Suchergebnisse

I give an account of Max Weber's views concerning the basis of the objectivity of the cultural sciences. In this connection, I offer a critical discussion of his distinction between different "value spheres," each with its own "intrinsic logic." I then consider parallels between Weber's "value spheres" and central elements of Bourdieu's field theory and Luhmann's systems theory, and try to show to what extent Bourdieu's and Luhmann's problems, and the solutions they suggest, can be seen as similar to Weber's. I conclude by a general consideration of Weber's, Bourdieu's, and Luhmann's approach to the problem of objectivity.

Hans Henrik Bruun: A Classic – Dead or Alive? What Use is Max Weber today?

This article, based on the author's Inaugural Lecture, discusses two related questions. The first question is how to deal with the great classics of sociology. And the second is to what extent Max Weber – arguably the greatest sociological classic of them all – is still relevant today. As for the study of sociological classics, it is important to keep the original context of their ideas firmly in mind, in order to avoid the dangers of misunderstanding, misattribution and banalization. The analysis of the place in contemporary sociology of Weber's core methodological concepts of value freedom, objectivity and the ideal type, as well as his Protestantism thesis, concludes that, to a significant extent, they have now fallen prey to one or more of these dangers. On the other hand, Weber's ideas continue to fascinate because of the exceptional lack of closure of his thought, and, more generally, because his approach reflects, with paradigmatic clarity, the tension between intentionality and necessity inherent in social action. Moreover, Weber's insistence that scholars be passionate in their pursuit of and respect for truth, however uncomfortable the results of their endeavours, remains a durable ethical legacy to the discipline of sociology.

Weber's methodological writings form the bedrock of key ideas across the social sciences. His discussion of value freedom and value commitment, causality, understanding and explanation, theory building and ideal types have been of fundamental importance, and their impact remains undiminished today. These ideas influence the current research practice of sociologists, historians, economists and political scientists and are central to debates in the philosophy of social science. But, until now, Weber's extensive writings on methodology have lacked a comprehensive publication.

© 2021 The Authors. ; Aims: Understanding fine-grain diversity patterns across large spatial extents is fundamental for macroecological research and biodiversity conservation. Using the GrassPlot database, we provide benchmarks of fine-grain richness values of Palaearctic open habitats for vascular plants, bryophytes, lichens and complete vegetation (i.e., the sum of the former three groups). Location: Palaearctic biogeographic realm. Methods: We used 126,524 plots of eight standard grain sizes from the GrassPlot database: 0.0001, 0.001, 0.01, 0.1, 1, 10, 100 and 1,000 m and calculated the mean richness and standard deviations, as well as maximum, minimum, median, and first and third quartiles for each combination of grain size, taxonomic group, biome, region, vegetation type and phytosociological class. Results: Patterns of plant diversity in vegetation types and biomes differ across grain sizes and taxonomic groups. Overall, secondary (mostly semi-natural) grasslands and natural grasslands are the richest vegetation type. The open-access file "GrassPlot Diversity Benchmarks" and the web tool "GrassPlot Diversity Explorer" are now available online (https://edgg.org/databases/GrasslandDiversityExplorer) and provide more insights into species richness patterns in the Palaearctic open habitats. Conclusions: The GrassPlot Diversity Benchmarks provide high-quality data on species richness in open habitat types across the Palaearctic. These benchmark data can be used in vegetation ecology, macroecology, biodiversity conservation and data quality checking. While the amount of data in the underlying GrassPlot database and their spatial coverage are smaller than in other extensive vegetation-plot databases, species recordings in GrassPlot are on average more complete, making it a valuable complementary data source in macroecology. ; GrassPlot development has been supported by the Bavarian Research Alliance (BayIntAn_UBT_2017_58), the Eurasian Dry Grassland Group (EDGG) and the International Association for Vegetation Science (IAVS); IB, CorM, JAC, IGM, DGM, MHe, DL and MTo were supported by the Basque Government (IT936‐16); CorM, IAx, MCh, JDa, PD, MHá, ZL, ZPr, EŠ and LT were supported by the Czech Science Foundation (19‐28491X); TR was supported by the Estonian Research Council (PUT1173); RJP was funded by the Strategic Research Programme of the Scottish Government's Rural and Environmental Science and Analytical Services Division"; SBa was supported by the GINOP‐2.3.2‐15‐2016‐00019 project; GFi was partially supported by the MIUR initiative "Department of excellence" (Law 232/2016)"; BJA was funded by the Spanish Research Agency (grant AEI/ 10.13039/501100011033); AK, VB, IM, DS, IV and DV were supported by the National Research Foundation of Ukraine (2020.01/0140); MP and AH were supported by the Estonian Research Council (PRG874, PRG609), and the European Regional Development Fund (Centre of Excellence EcolChange); Data collection of HCP was funded by FORMAS (Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Science and Spatial Planning) and The Swedish Institute; JR was supported by the Czech Science Foundation (grant No. 20‐09895S) and the long‐term developmental project of the Czech Academy of Sciences (RVO 67985939); ATRA was funded by the Grant of Excellence Departments, MIUR‐Italy (ARTICOLO 1, COMMI 314 – 337 LEGGE 232/2016); JMA was supported by Carl Tryggers stiftelse för vetenskaplig forskning and Qatar Petroleum; AAli was supported by the Jiangsu Science and Technology Special Project (Grant No. BX2019084), and Metasequoia Faculty Research Startup Funding at Nanjing Forestry University (Grant No. 163010230), and he is currently supported by Hebei University through Faculty Research Startup Funding Program; ZB was supported by the NKFI K 124796 grant; The GLORIA‐ Aragón project of JLBA was funded by the Dirección General de Cambio Climático del Gobierno de Aragón (Spain); MCs and LDem were supported by DG Environment through the European Forum on Nature Conservation and Pastoralism and Barbara Knowles Fund, in collaboration with Pogány‐havas Association, Romania; JDa was partially supported by long‐term research development project no. RVO 67985939 of the Czech Academy of Sciences; BD and OV were supported by the NKFI KH 126476, NKFI KH 130338, NKFI FK 124404 and NKFI FK 135329 grants; BD, OV and AKe were supported by the Bolyai János Scholarship of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences; BE was funded by the Environmental Department of the Tyrolean Federal State Government, the MAB Programme of the Austrian Academy of Science, the Mountain Agriculture Research Unit and the Alpine Research Centre Obergurgl of Innsbruck University. The GLORIA projects of BE were funded by the EU project no. EVK2‐CT‐2000‐00056, the Earth System Sciences Program of the Austrian Academy of Sciences (project MEDIALPS), the Amt für Naturparke, Autonome Provinz Bozen‐Südtirol, the Südtiroler Wissenschaftsfonds and the Tiroler Wissenschaftsfonds; RGG was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Research to sample GLORIA sites in central Spain (CGL 2008‐00901/BOS) and present works by the Autonomous Region of Madrid (REMEDINAL TE‐CM, S2018/EMT‐4338); MJ was supporteLatviaed by Latvia Grant No. 194051; NP and SŠ were partly supported by the Slovenian Research Agency, core fundings P1‐0403 and J7‐1822.