The aim of the research – to define the content, functions, manifestations, forms of the concept of legal culture and to investigate the specific character of the legal culture of Latvian senior-grade elementary school pupils, developing proposals for improvement of acquisition of the legal culture by elementary school pupils. Thus, no research studies of legal culture are actually being made in Latvia, and also attention is insufficiently paid to it in the studies of law, and in political and sociological studies. The scientific novelty of the Doctoral Dissertation is characterised by the fact that the Doctoral Dissertation is dedicated to the legal culture, its updating and consolidating in the scientific and research environment in Latvia. Moreover, such an original research study of the legal culture of Latvian elementary school pupils has been made for the first time in Latvia.
Social or Cultural Anthropology, in the Western sense, is little known territory in parts of contemporary East Europe. It is the case in Lithuania where biological anthropology traditionally claims the term anthropology for itself. Lithuanian ethnology and sociology partially fill the void normally covered by anthropology. There were definite political, academic and practical factors that stunted the growth of anthropology in Lithuania. The aim of this article is to identify these factors, and to define the sphere and the field of research and instruction, that should be allocated to anthropology. I seek also to present the case for an urgent need of the discipline to be established in the educational, research and applied frontiers of contemporary Lithuanian society. It has been even more complicated to establish the importance and capability of socio-cultural anthropology as a separate field of endeavour vis-à-vis Lithuanian ethnology. While socio-cultural anthropology in the West examined the other and otherness, there was no political interest for a newly independent nation-state in a discipline with a wrong focus.
Social or Cultural Anthropology, in the Western sense, is little known territory in parts of contemporary East Europe. It is the case in Lithuania where biological anthropology traditionally claims the term anthropology for itself. Lithuanian ethnology and sociology partially fill the void normally covered by anthropology. There were definite political, academic and practical factors that stunted the growth of anthropology in Lithuania. The aim of this article is to identify these factors, and to define the sphere and the field of research and instruction, that should be allocated to anthropology. I seek also to present the case for an urgent need of the discipline to be established in the educational, research and applied frontiers of contemporary Lithuanian society. It has been even more complicated to establish the importance and capability of socio-cultural anthropology as a separate field of endeavour vis-à-vis Lithuanian ethnology. While socio-cultural anthropology in the West examined the other and otherness, there was no political interest for a newly independent nation-state in a discipline with a wrong focus.
Social or Cultural Anthropology, in the Western sense, is little known territory in parts of contemporary East Europe. It is the case in Lithuania where biological anthropology traditionally claims the term anthropology for itself. Lithuanian ethnology and sociology partially fill the void normally covered by anthropology. There were definite political, academic and practical factors that stunted the growth of anthropology in Lithuania. The aim of this article is to identify these factors, and to define the sphere and the field of research and instruction, that should be allocated to anthropology. I seek also to present the case for an urgent need of the discipline to be established in the educational, research and applied frontiers of contemporary Lithuanian society. It has been even more complicated to establish the importance and capability of socio-cultural anthropology as a separate field of endeavour vis-à-vis Lithuanian ethnology. While socio-cultural anthropology in the West examined the other and otherness, there was no political interest for a newly independent nation-state in a discipline with a wrong focus.
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.
Disability of adaptation to the changing standards of social norms without social help and required support could turn into a false self-adaptation to the environment and conditions, i.e., adaptation to the deviational or even asocial form of behavior: vagabondage, begging, drug habit, alcoholism, prostitution, misdeeds, etc. The reason of the appearance of marginal groups is considered to be the change of the socio-economic system as well as the decrease of the life standard level due to the economic situation and also devaluation of traditional social norms and values. Prevention of marginalization as well as resocialization of marginals is considered to be a common problem for the state self-government institutions, non-government organizations and local communities. Analysis of characteristics of social, political, economic and psychological factors of the youth marginalization reveals that the effectiveness of the youth marginalization prevention and resocialization could depend on the efficiency of the application of means of resocialization and the coordinated activity of concrete means seeking to influence the young person's interests, needs, psycho-social development and behaviour. There are different approaches of specialists to prevention of marginaliziation and strategy of resocialization. Differences in approach are mechanically transferred to the pipeline legislation, policies and practical activities. The weakest of youth policy and prevention is the management. Exist the gap (distance) in the youth policy between the general and the specific (by reducing marginality) and its implementation and social practices, working with young people in local communities.
