{"title":"A Qualitative Study of Labour Market Precarisation and Involved Fatherhood in Slovenia","authors":"M. Hrženjak","doi":"10.5613/RZS.47.2.4","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5613/RZS.47.2.4","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":39535,"journal":{"name":"Revija za Sociologiju","volume":"47 1","pages":"207-232"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.5613/RZS.47.2.4","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46531071","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}
{"title":"Samuel C. Heilman, Who Will Lead Us? The Story of Five Hasidic Dynasties in America","authors":"Gabi Abramac","doi":"10.5613/RZS.47.2.5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5613/RZS.47.2.5","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":39535,"journal":{"name":"Revija za Sociologiju","volume":"47 1","pages":"233-236"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.5613/RZS.47.2.5","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48911416","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}
The paper examines two ubiquitous concepts of power: the "classical sociological" concept which draws on Max Weber's definition of power, and the "Foucauldian" concept which stems from Michel Foucault's genealogical works. Three main theses are argued for. First, the two concepts are not, in most respects, as radically different as it is usually claimed. It is demonstrated that both can make room for different sources of power, for understanding power in a non-reified way, for the fact that power is rarely completely centralised, etc. Second, in those respects in which the two concepts actually differ, the classical view of power is more convincing and useful than the Foucauldian one. It is demonstrated that the Foucauldian view is implicitly positivist in the normative domain and thus unable to differentiate between power and domination, and that it succumbs to errors of methodological holism (i. e. undertheorising agency). Third, it is argued that the classical sociological view allows to analytically distinguish between power, domination and exploitation. These three categories are shown not to be synonymous and to carry with them importantly different sociological implications. It is demonstrated that exploitation cannot merely refer to any process of unpaid appropriation of surplus as obvious false positives are generated from this definition. Nonetheless, such appropriation is the fundamental characteristic which differentiates exploitation from domination (but not power itself), and this reveals an important sociological implication for the dynamics of struggle of the exploited against exploitation in contrast to the struggle of the dominated against the dominators.
{"title":"Clarifying power, domination, and exploitation : between \"classical\" and \"Foucauldian\" concepts of power","authors":"Tibor Rutar","doi":"10.5613/RZS.47.2.2","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5613/RZS.47.2.2","url":null,"abstract":"The paper examines two ubiquitous concepts of power: the \"classical sociological\" concept which draws on Max Weber's definition of power, and the \"Foucauldian\" concept which stems from Michel Foucault's genealogical works. Three main theses are argued for. First, the two concepts are not, in most respects, as radically different as it is usually claimed. It is demonstrated that both can make room for different sources of power, for understanding power in a non-reified way, for the fact that power is rarely completely centralised, etc. Second, in those respects in which the two concepts actually differ, the classical view of power is more convincing and useful than the Foucauldian one. It is demonstrated that the Foucauldian view is implicitly positivist in the normative domain and thus unable to differentiate between power and domination, and that it succumbs to errors of methodological holism (i. e. undertheorising agency). Third, it is argued that the classical sociological view allows to analytically distinguish between power, domination and exploitation. These three categories are shown not to be synonymous and to carry with them importantly different sociological implications. It is demonstrated that exploitation cannot merely refer to any process of unpaid appropriation of surplus as obvious false positives are generated from this definition. Nonetheless, such appropriation is the fundamental characteristic which differentiates exploitation from domination (but not power itself), and this reveals an important sociological implication for the dynamics of struggle of the exploited against exploitation in contrast to the struggle of the dominated against the dominators.","PeriodicalId":39535,"journal":{"name":"Revija za Sociologiju","volume":"47 1","pages":"151-175"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.5613/RZS.47.2.2","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44993341","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}
