Intuicije, poverenje i društvena promena u vremenima krize

In this paper, I will investigate the complex relationship between intuition, trustworthiness, and trust. I will first examine some of the more prevalent accounts of trust which either (over)emphasize the cognitive aspect of generating trustworthiness, or indeed acknowledge the importance of affects and emotions, but only as part of a neatly organized dual structure − which is in essence complementary with the cognitive understanding of how we start trusting each other. I will argue that intuitions provide a more detailed insight into trustworthiness because they are simultaneously cognitive and affective in nature. I will also consider how inferential and holistic intuitions might influence our understanding of trustworthiness, especially in times of crisis.U ovom radu ć u istražiti složen odnos između intuicije, pouzdanosti i poverenja. Prvo ć u ispitati neka od preovlađujuć ih tumačenja poverenja koja ili (pre)naglašavaju kognitivni aspekt generisanja poverenja, ili pak priznaju važnost afekta i emocija, ali samo kao deo uredno organizovane dualne strukture – što je u suštini komplementarno sa kognitivnim razumevanjem toga kako uspostavljamo međusobno poverenje. Tvrdiću da intuicije pružaju detaljniji uvid u pouzdanost jer su istovremeno kognitivne i afektivne prirode. Takođe ć emo razmotriti kako inferencijalne i holističke intuicije mogu uticati na naše razumevanje pouzdanosti, posebno u vremenima kriza

Između heterotopije i ideologije: o realnostima rijaliti programa u Srbiji

U ovom radu ćemo nastojati da fenomen rijaliti programa teorijski analiziramo koristeći Fukoovu  koncepciju heterotopije. Prvo ćemo razmotriti neke od glavnih teorijskih dilema koje prate pojavu ovog televizijskog formata, a koje se pre svega tiču stepena demokratizacije savremenih medija i eksploatacije „običnih aktera“. Takođe, tvrdićemo da su ambivalentnost i hibridnost inherentna odlika rijaliti televizije, te da se ta svojstva, kao što ćemo u drugom delu pokazati, mogu temeljnije teorijski razumeti ukoliko im pristupimo kao specifičnim oblicima heterotopije. Nakon toga ćemo na primeru lokalnih modifikacija formata pokušati da pokažemo kako heterotopijske priroda rijalitija gledaocima nudi jednu specifičnu (kvazi)refleksiju nad strukturalnim odlikama datog društva koja zapravo samo doprinosi njegovoj daljoj fragmentaciji

Social Change Through Laughter: On The Contemporary Use of Political Humor

U ovom radu ćemo nastojati da ispitamo neke od savremenih teorijskih specifičnosti političke upotrebe humora. Osnovno polazište glasi da politički humor podrazumeva da se ismeva upravo ono ponašanje koje se isuviše rigidno zasniva na normama, konvencijama ili predrasudama koje su od presudne važnosti za reprodukciju datog društvenog poretka. Humor utoliko nužno referira na ono što je opšte u društvenom delanju i upravo taj njegov aspekt ga čini privlačnim za političku upotrebu i društveni angažman. Na osnovu ovih apstraktnih uvida, nastojaćemo da ponudimo tri smera političke upotrebe humora. Naročitu pažnju ćemo posvetiti tome na koji način sama stabilnost sistema utiče na političke domete humorističkog sagledavanja političkih događaja.In this paper, we will try to examine some of the contemporary theoretical specifics of the political use of humor. The main starting point is that political humor ridicules precisely those behaviors that are too rigidly based on norms, conventions or prejudices that are crucial for the reproduction of a given social order. Humor thus necessarily refers to what is general in social action, and it is this aspect of it that makes it attractive for political use and social engagement. Based on these abstract insights, I will try to offer three directions of political use of humor. I will pay special attention to the way in which the overall stability of the system itself affects the political achievements of the humorous view of political events

The status of common sense in contemporary social theory: toward a pragmatic reconceptualization of the relationship between theory and practice