Disability of adaptation to the changing standards of social norms without social help and required support could turn into a false self-adaptation to the environment and conditions, i.e., adaptation to the deviational or even asocial form of behavior: vagabondage, begging, drug habit, alcoholism, prostitution, misdeeds, etc. The reason of the appearance of marginal groups is considered to be the change of the socio-economic system as well as the decrease of the life standard level due to the economic situation and also devaluation of traditional social norms and values. Prevention of marginalization as well as resocialization of marginals is considered to be a common problem for the state self-government institutions, non-government organizations and local communities. Analysis of characteristics of social, political, economic and psychological factors of the youth marginalization reveals that the effectiveness of the youth marginalization prevention and resocialization could depend on the efficiency of the application of means of resocialization and the coordinated activity of concrete means seeking to influence the young person's interests, needs, psycho-social development and behaviour. There are different approaches of specialists to prevention of marginaliziation and strategy of resocialization. Differences in approach are mechanically transferred to the pipeline legislation, policies and practical activities. The weakest of youth policy and prevention is the management. Exist the gap (distance) in the youth policy between the general and the specific (by reducing marginality) and its implementation and social practices, working with young people in local communities.
The work was made by Irma Kruckaite, Political sociology master's degree student of VPU Social sciences faculty Sociology and political sciences department. The subject of the work is young attitude towards national identity as a value and its conservation opportunities of globalization (Druskininkai town case). The director of the work is Dr. V. Senkus. The work size is 60 pages. The aim of work: explore what young people view about nationalism like value, what are the main factors affecting the formation of such an approach. For this purpose there were tasks raised: • Summarize the theoretical aspects of the concept of values. • An overview of the various sociological authors' interpretations about nationality. • To analyze the challenges of globalization for nationality. • Based on research results to establish how nationality is expressed and its preservation ways. Hypotheses of the research: 1. Nationality for young people today, is not a priority value – was proved. Young people understand what is nationality, but the general answer is perception that young people represent not emigration if feel safe in Lithuania. Young people need motivation, that nationality wasn't a burden but an asset to be transferred to their future generations. Nationality invaded the consciousness of people, the recovery of Lithuania's independence in 1990. But now it has spread dangerously overshadow people's material poverty, social vulnerability. Young people are a passive observer; they have simply run out of determination, as each election, promising a better life remains just promises. The talented youth gather foreign universities and to a career high in Lithuania. Frequent claims gladly stay at home. Unfortunately, our country is unable to detain them. 2. Youth opinion preservation of national identity is linked with wellbeing rise – was proved. Thus one can assume that those who can afford just to live people are concerned about the spirit of much less than affluent people. Responses felt that young families and young people today not emigration if feel safe in Lithuania. Based on data of Statistic Department for 2010 January – September emigrated 67.7 thousand countries population is 51.4 thousand more than last year same period. The main reason for this increase - immigrants to legalize their desire for the departure of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Health Insurance obligations lay down in permanent residents of the country to pay the mandatory health insurance premiums. The main purpose of immigration - work. 2009 more than 85 percent of the emigrants went to work abroad (2008 - 70 percent). Young people need motivation, that nationality wasn't a burden but an asset to be able to transfer their future generations. 3. Effective ways of promoting nationality is the psychological and economic. – was proved. It can be assumed that Lithuania, in particular, should ensure its citizens material well-being, to protect the rights of citizens, only to build a mature society cherishing national identity as an asset. The work consists of an introduction, theoretical part, which considers: the concept of values, judgments and interpretations of nationality and the challenges of globalization. The practical part presents a research and data analysis. Then there are represented final conclusions, a summary and the list of literature. In summary the theoretical part, globalization significantly changes the whole social context in structuring the personality, beliefs and values scale. On a global cultural universality is the possible merger into a single structure with specific tolerance individuality, diversity and other humanitarian values, to form a democratic political system. Collaborate and ethnic identity of the other one works, but does not eliminate far. National survival, they become the guarantor of the continuity of traditional ethnic culture is not alone, but by the state. It is the state's strength. It follows that it is the national character is the key link between the nation states. Therefore, we note that the community is based on nationalism. Nation history and people of self-concept and collective identity this is foundation of the nation cultural. Supranational integration into the structures, it is necessary to preserve and promote national culture, because this is only way to preserve national unity. It was formed by culture and fostering national and emotional ties connecting the community and the spiritual basis of life. Therefore, the state must maintain order, to enable citizens to prosperity, to ensure their safety, freedoms and rights. Thus, people of all age's qualitative interviews showed that nationality is perceived as the love of homeland, the Lithuanian language, culture and traditions. Nationality associated with the history of Lithuania and is closely associated with patriotism. Many of the respondents expressed concern about the future of nationality values in globalization situation. Worry about the displacement of the Lithuanian language, because this is one of the most important components of nationality. Interviews revealed the optimistic views of the Lithuanian national identity perspective. The Lithuanians are scattered around the world made available to other nations, to know where Lithuania is. However, it is noted that many respondents believe that as nationality like a values depends on the welfare state. Most of the respondents have a responsibility put to the government. How much less promising put citizens in public organizations. The prevailing opinion is that the state must take care of the nation in economic and spiritual well-being, secure environment, while motivate young people and their children proud of their country.