IN ENGLISH: The article analyses how young people in Croatia conceptualise their identities in terms of “place identifications”, a type of social identification that captures membership of a group of people who are defined by their location. It is based on focus group discussions conducted with 68 elementary and secondary school students aged between 11 and 17 in three urban localities in Croatia: Rijeka, Zagreb and Zadar. The concepts guiding the analysis included place identifications, the civic and cultural components of national identity and intersectionality. The study found that students displayed a strong identification with the region they are from through a discourse of stereotypes along the coastal–inland, rural–urban and north–south distinctions. National cultural identities and liminal European-Balkan identities were equally strong providing interesting examples of inclusion and othering. The young people showed a sense of aspiring to be European, of feeling almost European, of being not-quite-yet European, of being “Balkan”. There was a common sense of the Balkan-European divide being a line that stood very slightly to the north-west of wherever the students happened to be: there was Europe, generally beckoning – but they were on a threshold and still leaning towards the Balkan side, described as impolite, quarrelsome, underdeveloped and littered. The study suggests complex and kaleidoscopic identity constructions of young people in Croatia in which different and even opposed elements do not exclude each other but rather coexist in various ways. --------------- IN CROATIAN: U radu se ispituje kako mladi u Hrvatskoj konceptualiziraju svoje identitete u vidu »mjesnih identiteta« kao vrste drustvene identifikacije koja obuhvaca pripadnost drustvenoj skupini koja se definira njezinom lokacijom. Rad se temelji na podacima prikupljenima u okviru fokusnih grupa u kojima je sudjelovalo 68 ucenika i ucenica osnovnih i srednjih skola u dobi između 11 i 17 godina u trima gradovima u Hrvatskoj: Rijeci, Zagrebu i Zadru. Konceptualni okvir analize ukljucuje mjesne identitete, građansku i kulturnu komponentu nacionalnog identiteta i intersekcionalnost. Analiza pokazuje da ucenici i ucenice izražavaju snažan regionalni identitet u kojem znacajno mjesto zauzimaju stereotipi koji se odnose na razlike između priobalja i unutrasnjosti, između ruralnih i urbanih podrucja te između sjevera i juga. Nacionalni kulturni identiteti i rubni europsko-balkanski identiteti podjednako su snažni te pružaju zanimljive primjere inkluzije i iskljucivanja »drugog i drukcijeg«. Mladi obuhvaceni istraživanjem izražavaju istodobno težnju k europejstvu, osjecaj nepotpunog odnosno jos nedostignutoga europejstva, kao i osjecaj pripadnosti balkanskome kulturnom krugu. Analiza je pokazala i zajednicko razumijevanje podjele između Europe i Balkana shvacene kao razdjelnice koja se nalazi uvijek sjeverozapadno u odnosu prema lokalitetu ucenika: iako po pravilu teže Europi, ucenic
{"title":"Balkan and European? Place Identifications of Young People in Croatia","authors":"A. Ross, Saša Puzić, K. Doolan","doi":"10.5613/RZS.47.2.1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5613/RZS.47.2.1","url":null,"abstract":"IN ENGLISH: The article analyses how young people in Croatia conceptualise their identities in terms of “place identifications”, a type of social identification that captures membership of a group of people who are defined by their location. It is based on focus group discussions conducted with 68 elementary and secondary school students aged between 11 and 17 in three urban localities in Croatia: Rijeka, Zagreb and Zadar. The concepts guiding the analysis included place identifications, the civic and cultural components of national identity and intersectionality. The study found that students displayed a strong identification with the region they are from through a discourse of stereotypes along the coastal–inland, rural–urban and north–south distinctions. National cultural identities and liminal European-Balkan identities were equally strong providing interesting examples of inclusion and othering. The young people showed a sense of aspiring to be European, of feeling almost European, of being not-quite-yet European, of being “Balkan”. There was a common sense of the Balkan-European divide being a line that stood very slightly to the north-west of wherever the students happened to be: there was Europe, generally beckoning – but they were on a threshold and still leaning towards the Balkan side, described as impolite, quarrelsome, underdeveloped and littered. The study suggests complex and kaleidoscopic identity constructions of young people in Croatia in which different and even opposed elements do not exclude each other but rather coexist in various ways. --------------- IN CROATIAN: U radu se ispituje kako mladi u Hrvatskoj konceptualiziraju svoje identitete u vidu »mjesnih identiteta« kao vrste drustvene identifikacije koja obuhvaca pripadnost drustvenoj skupini koja se definira njezinom