Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.17323/1728-192x-2019-3-224-244
L. Rodin
With the increasing role of technological agents in contemporary society, questions surrounding the future of socio-economic organization are intensely debated. A variety of predictions have been made, ranging from conservative views that emphasize the gradual integration of techno-actors into human social collectives to radical outlooks that assume the inevitability of a dramatic historic break. This study employs the method of simulation, exploring the on-going path towards automation with the help of classical Marxism. It seeks to understand whether robots and artificial intelligence (AI) might become new value producers and a revolutionary social class. As demonstrated, the continuity of capitalist relationships may facilitate the formation of new social groups and recast class-based political agendas.
{"title":"Robo-Revolution: A Marxist Approach to Social Uprising in the High-Tech Age","authors":"L. Rodin","doi":"10.17323/1728-192x-2019-3-224-244","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17323/1728-192x-2019-3-224-244","url":null,"abstract":"With the increasing role of technological agents in contemporary society, questions surrounding the future of socio-economic organization are intensely debated. A variety of predictions have been made, ranging from conservative views that emphasize the gradual integration of techno-actors into human social collectives to radical outlooks that assume the inevitability of a dramatic historic break. This study employs the method of simulation, exploring the on-going path towards automation with the help of classical Marxism. It seeks to understand whether robots and artificial intelligence (AI) might become new value producers and a revolutionary social class. As demonstrated, the continuity of capitalist relationships may facilitate the formation of new social groups and recast class-based political agendas.","PeriodicalId":102221,"journal":{"name":"Sotsiologicheskoe Obozrenie / Russian Sociological Review","volume":"6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130597525","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.17323/1728-192x-2022-4-57-81
Alexander L. Begrambekov
Georg Simmel’s legacy is traditionally distinguished between sociological and philosophical works so that researchers have little overlap in his areas of interest with their colleagues. Simmel, however, was different in each of these disciplines. It is particularly evident in the context of his relationship with Kant. His sociology, more relevant before 1908, leads to Kant, while his philosophy (the so-called Lebensphilosophie or ‘philosophy of life’) developed after 1908, is opposed to Kant. This research aims to explain this dichotomy. Many thinkers transitioned from Kant to Simmel’s Lebensphilosophie, including Simmel’s student, Semyon Frank, whose fate resembles that of his teacher in many ways. Frank attended his lectures in 1898, translated and reviewed his works, and wrote about Simmel in his own essays. In general, it is difficult to find a figure among the foreign contemporaries of Frank who had a more significant influence on him than Simmel. In many ways, Frank was Simmel’s Russian counterpart: both were baptized Jews in Christian countries; both passed through a school of controversial opinions in many ways fatal to their destiny; both were exiles, despite their prolificacy and significance, and both were unsteady in their academic statuses, but highly appreciated by their colleagues. Frank is a well-known figure in the history of Russian religious philosophу, but his philosophy in the context of his path from Kantianism to his philosophy of life has not been sufficiently studied. This research also aims to fill this gap and to present Frank to Simmel’s readers.