The work was made by Irma Kruckaite, Political sociology master's degree student of VPU Social sciences faculty Sociology and political sciences department. The subject of the work is young attitude towards national identity as a value and its conservation opportunities of globalization (Druskininkai town case). The director of the work is Dr. V. Senkus. The work size is 60 pages. The aim of work: explore what young people view about nationalism like value, what are the main factors affecting the formation of such an approach. For this purpose there were tasks raised: • Summarize the theoretical aspects of the concept of values. • An overview of the various sociological authors' interpretations about nationality. • To analyze the challenges of globalization for nationality. • Based on research results to establish how nationality is expressed and its preservation ways. Hypotheses of the research: 1. Nationality for young people today, is not a priority value – was proved. Young people understand what is nationality, but the general answer is perception that young people represent not emigration if feel safe in Lithuania. Young people need motivation, that nationality wasn't a burden but an asset to be transferred to their future generations. Nationality invaded the consciousness of people, the recovery of Lithuania's independence in 1990. But now it has spread dangerously overshadow people's material poverty, social vulnerability. Young people are a passive observer; they have simply run out of determination, as each election, promising a better life remains just promises. The talented youth gather foreign universities and to a career high in Lithuania. Frequent claims gladly stay at home. Unfortunately, our country is unable to detain them. 2. Youth opinion preservation of national identity is linked with wellbeing rise – was proved. Thus one can assume that those who can afford just to live people are concerned about the spirit of much less than affluent people. Responses felt that young families and young people today not emigration if feel safe in Lithuania. Based on data of Statistic Department for 2010 January – September emigrated 67.7 thousand countries population is 51.4 thousand more than last year same period. The main reason for this increase - immigrants to legalize their desire for the departure of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Health Insurance obligations lay down in permanent residents of the country to pay the mandatory health insurance premiums. The main purpose of immigration - work. 2009 more than 85 percent of the emigrants went to work abroad (2008 - 70 percent). Young people need motivation, that nationality wasn't a burden but an asset to be able to transfer their future generations. 3. Effective ways of promoting nationality is the psychological and economic. – was proved. It can be assumed that Lithuania, in particular, should ensure its citizens material well-being, to protect the rights of citizens, only to build a mature society cherishing national identity as an asset. The work consists of an introduction, theoretical part, which considers: the concept of values, judgments and interpretations of nationality and the challenges of globalization. The practical part presents a research and data analysis. Then there are represented final conclusions, a summary and the list of literature. In summary the theoretical part, globalization significantly changes the whole social context in structuring the personality, beliefs and values scale. On a global cultural universality is the possible merger into a single structure with specific tolerance individuality, diversity and other humanitarian values, to form a democratic political system. Collaborate and ethnic identity of the other one works, but does not eliminate far. National survival, they become the guarantor of the continuity of traditional ethnic culture is not alone, but by the state. It is the state's strength. It follows that it is the national character is the key link between the nation states. Therefore, we note that the community is based on nationalism. Nation history and people of self-concept and collective identity this is foundation of the nation cultural. Supranational integration into the structures, it is necessary to preserve and promote national culture, because this is only way to preserve national unity. It was formed by culture and fostering national and emotional ties connecting the community and the spiritual basis of life. Therefore, the state must maintain order, to enable citizens to prosperity, to ensure their safety, freedoms and rights. Thus, people of all age's qualitative interviews showed that nationality is perceived as the love of homeland, the Lithuanian language, culture and traditions. Nationality associated with the history of Lithuania and is closely associated with patriotism. Many of the respondents expressed concern about the future of nationality values in globalization situation. Worry about the displacement of the Lithuanian language, because this is one of the most important components of nationality. Interviews revealed the optimistic views of the Lithuanian national identity perspective. The Lithuanians are scattered around the world made available to other nations, to know where Lithuania is. However, it is noted that many respondents believe that as nationality like a values depends on the welfare state. Most of the respondents have a responsibility put to the government. How much less promising put citizens in public organizations. The prevailing opinion is that the state must take care of the nation in economic and spiritual well-being, secure environment, while motivate young people and their children proud of their country.
