Suchergebnisse

Sąjūdis (Lithuanian independence movement) as an object of scholarly investigation has a certain history or maybe even a historiographic tradition. One of the first who started to investigate this problem was the representative of lithuanian diaspora in the US, professor of the University of Wisconsin Alfred Eric Senn. The changes of Lithuanian political life during the revival period were analyzed also by the Sąjūdis members themselves: Bronislavas Genzelis and Virgilijus Juozas Čepaitis. However, they often fail to avoid subjective views of certain personalities, their data is not always based on sources. Only at the end of the 20th and beginning of the 21st centuries Sąjūdis received proper attention from historians. The society at large was presented with scholarly publications, collections of articles and sources on particular subjects. Among these publications one can distinguish the one written by Česlovas Laurinavičius and Vladas Sirutavičius which deals with the political history of Lithuania in 1988–1990. After the careful analysis of scholarly publications dealing with the topic of Sąjūdis, one may notice the tendency to restrict the investigations of the events only prior to the restoration of lithuanian independence in March 1990. However, the process of transformation of spontaneous social renewal movement into a public organization is still remaining a white spot in history. There are several reasons for this, the most important of which is, to my mind, political. Historians are not willing to confuse their scientific investigations with their political preferences. In the Lithuanian historiography one might notice a tendency for historical investigations of Sąjūdis to intensify prior to the anniversaries of Lithuanian independence restoration. Historians usually restricted their works to the analysis of the national revival period events taking place in the country's capital. [.]

Sąjūdis (Lithuanian independence movement) as an object of scholarly investigation has a certain history or maybe even a historiographic tradition. One of the first who started to investigate this problem was the representative of lithuanian diaspora in the US, professor of the University of Wisconsin Alfred Eric Senn. The changes of Lithuanian political life during the revival period were analyzed also by the Sąjūdis members themselves: Bronislavas Genzelis and Virgilijus Juozas Čepaitis. However, they often fail to avoid subjective views of certain personalities, their data is not always based on sources. Only at the end of the 20th and beginning of the 21st centuries Sąjūdis received proper attention from historians. The society at large was presented with scholarly publications, collections of articles and sources on particular subjects. Among these publications one can distinguish the one written by Česlovas Laurinavičius and Vladas Sirutavičius which deals with the political history of Lithuania in 1988–1990. After the careful analysis of scholarly publications dealing with the topic of Sąjūdis, one may notice the tendency to restrict the investigations of the events only prior to the restoration of lithuanian independence in March 1990. However, the process of transformation of spontaneous social renewal movement into a public organization is still remaining a white spot in history. There are several reasons for this, the most important of which is, to my mind, political. Historians are not willing to confuse their scientific investigations with their political preferences. In the Lithuanian historiography one might notice a tendency for historical investigations of Sąjūdis to intensify prior to the anniversaries of Lithuanian independence restoration. Historians usually restricted their works to the analysis of the national revival period events taking place in the country's capital. [.]

This article presents an analysis based on Alfred Schutz's epistemological stratification; it asks how do three epistemic groups perceive the phenomenon of corruption in Lithuania, these three groups being: (1) "experts," scientists and criminal justice representatives working with corruption cases; (2) "well informed citizens," politicians and the representatives of mass media, and (3) "people from the street," ordinary Lithuanian citizens. The analysis is based on the data of focus groups discussions that were performed in the framework of the project "Social Context of Corruption: An Analysis of Macro, Meso and Micro Level Factors" that was implemented at Vilnius University, Faculty of Philosophy during 2015–2017. The group discourses are analyzed from perspectives of three levels: (1) corruption as a worldwide phenomenon on a macro level; (2) the extent and forms of corruption on the social-meso level, and (3) the origin of corruption and the concept of the "corrupted man" on the micro-individual level. In the article, it is also analyzed how experts, "well informed citizens" and ordinary people assess the current means of corruption control and prevention in Lithuania and what other suggestions of prevention they have. The analysis showed that the main focus of three groups is localized on the meso level, discussing the extent and level of corruption in society, its main forms and corrupted groups. Only little attention is paid to the micro-individual level, where corruption takes it roots as a moral problem. Also, the predominant concept of corruption among ordinary people is almost the same as embedded in criminal law – as a crime committed by white collar individuals who have a particular amount of power at their disposal. Such a narrow legal perception of corruption becomes dysfunctional for effective crime control and prevention as far as it overlooks the widespread culture of corruption that penetrates all social layers, not only the white collars. The main criticism of current corruption control and prevention policy is based on its demonstrative ineffective and dysfunctional character, while the main perspective of corruption prevention is seen in general social education and primary socialization. The experts and ordinary citizens view the culture of corruption as possibly being diminished only by strengthening social relations and restoring community commitment.

