‘Global Sociology’ from a Comparative Perspective: A Multidimensional Analysis
This paper applies a comparative approach to analyze several dimensions of ‘Global Sociology’ from a normative stance based on a critical review of related discourses in sociological communities. The author reveals three major problems in intra-disciplinary, inter-disciplinary and extra-academic dimensions, manifested not only in ‘factual’ (objective) characteristics but also in ‘ideological’ visions typical of academic communities and connected with a negative stance towards global neoliberalism and its various agents: first, rigid vertical stratification of the international academic field, primarily, in terms of academic publishing and working conditions; second, negative tendencies in the status positions of sociology compared to other sciences, especially economics; and third, little cooperation with policy-makers and corporate practitioners combined with an orientation to supporting various discriminated groups against dominating powers associated with neoliberalism.
This paper begins by outlining the two-sided ‘ethical challenge’ that international sociology faces in the 21st century. First, formulating the ethical stance of a sociologist towards the subject of disciplinary inquiry and the potentially involved social groups. Second, elaborating the adequate research tools for studying the ethical dimension of globalizing social reality. We conduct a critical analysis of the current literature on these issues from the Global Sociology perspective. We show that the ‘value-involved’ Global Sociology is the only possible mode of successful and appealing international disciplinary practice. However, existing ‘value-involved’ approaches are Eurocentric by nature and lack sensitivity to the ethically diverse global social reality. We propose the conceptual framing of ‘Ethically Responsible Global Sociology’ as a new vision of our discipline in the global world.
The article discusses the phenomenon of interconnected glocal hospitality communities which have recently spread over the world in the context of the internet development and cultural globalization processes. It focuses on a typical community of users of CouchSurfi ng.org, a major social hospitality network in St. Petersburg. The author argues that, in the framework of this web service, there occurs a transformation of virtual groups of users localized in various spots of the globe into actual interconnected glocal communities which shape shared identities, norms, values, and practices among its members.
The present catalogue contains abstracts for some 150 volumes, among which books, periodicals, miscellanies, published by the Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences, the principal institute in Russia for academic research in all kinds of philosophical knowledge. These works, written by eminent Russian scholars, cover such fi elds as the history of Russian, Western and Oriental philosophy, ethics and aesthetics, synergetics and epistemology, social and political philosophy and concentrate on problems that have attained particular importance in the age of globalization and growth of national self-consciousness.
This book seeks to “re-think democracy.” Over the past years, there has been a tendency in the global policy community and, even more widely, in the world’s media, to focus on democracy as the “gold standard” by which all things political are measured. This book re-examines democracy in Russia and in the world more generally, as idea, desired ideal, and practice. A major issue for Russia is whether the modernization of Russia might not prosper better by Russia focusing directly on modernization and not worrying too much about democracy. This book explores a wide range of aspects of this important question. It discusses how the debate is conducted in Russia; outlines how Russians contrast their own experiences, unfavourably, with the experience of China, where reform and modernization have been pursued with great success, with no concern for democracy; and concludes by assessing how the debate in Russia is likely to be resolved.
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.