Search

This paper examines the role of the state in the development of French Sociology after 1945. This role was important in the institutionalization of the discipline. It favoured the creation of research teams, resarch centres or laboratories. The State favoured the funding of french sociology too. This funding, in the form of research contracts with various public bodies, has contributed to the emergence of the figure of the expert and, more broadly, to the involvement of sociologists in sectoral policies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a reply from the author of the article about knowledge conditions of sociology to the comments made by Peter Baehr. The author acknowledges some lapses on the study made by him and his colleague Harry Freemantle, and appreciates the comments made by Baehr. He says that they did not make clear that they were working with the ideal types of "the social", saying that they were seeking to take different groupings of observations about human aggregation. He points out the significance of the ideal type, called basic interaction, to their study and emphasizes the synonymity of the words sociality, sociability and society.

The article presents information on various authors, who have contributed towards July 2001 issue of the journal "Current Sociology." Some of them includes as, Anna Buchner-Jeziorska is Professor, University of Lodz and head of the Research Centre of the Tertiary Education System; Julia Evetts is Professor of Sociology in the School of Sociology and Social Policy, University of Nottingham; Jerald Hage is co-director of the Center for Innovation, University of Maryland, he has published some 15 books and 75 papers, articles or chapters in books in three distinct specialty areas: organizations, institutions and theory including theory construction; Bertrand Bellon is Professor of Economics at the University of Paris Sud, Faculty Jean Monnet, and is Director of the Research Centre ADIS. Kamini Adhikari, sociologist by profession and working independently since her retirement, has been Professor of Sociology at the Indian Institute of Management, Calcutta, India. Her field of interest is the sociology of science and technology with particular reference to the economy.

This article presents the author's comment on researcher David Sciulli's paper about the continental sociology of professions. According to the author, Sciulli wanted to set a standard for the study of the professions. It is easy to follow Sciulli's arguments on the deficiencies in the earlier studies on professionalism, and a person can easily grasp what he understands as the shortcomings of this research. Sciulli states that certain European languages, particularly French, have not developed a word for professionalism and that French researchers therefore have not bothered with studies of professionalism. The reason for this omission seems not to be that Sciulli regards the French society to be without professionalism in his sense, as he makes a French institution from the 17th century, the only example of the usefulness of his own definition. Sciulli seems to think that French sociologists neglect the phenomenon--or he thinks that it does not matter if they have opinions if it is not possible to translate them directly into a theory of professionalism.

This article presents the author's comment on researcher David Sciulli's paper about the continental sociology of professions. Sciulli has criticized the social history of the professions, claiming that it is not able to provide a definition of a professional that distinguishes it from that of an expert. He instead suggests a return to a sociology, able to produce a concept of profession applicable in any historical configuration. Providing a definition of profession that remains valid outside the temporal dimension requires a person to look into its essence. Sciulli argues that it was the painters and sculptors of the French monarchs, assembled in an academy founded by Henri IV, who drew up the first curriculum of learned instruction in Western history, which were based on examinations and merit-based standards for entry and advancement in any occupational field. Traveling back in time in search of the genesis of particular forms may provide crucial analogical results that induce research to move in unexpected directions.

This article considers the professions as one of the institutional contexts in which knowledge is controlled and transmitted, reproduced and changed. Professions are also institutions where access to knowledge as an economic resource is monitored, the transmission of knowledge is accredited and supply markets are closed. By such means the licensed professional practitioner is privileged in access to employment positions and, at the same time, those employing or using licensed practitioners can be assured of a basic level of competence, expertise, commitment and experience. This is the ideology of the professions and, symbolically, it is a powerful differentiator of professional from other forms of occupational work. For a number of years sociologists have been interested in the process of professionalization: how work becomes an occupation and how some occupations become professions. Since the 1970s, researchers have understood professionalization to be a process designed to achieve internal occupational control or the occupational control of work and workers. In Anglo-American models of professionalization, it is the professional associations working with universities and in negotiation with states who have controlled the licensing, accreditation and practice arrangements for professional practitioners.