{"title":"Georg Simmel and Semyon Frank: from Kant to Lebensphilosophie","authors":"Alexander L. Begrambekov","doi":"10.17323/1728-192x-2022-4-57-81","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17323/1728-192x-2022-4-57-81","url":null,"abstract":"Georg Simmel’s legacy is traditionally distinguished between sociological and philosophical works so that researchers have little overlap in his areas of interest with their colleagues. Simmel, however, was different in each of these disciplines. It is particularly evident in the context of his relationship with Kant. His sociology, more relevant before 1908, leads to Kant, while his philosophy (the so-called Lebensphilosophie or ‘philosophy of life’) developed after 1908, is opposed to Kant. This research aims to explain this dichotomy. Many thinkers transitioned from Kant to Simmel’s Lebensphilosophie, including Simmel’s student, Semyon Frank, whose fate resembles that of his teacher in many ways. Frank attended his lectures in 1898, translated and reviewed his works, and wrote about Simmel in his own essays. In general, it is difficult to find a figure among the foreign contemporaries of Frank who had a more significant influence on him than Simmel. In many ways, Frank was Simmel’s Russian counterpart: both were baptized Jews in Christian countries; both passed through a school of controversial opinions in many ways fatal to their destiny; both were exiles, despite their prolificacy and significance, and both were unsteady in their academic statuses, but highly appreciated by their colleagues. Frank is a well-known figure in the history of Russian religious philosophу, but his philosophy in the context of his path from Kantianism to his philosophy of life has not been sufficiently studied. This research also aims to fill this gap and to present Frank to Simmel’s readers.","PeriodicalId":102221,"journal":{"name":"Sotsiologicheskoe Obozrenie / Russian Sociological Review","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130847992","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.17323/1728-192x-2023-2-285-309
I. Trotsuk
Martha Nussbaum is a famous American philosopher and an incredibly prolific author who published more than twenty books and five hundred articles on a wide range of issues of “good living” — from the fragility of goodness and poetic justice, love of country and cultivating humanity to the intelligence of emotions and the new religious intolerance (and this is not an exhaustive list). Unfortunately, only two books have been translated into Russian — Not for Profit: Why Democracy Needs the Humanities (2014) and Political Emotions: Why Love Matters for Justice (2023). The first book is thematically focused and aims at proving both the flawed interpretation of education as an exclusively tool for economic growth and the value of the humanities and arts for the high quality of life and prosperity of democratic states. The second book also emphasizes the importance of education and the arts, compassionate citizenship and the pursuit of the common good, is based on personal observations of life in the United States and India, promotes the ideas of social justice and equality, but on a higher level of generalizations, relying on the author’s previous research and adding the most important emotional “ingredient” of social order — love. The article is an attempt to show the undoubted strengths of this great book (rich in research, concepts and illustrations) and its (more doubtful) limitations which are due primarily to the book’s implicit expectation of the reader’s awareness of its conceptual foundations (previous works of Nussbaum), and the past decade’s peculiar effect on its ideological, conceptual and illustrative content.
{"title":"The Other Kind of Utopia, Or How Social Justice Is Possible in the World of Those Loving One’s Non-Neighbor","authors":"I. Trotsuk","doi":"10.17323/1728-192x-2023-2-285-309","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17323/1728-192x-2023-2-285-309","url":null,"abstract":"Martha Nussbaum is a famous American philosopher and an incredibly prolific author who published more than twenty books and five hundred articles on a wide range of issues of “good living” — from the fragility of goodness and poetic justice, love of country and cultivating humanity to the intelligence of emotions and the new religious intolerance (and this is not an exhaustive list). Unfortunately, only two books have been translated into Russian — Not for Profit: Why Democracy Needs the Humanities (2014) and Political Emotions: Why Love Matters for Justice (2023). The first book is thematically focused and aims at proving both the flawed interpretation of education as an exclusively tool for economic growth and the value of the humanities and arts for the high quality of life and prosperity of democratic states. The second book also emphasizes the importance of education and the arts, compassionate citizenship and the pursuit of the common good, is based on personal observations of life in the United States and India, promotes the ideas of social justice and equality, but on a higher level of generalizations, relying on the author’s previous research and adding the most important emotional “ingredient” of social order — love. The article is an attempt to show the undoubted strengths of this great book (rich in research, concepts and illustrations) and its (more doubtful) limitations which are due primarily to the book’s implicit expectation of the reader’s awareness of its conceptual foundations (previous works of Nussbaum), and the past decade’s peculiar effect on its ideological, conceptual and illustrative content.","PeriodicalId":102221,"journal":{"name":"Sotsiologicheskoe Obozrenie / Russian Sociological Review","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122247170","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.17323/1728-192x-2023-2-71-84
Oleg Kil'dyushov
The article deals with the uniquely specific public profile of Max Weber, who, on the one hand, entered the history of social thought as a staunch supporter of the value-free scientific work, and on the other hand, was a passionate polemicist ready to cause a public scandal even for a minor occasion. At the outset, Weber’s ambivalent understanding of the ethos of modern science as a methodically-controlled search for objective knowledge of the world at the edge of the scientist’s self-denial and free from the influence of extra-scientific motives is pointed out. In so doing, the paradoxical combination in Weber’s anthropology of science of the imperatives of analytical sobriety and passionate loyalty to one’s “daemon” is recorded. It has been argued that his ambivalence was a specific trait of the classicist of German and world sociology, combining his titanic personality with the extremes of a scholarly hermit and a world celebrity with a reputation for unbalanced scandals. Following then are the judgments about the eminent social thinker made by representatives of opposing political currents, both right-wing conservatives and left-wing extremists. On the basis of a number of high-profile scandals that became known to the scientific and general public in early-20th century Germany, the mechanism of Weber’s involvement in conflicts with various opponents at the personal and institutional level is demonstrated. The practical significance for Weber himself of his scientific-theoretical and methodological principles, which became canonical for the self-understanding of the modern scholarly profession, is questioned. Finally, the passionate controversy surrounding Weber’s famous work Protestant Ethics and the Spirit of Capitalism is analyzed, reconstructed on the example of historian F. Raphael’s critique and the response of Weber’s First Anticritique.
