Pub Date : 2021-01-01DOI: 10.22394/2074-0492-2021-4-241-250
Victor S. Vakhshtayn
{"title":"“Law & Order” at the “Roadside Picnic”. Book Review: Meillassoux K. (2020) Metaphysics and Extro-Science Fiction. Perm: Giele Press","authors":"Victor S. Vakhshtayn","doi":"10.22394/2074-0492-2021-4-241-250","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22394/2074-0492-2021-4-241-250","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":33494,"journal":{"name":"Sotsiologiia vlasti","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68449666","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 : 2021-01-01DOI: 10.22394/2074-0492-2021-2-258-267
V. Shnirelman
{"title":"Book Review: Loftus S. (2019) Insecurity & the Rise of Nationalism in Putin’s Russia — Keeper of Traditional Values, Palgrave Macmillan","authors":"V. Shnirelman","doi":"10.22394/2074-0492-2021-2-258-267","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22394/2074-0492-2021-2-258-267","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":33494,"journal":{"name":"Sotsiologiia vlasti","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68448932","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 : 2020-12-01DOI: 10.22394/2074-0492-2020-4-68-106
I. Presnyakov
Weber’s concept of “vocation” in science implies “anti-monumentalism”: research can always be continued, and the results obtained can be used in various ways. The scientist cannot be completely aware of the final impact of their work, so they are faced with a paradox of consequences. This paradox is based on value polytheism, a concept put forward by Weber. There are two ideas central to polytheism: first, one must recognize the internal logic of value spheres and, second, one must consider their fundamental incommensurability. But how does this idea emerge in Weber’s theory? Interpretations of value polytheism as a “fact” of a cultural situation and as the logical foundation of science do not allow one to answer the question of its origin. The conceptual bridge is found in Weber’s sociology of religion. Tenbruck’s, Schluchter’s, and Hennis’s models are examined to identify variations of value polytheism. However, their macro-orientation does not demonstrate the internal structure and functioning of polytheism. The present paper explicates the logical-methodological foundations of Weber’s scientific programme to clarify these points. Primarily, it investigates the problem of the consequences of an action carried out in a “vocation” mode and the boundaries of “adequate” causal explanations as presented in Weber’s works. It makes it possible to consider Weber’s value polytheism and concepts associated with it not as value metaphysics or unreasonable axioms,but as a methodologically based conceptual apparatus.
{"title":"Max Weber’s “Value Polytheism”: Contexts, Origin, Logical-methodological Foundations","authors":"I. Presnyakov","doi":"10.22394/2074-0492-2020-4-68-106","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22394/2074-0492-2020-4-68-106","url":null,"abstract":"Weber’s concept of “vocation” in science implies “anti-monumentalism”: research can always be continued, and the results obtained can be used in various ways. The scientist cannot be completely aware of the final impact of their work, so they are faced with a paradox of consequences. This paradox is based on value polytheism, a concept put forward by Weber. There are two ideas central to polytheism: first, one must recognize the internal logic of value spheres and, second, one must consider their fundamental incommensurability. But how does this idea emerge in Weber’s theory? Interpretations of value polytheism as a “fact” of a cultural situation and as the logical foundation of science do not allow one to answer the question of its origin. The conceptual bridge is found in Weber’s sociology of religion. Tenbruck’s, Schluchter’s, and Hennis’s models are examined to identify variations of value polytheism. However, their macro-orientation does not demonstrate the internal structure and functioning of polytheism. The present paper explicates the logical-methodological foundations of Weber’s scientific programme to clarify these points. Primarily, it investigates the problem of the consequences of an action carried out in a “vocation” mode and the boundaries of “adequate” causal explanations as presented in Weber’s works. It makes it possible to consider Weber’s value polytheism and concepts associated with it not as value metaphysics or unreasonable axioms,but as a methodologically based conceptual apparatus.","PeriodicalId":33494,"journal":{"name":"Sotsiologiia vlasti","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49353196","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 : 2020-12-01DOI: 10.22394/2074-0492-2020-4-204-216
M. Weber
{"title":"The Theory of Marginal Utility and the “Basic Psychophysical Law”","authors":"M. Weber","doi":"10.22394/2074-0492-2020-4-204-216","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22394/2074-0492-2020-4-204-216","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":33494,"journal":{"name":"Sotsiologiia vlasti","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49461349","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 : 2020-12-01DOI: 10.22394/2074-0492-2020-4-123-145
G. Semiglazov
The article focuses on the concept of the state in the works of the German sociologist M. Weber and his contemporary, the anarchist G. Landauer. Specifically, it is commonly thought that Weber has a unique interpretation of the state, its nature, and inalienable characteristics. This Weberian approach did not fit into any of the traditions that existed at that time in Germany (for example, represented by H. Kelsen, G. Jellinek, and O. von Gierke). However, the author of the article tries to demonstrate that three main Weberian aspects of the state — 1) the monopoly on legitimate physical violence, 2) the relationship of domination, which is accompanied by a minimum desire to obey, and 3) the chance for the regular reproducibility of these relationships — are consonant with Landauer’s concept of the state. This discovered conceptual affinity allows one to look at Weber’s sociology from new angles, without being impacted by the personal beliefs of the German scientist, who very critically treated anarchism as a socio-political movement. In the final section of the paper, the author discusses the modern project of “anarchist sociology”, which also uses Weberian methodology. The paper argues that “anarchist sociology” might be a promising social science with ts unique vision of several key sociological topics, such as domination, power, or social inequality.