Earlier attempts to define visual sociology have acknowledged that there is no real need to define visual sociology other than for bureaucratic legitimization: heads of departments want to see on paper what their staff members are teaching and what their students are studying; chairmen of research committees want to feel comfortable that research money is well spent. In a world of words, visual sociologists can do their work only to the extent that visual sociology is recognized by men of letters. This description is at least imaginative, but it limits the label of visual sociologists to those interested in photography. Michael Hill takes a broader view. He accentuates the relationship between sociologists and the visual arts, by defining the field as: "Exploration of the reflexive relationships between social structures, on the one hand, and the choice, apprehension, perception, cognition, and creation of visual imagery, on the other." There is no doubt that many other definitions and descriptions can be formulated and will be formulated in the future. It should be clear, however,that definitions, besides being instrumental in the communication between scholars, may also have a stultifying effect.

Both the photographer Diane Arbus and sociologist Erving Goffman were fascinated by the way we present ourselves to others and this article sets out how each understood the drama of human interaction. It begins by exploring how their work parallels some developments in the sociology of deviance, and notes how Goffman was one of the earliest critics of this field, before briefly sketching out Arbus's controversial career and then turning to a more detailed look at three of her images. It concentrates on how the gap between intention and effect, or what Goffman terms the difference between the impressions we 'give' and those we actually 'give off', are at the core of her work and this sociological insight animates her compositions. The article then describes how their work unsettles 'normal appearances' and provides rich resources for understanding human conduct. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

During his short-lived but highly productive career, C Wright Mills put forth a vision for how sociology should be done. Two central directives can be gleaned from this vision: to tackle macro social theory issues by doing large-scope research; to achieve scholastic independence by doing non-administrative research. One might ask if Mills is sending scholars on a mission impossible. Analysing these two concepts in terms of both their merits and applicability, the present article indeed identifies a conflict between them, highlighted by what emerges as Mills’ own failure to realize this vision. After deeming these directives worthy goals, the article seeks to determine whether technological advances in the social sciences have the potential to allow both directives to be fulfilled at once. What is shown is that while the technology is ripe to enable autonomous big studies, its implementation by institutional and individual agents severely impedes the vision’s realization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Professional events that feature face-to-face interaction of social scientists from across the world are, next to publications and research, important forms of scientific knowledge production and dissemination. Thus, they are vital to the World Science System (WSS). Like other WSS elements, scholarly involvement in international social science events is characterized by unequal cross-national representation. This article focuses in-depth on the International Sociological Association (ISA), a major international social science professional association, to examine inequality in attendance at its flagship conferences. To what extent do countries differ with respect to the number of scholars attending ISA conferences? What factors drive attendance? The authors base their hypotheses on the economic, political and social dimensions that influence country representation. To test these hypotheses the authors use a dataset containing information on 212 countries and their participation in the eight ISA conferences – World Congresses and Forums – held from 1990 to 2012. Results show that a country’s GDP, level of democracy and social science research infrastructure (SSRI) substantially determine their level of representation. SSRI effects are significant above and beyond the effect of GDP and of other controls. Findings also show a meaningful over-time decrease in representation inequality according to countries’ GDP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The emotions that human beings experience play a fundamental role in all social phenomena. As a result, sociology needs to incorporate the analysis of affective structures and emotional dynamics into its objects of study. The integration of feelings, affects, moods and emotional states into sociological research, which began four decades ago with the birth of the sociology of emotions, must continue advancing until emotions are fully integrated into the general sociological perspective. This article offers an introductory and critical overview of the work sociologists of emotions have carried out so far. They have helped us, first of all, to understand what an emotion is, the countless number of existing feelings, and the great complexity of emotional processes. Second, they have revealed the social nature of human emotions, and the emotional nature of social phenomena. Third, they have developed a number of theoretical approaches to studying the emotions. And, lastly, they have carried out sociological analyses of many specific emotions (fear, trust, shame, etc.), and emotional analyses in many areas of sociology (gender, work, organizations, social movements, etc.). This article also offers suggestions for the future development of the sociology of emotions, and a selected and updated bibliography. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article discusses perspectives for the formation of a truly ‘global sociology’, implying active, open, mutually beneficial and equal interaction between sociologists from different locations, countries and cultures, in their joint efforts to comprehend, explain and improve the social world. The study is based on the conceptual scheme proposed by Burawoy, highlighting four different disciplinary practices: ‘professional sociology’, ‘policy sociology’, ‘critical sociology’ and ‘public sociology’. The formation of a ‘global sociology’ demands harmonious development and mutual enrichment between all the four ‘sociologies’, however, each of them has its own path in the global arena. The literature analysis demonstrates serious limitations in the global progression of ‘professional sociology’, while ‘policy sociology’ and ‘critical sociology’ also experience major difficulties. ‘Public sociology’, largely inspired by Burawoy, seems to be especially promising globally due to its key advantages: orientation towards non-academic audiences and a focus on the most acute social problems. However, currently this disciplinary practice has several fundamental constraints: marginality, radicalism, ideological bias and inherent conflict-orientation towards other ‘sociologies’. Drawing on John Meyer’s theory of ‘Scientized Environment Supporting Actorhood’, the article proposes the project of the new ‘Global Solidarity Sociology’, which utilizes the advantages of Michael Burawoy’s project while overcoming its principal limitations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