Predmet istraživanja ovog rada biće istorijski prikaz i kritička analiza teorijskih sličnosti i razlika između pragmatizma i sociologije. U središtu našeg interesovanja će biti teorijski uvidi u zdravorazumsko mišljenje koji su prisutni u savremenoj sociologiji i pragmatizmu. Pažnju ćemo pre svega posvetiti autorima interpretativne sociologije i savremenim teoretičarima prakse. U radu ćemo ispitati kakvu ulogu je pragmatičko shvatanje zdravog razuma igralo pri formulaciji teorijskih uvida o svakodnevnom iskustvu koji se nude u interpretativnoj sociologiji i novim teorijama prakse. Pored toga, razmotrićemo značaj ovih istorijskih preklapanja izmenu pragmatizma i sociologije za potencijalnu rekonceptualizaciju međusobnog odnosa teorijskog znanja i svakodnevne prakse. Metod koji ćemo koristiti će pre svega podrazumevati istraživačke postupke s kojima se srećemo u studijama koje se bave međusobnim uticajem teorijskih ideja kao što su: poređenje ideja, teza i teorijskih polazišta; ispitivanje evolucije teorijskih stanovišta; ispitivanje kontekstualnih uslova nastanka i razvoja teorijskih ideja. Ova poređenja ćemo vršiti sa namerom da pokažemo da je konceptualizacija zdravorazumskog mišljenja igrala važnu ulogu pri stvaranju novih pristupa i pravaca u savremenoj sociologiji. Metod će takođe biti analitički kada su u pitanju procene logičke koherentnosti teorijskih određenja zdravog razuma u delima autora koji će biti u fokusu istraživanja. Cilj rada je da pokaže da pragmatičko poimanje zdravog razuma može da posluži kao teorijski okvir za povezivanje društvene teorije i svakodnevne prakse. Nastojaćemo da dokažemo da kontinuitet između zdravorazumskog načina mišljenja i sociološke teorije koji ne podrazumeva podrivanje kritičkog potencijala same društvene teorije. U uvodnom delu rada u kome ćemo se ukratko osvrnuti na radove klasičnih pragmatista i sociologa, Džona Djuija i Emila Dirkema. Videćemo da je između dvojice autora postojalo teorijsko saglasje po pitanju razumevanja osnova fenomena društvenosti, te da su se razlike uglavnom bazirale na različitim epistemološkom uvidima. Naime, naturalizam koji je svojstven Djuievom pragmatizmu je u određenoj meri podrazumevao kontinuitet između zdravorazumskog i naučnog mišljenja, a ovakvo gledište je pak bilo u suprotnosti sa Direkemovom verzijom pozitivizma u kome 5 svakodnevno, zdravorazumsko znanje nikada ne može samerljivo sa naučnom istinom. Tvrdićemo da je ova razlika temeljno pratila dalji razvoj odnosa sociologije i pragmatizma. Međutim, značaj Dirkemovih epistemoloških gledišta se svakako najviše ogledao u činjenici da su upravo ovi uvidi odigrali jednu od ključnih uloga u formiranju funkcionalizma, kao jednog od najuticajnih teorijskih struja u savremenoj sociologiji. U prvom poglavlju ćemo tako nastojati da objasnimo na koji način su fenomenologija i pragmatizam stvorile osnovu za prevazilaženje ove paradigme. Naročito pažnju ćemo posvetiti radovima Alfreda Šica i Džordža Herberta Mida koji su značajno uticale na interpretativnu sociologiju. U drugom poglavlju ćemo kritički razmotriti teorijske uvide dvojice prominentnih interpretativnih sociologa, Harolda Garfinkela i Ervinga Gofmana. Usredsredićemo se na njihovo tvrdnju da nesvodivosti konkretnog zdravorazumskog znanja na opšte obrasce razumevanja društvene stvarnosti, kao i na ustaljeni prigovor da se u okvirima njihovih sociologija ne mogu osvetliti odnosi moći u društvu. U trećem poglavlju analiziraćemo radove Pjera Burdijea i Lika Boltanskog koji su u okviru pravca novih teorija prakse upravo pokušali da formulišu sintezu partikularnog zdravorazumskog znanja i univerzalnog jezika teorijske kritike. U četvrtom poglavlju promatraćemo u kojoj meri nam uvidi neopragmatista Ričarda Rortija i Donalda Dejvidsona omogućavaju da prevaziđemo određene manjkavati novih teorija prakse. U zaključnom delu rada tvrdićemo da nam naša analiza sugeriše nužnost uviđanja strukture zdravog razuma. Shodno tome, obrazložićemo distinkciju između svojstava konkretnog, svakodnevnog znanja zdravog razuma i zdravorazumskih kvazi teorija. Pokazaćemo da se prva vrsta znanja ne može univerzalizovati i sledi uvide koje su formulisali Garfinkel i Gofman, dok druga vrsta znanja često reprodukuje odnose moći i nejednakosti i zahteva teorijsku kritiku.The object of the research conducted in this thesis will be an historical review and critical analysis of theoretical similarities and differences between pragmatism and sociology. The focus of my interest will be on