Search

The aim of these issue of 'International Review of Sociology' is to present some reflections, which, starting from the analysis of several mediterranean countries, highlight the overall employment context of graduates in Sociology, characterised by widespread underemployment (or over-education) and difficulties in accessing the labour market. In particular, the papers highlight the need for a greater connection between academic sociology and professionals and the university's responsibility to establish adequate training paths and provide both specific and transversal skills, which are fundamental in the work of the sociology professionals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper has been structured in three areas. In the first one, the author shows the relevance that words and conversations among individuals have on social research, both terms being very important to the well-known sociologist and writer Franco Ferrarotti. In the second part, the author explains the necessary qualitative methodology to be used when analysing a main topic. In the third one, the author analyses the reality of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) from the gender perspective to detect if they are or not a reflection of that Spanish reality regarding sex discrimination. Finally, this paper states the challenge the Spanish society needs to face to outweigh sex inequality without excluding the NGOs or any other form of association. This paper calls for the involvement of society, which along with the state and market, has an important task to accomplish. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper discusses the strong criticism by Elias against the nation-state paradigm in sociology. Elias pointed his attention on sociologists of the twentieth century but particularly criticizes the analytical model of Parsons (AGIL), which seems to him an abstract combinatory of variables (pattern variables) without any references in social contexts. The sociology in the twentieth century is an apologetic of nation-state and, in Parsons, of the hegemonic role of the United States in the world. In fact, during the twentieth century many authors (historians and sociologists) tried to overcome the nation-state paradigm in the social sciences. The author of the paper analyses the contribution of Toynbee, Braudel, C. Schmitt, Huntington, Wallerstein and Hard-Negri. These attempts are based on different unit analysis: the civilization and its clash in the case of Toynbee and Huntington, the world economy in the case of Braudel and Wallerstein, and power in the case of C. Schmitt and Negri-Hardt. The author appreciates these attempts but his conclusion is that the concept of global society can better serve as unit analysis for a construction of a new paradigm in the social sciences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent years, many different versions of relational sociology have appeared. In this paper, I present a critical realist version developed since 1983, which is also called ‘relational theory of society’ (CRRS). It shares with the other relational sociologies the idea of avoiding both methodological individualism and holism. The main differences lie in the way social relations are defined, the kind of reality that is attributed to them, how they configure social formations, and the way in which their changes are conceived (morphogenesis and emergence). In particular, this approach is suitable to understand how the morphogenesis of society comes about through social relations, which are the connectors that mediate between agency and social structure. The generative mechanism that feeds social morphogenesis resides in the dynamic (that is, in their ways of operating) of the social relations networks that alter the social molecule constituting structures already in place. Social morphogenesis is a form of surplus of society with respect to itself. Society increases (or decreases) its potential for surplus depending on processes of valorization (or devalorization) of social relations. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

In this paper I present and summarize the theoretical proposals of four leading scholars of the so-called ‘relational sociology’. First of all I try to contextualize its emergence and developments in the increasingly globalized scientific system. From this particular (and international) point of view, relational sociology seems to develop through a peculiar scientific path opened and charted by well-identified actors and competitors, their invisible colleges, their global connections, cleavages, and coalitions. Whatever the structuring of this field, it accomplishes the criticism of classical individualistic and collectivistic sociological theories, a task strongly facilitated by the development of new methods and techniques of empirical research, and by the increasingly powerful computing capabilities. After this brief historical reconstruction, and following very strictly the contributions of the four scholars, I try to synthetize their theoretical designs, focusing the analysis on two scientific issues of great significance for the future of relational sociology: the specific ontology of ‘social relations’ and the methodologies used to observe it adequately. Finally, I wonder if we are facing a new sociological paradigm, already well structured and internationally established, or rather a ‘relational turn’ that probably will develop into a new ‘sociological field’ internally very differentiated and articulated. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Are sociologists in danger of losing, or perhaps we have already lost, political sociology to economists attempting to reduce it to political economy? In recent years, various proposals have been advanced for altering classical political sociology and its sub-disciplines into the "new" political economy or public choice theory. Thus, some sociologists propose what is called a nascent rational choice research program in political sociology to illustrate an alternative methodology, to be applied to all political phenomena, including power and ideology. The rationale for advancing a "new" political economy as an alternative to classical political sociology is found in that this latter has not supposedly developed a consistent theoretical framework but only a "set of tacit agreements about certain areas of inquiry, including social order, legitimacy and consensus." In general, "homo politicus" or the autonomous political actor is subsumed under "homo economicus," with most political economists being disinclined to see any major differences between the two. As an illustration, some political economists complain that even modern neoclassical economists do not go far enough in conceiving political and other social actors, especially in new democracies, as equivalent to rational economic agents. The above argument on the affinity between classical political sociology and the "new" political economy is elaborated in the remainder of this paper as follows. In the first section, the subject-matter and method of classical political sociology are re-defined, especially in relation to those of the "new" political economy.