Suchergebnisse

The article analyses the theories of cultural lag elaborated by Thorstein Veblen and William F. Ogburn. In particular, it pursues two motives: how the relation between social science and its audience had been implied in their respective approaches, and how the "lag" argument had been employed in their view of the "purpose" of social science. It is demonstrated here that the essentially identical theory had been transformed in their "argumentative strategies" and "styles of writing" to fit their distinctive (critical and instrumental) concepts of social science. Veblen's key motif of "self-confrontation" of society is contrasted with Ogburn's motif of "applicability" of knowledge with regard to reflections on literary technologies of science.

Editorial

This study reviews the book: Charles CAMIC - Neil GROSS - Michèle Lamont (eds.), Social Knowledge in the Making. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011, and puts it into the context of contemporary accounts of the chang- ing practice of social science research, academic culture, styles of thinking and writing. It attempts to analyze the "turn to practice" heralded in the book and demonstrates how the actual research practices in the social sciences are af- fected by the absence of "standard" forms, methods or styles of research. The core ideas of the so-called "new" sociology of ideas, which is behind the whole project aiming at the analysis of social practices manifested in processes of the "produc- tion, evaluation and application" of social knowledge, are also presented in detail. It follows from the argument elaborated in this text that it seems inevitable to rethink the very concept of "professional" social science, which was rejected in an earlier development as morally and practically untenable, since the democratization of the research process and the transforma- tion of the relation between the social sciences and their audience(s) manifest more and more distinctly that with the departure from the concept of professional social science, the public irrelevance of social knowledge is more and more trans- parent and pervading.

On the Very Idea of Unified Sociology: Harvard and ColumbiaAbstract: The article concentrates on the historical context of American sociology's development in the period between 1930 and 1965, which is here associated with a specific project of the field's unification elaborated at Harvard University and Columbia University. It is argued that the idea of unified sociology is worked in the very project of American sociology as a science and found its genuine expression in the efforts to reach "objectivity and coherence" of sociological thought/knowledge. It also distinctly formed the professional identity of the discipline. It was expected that the scientific integrity would be achieved by means of securing the continuity of theory and practice, which was to provide a general methodological pillar for cumulative research. The historical contextualization of this formative period studies how the very idea of unified sociology affected both theoretical and methodological perspectives within the discipline and also the possibility of its integrated research agenda.O samotné myšlence jednotné sociologie: Harvard a ColumbiaAbstrakt: Článek se zaměřuje na historický kontext vývoje americké sociologie v období mezi lety 1930-1965, jež je spojeno se specifickým projektem sjednocení oboru rozpracovaným na Harvardské a Kolumbijské univerzitě. Samotná myšlenka jednotné sociologie je neoddělitelně vpletena do celého projektu americké sociologie jako vědy a své "čisté" vyjádření nalezla v úsilí prokázat "objektivitu a koherenci" sociologického myšlení/vědění. Zcela zřetelně také formovala profesní identitu oboru. Prostředkem zajištění vědecké integrity bylo především zajištění kontinuity teorie a praxe, ježby založilo a o něž by se mohlo opírat pevné metodologické "sebevědomí". Historická kontextualizace tohoto formativního období si klade za cíl sledovat, nakolik myšlenka sjednocené sociologie ovlivnila teoretické a metodologické perspektivy v rámci oboru i vlastní představy o možnosti jeho integrované výzkumné agendy.

The article provides a historical contextualization of the debates on theory and method within interwar American sociology. This period is often portrayed as the "golden" age of empirical inquiry resulting in proliferation of methodological orientations. It is argued that the demands of professionalization and specialization within the discipline produced a research model which succeeded in analyzing specific issues, but failed to find (in the context of the "crisis" and "disruption" of American society) a convincing answer to the general question of the logic of society's development.

