Search

The article discusses the need for serious internal debate and social science research into the structural changes affecting higher learning institutions in the United States. Jennifer Washburn's book "University, Inc." discusses corruption of the values of many universities due to efforts to conform to standards created by corporate capitalism since the 1970s and the Bayh-Dole Act in 1980, which was designed to encourage more patenting of products funded by federally financed academic research. Because of the capitalist approach of many universities, tuition costs have risen in a way that prohibits economically disadvantaged individuals from receiving higher education.

The article focuses on the issues involving constitutional patriotism and public sphere in the integration of Europe. The author stressed that constitutional patriotism depends on a vital public sphere which made possible that European collective identity might be achieved without an effective and democratic European public sphere. He argued that the idea of constitution is deepened by attending to the question of what kind of socil imaginary underpins the creation of institutions and the organization of solidarity. Moreover, the author suggested that the importance of the public shpere lies not only in achieving agreement on legal forms and political identity, but in achieving social solidarity as such.

The article presents a contextual analysis of the book Communities of Discourse by Robert Wuthnow. The revival of historical sociology in the last twenty years has focused on class, state, revolution and political mobilization, family and demography. New attention to cultural factors--a central part of earlier historical sociology--is overdue. Wuthnow's book is a major effort to meet this need. It reflects also the rapid growth of the sociology of culture. Especially in the U.S., however, sociology of culture suffers from a strange disciplinary deformation. For some reason, many sociologists think they must repress the interpretation of meaning in order to be rigorous. Sociologists of culture, therefore, often try to study cultural phenomena without attention to the substance or content of culture. Wuthnow is no exception. Simply in terms of scale, Wuthnow's book is major achievement. It reveals a prodigious amount of scholarly labor, not only in amassing historical detail, but in thinking through an analytic scheme broad enough to encompass the diversity of three great movements of cultural production: Reformation, Enlightenment, and European socialism. Wuthnow's book also offers numerous insights into specific historical developments and more general relationships between ideology and social structure. It is, thus, not a book to be dismissed or disregarded.

This article focuses on the 1989 Tiananmen Square Protests, a series of student-led demonstrations that was held at Tiananmen Square in Beijing, China from April to June 1989. Turmoil was the Chinese government's word for the six weeks between mid-April and early June, the label with which officials chose to brand the student protest movement. On April 27, columns of students pushed through the only slightly resisting ranks of police officers and into Tiananmen Square. Apparently the government would not make good its threats of harsh repression. The police barriers were spaced every few hundred yards, and each successive breakthrough drew greater cheers than the last, building the momentum of protest. Students were marching on Tiananmen Square as part of China's third substantial pro-democracy movement in a decade. This one had been touched off by the death of Hu Yaobang, who as premier had presided over the last in 1986-1987. His inability to contain it had cost him his job. Now he was transformed from somewhat liberal party leader to revered martyr. Mourning him provided a pretext for taking to the streets and putting forward renewed demands: rehabilitate Hu; end corruption; hold a serious dialogue between party leaders and students.

The article presents information on sociology. The sociology of knowledge has been surprisingly underrepresented in the recent boom of studies in the sociology of culture. Even when attention has turned to science, it has seldom drawn much on the classical tradition in the sociology of knowledge. This is a pity, partly because better use of the sociology of knowledge might have furthered the integration of sociology of culture with general sociological theory. The article will draw students into thinking about knowledge as culture and into asking some of the hard but important questions this entails. One set of such questions is today commonly discussed under the heading "reflexivity." To what extent and in what ways is knowledge dependent on or improved by knowers' understanding of the conditions of the production and dissemination of that knowledge? What obligations do theories and researchers have to turn their analytic lends back on themselves? What difference does it make that the social life we study is one already interpreted by its protagonists, and that what we say and write becomes part of that process of interpretation-potentially for everyone, not just for sociologists? The article seeks not only to show that knowledge is culture, but that because knowledge is culture the sociology of knowledge is not well practiced or understood as a demarcated sub-field of sociology. It is necessarily an interrogation of all the knowledge produced by sociologists and has developed in close relationship to the core traditions of classical sociological theory.

This article discusses the British and French workers' movements during the mid-nineteenth century crises. Since France's revolution and the British Chartist movement, numerous writers have linked the progress of industrialization to radical politics. Marx, like some other contemporaries, tended to draw examples of political radicalism and socialism from the French Second Republic, and a model of capitalist industrialization from Great Britain. This was misleading, for the more industrial country was the less radical. The confusion did not necessarily originate with Marx and other radicals. French Legitimists--men of order--conceived popular agitation as both stemming from and producing disorder. The proportioned classes of both France and Britain had long seen the poorer sort as lacking in self-control, irrational, and in need of moral discipline. Underestimating the extent of organization it took to produce a food riot or political protest, they saw these as results of failures of order and discipline. It was but a short step from this long-standing view to the notion that industrialization brought a breakdown in the moral order, in which people's baser passions were set free to wreak havoc on respectable life.