of theoretical sociology.

The aim of the article is to identify and critically assess the key concepts, ideas, and the epistemological principles of the contemporary sociological theory. In light of the "peripheral" concerns, the aim of the paper is to identify and critically assess the meta-methodological principles of the contemporary sociological theory. The article focuses on the relations between sociology, society, modernization, and globalization, including the "borderline" Lithuanian case. In the later analysis, the paper focuses on the differences of social theory and sociological theory, the sociological forms and the criteria of their differentiation. The article attempts to provide an understanding of the conceptual connections between social theory and political philosophy. Although the concept of "theory" has deep roots in the professional discourses of East European intellectuals, sociological theory finds itself in a position where it cannot significantly affect the socio-political intellectual agenda. Moreover, the theoretical sociology more and more is identified with the role of the 'under laborer'. The situation is further complicated by the fact that the deterministic scheme of the old (Soviet) historicism corresponds to the optimistic perspective of the new (Western) historicism. The article points out to an urgent need to re-think the perspectives of sociological theory for contemporary times. The article concludes with discussion of criteria in the assessment of status and value of theoretical sociology.

The aim of the article is to identify and critically assess the key concepts, ideas, and the epistemological principles of the contemporary sociological theory. In light of the "peripheral" concerns, the aim of the paper is to identify and critically assess the meta-methodological principles of the contemporary sociological theory. The article focuses on the relations between sociology, society, modernization, and globalization, including the "borderline" Lithuanian case. In the later analysis, the paper focuses on the differences of social theory and sociological theory, the sociological forms and the criteria of their differentiation. The article attempts to provide an understanding of the conceptual connections between social theory and political philosophy. Although the concept of "theory" has deep roots in the professional discourses of East European intellectuals, sociological theory finds itself in a position where it cannot significantly affect the socio-political intellectual agenda. Moreover, the theoretical sociology more and more is identified with the role of the 'under laborer'. The situation is further complicated by the fact that the deterministic scheme of the old (Soviet) historicism corresponds to the optimistic perspective of the new (Western) historicism. The article points out to an urgent need to re-think the perspectives of sociological theory for contemporary times. The article concludes with discussion of criteria in the assessment of status and value of theoretical sociology.

The aim of the article is to identify and critically assess the key concepts, ideas, and the epistemological principles of the contemporary sociological theory. In light of the "peripheral" concerns, the aim of the paper is to identify and critically assess the meta-methodological principles of the contemporary sociological theory. The article focuses on the relations between sociology, society, modernization, and globalization, including the "borderline" Lithuanian case. In the later analysis, the paper focuses on the differences of social theory and sociological theory, the sociological forms and the criteria of their differentiation. The article attempts to provide an understanding of the conceptual connections between social theory and political philosophy. Although the concept of "theory" has deep roots in the professional discourses of East European intellectuals, sociological theory finds itself in a position where it cannot significantly affect the socio-political intellectual agenda. Moreover, the theoretical sociology more and more is identified with the role of the 'under laborer'. The situation is further complicated by the fact that the deterministic scheme of the old (Soviet) historicism corresponds to the optimistic perspective of the new (Western) historicism. The article points out to an urgent need to re-think the perspectives of sociological theory for contemporary times. The article concludes with discussion of criteria in the assessment of status and value of theoretical sociology.

The aim of the article is to identify and critically assess the key concepts, ideas, and the epistemological principles of the contemporary sociological theory. In light of the "peripheral" concerns, the aim of the paper is to identify and critically assess the meta-methodological principles of the contemporary sociological theory. The article focuses on the relations between sociology, society, modernization, and globalization, including the "borderline" Lithuanian case. In the later analysis, the paper focuses on the differences of social theory and sociological theory, the sociological forms and the criteria of their differentiation. The article attempts to provide an understanding of the conceptual connections between social theory and political philosophy. Although the concept of "theory" has deep roots in the professional discourses of East European intellectuals, sociological theory finds itself in a position where it cannot significantly affect the socio-political intellectual agenda. Moreover, the theoretical sociology more and more is identified with the role of the 'under laborer'. The situation is further complicated by the fact that the deterministic scheme of the old (Soviet) historicism corresponds to the optimistic perspective of the new (Western) historicism. The article points out to an urgent need to re-think the perspectives of sociological theory for contemporary times. The article concludes with discussion of criteria in the assessment of status and value of theoretical sociology.

