Обыденное и научное знание об обществе: взаимовлияния и реконфигурации
The collective monograph contributes to theoretical understanding of the mutual influences and reconfigurations of scientific and lay knowledge about society. This book summarizes the results of theoretical, historical and sociological studies of varying conceptualizations of social knowledge in different disciplinary fields of social sciences, carried out on the basis of an analysis of a representative corpus of classical and contemporary works. The contributors to this volume make use of conceptual tools of the sociology of knowledge, theoretical sociology, as well as modern methodological approaches of cognitive social science in order to attain generalizations about inner mechanisms of reciprocal influences of ordinary social knowledge and social sciences and to make first steps toward closing the lacunae in our understanding of the processes of reflective reconfiguration of scientific and common-sense knowledge about society. These processes are illustrated with examples taken from a broad range of disciplinary areas: sociology of science and social studies of professions, social ecology and bioethics, social epistemology,modern social theory and conceptions of “folk sociology”. The book is supposed to 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.
This chapter is about relations between everyday and academic knowledge in professional knowledge and practice. The author faces to classical and contemporary sociological theories of professionalism.
The chapter raises the question of the specificity of causality and blame judgments in situations of unintended negative side effects of intentional actions. We focus on the naïve “theory of social action”, according to which there are limitations on the actor’s responsibility for intelligibly expected probable unintended damage of his actions. We propose that causality and blame judgments depend on (1) particular institutional domain of the action, (2) type of actor (individual, corporate or institutional actor), (3) type of inadvertent damage (property damage or health damage) and (4) “remoteness” of damage from its originator (immediate damage to an agent performing an action in a new situation created by the originator’s action either damage to a third party).
We make a reconstruction of the main approaches to the study of lay theories of groups, communities and societies, propose a classification and systematization of the main areas which have developed in the framework of cognitive science that address the specifics of the perception of social entities (groups, communities, societies). It is shown that in spite of the weak correspondence of lay notions to the modern scientific theories, the former can serve as a basis for a better understanding of social phenomena.
This paper examines the history of the institutionalization of the new Sociology of Science (STS) both as a Research Program within Sociology of Science and as an intellectual Social Movement. The analysis of the interaction between Social and Rational contexts been made from Internalism vs Externalism points of view. By the intersection of the outer and inner stories in case of Sociology of Science 1970-80th we indicate the reconfiguration of young scholars everyday beliefs about Science and institution of Society in institutional contexts of their methodological developments what made contemporary STS a “Playful” Theory .
The chapter presents the results of preliminary historical-sociological reconstruction of main stages of cognitive sociology development. The principal research projects in the field are analyzed – starting from ideas of H. Spencer, S. Patten, and Charles A. Elwood through ideas of the classical sociology of knowledge and social phenomenology to contemporary social scientists developing such diverse projects of sociology as a cognitive neuroscience (S. Turner), experimental philosophy (J. Knobe et al.), “social mindscapes” studies (E. Zerubavel), etc. The growing importance of efforts in elaborating the interdisciplinary project of theorizing and empirical research in the nature and mechanisms of ordinary social knowledge, folk social science, is demonstrated. The chapter reveals the connectedness of these efforts to the social scientists’ increasing awareness of the constitutive role of ordinary social knowledge not only for society itself but also for social sciences which try to study the former, and to the ever better understanding of “folk sociology” itself.