Suchergebnisse

Emancipation and civil society -- Transition culture and transition poverty -- Transition culture in business practice -- Transition, freedom, and nationalism -- Environmental problems, civility, and loss in transition -- Transition culture and nationalism's wars

The Solidarity movement of the early 1980s not only triggered a transformation in Polish society, it forced a fundamental reconsideration of the nature of socialism throughout the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. Seen as one of the most important social movements of the twentieth century, Michael Kennedy develops a theoretical conception of Soviet-type societies by analysing Solidarity's significance. He explains the background to the nature of the conflict between Solidarity and the authorities and considers the implications of Solidarity's struggle for the theory of the Soviet-type system's reproduction and transformation. Then, the internal constitution of Solidarity in terms of gender and, in particular, cross-class alliances is examined, which is followed by the implications of his analysis both for understanding perestroika in the Soviet Union and more generally for reformulating a critical sociology of Soviet-type societies

Michael D. Kennedy on contributing to a culture of critical discourse.

I propose that we recast our concern over scales of reference—global versus national—in recognizing university distinctions and dangers to consider what theories, methods, and practices enable universities to join concerns for academic freedom and seeking justice in knowledge activism.

One of the most powerful ways in which we can globalize knowledge, and sociology, is to figure ways in which leading intellectual figures within insufficiently articulated knowledge cultures might inform readings of the other's work. With the recent revivals of Antonina Kłoskowska and W.E.B. Du Bois in Polish and US sociology respectively, it is a propitious time to figure the ways in which their scholarship aligns, contrasts, and can mutually transform. In particular, the two are both concerned for how marginalized communities with their associated subjectivities engage dominant cultures, but Kłoskowska works within a national/regional frame and Du Bois a global and racial one. Too, Du Bois theorizes from within that marginalized community, with political pointedness, not from outside it or with any attempt to refrain from value judgements. Finally, while Du Bois blends Marxist accounts with a culturally rich account of Blackness and its others, Kłoskowska offers a more semiotic and intersubjective hermeneutic view of how various fusions of horizons might also create a more open world. Those who extend Kłoskowska's tradition exemplify that very potential while Du Bois, in his very conditions of existence, made racism's hardest shell manifest. Figuring exemplars of national and racial leadership might, however, invite powerful figurations of the future, but only when their cultural and political constitutions are made explicit.

Transition culture offered scholars a terrific way to engage the central policy problems ofpostcommunist societies, but did not offer sociologists a good vehicle for exploring ways in whichscholarship could enhance public opinion and efficacy. By exploring the degree to which politicalrelations between the state and its citizens feature broad, equal, protected, and mutually bindingconsultation, and working to figure ways in which those qualities of democracy might be enhanced,sociologists can engage non-academic audiences in ways that remain independent of political obligationalbeit grounded in democracy's norms. While such a postcommunist public sociology might mostreadily be applied to social movements pressing for democratic change, it also can be considered inother domains, from gender equality to energy security. By exploring the articulation of these andother issues within the terms of post-communism's emerging democracies, sociologists also can refineand broaden the normative foundations and analytical questions of a more global public sociology.Key words: public sociology, postcommunist society, emerging democracy. ; Перехідна культура запропонувала дослідникам надзвичайну можливість зануритися упроблеми центральної політики посткомуністичних суспільств. Водночас соціологи не малиналагодженого механізму дослідження способів, за допомогою яких наука могла би бути дієвою,та такою, щоб покращувала громадську думку. Досліджуючи міру, до якої політичні відносиниміж державою та її громадянами передбачають широкий, рівнозначний та взаємовигідний діалог,та аналізуючи способи, в які ці якості демократії можуть бути покращені, соціологи можутьзалучати неакадемічну громаду з метою залишитися незалежними від політичних зобов'язань,які також містяться й в демократичних нормах. В той час як посткомуністичну публічну соціологіюможна насамперед застосовувати до соціальних рухів, що вимагають демократичних перетворень,її також можна залучати до вивчення інших питань – від ґендерної рівності до енергетичноїбезпеки. Досліджуючи прояви цих та інших проблем в контексті посткомуністичних демократій,що розвиваються, соціологи мають можливість більш чітко визначити та розширити нормативнепідґрунтя й аналітичні питання більш глобальної публічної соціології.Ключові слова: публічна соціологія, посткомуністичне суспільство, демократія, щорозвивається.

Fieldwork in 1980s Poland led to the later realization that engaged ethnography -- study of the vernacular to clarify the interactions of power, justice, and normative goods -- may be a less distinctive method under communist rule. It was also more possible before the digital revolution. Adapted from the source document.