Search

The article presents information about a view from Eastern Europe on the International Sociological Association Cooperation that was organized from September 26-30, 1989 in Moscow. This was an important and unusual conference, held at a significant place and time. The conference seemed to have several levels-which nowadays is true of all conferences-but in Moscow, Autumn 1989, this feeling was unusually strong. Traditional academic sessions focusing on papers and discussions were penetrated by processes of the perestroika itself, expressed in informal talks with Russian sociologists, as well as with members of political clubs, planners, architects, workers in new research institutions and new co-operatives. Quietness was not a feature of this conference and the usual tension caused by the large number of papers and lack of time was sharpened by an awareness of the urgency and seriousness of the problems facing Russian society. Some of these problems were expressed in the opening speeches of three representatives of Russian sociology and will be mentioned briefly below. The author had the impression that all three speakers were explicitly trying to establish keynote themes for the whole conference.

Prior to his 1922 emigration to Europe and thence to the United States, Pitirim Alexandrovich Sorokin had an exceptional intellectual and political career in Russia and the Soviet Union (Sorokin , ; Johnston ; Krotov ). Indeed, he was among the early founders of the science of sociology in his native land, where, according to a relatively recent bibliography (Sorokin ), he produced 162 Russian-language publications between the ages of 21 and 33. This listing includes not only book reviews and journal articles, but also substantial monographs and a two-volume theoretical treatise. While still a relatively young man, Sorokin had thus gained widespread recognition as a scholar of the first rank. He was also the initial chairperson (from 1919 to 1922) of a fledgling department of sociology at the University of Petrograd (St. Petersburg), an elected member of the national Constituent Assembly and an appointed staff member of the 1917 Provisional Government, the first democratic regime in Russia. This much would have sufficed for an entry in a sociological encyclopedia, and Sorokin's political career has few parallels in the history of the field, other than the involvement of Emile Durkheim in French educational policy and the participation of Max Weber in creating the Weimar Republic in Germany. Nevertheless sociologists in the United States and most western historians of the field have not yet appreciated the full influence of the formative period, especially from 1905 to 1922. Lacking familiarity with Russian culture of that era and knowing little about the larger Russian socio-historical milieu, its intellectual discourse and collective memory, they have not been able to comprehend Sorokin's outlook, behavior and professional output in the United States in relation to these earlier contextual factors. This is arguably a fundamental reason why many U.S. sociologists have tended to see Sorokin, especially since 1937, as a marginal figure and to regard his works largely as deviations from accepted social scientific practice. This paper will argue that a more adequate appreciation of Sorokin's background and early adult life illumines both stylistic features of his works in America and also places into proper perspective several of his substantive foci that did not accord with contemporary 'normal science' (Kuhn ). In short, despite his overall assimilation into American society and higher education, including his appointment at Harvard University and his election as president of the American Sociological Association, Sorokin should be understood in large measure as a life-long Russian intellectual. His was a Russian-born sensibility and consciousness-indeed a 'Russian soul'-so deeply ingrained that it stamped his entire professional career in the United States, including his published researches, his popular sociology and his university teaching. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article features sports participation as a factor for social change. Physical educators and sociologists have been almost unanimous in their claim that participation in sports will result in more positive attitudes and improved relations between culturally diverse players. The goals of the Olympic Movement are to promote the development of fine physical and moral qualities and to bring the athletes of the world together in a great quadrennial festival of sports, thereby creating international respect and goodwill and thus helping to construct a better and more peaceful world. Today, countries like the United States, Russia, and East Germany view success at the Games primarily as a justification of the superiority of their political and economic systems.

The paper first discusses the various philosophical and sociological concepts of the phenomenon of game since ancient history to the modern age. It focuses especially on contemporary domestic and foreign sociologists' research related to the concept of game and the homo ludens. The central object of the author's analysis in this paper is the interpretation of the paradigm of playfulness as posited by the Russian sociologist Sergey Kravchenko, as well as place this paradigm occupies and the theoretical and methodological role it plays in contemporary sociology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 1990, Simon Clarke inaugurated two decades of research of the former Soviet Union through an international collaboration with Russian sociologists that examined a society in the throes of transformation. Along with his colleague Peter Fairbrother, Simon developed a network of Russian researchers in the Institute of Comparative Labour Relations Research. Together they produced a corpus of work that meticulously analysed the impact of economic reform on workplaces and households and the response of workers and their organisations. This piece is an extended version of a published interview with Simon conducted by two of his former students, Sarah Ashwin and Valery Yakubovich. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract How far have social theorists in Russia engaged with the international academic world since the era dominated by Soviet-style historical materialism? Mainstream theories in sociology and 'culturology' use new vocabulary but remain loyal to ideological interpretations of society and culture. A minority of Russian sociologists have translated, adopted and critiqued Western ideas. Works by three such authors are explored and compared. This leads to consideration of the institutional development of the social sciences in post-Soviet Russia and their relative isolation from international trends, especially in the regions. The discussion highlights the limitations of old institutional hierarchies and suggests that there is new demand for internationally-trained social scientists to analyze and interpret the post-Soviet experience in innovative ways. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article explores the sources of the Lithuanian sociology in the Russian Empire in the first decade of the 20th century. It surveys the history of the emergence of sociology discipline in St. Petersburg's Roman Catholic Spiritual Academy, where a number of Lithuanian studied, and the focus is on the academic activities and social thought of J. Matulaitis in 1907-1909. J. Matulaitis is known as the renovator or the founder of monasteries and as Bishop of Vilnius. In 1987, he was beatified by Pope John Paul II. This study aims to analyze, on the basis of the chronicle of Academy, articles on social issues in the magazine "Draugija" in 1909, memories of students and letters of G. Matulaitis, his contribution to the science of sociology. The author of the article claims that the department of Sociology at the Academy of St. Petersburg was the first in the Russian Empire. It was founded by the initiative of Lithuanian students and professors, and its establishment in 1907 predated the department of sociology of the Private Institute of Psycho neurology dated to 1911 (first mentioned in historical researches of Russian scientists). The first professor of Sociology in the Academy was a Lithuanian, i. e. J. Matulaitis. His lectures on sociology made a significant impact on the development of social sciences in Lithuania. The professors of the Academy J. Matulaitis, P. Bucys, Maironis, and others organized the Lithuanian social courses to the public in Kaunas in 1909, and such sociologists as S. Sulte, K. Saulys, K. Paltarokas, who delivered lectures, became well-known specialists in this sphere. In spite of J. Matulaitis' obvious contribution to the evolution of Lithuanian sociology, he was not a sociologist. His insights and interdisciplinary knowledge helped him to create a new science, the so-called Christian Social Teaching. The thought and the attitudes of J. Matulaitis got ahead of the Pope's thought even a few decades and are relevant to the present day. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article inquires into the state of civic organizations for children and the creative social activity of students in Russia. While the number of organizations for children is very large, an estimated 400,000 different entities, researchers cannot be sure of actual participation levels because no official statistics on the subject exist. In Saint Petersburg sociologists estimate that no more than 10% of children are engaged with a civic or creative organization. Groups that are based in schools and other educational institutions are the most active and vigorous. Children and youth who are members of clubs and organizations, no matter the endeavor, tend to be more involved in civic life and more socially optimistic.