The aim of the article is to identify and critically assess the key concepts, ideas, and the epistemological principles of the contemporary sociological theory. In light of the "peripheral" concerns, the aim of the paper is to identify and critically assess the meta-methodological principles of the contemporary sociological theory. The article focuses on the relations between sociology, society, modernization, and globalization, including the "borderline" Lithuanian case. In the later analysis, the paper focuses on the differences of social theory and sociological theory, the sociological forms and the criteria of their differentiation. The article attempts to provide an understanding of the conceptual connections between social theory and political philosophy. Although the concept of "theory" has deep roots in the professional discourses of East European intellectuals, sociological theory finds itself in a position where it cannot significantly affect the socio-political intellectual agenda. Moreover, the theoretical sociology more and more is identified with the role of the 'under laborer'. The situation is further complicated by the fact that the deterministic scheme of the old (Soviet) historicism corresponds to the optimistic perspective of the new (Western) historicism. The article points out to an urgent need to re-think the perspectives of sociological theory for contemporary times. The article concludes with discussion of criteria in the assessment of status and value of theoretical sociology.

An article about the use of the methodology of general systems theory and the theory of self-organization as a methodological basis of scientific interpretation of social reality. The author analyzes the role of ideology and propaganda in the different concepts of interpretation of social reality (social Darwinism, Marxism, etc.). The main conclusion of the paper is the need deideologization scientific knowledge.

This is the fourth part of a series of essays on contemporary sociological theory. The aim of these essays is to identify and critically assess the key concepts, ideas, epistemological principles, and the relational – symmetric and asymmetric – aspects of the ongoing global division of sociological labor. Although the concept of "theory" has deep roots in the professional discourses of East European intellectuals, sociological theory finds itself in a position where it cannot significantly affect the socio-political intellectual agenda. Moreover, sociological theory more and more is identified with the role of an "underlaborer." If so, the problem needs to be posed in this way: it seems that current time has given us a chance to ask whether the shifting boundaries of democratic politics have begun to exert influence on the understanding of sociological theory. Thus, it is questionable that the mere "cumulative" growth of intellectual and institutional sociological recourses in a global context will automatically strengthen a theoretical sensibility. What is needed in sociological theoretical culture is not another symmetric-functional historicism, including the one-dimensional scientific mode of explanatory historicism ("from specificity to generality" [see Alexander 1982; 7]), but a deeper critical understanding of both analytical theoretical frameworks and normative discourses, including the attempts to understand the unevenly distributed global sociological field of asymmetric institutional and intellectual power relations. The examination of the fourfold functional model of Michael Burawoy had demonstrated that there are four dilemmas that he confronts in his attempts to articulate the idea of public sociology in a globalizing context: first, the contradiction between the universal content and national form of public sociology; second, the contradiction between analytical realism and pluralist relativism; third, the (nominal) contradiction between artificial types of public sociology and critical sociology; fourth, the contradiction between epistemological pluralism and value pluralism. The fourth part of a series of essays discusses the relevance of the relatively radical ("alternative") conceptual proposal of Steven Seidman for contemporary metatheoretical debates, especially those concerned with (1) the relation between "analytic" and "ideological" frameworks, (2) the interplay between empirical generalizations and theoretical generalizations. Unlike Burawoy, Seidman is more genealogically conscious of local/temporal nature of social relations and various – symmetric and asymmetric – boundaries, including social theoretical and sociological theoretical. It is for this sensitive reason that Seidman rejects the "arrogance" of foundational theoretical schemes. Despite his recognition of the limits of a-contextual theorizing and the need to embrace local vs. universal perspective (for example, by evaluating conflicting perspectives and intellectual, social, moral, and political consequences), however, his model is constructed in such a way that it depends too much on the kind of one-dimensional inductive orientation. There are at least two further problems that result from the "event-based" narrative of postmodern social theory which deals carefully with its temporal and spatial boundaries: first, problems in identifying different criteria of the relation between the different multidimensional levels of epistemological continuum; second, problems related to developing ways of evaluating (a) the (probably) vital link between general categories of classical social theory and general (nevertheless, accountable) moral principles, (b) the relation between different principles of presuppositional theoretical level and moderate prognostic potentialities of postpositivistic (however, firmly classical, i.e., "social") theory.