本文着重分析了德国社会学家韦伯及其同时代无政府主义者兰道尔作品中的国家概念。具体来说，人们普遍认为韦伯对国家、国家的性质和不可剥夺的特征有着独特的解释。这种韦伯式的方法不符合当时德国存在的任何传统(例如，以H. Kelsen, G. Jellinek和O. von Gierke为代表)。然而，这篇文章的作者试图证明，韦伯关于国家的三个主要方面——1)对合法身体暴力的垄断，2)统治关系，伴随着最低限度的服从欲望，以及3)这些关系有规律地再现的机会——与兰道尔的国家概念是一致的。这种发现的概念亲和性使人们可以从新的角度看待韦伯的社会学，而不会受到这位德国科学家个人信仰的影响，他非常批判地将无政府主义视为一种社会政治运动。在论文的最后一节，作者讨论了“无政府主义社会学”的现代工程，它也使用了韦伯的方法论。本文认为，“无政府主义社会学”可能是一门有前途的社会科学，因为它对几个关键的社会学主题，如统治、权力或社会不平等有独特的看法。
{"title":"The Concept of the State in Weber’s and Landauer’s Works: an Analysis of the Weberian Definition from the Perspective of Anarchist Theory","authors":"G. Semiglazov","doi":"10.22394/2074-0492-2020-4-123-145","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22394/2074-0492-2020-4-123-145","url":null,"abstract":"The article focuses on the concept of the state in the works of the German sociologist M. Weber and his contemporary, the anarchist G. Landauer. Specifically, it is commonly thought that Weber has a unique interpretation of the state, its nature, and inalienable characteristics. This Weberian approach did not fit into any of the traditions that existed at that time in Germany (for example, represented by H. Kelsen, G. Jellinek, and O. von Gierke). However, the author of the article tries to demonstrate that three main Weberian aspects of the state — 1) the monopoly on legitimate physical violence, 2) the relationship of domination, which is accompanied by a minimum desire to obey, and 3) the chance for the regular reproducibility of these relationships — are consonant with Landauer’s concept of the state. This discovered conceptual affinity allows one to look at Weber’s sociology from new angles, without being impacted by the personal beliefs of the German scientist, who very critically treated anarchism as a socio-political movement. In the final section of the paper, the author discusses the modern project of “anarchist sociology”, which also uses Weberian methodology. The paper argues that “anarchist sociology” might be a promising social science with ts unique vision of several key sociological topics, such as domination, power, or social inequality.","PeriodicalId":33494,"journal":{"name":"Sotsiologiia vlasti","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45359432","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 : 2020-12-01DOI: 10.22394/2074-0492-2020-4-45-67
I. Zabaev, E. Kostrova
This article focuses on Max Weber’s understanding of “ethos” in “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism” and the benefits afforded by this concept. The reference is not accidental as it is in this work that Weber could consistently explicate his ethical argument. The idea of ethos becomes clearer in comparison with the concept of habitus, which is actively used today in social science. It is shown that the distinction between ethos and habitus may be more productive than the conflation common in modern research. The category “ethos” is compared with the value-rational action from the later typology of action in Weber’s “Economy and Society”, while habitus is associated with traditional action from the same typology. The concept of ethos is further clarified by the example of Weber’s opposition of traditionalism and ethical modern Western capitalism. By focusing on ethical issues and using character as a theoretical tool, Weber not only puts forward a convincing interpretation but lays the foundations for a specific line of analysis in social and economic science. The category of ethos in conjunction with the value-rational type of action acquires special significance due to the potential for novelty and change that is embedded in it.