{"title":"Between the Ethos of Science and “Vice Squad”: Max Weber as Polеmicist","authors":"Oleg Kil'dyushov","doi":"10.17323/1728-192x-2023-2-71-84","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17323/1728-192x-2023-2-71-84","url":null,"abstract":"The article deals with the uniquely specific public profile of Max Weber, who, on the one hand, entered the history of social thought as a staunch supporter of the value-free scientific work, and on the other hand, was a passionate polemicist ready to cause a public scandal even for a minor occasion. At the outset, Weber’s ambivalent understanding of the ethos of modern science as a methodically-controlled search for objective knowledge of the world at the edge of the scientist’s self-denial and free from the influence of extra-scientific motives is pointed out. In so doing, the paradoxical combination in Weber’s anthropology of science of the imperatives of analytical sobriety and passionate loyalty to one’s “daemon” is recorded. It has been argued that his ambivalence was a specific trait of the classicist of German and world sociology, combining his titanic personality with the extremes of a scholarly hermit and a world celebrity with a reputation for unbalanced scandals. Following then are the judgments about the eminent social thinker made by representatives of opposing political currents, both right-wing conservatives and left-wing extremists. On the basis of a number of high-profile scandals that became known to the scientific and general public in early-20th century Germany, the mechanism of Weber’s involvement in conflicts with various opponents at the personal and institutional level is demonstrated. The practical significance for Weber himself of his scientific-theoretical and methodological principles, which became canonical for the self-understanding of the modern scholarly profession, is questioned. Finally, the passionate controversy surrounding Weber’s famous work Protestant Ethics and the Spirit of Capitalism is analyzed, reconstructed on the example of historian F. Raphael’s critique and the response of Weber’s First Anticritique.","PeriodicalId":102221,"journal":{"name":"Sotsiologicheskoe Obozrenie / Russian Sociological Review","volume":"7 5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122311667","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.17323/1728-192x-2022-3-59-83
O. Golovashina
The article substantiates the need to return to collective representations as optics for understanding collective memory, which will allow the bringing of the foundations under the concept of collective memory, and expand the theoretical and methodological base of research. As the first step, the author distinguishes between E. Durkheim’s “collective representations” and M. Halbwax’s interpretation of “collective memory”. Justifying the heuristic potential of the category “collective representations” for understanding collective memory, the author shows that the origins of this idea were connected with Durkheim’s acquaintance with the school of V. Wundt: 1) the idea of collective representations is connected with the views of the German psychologist; and 2) the development of the method of sociology bears traces of Wundt’s positivism. Furthermore, the author’s concerns are the ways of preserving and translating collective representations, showing the possibilities of substantiating commemorative practices as performative acts and the need to abandon reflection as a source of collective memory research. In conclusion, the author proves that the return to the idea of collective representations as a basis for understanding collective memory allows us to move away from the metaphorical concept, as well as to reconsider the ways of researching and interpreting the politics of memory, the relationship between individual and collective memory, the study of the place of the image of specific events in collective memory, and the place of psychological explanations.