the theoretical insights into common sense that can be found in contemporary sociology and pragmatism. I will mainly dedicate my attention to the authors of interpretive sociology and new theories of practice. In the thesis I will investigate the role that the pragmatic view on common sense had on the formulation of theoretical insights into everyday experience offered by the interpretive sociology and new theories of practice. Aside from this, I will also reflect on the importance that the theoretical overlapping between pragmatism and sociology had for the potential reconceptualization of the relation between theoretical knowledge and everyday practice. The method that I am going to rely on generally entails research procedures that can be found in studies that deal with mutual influence of theoretical ideas such as: comparison of ideas and theoretical standpoints; investigation of evolution of theoretical insights; investigation of contextual factors that influence the emergence and development of theoretical ideas. The goal of these comparisons that I will be making is to prove that conceptualization of common sense played an important role in creation of new approaches and paradigms in contemporary sociology. The method will also be analytical in the sense that I will systematically question logical coherence of theoretical designations of common sense in the works of authors that will be in the focus of this work. The goal of this thesis is to show that pragmatic understating of common sense could serve as a theoretical frame in which social theory and everyday practice might become closer. I will try to prove that there is continuity between common sense and sociological theory which does not imply that the critical potential of the social theory becomes undermined by this fact. In the introductory part of the thesis, we will shorty review the works of two classical pragmatists and sociologist, John Dewey and Emile Durkheim. We will see that there was a theoretical accordance between the two authors regarding the basis of the phenomena of sociability, and that the differences were mainly grounded on epistemological insights. Namely, Dewey’s naturalism largely entailed a certain amount 7 of continuity between commonsense and scientific ways of thinking and this view was in opposition with Durkheim’s positivism, which implied that everyday knowledge of common sense can ever be commensurable with scientific truth. I will maintain that this difference thoroughly followed further development of both sociology and pragmatism. However, the importance of Durkheim’s epistemological insights can primarily be found in the fact that they played a crucial role in the appearance of functionalism, as one of the most influential theoretical currents in modern sociology. Therefore, in the first chapter I will try to explain how phenomenology and pragmatism laid the foundation for the overcoming of this paradigm. I will especially focus my attention to the works of Alfred Schutz and George Herbert Mead that profoundly influenced interpretative sociology. In the second chapter, I will critically reflect on the theoretical insights of two prominent interpretative sociologists, Harold Garfinkel and Erving Goffman. We will center our analysis on their claim that the concrete everyday knowledge can never be reduced to general forms of understanding social reality, as well as on the typical objection to their work according to which this kind of sociology cannot shed light on power relations present in the society. In the third chapter we will analyze the works of Pierre Bourdieu and Luc Boltanski in which they tried to formulate a synthesis of particular common sense knowledge and universal language of social critique. In the fourth chapter we will consider to which extent the views of the neopragmatists, Richard Rorty and Donald Davidson can help us to overcome some of the shortcomings of the new theories of practice. In the concluding part of the thesis I will claim that our examination suggests that we must take into account the structure of common sense. Therefore, we I will explain the distinction between the properties of concrete everyday knowledge of common sense and commonsensical quasi theories. I will show that the first kind of knowledge cannot be universalized and that it follows the insights Garfinkel and Goffman, while the second kind of knowledge often reproduces the power relations and inequality and demands a theoretical critique

