The aim of this paper is to specify the content & institutional structure of Czech (& Czechoslovak) sociology in the 1990s. For this purpose three domains of sociological production were selected: articles in the Sociological Review & the Czech Sociological Review, sociological grant projects funded by the Grant Agency of the Czech Republic, & books published by the Sociological publishing house SLON. These sources, which provide a very good representation of contemporary Czech sociology, are analyzed both from content (the most frequent themes) & institutional (authors & their workplaces) perspectives. This is followed by a synthesis of the partial findings.
The author, a Czech social anthropologist who returned home from exile in order to help in the introduction of his discipline, writes a field report in which he describes in relative detail the vicissitudes of Czech social anthropology during the last thirteen postcommunist years. Even though lecturing on social anthropology became common in Czech universities, the institutionalization of the discipline encounters stiff resistance from the conservative academic establishment. Social anthropology gets support in new provincial universities (Pardubice, Plzen) & only very reluctantly in Prague (Charles U). As a result, Czech protagonists of social anthropology are scattered throughout various institutions. Nevertheless, the author concludes, social anthropology has become known in the Czech Republic as a dynamic part of the social sciences. Grant agencies have given support to fieldwork projects on minorities, political culture, & identity problems during the transformation process. If the momentum gained during the recent years were to be sustained, social anthropology has a bright future on the Czech academic scene.
The following comments compare the present orientations of Czech sociology with recent developments in European sociology. The analysis of sociology in Europe shows that the attention of European sociologists has shifted to social theory & social philosophy, sociology of culture, media, gender & feminism, political sociology, nationalism, ethnicity, & racism. Czech sociology, in the opinion of the author, still does not pay sufficient attention to such pressing issues of Czech society as national identity, nationalism, value transformations, the role of traditions, & European integration processes.
Max Weber, Clifford Geertz, & Rudolf Bultmann are often cited by anthropologists & sociologists who are trying to determine the essence of human sciences through a deep analysis of the subjective meanings that the actor sets to his/her behavior. This article provides an analysis of theoretical & epistemological conceptions of the three thinkers mentioned above, & the author concludes that each of them uses the construction of subjective justification in a different way. Weber distinguishes behavior itself from its meaning, which is constituted by a subjective reference to the values of the actor, & also of the recipient (or researcher). In Weber's point of view, someone else's meaning of behavior is eventually undeterminable, & the researcher can only come close to the subjective meaning through an ideal-typical construction, although Weber eventually does not refuse such ideal-typical constructions behind the cognitive possibilities of the actor. Geertz's attempt at an orientation of a description according to the actor primarily leads to the view of cultural & social facts from a bird's eye perspective, to a presumably deeper understanding than the actor is able to have. In this article the author argues that the differences between Weber's & Geertz's theoretical constructions originate in their contrasting conceptions of the nature of culture. Another such case is Bultmann, owing to the fact that he does not concentrate on the subjective meaning of action in a narrow sense, while he aims at, in his eyes, all human existential experience of reality.
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.
First, the author examines European & world lessons for the study of Czech transformation. Then, he describes legacies of the (mostly communist) past & the risks of transformation: atomization, demoralization, & materialization. The main topic is the failure of the social sciences, which isolated themselves instead of engaging in the reform process, verbally governed by mainstream neoclassical economics. In particular, sociology failed to show the moral dimension & embeddedness of economic processes in the social structure. Most tasks have thus remained for the future, which will stream transformation research towards (1) multidisciplinarity & complexity, (2) the replacement of unidimensional & static conceptual apparatus with a multidimensional & dynamic one, & (3) the understanding of endogeneity of social research & the explicit acknowledgment of its policy dimension.
The widest framework available for the treatment of language problems is offered by sociolinguistics. The author of the article begins by introducing sociolinguistics, & claims that one of its four basic thematic clusters, which he calls 'Sociolinguistics IV,' is fully devoted to language problems. Mainstream Sociolinguistics, a US-based social network that has made a fundamental contribution to sociolinguistics since the 1960s, developed a version of 'Sociolinguistics IV' that is known as Language Planning. It is in confrontation with Language Planning that the theory of Language Management grew in the 1980s & 1990s. This paper briefly discusses the contribution & problems characteristic of Language Planning & outlines the main features of the Language Management theory. Among these, special attention is paid to the process of language management, which develops out of deviations from norms, whereby some of the deviations are noted, some of the noted deviations are evaluated, & certain adjustment plans are considered & implemented. Finally, the paper suggests that the Language Management theory could perhaps make a valid contribution to other social science disciplines, such as sociology or political science.
In the article, issues relating to the sociopolitical measures aimed at increasing flexibility in managing the relationship between the spheres of work & family on the individual level of life strategies are examined within the framework of the gender theories of organization. The environment of management is described as a gender regime in which an organizational masculinity functions. This a priori establishes unequal conditions for the formation of women's career patterns. On the basis of a case study of the life strategies of women in managerial positions & other results drawn from research on the management environment from a gender perspective, the author identifies strategies employed toward women, who in the management environment are in the position of tokens, by the gender regime & its actors in the highest positions of the organizational hierarchy, & identifies the strategies that in connection with these conditions are created by women who desire to succeed in an environment set up in this way. The certain degree of flexibility that on the individual level can be achieved in the management environment is founded on a gender contract, which in the end continues to disadvantage women because it emerges in connection with the given structure of set rules of the environment. If flexibility is to be introduced as a nondiscriminatory mechanism, organizational masculinity as such must be called into question.