Search

The paper reveals contemporary transformations of the interaction between Islam and secular states from opposition to engagement. In-depth ethnographic evidence challenges the predominant juxtaposition of Islam against the secular state. Following micro-sites of interaction between the Gülen movement and the state from Turkey to Kazakhstan, my fieldwork revealed a continuum of engagements between them. The paper analyses the engagements ranging from contestation and negotiation to co-operation. The case illustrates the extent to which scholarly interest in opposition and clash has left a wide-ranging variety of state-Islam interaction understudied with regard to civil society. It also reveals the conditions under which effective Islamic horizontal organizations have provided the platforms of vertical engagements with the secular states. The major argument of the paper is that both civil and uncivil outcomes in the Muslim world are primarily shaped by the nature of state—Islam interaction. The evidence suggests that the key to understanding the relationship between Islam and civil society is the state.

This paper comments on that article "Sociology and political arithmetic: some principles of a new policy science," by Hugh Lauder, Phillip Brown and A.H Halsey in this issue of "The British Journal of Sociology." The article's main point is that sociology is more open than the other social sciences and therefore more suited to open democratic public debate At the same time the authors argue that openness must not be confused with epistemological relativism because that simply produces argument without any basis for closure except by exhaustion. What is welcome is the argument that policy debates need to engage the wider public The authors' ideal of "political arithmetic" has a democratic pedigree that can hardly be gainsaid.

This paper advances the position that sociology needs to develop an approach to research which focuses on fundamental social problems. In doing so it shares many of the intellectual values and goals of political arithmetic while seeking to move methodologically beyond it. Since such problems are complex they will require, typically, interdisciplinary input and a concomitant approach to the development and appraisal of theories. We are not, therefore, advocating the primacy of sociology but arguing that it has a distinctive part to play in addressing the fundamental problems of the twenty-first century. However, a policy-oriented sociology has also to take up the task, so clearly defined by the tradition of political arithmetic, which is to hold governments to account. Consequently a central principle of a new policy science is that it should contribute to democratic debate about policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

National identity is a symbolically complex configuration, with shifts of emphasis and reprioritisations of content negotiated in contexts of power. This paper shows how they occur in one post-conflict situation – Northern Ireland – among some of the most extreme of national actors – evangelical Protestants. In-depth interviews reveal quite radical shifts in the content of their British identity and in their understanding of and relation to the Irish state, with implications for their future politics. The implications for understanding ethno-religious nationalism, nationality shifts and the future of Northern Ireland are drawn out. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper studies the impact of social class and education on political orientation. We distinguish the ‘old’ middle class from a new class of social/cultural specialists. However, the difference in their political orientation may especially be related to the level and field of education; the new middle class is more highly educated and often in fields of study that extensively address social competencies, characteristics independently affecting political outcomes. Analyses on Dutch data showed that education is more important in the prediction of ‘cultural’ liberal issues than social class. Economically-oriented issues are more strongly affected by social class. This means that interests of the new middle class are served by liberal standpoints relating to a strong government and income redistribution policies, but not relating to cultural issues.

This paper comments on that article "Sociology and political arithmetic: some principles of a new policy science," by Hugh Lauder, Phillip Brown and A.H Halsey in this issue of "The British Journal of Sociology." Two key issues are addressed in a selective way. First, what is and what should be the role of social science, and sociology in particular, in informing policy making. Second, what is the wider role of social science in facilitating the democratic debate, and in holding policymakers to account. Too little social science research is directed at important issues Incentives in academia are not well aligned to achieving socially optimal goals, whether that be for inter-disciplinary working or policy influencing behavior.