lokacijom. Rad se temelji na podacima prikupljenima u okviru fokusnih grupa u kojima je sudjelovalo 68 ucenika i ucenica osnovnih i srednjih skola u dobi između 11 i 17 godina u trima gradovima u Hrvatskoj: Rijeci, Zagrebu i Zadru. Konceptualni okvir analize ukljucuje mjesne identitete, građansku i kulturnu komponentu nacionalnog identiteta i intersekcionalnost. Analiza pokazuje da ucenici i ucenice izražavaju snažan regionalni identitet u kojem znacajno mjesto zauzimaju stereotipi koji se odnose na razlike između priobalja i unutrasnjosti, između ruralnih i urbanih podrucja te između sjevera i juga. Nacionalni kulturni identiteti i rubni europsko-balkanski identiteti podjednako su snažni te pružaju zanimljive primjere inkluzije i iskljucivanja »drugog i drukcijeg«. Mladi obuhvaceni istraživanjem izražavaju istodobno težnju k europejstvu, osjecaj nepotpunog odnosno jos nedostignutoga europejstva, kao i osjecaj pripadnosti balkanskome kulturnom krugu. Analiza je pokazala i zajednicko razumijevanje podjele između Europe i Balkana shvacene kao razdjelnice koja se nalazi uvijek sjeverozapadno u odnosu prema lokalitetu ucenika: iako po pravilu teže Europi, ucenic","PeriodicalId":39535,"journal":{"name":"Revija za Sociologiju","volume":"47 1","pages":"125-150"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.5613/RZS.47.2.1","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41919690","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}
Michael Burawoy’s project of public sociology provoked major debate within the sociological community about the tasks and nature of the discipline. While most participants in the debate are sympathetic to his call for a more publicly engaged sociology, many criticise him for politicising the discipline and claim that sociologists should not devote their work to promoting social justice or certain political agendas but concentrate instead on building an objective, evidence-based knowledge of society. This article argues that neither Burawoy’s public sociology nor the so-called scientific sociology constitute a proper way to address the problems of sociology’s identity crisis and its growing public irrelevance. It is suggested that Karl Mannheim provided the best answer to the questions of what it means to practice sociology and for what purposes it should be practiced. Following Mannheim’s line of thinking, the article argues that the real issue is not whether sociologists should be committed to promoting social justice or accumulating objective knowledge about society, but whether they can offer a comprehensive interpretation of the current situation and develop effective strategies to transform the existing patterns of society.
{"title":"The Calling of Sociology: Beyond Value-detached Professionalism and Partisan Activism","authors":"Davorka Matić","doi":"10.5613/RZS.47.2.3","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5613/RZS.47.2.3","url":null,"abstract":"Michael Burawoy’s project of public sociology provoked major debate within the sociological community about the tasks and nature of the discipline. While most participants in the debate are sympathetic to his call for a more publicly engaged sociology, many criticise him for politicising the discipline and claim that sociologists should not devote their work to promoting social justice or certain political agendas but concentrate instead on building an objective, evidence-based knowledge of society. This article argues that neither Burawoy’s public sociology nor the so-called scientific sociology constitute a proper way to address the problems of sociology’s identity crisis and its growing public irrelevance. It is suggested that Karl Mannheim provided the best answer to the questions of what it means to practice sociology and for what purposes it should be practiced. Following Mannheim’s line of thinking, the article argues that the real issue is not whether sociologists should be committed to promoting social justice or accumulating objective knowledge about society, but whether they can offer a comprehensive interpretation of the current situation and develop effective strategies to transform the existing patterns of society.","PeriodicalId":39535,"journal":{"name":"Revija za Sociologiju","volume":"47 1","pages":"177-205"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.5613/RZS.47.2.3","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44610190","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}
Rad problematizira vezu roditeljskoga glazbenog kulturnog kapitala i glazbene socijalizacije djece rane i predskolske dobi. Istraživanje je provedeno 2013. godine metodom ankete na uzorku roditelja cija djeca pohađaju vrtic na podrucju grada Rijeke (N = 342). Glazbena socijalizacija djece te dobi nema, u burdijeovskom smislu, distinktivnu funkciju transmisije kulturnog kapitala, nego se zbiva u sklopu rodnog obrasca roditeljske brige za dijete rane i predskolske dobi, prema kojem je majka u svim dimenzijama (glazbene) socijalizacije angažiranija od oca.
