Elements of Parson\u27s Theory of Ideology

Parsonsa se standardno uzima kao najistaknutijeg predstavnika “teorije o zajedničkoj kulturi”, koja se implicite razumije kao apologija dominantne ideologije. Vrijednosti, konsenzus, integracija, solidarnost neke su od ključnih riječi kojima se Parsonsa optužuje za jednostran pogled na društvo kao harmoni čnu cjelinu. U strukturalno-funkcionalnoj fazi svoje teorije (u knjizi The Social System) Parsons govori o ideologiji na dva načina: prvo, sa stajališta sociologije znanja i kognitivnih manjkavosti ideologije, i drugo, u vezi s socijalnim funkcijama ideologije – usmjerenosti na integraciju kolektiva, tako da je njegova pozicija izvorno sociološka a ne epistemološka. Njegovo je shvaćanje ideologije neutralno i inkluzivno. U razmatranju društvene promjene Parsons ideologiju kritički smješta u konceptualni okvir povezan s Weberovom tezom o racionalizaciji i Durkheimovom teorijom diferencijacije. Taj dinamički međuodnos između Durkheimove teorije solidarnosti i Weberove teorije racionalizacije i karizme pokazuje kako Parsons promatra ideologiju vrlo obuhvatno – kao integrativni i istodobno “remetilački” faktor u društvenoj evoluciji. To se može pokazati na dva koncepta iz kasnije faze Parsonsove teorije – na konceptima socijetalne zajednice i dediferencijacije. Ovdje se ideologija jedanput pojavljuje kao integrativna i stabilizirajuća (u obliku vrijednosne generalizacije i inkluzije), a drugi put kao dinamizirajući faktor (kao vrijednosni fundamentalizam i Gemeinschaft). Taj opći teorijski okvir potpuno je prikladan za razumijevanje procesa u suvremenim društvima – primjerice recentnih nacionalističkih pokreta ili imigracijskog pitanja u visokorazvijenim državama.Parsons is regarded as the most prominent representative of the “Common culture theory” which is usually understood as an apology of the dominant ideology. Words like values, consensus, integration, solidarity are the key argument in the accusations against Parsons for one-sided view of society as a harmonic whole. In the structural-functional stage of his theory (in The Social System) Parsons speaks about ideology in two ways: firstly, from the point of view of sociology of knowledge and cognitive shortcomings of ideology, and secondly in relation to social functions of ideology – i.e. orientation to integration of collectivity. It follows that his position is originally sociological rather then epistemological one. His conception of ideology is neutral and inclusive. In the context of social change Parsons critically places ideology in the conceptual framework linked with Weber’s rationalisation thesis as well as Durkheim’s differentiation theory. Dynamic interplay between Durkheim’s theory of solidarity and Weber’s theory of rationalisation and charisma shows that Parsons sees ideology inclusively – both as integrative and as “disturbing” factor in social evolution. That can be showed by two concepts from later stage in Parsons’ theory – those of societal community and dedifferentiation. Here ideology comes first as integrating and stabilising (in the form of value-generalisation and inclusion) and second as a dynamic factor (as value fundamentalism and Gemeinschaft). Such a general frame is well suited for understanding of contemporary social processes – e.g. recent nationalistic movements or immigration issues present in highly developed countries

Cultural capital and simbolic power: the three aspects of bourdieu\u27s theory of ideology

U radu se razmatraju osnovni pojmovi Bourdieuove sociologije – kapital, habitus, polje i simbolička moć – s obzirom na problem ideologije. U Bourdieuovoj analizi ideologije možemo razlikovati tri povezana i isprepletena aspekta. Prvi je povezan s Marxom i strukturalizmom i tu se ideologija razmatra na strukturalnoj razini društva s obzirom na njezine funkcije i način djelovanja te odnos prema drugim strukturalnim razinama. Drugi aspekt je „durkheimovski” a ideologija se razmatra kao sustav klasifi kacija (hijerarhija) i njihova legitimacija. Habitus kao socijalizirana subjektivnost ovdje ima središnje mjesto. Treći je aspekt „weberijanski” u smislu da se ideologija promatra kao polje a posebna je pozornost posvećena njezinim proizvođačima – specijalistima. Ideološko polje je, kao i svako polje, relativno autonomno, tako da se njegovi proizvodi ne mogu izravno povezivati s interesima vladajuće klase, kao što to čine vulgarne varijante marksizma. Bourdieu ne razlikuje dovoljno ideologiju u durkheimovskom smislu, kao sisteme klasifi kacije i aspekt „življenog iskustva”, od ideologije kao proizvoda specijaliziranog rada u okviru intelektualnog (odnosno ideološkog) polja koje se ravna po vlastitim zakonitostima. Mada procesi u ideološkom polju refl ektiraju i reproduciraju odnose moći u polju socijalnih klasa, ta veza nije dovoljno jasno pokazana.The fundamental concepts of Bourdieu’s sociology – capital, habitus, fi eld and symbolic power – are reviewed with regard to the issue of ideology. In Bourdieu’s analysis of ideology one can distinguish three related and intertwined aspects. The fi rst is linked to Marx and structuralism, where ideology is conceived at the structural level with regard to its function and mode of operation as well as its relation to other structural levels. The second aspect is “durkhemian” and ideology is considered as a system of classifi cations (hierarchies) and their legitimation. Habitus as the socialised subjectivity is central here. The third aspect is “weberian” where ideology is viewed as a fi eld with special regard to its producers – specialists. As any other fi eld, ideological fi eld is relatively autonomous so its products cannot be directly linked to the interests of the dominant class, as vulgar Marxism does. Bourdieu does not emphasise enough the distinction between ideology in durkhemian sense, as systems of classifi cation and aspect of “lived experience”, and ideology as the product of specialists’ work within the intellectual (i.e. ideological) fi eld ruled by its own laws. Although processes in the ideological fi eld do refl ect and reproduce power relations in the fi eld of social classes, the connection between the two is not presented clearly enough