This paper answers the question, 'what is the state?' as posed in Abrams (1988) and Denis (1989), by examining Sayer's (1987) realist reconception of 'relations of production' and their 'ideal superstructures'. It suggests that Sayer's alternative to 'traditional' marxism warrants a reappraisal of the relationship between Marx and Foucault. It concludes that 'civil society' and 'the state' are Janus-faces of production relations, generated by Foucault's 'disciplinary practices'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectively disadvantaged groups in American society often fail to take political actions that would rectify their disadvantaged state. Scholarly treatments of this failure to mobilize have traditionally examined the beliefs of the disadvantaged about distributive fairness, i. e., about the fair distribution of money or opportunities across members of society. This paper explores citizens' be/left about the fairness of the procedures by which outcome distributions are made. We argue that procedural evaluations are a key input into evaluations of the political system and, through such evaluations, into political actions. in fact, people's beliefs about procedures are often more important than their beliefs about the fairness of the distribution of income or opportunity. An examination of procedural justice beliefs suggests, in turn, that citizens' views about the fairness of procedures focus on opportunities to speak rather than on actual control over decisions. This focus on voice probably results from socialization. In the terminology of Crosby and Clayton [(1986) "introduction: The Search for Connections," Journal of Social Issues, 42(2), 1-9], people's societal values may override their experiences with their current objective situation in the development of their views about society. As a result, objectively unjust procedures may be viewed as fair. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper attempts to analyze the social, economic, and political sources for the emergence of modern Soviet sociology in the 1950s. While it does not address extensively the characteristics of current Soviet sociology, it is suggested that those characteristics of a methodologically sophisticated and economically oriented sociology are largely the result of a compact between Soviet leaders and sociologists which allowed and required its post-Stalin emergence. Four sets of factors are evaluated in terms of their effect on the emergence of Soviet sociology. These are 1) the Marxist-Leninist vision (that is, the utopian elements of ideology), 2) the Soviet ideology (that is, the elements of ideology oriented toward system maintenance), 3) the diffusion of ideas, and 4) the mandate of Soviet economic development A brief evaluation of these sets of factors as they affect the emergence of Chinese sociology in the early 1980s is also provided It is concluded that the future shape of sociology in the USSR and China is dependent upon the evolution of ideology in the two countries, an evolution that is intimately tied to the succession of political leadership. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents information on confusion over various terms in social sciences. Several years ago the author participated in an interdisciplinary panel on "development," at an international sociological congress. Some persuasive and sharply analytic papers were presented, but very little meeting of minds took place simply because the participants had different things in mind when they talked about development. In that context it did little good to explain the fact that development is a polyseme and hence communication between the panelists could be achieved only after people had learned which sense of this word was intended by each scholar using it. Moreover, the effort to prescribe a correct meaning of development led only to contention and disagreement, not cumulation of knowledge or enhanced understanding. The meanings of word "nation" also vary with the disciplines. Political scientists usually have something like the state in mind and they may use the compound, "nation-state," to help remove the ambiguities in both words. By contrast, anthropologists and sociologists are more likely to use "nation" in an ethnic sense, applying it to communities that share a sense of common ancestry and make political claims, typically for control of a single state. In this sense it is not the French "state" that builds the French nation, but rather the French nation that created the state.

This article presents a content approach to recasting the concept of ideology. The legacy of the encounter of the independent effects of ideology on social development has been scholars' preoccupation with the social functions of ideology and a corresponding disregard of what ideology is. As a result, it is not surprising that the relevant sociological literature reveals a bias towards a functional definition of ideology and, conversely, a lack of concern for a definition based on, or even related to, content. Despite some significant contributions, the sociological understanding of ideology, in particular the adequacy of its definition, has not recovered from such a legacy. Implicit in any attempt to overcome the problem of the sociology of ideology is the assumption that the retention of such a concept is worthwhile. Assuming that ideas and beliefs are the broad subject matter of the study of ideologies, a concept of ideology is worth having because sociologists find it useful to distinguish certain beliefs which are thought to have influence in the social domain. In attempting to arrive at a definition of ideology, it makes sense to look at those situations where there is good reason to believe that certain beliefs have had some impact to see what special properties they have.

The author offers some historical notes on relevant social science. There are several issues that have been pointed out while exploring policy analysis literature. Policy analysis seems to draw on economic and political science to the neglect of relevant sociological and social psychological thinking and research, and it seems to remain committed to positivist assumptions and quantitative research methods. The utility of social psychology and empirically based sociology maybe related to their practical origins and continuing commitments. The author provides policy analysts with a rationale for the use of interactional-person-context concepts and propositions,drawn from sociology and social psychology.

This article presents Sidney R. Waldman's comments to David Easton's article "Some Limits of Exchange Theory in Politics," published in the 1972 issue of "Sociological Inquiry." In rebuttal to Easton's suggestion that the author is not clear as to the nature of the five propositions that form the core of exchange theory, Waldman emphasizes that exchange theory does not imply that men consciously calculate costs or benefits, that they consciously try to satisfice, or that they consciously calculate the probable outcomes of the various actions they see open to them. Also, Easton argues that exchange theory, despite its claims, is only a special theory which attempts to explain variation in support for political institutions and practices. However, in the author's opinion, a reading of the basic propositions should readily convince the reader that the theory is intended to explain all behavior, not merely behavior that involves support for regime, government, political party, or other institutions.

The article provides an overview of Talcott Parsons' strategy regarding the analysis of the development of political sociology. In his two related papers, Parsons suggested the desirability and possibility of extending analysis of institutions well beyond the limits of sociology and towards the realm of political science. In relation to that, he applied four interconnected levels of analysis eventhough it addressed varying emphases. Furthermore, three major points made in Parsons' analysis are also discussed.

