Suchergebnisse

The aim of the article is to identify and critically assess the key concepts, ideas, and the epistemological principles of the contemporary sociological theory. In light of the "peripheral" concerns, the aim of the paper is to identify and critically assess the meta-methodological principles of the contemporary sociological theory. The article focuses on the relations between sociology, society, modernization, and globalization, including the "borderline" Lithuanian case. In the later analysis, the paper focuses on the differences of social theory and sociological theory, the sociological forms and the criteria of their differentiation. The article attempts to provide an understanding of the conceptual connections between social theory and political philosophy. Although the concept of "theory" has deep roots in the professional discourses of East European intellectuals, sociological theory finds itself in a position where it cannot significantly affect the socio-political intellectual agenda. Moreover, the theoretical sociology more and more is identified with the role of the 'under laborer'. The situation is further complicated by the fact that the deterministic scheme of the old (Soviet) historicism corresponds to the optimistic perspective of the new (Western) historicism. The article points out to an urgent need to re-think the perspectives of sociological theory for contemporary times. The article concludes with discussion of criteria in the assessment of status and value of theoretical sociology.

The aim of the article is to identify and critically assess the key concepts, ideas, and the epistemological principles of the contemporary sociological theory. In light of the "peripheral" concerns, the aim of the paper is to identify and critically assess the meta-methodological principles of the contemporary sociological theory. The article focuses on the relations between sociology, society, modernization, and globalization, including the "borderline" Lithuanian case. In the later analysis, the paper focuses on the differences of social theory and sociological theory, the sociological forms and the criteria of their differentiation. The article attempts to provide an understanding of the conceptual connections between social theory and political philosophy. Although the concept of "theory" has deep roots in the professional discourses of East European intellectuals, sociological theory finds itself in a position where it cannot significantly affect the socio-political intellectual agenda. Moreover, the theoretical sociology more and more is identified with the role of the 'under laborer'. The situation is further complicated by the fact that the deterministic scheme of the old (Soviet) historicism corresponds to the optimistic perspective of the new (Western) historicism. The article points out to an urgent need to re-think the perspectives of sociological theory for contemporary times. The article concludes with discussion of criteria in the assessment of status and value of theoretical sociology.

The aim of the article is to identify and critically assess the key concepts, ideas, and the epistemological principles of the contemporary sociological theory. In light of the "peripheral" concerns, the aim of the paper is to identify and critically assess the meta-methodological principles of the contemporary sociological theory. The article focuses on the relations between sociology, society, modernization, and globalization, including the "borderline" Lithuanian case. In the later analysis, the paper focuses on the differences of social theory and sociological theory, the sociological forms and the criteria of their differentiation. The article attempts to provide an understanding of the conceptual connections between social theory and political philosophy. Although the concept of "theory" has deep roots in the professional discourses of East European intellectuals, sociological theory finds itself in a position where it cannot significantly affect the socio-political intellectual agenda. Moreover, the theoretical sociology more and more is identified with the role of the 'under laborer'. The situation is further complicated by the fact that the deterministic scheme of the old (Soviet) historicism corresponds to the optimistic perspective of the new (Western) historicism. The article points out to an urgent need to re-think the perspectives of sociological theory for contemporary times. The article concludes with discussion of criteria in the assessment of status and value of theoretical sociology.

The aim of the article is to identify and critically assess the key concepts, ideas, and the epistemological principles of the contemporary sociological theory. In light of the "peripheral" concerns, the aim of the paper is to identify and critically assess the meta-methodological principles of the contemporary sociological theory. The article focuses on the relations between sociology, society, modernization, and globalization, including the "borderline" Lithuanian case. In the later analysis, the paper focuses on the differences of social theory and sociological theory, the sociological forms and the criteria of their differentiation. The article attempts to provide an understanding of the conceptual connections between social theory and political philosophy. Although the concept of "theory" has deep roots in the professional discourses of East European intellectuals, sociological theory finds itself in a position where it cannot significantly affect the socio-political intellectual agenda. Moreover, the theoretical sociology more and more is identified with the role of the 'under laborer'. The situation is further complicated by the fact that the deterministic scheme of the old (Soviet) historicism corresponds to the optimistic perspective of the new (Western) historicism. The article points out to an urgent need to re-think the perspectives of sociological theory for contemporary times. The article concludes with discussion of criteria in the assessment of status and value of theoretical sociology.

