Suchergebnisse

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.

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.

The paper analyzes the sociological theory. Western type public modernity theories are assumed as a process, for which a developing society is approaching the developed societies reaching a certain level of economic growth, a certain level of public participation and the democratic stage of development, giving the individual more physical, social and economic mobility. Structural functionalism (Parson, 1997; Merton, 1997 et al.). With the approach to this theory, it can be said that inequality in education stems from the ascription to social class, strata, ethnic groups, etc., also due to individual's achievements, which are usually associated with the innate talents and efforts. The analysis of an individual's social functioning and social stratification is based on the approach to Capital theory (Bourdieu, 1986). Thus, the participation of education players in education system, also the accessibility of education to an individual depends on the volume and structure of the available capital. Participation in individual's reproduction process and education system, based on the approach to this theory, is defined by individual's habits (habitus), and harmony with individual's social status. The theory of social conflict (Dahrendorf, 1996; Coser, 1969) argues that conflicts can be identified among all social systems and the educational institute. In terms of social conflict society is the actual and potential arena of conflicts. Network activity theory (Burt, 1982; Granovetter, 1973; Castells, 2005) aims to analyze and describe reciprocal link models in the social system. The followers of this theory keep to the opinion that social structures need to be investigated first, as the players' behavior is constrained by social structures. Very often it is the case at education institution that students from the disadvantaged families, with negative evaluations or various disorders, are often isolated from the classroom and school community.

The paper analyzes the sociological theory. Western type public modernity theories are assumed as a process, for which a developing society is approaching the developed societies reaching a certain level of economic growth, a certain level of public participation and the democratic stage of development, giving the individual more physical, social and economic mobility. Structural functionalism (Parson, 1997; Merton, 1997 et al.). With the approach to this theory, it can be said that inequality in education stems from the ascription to social class, strata, ethnic groups, etc., also due to individual's achievements, which are usually associated with the innate talents and efforts. The analysis of an individual's social functioning and social stratification is based on the approach to Capital theory (Bourdieu, 1986). Thus, the participation of education players in education system, also the accessibility of education to an individual depends on the volume and structure of the available capital. Participation in individual's reproduction process and education system, based on the approach to this theory, is defined by individual's habits (habitus), and harmony with individual's social status. The theory of social conflict (Dahrendorf, 1996; Coser, 1969) argues that conflicts can be identified among all social systems and the educational institute. In terms of social conflict society is the actual and potential arena of conflicts. Network activity theory (Burt, 1982; Granovetter, 1973; Castells, 2005) aims to analyze and describe reciprocal link models in the social system. The followers of this theory keep to the opinion that social structures need to be investigated first, as the players' behavior is constrained by social structures. Very often it is the case at education institution that students from the disadvantaged families, with negative evaluations or various disorders, are often isolated from the classroom and school community.

The paper analyzes the sociological theory. Western type public modernity theories are assumed as a process, for which a developing society is approaching the developed societies reaching a certain level of economic growth, a certain level of public participation and the democratic stage of development, giving the individual more physical, social and economic mobility. Structural functionalism (Parson, 1997; Merton, 1997 et al.). With the approach to this theory, it can be said that inequality in education stems from the ascription to social class, strata, ethnic groups, etc., also due to individual's achievements, which are usually associated with the innate talents and efforts. The analysis of an individual's social functioning and social stratification is based on the approach to Capital theory (Bourdieu, 1986). Thus, the participation of education players in education system, also the accessibility of education to an individual depends on the volume and structure of the available capital. Participation in individual's reproduction process and education system, based on the approach to this theory, is defined by individual's habits (habitus), and harmony with individual's social status. The theory of social conflict (Dahrendorf, 1996; Coser, 1969) argues that conflicts can be identified among all social systems and the educational institute. In terms of social conflict society is the actual and potential arena of conflicts. Network activity theory (Burt, 1982; Granovetter, 1973; Castells, 2005) aims to analyze and describe reciprocal link models in the social system. The followers of this theory keep to the opinion that social structures need to be investigated first, as the players' behavior is constrained by social structures. Very often it is the case at education institution that students from the disadvantaged families, with negative evaluations or various disorders, are often isolated from the classroom and school community.

The paper analyzes the sociological theory. Western type public modernity theories are assumed as a process, for which a developing society is approaching the developed societies reaching a certain level of economic growth, a certain level of public participation and the democratic stage of development, giving the individual more physical, social and economic mobility. Structural functionalism (Parson, 1997; Merton, 1997 et al.). With the approach to this theory, it can be said that inequality in education stems from the ascription to social class, strata, ethnic groups, etc., also due to individual's achievements, which are usually associated with the innate talents and efforts. The analysis of an individual's social functioning and social stratification is based on the approach to Capital theory (Bourdieu, 1986). Thus, the participation of education players in education system, also the accessibility of education to an individual depends on the volume and structure of the available capital. Participation in individual's reproduction process and education system, based on the approach to this theory, is defined by individual's habits (habitus), and harmony with individual's social status. The theory of social conflict (Dahrendorf, 1996; Coser, 1969) argues that conflicts can be identified among all social systems and the educational institute. In terms of social conflict society is the actual and potential arena of conflicts. Network activity theory (Burt, 1982; Granovetter, 1973; Castells, 2005) aims to analyze and describe reciprocal link models in the social system. The followers of this theory keep to the opinion that social structures need to be investigated first, as the players' behavior is constrained by social structures. Very often it is the case at education institution that students from the disadvantaged families, with negative evaluations or various disorders, are often isolated from the classroom and school community.

The article aims to analyse the relationship between sociology and didactics of sociology. This relationship is analysed from different perspectives. Firstly didactics of sociology is analysed from the viewpoint of so-called didactics of social sciences and civic education. Secondly the article analyses the development of the interrelation between theory of education and sociology of education and searches the ideas for the conceptualization of didactics of sociology in this development. Three forms of the interrelation between theory of education and sociology of education are distinguished. Educational sociology emerged as normative and applied discipline that has assisted educational theory to articulate the educational aims and the means of their implementation. The sociology of education that emphasized the scientific and empirical rather than normative character was an alternative for the educational sociology and has revealed different aspects of education that were ignored by educational sociologists. The phenomena of the hidden curricula and its role in social and cultural reproduction were among them. The third form of interrelation is associated with the movement of public sociology. The proponents of public sociology put forward the questions of social function of sociology and the significance of sociological literacy for democratic society. The concept of public sociology stimulates the discussions about didactics of sociology. Thirdly the article searches the ideas for the interpretation of the relationship between sociology and didactics of sociology in the development of the liaisons between history and didactics of history. The concept of historical consciousness and understanding of historical culture solve the contradiction between academic history and didactics of history.