Sustainable development of cities: Effects of traffic induced vibration on humans

Traffic induced vibrations can hardly cause the damages of buildings but can caused the disturbances and annoying affects of their occupants. This phenomenon has been the object of investigations in many countries due to the rapid urbanization of the modern cities and due to the demand of sustainable development. In this paper presented is the assessment of vibrations on humans in buildings caused by the traffic in Belgrade, Serbia. Due to the luck of national standard for evaluation of effects of vibrations on humans, the German standard DIN 4150-Part 2 was implemented. The results of evaluations are presented and discussed

Opšte dobro, javni interes i zajedničko: konceptualna razgraničenja u istorijskoj perspektivi i savremene dileme

Rad se bavi preciznijim određivanjem pojmova opšteg dobra, javnog interesa i zajedničkog sagledavajući njihovu upotrebu u političkoj filozofiji i političkim naukama u istorijskoj perspektivi. Opšte dobro je od davnina bila jedna od ključnih tema moralne i političke filozofije. Danas se kao sinonim za termin opšteg dobra često koristi pojam javnog interesa. Ipak, nastojaćemo da pokažemo da oni nose donekle drugačije značenje. Skorašnji značajan odjek dugovekovne debate o opštem dobru može se prepoznati u raspravama oko pojma zajedničkog (eng. commons) koji se odnosi na kulturne, materijalne i intelektualne resurse na čije korišćenje pravo polažu svi članovi određene zajednice. Sva tri pojma pomažu dubljem razumevanju dobrobiti zajednice i načina da se ta dobrobit ostvari, iako proučavani autori u svojim teorijama različito naglašavaju značaj kolektiviteta ili individue. Pojam opšteg dobra se, posebno za predmoderne mislioce, odnosio na dobro zajednice iz kojeg sledi dobro njenih članova, pa se stoga pozivanje na interese pojedinaca smatralo nemoralnim. Kasnije, s razvojem koncepta javnog interesa, pojedinac je postavljen u centar promišljanja, a dobrobit zajednice dovedena u vezu sa onim što je u interesu njenih članova. Naposletku, pojam zajedničkog vraća kolektivitet u igru, a „zajedništvo“ postaje ključni termin u rešavanju pitanja degradacije i održivosti širokog spektra dobara.The paper endeavours to offer a closer definition of the concepts of common good, public interest and the commons, analysing their usage in a contemporary and historical perspective. The common good has been one of the key subjects of moral and political philosophy since ancient times. Today, the term public interest is often used as a synonym for the term common good. However, we will try to show that they carry a somewhat different meaning. A recent significant echo of the long-standing debate on the common good can be recognized in the discussions surrounding the concept of commons, which refers to cultural, material and intellectual resources to which all members of a community claim the right to use. All three notions contribute to a deeper understanding of community well-being and the way to realize that well-being. However, authors that are studied in the paper emphasize differently the importance of the collectivity and the individual in that process. The concept of the common good, especially for pre-modern thinkers, refers to the good of the community from which follows the good of its members, while the appealing to the interests of individuals is considered immoral. Later, with the development of the concept of public interest, the individual is placed in the centre of consideration, and the well-being of the community is brought into relation with what is in the interest of its members. Ultimately, the notion of the commons brings the collectivity back to focus, and “togetherness” becomes a key term in addressing the issues of degradation and sustainability of a wide range of goods