{"title":"Oblici roditeljskoga glazbenog kulturnog kapitala i glazbena socijalizacija djece rane i predškolske dobi","authors":"Željko Boneta, Akvilina Čamber Tambolaš, Željka Ivković","doi":"10.5613/RZS.47.1.1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5613/RZS.47.1.1","url":null,"abstract":"Rad problematizira vezu roditeljskoga glazbenog kulturnog kapitala i glazbene socijalizacije djece rane i predskolske dobi. Istraživanje je provedeno 2013. godine metodom ankete na uzorku roditelja cija djeca pohađaju vrtic na podrucju grada Rijeke (N = 342). Glazbena socijalizacija djece te dobi nema, u burdijeovskom smislu, distinktivnu funkciju transmisije kulturnog kapitala, nego se zbiva u sklopu rodnog obrasca roditeljske brige za dijete rane i predskolske dobi, prema kojem je majka u svim dimenzijama (glazbene) socijalizacije angažiranija od oca.","PeriodicalId":39535,"journal":{"name":"Revija za Sociologiju","volume":"47 1","pages":"5-36"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.5613/RZS.47.1.1","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44458845","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}
The research on homoparentality started in the late 1970s and early 1980s in the AngloSaxon context. A great majority of those studies found no evidence of harmful outcomes for the children of lesbians and gays resulting from their parents’ sexual orientation. Those studies, however, were typically limited by small-size samples and restricted to the analysis of lesbian families. Quantitative studies comparing the outcomes of children from different family structures based on random representative samples have been conducted since the beginning of the 21st century. The present paper systematically reviews that research by focusing on three points of methodological debate identified in the literature on homoparentality: sample characteristics, operationalisation of the category of same-sex partners’ children, and the inclusion of the control for family stability. The results of most quantitative studies based on random representative samples were consistent with the findings of the previous studies. The minority of those studies that did find some differences in harmful outcomes between the children of same-sex and opposite-sex partners were characterised by serious methodological flaws. They ranged from artificially inflating the category of the children of same-sex parents (for instance, by including children who were possibly or probably never raised by a same-sex couple) to omitting a control variable of family stability from the analyses. Therefore, this review concludes that scientifically the most credible quantitative studies support the conclusions of numerous earlier qualitative and quantitative studies conducted using convenience samples – there is no credible evidence that the children raised by same-sex partners fare worse than the children of opposite-sex partners due to the sexual orientation of their parents.
{"title":"Comparing the Outcomes of Children of Same-Sex and Opposite-Sex Partners: Overview of the Quantitative Studies Conducted on Random Representative Samples","authors":"Tanja Vučković Juroš","doi":"10.5613/RZS.47.1.3","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5613/RZS.47.1.3","url":null,"abstract":"The research on homoparentality started in the late 1970s and early 1980s in the AngloSaxon context. A great majority of those studies found no evidence of harmful outcomes for the children of lesbians and gays resulting from their parents’ sexual orientation. Those studies, however, were typically limited by small-size samples and restricted to the analysis of lesbian families. Quantitative studies comparing the outcomes of children from different family structures based on random representative samples have been conducted since the beginning of the 21st century. The present paper systematically reviews that research by focusing on three points of methodological debate identified in the literature on homoparentality: sample characteristics, operationalisation of the category of same-sex partners’ children, and the inclusion of the control for family stability. The results of most quantitative studies based on random representative samples were consistent with the findings of the previous studies. The minority of those studies that did find some differences in harmful outcomes between the children of same-sex and opposite-sex partners were characterised by serious methodological flaws. They ranged from artificially inflating the category of the children of same-sex parents (for instance, by including children who were possibly or probably never raised by a same-sex couple) to omitting a control variable of family stability from the analyses. Therefore, this review concludes that scientifically the most credible quantitative studies support the conclusions of numerous earlier qualitative and quantitative studies conducted using convenience samples – there is no credible evidence that the children raised by same-sex partners fare worse than the children of opposite-sex partners due to the sexual orientation of their parents.","PeriodicalId":39535,"journal":{"name":"Revija za Sociologiju","volume":"47 1","pages":"65-95"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.5613/RZS.47.1.3","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48304698","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}
{"title":"VI. nacionalni sociološki kongres Hrvatskoga sociološkog društva »Struktura i dinamika društvenih nejednakosti«","authors":"Augustin Derado","doi":"10.5613/RZS.47.1.6","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5613/RZS.47.1.6","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":39535,"journal":{"name":"Revija za Sociologiju","volume":"47 1","pages":"116-120"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45919665","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}
{"title":"Razlike u društvenom kapitalu stanovništva Hrvatske s obzirom na stupanj urbaniziranosti naselja stanovanja","authors":"Filip Majetić, Miroslav Rajter, Mislav Dević","doi":"10.5613/RZS.47.1.2","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5613/RZS.47.1.2","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":39535,"journal":{"name":"Revija za Sociologiju","volume":"47 1","pages":"37-63"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.5613/RZS.47.1.2","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44736134","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：