Philosophische Prinzipien als Grundlage des Globalisierungskonzeptes

Different interpretations of the concept of globalisation are discussed and the lack of its philosophical foundation is stressed. The possible ideological connotation in a dominant social context with the given primary importance to economic rationality is considered. Views of the distinguished authors are presented in order to understand this complex phenomenon, and its controversies and dilemmas.U tekstu se raspravlja o različitim interpretacijama koncepta globalizacije te se naglašava nedostatak njenog filozofskog utemeljenja. Razmatraju se moguće ideološke konotacije u dominantnom društvenom kontekstu u kojem je dana presudna važnost ekonomskoj racionalnosti. Prezentiraju se stavovi istaknutih autora s ciljem razumijevanja ovoga kompleksnog fenomena te njegovih kontroverzi i dilema.Le texte traite des différentes interprétations du concept de mondialisation puis souligne l’absence de son fondement philosophique. Il examine les potentielles connotations idéologiques dans un contexte de société dominée par la raison économique. Il présente les points de vue d’auteurs de référence afin de cerner ce phénomène complexe, ses controverses et ses dilemmes.Der Text erörtert verschiedene Interpretationen des Globalisierungskonzeptes, das – wie die Autorin unterstreicht – einer philosophischen Grundlage entbehrt. Es werden mögliche ideologische Konnotationen im herrschenden gesellschaftlichen Kontext untersucht, innerhalb dessen das Wirtschaftsdenken eine entscheidende Rolle spielt. Die Autorin präsentiert die Standpunkte renommierter Denker, um das komplexe Phänomen der Globalisierung sowie die sie begleitenden Kontroversen und Dilemmata verständlich zu machen

Philosophische Prinzipien als Grundlage des Globalisierungskonzeptes

Different interpretations of the concept of globalisation are discussed and the lack of its philosophical foundation is stressed. The possible ideological connotation in a dominant social context with the given primary importance to economic rationality is considered. Views of the distinguished authors are presented in order to understand this complex phenomenon, and its controversies and dilemmas.U tekstu se raspravlja o različitim interpretacijama koncepta globalizacije te se naglašava nedostatak njenog filozofskog utemeljenja. Razmatraju se moguće ideološke konotacije u dominantnom društvenom kontekstu u kojem je dana presudna važnost ekonomskoj racionalnosti. Prezentiraju se stavovi istaknutih autora s ciljem razumijevanja ovoga kompleksnog fenomena te njegovih kontroverzi i dilema.Le texte traite des différentes interprétations du concept de mondialisation puis souligne l’absence de son fondement philosophique. Il examine les potentielles connotations idéologiques dans un contexte de société dominée par la raison économique. Il présente les points de vue d’auteurs de référence afin de cerner ce phénomène complexe, ses controverses et ses dilemmes.Der Text erörtert verschiedene Interpretationen des Globalisierungskonzeptes, das – wie die Autorin unterstreicht – einer philosophischen Grundlage entbehrt. Es werden mögliche ideologische Konnotationen im herrschenden gesellschaftlichen Kontext untersucht, innerhalb dessen das Wirtschaftsdenken eine entscheidende Rolle spielt. Die Autorin präsentiert die Standpunkte renommierter Denker, um das komplexe Phänomen der Globalisierung sowie die sie begleitenden Kontroversen und Dilemmata verständlich zu machen

Kultur im postmodernen Zeitalter. Ihre Rolle bei der Entwicklung der menschlichen Potenziale