The aim of the article is to identify and critically assess the key concepts, ideas, and the epistemological principles of the contemporary sociological theory. In light of the "peripheral" concerns, the aim of the paper is to identify and critically assess the meta-methodological principles of the contemporary sociological theory. The article focuses on the relations between sociology, society, modernization, and globalization, including the "borderline" Lithuanian case. In the later analysis, the paper focuses on the differences of social theory and sociological theory, the sociological forms and the criteria of their differentiation. The article attempts to provide an understanding of the conceptual connections between social theory and political philosophy. Although the concept of "theory" has deep roots in the professional discourses of East European intellectuals, sociological theory finds itself in a position where it cannot significantly affect the socio-political intellectual agenda. Moreover, the theoretical sociology more and more is identified with the role of the 'under laborer'. The situation is further complicated by the fact that the deterministic scheme of the old (Soviet) historicism corresponds to the optimistic perspective of the new (Western) historicism. The article points out to an urgent need to re-think the perspectives of sociological theory for contemporary times. The article concludes with discussion of criteria in the assessment of status and value of theoretical sociology.

The aim of the article is to identify and critically assess the key concepts, ideas, and the epistemological principles of the contemporary sociological theory. In light of the "peripheral" concerns, the aim of the paper is to identify and critically assess the meta-methodological principles of the contemporary sociological theory. The article focuses on the relations between sociology, society, modernization, and globalization, including the "borderline" Lithuanian case. In the later analysis, the paper focuses on the differences of social theory and sociological theory, the sociological forms and the criteria of their differentiation. The article attempts to provide an understanding of the conceptual connections between social theory and political philosophy. Although the concept of "theory" has deep roots in the professional discourses of East European intellectuals, sociological theory finds itself in a position where it cannot significantly affect the socio-political intellectual agenda. Moreover, the theoretical sociology more and more is identified with the role of the 'under laborer'. The situation is further complicated by the fact that the deterministic scheme of the old (Soviet) historicism corresponds to the optimistic perspective of the new (Western) historicism. The article points out to an urgent need to re-think the perspectives of sociological theory for contemporary times. The article concludes with discussion of criteria in the assessment of status and value of theoretical sociology.