{"title":"Ethos versus Habitus: the Ethical Component in Max Weber’s “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism”","authors":"I. Zabaev, E. Kostrova","doi":"10.22394/2074-0492-2020-4-45-67","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22394/2074-0492-2020-4-45-67","url":null,"abstract":"This article focuses on Max Weber’s understanding of “ethos” in “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism” and the benefits afforded by this concept. The reference is not accidental as it is in this work that Weber could consistently explicate his ethical argument. The idea of ethos becomes clearer in comparison with the concept of habitus, which is actively used today in social science. It is shown that the distinction between ethos and habitus may be more productive than the conflation common in modern research. The category “ethos” is compared with the value-rational action from the later typology of action in Weber’s “Economy and Society”, while habitus is associated with traditional action from the same typology. The concept of ethos is further clarified by the example of Weber’s opposition of traditionalism and ethical modern Western capitalism. By focusing on ethical issues and using character as a theoretical tool, Weber not only puts forward a convincing interpretation but lays the foundations for a specific line of analysis in social and economic science. The category of ethos in conjunction with the value-rational type of action acquires special significance due to the potential for novelty and change that is embedded in it.","PeriodicalId":33494,"journal":{"name":"Sotsiologiia vlasti","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48070719","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 : 2020-12-01DOI: 10.22394/2074-0492-2020-4-230-235
V.L. Bliznekov
{"title":"Max Weber‘s Ideological Legacy: A Retrospective View 100 Years Later. Book Review: Lichtblau K. (2020) Zur Aktualität von Max Weber. Einführung in sein Werk, Wiesbaden: Springer VS","authors":"V.L. Bliznekov","doi":"10.22394/2074-0492-2020-4-230-235","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22394/2074-0492-2020-4-230-235","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":33494,"journal":{"name":"Sotsiologiia vlasti","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47794314","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 : 2020-12-01DOI: 10.22394/2074-0492-2020-4-167-179
A. F. Filippov
{"title":"Max Weber in Scientific Controversies. On the Occasion of New Translations","authors":"A. F. Filippov","doi":"10.22394/2074-0492-2020-4-167-179","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22394/2074-0492-2020-4-167-179","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":33494,"journal":{"name":"Sotsiologiia vlasti","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43049557","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 : 2020-12-01DOI: 10.22394/2074-0492-2020-4-107-122
M. Maslovskiy
The article considers Max Weber’s model of plebiscitary leadership and historical examples of plebiscitary democracy. It is argued that there is no clear distinction between plebiscitary democracy and dictatorship inWeber’s writings. As Stefan Breuer demonstrates, such a distinction allows us to broaden the application of Weberian concepts. Plebiscitary elements can be seen in the political life of non-Western states, which have been discussed from the multiple modernities perspective. However, while that perspective develops the Weberian sociological tradition, its representatives mostly do not use the concept of plebiscitary leadership. Thus, Shmuel Eisenstadt draws primarily on Weber’s sociology of religion in his analysis of different types of modernity. Specifically, Eisenstadt considers the impact of civilizational legacies on political processes in India and Latin America. Peter Wagner discusses the relevance of Weber’s rationalization thesis and theory of capitalism rather than the concepts of Weberian political sociology. In his study of democratization in Brazil and South Africa, Wagner emphasizes the progressive character of political changes but does not consider the possibility of a reversal of these processes. The article argues that the contemporary reconstruction of Weber’s model of plebiscitary leadership can complement the analyses of democratization in non-Western societies from the multiple modernities perspective.
{"title":"Max Weber’s Analysis of Plebiscitary Leadership and the Debate on Multiple Modernities","authors":"M. Maslovskiy","doi":"10.22394/2074-0492-2020-4-107-122","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22394/2074-0492-2020-4-107-122","url":null,"abstract":"The article considers Max Weber’s model of plebiscitary leadership and historical examples of plebiscitary democracy. It is argued that there is no clear distinction between plebiscitary democracy and dictatorship inWeber’s writings. As Stefan Breuer demonstrates, such a distinction allows us to broaden the application of Weberian concepts. Plebiscitary elements can be seen in the political life of non-Western states, which have been discussed from the multiple modernities perspective. However, while that perspective develops the Weberian sociological tradition, its representatives mostly do not use the concept of plebiscitary leadership. Thus, Shmuel Eisenstadt draws primarily on Weber’s sociology of religion in his analysis of different types of modernity. Specifically, Eisenstadt considers the impact of civilizational legacies on political processes in India and Latin America. Peter Wagner discusses the relevance of Weber’s rationalization thesis and theory of capitalism rather than the concepts of Weberian political sociology. In his study of democratization in Brazil and South Africa, Wagner emphasizes the progressive character of political changes but does not consider the possibility of a reversal of these processes. The article argues that the contemporary reconstruction of Weber’s model of plebiscitary leadership can complement the analyses of democratization in non-Western societies from the multiple modernities perspective.","PeriodicalId":33494,"journal":{"name":"Sotsiologiia vlasti","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46821017","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：