Suchergebnisse

"The present publication offers a history with analysis of the social, economic, urban and architectural context of the construction of housing estates in the second half of the 20th century within the city of Bratislava. It individually analyzes each prefabricated housing estate in terms of its urban structure, construction and architectural aspects, balance of built-up and free area, and note [sic] other specific features of the creation and building of these estates"--Back cover

One of the brand new areas of historiography is analyzed. Availing of the research of historical conscience launched in Germany, the author explores the possibility of applying this new practice to the analysis of Lithuanians' historical conscience. The perspectives, theoretical-methodological objectives & tasks are analyzed. Special attention is drawn to the ideological aspect of a historical conscience & to the problem of "left" & "right" in the Lithuanians' mass conscience during the last decade. A relationship between the "left" & "right" identity & a specific version of the past being defended, an attempt by Lithuania's politicians to manipulate the historical perspectives, a tendency toward mythologization as evident in Lithuania's contemporary historical conscience is emphasized. Adapted from the source document.

Das Buch unternimmt erstmals den Versuch, die sich potenzierende Dynamisierung gesellschaftlicher Verhältnisse, wie sie in der jüngsten politischen und digitalen Beschleunigungswelle etwa unter dem Stichwort "Globalisierung" firmiert, systematisch zu erfassen und sie in ihren kulturellen und strukturellen Ursachen ebenso wie in ihren Auswirkungen auf die individuelle und kollektive Lebensführung zu analysieren. Entwickelt wird dabei die These, daß die zunächst befreiende und befähigende Wirkung der modernen sozialen Beschleunigung, die mit den technischen Geschwindigkeitssteigerungen des Transports, der Kommunikation oder der Produktion zusammenhängt, in der Spätmoderne in ihr Gegenteil umzuschlagen droht. Individuell wie kollektiv verändert sich die Erfahrung von Zeit und Geschichte: An die Stelle einer gerichteten Vorwärtsbewegung tritt die Wahrnehmung einer gleichsam bewegungslosen und in sich erstarrten Steigerungsspirale.

The article explores positivism-postpositivism debate in social sciences that has been lasting already for many years. The author does not suppose this debate will end soon since it raises fundamental questions concerning the aims, tasks and methods of social sciences. Though representatives of these sciences differ significantly in views on these questions, the most of them and, in particular, evident majority of representatives of political science virtually holds positivist views. Such questions, which may be called conceptual, are essentially disputable, so they cannot be resolved by any empirical research. When examining positivism-postpositivism debate the author singles out, paying tribute to tradition, three aspects of debate: (1) ontological, (2) epistemological, and (3) methodological. Yet he presents the arguments to support his claim that because of its antimetaphysical character positivism can have no ontology at all. Therefore an ontological dispute between positivists and postpositivists is simply impossible. Postpositivists, in discussing epistemological questions, would be inclined to reject positivist viewpoint that our statements and theories about social life can be true (though according to modern positivists, we can never know it for sure). They also would reject the positivist distinction between facts and values, which likewise can be considered as epistemological. But the most serious dispute that is taking place in social sciences concerns methodological questions. The author, in analyzing it, pays most attention to two most influential forms of postpositivism, namely to critical theory and postmodernism. Having discussed genealogy and deconstruction which, though with serious reservations, may be considered as postpositivist methods, the author claims that postpositivism lacks the main part of methodology, i.e. rules of accepting scientific statements and theories. And that is why postpositivism cannot win the methodological debate over positivism which has such rules. Adapted from the source document.