Метатеоретизирование или философия социальных наук?
The interdisciplinary origins of the sociological metatheorizing and reasons for a surge in its popularity in 1970s –1990s are discussed in order to describe the passage to a current state of metatheory in sociology. The relationships of different types of meta-theoretical investigations with substantive unit theories as well as with an adjacent field of philosophy of social sciences are exemplified using some “hard problems” relating to sociological theories of actions and normativity. The current state of this problem in sociology is described in the article as a movement from the once initial state of striving for conceptual codification and standardization of the complex of sociological theories to their deconstruction and decentration – and back. The author believes this phenomenon may equally be subject of interest for theoretical sociology and philosophy of social sciences.
The aim of this paper is to systematize the variety of rationality in reasoning. What is gained, then, is a goal-rationality framework for the logical modelling of ‘belief biases’ in reasoning.
The principle that logic provides norms for reasoning is a traditional basis for demarcating the bounds of logic as a discipline. Nowadays, the role of logic in ‘everyday reasoning’ has been challenged. The main aim of this study is to show the advantages of shifting focus towards dynamic model of normativity.
This article deals with the general characterization of the legal conception elaborated by the prominent jurist of the 20th century — Hans Kelsen (1881-1973). The author examines the basic biographic facts about intellectual formation of this Austrian legal thinker. The author particularly underlines the relationship between Kelsen’s ideas about law, and his practical activity as law professor, jurist, and judge. The special accent is made on the period before the Second World War. In author’s opinion, it is during this period that the philosophical and conceptual basis of the pure theory of law has been laid down.
The questions considered in this review of the recently published book "There Is No Such Thing as a Social Science" by Phil Hutchinson, Rupert Read, and Wes Sharrock, pertain to the philosophy of the methodology of social sciences: what research problems can sociology study? is it possible for sociology to study social world as an empirical world, and what consequences will this sociologists' empirical attitude toward their subject have? The review explores how the authors of the book, with the help of Peter Winch's philosophy of the social sciences, criticize the project of sociology as an empirical enterprise. Then their own project of sociology is critically examined.
The collective monograph presents the results of the theoretical and historical-sociological research of the normative grammar of social action as well as the moral infrastructure of social order. The research was based on the in-depth analysis of the relevant mainstream and also rather peripheral ideas and concepts of classical and modern social theory, cognitive science and the ‘new’ sociology of morality. Among the main topics of the monograph are the theoretical re-interpretation of the concept of “norm” in an interdisciplinary perspective, the mechanisms of normative morphogenesis, structures of group and professional morals, and theoretical examination of risk-responsibility link in everyday moral evaluations. In addition, historical-theoretical reconstruction of some classical sociological theories is used for outlining new prospects in theoretical interpretation of the processes of normative change and crystallization and also of the multiplicity of normative systems. The book will be useful to readers in many different fields of social sciences and humanities, including those studying sociology at advanced level. It also will make an immediate appeal to the general reader familiar with contemporary social theory.
In this paper are studied the problems of legal development in the modern societies. This development is examined in the perspective of globalization and modernisation which lead the lawyers to the new understanding of communicative and social dimension of law. In author’s opinion, the contemporary theory of law needs a new approach to law which takes into account social possibilities of the interhuman behaviour and the social reality of law. Introducing such a theory implies a self-referent, operative and normative integrity of law and of the legal communication
Several approaches to the concept of fatherhood present in Western sociological tradition are analyzed and compared: biological determinism, social constructivism and biosocial theory. The problematics of fatherhood and men’s parental practices is marginalized in modern Russian social research devoted to family and this fact makes the traditional inequality in family relations, when the father’s role is considered secondary compared to that of mother, even stronger. However, in Western critical men’s studies several stages can be outlined: the development of “sex roles” paradigm (biological determinism), the emergence of the hegemonic masculinity concept, inter-disciplinary stage (biosocial theory). According to the approach of biological determinism, the role of a father is that of the patriarch, he continues the family line and serves as a model for his ascendants. Social constructivism looks into man’s functions in the family from the point of view of masculine pressure and establishing hegemony over a woman and children. Biosocial theory aims to unite the biological determinacy of fatherhood with social, cultural and personal context. It is shown that these approaches are directly connected with the level of the society development, marriage and family perceptions, the level of egality of gender order.