Search

In this paper the results of a theoretical research on the category of social exclusion are presented, research performed from 2022 to early 2023. From a series of analysis related to the absence of a theoretical base for such category, the purpose was to identify, through document review, which theoretical background this category could be related with. The argument in this paper is that structural functionalism is an alternative for theoretical ground, because with Robert Merton was found that social exclusion is a problem addressed in his theory through the concept of anomie in his sociology of deviation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, we propose one of the elements that in our opinion explain the growing and widespread manifestations of social unrest among the most diverse peoples of the Earth. The accumulation of capital, as a foundation for the growth of global production, implies limitations for efficient and effective use of scarce resources on the planet. These limitations impose forms of distribution of wealth among peoples resulting in inadequate social production for general needs, creating general social unrest. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article is in response to George I. Garcia's paper titled "Una réplica a 'La sociología crítica de Henri Lefebvre, de Roy Alfaro Vargas". It is my expectation to draw attention to Las Sombras de la Modernidad by García himself and analyze different problems (blunders) related to Garcia's interpretation of Henri Lefebvre's critical sociology. I show the link between both the Garcia's thought and the postmodern ideology. I also attempt to point out some new fields of research stemmed from the Lefebvrian paradigm that will allow growing the dialectical approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, we discuss the relations between reification and modernity en the sociological theories of Georg Simmel and Alfred Schütz. German history and Lukács' work, History and class conscience, are important references in this discussion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper claims that John Locke does not support an individualistic conception of society; that if he did (which is false), this would not bring him into conflict with a modern organic conception; that based on this, Bobbio's position lacks epistemic or heuristic value; and that, politically, individualism is not a progressive category of modern social formations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]