Based on data disclosing differential treatment of regulated companies, this article shows that it is important to look at the implementation phase as well as the political decision-making phase when one talks about distribution of power in Western democracies. Doing so gives a more nuanced picture of the distribution of power. However, explaining differential treatment throughout the implementation phase with variation in the possession of different power resources gives a more or less kaleidoscopic picture and calls for a complex theory of power. Local economic strength, networks, knowledge and organizational similarity do lead to more lenient regulatory inspection, but the effect depends on whether the company is public or private. Therefore, to have power and influence, one must possess the right resources, understand how to use them and be able to handle the fact that people might expect something different from you than they expect from others – not because of what you do, but because of who you are. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines the party system sociology in Germany on the 1990s. It was stressed that German party sociology has discovered a great deal about party enrollment, membership structure, party participation, pragmatic decisions and the ideological research in general. Likewise, in the theoretical level, some middle-range theories on the functional place of parties in contemporary democracies have been developed. However, speculations are raised regarding the future of the German party state such as the notion that the German democracy thrives only in times of economic surplus. Nevertheless, it was noted in all probabilities, the inherited party system will remain stable in the country.

The article evaluates the political science literatures in Greece. It was noted that the range of discussions and the quality of studies reflected on the researches manifests that the political studies in the country is steadily improving, though, a great deal has to be realized and necessary improvements in vital sectors are badly required. Nevertheless, it was stressed that certain areas of the literatures are more dynamic and more promising such as the international relations and the areas on European studies.

The article discusses the development and evolution of political science in Greece. The author provides two premise in which the political science in Greece must be observed. The first being the conformation to general trends in European and Western nations. It must involve the gradual emancipation of systematic social and political inquiry from the legal sciences to the social science disciplines. The second level involves Greek historical experience. It looks into the delayed social and political development with the dynamics of nation-building and state-building. The trajectories in the in the study discipline are further explained.

The article discusses the political science in Britain. It focuses on the assessment on the degree of cohesion in other social sciences such as economics and sociology in comparison to the culture-bound character of political science. It also explores the non-existence of indigenous tradition with little resistance to absorption of foreign methodology and set of assumptions. British political scientists conclude on inductive intellectual process with criteria for selection from data observed from interactive process until provisionally accepted facts are arrived at.

The article offers information on the outcome liberalism as well as procedural individualism. It presents a course which aims to clearly emphasize the distinction between liberalism and individualism through the use of inherently ethical criteria and to examine the position possibilities concerning both the two mentioned subject matters. Moreover, the author also presents a debate, with a help from some frequently overlooked distinctions, concerning liberalism's basis in individualism and relates it with the work of Friedrich August von Hayek.

There is, firstly, the question of an appropriate definition of the social sciences to be adopted in Thailand. It does seem, for certain purposes, and a number of sources quoted in the text do follow this broader concept. However, in discussions of such things as institutional development in the country, the broader definition may not fit and a narrower one is used instead. Thus, in several places below, only political science, public administration, sociology, economics, statistics and closely related subjects are subsumed under the social sciences, while banking, commerce and accountancy, geography and history are omitted. There is, secondly, the limitation in the scope of the inquiry, which has special reference to implantation and acclimatization of the social sciences in universities and institutions of tertiary education. No doubt that a more balanced and fruitful survey could be conducted by the inclusion of institutions of primary and secondary education.

The article presents information on the relations between sociology and policy. A sociologist who is interested in the welfare of people -- and anyone who is not should not be a sociologist -- simply cannot be indifferent to the activities of governments which, to such a high degree, are decisive for the well-being of everyone. But if one is convinced that sociology really has an essential task in this respect, the question of the right relations between government and their agencies on the one hand and sociologists on the other hand, become so much the more urgent. One simply has to find a way for satisfactory collaboration. The problem of the unsatisfactory relations between the administration and the sociologists is, like most problems, a complicated one. Partly it is a question of maladjustment and insufficient understanding of each others functions and duties due to a lack of experience, which is natural after a short time of collaboration. Often government officials do not understand, that their practical questions as such do not constitute a research problem, and that these questions have first to be transposed into scientific terms before a sociologist can do something about it.

This article discusses the scope of political sociology, the nature and components of paradigms in general and some of the principal types of paradigms in political sociology. The author attempts to provide a general framework in terms of which a systematic comparison of the paradigms could be made. The comparison of the perspectives will be at best only as a skeleton of what seem to be the principal features of the paradigms that the author hopes the reader will find fruitful to alter, refine, and flesh out. The article concludes with a preview of some of the other essays contained in the journal "Sociological Inquiry," and a consideration of where the perspectives might evolved.