Suchergebnisse

From the beginning of social thinking, social class has been used as an explanatory factor for social phenomena in both the Marxist & Weberian traditions. However, many sociologists have pointed out that during the second half of the 20th century & especially at the beginning of the 1990s the usefulness of social classes in explaining social phenomena is declining. This article presents three recent debates on class analysis. The debates outline two opposing arguments. The first position accepts the "death of class" argument & conceptualizes contemporary socio-economic inequalities in terms of a status-based society. The second position rejects the "death of class" argument & conceptualizes contemporary socio-economic inequalities in terms of a new language of class. The question remains as to which of these arguments will be more persuasive for sociology in the next decade. 1 Figure, 55 References. Adapted from the source document.

Intro -- Obsah -- Úvod -- 1 Britské impérium nebo Commonwealth? -- 2 Velká Británie a její dominia před prvnísvětovou válkou -- 2.1 Samosprávné kolonie, první dominia a období koloniálníchkonferencí -- 2.2 Systém imperiálních konferencí v letech 1907-1911 -- 2.3 Výbor imperiální obrany a dominia v letech 1904-1911 -- 2.4 Výbor, anebo konference? -- 3 Impérium ve válečném a poválečnémobdobí -- 3.1 Imperiální válečný kabinet a imperiální válečné konferencev letech 1917-1918 -- 3.2 Mírová jednání v roce 1919 a pozice dominií -- 3.4 Dominia a britsko‑japonskéspojenectví -- 3.5 Irské záležitosti a otázka přijetí dominiálního statusu -- 4 Nové konstitucionální postavenídominií? -- 4.1 Od Chanacké krize k Lausanne -- 4.2 Platýzová smlouva a imperiální konference v roce 1923 -- 4.3 Vznik ministerstva pro dominiální záležitosti -- 4.4 Ženevský protokol a konference v Locarnu -- 5 Cesta k Westminsterskému statutu -- 5.1 Balfourova deklarace -- 5.2 Imperiální konference 1930 -- Závěr -- Seznam použité literatury -- Jmenný rejstřík -- Resumé / Summary.

The article discusses the definition & typology of anti-system parties. It is based on the classical definition by Giovanni Sartori, which is in my opinion not obsolete. On the contrary it is still very usable, but under the condition that we stay on the ground of party theory & party systems, & not transfer it to the field of democratic theory. The next part of the text focuses on Giovanni Capoccia's attempt in 2002 to modify Sartori's theory & create a new typology of anti-system parties is very interesting but not very progressive. It seems that Capoccia makes the same, or at least very similar, propositions as Sartori. I think we should call "anti-system" only those parties which conform to Sartori's rigorous definition. The parties conforming to Sartori's wide definition should not be named "anti-system" but rather "extreme." So, we have two separate categories of opposition parties: 1) anti-system, & 2) extreme. The first one is ideological opposition against the political system. The second is simply extreme, radical opposition against the government, or at the most, against some part of the political system, but not against the system as a whole. The second main proposition of the article concerns the problem of a typology of anti-system parties. According to the view mentioned above & based on Capoccia's typology, I have created a modified typology. It correlates two parameters, ideological & relational. The result is five types of parties: anti-system parties, extreme parties, irrelevant anti-system parties, camouflaged anti-system parties, & pro-system parties. Adapted from the source document.

5.1 Jazyk5.2 Člověk jako nástroj šíleného dění světa; 5.3 Nadčlověk?; 6. Setkání s Guattarim; 6.1 Raný Deleuze; 6.2 Námitky; 6.3 Setkání s Guattarim; 6.4 Anti-Oidipus; 7. Tisíc plošin; 7.1 Mezi Anti-Oidipem a Tisíci plošinami; 7.2 Teorie multiplicit; 7.3 Rovina konzistence; 7.4 Uspořádání; 7.5 Schizoanalýza: tři linie; 8. Umění; 8.1 Po Tisíci plošinách; 8.2 Filosofie, věda a umění: boj proti mínění; 8.3 Umění; 9. Deleuze a my; 9.1 Etika imanence; 9.2 (Deleuzův) proces subjektivace; 9.3 Deleuze a my: závěrečná dezinterpretace; 9.4 Fenomenologovo stávání-se-Deleuzem; Závěrem; Poděkování

