Search

This paper discusses the strong criticism by Elias against the nation-state paradigm in sociology. Elias pointed his attention on sociologists of the twentieth century but particularly criticizes the analytical model of Parsons (AGIL), which seems to him an abstract combinatory of variables (pattern variables) without any references in social contexts. The sociology in the twentieth century is an apologetic of nation-state and, in Parsons, of the hegemonic role of the United States in the world. In fact, during the twentieth century many authors (historians and sociologists) tried to overcome the nation-state paradigm in the social sciences. The author of the paper analyses the contribution of Toynbee, Braudel, C. Schmitt, Huntington, Wallerstein and Hard-Negri. These attempts are based on different unit analysis: the civilization and its clash in the case of Toynbee and Huntington, the world economy in the case of Braudel and Wallerstein, and power in the case of C. Schmitt and Negri-Hardt. The author appreciates these attempts but his conclusion is that the concept of global society can better serve as unit analysis for a construction of a new paradigm in the social sciences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Existing accounts of American sociology’s founding years during the early twentieth century assume that the discipline was ‘metrocentric.’ They assume that it was only interested in processes occurring within the United States; that American sociologists fell prey to state-centrist thought; and that, therefore, contextualizing America sociology’s emergence necessitates understanding relations, events, and processes within the confines of US territorial boundaries. By contrast, this paper shows the imperial and hence global aspects of early American sociological thought. Early American sociologists were interested in imperialism and, therefore, in cross-societal, transnational, and global processes and relations. Implicitly or explicitly they approached imperialism as a process by which social groups, not least ‘races,’ interacted and conflicted. They also saw it as a route towards new global forms. Early American sociology thus articulated a sociological imagination that looked beyond American society and to the wider world. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This paper attempts to explore the common theme of the issue "How is theory formation possible?" in terms of the case study of the articulation of comparative modernization theory and glocalization theory. One can grasp comparative modernization theory and, as its fundamental principle, functionalism from the view-point of the theory classification proposed by Funabashi (1982) and Kosaka (1998). Recently, however, it is said that the combination has been destructed (Sato 1998). It has been a long while since sociologists have discussed the multiplicity of the fundamental principles of sociological theory. To a certain extent, however, multiplicity is a built-in component of the discipline. Meanwhile, as a de facto phenomenon, new and attractive "guidance (sensitizing) ideas" (such as globalization, risk society, and so on) have been successively studied by many sociologists. This paper attempts to delineate the process of the theory formation in terms of actual esquisse or exercise in the articulation or combination of comparative modernization theory with glocalization theory as an attractive "guidance idea." The following points summarize the core conclusions of this paper. (1)Regardless of the fundamental principles involved, it is advisable to suppose the existence of reciprocal movements between theory and empirical research and that these movements involve a helical development. It is significant for glocalization theory to be articulated with comparative modernization theory, which is a foundational proposition (or a middle-range theory) that is considerably more grounded in empirical studies. (2) The articulation process involves the internal transformation of both theories (the reconstruction of both comparative modernization theory and glocalization theory). (3) This articulation can sometimes prompt the reconstruction of theoretical tradition (which, in this paper, refers to human rights that go beyond citizenship in the glocalized world). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The concept of 'identity' is central to much contemporary sociology, reflecting a crisis that manifests itself in two ways. Firstly, there is a view that identity is both vital and problematic in this period of high modernity. Secondly, while this awareness is reflected in sociology, its accounts of identity are inconsistent, under-theorized and incapable of bearing the analytical load required. As a result, there is an inherent contradiction between a valuing of identity as so fundamental as to be crucial to personal well-being, and a theorization of 'identity' that sees it as something constructed, fluid, multiple, impermanent and fragmentary. The contemporary crisis of identity thus expresses itself as both a crisis of society, and a crisis of theory. This paper explores the diverse ways in which 'identity' is deployed before turning to case-studies of its use by Anthony Giddens and Manuel Castells. This strategy demonstrates the widespread and diverse concern with identity before exploring how problematic it has become, even in the work of two of the world's leading sociologists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The intensities of the contemporary moment continue to prompt reflections on the strengths and limitations of approaches typically used to study education policy reform. The central contention of this essay is that policy sociology and its application within education offers needed vantage points on contemporary pressing global policy problems. Future studies would do well to keep the footprint of existing frameworks, which emphasize policy networks and mobilities, power dynamics within these flows, and the focus on doing research that speaks to concerns of stakeholders. The next generation of policy sociologists can further strengthen the relevance and rigor of the analytic scheme by leaning into methodologies that further attend empirically and descriptively to power asymmetries within policy networks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents an update on the "International Sociology" journal as of December 1998. The scholarly criteria of the journal are very high, as befits an official organ of the most significant international association of sociologists. "International Sociology" has, furthermore, become the membership journal for all subscribed members of the International Sociological Association. With this return to its roots, "International Sociology" has become perhaps the widely diffused sociological journal. It is now read in nearly 100 countries. The journal has now reached a level of maturity that is chosen by some of the most significant sociologists as a forum for discussion. The proposal that each issue should have a cover article has gained an interest which is attested to, by the high level of the cover articles submitted for publication. The portraits of sociologists have also elicited a positive response. The journal has approached a wide range of sociological topics, that is, clinical sociology, sociology of religion, globalization, the sociology of consumers and the emotions. Articles covering sociology from Eastern Europe, Russia, Greece, the Middle East, East Asia, among others have also been published. There has been a welcome increase in the number of subscribers to the journal in the last two years as well as a steady increase in the number of papers submitted for publication to the journal.

Copyright of Sociologie is the property of Amsterdam University Press 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 compares influentials in contemporary American and British sociology for a time span for 11 years, between 1958-68. Authors of the article have compared names of the men most cited in journals "American Sociological Review" and "British Journal of Sociology" for two time periods and have found that lists for the second time period contained a larger number of names in common than the list for the first period. This finding was interpreted as support for the thesis that sociology is becoming more international. A comparison of the two American lists revealed no essential differences in the national origin of the most important influentials for the two periods. A similar examination of the two British lists revealed that contemporary sociologists from the U.S. are becoming increasingly influential in British sociology. It was therefore suggested that the internationalization of sociology may, for the immediate future, be equivalent or almost equivalent to the Americanization of sociology.