{"title":"Back to Representations: in Search of Grounds for Collective Memory","authors":"O. Golovashina","doi":"10.17323/1728-192x-2022-3-59-83","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17323/1728-192x-2022-3-59-83","url":null,"abstract":"The article substantiates the need to return to collective representations as optics for understanding collective memory, which will allow the bringing of the foundations under the concept of collective memory, and expand the theoretical and methodological base of research. As the first step, the author distinguishes between E. Durkheim’s “collective representations” and M. Halbwax’s interpretation of “collective memory”. Justifying the heuristic potential of the category “collective representations” for understanding collective memory, the author shows that the origins of this idea were connected with Durkheim’s acquaintance with the school of V. Wundt: 1) the idea of collective representations is connected with the views of the German psychologist; and 2) the development of the method of sociology bears traces of Wundt’s positivism. Furthermore, the author’s concerns are the ways of preserving and translating collective representations, showing the possibilities of substantiating commemorative practices as performative acts and the need to abandon reflection as a source of collective memory research. In conclusion, the author proves that the return to the idea of collective representations as a basis for understanding collective memory allows us to move away from the metaphorical concept, as well as to reconsider the ways of researching and interpreting the politics of memory, the relationship between individual and collective memory, the study of the place of the image of specific events in collective memory, and the place of psychological explanations.","PeriodicalId":102221,"journal":{"name":"Sotsiologicheskoe Obozrenie / Russian Sociological Review","volume":"52 52","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"113957789","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.17323/1728-192x-2019-4-149-163
A. Salikov
The question of how the digital transformation of the public sphere affects political processes has been of interest to researchers since the spread of the Internet in the early 1990s. However, today there is no clear or unambiguous answer to this question; expert estimates differ radically, from extremely positive to extremely negative. This article attempts to take a comprehensive approach to this issue, conceptualizing the transformations taking place in the public sphere under the influence of Internet communication technologies, taking their political context into account, and identifying the relationship between these changes and possible transformations of political regimes. In order to achieve these goals, several tasks are tackled during this research. The first section examines the issue as to whether the concept of the public sphere can be used in a non-democratic context. It also delineates two main types of the public sphere, the “democratic public sphere” and the “authoritarian public sphere,” in order to take into account the features of public discourse in the context of various political regimes. The second section discusses the special aspects of the digital transformation of the public sphere in a democratic context. The third section considers the special aspects of the digital transformation of the public sphere in a non-democratic context. The concluding section summarizes the results of the study, states the existing gaps and difficulties, outlines the ways for their possible extension, and raises questions requiring attention from other researchers.
{"title":"The Digital Transformation of the Public Sphere, Its Features in the Context of Various Political Regimes, and Its Possible Influence on Political Processes","authors":"A. Salikov","doi":"10.17323/1728-192x-2019-4-149-163","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17323/1728-192x-2019-4-149-163","url":null,"abstract":"The question of how the digital transformation of the public sphere affects political processes has been of interest to researchers since the spread of the Internet in the early 1990s. However, today there is no clear or unambiguous answer to this question; expert estimates differ radically, from extremely positive to extremely negative. This article attempts to take a comprehensive approach to this issue, conceptualizing the transformations taking place in the public sphere under the influence of Internet communication technologies, taking their political context into account, and identifying the relationship between these changes and possible transformations of political regimes. In order to achieve these goals, several tasks are tackled during this research. The first section examines the issue as to whether the concept of the public sphere can be used in a non-democratic context. It also delineates two main types of the public sphere, the “democratic public sphere” and the “authoritarian public sphere,” in order to take into account the features of public discourse in the context of various political regimes. The second section discusses the special aspects of the digital transformation of the public sphere in a democratic context. The third section considers the special aspects of the digital transformation of the public sphere in a non-democratic context. The concluding section summarizes the results of the study, states the existing gaps and difficulties, outlines the ways for their possible extension, and raises questions requiring attention from other researchers.","PeriodicalId":102221,"journal":{"name":"Sotsiologicheskoe Obozrenie / Russian Sociological Review","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121663967","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.17323/1728-192x-2023-2-85-107