This article analyses social inequality and political processes in post-Communist Lithuania, using the neo-Weberian class theory of Robert Erikson, John Goldthorpe and Lucienne Portocarero (EGP). The opening section considers why the analysis of social structure, which was a central concern in classical sociology, has been so neglected in Lithuanian sociology since the restoration of independence. There are just two exceptions to this trend, discussed in the same section - Rūta Brazienė's 2002 thesis and the 2005 volume edited by Arvydas Matulionis. The first part also compares inductive (data-driven) and deductive (theory-driven) methodologies of social structure analysis to substantiate the advantages of the latter for this article's empirical analysis. The second part outlines EGP class theory, considered as a creative continuation of Weber's classical analysis of social structure, and as a genuine alternative to Marx's theory of classes and class struggle. EGP class theory is compared with two other approaches - Erik Olin Wright's neo-Marxist class theory, which emphasises exploitation relations between classes, and American social stratification analysis, which focuses on the measurement of socio-economic status (SES). The third section offers a neo-Weberian examination of post-Communist Lithuania's class structure, represented by four different EGP class types. Diachronic and synchronic comparisons and historical analysis are used to point out the features of Lithuanian class structure that are shared with other similar countries and those features that are nationally specific. To this end, data from Round 4 of the European Social Survey in Lithuania (conducted at the end of 2009) is used. In the last section, which applies statistical methods of correspondence analysis, a slightly modified EGP class model is used to explore manifestations of social inequality [.]
This article analyses social inequality and political processes in post-Communist Lithuania, using the neo-Weberian class theory of Robert Erikson, John Goldthorpe and Lucienne Portocarero (EGP). The opening section considers why the analysis of social structure, which was a central concern in classical sociology, has been so neglected in Lithuanian sociology since the restoration of independence. There are just two exceptions to this trend, discussed in the same section - Rūta Brazienė's 2002 thesis and the 2005 volume edited by Arvydas Matulionis. The first part also compares inductive (data-driven) and deductive (theory-driven) methodologies of social structure analysis to substantiate the advantages of the latter for this article's empirical analysis. The second part outlines EGP class theory, considered as a creative continuation of Weber's classical analysis of social structure, and as a genuine alternative to Marx's theory of classes and class struggle. EGP class theory is compared with two other approaches - Erik Olin Wright's neo-Marxist class theory, which emphasises exploitation relations between classes, and American social stratification analysis, which focuses on the measurement of socio-economic status (SES). The third section offers a neo-Weberian examination of post-Communist Lithuania's class structure, represented by four different EGP class types. Diachronic and synchronic comparisons and historical analysis are used to point out the features of Lithuanian class structure that are shared with other similar countries and those features that are nationally specific. To this end, data from Round 4 of the European Social Survey in Lithuania (conducted at the end of 2009) is used. In the last section, which applies statistical methods of correspondence analysis, a slightly modified EGP class model is used to explore manifestations of social inequality [.]
This article analyses social inequality and political processes in post-Communist Lithuania, using the neo-Weberian class theory of Robert Erikson, John Goldthorpe and Lucienne Portocarero (EGP). The opening section considers why the analysis of social structure, which was a central concern in classical sociology, has been so neglected in Lithuanian sociology since the restoration of independence. There are just two exceptions to this trend, discussed in the same section - Rūta Brazienė's 2002 thesis and the 2005 volume edited by Arvydas Matulionis. The first part also compares inductive (data-driven) and deductive (theory-driven) methodologies of social structure analysis to substantiate the advantages of the latter for this article's empirical analysis. The second part outlines EGP class theory, considered as a creative continuation of Weber's classical analysis of social structure, and as a genuine alternative to Marx's theory of classes and class struggle. EGP class theory is compared with two other approaches - Erik Olin Wright's neo-Marxist class theory, which emphasises exploitation relations between classes, and American social stratification analysis, which focuses on the measurement of socio-economic status (SES). The third section offers a neo-Weberian examination of post-Communist Lithuania's class structure, represented by four different EGP class types. Diachronic and synchronic comparisons and historical analysis are used to point out the features of Lithuanian class structure that are shared with other similar countries and those features that are nationally specific. To this end, data from Round 4 of the European Social Survey in Lithuania (conducted at the end of 2009) is used. In the last section, which applies statistical methods of correspondence analysis, a slightly modified EGP class model is used to explore manifestations of social inequality [.]