This is the fourth part of a series of essays on contemporary sociological theory. The aim of these essays is to identify and critically assess the key concepts, ideas, epistemological principles, and the relational – symmetric and asymmetric – aspects of the ongoing global division of sociological labor. Although the concept of "theory" has deep roots in the professional discourses of East European intellectuals, sociological theory finds itself in a position where it cannot significantly affect the socio-political intellectual agenda. Moreover, sociological theory more and more is identified with the role of an "underlaborer." If so, the problem needs to be posed in this way: it seems that current time has given us a chance to ask whether the shifting boundaries of democratic politics have begun to exert influence on the understanding of sociological theory. Thus, it is questionable that the mere "cumulative" growth of intellectual and institutional sociological recourses in a global context will automatically strengthen a theoretical sensibility. What is needed in sociological theoretical culture is not another symmetric-functional historicism, including the one-dimensional scientific mode of explanatory historicism ("from specificity to generality" [see Alexander 1982; 7]), but a deeper critical understanding of both analytical theoretical frameworks and normative discourses, including the attempts to understand the unevenly distributed global sociological field of asymmetric institutional and intellectual power relations. The examination of the fourfold functional model of Michael Burawoy had demonstrated that there are four dilemmas that he confronts in his attempts to articulate the idea of public sociology in a globalizing context: first, the contradiction between the universal content and national form of public sociology; second, the contradiction between analytical realism and pluralist relativism; third, the (nominal) contradiction between artificial types of public sociology and critical sociology; fourth, the contradiction between epistemological pluralism and value pluralism. The fourth part of a series of essays discusses the relevance of the relatively radical ("alternative") conceptual proposal of Steven Seidman for contemporary metatheoretical debates, especially those concerned with (1) the relation between "analytic" and "ideological" frameworks, (2) the interplay between empirical generalizations and theoretical generalizations. Unlike Burawoy, Seidman is more genealogically conscious of local/temporal nature of social relations and various – symmetric and asymmetric – boundaries, including social theoretical and sociological theoretical. It is for this sensitive reason that Seidman rejects the "arrogance" of foundational theoretical schemes. Despite his recognition of the limits of a-contextual theorizing and the need to embrace local vs. universal perspective (for example, by evaluating conflicting perspectives and intellectual, social, moral, and political consequences), however, his model is constructed in such a way that it depends too much on the kind of one-dimensional inductive orientation. There are at least two further problems that result from the "event-based" narrative of postmodern social theory which deals carefully with its temporal and spatial boundaries: first, problems in identifying different criteria of the relation between the different multidimensional levels of epistemological continuum; second, problems related to developing ways of evaluating (a) the (probably) vital link between general categories of classical social theory and general (nevertheless, accountable) moral principles, (b) the relation between different principles of presuppositional theoretical level and moderate prognostic potentialities of postpositivistic (however, firmly classical, i.e., "social") theory.

This is the fourth part of a series of essays on contemporary sociological theory. The aim of these essays is to identify and critically assess the key concepts, ideas, epistemological principles, and the relational – symmetric and asymmetric – aspects of the ongoing global division of sociological labor. Although the concept of "theory" has deep roots in the professional discourses of East European intellectuals, sociological theory finds itself in a position where it cannot significantly affect the socio-political intellectual agenda. Moreover, sociological theory more and more is identified with the role of an "underlaborer." If so, the problem needs to be posed in this way: it seems that current time has given us a chance to ask whether the shifting boundaries of democratic politics have begun to exert influence on the understanding of sociological theory. Thus, it is questionable that the mere "cumulative" growth of intellectual and institutional sociological recourses in a global context will automatically strengthen a theoretical sensibility. What is needed in sociological theoretical culture is not another symmetric-functional historicism, including the one-dimensional scientific mode of explanatory historicism ("from specificity to generality" [see Alexander 1982; 7]), but a deeper critical understanding of both analytical theoretical frameworks and normative discourses, including the attempts to understand the unevenly distributed global sociological field of asymmetric institutional and intellectual power relations. The examination of the fourfold functional model of Michael Burawoy had demonstrated that there are four dilemmas that he confronts in his attempts to articulate the idea of public sociology in a globalizing context: first, the contradiction between the universal content and national form of public sociology; second, the contradiction between analytical realism and pluralist relativism; third, the (nominal) contradiction between artificial types of public sociology and critical sociology; fourth, the contradiction between epistemological pluralism and value pluralism. The fourth part of a series of essays discusses the relevance of the relatively radical ("alternative") conceptual proposal of Steven Seidman for contemporary metatheoretical debates, especially those concerned with (1) the relation between "analytic" and "ideological" frameworks, (2) the interplay between empirical generalizations and theoretical generalizations. Unlike Burawoy, Seidman is more genealogically conscious of local/temporal nature of social relations and various – symmetric and asymmetric – boundaries, including social theoretical and sociological theoretical. It is for this sensitive reason that Seidman rejects the "arrogance" of foundational theoretical schemes. Despite his recognition of the limits of a-contextual theorizing and the need to embrace local vs. universal perspective (for example, by evaluating conflicting perspectives and intellectual, social, moral, and political consequences), however, his model is constructed in such a way that it depends too much on the kind of one-dimensional inductive orientation. There are at least two further problems that result from the "event-based" narrative of postmodern social theory which deals carefully with its temporal and spatial boundaries: first, problems in identifying different criteria of the relation between the different multidimensional levels of epistemological continuum; second, problems related to developing ways of evaluating (a) the (probably) vital link between general categories of classical social theory and general (nevertheless, accountable) moral principles, (b) the relation between different principles of presuppositional theoretical level and moderate prognostic potentialities of postpositivistic (however, firmly classical, i.e., "social") theory.