This is the fourth part of a series of essays on contemporary sociological theory. The aim of these essays is to identify and critically assess the key concepts, ideas, epistemological principles, and the relational – symmetric and asymmetric – aspects of the ongoing global division of sociological labor. Although the concept of "theory" has deep roots in the professional discourses of East European intellectuals, sociological theory finds itself in a position where it cannot significantly affect the socio-political intellectual agenda. Moreover, sociological theory more and more is identified with the role of an "underlaborer." If so, the problem needs to be posed in this way: it seems that current time has given us a chance to ask whether the shifting boundaries of democratic politics have begun to exert influence on the understanding of sociological theory. Thus, it is questionable that the mere "cumulative" growth of intellectual and institutional sociological recourses in a global context will automatically strengthen a theoretical sensibility. What is needed in sociological theoretical culture is not another symmetric-functional historicism, including the one-dimensional scientific mode of explanatory historicism ("from specificity to generality" [see Alexander 1982; 7]), but a deeper critical understanding of both analytical theoretical frameworks and normative discourses, including the attempts to understand the unevenly distributed global sociological field of asymmetric institutional and intellectual power relations. The examination of the fourfold functional model of Michael Burawoy had demonstrated that there are four dilemmas that he confronts in his attempts to articulate the idea of public sociology in a globalizing context: first, the contradiction between the universal content and national form of public sociology; second, the contradiction between analytical realism and pluralist relativism; third, the (nominal) contradiction between artificial types of public sociology and critical sociology; fourth, the contradiction between epistemological pluralism and value pluralism. The fourth part of a series of essays discusses the relevance of the relatively radical ("alternative") conceptual proposal of Steven Seidman for contemporary metatheoretical debates, especially those concerned with (1) the relation between "analytic" and "ideological" frameworks, (2) the interplay between empirical generalizations and theoretical generalizations. Unlike Burawoy, Seidman is more genealogically conscious of local/temporal nature of social relations and various – symmetric and asymmetric – boundaries, including social theoretical and sociological theoretical. It is for this sensitive reason that Seidman rejects the "arrogance" of foundational theoretical schemes. Despite his recognition of the limits of a-contextual theorizing and the need to embrace local vs. universal perspective (for example, by evaluating conflicting perspectives and intellectual, social, moral, and political consequences), however, his model is constructed in such a way that it depends too much on the kind of one-dimensional inductive orientation. There are at least two further problems that result from the "event-based" narrative of postmodern social theory which deals carefully with its temporal and spatial boundaries: first, problems in identifying different criteria of the relation between the different multidimensional levels of epistemological continuum; second, problems related to developing ways of evaluating (a) the (probably) vital link between general categories of classical social theory and general (nevertheless, accountable) moral principles, (b) the relation between different principles of presuppositional theoretical level and moderate prognostic potentialities of postpositivistic (however, firmly classical, i.e., "social") theory.

This is the fourth part of a series of essays on contemporary sociological theory. The aim of these essays is to identify and critically assess the key concepts, ideas, epistemological principles, and the relational – symmetric and asymmetric – aspects of the ongoing global division of sociological labor. Although the concept of "theory" has deep roots in the professional discourses of East European intellectuals, sociological theory finds itself in a position where it cannot significantly affect the socio-political intellectual agenda. Moreover, sociological theory more and more is identified with the role of an "underlaborer." If so, the problem needs to be posed in this way: it seems that current time has given us a chance to ask whether the shifting boundaries of democratic politics have begun to exert influence on the understanding of sociological theory. Thus, it is questionable that the mere "cumulative" growth of intellectual and institutional sociological recourses in a global context will automatically strengthen a theoretical sensibility. What is needed in sociological theoretical culture is not another symmetric-functional historicism, including the one-dimensional scientific mode of explanatory historicism ("from specificity to generality" [see Alexander 1982; 7]), but a deeper critical understanding of both analytical theoretical frameworks and normative discourses, including the attempts to understand the unevenly distributed global sociological field of asymmetric institutional and intellectual power relations. The examination of the fourfold functional model of Michael Burawoy had demonstrated that there are four dilemmas that he confronts in his attempts to articulate the idea of public sociology in a globalizing context: first, the contradiction between the universal content and national form of public sociology; second, the contradiction between analytical realism and pluralist relativism; third, the (nominal) contradiction between artificial types of public sociology and critical sociology; fourth, the contradiction between epistemological pluralism and value pluralism. The fourth part of a series of essays discusses the relevance of the relatively radical ("alternative") conceptual proposal of Steven Seidman for contemporary metatheoretical debates, especially those concerned with (1) the relation between "analytic" and "ideological" frameworks, (2) the interplay between empirical generalizations and theoretical generalizations. Unlike Burawoy, Seidman is more genealogically conscious of local/temporal nature of social relations and various – symmetric and asymmetric – boundaries, including social theoretical and sociological theoretical. It is for this sensitive reason that Seidman rejects the "arrogance" of foundational theoretical schemes. Despite his recognition of the limits of a-contextual theorizing and the need to embrace local vs. universal perspective (for example, by evaluating conflicting perspectives and intellectual, social, moral, and political consequences), however, his model is constructed in such a way that it depends too much on the kind of one-dimensional inductive orientation. There are at least two further problems that result from the "event-based" narrative of postmodern social theory which deals carefully with its temporal and spatial boundaries: first, problems in identifying different criteria of the relation between the different multidimensional levels of epistemological continuum; second, problems related to developing ways of evaluating (a) the (probably) vital link between general categories of classical social theory and general (nevertheless, accountable) moral principles, (b) the relation between different principles of presuppositional theoretical level and moderate prognostic potentialities of postpositivistic (however, firmly classical, i.e., "social") theory.

