Search

The aim of this paper is to present new theorisations of social structure in light of the new sociologies of the individual currently being developed in France. Although these sociologies are little known, they have significant value in rethinking today's society and sociology. Starting from a review of the concept and the main conceptions of social structure, I will focus on the most significant contributions of these new sociologies of the individual. To do this, on the one hand, it will be shown that the two classical traditions of social structure (institutional or cultural and as a class structure) are insufficient to explain today's society, in which the individual has become the main protagonist and key focus of sociology. On the other hand, in contrast with the old sociologies of the individual, which are centred on the micro level of social interaction, this paper analyses new structural constraints that limit the individual's action. The paper concludes with an invitation to develop these new sociologies at an individual scale. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Women participation in Spanish sociological journals is analysed during the period 2001-2005, by means of bibliometrics and Social Network Analysis. There is a predominance of men (75,08% of authors) compare to women (24,92%), despite the fact that there is a majority of women ending University studies. This inequality starts to be perceived from the beginning of their research and professional development and it intensifies with time. As a result, only a reduced number of women reach the highest positions in the academic rankings, which correspond to authors with the highest productivity. Related to that, it has been observed a phenomenon of bottleneck, according to it as the number of women writers reduces, the productivity threshold increases. There must be studied in depth the barriers that make difficult the development of a professional course among women and to carry out a diachronic monitoring of the professional occupation and their contribution to papers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

After merely a brief, comparative reconstruction of the three most general theoretical models underlying contemporary Sociology (atomic, systemic, and fluid) it becomes necessary to review the question about the unity or plurality of Sociology, which is the main objective of this paper. To do so, the basic terms of the question are firstly updated by following the hegemonic trends in current studies of science. Secondly the convergences and divergences among the three models discussed are shown. Following some additional discussion, the conclusion is reached that contemporary Sociology is not unitary, and need not be so. It is plural, but its plurality is limited and articulated by those very models. It may therefore be portrayed as integrated and commensurable, to the extent that a partial and unstable (dis)unity may be said to exist in Sociology, which is not too far off from what happens in the natural sciences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a discussion on the congress of American Sociological Association in San Francisco, California, in August 2004. To reflect on congresses and exhibitions is a sociological work since, in addition to the information that they provide on the development of the profession of sociologist, they have a symbolic considerable impact. Already before the globalization, several professional North American affiliations turn into the international affiliations of the discipline. What is discussed in the San Francisco congress has so many relevancy for Spain as the Eighth Spanish Congress of Sociology, in September, 2004 in Alicante, Spain. The majority of the specialties coincide. Some papers and debates are similar. The methodological problems are also common in both the congresses. The ideas that they discuss in the world, fortunately, already do not diminish to a geographical national ambience. Almost two hundred specific sessions with written communications have been distributed.

The central element that characterizes the new network society is precisely the increasing relevance of the network (relational systems) as a new organizational form structuring and articulating collective action. The terrorist attacks of September 11th and March 11th are clearly examples of this. One of the fundamental difficulties for understanding and dealing with these new phenomena is precisely their form and dynamics as networks, for which the dominant theoretical and methodological approaches found in Sociology (based on individual actors and categorical grouping) are not well suited. In this paper we will analyze the March 1 Ph terrorist network using the theoretical and methodological approach best suited to the phenomenon: network analysis. This approach allows us to analyze and visualize its composition and dynamics, the centrality of actors, and its internal cohesion. For this purpose we use relational matrixes, which contain the relationships (published by the mass media) among the accused, and specific statistical and visualization network programs (Ucinet6, Netdraw, Key Player). With this, we aim to demonstrate the importance and contribution of this new way of analysing social information in order to gain a better understanding of our social dynamics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Analysed in this paper are the dynamics of the generation and transformation of social institutions. Two basic paradigms are studied and compared. The utilitarian framework or rational choice theories, according to which institutions are an attempt to overcome market failures through institutional mechanisms that lead to socially optimum situations, in the sense that they are preferable for the individual protagonists involved. Theories of a more sociological or culturalist nature, on the other hand, emphasize the importance of the cultural component of institutions, as well as their socio-historical determinants that evolve through complex social processes. While the former provide theoretically contrastable solutions for a range of limited problems, the latter analyse deeper problems, although at the risk of producing less conclusive results. In particular, the difference between both conceptions of social institutions become clear when the factors that give rise to the development of institutions, as well as the processes through which institutional frameworks change and evolve in response to different factors, are analysed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]