Изучение дистрибутивной справедливости в социальных науках: обзор концептуализаций и методологических подходов
The review article covers some conceptualizations and methodological approaches to distributive justice research in social sciences. It analyses terminology issues, differences in research programs, and the following methodological issues.
The article looks into the issues of applying the term ‘justice’ for varying phenomena and different terms such as ‘justice’, ‘fairness’ and ‘equity’ for the same phenomenon. The author considers some possible sources of conceptual ambiguity along with the main differences between the discussed conceptions of distributive justice. The most significant directions of distributive justice research are critically revised. Considering the different views on social norms among theoretical approaches, these assumptions are highlighted for further classification of methods inside the distributive justice research field. The author introduces some methodological distinctions, including research’s divergent aims and subjects, as well as data collection methods. The article proposes the classification of methods considering the inner connections between the distributive justice conceptions and the methodological approaches.
The division of labor in the research field of distributive justice is depicted. The proposed classification might be helpful for choosing the proper research methods and for the conceptual clarification in the specific empirical studies.
Organizational justice is one of the key factors ensuring performance of an organization. An organizational justice evaluation influences on organizational attitudes, emotions and behaviors. It is based on social norms pertaining to both the process and the results of communication. Which norms are employees guided? Why do they comply with ones? How can we increase the organizational justice evaluation? In the article these questions are discussed.
The chapter explores the semantics and pragmatics of the Russian temporal syntactic phraseme ‘X to X,’ (a construction characterized by a semantically restricted set of lexical items able to fill in its syntactic variables) which expresses either the speaker’s surprise at the fact that events go as planned (surprising punctuality interpretation) or the speaker’s surprise at the fact that unplanned events go as if they had been pre-planned (surprising fateful coincidence interpretation). While the construction is not unique, and occurs in other languages, its preferred interpretations are language-specific. The chapter demonstrates differences between Russian and English outlooks on time, based on their fundamental differences in linguistic worldviews. According to one of the central key ideas of the Russian linguistic worldview, events are difficult for human subjects to control, as they are commonly controlled by outside forces, such as fate, and therefore surprising punctuality interpretation prevails in Russian. English, which does not view punctuality as something out of the ordinary, favours the surprising fateful coincidence interpretation of this syntactic phraseme. The idea of fate in relation to temporality is also found in other languages, as demonstrated by Bernard Charlier’s research on Mongolian temporality in his chapter in the current volume.
It is highlighted in the paper that intercultural communication is the transmission of “verbal messages across a cultural linguistic border” (Jakobson) .To cover the entire field of intercultural relationship and sufficient conditions for translation one should specify the variables that constitute the invariant for translation and necessary condition to satisfy the classification of a certain message as a translation in relation to another message. Close analyses of some lexical units of secondary nomination on sociolinguistic and cultural axes make us believe that they are real examples (prototypes) of integral elements of intercultural discourse and they represent some mental maps or frames of norms and values of this or that culture. As different languages classify the world and the human experience differently it is pointed out that the dividing lines do not exist in reality but only in the language. The last is linked to reality through conceptual representation. It reflects the problem and relativity of transformation of realities into conceptual classification. The mental object is precise. But the difficulties begin when we have to apply our mental objects to realities that do not correspond exactly to our mental schema. To compile lexical entries of culturally specified units it is necessary to show how languages encode a particular experience of the world or how extra linguistic reality is interpreted. Language and culture may produce differences in cognitive processes which affect conceptualization. The existence of some ambiguity and misunderstanding makes interlocutors look up into dictionaries or reference books to see and comprehend the difference between source and target cultural items. The forthcoming analysis is based on some theoretical principles that provide a frame of reference for it. Among them cognitive approach should be mentioned first of all.
This article touches upon some problems in building up a lexicon for the part of universal ontology which accounts for force interactions. We have chosen certain semantic features in the lexical description as dominant ones and conducted a small survey among native speakers of Russian to prove the results.
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.