The problem of things, that has become one of the central problems of social research, made just a small contribution to the clarification of the notion of "thing". It is shown in this paper that the empirical analysis of the ways of everyday production of "things" allow us to view "thing" as a result of situated practices of handling particular things that are suggested to be considered as these-things. Based on the analysis of situations of airport screening and the loss of things in the subway, this study suggests that there are mechanisms for the production of "things" out of these-things, which presuppose specific ways of categorizing the ownership of these-things,of mutual constitution of "things" and public space, of ensuring comparability of these-things, and of doing certain actions with these-things. Such an analysis may be called "the sociology of this" because it can be applied to any social phenomena which are ineradicably particular, literal and observable.
This article presents results of the study, based on interviews with classical homoeopaths. We focus on the apparent tension between the statements of classical homeopathy and practices. On the one hand, classical homeopathy declares a gap with biomedicine, but on the other — the status of this break is not confirmed by their practice. This paradox problematize with the practice theory proved that the practice of classical homeopathy includes a biomedical preposition as tacit knowledge (M. Polany). On the way to this conclusion we considered conceptual question of relations of inconsistent practices and their transmission. Accessing G. Ryle’s critique of mentalism and ideas of practice theorists we justify vivid character of practices and tacit knowledge as visible, but does not noticed; thus we overcome S. Turner’s skepticism about the reality of practices as a collective phenomenon, capable of transmission. In contrast to the Turner’s causal interpretation of practice theory, the relationship between biomedical assumptions and homeopathic practice is proposed as the ratio of figure and ground. This conception is refined with the help of L. Wittgenstein’s idea of change aspect, in which homeopathy and biomedicine are not acting different practices but particular aspects of one indivisible medical practice. As a criterion of visibility biomedical prepositions called the fact of classical homeopathy emphasizing the differences and contradictions of homeopathy and biomedicine, as well as their ability to transfer (change of aspect) between concepts of the two systems. From this point of view, classical homeopathy statements should not comply with the specific targets of a particular medical practice in which they engage, rather then the purposes of identification and professionalization. Thus the tacit knowledge paradox is achieved by separating professionalized strategies from a purely medical ones.
The concept of revolution remains relevant both for social-political debates and for academic studies. But at the same time many left thinkers as well as Neo-Marxist theorists have some problems with this concept, as it is no longer possible to reflect on revolution in terms of laws of history. For this reason, supporters of revolution consider revolution as a kind of utopian condition. Another difficulty is connected to the fact that today it is no longer possible to make a bet on this or that social class as the subject of revolutionary changes. Utopia once again becomes a helping hand for supporters of radical social transformations. At the same time cinema as well as technological forecasting suggest to researchers that at least in futurology one can consider the possibility of the subject of revolution being not humans but robots, cyborgs, or artificial intelligence. Seen in this light, revolution not just ceases to be a Marxist concept, but it also drops out of left political rhetoric. But what is more important — it becomes a matter of antiutopian phantasies. In this article the author relying on social philosophy and rich empirical material from contemporary sci-fi cinema reflects on the possibility of the revolution of the robots. He wants to understand under what conditions and why can artificial intelligence organize a revolution. He also reflects on the ethical problems connected to exploitation of machines and wide implementation of robotics in everyday human life. A special emphasis is laid on contemporary anti-utopias, as well as on early movies by Ridley Scott “Alien” and “Blade Runner”, which, as the author claims, are very good illustrations of robots’ disposition to revolutionary activities.
The paper considers so-called “Hobbes’ problem”: the question concerning the possibility of the social order. In the paper two key solutions, proposed in contemporary sociology, are reviewed: the conception of normative order, formulated in the works of Talcott Parsons, and the idea of situated action, expresses by Harold Garfinkel. It is shown that these two approaches are incommensurable because they answer in different ways to the central questions of the Hobbes’ problem: the question of the ordinariness of order and the question of the observability or concreteness of order.
In this response I briefly overview the theory of Court-Secretariat relations formulated in my previous paper (Sotsiologiya vlasti 2, 2015). I also review the criticism by Blokhin by answering some of his critiques and refining my own arguments where necessary. Most importantly, based on the quantitative analysis of the Russian Constitutional Court decisions I reconsider the periodization of the Court-Secretariat relations. Without renouncing the influence of Court relocation to St. Peterburg in 2008, I record an earlier breakdown in the model of Court-Secretariat cooperation in 2006‐2007, most probably triggered by the 2005 Act on Citizens’ Inquiries. In light of these new results I also put forward a novel argument pertaining to the agenda setting at the Court. In particular, I suggest that whereas before 2006 the agenda setting was dominated by the Court chairman (who controlled the distribution of reports among justices), as the mode of Court-Secretariat relations started to change, so did the agenda setting which should have also become more pluralistic. With more petitions reported to the Court by the Secretariat directly, and not through the chairman, the justices could use these petitions to build their cases without chairman having previously nominated them to report on these cases.
