The publication "Lithuanian Energy Security. Annual Review 2012-2013" presents the problems of Lithuanian energy security, energy security research methods and methodology the application of which enables the determination of Lithuanian energy security level. The research is of interdisciplinary character – energy security problems integrate the aspects of energy, economics, politics and sociology. The dynamics of Lithuanian energy security level is covered and compared with the dynamics of Latvian and Estonian energy security levels. The most important processes influencing the Lithuanian energy security level and energy policy are analysed and assessed.
The publication "Lithuanian Energy Security. Annual Review 2012-2013" presents the problems of Lithuanian energy security, energy security research methods and methodology the application of which enables the determination of Lithuanian energy security level. The research is of interdisciplinary character – energy security problems integrate the aspects of energy, economics, politics and sociology. The dynamics of Lithuanian energy security level is covered and compared with the dynamics of Latvian and Estonian energy security levels. The most important processes influencing the Lithuanian energy security level and energy policy are analysed and assessed.
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 the analysis of the status of Carl Schmitt's political theology. It is argued that this conception can not be understood as a sociology of juristic concepts as it was described by its author. Today many interpretators attempt to explain political theology as a part of theology. This interpretation is deficient in some of its parts. Schmitt was developing a political theory which he called "political theology". This project has to be understood as an attempt to use theological argumentations and insights in the discourse of political philosophy. Schmitt's attempt to create a synthesis of theology and philosophy for the study of politics is similar to the aims of reactionary XIX century Catholic political philosophy of Joseph de Maistre, Louis de Bonald and Juan Donoso Cortes.
The aim of the article is the analysis of the status of Carl Schmitt's political theology. It is argued that this conception can not be understood as a sociology of juristic concepts as it was described by its author. Today many interpretators attempt to explain political theology as a part of theology. This interpretation is deficient in some of its parts. Schmitt was developing a political theory which he called "political theology". This project has to be understood as an attempt to use theological argumentations and insights in the discourse of political philosophy. Schmitt's attempt to create a synthesis of theology and philosophy for the study of politics is similar to the aims of reactionary XIX century Catholic political philosophy of Joseph de Maistre, Louis de Bonald and Juan Donoso Cortes.
The aim of the article is the analysis of the status of Carl Schmitt's political theology. It is argued that this conception can not be understood as a sociology of juristic concepts as it was described by its author. Today many interpretators attempt to explain political theology as a part of theology. This interpretation is deficient in some of its parts. Schmitt was developing a political theory which he called "political theology". This project has to be understood as an attempt to use theological argumentations and insights in the discourse of political philosophy. Schmitt's attempt to create a synthesis of theology and philosophy for the study of politics is similar to the aims of reactionary XIX century Catholic political philosophy of Joseph de Maistre, Louis de Bonald and Juan Donoso Cortes.
The aim of the article is the analysis of the status of Carl Schmitt's political theology. It is argued that this conception can not be understood as a sociology of juristic concepts as it was described by its author. Today many interpretators attempt to explain political theology as a part of theology. This interpretation is deficient in some of its parts. Schmitt was developing a political theory which he called "political theology". This project has to be understood as an attempt to use theological argumentations and insights in the discourse of political philosophy. Schmitt's attempt to create a synthesis of theology and philosophy for the study of politics is similar to the aims of reactionary XIX century Catholic political philosophy of Joseph de Maistre, Louis de Bonald and Juan Donoso Cortes.
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.
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.