This is the fourth part of a series of essays on contemporary sociological theory. The aim of these essays is to identify and critically assess the key concepts, ideas, epistemological principles, and the relational – symmetric and asymmetric – aspects of the ongoing global division of sociological labor. Although the concept of "theory" has deep roots in the professional discourses of East European intellectuals, sociological theory finds itself in a position where it cannot significantly affect the socio-political intellectual agenda. Moreover, sociological theory more and more is identified with the role of an "underlaborer." If so, the problem needs to be posed in this way: it seems that current time has given us a chance to ask whether the shifting boundaries of democratic politics have begun to exert influence on the understanding of sociological theory. Thus, it is questionable that the mere "cumulative" growth of intellectual and institutional sociological recourses in a global context will automatically strengthen a theoretical sensibility. What is needed in sociological theoretical culture is not another symmetric-functional historicism, including the one-dimensional scientific mode of explanatory historicism ("from specificity to generality" [see Alexander 1982; 7]), but a deeper critical understanding of both analytical theoretical frameworks and normative discourses, including the attempts to understand the unevenly distributed global sociological field of asymmetric institutional and intellectual power relations. The examination of the fourfold functional model of Michael Burawoy had demonstrated that there are four dilemmas that he confronts in his attempts to articulate the idea of public sociology in a globalizing context: first, the contradiction between the universal content and national form of public sociology; second, the contradiction between analytical realism and pluralist relativism; third, the (nominal) contradiction between artificial types of public sociology and critical sociology; fourth, the contradiction between epistemological pluralism and value pluralism. The fourth part of a series of essays discusses the relevance of the relatively radical ("alternative") conceptual proposal of Steven Seidman for contemporary metatheoretical debates, especially those concerned with (1) the relation between "analytic" and "ideological" frameworks, (2) the interplay between empirical generalizations and theoretical generalizations. Unlike Burawoy, Seidman is more genealogically conscious of local/temporal nature of social relations and various – symmetric and asymmetric – boundaries, including social theoretical and sociological theoretical. It is for this sensitive reason that Seidman rejects the "arrogance" of foundational theoretical schemes. Despite his recognition of the limits of a-contextual theorizing and the need to embrace local vs. universal perspective (for example, by evaluating conflicting perspectives and intellectual, social, moral, and political consequences), however, his model is constructed in such a way that it depends too much on the kind of one-dimensional inductive orientation. There are at least two further problems that result from the "event-based" narrative of postmodern social theory which deals carefully with its temporal and spatial boundaries: first, problems in identifying different criteria of the relation between the different multidimensional levels of epistemological continuum; second, problems related to developing ways of evaluating (a) the (probably) vital link between general categories of classical social theory and general (nevertheless, accountable) moral principles, (b) the relation between different principles of presuppositional theoretical level and moderate prognostic potentialities of postpositivistic (however, firmly classical, i.e., "social") theory.

