Search

The article contains a critique of Dirk Meyer's paper on "Deprivation of Politics". It is shown that Meyer's analysis of the structural conflicts between a globalized capitalist economy and democratic politics is unintendedly convergent with Marx' theory of revolution. Seen from this background it is unlikely that the withdrawal of the "mobile factors of production" from the framework of national political democracy will open a way to restore "collective rationality", as the author suggests. Contrarily, what Meyer points to is the scenario of a deepening economic and social crisis. Meyers neoclassical analysis of the crisis is faulty and ignores the historical circumstances which led to the rise of the modern interventionist state in the 20th century. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents the author's comments on sociologist Andrea Maurer's research paper in which she proposes a power theory for the state and constitution. Various problems of arrangement referred by Maurer in her paper are discussed. The concept of power given by sociologists Max Weber and Thomas Hobbes is referred.

The article presents the author's comments on sociologist S.N. Eisenstadt's research paper in which he analyzes the relation between power and culture in society. The concept of public spheres in society presented by Eisenstadt in his paper is discussed. Eisenstadt's concept of power is compared with that of sociologist Karl Marx's power theory.

Hotels were a favorite setting in early twentieth-century German prose. Drawing on theories by sociologists Georg Simmel, Thorstein Veblen, and Siegried Kracauer, the paper sketches the sociocultural conditions under which hotels became a meeting place for a growing segment of society. As a symbol of life's commercialization and the increasing anonymity of social communication, the hotel emerges as a setting par excellence to observe and study in fiction the relationship between individual and society. In texts by the modernist writers Arthur Schnitzler, Franz Werfel, and Stefan Zweig the semi-anonymous space of the hotel has a special impact on female characters. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Comparisons as a Bridge between History and Philosophy of Science. Both in history and philosophy of science, comparisons are looked upon with considerable skepticism. A widespread syndrome of casuitis, i.e., the tendency of historians of science to produce extremely narrow and local studies that do not present a case for any broader thesis of interest to philosophers, has widened the gulf between history and philosophy of science. This may be somewhat surprising to sociologists, philosophers, or general, legal and cultural historians, who have been using comparisons successfully for a long time–albeit not always without controversy. In the first part of this paper, I assess the status of comparisons in science studies, in order to explain why their systematic use is not nearly as natural as might elsewhere be expected. This critical section is followed by a very brief outline of the prerequisites for fruitful comparison as formulated by general and sociological historians in their detailed methodological discussions. To these are added some necessary conditions from the perspective of modern history of science. In the third part I present four examples of such systematic comparisons taken from my own research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Dieser Beitrag ergänzt die Debatte über sozialwissenschaftliche Güte um zwei Dimensionen. Erstens diskutieren wir anhand einiger Positionen des interpretativen Paradigmas, welche Konsequenzen sich aus der doppelten Relevanz von Sprache als sowohl Bestandteil des Gegenstands, als auch Medium wissenschaftlicher Beschreibung für die Bewertung sozialwissenschaftlicher Güte ergeben. Eine rigide Forschung muss sich in Bezug auf diese doppelte Relevanz positionieren und diese Position konsistent umsetzen. Zweitens schlagen wir das ethnomethodologische Konzept der praxeologischen Validität als bislang übersehenes Gütekriterium vor. Praxeologische Validität ist immer dann gewährleistet, wenn die Prozeduren zur Erzeugung sozialer Phänomene nach ihrer Identifikation und Beschreibung so reproduziert werden können, dass die Phänomene selbst erneut entstehen. Dieses Kriterium gibt Soziolog:innen die Möglichkeit, die Angemessenheit soziologischer Beschreibungen am Gegenstand selbst zu validieren. This article adds two dimensions to the debate on sociological rigor. Drawing on some positions of the interpretive paradigm, we first discuss the consequences that arise for the assessment of rigor from the double relevance of language as both constituent of the object and medium of sociological description. Rigorous research needs to position itself in relation to this double relevance and implement this position consistently. Secondly, we suggest the ethnomethodological concept of praxeological validity as a further principle of rigor. Praxeological validity emerges when the procedures that produce social phenomena are identified and described in such way that they reproduce the phenomena when implemented. Praxeological validity thus allows sociologists to validate the adequacy of their descriptions by reference to the object itself. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Gruppenpsychotherapie und Gruppendynamik: Beiträge zur Sozialpsychologie und therapeutischen Praxis is the property of Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG 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.)

The article discusses the need for legitimatization of domination force in the society with reference to sociologist Andrea Maurer's research paper in which she proposes a sociological power theory. Maurer's basic concept of power is criticized. According to the author, no differentiation is made between governmental domination and private power exercise by Maurer in her paper.