This is the fourth part of a series of essays on contemporary sociological theory. The aim of these essays is to identify and critically assess the key concepts, ideas, epistemological principles, and the relational – symmetric and asymmetric – aspects of the ongoing global division of sociological labor. Although the concept of "theory" has deep roots in the professional discourses of East European intellectuals, sociological theory finds itself in a position where it cannot significantly affect the socio-political intellectual agenda. Moreover, sociological theory more and more is identified with the role of an "underlaborer." If so, the problem needs to be posed in this way: it seems that current time has given us a chance to ask whether the shifting boundaries of democratic politics have begun to exert influence on the understanding of sociological theory. Thus, it is questionable that the mere "cumulative" growth of intellectual and institutional sociological recourses in a global context will automatically strengthen a theoretical sensibility. What is needed in sociological theoretical culture is not another symmetric-functional historicism, including the one-dimensional scientific mode of explanatory historicism ("from specificity to generality" [see Alexander 1982; 7]), but a deeper critical understanding of both analytical theoretical frameworks and normative discourses, including the attempts to understand the unevenly distributed global sociological field of asymmetric institutional and intellectual power relations. The examination of the fourfold functional model of Michael Burawoy had demonstrated that there are four dilemmas that he confronts in his attempts to articulate the idea of public sociology in a globalizing context: first, the contradiction between the universal content and national form of public sociology; second, the contradiction between analytical realism and pluralist relativism; third, the (nominal) contradiction between artificial types of public sociology and critical sociology; fourth, the contradiction between epistemological pluralism and value pluralism. The fourth part of a series of essays discusses the relevance of the relatively radical ("alternative") conceptual proposal of Steven Seidman for contemporary metatheoretical debates, especially those concerned with (1) the relation between "analytic" and "ideological" frameworks, (2) the interplay between empirical generalizations and theoretical generalizations. Unlike Burawoy, Seidman is more genealogically conscious of local/temporal nature of social relations and various – symmetric and asymmetric – boundaries, including social theoretical and sociological theoretical. It is for this sensitive reason that Seidman rejects the "arrogance" of foundational theoretical schemes. Despite his recognition of the limits of a-contextual theorizing and the need to embrace local vs. universal perspective (for example, by evaluating conflicting perspectives and intellectual, social, moral, and political consequences), however, his model is constructed in such a way that it depends too much on the kind of one-dimensional inductive orientation. There are at least two further problems that result from the "event-based" narrative of postmodern social theory which deals carefully with its temporal and spatial boundaries: first, problems in identifying different criteria of the relation between the different multidimensional levels of epistemological continuum; second, problems related to developing ways of evaluating (a) the (probably) vital link between general categories of classical social theory and general (nevertheless, accountable) moral principles, (b) the relation between different principles of presuppositional theoretical level and moderate prognostic potentialities of postpositivistic (however, firmly classical, i.e., "social") theory.

Guidelines contain recommendations for the implementation of independent works and course works by discipline "Theory of social work" for students specialty "Social work", approximate topics homework and course work.