History of sociology is one of the main fields within the broader area of social science research. Despite its growing methodological sophistication, the field still lacks a truly global approach, one that takes into account alternative sociological traditions, particularly those from the so-called Global South. This article seeks to address these shortcomings by proposing a case study comparison between two sociologists from the Global South who developed similar sociological discourses between the 1950s and 1970s and pursued intellectual autonomy. These were the Brazilian Alberto Guerreiro Ramos (1915–1982) and the Malaysian Syed Hussein Alatas (1927–2008). The article analyzes the main works of Ramos and Alatas and compares their trajectories as well. It is argued that the sociological discourses in the Global South are best explained through a transnational analysis that pays close attention to the conditions of intellectual labor and the quest for intellectual autonomy in this area. It is also argued that the field of history of sociology should take into account these alternative discourses in order to avoid Eurocentrism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this appendix we describe two successive efforts in the use of digital media to develop courses that brought together distinguished sociologists from around the world. In the first course, we put together a vision of global sociology that revolved around issues of marketization while in the second we were more attentive to the public engagement of sociologists, facing very different political contexts and social issues. In the first course we faced the problem of building a global sociology that was attentive to local contexts while the second was beset by the contradictory demands of local pedagogy and global dialogue. If nothing else our use of digital media clarified some of the problems of building a global sociology. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Public sociologists’ deep engagement with non-academic publics tends to give research findings greater empirical accuracy, relevance and influence, as well as provide a powerful source of motivation. However, it also creates constant risks of dispersion, loss of independence, lack of analytical distance and burnout. Based on the author’s experience with research and advocacy about socio-environmental conflicts in Latin America, this article dwells on these opportunities and risks. To take advantage of the former and tackle the latter, it makes a case for ‘amphibious sociology,’ an approach that embraces hybrid styles of writing and uses advances in multimedia technology to engage several audiences, while keeping the enterprise of public sociology afloat. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This introduction sets out from the unresolved paradox to be found in the writings of Bourdieu, namely the theoretical impossibility of public sociology and his own sustained practical engagement with publics. I appropriate and develop his concept of the ‘field’ to account for his success as a public sociologist. It requires us to understand that public sociology is only possible at the intersection of two distinct fields – the academic field and the political field. Public sociology proves to be a rather precarious pursuit, then; first, because of competing demands internal to the academic field; second, because of the difficulty in operating at the intersection of the academic and political fields; and third, because of the obduracy of common sense that cannot be easily dislodged, the very attempt often arousing open hostility. Difficult though it may be, the development of its public face will be necessary for the survival of sociology as well as an important ingredient in defending human existence from extinction by market fundamentalism. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Sociologists of policing and collective protest have made a plea for eradicating from police literature and training programmes which aim to provide guidelines for crowd management any references to classical crowd theory where crowds are depicted as irrational entities. Instead, these scholars suggest, rational conceptions of crowds should inform contemporary crowd management. This article questions this plea on two grounds. First, it demonstrates that there is no unidirectional connection between sociological crowd theory (whatever its content) and practical strategies for governing crowds. The tactical polyvalence of crowd theory is illustrated by showing how the irrational conception of crowds has given rise to very