Общественные движения в России: точки роста, камни преткновения
This ground-breaking volume is a follow-up to Intellectuals and Their Publics. In contrast to the earlier book, which was mainly concerned with the activity of intellectuals and how it relates to the public, this volume analyses what happens when sociology and sociologists engage with or serve various publics. More specifically, this problem will be studied from the following three angles: - How does one become a public sociologist and prominent intellectual in the first place? (Part I) - How complex and complicated are the stories of institutions and professional associations when they take on a public role or tackle a major social or political problem? (Part II) - How can one investigate the relationship between individual sociologists and intellectuals and their various publics? (Part III) This book will be of interest to academics and students working in the fields of the sociology of knowledge and ideas, the history of social sciences, intellectual history, cultural sociology, and cultural studies. © Christian Fleck and Andreas Hess 2014. All rights reserved.
The aim of this article is to highlight key features of the Russian sociological tradition and to demonstrate its relevance for certain ongoing international debates. In the current literature the image of “Russian sociology” remains fragmentary and incomplete. Different stages in the history of Russian sociology are usually considered as mutually antagonistic. We challenge this view by arguing that the Russian sociological tradition can be seen as a continuing trajectory of social thought development, lasting from the XIXth century until present days and unified by a set of underlying historically determined common features: publicism (an orientation to non-academic audiences and a desire to promote changes in the real world); moral and ethical concern (a clear expression of value orientations; the particular importance of ethical and moral issues); problem orientation (a focus on urgent social concerns with “problem” dominating over “method” in sociological research). We demonstrate the importance of these features for a better understanding of the perspectives and contributions of Russian sociologists to current international debates.
This article offers the institutional side of the global sociological project presented by M. Burawoy for consideration. The main critics of this approach currently ignore the role of institutions, and concentrate more often on the ideological side of the issue. In this paper, it is proposed to trace the usage of the institutional mechanisms of the ISA to promote the idea of the internationalization of sociology on a global scale. On the basis of the historical and sociological method, the connection between the ISA World Sociological Congresses, the institute of the presidency of the ISA, the presidential address, and the project of global sociology found in the approach of the British scientist will be demonstrated. Through the analysis of Burawoy’s articles, the main program statements of the development of global sociology will be defined. Special attention will be paid to the institute of the ISA presidential speech and its usage in the context of the global sociology of Burawoy. This paper postulates the problem of the excessive centralization of the project on the institutional link with the various resources provided by the ISA.
The article presents the experience of constructing of the social problems by students and teacher within the sociological course. Last years the course “Sociology of Social Problems” includes optional actionist part with a claims-making concerning some situations. The article describes actions made by the participants of the course with the aim to include in the city agenda such problems as the destroying of one of the famous historical buildings in Kazan (Karl Fuchs House), the inaccessibility of urban space for disabled people and the imposing of the music and ads on the pedestrians. The influence of such constructionist projects and their alleged significance for the students are discussed. In conclusion some questions concerning the transition from traditional teaching of sociology towards the teaching connected with the sociological intervention are formulated.