An anthropological approach to the place of culture in the process of man’s humanization will be discussed: what are the benefits of the modern age development and which problems arise in postindustrial and still technological civilization? What has been changed as far as the fundamental role of culture in the human world is concerned: a) when culture has become an industrial product in term of “mass culture”; and b) under the influence of a postmodern relativism (marginalizing universal values and morality, and instead focusing on “preferences” and narative discourse)? The consequences of these changes are to be analyzed from the point of view of substantial human potentialities as creativity and imagination, frames of references regarding meaning of life, multidimensional nature of human character structure, freedom of personality vs. vulgarized individualism, etc. The concluding question states: whether culture has become submitted to the economism or to politics, instead of being their fundation?Predmet rasprave bit će antropološki pristup mjestu kulture u procesu humanizacije čovjeka: koje su dobrobiti razvoja modernoga doba i koji se problemi javljaju u postindustrijskoj i još uvijek tehnološkoj civilizaciji? Što se promijenilo s obzirom na fundamentalnu ulogu kulture u ljudskom svijetu: a) kad je kultura postala industrijski proizvod u smislu »masovne kulture«, i b) pod utjecajem postmodernog relativizma (koji marginalizira univerzalne vrijednosti i moralnost, umjesto da se fokusira na »preferencije« i narativni diskurs)? Posljedice tih promjena analizirat će se s gledišta supstancijalnih ljudskih mogućnosti kao što su kreativnost i imaginacija, osnove referenci koje se tiču smisla života, multidimenzionalna priroda strukture ljudskoga karaktera, sloboda ličnosti naspram vulgariziranog individualizma, itd. Postavlja se zaključno pitanje: je li kultura postala potčinjena ekonomizmu ili politici, umjesto da bude njihova osnova?La discussion portera sur l’approche anthropologique de la place que la culture occupe dans le processus d’humanisation de l’homme : quels sont les bienfaits du développement du monde moderne et quels problèmes apparaissent au sein de la civilisation postmoderne, toujours technologique ? Qu’a-t-il changé à l’égard du rôle fondamental de la culture dans le monde humain : a) lorsque la culture est devenue un produit industriel en termes de « culture de masse » ; b) sous l’influence du relativisme postmoderne – qui marginalise les valeurs universelles et la moralité au lieu de se concentrer sur les « préférences » et le discours narratif ? L es conséquences de ces changements seront analysées du point de vue du potentiel essentiel de l’homme dont font partie la créativité et l’imagination, les références concernant le sens de la vie, le caractère multidimensionnel de la structure de la nature humaine, la liberté de la personnalité par opposition à l’individualisme banalisé etc. En conclusion, la question suivante est posée : la culture est-elle désormais soumise à l’économisme et à la politique au lieu d’être leur fondement ?Der Artikel erörtert den anthropologischen Ansatz bei der Erforschung der Rolle, die die Kultur im Humanisierungsprozess des Menschen spielt: Was sind die Vorteile des modernen Zeitalters, und welche Probleme melden sich in der postindustriellen und immer noch technologischen Zivilisation? Was hat sich im Hinblick auf die fundamentale Rolle der Kultur in der Welt des Menschen verändert, als: a) die Kultur zu einem Industrieerzeugnis im Sinne von „Massenkultur” wurde; und b) sie unter den Einfluss des postmodernen Relativismus fiel (der universale Werte und Moralität marginalisiert, statt sich auf „Präferenzen” und einen narrativen Diskurs zu fokussieren)? Die Verfasserin analysiert die Folgen dieser Wandel unter dem Gesichtspunkt substanzialer menschlicher Potenziale wie Kreativiät und Imagination, den L ebenssinn betreffende Referenzgrundlagen, multidimensionale Struktur des menschlichen Charakters, Freiheit der Persönlichkeit im Gegensatz zum vulgarisierten Individualismus usw. Die abschließende Fragestellung lautet: Ist die Kultur hinter den Ökonomismus oder die Politik zurückgetreten, statt deren Grundlage zu sein

Studying the Family as a Whole - Some Theoretic and Methodological Problems and Experiences

The author makes two basic criticisms of sociological study of the family in Yugoslavia. In the first place, the theoretic position is usually not clearly determined, or a generalized Marxist attitude is implicated, which does not answer the subject studied (the family), and means that empiric analysis is often carried on outside the theoretic context. Secondly, the special characteristicts of the family are completely disregarded, and it is considered that methods used in any other micro-approach are sufficient and satisfactory. The chief object of this study thus is to discuss whether the methods usually used in sociological research are applicable to the specific characteristics of the family as a human group. The author considers that the family\u27s special characteristics demand a specific methodological approach, and stresses the following elements of the family, as a special type of human community: the composition of the family and the connections on which it is based are not the same as those in other social groups, not even in global society; the family is not only the basic social unit, but also the basic cell of humanization, it is the connection between the individual and society, which must not be forgotten during research; thus the family cannot be studied only in the function of society, but must be treated as a specific community in which the individual characteristics of a person are spontaneously expressed, so that characteristics of family members are an important factor of the family’s characteristics; the family is the least institutionalized social group, so that every family is, in a certain sense, an idiom; the family is not a special institution with a simple task, it is a community to which individuals do not belong because they »play a certain role«, but because they spend most of their lives in it; thus the structure and dynamics of the family cannot be observed only from the aspect of social factors and processes, but also from the aspect of the individuals that comprise it, which is much more true of the family — as a community of individuals — than of other social groups. What does this mean from the methodological aspect? Methods applicable to other social groups cannot be mechanically transferred to family study, especially not those based on a functional orientation; analogous conclusions (social system — »family system«) cannot be drawn; the whole (the family community as a complex network of relations) cannot be substituted by parts plucked from it artificially and observed as sub-systems (the distribution of roles and authority, time budget, system of values etc.); a concrete life situation (and every family is a certain drama) cannot be substituted by models into which data obtained from experience are moulded (as is the case in standardized questionnaires); and finally, an intimate community cannot be expressed by means that pre-suppose that the phenomena they study are depersonalized (all means of statistic analysis). In sociology (not only family sociology) some important methodological problems have not yet been solved. The following problems are usually found as problems of family study: how to bring into accord the demand for an integral approach to phenomena that are being studied, and at the same time ensure the observance of a sufficient number of phenomena so as to notice general tendencies and correlations; how to check connections between certain elements, for instance family life, and not, at the same time, discontinue other important relations that have been neglected at a given moment, and which compose a certain whole. Applied to the family, the following problem remains unsolved, how to study the structure of the family in relations which form its contents, and which are not only created under the influence of social-cultural factors, but also of the characters of family members, yet not disperse that whole into a series of separate problems of study, which open up a whole field of phenomena, but do not enable us to reach the essence of the problem being studied

