Characteristics and Problems of Civil Disobedience Theories

U ovom je radu na osnovi klasičnih teorija predstavljena građanska neposlušnost kao poželjni oblik participacije i moralna dužnost građana u civilnom društvu. Prema definiciji građanske neposlušnosti protesti moraju biti nenasilni i javni te neposlušni pojedinci moraju prihvaćati sankcije propisane zakonima, s obzirom da cilj neposlušnosti nije anarhija, već pravedni zakoni. Ističe se kako je građanska neposlušnost u demokratskom uređenju opravdana samo u slučaju očevidnog kršenja načela jednake slobode i jednakosti mogućnosti te samo ako se pridržava pravila određenih definicijom. Rad je zaključen preispitivanjem teze da bi se građanski protesti manjine usmjereni ka boljitku zajednice trebali ozakoniti.This paper presents civil disobedience as a desirable form of participation and as a moral duty of citizens in civil society. According to the definition of civil disobedience, the protests must be non-violent and public, and disobedient individuals must accept the legal sanctions, considering the fact that the aim of disobedience is the establishment of just laws, not anarchy. It is pointed out that civil disobedience is legitimate in a democratic regime only if the principle of equal liberty or the principle of equality of opportunity are being violated, and if the rules set by the definition are being obeyed. The paper is concluded by questioning the statement that the civil protests of the minority which tend to keep the society just should be legalized

TOWARDS A DIALOGUE BETWEEN SOCIOLOGY AND CULTURAL STUDIES

Kulturalni studiji nastali su kao reakcija na britansku pozitivističku sociologiju. S vremenom je pojam kulturalnih studija postao široko upotrebljavan, tako da se cijeli pokret treba smatrati iznimno heterogenim. U radu se ističu nedostaci nepostojanja znanstvene metodološke strogosti u određenim radovima kulturalnih studija. Također se upozorava na opasnost prenaglašavanja mogućnosti svakodnevnog otpora, koja se najčešće javlja u radovima koji kulturalne studije vide kao antiinstitucionalni angažirani pokret. Pravac političke ekonomije koji je nastao kao reakcija na postmoderne pravce u kulturalnim studijima, razmotren je kao pravac najsrodniji početnim namjerama birminghamskog centra u kojem su kulturalni studiji i nastali. U dijalogu sociologa i osoba koje se bave kulturalnim studijima, prvi bi trebali kulturalne studije shvatiti kao moguć izvor inovacija u društvenim znanostima, dok potonji, kao interdisciplinarni projekt, u sociologiji mogu vidjeti nužan i koristan oslonac.Cultural studies emerged as a reaction to British positivist sociology. In time the term “cultural studies” became widely used, so the whole movement should be considered extremely heterogenous. This paper emphasises disadvantages of the lack of scientific methodological strictness in certain works in cultural studies. It also points out dangers of overemphasising possibilities of everyday resistance which show up in texts that see cultural studies as antiinstitutional engaged movement. The political economy approach which emerged as a reaction to postomodern tendencies in cultural studies is taken into consideration as the most similar to the first intentions of the Birmingham centre in which cultural studies appeared. In the dialogue between sociologists and people who do cultural studies, the first should see cultural studies as possible source of inovations in social sciences, and the latter, as the interdisciplinary project, can see a neccessary and useful backup in sociology

TOWARDS A DIALOGUE BETWEEN SOCIOLOGY AND CULTURAL STUDIES

Kulturalni studiji nastali su kao reakcija na britansku pozitivističku sociologiju. S vremenom je pojam kulturalnih studija postao široko upotrebljavan, tako da se cijeli pokret treba smatrati iznimno heterogenim. U radu se ističu nedostaci nepostojanja znanstvene metodološke strogosti u određenim radovima kulturalnih studija. Također se upozorava na opasnost prenaglašavanja mogućnosti svakodnevnog otpora, koja se najčešće javlja u radovima koji kulturalne studije vide kao antiinstitucionalni angažirani pokret. Pravac političke ekonomije koji je nastao kao reakcija na postmoderne pravce u kulturalnim studijima, razmotren je kao pravac najsrodniji početnim namjerama birminghamskog centra u kojem su kulturalni studiji i nastali. U dijalogu sociologa i osoba koje se bave kulturalnim studijima, prvi bi trebali kulturalne studije shvatiti kao moguć izvor inovacija u društvenim znanostima, dok potonji, kao interdisciplinarni projekt, u sociologiji mogu vidjeti nužan i koristan oslonac.Cultural studies emerged as a reaction to British positivist sociology. In time the term “cultural studies” became widely used, so the whole movement should be considered extremely heterogenous. This paper emphasises disadvantages of the lack of scientific methodological strictness in certain works in cultural studies. It also points out dangers of overemphasising possibilities of everyday resistance which show up in texts that see cultural studies as antiinstitutional engaged movement. The political economy approach which emerged as a reaction to postomodern tendencies in cultural studies is taken into consideration as the most similar to the first intentions of the Birmingham centre in which cultural studies appeared. In the dialogue between sociologists and people who do cultural studies, the first should see cultural studies as possible source of inovations in social sciences, and the latter, as the interdisciplinary project, can see a neccessary and useful backup in sociology

The Problem of the Concept of Knowledge As a True Judgment With an Account

Postojanje općeprihvaćene defi nicije “znanja” imalo bi veliku važnost za društvenohumanističku problematiku. U radu se analizira defi nicija znanja kao “opravdanog istinitog vjerovanja” iznesena u Platonovom dijalogu Teetet. Ukazuje se na prednosti i nedostatke defi nicije te se posebna pažnja pridaje analizi pojma “opravdanja” u kontekstu teorije o Platonovom nepisanom nauku. U radu se zastupa teza da je navedeno određenje znanja prihvatljivo pod uvjetom da uvažimo složenost pojma “opravdanja” i uvidimo da glavni prigovori navedenom određenju (npr. Gettierovi protuprimjeri) uporište imaju upravo u višeznačnosti pojma “opravdanja”.The existence of a generally accepted defi nition of “knowledge” would have a great importance for the social sciences and humanities. The work analyzes the definition of knowledge as a “true judgment with an account”, which was presented in Plato’s dialogue Theaetetus. Advantages and disadvantages of this defi nition are pointed out and particular attention is paid to the analysis of the concept of the “account”, in the context of Plato’s unwritten theories. This conception of knowledge is acceptable under the condition that we acknowledge the complexity of the concept of the “account” and if we accept that the main objections to this conception (for example, the Gettier counterexamples) have their basis exactly in the fact that many meanings of the concept of “account” exist