Suchergebnisse

The article offers a brief account of the history of Hungarian sociology during four decades of communist rule in Hungary. Beginning with the brief existence of the first department of sociology in Hungary (the 'Szalai Institute', 1946-1948) the author describes the field in the 1950s, when for political reasons sociology was marginalized to the point of extinction. The revival of sociology in Hungary during the 1960s is devoted considerable attention from an institutional, a personal & a doctrinal point of view. The author analyses the main branches of study in Hungarian sociology at the time, including critical sociology & the study of social stratification, which overcame the rigidity of official Marxist-Leninist doctrine. She characterizes the last two decades of state socialism in Hungary as a period when sociology both suffered from increased political repression (stronger in the early 1970s than later) & at the same time became more & more professional. She argues that a determining feature of the history of Hungarian sociology between 1948 & 1989 was its strong connection to politics. However, sociology & politics had a mutual influence on one another during this period, as sociology also had an impact on the way Communist Party officials approached the structure of Hungarian society. In the process, sociology evolved & was professionalized, enabling its existence as an autonomous discipline today.

The evolution of Czech sociology, from its outset up until the present time, has had four lasting features: a tendency to put too much emphasis on personal grudges, a deep interest in the serious problems of the time, an ability for forming well-grounded statements on contemporary issues, & a natural plurality of opinions. These features are evident still in contemporary Czech sociology. In the postcommunist period, Czech sociology managed to come to terms with some of the more shadowy aspects of its past (cooperation with the regime) without any personal conflicts & was able to relatively quickly fill in the information gap in relationship to Western sociology. Several alternative interpretations of the transformation processes were formulated, & some neglected subject areas were cultivated. Impulses stemming from globalization are accepted in a critical & relatively reasonable manner, but there is a tangible lack of study devoted to cultural processes & the influence of mass media on society. Czech sociology has thus come to terms with the trauma that accompanies every fundamental social change, & has done so in a rational & practical manner.

These reflections on the state & problems of Czech sociology after twelve years of free development include thoughts on its seven weaknesses that either at present or at least potentially pose a threat to Czech sociology, deprive it of the ability to compete, & lower the level of its prestige in society & the value of its scientific results. These weaknesses include: (1) the division of Czech sociology into qualitative & quantitative sociology, including the intolerance that accompanies this state; (2) the uncritical acceptance of only the most basic & superficial results of sociology by the political sphere in the form of percentages & speculations relating to them; (3) the somber state of under-financing in academic sociology; (4) the difficulties affecting post-secondary school teachers on the one hand & researchers at the Academy of Sciences on the other; (5) the need for cooperation with other sociologists in the region; (6) cooperation with Europe & the world; & (7) morals & integrity, without which, in the author's firm opinion, it is impossible to conduct sociological research.

This article considers the position of sociology in a nonsociological context, that is, the Czech Agricultural U in Prague. The substance of the paper is a consideration of the role of sociology in relation to rural issues, including their practical dimension as relates to rural development. The background of the paper is constituted by both discussions in the Czech lands & abroad, which address the role & position of sociology & its relation to the lay public, & the question of how (& also if) it is possible to cope with the skepticism of lay people (a skepticism that the authors have experienced in the exercise of their professional activities) in relation to the findings & information provided by sociology. The authors suggest that the possibility exists of presenting non-trivial findings & information for lay people. Sociologists have at their disposal many instruments for mapping the actions & ideas of specific people when investigating such issues. If the results of sociological research are embedded within specific practical measures addressing rural issues, then the chance for social acceptance increases & the project is more likely to be sustainable. In such a situation, sociology is both related to concrete practices & circumstances (the doubts of lay persons about its meaninglessness disappear), yet it also retains its academic discourse, as a part of sociology, as a science. As a reflection of the latter, the article demonstrates the interconnections between general sociology & rural sociology, because of the centrality of the countryside & agriculture in contemporary society.

The article deals with the idea of Central Europe and aims to identify common developmental tendencies of the region in the medieval period and early modern age. The author emphasizes the advantages of the comparative approach primarily in the case of the medieval and early modern Polish, Czech and Hungarian states. Alongside common developmental tendencies the author emphasizes also important differences which cast doubt on the very idea of Central Europe.

Research made by the Public opinion research center team as a mothly part of the "Our Society 2012" project researching the views and opinions of Czech citizens. Data collection was done by the Public opinion research center interviewers network.

Research made by the Public opinion research center team as a mothly part of "Our Society 2006" project researching views and opinions of Czech citizens. Data collection was done by the Public opinion research center interviewers network.

The article deals with the 1938 treatise History of the All- Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks), abbreviated AUCP(b) - an official treatise from the Stalin era of the USSR which was published on a mass scale. The author puts his reflections in two contexts: 1. the internal Marxist dispute over "orthodoxy", which Stalin resolved by publishing (and co-authoring) this "canonical book", and 2. the myth-forming context, which shows how totalitarian regimes present themselves with their "canonical books". He considers publications preceding the analyzed book, which after Lenin's death included texts by Grigory Zinoviev, Nikolai Bukharin and Leon Trotsky. Then he considers the actual book, focusing in more detail on the absence of two topics and concepts - the state and culture. He pays particular attention to the chapter on dialectic and historical materialism written by Stalin, which completes the simplistic interpretations in the so-called Stalinist Marxism. Like L. Kolakowski, he concludes that the entire Stalinist concept is naturalistic (meaning the naive naturalism of the late 19th century: Marxism guarantees a "scientific world view") and naively nomothetic (all fundamental claims have the form of unquestionable laws).