The paper concentrates on attitudes to the enlargement and the future of EU held by relevant political parties in the Czech Republic and in Slovakia in 2002. With respect to the Czech Republic, three basic approaches to the issue of EU enlargement are identified, thus classifying the Czech political parties as "consistently" pro-European, pro-European "with reservations" and anti-European. It will be argued that in Slovakia the relevant political parties acted as "consistently" pro-European with the exception of the anti-European Slovak National Party (SNS) and the Communist Party of Slovakia (KSS). The dividing line was however rather between the parties whose representatives could be viewed by international partners as an obstacle to Slovakia's admission to EU and the parties that were "acceptable" for foreign countries, which played an important role in rallying voters to opt for "acceptable" political subjects. ; The paper concentrates on attitudes to the enlargement and the future of EU held by relevant political parties in the Czech Republic and in Slovakia in 2002. With respect to the Czech Republic, three basic approaches to the issue of EU enlargement are identified, thus classifying the Czech political parties as "consistently" pro-European, pro-European "with reservations" and anti-European. It will be argued that in Slovakia the relevant political parties acted as "consistently" pro-European with the exception of the anti-European Slovak National Party (SNS) and the Communist Party of Slovakia (KSS). The dividing line was however rather between the parties whose representatives could be viewed by international partners as an obstacle to Slovakia's admission to EU and the parties that were "acceptable" for foreign countries, which played an important role in rallying voters to opt for "acceptable" political subjects.

After the First World War an anti-alcohol movement requiring the prohibition intensified both in Europe and the USA and it also resonated strongly in the Czechoslovakia. The main representative of this movement was the Czechoslovak Teetotal Union. It struggled for eradication of alcoholism as a serious social and health problem. The activities of the movement were in conflict with the interests of groups of alcoholic drinks producers and distributors, which represented a strong lobby connected to political circles, especially the most powerful political party, the Agrarian Party. Financially strong alcohol lobby with one exception (Holitscher Act of 1922 restricting access to alcohol for the youth) quite successfully neutralized the attempts of the anti-alcohol movement to gain a bigger state support in the fight against alcoholism. Only after the methyl-alcohol scandal in 1935 the government did establish a permanent advisory board for the fight against alcoholism in the Ministry of Public Health and Physical Education. It elaborated a many recommendations (such as blood tests for drivers after car accidents), which, however, were not implemented until the end of the First Republic. An important benefit of the Czechoslovak Teetotal Union was the founding of alcohol treatment counselling.

Regardless of the role religion plays in the world today, ie despite the significant deprivatization of faith in the sociocultural space & in politics, contemporary Czech sociology of religion is in rather poor shape. The author presents a number of factors to explain this, including the legacy of the communist regime, & low levels of church attendance in the Czech Republic, the latter having been erroneously interpreted as non-religiosity. But the author focuses mainly one other reason: the discordant legacy of Czech pre-communist sociology of religion & the neighboring field of social studies. Two different traditions of the subject are identified - the 'profane' sociology of religion, founded by T. G. Masaryk, & Catholic religious sociology. Although the former legacy declared itself non-religious & even anti-clerical, in the case of many of its followers this claim was only partially true. In the 1930s & 1940s, when they (especially Prague's sociological school, which formed a certain opposition to Masaryk) turned more toward Durkheimian attitudes, they emphasized, for example, their own religious experience as a necessary tool for understanding piety. On the other hand, Catholic religious sociology was closely related to church activism, policy, & contemporary social work, ie, strictly conservative & anti-modern. Its way of understanding modern society was discounted by the former group of scholars, though to at least some degree, the two legacies shared similar methodological approaches. Both certainly seem outdated today, but their theoretical & methodological discussions & their findings remain of importance. Consequently, a re-thinking of these legacies & their theoretical backgrounds is still significant for the sociology of religion today.

This article deals with the Czech discipline of International Relations addressing its recent historical evolution as well as its current state. It relies on the concepts of field, capital, doxa & habitus developed by the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu. It argues that the discipline was founded in the late 1950s as a part of the political field, entering the field of science as late as the 1990s. Therefore, the main dichotomies of the field were defined politically for most of the time, e.g. reformist communists vs. orthodox communists or anti-communists vs. communists. Nowadays, the dichotomy refers to the role of theory, which splits empirical & descriptive research from theoretically oriented research. This analysis also takes into account the professional trajectory of the author & his embedded position within the discipline. References. Adapted from the source document.

The text focuses on one specific aspect of Lukashenko´s nondemocratic regime – the position and function of political parties. These variables are analysed, among others, by the application of classical terms such as competition, competitiveness, and party system. On the one hand, political parties (including anti-system ones) officially exist and, as such, can participate in elections. On the other hand, there is only a minimal chance for (opposition) political parties to win a mandate by means of participating in elections or to gain a share of real political power. The text tries to find the answers to several interrelated questions: What are the consequences of the above mentioned facts in the Belarusian context, in terms of a theory of political parties? Why does the regime tolerate the existence of political parties? Why do political parties themselves participate in this system? Seeking answers to these questions, the article focuses mainly on the period from1995 to 2008, during which four parliamentary elections took place. However previous and current developments are also taken into account.