World Sociology Research Articles

Sensitive Research: a Trial of Retrospective Analysis and Conceptualizations

The article is devoted to understanding the problem of sensitivity in survey research. A retrospective analysis of the formation and development of the field of scientific knowledge, which in western sociology in the 1990’s was refereed to as “sensitive research”, is presented. A brief historical outline of the study of sensitive issues is given with an emphasis on the most prominent schools in world sociology and the most renowned authors who have made a significant contribution to the study of this topic (representatives of the Chicago School, A. Kinsey, S. Warner, G.S. Becker, R. Lee, C. Renzetti, R. Tourangeau, T. Yang and others). The early and modern conceptualizations of sensitivity are critically analyzed, the weaknesses and shortcomings of both expansive (J. Sieber and B. Stanley) and restrictive (N. Farberow) interpretations of this concept are shown. A multifactorial approach developed by R. Lee and K. Renzetti is considered as an alternative, one that takes into account various types of threats that determine the sensitive nature of the questions asked and the answers received. The social nature of sensitivity is discussed. It is shown how the socio-cultural context and the specifics of respondents’ perception of questions influence the results of survey studies. The main consequences of using sensitive issues in sociological research are also analyzed. At the same time, there are three most dangerous effects that have a detrimental effect on the quality of empirical data: weakening cooperation on behalf of respondents, the increase in the number of missing questions (non-answers) and the emergence of socially desirable (insincere) answers. The factors causing these effects are identified, and methods are proposed to help neutralize them. Conclusions are drawn about the socio-cultural conditionality of question sensitivity, its contextual and situational nature.

Ambiguity, Contingency, and Dominance: Decolonizing Theories of Modernity

Abstract Focusing on the work of Johann P. Arnason and Peter Wagner, this article examines in its first part recent sociological, non-linear and contingency-sensitive ways of engagement with modernity, which refer to different levels of socio-historical configuration (civilization analysis vs. world sociology) and attribute different significance to normative questions. While both authors acknowledge the entanglement of European and non-European cultural worlds as well as its power dynamics, they still fail to fully grasp and theorize the devastating role of colonialism, which today is still felt in the marginalisation and even erasure of knowledge, perspectives, ideas and experiences from the ‘non-West’. Their approaches also lack a serious engagement with post- and decolonial scholarship. The second part of this contribution presents decolonial thinking as a theoretical and normative-political project. Theorising modernity from ‘beyond’ invites us to ‘break the Western code’ (Mignolo) and engage with modernity from a perspective that is grounded in different epistemologies, philosophies and social imaginaries, ultimately questioning autonomy and mastery (over humans and nature) as basic premises or axioms of Western modernity. As a normative-political project decoloniality is future-oriented and, focusing on the temporally, spatially and socially contextualized acting subjects and collectives, aims to rebuild a polycentric world and establishes ‘pluriversality as a universal project’ (Mignolo). The Zapatista movement in Chiapas (Mexico), representing a new understanding of the revolutionary subject and the revolutionary praxis, illustrates how indigenous groups and (urban) Marxists can come together as equals, learn from each other and negotiate how to change the world in discourse and practice.

Ambiguity, Contingency, and Dominance: Decolonizing Theories of Modernity

Abstract Focusing on the work of Johann P. Arnason and Peter Wagner, this article examines in its first part recent sociological, non-linear and contingency-sensitive ways of engagement with modernity, which refer to different levels of socio-historical configuration (civilization analysis vs. world sociology) and attribute different significance to normative questions. While both authors acknowledge the entanglement of European and non-European cultural worlds as well as its power dynamics, they still fail to fully grasp and theorize the devastating role of colonialism, which today is still felt in the marginalisation and even erasure of knowledge, perspectives, ideas and experiences from the ‘non-West’. Their approaches also lack a serious engagement with post- and decolonial scholarship. The second part of this contribution presents decolonial thinking as a theoretical and normative-political project. Theorising modernity from ‘beyond’ invites us to ‘break the Western code’ (Mignolo) and engage with modernity from a perspective that is grounded in different epistemologies, philosophies and social imaginaries, ultimately questioning autonomy and mastery (over humans and nature) as basic premises or axioms of Western modernity. As a normative-political project decoloniality is future-oriented and, focusing on the temporally, spatially and socially contextualized acting subjects and collectives, aims to rebuild a polycentric world and establishes ‘pluriversality as a universal project’ (Mignolo). The Zapatista movement in Chiapas (Mexico), representing a new understanding of the revolutionary subject and the revolutionary praxis, illustrates how indigenous groups and (urban) Marxists can come together as equals, learn from each other and negotiate how to change the world in discourse and practice.