The article presents the author's views on sociologist Andrea Maurer's research paper in which she proposes a sociological power theory. Dualism in the meaning of the title of her research paper is discussed. According to the author, Maurer wants to lay the basis for an integrative research program through the reconstruction of domination theory.

The article presents the author's comments on sociologist Andrea Maurer's research paper in which she proposes a sociological power theory. The ambiguity in domination theory proposed by Maurer is referred. Lack of classification of actors in the work of Maurer is criticized. The concept of idealization and ideal types in the paper of Andrea Maurer is discussed.

Copyright of Soziologie is the property of Campus Verlag GmbH 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.)

The article discusses issues related to the concept of domination in society with reference to sociologist Andrea Maurer's research paper in which she proposes a sociological power theory. Maurer's domination theory in the rational framework is discussed. Maurer's study of different traditions of domination theory in an integrative research program is criticized.

The article focuses on issues related to the problem of domination in the modern society with reference to sociologist Andrea Maurer's research paper in which she proposes a sociological power theory. Maurer's sociological power theory is compared with that proposed by sociologist Max Weber. Maurer's dualism of individual action rights and complex domination conceptions referred.

The article presents the author's comments on sociologist Andrea Maurer's research paper in which she proposes a power theory for the state and constitution. Sociologist Max Weber's oriented sociology of power and rational-choice-approach are compared. The action theories proposed by Maurer in here work are discussed.

The article discusses the role of sociologists Max Weber and Rudolf Goldscheid in the turning phase of sociology. Goldscheid emphasized on the role of knowledge for the organization of a new society. After the turning phase of sociology, it was realized that science is a socially caused phenomenon, which is related to cultural, social and individual progress. For Goldscheid, the goal of sociology was not the production of scientific papers or the academic acknowledgment of the research achievements, but sociology had the task to enable humans for will-justified social act on the basis of scientific realization. Together with sociologists Max Adler and William Jerusalem, he created in 1907 the Sociological Society in Vienna. Goldscheid became a member of the Association for Sociopolitics, according to which science should supply the bases for social politics. As a member of this association, he came into contact with the most important representatives of political economy and social sciences in Germany, including Werner Sombart and Weber. They both worked for the association regarding organizational problems but both had their differences. A substantial point of difference between Weber and Goldscheid was related to the naturalistic methodology.

The article focuses on issues related to domination in the modern society with reference to sociologist Andrea Maurer's research paper in which she proposes a sociological power theory. The concept of domination in society presented by Maurer is discussed. Duality in the meaning of justification and legitimization in Maurer's work is referred.

The article focuses on issues related to domination in the modern society with reference to sociologist Andrea Maurer's research paper in which she proposes a sociological power theory. The concept of domination in society presented by Maurer is referred. Maurer claims that the development of domination in a society takes place from the perspective of rational, formal, free actors.

The article focuses on issues related to the problem of domination in the modern society with reference to sociologist Andrea Maurer's research paper in which she proposes a sociological power theory. Reasons and consequences of the problem of domination in the modern society are discussed. Maurer's concept of domination sociology is compared with that proposed by sociologist Max Weber.

The article focuses on issues related to domination in the modern society with reference to sociologist Andrea Maurer's research paper in which she proposes a sociological power theory. According to the author, domination assumes a structure of decision-making possibilities for social as well as political actions. Sociologist Max Weber's concept of legal domination is discussed.

The article presents the author's comments on sociologist Andrea Maurer's research paper in which she proposes a power theory for the state and constitution. The RC-theory, proposed by Maurer,which analyses construction of power from the view of utility calculating individual, is referred. Various aspects of Maurer's proposed power theory are critically observed.

The article presents the author's comments on sociologist Andrea Maurer's research paper in which she proposes a power theory for the state and constitution. Sociologist Max Weber's teaching of state and power and his power typology of 1919-1920 are discussed. Weber's definition of power as sociological category is compared with that of the power theory proposed by Maurer.

The article presents the author's comments on sociologist Andrea Maurer's research paper in which she proposes a power theory for state and constitution. The relation between power and social coordination proposed by Maurer is discussed. Various problem areas like legitimizing structure and their changes in context of democratic principle are highlighted.

The article presents the author's comments on sociologist Andrea Maurer's research paper in which she proposes a power theory for the state and constitution. Adoption of important theoretical ideas of sociologists Thomas Hobbes and Max Weber by Maurer to justify the existence and maintenance of power is discussed. Maurer's concept of power is compared with that proposed by Hobbes and Max.

This article features an editorial about the need for further documentation when sociologists present their papers. The authors write that the use of expert interviews to support data should be kept to a minimum, and that the publishers have decided to make all empirical data available for comments, and therefore the data must either appear in the article or be made otherwise available.