This is the fourth part of a series of essays on contemporary sociological theory. The aim of these essays is to identify and critically assess the key concepts, ideas, epistemological principles, and the relational – symmetric and asymmetric – aspects of the ongoing global division of sociological labor. Although the concept of "theory" has deep roots in the professional discourses of East European intellectuals, sociological theory finds itself in a position where it cannot significantly affect the socio-political intellectual agenda. Moreover, sociological theory more and more is identified with the role of an "underlaborer." If so, the problem needs to be posed in this way: it seems that current time has given us a chance to ask whether the shifting boundaries of democratic politics have begun to exert influence on the understanding of sociological theory. Thus, it is questionable that the mere "cumulative" growth of intellectual and institutional sociological recourses in a global context will automatically strengthen a theoretical sensibility. What is needed in sociological theoretical culture is not another symmetric-functional historicism, including the one-dimensional scientific mode of explanatory historicism ("from specificity to generality" [see Alexander 1982; 7]), but a deeper critical understanding of both analytical theoretical frameworks and normative discourses, including the attempts to understand the unevenly distributed global sociological field of asymmetric institutional and intellectual power relations. The examination of the fourfold functional model of Michael Burawoy had demonstrated that there are four dilemmas that he confronts in his attempts to articulate the idea of public sociology in a globalizing context: first, the contradiction between the universal content and national form of public sociology; second, the contradiction between analytical realism and pluralist relativism; third, the (nominal) contradiction between artificial types of public sociology and critical sociology; fourth, the contradiction between epistemological pluralism and value pluralism. The fourth part of a series of essays discusses the relevance of the relatively radical ("alternative") conceptual proposal of Steven Seidman for contemporary metatheoretical debates, especially those concerned with (1) the relation between "analytic" and "ideological" frameworks, (2) the interplay between empirical generalizations and theoretical generalizations. Unlike Burawoy, Seidman is more genealogically conscious of local/temporal nature of social relations and various – symmetric and asymmetric – boundaries, including social theoretical and sociological theoretical. It is for this sensitive reason that Seidman rejects the "arrogance" of foundational theoretical schemes. Despite his recognition of the limits of a-contextual theorizing and the need to embrace local vs. universal perspective (for example, by evaluating conflicting perspectives and intellectual, social, moral, and political consequences), however, his model is constructed in such a way that it depends too much on the kind of one-dimensional inductive orientation. There are at least two further problems that result from the "event-based" narrative of postmodern social theory which deals carefully with its temporal and spatial boundaries: first, problems in identifying different criteria of the relation between the different multidimensional levels of epistemological continuum; second, problems related to developing ways of evaluating (a) the (probably) vital link between general categories of classical social theory and general (nevertheless, accountable) moral principles, (b) the relation between different principles of presuppositional theoretical level and moderate prognostic potentialities of postpositivistic (however, firmly classical, i.e., "social") theory.

The article discusses the principle of consumer sovereignty (considering the satisfaction of consumers' private wants as the ultimate end of economy and most important criterion of economic welfare) which together with the principles of freedom of choice and Pareto optimality constitutes the core of liberal libertarian apology for market economy. As a matter of fact, there are no empirically observable market economies without state regulation of consumption. This regulation includes prohibition to consume some products (e.g., drugs) and services, the restrictions (e.g., alcohol) on and sponsorship for consumption of some other products (e.g., theatre performances). The article discusses whether and under what conditions state regulation of consumption is paternalist and when it is consistent with consumer sovereignty. The consumer welfare (defined by the satisfaction of private (self-regarding) wants) is considered as only a special aspect of total social welfare (including also the satisfaction of non-partial other-regarding (ethical) wants) which is theoretically inconsistent concept because of the unsolved aggregation problems disclosed by famous Arrow theorem. Because of the pluralism of ethical values, visions of good life and good society characteristic for (post)modern Western society, consumer sovereignty is considered as the only viable foundation of economic politics committed to values of tolerance and negative liberty.