Harry Braverman on the working class and structural transformations of twentieth century society

This article is devoted to the work of the American scientist Harry Braverman. The relevance of the article is due, firstly, to the transformation of the system of social stratification occurring in American society in the middle of the twentieth century, as well as the search for relevant approaches for its study. Secondly, the fact that Russian sociology does not pay enough attention to Braverman’s unique contribution to the development of the theory of social structure, his active participation in the current scientific discussion on the working class. The American sociologist investigated the problems of transformation of the working class, its place in the system of stratification and its role in the development of society. Braverman is often called a Marxist, and interest in his work is often interrupted. His vision of the social structure of American society is distinguished by originality and is based on extensive personal work experience. An American sociologist studied labor relations, which he observed directly in the labor process. One of the tasks set by the author of the article is to consider the heuristic potential of one of the approaches known in world sociology to the study of social stratification. Harry Braverman significantly contributed to the fact that the sociological explanation of the system of social stratification is transformed in the second half of the twentieth century. He took part in a scientific discussion on structural transformations taking place in the middle part of the stratification system of American society. Braverman criticized the emerging theories of the “new middle class”, contrasting them with his concept of the “new working class”. Braverman to a certain extent developed K. Marx’s theory of alienation, supplemented it taking into account the current stage of the development of capitalism. The author of the article made an attempt to trace the research logic of the American sociologist, as well as to show his success in carrying out an accurate and detailed revision of the production process at the time of its next acute crisis, which was certainly a great contribution to the development of Marxist theory, taking into account modern realities, which made it possible to move forward.

Between the Ethos of Science and “Vice Squad”: Max Weber as Polеmicist

The article deals with the uniquely specific public profile of Max Weber, who, on the one hand, entered the history of social thought as a staunch supporter of the value-free scientific work, and on the other hand, was a passionate polemicist ready to cause a public scandal even for a minor occasion. At the outset, Weber’s ambivalent understanding of the ethos of modern science as a methodically-controlled search for objective knowledge of the world at the edge of the scientist’s self-denial and free from the influence of extra-scientific motives is pointed out. In so doing, the paradoxical combination in Weber’s anthropology of science of the imperatives of analytical sobriety and passionate loyalty to one’s “daemon” is recorded. It has been argued that his ambivalence was a specific trait of the classicist of German and world sociology, combining his titanic personality with the extremes of a scholarly hermit and a world celebrity with a reputation for unbalanced scandals. Following then are the judgments about the eminent social thinker made by representatives of opposing political currents, both right-wing conservatives and left-wing extremists. On the basis of a number of high-profile scandals that became known to the scientific and general public in early-20th century Germany, the mechanism of Weber’s involvement in conflicts with various opponents at the personal and institutional level is demonstrated. The practical significance for Weber himself of his scientific-theoretical and methodological principles, which became canonical for the self-understanding of the modern scholarly profession, is questioned. Finally, the passionate controversy surrounding Weber’s famous work Protestant Ethics and the Spirit of Capitalism is analyzed, reconstructed on the example of historian F. Raphael’s critique and the response of Weber’s First Anticritique.