This article describes today’s discursive representation features of buildings created for non-regular everyday use in socialist cities. Descriptions of residential complexes for workers in two countries are used as empirical base: one case in Russia, Moscow, and two cases in China, Taiyuan and Wuhan. We use collective memory concept by A. Assman to analyze strategies implied by different agents to attract attention to the described residential quarters. For all cases, narratives include a legitimate discourse of collective memory on the years of construction, i.e. glorious start of industrial progress in the PRC and making of yet another Soviet avant-garde architectural masterpiece in the USSR. For Chinese cases, representations are clear and consistent for residents, experts and visitors from outside; Moscow case requires expert knowledge and organization of special events to transmit knowledge to guests and even residents. Authentic features, nominated as valuable and subject to preservation, coincide in expert and "philistine" narratives for cases of the PRC; in Moscow case, expert discourse becomes the leading one. At the same time, in both cases troubled memories of national historical events could be found: "cultural revolution" and the Great Terror. In Moscow, these memories are not presented at the residents level, however, corresponding information is transferred from archives to local public memory, being included in exhibition and excursions. In the PRC, memories of traumatic events exist in individual and social memory, manifesting themselves through direct communication. The study contributes to "post-socialist ethnography" by highlighting universal and particular features of discursive representations.
In this article, the author draws an attention on a paradoxical tradition in the field of sociology of law: there is a tendency to ignore or to criticize the legal positivism with a simultaneously referencing on the natural law conception in the texts of some researchers. The paradox, according to the author’s opinion, is caused by the proximity of the methodological approaches of the sociology of law and the legal positivism to a study of social norms, while the logic of the natural law conceptualization is fundamentally different from the above approaches to the legal thinking. The logic of the natural law approach, as well as the libertarian legal theory, is a kind of an axiomatic establishment of a legal «standard», which can be compared to those or other social norms and practices. In the framework of the positivist approach, including the legal and sociological (the sociology of law) positivism, only formal features of the social norms legality are established axiomatically. The author presents an overview of some approaches to the understanding of law and legal concepts as an illustration of this thesis. The approaches are organized in this article in accordance with the dichotomy of views on the law as «it is» and the law as «it ought to be». As additional approaches to the understanding of law, it is presented legal opinions Donald Blake and some ideas from the so-called legal pluralism area. The article focuses on the methodological potential of the different approaches to the understanding of law in the field of empirical legal research. In conclusion, the author presents his own vision of the resolution of the paradox.
The article suggests to interpret the gaming activity within the locationbased mobile game Ingress the Game as a technically mediated gaming encounter (E. Goffman). This means that players significantly determinate the situation of encounter due to the selective elimination of irrelevant circumstances of external context beyond the game world. Through technical and digital means (primarily due to a mobile phone/tablet and access to the Internet) players carry out assembling scattered game and non-game fragments in a gaming reality that allows continuously to maintain a potential entanglement in gaming activity. In turn, continuity of the gaming activity causes loss of significance of opening and closing markers in gaming encounter. Endless, competitive and without a winner, Ingress the Game experiences tension associated with the interpretation of its rules by players. Foremost this fact is linked with that the players do not start to arrange the futility of the three-year confrontation between the two factions which receives no expression in the promotion of the game narrative and determining the winner. In this connection, different game logics arise within the Ingress application that go beyond setting originally pledged by developers. We offer an analytical opposition «game — puerilism» as a theoretical framework for the consideration of the following extensions of game logic. Unlike the gamification project it allows to describe game activity «inside» in terms of the game itself.
This article problematizes Internet Studies as a sub-discipline in social research. Internet Studies is an interdisciplinary research field encompassing both academic and non-academic research focusing on the internet and societal issues. The key institutions where Internet Studies develop tend to either be university-based or independent. The article focuses on these organizations and aims to reconstruct their history and areas of research as well as the type of knowledge they produce. The first part of the article is more descriptive and historical, explicating how Internet Studies developed. The author suggests a classification of three key periods of Internet Studies development: the emergence, institutionalization and development of sub-fields, e.g. data science, digital research of different objects such as death, childhood, humanities, arts, and online-research. The key finding of this analysis is that in the internet studies there are no strict boundaries between the theoretical and empirical object. The researchers consider themselves to be co-producers of the internet. The second part of the article problematizes this type of knowledge that is constructed in internet studies, and this part is mostly based on interviews with researchers. The author brings out an idea, that internet studies does not have strict epistemological borders and strong theoretical or methodological limitations; it therefore cannot justifiably be called scientific. As such, the meaning of knowledge becomes problematic. To address this problem, the term “research knowledge” is introduced. This type of knowledge is not scientific, it does not pretend to be disciplinary and is the same inside and outside the organization and in its products. In conclusion, the findings of this research aim to contribute to the development of Internet Studies as a sub-discipline — a sub-discipline which does not aim to study an entity but a transformation of social life due to the internet