The natural flows of society and the exciting easeness of theory

Članak razmatra teorijske aspekte socioloških radova Josipa Županova. Iz širokog dijapazona teorija koje je Županov koristio vidljiv je njegov pragmatičan odnos prema sociološkom nasljeđu i shvaćanje teorija kao tool kit-a za objašnjavanje društvenih pojava. Teorija o egalitarnom sindromu, međutim, ima paradigmatski status u Županovljevim radovima – to je središnja metafora oko koje on piše više od tri desetljeća. Osim egalitarizma, u članku se razmatra i koncept “prirodnih tokova društva”, kao i promjena opće teorijske orijentacije autora od naglaska na društvenu promjenu prema naglasku na društveni kontinuitet. Na kraju se nudi kritički osvrt na autorovo shvaćanje egalitarizma i kontinuiteta.The article deals with the theoretical aspects of Josip Županov’s sociological work. From the wide span of theories that he used one can see Županov’s pragmatic attitude towards sociological legacy and his treatment of theories as a tool kit for social explanation. The theory of egalitarian sydrome, however, has a paradigmatic status in Županov’s work – it functions as a central metaphor for his work for several decades. Besides egalitarianism, the article deals with the concept of “natural flows of society”, as well as with the change of author’s general theoretical orientation from the favouring of social change to the emphasis on social continuities. In the final section one can find a critical evaluation of Županov’s views on egalitarianism and continuitiy

On the Growth of Marine Diatom Phaeodactylum tricornutum in the Batch Culture

The growth of Phaeodactylum tricornutum — the monoculture Ab 3—5 (Fig. 1) in laboratory conditions was investigated. The influence of various media, temperature (Fig. 2), salinity, nutrients (Fig. 3) and vitamins upon the growth rate of the alga was observed. The results showed the most intensive growth in the filtered north-adriatic seawater enriched with the Provasoli ES solution. In the temperature range from 18° C to 32° C the alga survived but the best growth was registered at 20° C. The growth was observed in the salinity range from 2%o to 63%o. The clone growing in 0%o salinity medium (fresh water) did not reproduce but it survived. Phosphates appeared to be indispensable for the growth of the alga (Fig. 3 B). Vitamins B12, biotin and thiamine acted as inhibitors on the growth of P. tricornutum

Nastavak deseterca drugim sredstvima

Žanić, Ivo (1998.) Prevarena povijest. Guslarska estrada, kult hajduka i rat u Hrvatskoj i Bosni i Hercegovini 1990-1995. godine

Values and Social Integration in the Theory of Talcott Parsons

U radu se analiziraju unutrašnje teorijske poteškoće Parsonsova shvaćanja vrijednosti i njihove uloge u integraciji društvenog sistema. Posebno je naglašena nemogućnost da se iz pojma »društvena akcija izvede pojam društva, što Parsonsa prisiljava da u kasnijoj fazi naglasak stavi na teoriju sistema i iz pojma sistema izvodi društvo. Nakon pregleda kritika Parsonsove teorije upućuje se na razlikovanje sistemske i socijalne integracije (Lockwood, Habermas) kao plodno analitičko oruđe kojim se mogu razriješiti problemi odnosa između teorije akcije i teorije sistema.The internal theoretical difficulties of Parsons\u27 concept of values and their role in the integration of social system are analysed. Special emphasis is given to the impossibility of deriving the concept of society out of the concept of action. In the later phase of his theory Parsons is thus forced to emphasize the theory of system in order to derive the concept of society. After a short review of critics of Parsons\u27 theory the author points at the distinction between system and social integration (Lockwood, Habermas) which can be used as a fruitful analytical tool by which the questions of the relationship between theory of action and system theory could be resolved