Social stratification in W.L. Warner research

The relevance of the work is due to the transformations of the system of social stratification and opportunities for social mobility, as well as the need to search for relevant approaches for their study in Europe and the United States in the 30–40s of the XX century. The article is devoted to the analysis of studies of the class structure of the American sociologist and social anthropologist William Lloyd Warner. His vision of the social structure of American society is original and based on extensive empirical research. The article analyzes the methodological foundations and features of Warner’s empirical research. One of the tasks set by the author of the article is to consider the heuristic potential of one of the most well-known approaches to the study of social stratification in world sociology. W.L. Warner was instrumental in transforming the sociological explanation of the system of social stratification in the first half of the twentieth century. He described the main characteristics of the social structure of society in the 30–40s of the XX century, for the first time showing it in a new light, as consisting of six classes. Warner is credited with introducing the method of participatory observation into sociology in the study of the system of social stratification, as well as updating the categorical apparatus introduced by the sociologist from his own experience in anthropological research. Warner's research group developed the standard index of status characteristics, well-known in world sociology, which simplifies complex quantitative calculations, which is still used in empirical sociology. The author of the article made an attempt to trace the research logic of the American sociologist, as well as to show the relationship between various methodological components of the theory of social stratification and innovative methods of empirical sociology.

Political hegemony and the intellectual production in the world semi-periphery (Contribution to modern sociology of the school of Prof. Tomasz Zarycki)

In the conditions of military aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine, the future of Ukrainian sociology largely depends on the ability to be included in the world processes of the development of science. The openness of the sociological community of Ukraine to prospective development trends in world sociology is necessary. The most favorable conditions for the emergence of stable dialogical relations exist in the relations between the Ukrainian and Polish sociological communities, which is due to the significant common past of our peoples, in many respects common problems and possible common perspectives. In modern Polish sociology, one of the most open to dialogue is the Warsaw sociological school of Prof. Tomasz Zarycki. Research of its participants, and first of all Prof. T. Zarycki, cover a wide range of problems: from changes in the social space of Poland to the peculiarities of the reformation of the ruling class and the production of political knowledge. A special feature of the school is the intense search for an adequate methodology for the study of modern society. This methodological search led to the synthesis of the ideas of Immanuel Wallerstein’s world-system analysis and Pierre Bourdieu’s field theory, which made it possible to cover the macro-, meso- and micro-levels of social life in a single perspective. The peculiarities of the transformation of the society of state socialism into the society of liberal capitalism in modern Poland are largely determined by the fact that the basis of the political class here was formed from representatives of the intelligentsia. This explains the insignificant weight of the bourgeoisie in the political life of the country, the absence of such a phenomenon as the oligarchy. At the same time, in global conditions, the Polish intelligentsia found itself in a difficult situation, because the country remained on the semi-periphery of the world capitalist system. This leads to the fact that the production of knowledge about society takes place in hierarchical relations, where the rules are set by the countries of the world center.

Classics of German and World Sociology in World War I

The attitude of German sociologists to the First World War, which today is unconditionally included in the classical tradition, was not unambiguous. All of them shared the convictions set forth in the open letter of 93 German scientists, philosophers, historians, art critics "Toward a Cultural World", which justified Germany’s participation in the war. But the modality of sociologists’ patriotism varied within fairly wide limits. The extreme nationalist position was occupied and expressed by W. Sombart. M. Weber considered it necessary to find rational and realistic conditions for a truce acceptable to all participants in the conflict. G. Simmel adhered to the most moderate opinions, in his lectures and articles promoting Eurocentrism from the point of view of the vital interests of Germany. R. Michels, who lived and worked in Italy before and during the war, did not hide his anti-German views and sentiments.

Contemporary Civilizational Analysis in World and Russian Sociology: Problems and Prospects

Contemporary Civilizational Analysis in World and Russian Sociology: Problems and Prospects

Bohdan Kistyakivsky and Sociology

The article examines the sociological views of B. Kistyakivsky, his place and role in the history of sociological thought. The scientist's life path, formation and evolution of his scientific interests are traced. It is shown that the formation of B. Kistyakivsky's sociological views did not take place in the Russian academic environment, saturated with populist ideals, positivist concepts and, to some extent, the ideas of "legal Marxism", but in the context of the influential trends of Western European sociological thought and social psychology represented by G.Simmel, M.Weber, G. Tarde, W.Wundt, as well as philosophical neo-Kantianism (G.Rickert, W.Windelband), Neo-Kantian philosophical ideas and attitudes, Western European legal doctrines, which Kistyakivsky became familiar with during his studies at German universities determined his fundamental interest in the methodology of social cognition, in the sociology of law, in constitutionalism as the quintessence of democratic legal culture. Under the influence of neo-Kantianism, B.Kistyakivsky delved into the specifics of scientific knowledge of social phenomena, he was one of the first (if not the first) in world sociology to attempt a systemic logical and methodological awareness of social cognition as such and sociological science in particular. The positions of B. Kistiakivskiу regarding various interpretations of the essence and tasks of sociology as a science were analyzed. His contribution to the development of the logical and methodological foundations of sociological knowledge, criticism of subjectivism and naturalism in sociological science, his proposals for overcoming the crisis state of social sciences, and his proposed solution to the problem of combining social necessity and conscious human activity are highlighted. The attitude of B. Kistyakivsky to the Ukrainian question, his dedication to Ukrainian culture, his role in the creation of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences is shown.

