Suchergebnisse

This article is written in honour of Harold Garfinkel (October 29, 1923–April 21, 2011), a thinker who has been greatly influential, directly and indirectly, in shaping many fields of academic study. The aim is to explicate the question 'What is Ethnomethodology?' by making explicit the early (1967) and late (2002) versions of Garfinkel's ethnomethodology. This is done in two parts: the first looks at Garfinkel's attempts to articulate and operationalise different sociological conceptions of social action; the second turns to Harold Garfinkel and Anne Rawls's re-specification of Durkheim. The article argues that this 'radical new beginning' represents an opportunity for sociologists to focus on the unexamined relations between the various postphenomenological conceptions of social action, the critical tradition of social theory, and the 'visible, however unnoticed' core of ethnomethodological 'theory'.

Review: Zenonas Norkus.2009.Nepasiskelbusioji imperija. Lietuvos Didžioji Kunigaikštija lyginamosios istorinės imperijų sociologijos požiūriu. Vilnius: Aidai

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.

The aim of this essay 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. The third part of the essay attempts to explore the ambivalent relations between the 'global' content and 'national' form of public sociology. There are four dilemmas that confront Michael Burawoy in his attempts to articulate the idea of public sociology in a globalising 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 conclusion is that, despite the excessively ethnocentric principles of so-called 'methodological nationalism', it is precisely the claim to more cosmopolitan sociological principles that makes an overly 'national' form of public sociology 'global'. The main task is to ensure the ongoing power of public sociology to make global sociological discourse negotiable. What is needed in public sociology is not another symmetric-functional historicism, 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.

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. ; Paskutinėje – keturių dalių ciklo – dalyje analizuojama Steveno Seidmano postmoderniosios socialinės teorijos koncepcija. Čia pasirinkti analizės kriterijai, šio straipsnio autoriaus požiūriu, atliepia skiriamuosius "postpozityvistinio laiko" bruožus. Analizuojant Michaelo Burawoy'aus viešosios sociologijos koncepciją išryškėjo keturios dilemos. Pirma, prieštaravimas tarp universalaus turinio ir nacionalinės formos; antra, prieštaravimas tarp analitinio realizmo ir pliuralistinio reliatyvizmo; trečia, prieštaravimas (nominalus) tarp dirbtinai skiriamų viešosios ir kritinės sociologijos tipų; ketvirta, prieštaravimas tarp epistemologinio pliuralizmo ir vertybinio pliuralizmo. Čia įrodinėjama, kad "radikali" – netgi vertinant postpozityvizmo kriterijais – Seidmano idėja padeda tinkamai nušviesti konceptualius šių dilemų šaltinius, leidžia geriau suprasti laiko pokyčius, naujus apibrėžimus ir dilemas, išsikristalizavusias postpozityvistinėje diskusijoje dėl kriterijų, negu nagrinėta Burawoy'aus viešosios sociologijos koncepcija. Ypač svarbus Seidmano teikiamas prognostinis kriterijus, kurį sociologija prarado, skilusi į sociologijos, sociologijos teorijos ir socialinės teorijos formas. Šio teksto paskirtis – paanalizuoti postmoderniosios socialinės teorijos privalumus ir trūkumus atsižvelgiant į 1) dvinarę "analitinės" ir "ideologinės" vertikalių sąveiką teorinių prielaidų sandaroje, 2) du (1982-ųjų ir 1987-ųjų) "epistemologinio kontinuumo" variantus, aptinkamus Jeffrey Alexanderio teorinėje logikoje. Teigiama, kad Seidmano genealoginis požiūris yra realistiškesnis, negu funkcinis-simetriškas Burawoy'aus. Tačiau Seidmanas a) pagrindimo kritiką linkęs redukuoti į teorinių apibendrinimų savireferentiškumo kritiką, nepakankamai eksplikuodamas pasirenkamus empirinių apibendrinimų kriterijus, b) išleidžia iš akių gyvybišką dvikryptiškumo sąlygą epistemologiniame mokslinio mąstymo kontinuume, o todėl bendrąsias kategorijas "išvaręs pro duris", paskui jas, kaip neeksplikuotus analizės ir vertinimo kriterijus, įsileidžia "pro langą", c) nepakankamai išsamiai svarsto gyvybišką – tikėtina – klasikinei sociologijai ryšį tarp bendrųjų teorinių principų ir bendrųjų moralinių principų, d) nepakankamai detaliai svarsto tikėtiną bendrųjų kategorijų ir socialinės teorijos prognozavimo galimybių santykį. Daroma apibendrinanti išvada, kad postpozityvizmo diskusija pasiekė lygmenį, kuris rodo, jog "sociologijos teorijos pabaigos" tezė turi būti diskutuojama remiantis kitokio pagrindimo (negu XX a. pagrindžiamasis pažinimo būdas) galimybių kriterijais ir dar intensyvesne istoriografine sociologijos savimone, įtraukiančia tiek klasikinius, tiek dabartinius sociologinės analizės pavyzdžius.

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.

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 sociopolitical 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 sociopolitical 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. ; Šio straipsnio tikslas – išnagrinėti ir kritiškai įvertinti pagrindines šiuolaikinės sociologijos teorijos sąvokas, idėjas bei epistemologinius principus. Pirmoje straipsnio dalyje buvo plačiau svarstomas Rytų Europos regiono sociologijos ypatumas, tiesiogiai susijęs su teorijos statusu ir verte: sociologijos teorija čia atlieka "pagalbinio darbininko" vaidmenį; todėl paviršinis, nominalus, o ne realus, sociologijos teorijos statusas šiame regione yra pagrindinė priežastis, kodėl vyrauja nekritiška konkrečioji sociologija, išsauganti optimistiškus senojo istorizmo požymius, sutampančius su naujojo istorizmo teorija ir biurokratine praktika. Antroje straipsnio dalyje plačiau svarstomas 1) sociologijos teorijos ir politikos santykis, 2) sociologijos teorijos ir rašto politikos santykis, 3) aptariamos institucinės ir intelektinės viešosios sociologijos formavimosi sąlygos bei aplinkybės.

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.