different strategies for the management of crowds (urban reform programmes in the Progressive Era and Hitler’s mobilization strategies, respectively). Second, the article argues that, in spite of its current scholarly popularity, there is no guarantee that the call for a practical employment of the rational notion of crowds will necessarily be successful. This is demonstrated by stressing, on the one hand, that irrational notions of crowds continue to thrive, thereby rendering a turn towards rational approaches difficult, and, on the other hand, that the rational approaches in their ignorance of collective emotional arousal present an inadequate picture of crowds and consequently have limited scope as guidelines for crowd management strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Current Sociology is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Current Sociology is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This article examines corruption as a social problem and a phenomenon that illustrates certain problems in agenda-setting in sociology. Understanding such questions as why corruption remains largely outside the purview of sociology, and how sociological agendas are set can be found in the works of SyedHussein Alatas, who wrote about corruption as far back as the 1950s. Sociology of corruption as a subfield failed to take off despite the ubiquity of this phenomenon. In recent years, new books have been published, including an updated version of Professor Alatas's work. Studies of corruption remain a prerogative of the political scientists and public policy experts. Economists see corruption as a market-distorting externality and treat it as a peripheral subject. Gunnar Myrdal, who was an exception, in his Asian Drama, identified corruption as a serious bottleneck for Asian development. The problem persists 40 years on from Myrdal's analysis. In many countries in the developing world, corruption has become part of the fabric of society. Yet, sociological theorization and empirical studies are lacking. This article examines corruption both as a social problem and an indicator of the, corruption of sociology', drawing on the writings of Alatas, especially his notion of,captive mind' or the absence of intellectual autonomy on the part of the Third World sociologists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses sociology of public bureaucracies. There is emphasis on the fragmentary nature of the work of interest to sociologists on public bureaucracies, both in terms of a lack of real exchange among different national traditions, as well as in terms of the opportunistic approach of many researchers to the public bureaucratic reality, such that their concern is to advance the work of neighbouring specialisms rather than to contribute to a knowledge of public bureaucracies per se. But public bureaucracies are not just another species of organizational reality. This is not intended to be an unsupported judgment on the essential differences between public and private organizations. However there is recognition of the power of public bureaucracies, retarded by years of the constraining politics/administration dichotomy. There is lack of an informed appreciation of the precise extent and processes of bureaucratic power. Thus, the sociology of public bureaucracies includes both a major difficulty and a major opportunity. The difficulty arises from the mammoth task of welding fragmentary approaches into a focused, coherent direction.

This article presents information regarding state of sociology in the prewar, postwar and contemporary stages. It may not be an exaggeration to say that two fundamental streams of sociological research had already been established in Japan during the prewar stage. These were the so-called pure sociology influenced by European thought and applied sociology which was mainly concerned with the farming community and family structure within the country. TAKADA was well-known as a sociologist and an economist. His focus was on power theory which tended to be a synthesis of his dual orientation. This theory consisted of a system of propositions such as the law of correlation of different power elements, the law of acceleration in the growth of power and the law of levelling in the distribution of power. This basic idea was founded on the relationship between the desire for power and the instinct of subordination. It might properly be agreed that one of the critical defects of formal sociology in Japan was that it involved ceaseless debates on conceptual adequacy, confining sociology to a limited framework of ideas.