Filozoficzne i doktrynalne podstawy socjologicznej analizy osoby ludzkiej w pismach Leona Dyczewskiego

In the article I presented selected philosophical and doctrinal foundations of Leon Dyczewski’s thoughts on various aspects of human social life. I answered the question of whether there are any coherent ideological foundations for the sociological reflection of the Lublin sociologist. I argued in favor of the thesis that using the achievements of world sociol-ogy, Dyczewski maintained ideological coherence thanks to taking into account the category of the human person in his analyzes. I showed that he did not avoid certain tensions between treating a person as a person with metaphysical living bases and the sociological dimension of a person seen in relation to other people.

Is the legacy of Max Weber relevant today? (On the centenary of his death)

The article discusses the main issues of the scientific heritage of the classic of world sociology Max Weber, and discusses the reasons why his legacy remains relevant today. It touches upon the problems and difficulties associated with the translation of Weber’s works from German, which led to the inaccuracies in the interpretation of his ideas. The article emphasized the main achievement of Weber that is the creation of an interpretive sociology and its conceptual apparatus. Much attention is paid to the concept of «freedom from values» in connection with Weber’s interpretation of science as a sphere in which there is no place for any criteria other than scientific ones, and the difference between the sphere of science and the sphere of politics, where the individual can openly show his interests and preferences. The methodological relevance of the problems and concepts disclosed by Weber, in particular, the concepts of «ideal type», «types of domination», «charisma», «social action», rationality», «bureaucracy» is considered.

History and the Current State of Sociology in Taiwan

This article discusses specifics of the formation and development of sociology, which arises in the local conditions of the island East Asian region of Taiwan in the context of general trends of world sociology. It is shown that in the historical development of sociology in Taiwan there are several key points and «forces of influence». The first was associated with political interests and Japanese influence in Taiwan in 1930–1945. The next turning point in the history of Taiwanese sociology is associated with the sociologists’ resettling from mainland China to Taiwan (Lung Kung-Hoi, Hsieh Cheng-Fu, Chang Ching-yu and etc.). These sociologists did not agree with the political course in the People’s Republic of China headed by Communist Party. During this period, research developed in the spirit of Japanese-Western-American traditions. The article notes that up to the 1980s attention of Taiwanese sociologists was focused on the study of issues of population, family, juvenile crime, urban development. The rapid economic development and rising confidence in the future by the Taiwanese society makes it possible to emerge the new character of sociology in Taiwan in the 1980s together with the beginning of indigenization and liberalization processes. The emphasis in the article is on the fact that by the end of the first half of the 20th century existing scientific sociological trends in mainland China had a strong influence on the discipline. In the 21st century there were taking place two multidirectional processes – «Sinicization» of the Taiwanese sociology and, at the same time, the moves of the Taiwanese sociological community towards creation of own unique sociological academic characteristics. Nowadays there are several sociology departments at the largest universities on the island, the Taiwan Sociological Association; specialized journals and monographs are being published. In general, public impact of sociological knowledge in Taiwan is high, because of its focus on the study of new social processes and active ties of sociologists with the socio-political life of society. The authors conclude that the prevailing trend in the development of sociology in Taiwan is the desire to preserve identity while being involved in the globalization processes.