The idea of conceptual scheme is clearly present in the classical and modern sociological theory. However, contemporary sociological thinking is highly critical of it and in its radical versions this idea is dismissed altogether. This article traces various historically formed insights into the nature of concept formation in sociology and tries to demonstrate that without the attempts at creating a coherent conceptual scheme, sociology would be deprived of any possibility to push through a specifically sociological perspective on the social world. Talcott Parsons' conceptual level of theory is examined in detail and taken as an example of a viable theoretical approach based on the transformation of sociological concepts. The account of the sociological dilemma of scheme and reality is brought together with Donald Davidson's argument against the dogma of scheme and reality. The idea of a conceptual scheme has been discredited in contemporary thinking together with the idea and the project of (grand) general theory of society. It is argued that from the generalizing critique of the idea of general theory it does not follow that sociology does not need sound concepts. If it were so then no sociological knowledge that would not refer only to itself would be possible.

Charles Wright Mills wrote his renowned and bestselling The Sociological Imagination fifty years ago with the ambition of providing an alternative to the theoretically unsubstantial and methodologically inhibiting approaches that predominated at that time. His battle against the idea of a politically and morally neutral understanding of social inquiry was rhetorically compelling and anticipated the radical voices that would be heard in the late 1960s. It is argued in this article that probably the best lesson we can get from Mills has to do with his understanding of 'sociology as a profession'. His argument addresses crucially important questions about the public relevance of social inquiry and the underlying themes of social-scientific reflexivity, creativity, and non-conformity. However, despite his rhetorical force and stylistic brilliance, Mills' overall message is considered ambivalent. His concept of social inquiry based on identifi cation of morally and politically relevant problems ultimately leads to the vaporisation of the very substance of social inquiry and to the institutional debilitation of the fi eld as such. The resulting uncertainty concerning the basic means and ends of sociology, together with a hyper-tolerance towards the delineation of sociological research area, often leads to the identifi cation of relevant problems on the basis of individual choice, inspiration, creativity, or imagination. It is suggested that this understanding of Mills' legacy usually results in the trivialisation and parody of the overall message embodied in The Sociological Imagination.

Einleitung: Eine institutionelle Geschichte der Soziologie in der Tschechischen Republik -- Die Soziologie im Dienste der Nationsbildung: Das Erbe von Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk -- Ein falscher Anfang? Das Wachstum und die Zerstörung der tschechischen Soziologie 1918-1950 -- 1950-1969: Der Weg zum Berater des sozialistischen Fürsten -- 1969-1989: Die lange Stunde der Parteiideologen -- Die 1990er Jahre: Der Wiederaufbau und die Hinwendung zum Westen -- Nach 2000: Die Einbindung in den europäischen Kontext.

This book offers the first comprehensive overview in English of the history of sociology in what is today the Czech Republic. Divided into six chapters, it traces the institutional development of the discipline from the late 19th century until the present, with an emphasis on the periods most favorable for sociology's institutionalization: the interwar years, the 1960s and the post-1989 era. The narrative places the institutions, persons and ideas that have been central to the discipline into the broader social and political context. Marek Skovajsa and Jan Balon show that sociology in the Czech Republic has been wedded to the dominant political projects of each successive historical period: nation- and state-building until after WWII, the communist experiment in 1948-1989, liberal democratic reconstruction after 1989, and internationalization after 2000. This work will appeal to social scientists and to a general readership interested in Czech culture and society.

This book offers the first comprehensive overview in English of the history of sociology in what is today the Czech Republic. Divided into six chapters, it traces the institutional development of the discipline from the late 19th century until the present, with an emphasis on the periods most favorable for sociology's institutionalization: the interwar years, the 1960s and the post-1989 era. The narrative places the institutions, persons and ideas that have been central to the discipline into the broader social and political context. Marek Skovajsa and Jan Balon show that sociology in the Czech Republic has been wedded to the dominant political projects of each successive historical period: nation- and state-building until after WWII, the communist experiment in 1948-1989, liberal democratic reconstruction after 1989, and internationalization after 2000. This work will appeal to social scientists and to a general readership interested in Czech culture and society.