Historical Lessons of Social Movement in Poland 1980–1981

Autoričina namjera nije bila vrednovanje uspješnosti ili neuspjeha pokreta »Solidarnosti« u Poljskoj, temeljena uvjerenjem da je na sudionicima samima da to učine; umjesto toga, autorica pokušava formulirati izvjesne povijesne pouke na temelju tih iskustava, imajući u vidu suvremene društvene pokrete i njihove strategije. Sažimajući te povijesne pouke, autorica ističe sljedeće: (1) demistifikaciju iluzije o mogućim reformama odozgo, uz paralelno rekonstruiranje »realnog socijalizma« iznutra, suprotstavljajući mu novu strategiju »alternativnog društva« ili »društvene samoorganizacije«; (2) razaranje mita o hegemoniji jedne klase (diktatura proletarijata) kao mogućeg puta emancipacije, suprotstavljanjem zahtjeva za stvaranjem masovnog društvenog pokreta kao »povijesnog subjekta« rekonstruiran ja društva; (3) elitistički koncept radničkog pokreta je osporen, i umjesto toga nastaje masovna organizacija emancipiranih subjekata; (4) napušta se jednostrani koncept političke revolucije i zamjenjuje širim konceptom socijalne i kulturne revolucije, to jest, fokus se premiješta s mijenjanja prvenstveno strukture moći na duboke promjene u čitavom načinu života i komuniciranja; (5) mijenjanje taktike, koje rezultira iz noye strategije nazvane »novim evolucionizmom«, usmjerava pokret na pravno djelovanje utemeljeno na demokratskom komuniciranju, protivno nasilju i militarizaciji pokreta. Iz takve perspektive, poljski socijalni pokret otvorio je nove horizonte društvene renesanse, koji transcendiraju i granice građanskog reformizma, i revolucionarnih pokreta dosad orijentiranih isključivo na političke revolucije.The author\u27s intention is not to evaluate merits and demerits of Solidarity movement in Poland, for as he believes it is to the participants themselves to do this; rather, the author attempts at formulating certain historical lessons on the basis of these experiences with regard to modern social movements and their strategies. In summarizing these historical lessons, the author makes the following points: 1. a demystification of the illusion on possible reforms from above while reconstructing the »really existing socialism« from within, by opposing a new strategy of an »alternative society«, or »society\u27s self-organization «; 2. a demolition of the myth on one class hegemony (dictatorship of proletariat) as a possible road to emancipation, counterposing a request for the formation of a mass social movement as a »historical subject« of society’s reconstruction; 3. an elitist concept of the workers\u27movement is contested and a massive organization of emancipated subjects created instead; 4. the one-sided concept of political revolution is given up and replaced by a broader concept of social and cultural revolution, i. e. the focus is shifted from changing primarily the power structure, to the deep changes of the entire way of life and communications; 5. the changing tactics, which results from a new strategy called »new evolutionism«, orients the movement to the legal action based on democratic communications as against violence and militarization of the movement. Viewed from this perspective, Polish social movement opened new horizon for social renaissance transcending the boundaries of both bourgeois reformism, and revolutionary movements so far oriented to merely political revolutions

V. Rus, Jugoslovensko samoupravljanje – trideset godina kasnije

Kako se informiše jugoslovenska javnost o pisanju o jugoslovenskom samoupravljanju; Osvrt na članak V. Rusa, »Jugoslovensko samoupravljanje – trideset godina kasnije