Against the Backdrop of Niagara Falls, International Sociology Marches Left

Based on his observations at the XIX World Sociological Congress and on his many years of experience on the Executive Committee of the International Sociological Association, the author shares his subjective notes on current trends in modern sociology. Can the World Congress of Sociology accurately reflect the state of the science it purports to represent? Over the past few years, the politicization of the ISA agenda has tended to increase in tandem with an inexorable decrease in the scientifically-substantive content of the Congress. World sociology itself is in the process of the transformation into an nebulous form of public activity, into a kind of social movement for universal justice contending with a world of violence and inequity. Nevertheless, the active grassroots work of research committees within the ISA continues despite the ideological inclination of its higher echelons.

Francophonie so that world sociology remains a dialog of singularities

Je me souviens d’avoir entendu Immanuel Wallerstein expliquer deux choses : la premiere bien connue est que les hispanophones vont devenir plus nombreux que les anglophones aux USA, la seconde que l’anglais se differencie tant qu’a terme il cessera de former une seule langue. Le pire n’est donc pas toujours sur et il se peut que demain un ecouteur branche sur notre smartphone nous permette d’entendre en direct la traduction de ce que dit notre interlocuteur et reciproquement. Nous faisons un...

Ideas of Ulrich Beck in the Сontext of Modern Methodological Searches in World Sociology

The article reconstructed the system and method of the German sociologist Ulrich Beck. The importance of this work in the methodological situation in modern sociology is shown. This situation is due to changes in the social world and the fourth scientific revolution, which takes place in science in general. A significant part of the concepts included in the conceptual networks of various paradigms of modern sociology were formed during the second scientific revolution. In addition, sociologists, who investigate the Modernity, face the impact of unscientific circumstances, such as global threats, pressure of the ruling classes, and others. Ulrich Beck influenced world sociology with concepts of risk society, Second Modernity, cosmopolitanism. His critique of methodological nationalism is important. His call for overcoming “zombie concepts” remains valid. At the same time, the German sociologist, calling for a new utopia, saw the path to a cosmopolitan federation of states with divided sovereignty in establishing cooperation between capital, states, and civil society. He could not offer any real mechanisms for this cooperation. For progressive shifts in the problems of modernity, the synthesis of the ideas of the Second Modern, the sociology of creative Marxism, the world-systems analysis and ecological sociology can be useful. By this time, these traditions are divided by barriers of incomprehension and competition for intellectual novelty. In the theory of the Second Modern, the disadvantage is also a strong contextual dependence on the current political situation. U. Beck created his texts as comments to current processes. For ideological synthesis, it is necessary not only to recreate the course of thoughts of sociologists, but to present their ideas in the form of coherent concepts in the context of the requirements of a new methodological situation. The Second Modern and its characteristics such as Globalization can be considered as a stage in the development of the world capitalist system. The idea of a Risk Society can resonate with the development of Environmental Sociology. Criticism of neoliberalism in the sociology of creative Marxism can provide greater objectivity to the idea of cosmopolitanism. But for this, it is necessary to reconstruct the conceptual series of these research directions, their methodological guidelines in connection with the philosophical foundations of their metasociological knowledge.

On the Theoretical Reconstruction of Durkheim’s Interpretation of Morality

This article offers the theoretical reconstruction of the treatment of morality by the classic of French and world sociology Emile Durkheim (1858–1917). Based on Durkheim’s texts, the author strives to show that, contrary to some modern interpretations, he was neither an anti-Kantian nor an anti-utilitarian. He constantly criticized both Kant and utilitarianism, but was strongly influenced by both theoretical positions. This influence was both “negative,” as an opposition to these positions, and “positive,” as a sort of their reproduction, continuation and development. Durkheim did not reject Kant’s views and utilitarianism (especially, in its eudemonist version), but relied on them seeking to realize their theoretical synthesis. The means of such a synthesis was a sociological approach to morality, in which society is treated as an entity that combines duty and good, immanent and transcendent principles in morality. The evolution of Durkheim’s interpretation of the elements, or characteristics of morality, as well as the connection of morality with religion and other social institutions, are considered. The author have analyzed Durkheim’s idea of the autonomy of sacredness in morality, of its irreducibility to the religious sacredness; hence the principal possibility of secular morality. According to Durkheim, morality is of a fundamental importance for society, it underlies all social institutions and social transformations

Georges Guerwich is the forerunner of the foundation of a sociological school at the Dnipro University