The article discusses the principle of consumer sovereignty (considering the satisfaction of consumers' private wants as the ultimate end of economy and most important criterion of economic welfare) which together with the principles of freedom of choice and Pareto optimality constitutes the core of liberal libertarian apology for market economy. As a matter of fact, there are no empirically observable market economies without state regulation of consumption. This regulation includes prohibition to consume some products (e.g., drugs) and services, the restrictions (e.g., alcohol) on and sponsorship for consumption of some other products (e.g., theatre performances). The article discusses whether and under what conditions state regulation of consumption is paternalist and when it is consistent with consumer sovereignty. The consumer welfare (defined by the satisfaction of private (self-regarding) wants) is considered as only a special aspect of total social welfare (including also the satisfaction of non-partial other-regarding (ethical) wants) which is theoretically inconsistent concept because of the unsolved aggregation problems disclosed by famous Arrow theorem. Because of the pluralism of ethical values, visions of good life and good society characteristic for (post)modern Western society, consumer sovereignty is considered as the only viable foundation of economic politics committed to values of tolerance and negative liberty.

The article discusses the principle of consumer sovereignty (considering the satisfaction of consumers' private wants as the ultimate end of economy and most important criterion of economic welfare) which together with the principles of freedom of choice and Pareto optimality constitutes the core of liberal libertarian apology for market economy. As a matter of fact, there are no empirically observable market economies without state regulation of consumption. This regulation includes prohibition to consume some products (e.g., drugs) and services, the restrictions (e.g., alcohol) on and sponsorship for consumption of some other products (e.g., theatre performances). The article discusses whether and under what conditions state regulation of consumption is paternalist and when it is consistent with consumer sovereignty. The consumer welfare (defined by the satisfaction of private (self-regarding) wants) is considered as only a special aspect of total social welfare (including also the satisfaction of non-partial other-regarding (ethical) wants) which is theoretically inconsistent concept because of the unsolved aggregation problems disclosed by famous Arrow theorem. Because of the pluralism of ethical values, visions of good life and good society characteristic for (post)modern Western society, consumer sovereignty is considered as the only viable foundation of economic politics committed to values of tolerance and negative liberty.

The article discusses the principle of consumer sovereignty (considering the satisfaction of consumers' private wants as the ultimate end of economy and most important criterion of economic welfare) which together with the principles of freedom of choice and Pareto optimality constitutes the core of liberal libertarian apology for market economy. As a matter of fact, there are no empirically observable market economies without state regulation of consumption. This regulation includes prohibition to consume some products (e.g., drugs) and services, the restrictions (e.g., alcohol) on and sponsorship for consumption of some other products (e.g., theatre performances). The article discusses whether and under what conditions state regulation of consumption is paternalist and when it is consistent with consumer sovereignty. The consumer welfare (defined by the satisfaction of private (self-regarding) wants) is considered as only a special aspect of total social welfare (including also the satisfaction of non-partial other-regarding (ethical) wants) which is theoretically inconsistent concept because of the unsolved aggregation problems disclosed by famous Arrow theorem. Because of the pluralism of ethical values, visions of good life and good society characteristic for (post)modern Western society, consumer sovereignty is considered as the only viable foundation of economic politics committed to values of tolerance and negative liberty.

The paper analyzes Thomas Mann's literary work from the perspective of critical theory. By briefly discussing an alternative conception of critical theory, it emphasizes the importance of Karl Marx, Aristotle, and normativity to social and political theory. The paper argues that we need to conceptualize normativity in Aristotelian rather than Kantian terms, that is, by reinterpreting the tradition of the Greek notion of aretē (excellence). Hence the importance of Aristotle's ethical reflections on the flourishing of human life and of the political community. Marx is important because he provided a historically informed analysis and critique of the socioeconomic structures of modern society. Marx also gave birth to a new paradigm for social sciences and humanities, a paradigm alternative to positivism and phenomenology. Its main premise is that social and political theory must articulate the normative notion of social emancipation and criticize society and its social structures by drawing on this notion of emancipation. Thomas Mann is interesting and important from the point of view of critical theory; among other things, he provides a literary critique of the European bourgeois society and its way of life. As an illustration, Thomas Mann's dialectic of eroticism and death in the life of the bourgeois iron cage is also analyzed (the dialectic that we find in Buddenbrooks, Death in Venice, and The Magic Mountain).