M. Weber
A polemical article by the classic of sociology Max Weber in the genre of “anti-criticism” contains his response to a series of critical publications by the principal German historian Felix Rachfahl. As a specialist in the history of the Dutch Revolution in the second half of the 16th century, Rachfahl wrote five articles under the general title “Calvinism and Protestantism” that he sought to rebut Weber’s views on the genesis of capitalism from the spirit of the Puritan work ethic. In a rather harsh retort, Weber in turn tries to show the reader the entire inconsistency of Rachfal’s criticism. On the whole, he assesses the discussion as unfair on the part of his opponent and, therefore, as insufficient from the point of view of the subject itself — the cultural significance of the Protestant economic ethics for the emergence of the capitalist economy of the modern type. He accuses Rachfal of deliberately distorting both Weber’s own argument and the views of his friend and colleague, the eminent theologian and church historian E. Troelch. In attempting to defend his arguments advanced in the articles in the series “Protestant Ethics and the Spirit of Capitalism”, Weber rhetorically chooses an extremely aggressive tone, while allowing a number of insulting epithets to the recognized expert in his field. His general strategy in the polemic is aimed at discrediting the criticizing historian himself as a typical representative of a related academic discipline, clearly exceeding the limits of his competence. At the same time, Weber assigns the role of objective arbiter in this dispute to his reader, urging him to perceive the arguments put forward impartially. Weber concludes by claiming that Rachfal’s lengthy critique is so off-target that he need not change a single word in his writings.
{"title":"The First Anti-Criticism on the “Spirit of Capitalism”","authors":"M. Weber","doi":"10.17323/1728-192x-2023-2-85-107","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17323/1728-192x-2023-2-85-107","url":null,"abstract":"A polemical article by the classic of sociology Max Weber in the genre of “anti-criticism” contains his response to a series of critical publications by the principal German historian Felix Rachfahl. As a specialist in the history of the Dutch Revolution in the second half of the 16th century, Rachfahl wrote five articles under the general title “Calvinism and Protestantism” that he sought to rebut Weber’s views on the genesis of capitalism from the spirit of the Puritan work ethic. In a rather harsh retort, Weber in turn tries to show the reader the entire inconsistency of Rachfal’s criticism. On the whole, he assesses the discussion as unfair on the part of his opponent and, therefore, as insufficient from the point of view of the subject itself — the cultural significance of the Protestant economic ethics for the emergence of the capitalist economy of the modern type. He accuses Rachfal of deliberately distorting both Weber’s own argument and the views of his friend and colleague, the eminent theologian and church historian E. Troelch. In attempting to defend his arguments advanced in the articles in the series “Protestant Ethics and the Spirit of Capitalism”, Weber rhetorically chooses an extremely aggressive tone, while allowing a number of insulting epithets to the recognized expert in his field. His general strategy in the polemic is aimed at discrediting the criticizing historian himself as a typical representative of a related academic discipline, clearly exceeding the limits of his competence. At the same time, Weber assigns the role of objective arbiter in this dispute to his reader, urging him to perceive the arguments put forward impartially. Weber concludes by claiming that Rachfal’s lengthy critique is so off-target that he need not change a single word in his writings.","PeriodicalId":102221,"journal":{"name":"Sotsiologicheskoe Obozrenie / Russian Sociological Review","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121829400","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.17323/1728-192x-2022-4-106-119
Fawaz Alanezi, Amer Al Saleh
This study aims to examine the types and severity of violence and abuse encountered by female domestic workers in Kuwait. Methodologically, the study employed a quantitative approach. This study found that in terms of ethnicity and origin, Philippine and Sri-Lankan females dominated the social care and domestic workers sector in Kuwait. The statistical analysis showed that 82 % encountered physical abuse; 45%, sexual abuse; 88 %, psychological abuse; and 70 %, battering abuse. The paper recommends changes to Kuwaiti criminal laws to include proper prosecution of those who abuse domestic workers. It also recommends the implementation of proper protective mechanisms for these female workers.