The role and place of Georges Guerwich in the foundation of a sociological school at the University of Dnipro. It was found out that at the beginning of his academic career, Georges Guerwich, a coryphae of the Paris School of Sociology, worked for some time at the University of Katerynoslav, thus having laid, at least implicitly, the seeds of sociological education in the Pridneprovsky region. The course of events preceding the opening of the classical university in Katerynoslav is described. It is also noted that when opening the Faculty of Law of the named above, special attention was paid to ensuring the sociological component of the training of future lawyers. Relying on the experience of Western European and especially American universities, it was proposed at the opening of the Faculty of Law in Katerynoslav to establish a department of sociology. For this mission to the University of Katerynoslav, a talented graduate of the Petrograd University George George Gurvich was invited, who is a pupil of intellectual leaders of the Russian law school L. Petrazhitsky, P. Novgorodtsev, F. Taranovsky. While working at the Department of Encyclopedia, History of Philosophy of Law, he laid the foundations of sociological culture at this institution of higher education. It is proved that his general sociological views have a phenomenological basis. G. Gurvich determined that the object of sociology is sui generis phenomena, which are neither reduced to physical nor chemical, biological or psychological phenomena, and the explanation of their main attributes is the main task of sociology. In this case, the main attributes of social phenomena may be in agreement or in conflict. Characterized by the sociological views of Georges Gurvich, it was noted that his sociology is distinguished by the principal attention to theoretical and methodological issues, the phenomenological angle of considering social problems, the elucidation of the historical and genetic foundations of social processes. It was emphasized that it is precisely this focus of the problem’s consideration that is inherent in a sociological school formed at the Dnipro University. Georges Guerwich’s intellectual heritage, academic and scientific-organizational activities are of great importance for the development of world sociology. He co-operated with P. Sorokin, N. Timashev, F. Stepun, P. Struve, and maintained friendly relations with L. Brunswick, L. Lévy-Bruhl, M. Mouss, M. Halbwachs, T. Parsons, R. Merton and others luminaries of modern sociological science. His lectures were attended by J.-P. Sartre and J. Lacan.

When Philosophy Met Social Psychology

AbstractThe Polish Peasant in Europe and America is one of the foundational works of American and world sociology, famous for its innovative qualitative methodology. Its authors proposed new theoretical ideas, including a concept of social causality and a new theory of personality combining a biologistic concept of temperament with a culturalist concept of character. Interpreters of the book still disagree about the extent of each author’s actual contribution to the work and about its scientific status in light of modern sociological theories. This article claims that to understand the book one has to take into account the previous intellectual trajectories of both authors. As a theoretical dialogue between representatives of two contrary approaches, the work may serve as an alternative to the supposed theoretical “convergence” offered two decades later by Talcott Parsons.

Electronic Democracy in Ukraine: Institutional Analysis

The paper focuses on the differences in interpretation of the institutional theory main terms – «social institution» and «social institute» in Ukrainian and world sociology language. In accordance with the requirements of the sociological methodology (systemic understanding of all social phenomena) and the etymology of these terms, social institutions are treated as balanced systems of component institutes. It is stressed that electronic democracy is a relatively autonomous institute, which is a part of democracy institution structure. In line with this approach, the institute of e-democracy is considered as an integral part of the social institution of democracy, which arises in the modernization process of the institution, its adaptation to the requirements of modern computerized society, and performs certain functions in it, partial tasks in the system of public appointment of the institution of democracy as a whole. E-democracy formation serves not only as a formal sign of the institutional modification, but at the same time it is a qualitative change, a significant transformation of the essential filling of institution. This contributes to the more effective achievement of democracy main purpose: the expansion of citizen participation in the power decisions adoption, and thus stimulate the formation of civil society in modern conditions. At the same time, electronic democracy in Ukraine, which is at an early stage of institutional development, is rather vulnerable, and thus generates a many problems and threats for the institution of democracy and modern society as a whole. They relate primarily to the inadequate accessibility of this tool for the citizens (the socio-cultural dimension of the problem), the complication with effective protection of information dissemination channels (the technical side of the problem), and the counteraction to the consequences of unauthorized interference with the course and direction of democratic procedures (the socio-technical dimension of the problem), and therefore require a proper response from society for these threats.