This article presents an analysis based on Alfred Schutz's epistemological stratification; it asks how do three epistemic groups perceive the phenomenon of corruption in Lithuania, these three groups being: (1) "experts," scientists and criminal justice representatives working with corruption cases; (2) "well informed citizens," politicians and the representatives of mass media, and (3) "people from the street," ordinary Lithuanian citizens. The analysis is based on the data of focus groups discussions that were performed in the framework of the project "Social Context of Corruption: An Analysis of Macro, Meso and Micro Level Factors" that was implemented at Vilnius University, Faculty of Philosophy during 2015–2017. The group discourses are analyzed from perspectives of three levels: (1) corruption as a worldwide phenomenon on a macro level; (2) the extent and forms of corruption on the social-meso level, and (3) the origin of corruption and the concept of the "corrupted man" on the micro-individual level. In the article, it is also analyzed how experts, "well informed citizens" and ordinary people assess the current means of corruption control and prevention in Lithuania and what other suggestions of prevention they have. The analysis showed that the main focus of three groups is localized on the meso level, discussing the extent and level of corruption in society, its main forms and corrupted groups. Only little attention is paid to the micro-individual level, where corruption takes it roots as a moral problem. Also, the predominant concept of corruption among ordinary people is almost the same as embedded in criminal law – as a crime committed by white collar individuals who have a particular amount of power at their disposal. Such a narrow legal perception of corruption becomes dysfunctional for effective crime control and prevention as far as it overlooks the widespread culture of corruption that penetrates all social layers, not only the white collars. The main criticism of current corruption control and prevention policy is based on its demonstrative ineffective and dysfunctional character, while the main perspective of corruption prevention is seen in general social education and primary socialization. The experts and ordinary citizens view the culture of corruption as possibly being diminished only by strengthening social relations and restoring community commitment.

This article presents an analysis based on Alfred Schutz's epistemological stratification; it asks how do three epistemic groups perceive the phenomenon of corruption in Lithuania, these three groups being: (1) "experts," scientists and criminal justice representatives working with corruption cases; (2) "well informed citizens," politicians and the representatives of mass media, and (3) "people from the street," ordinary Lithuanian citizens. The analysis is based on the data of focus groups discussions that were performed in the framework of the project "Social Context of Corruption: An Analysis of Macro, Meso and Micro Level Factors" that was implemented at Vilnius University, Faculty of Philosophy during 2015–2017. The group discourses are analyzed from perspectives of three levels: (1) corruption as a worldwide phenomenon on a macro level; (2) the extent and forms of corruption on the social-meso level, and (3) the origin of corruption and the concept of the "corrupted man" on the micro-individual level. In the article, it is also analyzed how experts, "well informed citizens" and ordinary people assess the current means of corruption control and prevention in Lithuania and what other suggestions of prevention they have. The analysis showed that the main focus of three groups is localized on the meso level, discussing the extent and level of corruption in society, its main forms and corrupted groups. Only little attention is paid to the micro-individual level, where corruption takes it roots as a moral problem. Also, the predominant concept of corruption among ordinary people is almost the same as embedded in criminal law – as a crime committed by white collar individuals who have a particular amount of power at their disposal. Such a narrow legal perception of corruption becomes dysfunctional for effective crime control and prevention as far as it overlooks the widespread culture of corruption that penetrates all social layers, not only the white collars. The main criticism of current corruption control and prevention policy is based on its demonstrative ineffective and dysfunctional character, while the main perspective of corruption prevention is seen in general social education and primary socialization. The experts and ordinary citizens view the culture of corruption as possibly being diminished only by strengthening social relations and restoring community commitment.

This article presents an analysis based on Alfred Schutz's epistemological stratification; it asks how do three epistemic groups perceive the phenomenon of corruption in Lithuania, these three groups being: (1) "experts," scientists and criminal justice representatives working with corruption cases; (2) "well informed citizens," politicians and the representatives of mass media, and (3) "people from the street," ordinary Lithuanian citizens. The analysis is based on the data of focus groups discussions that were performed in the framework of the project "Social Context of Corruption: An Analysis of Macro, Meso and Micro Level Factors" that was implemented at Vilnius University, Faculty of Philosophy during 2015–2017. The group discourses are analyzed from perspectives of three levels: (1) corruption as a worldwide phenomenon on a macro level; (2) the extent and forms of corruption on the social-meso level, and (3) the origin of corruption and the concept of the "corrupted man" on the micro-individual level. In the article, it is also analyzed how experts, "well informed citizens" and ordinary people assess the current means of corruption control and prevention in Lithuania and what other suggestions of prevention they have. The analysis showed that the main focus of three groups is localized on the meso level, discussing the extent and level of corruption in society, its main forms and corrupted groups. Only little attention is paid to the micro-individual level, where corruption takes it roots as a moral problem. Also, the predominant concept of corruption among ordinary people is almost the same as embedded in criminal law – as a crime committed by white collar individuals who have a particular amount of power at their disposal. Such a narrow legal perception of corruption becomes dysfunctional for effective crime control and prevention as far as it overlooks the widespread culture of corruption that penetrates all social layers, not only the white collars. The main criticism of current corruption control and prevention policy is based on its demonstrative ineffective and dysfunctional character, while the main perspective of corruption prevention is seen in general social education and primary socialization. The experts and ordinary citizens view the culture of corruption as possibly being diminished only by strengthening social relations and restoring community commitment.