{"title":"Violence against Female Domestic Workers in Kuwait","authors":"Fawaz Alanezi, Amer Al Saleh","doi":"10.17323/1728-192x-2022-4-106-119","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17323/1728-192x-2022-4-106-119","url":null,"abstract":"This study aims to examine the types and severity of violence and abuse encountered by female domestic workers in Kuwait. Methodologically, the study employed a quantitative approach. This study found that in terms of ethnicity and origin, Philippine and Sri-Lankan females dominated the social care and domestic workers sector in Kuwait. The statistical analysis showed that 82 % encountered physical abuse; 45%, sexual abuse; 88 %, psychological abuse; and 70 %, battering abuse. The paper recommends changes to Kuwaiti criminal laws to include proper prosecution of those who abuse domestic workers. It also recommends the implementation of proper protective mechanisms for these female workers.","PeriodicalId":102221,"journal":{"name":"Sotsiologicheskoe Obozrenie / Russian Sociological Review","volume":"39 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131156120","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.17323/1728-192x-2022-3-250-285
I. Stas
The article analyzes the formation and development of Urban History as a branch of historical science before and immediately after the era of the Urban Crisis of the 1950s and 1960s. The concept of the article suggests that urban history was formed in a constant dialogue with the social sciences. At the beginning, academic urban historians appeared in the 1930s as opponents of American “agrarian” and frontier histories. Drawing their ideas from the Chicago School of sociology, they reproduced the national history of civic local communities that expressed the achievements of Western civilization. However, in the context of the impending Urban Crisis, social sciences, together with urban historians, have declared the importance of generalizing social phenomena. A group of rebels soon formed among historians. They called their movement ‘New Urban History’ and advocated the return of historical context to urban studies, and were against social theory. However, in an effort to reconstruct history “from the bottom up” through a quantitative study of social mobility, new urban historians have lost the city as an important variable of their analysis. They had to abandon the popular name and recognize themselves as representatives of social history and interested in the problems of class, culture, consciousness, and conflicts. In this situation, some social scientists have tried to try on the elusive brand ‘New Urban History’, but their attempt also failed. As a result, only those who remained faithful to the national narrative or interdisciplinary approach remained urban historians, but continued to remain in the bosom of historical science, rushing around conventional urban sociology and its denial.
{"title":"Urban History: between History and Social Sciences","authors":"I. Stas","doi":"10.17323/1728-192x-2022-3-250-285","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17323/1728-192x-2022-3-250-285","url":null,"abstract":"The article analyzes the formation and development of Urban History as a branch of historical science before and immediately after the era of the Urban Crisis of the 1950s and 1960s. The concept of the article suggests that urban history was formed in a constant dialogue with the social sciences. At the beginning, academic urban historians appeared in the 1930s as opponents of American “agrarian” and frontier histories. Drawing their ideas from the Chicago School of sociology, they reproduced the national history of civic local communities that expressed the achievements of Western civilization. However, in the context of the impending Urban Crisis, social sciences, together with urban historians, have declared the importance of generalizing social phenomena. A group of rebels soon formed among historians. They called their movement ‘New Urban History’ and advocated the return of historical context to urban studies, and were against social theory. However, in an effort to reconstruct history “from the bottom up” through a quantitative study of social mobility, new urban historians have lost the city as an important variable of their analysis. They had to abandon the popular name and recognize themselves as representatives of social history and interested in the problems of class, culture, consciousness, and conflicts. In this situation, some social scientists have tried to try on the elusive brand ‘New Urban History’, but their attempt also failed. As a result, only those who remained faithful to the national narrative or interdisciplinary approach remained urban historians, but continued to remain in the bosom of historical science, rushing around conventional urban sociology and its denial.","PeriodicalId":102221,"journal":{"name":"Sotsiologicheskoe Obozrenie / Russian Sociological Review","volume":"8 2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131202828","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：